Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prolife versus prochoice.

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 7:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rampant babies will be the cause of the extinction of livable conditions on the planet Earth, not global warming as you might believe.

Have a heart.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?
My work here is, finally, done.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.
My work here is, finally, done.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.

Abortion is wrong because it kills babies. Babies conceived by rape have just as much right to live and with emergency contraception, there is no excuse for abortion.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:18:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:15:43 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.

Abortion is wrong because it kills babies. Babies conceived by rape have just as much right to live and with emergency contraception, there is no excuse for abortion.

Good, it seems you are a purist.
What do you say to people that say emergency contraception is abortion, therefore murder?
You did not answer my questions about the paternal rights of the rapist.

Do you have any money in the bank?
My work here is, finally, done.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

I agree with Pro-Choice. Outside of criminal activities, I believe everyone should be allowed to make their own choices. And as much as people want to argue against it, a baby is part of its mother's body until it is born. Therefore making the mother's choices regarding the baby absolute.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:43:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:22:31 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

I agree with Pro-Choice. Outside of criminal activities, I believe everyone should be allowed to make their own choices. And as much as people want to argue against it, a baby is part of its mother's body until it is born. Therefore making the mother's choices regarding the baby absolute.

The statement that people should be allowed to do stuff because they can make their own choices is laughable. That would entail that a rapist should be allowed to rape because they have a choice whether to rape or not.
Also, a foetus is not part of a woman's body, it is inside a woman's body. One can be inside a car without being part of the car.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 4:47:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:43:04 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:22:31 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

I agree with Pro-Choice. Outside of criminal activities, I believe everyone should be allowed to make their own choices. And as much as people want to argue against it, a baby is part of its mother's body until it is born. Therefore making the mother's choices regarding the baby absolute.

The statement that people should be allowed to do stuff because they can make their own choices is laughable. That would entail that a rapist should be allowed to rape because they have a choice whether to rape or not.
Also, a foetus is not part of a woman's body, it is inside a woman's body. One can be inside a car without being part of the car.
I originally had a "with the exception of criminal acts" part. But I removed it because it could be seen as hypocritical.

On another note: You are not living off of the car.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 5:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 4:18:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:15:43 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.

Abortion is wrong because it kills babies. Babies conceived by rape have just as much right to live and with emergency contraception, there is no excuse for abortion.

Good, it seems you are a purist.
What do you say to people that say emergency contraception is abortion, therefore murder?
You did not answer my questions about the paternal rights of the rapist.

Do you have any money in the bank?
Strawman fallacy. I do not support allowing rapists access to their children. Rapists do not have rights.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 5:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 5:13:37 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:18:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:15:43 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.

Abortion is wrong because it kills babies. Babies conceived by rape have just as much right to live and with emergency contraception, there is no excuse for abortion.

Good, it seems you are a purist.
What do you say to people that say emergency contraception is abortion, therefore murder?
You did not answer my questions about the paternal rights of the rapist.

Do you have any money in the bank?
Strawman fallacy. I do not support allowing rapists access to their children. Rapists do not have rights.

Apparently, neither does the rape victim...
For someone who isn't answering most questions and asks me an irrelevant question, you sure do have gall to say it's a strawman fallacy. It was a question, not an accusation.

So, we've established that the life of the child is more important than making sure it has two parents.
Do you have any savings?
My work here is, finally, done.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 5:29:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 5:26:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:13:37 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:18:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:15:43 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:11:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:09:39 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 4:05:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the prolifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Do they also support the forcing of parental visitation to the rapist's kid?

Moral high ground is tricky.
First, the view has to be pure. For example, it is not a pure view to say abortion is wrong because it is murder, and then say it is okay to murder the baby because the mother was raped.

Second, it depend on how your morals are tiered.
Is it wrong to steal to feed your starving child? What about kill to feed it? What is more moral?

Would you kill a born person conceived by rape>

1. This doesn't address a single point I made.
2. No, I would not.
3. The issue is not what I would do, but whether it is right for OTHERS to make the decision.

Abortion is wrong because it kills babies. Babies conceived by rape have just as much right to live and with emergency contraception, there is no excuse for abortion.

Good, it seems you are a purist.
What do you say to people that say emergency contraception is abortion, therefore murder?
You did not answer my questions about the paternal rights of the rapist.

Do you have any money in the bank?
Strawman fallacy. I do not support allowing rapists access to their children. Rapists do not have rights.

Apparently, neither does the rape victim...
For someone who isn't answering most questions and asks me an irrelevant question, you sure do have gall to say it's a strawman fallacy. It was a question, not an accusation.

So, we've established that the life of the child is more important than making sure it has two parents.
Do you have any savings?

Babies should not have to die for something their father did.
LuciaB
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 6:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

Welcome to DDO, on behalf of myself and everyone else. May you enjoy your time with us.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 8:20:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
there is no "moral high ground" that is just something that is used when people have run out of logic and need something else to use.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 10:22:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:28:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Who has the moral high ground? I think the pro lifers do because they support the baby's right to live.

Sure they do, but the problem is its not the moral high ground that people want when such an issue is relevant to them, and the moral high ground is hardly a legally binding ground to climb too.

There are many reasons a woman would want to abort. I would like to think that the last of which is inconvenience, and from what many polls indicate, that indeed is the last reason most women decide on such.

