Should the U.S. overturn Roe v. Wade and ban all abortion?

Posted by: erwint.2021

Vote
28 Total Votes
1

No/Con

15 votes
3 comments
2

Yes/Pro

13 votes
4 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
erwint.2021 says2015-07-27T10:13:36.7854924-05:00
Religion. The Bible condemns murder. Babies are people too, and your killing them so, murder.
TBR says2015-07-27T10:13:56.4731972-05:00
Here's what you can do. Start a petition to overturn the 14 amendment to the constitution. Get all states to ratify, then go talk to the SCOTUS. You say you are part of the "constitution party", I think you should know what "stare decisis" is, and actually live by what you say you do.
TBR says2015-07-27T10:14:38.8750844-05:00
@erwint.2021 - Its not murder as it is legal.
lannan13 says2015-07-27T12:46:28.3175266-05:00
57 million innocent babies were killed because of this! You monsters.
tajshar2k says2015-07-27T15:32:43.7173599-05:00
They aren't babies yet.
Atheist-Independent says2015-07-27T16:18:46.2258368-05:00
Why is it that conservatives support the rights of unborn bundles of cells more so than those of women?
mwedwards says2015-07-27T16:25:14.5254368-05:00
@Atheist-Independent: Personally because I feel that there is really no good reason why they should not be considered human.
TBR says2015-07-27T16:28:57.4183419-05:00
@mwedwards - Consider it human if you like - how do you justify invalidating the rights of the woman for sake of the fetus?
mwedwards says2015-07-27T16:30:20.2552952-05:00
@TBR: Because if the fetus is human, then there is no justification for killing it because of its inconvenience.
TBR says2015-07-27T16:31:59.7059327-05:00
@mwedwards - You are ignoring the question. You must invalidate the rights of the woman to get your wish.
mwedwards says2015-07-27T16:34:03.0750900-05:00
@TBR: I think I answered the question well enough. You justify killing them for the rights of women. I say that the fetus is human, and as such there is no justification for killing them whatsoever. That includes your justification for killing them.
mwedwards says2015-07-27T16:38:31.5020830-05:00
@TBR: I think I answered the question well enough. You justify killing them for the rights of women. I say that the fetus is human, and therefore there is no justification for killing them whatsoever. That includes your justification for killing them. And frankly, if the fetus is human then he or she is protected by the right to Life specified in the Declaration of Independence, and that is something no one can take away for any reason.
Rust_Cohle says2015-07-27T17:00:34.4565629-05:00
The moral truth here is obvious, anyone who feels that the interests of a blastocyst just might supersede the interests of a child with spinal cord injuries has his moral sense blinded by religious metaphysics.
TBR says2015-07-27T17:08:13.9286154-05:00
I am not arguing if a zygote, embryo or fetus is human, I am asking why you ignore one right for the other? Do you not admit that the woman has the right to control her body? That it is as fundamental a right any other?
mwedwards says2015-07-27T17:23:03.5596146-05:00
@TBR: There is something I want to clarify. If the fetus is human, then the fetus is also the child of the mother. By your own argument, assuming fetuses are human, women should be allowed to kill their children born or not at any age legally. I think we have gotten into an argument about which right is more important. The right to life is more important. The reason being that if a fetus does not have a right to live, then they also do not get the rights of pursuing happiness and the right of liberty. When we compare the rights of women to the rights of humanity, the rights of humanity always come first. And I am not ignoring women's rights, in fact those women have the choice to do the action that causes them to be pregnant. No one is saying that right is being taken away, however if a woman becomes pregnant she should not be allowed to deny the human inside of her the right to live.
TBR says2015-07-27T17:30:20.4524824-05:00
@mwedwards - "If the fetus is human, then the fetus is also the child of the mother." - The fetus is the human fetus. There is no rational argument with this statement. 'Child' is ambiguous in this context. || "By your own argument, assuming fetuses are human, women should be allowed to kill their children born or not at any age legally." - While the fetus is dependent on the body of the woman, she has ultimate control of what happens to her body. That is the right in question - the right you can't seem to admit exists. || "I think we have gotten into an argument about which right is more important. The right to life is more important. The reason being that if a fetus does not have a right to live, then they also do not get the rights of pursuing happiness and the right of liberty." - We may be able to debate the relative importance of rights, you must first admit that the woman has one - you cant seem to bring yourself to that point. || "When we compare the rights of women to the rights of humanity, the rights of humanity always come first. And I am not ignoring women's rights, in fact those women have the choice to do the action that causes them to be pregnant." - See, you just can't do it. You choose to minimize the actual right of a woman to control her body, only bickering about how she "got pregnant". || "No one is saying that right is being taken away," - You are. YOU ARE! || "however if a woman becomes pregnant she should not be allowed to deny the human inside of her the right to live." - A woman, any human has the right to control what happens with their own body - even at the expense of another life. He11, its the entire basis of self-defense.