The number one reasons, as I recall were a collection of not knowing they were pregnant, else they would have had one sooner or morning after pilled, didn't have access to proper care for such procedures, and the quality of life, or life of the mother was at risk.

I would much rather have a woman carry a baby to term (if its safe for all), but for me to declare laws for that is INCREDIBLY one sided (being a man). Ultimately, I recognize that my paternal rights only exist if the mom-to-be wants them too, and while I might not like it, that is the trade off for the biological nature of the situation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
AdelaiRickman
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.
AdelaiRickman
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
AdelaiRickman
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:03:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?

Unless the woman was raped, she 'connected' her child to her body her self - with her actions and the risks for pregnancy that she and her partner assumed. Unless she was raped, she compromised her own autonomy herself.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
AdelaiRickman
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:08:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:03:16 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?

Unless the woman was raped, she 'connected' her child to her body her self - with her actions and the risks for pregnancy that she and her partner assumed. Unless she was raped, she compromised her own autonomy herself.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant. A woman who agreed to act as a living dialysis machine for her child can unhook herself at any time. Pregnancy is an involuntary condition that is oftentimes in conflict with people's wishes, rights, and bets interests. It is something that happens TO a woman not BY a woman. And none of that addressed my point at all.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:11:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:08:10 AM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:03:16 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?

Unless the woman was raped, she 'connected' her child to her body her self - with her actions and the risks for pregnancy that she and her partner assumed. Unless she was raped, she compromised her own autonomy herself.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant. A woman who agreed to act as a living dialysis machine for her child can unhook herself at any time. Pregnancy is an involuntary condition that is oftentimes in conflict with people's wishes, rights, and bets interests. It is something that happens TO a woman not BY a woman. And none of that addressed my point at all.

Consent to sex is too consent to pregnancy and our Supreme Court has already expressed as much - in the event that personhood is ever established for children in the womb. Listen to them in their own words.

https://www.youtube.com...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
AdelaiRickman
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:20:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:11:21 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:08:10 AM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:03:16 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?

Unless the woman was raped, she 'connected' her child to her body her self - with her actions and the risks for pregnancy that she and her partner assumed. Unless she was raped, she compromised her own autonomy herself.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant. A woman who agreed to act as a living dialysis machine for her child can unhook herself at any time. Pregnancy is an involuntary condition that is oftentimes in conflict with people's wishes, rights, and bets interests. It is something that happens TO a woman not BY a woman. And none of that addressed my point at all.

Consent to sex is too consent to pregnancy and our Supreme Court has already expressed as much - in the event that personhood is ever established for children in the womb. Listen to them in their own words.

https://www.youtube.com...

So are you actually going to address the point or just stick your tongue out and go "NU-UH!" Why should I care about what the opinions of a court of people who are all either dead or long retired were on the importance of the personhood of the fetus in the abortion debate? Those who originally advocated for abortion do not speak for me or any other prochoicer alive. Also, as I've already said I reject the idea of fetal personhood and the idea that they are entitled to legal protections, so I don't know why you brought that up at all. Are you just beating around the bush because you don't have an answer to why you seem to think that a fetus is superior both to a grown woman and also to a born child since we can---in your opinion--- violate the bodily sanctity and free will of someone to save its life but not the born child's?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:23:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:59:10 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:52:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:22:24 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:18:30 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:04:40 PM, AdelaiRickman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 7:13:21 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/19/2014 5:56:57 PM, LuciaB wrote:
I'm pro-choice. I believe anyone should be able to remove anything from their body, people included, especially considering the serious impact of pregnancy. The UN and WHO agree, considering denial of abortion to be torture. Pregnant women can suffer; fetuses can't. I really don't believe there's any benefit to ensuring every conceived child must be born.

What about the baby's right to choose?

The "baby" as you put it can't possibly choose anything. It has no mind, no wishes, and no desires or dreams for the future. Which is why it does not stand on the same ground as a real person, like the woman carrying it.
The baby has has the right to live. Children are not property.

Who said I regarded it as property? I merely said that it was not a person and so shouldn't be given all the rights of a real person. Also, while I agree with you that the fetus has a right to life, that right---if we care about equality---must be the same right to life that we all have, not the special right to life that you apparently want to give it.

If you believe that the fetus has the same right to life that you have, then you cannot really be pro-abortion. Unless you are willing to also say that my right of choice outweighs your right to life (after all, your right to life is the same as the fetus).

Yes, I can because as I said earlier the right to life that prolifers are advocating for is not the same right to life that the rest of us have. If my being alive begins to impose upon you in any way---particularly in a physical, biological sense---my right to live is curtailed. My right to live does not extend to giving me the right to take possession of another person's organs and use them against that person's will, even if it is my own mother. The fact that I will die without this bodily assistance does not mean that my mother must go along with it just to save me. Do you think that you have the right to use someone else's body, your mother's body, without her consent to sustain your life? Why or why not?

1) the fetus doesn't take anything. The mother's body gives it. If I hand $40 bucks to a homeless man, I cannot go back later and claim he stole it.

2) the right to life does extend beyond other rights. For example, I have the right to kick anyone out of my car that I don't want in my car. But I cannot forcefully remove them while driving 80 mph down the highway, unless they are posing a direct threat to my own life.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"