mwedwards says2015-07-27T18:09:02.7570523-05:00
"The fetus is the human fetus. There is no rational argument with this statement. 'Child' is ambiguous in this context." No rational argument? What? You only classify it as a "human fetus," in which case your comment applies. However, if the fetus is human, then that means that he or she is also the child of the mother. That is not hard to understand. "While the fetus is dependent on the body of the woman, she has ultimate control of what happens to her body. That is the right in question - the right you can't seem to admit exists." By your argument of dependence, you then support killing anyone who is dependent on anything from the human body. Ex: Diabetics. They require insulin for life because they cannot produce it for themselves, therefore you are also arguing for the right to kill all of these people legally. Something we need to realize here is that ultimately it is the body of the fetus that is affected, in fact its life is taken away. To say that a woman has the right to end the life of a human being for her ability to control her body does not make sense because it is the fetus that is being hurt. A separate life. A separate body. Your argument therefore is invalid. "We may be able to debate the relative importance of rights, you must first admit that the woman has one - you cant seem to bring yourself to that point." Hypocrisy. You cannot bring yourself to admit that a fetus has the right to life. And I made it painfully clear that the rights of humanity are more important. Go back and look if you don't believe me. " See, you just can't do it. You choose to minimize the actual right of a woman to control her body, only bickering about how she "got pregnant"." You completely ignored my argument that the rights of humanity come first, so really this argument invalid. But I'll answer it anyway. If minimizing the right of a woman's body to protect completely innocent unborn children, then by all means yes, I support denying women being allowed to abort their unborn children. "You are. YOU ARE!" Ha!!!!! I think you took this out of context. No one is saying that women aren't allowed to have intercourse with men. That is what I was saying. "A woman, any human has the right to control what happens with their own body - even at the expense of another life. He11, its the entire basis of self-defense." TBR, I am almost disgusted. I am shocked that you would suggest abortion is self-defense. Those unborn children are completely defenseless and completely innocent. They did not ask to be there, and they sure as heck do not intend to hurt their mother in any way. If this is really the argument that you are going to use, it's just hard to imagine that someone would actually compare abortion to self-defense. I am really sorry for you. Anyways, this is false because if it is a threat that the woman created, combined with the fact that the fetuses are defenseless and did NOTHING wrong, it is a position that is completely immoral, and really should not be a position that is ever taken.
TBR says2015-07-28T17:56:48.6832223Z
@mwedwards - "The fetus is the human fetus. There is no rational argument with this statement. 'Child' is ambiguous in this context." No rational argument? What? You only classify it as a "human fetus," in which case your comment applies. However, if the fetus is human, then that means that he or she is also the child of the mother. That is not hard to understand." - I am classifying it with what it is. If you insist on "child", you could say "unborn child". It still wouldn't be proper, but closer.
TBR says2015-07-28T17:59:40.0191206Z
Mwedwards - "By your argument of dependence, you then support killing anyone who is dependent on anything from the human body. Ex: Diabetics. They require insulin for life because they cannot produce it for themselves, therefore you are also arguing for the right to kill all of these people legally. " Seriously? You don't seem to get this at all. The fetus is depended on the mother. Your example of denying a diabetic more closely illustrates MY point. A person gets to control what happens in her body (insulin levels) by their will, no another.
TBR says2015-07-28T18:00:24.2142039Z
"Something we need to realize here is that ultimately it is the body of the fetus that is affected," - No. It is the WOMENS too. Stop denying her the rights SHE has.
TBR says2015-07-28T18:01:36.8950698Z
"To say that a woman has the right to end the life of a human being for her ability to control her body does not make sense because it is the fetus that is being hurt. A separate life. A separate body." - Keep blowing past every argument if you like, but we give rights to people to take life all the time. I have a right to defend myself with deadly force.
TBR says2015-07-28T18:02:16.3009224Z
"Your argument therefore is invalid. " - Not according to the SCOTUS, and better than half the country.
TBR says2015-07-28T18:04:12.8960698Z
"We may be able to debate the relative importance of rights, you must first admit that the woman has one - you cant seem to bring yourself to that point." Hypocrisy. You cannot bring yourself to admit that a fetus has the right to life. " - Want ME to do something? Sure, how about you just type out the right of the woman first? || "You cannot bring yourself to admit that a fetus has the right to life. And I made it painfully clear that the rights of humanity are more important." - Women are not part of humanity?
TBR says2015-07-28T18:06:56.8531208Z
"TBR, I am almost disgusted. I am shocked that you would suggest abortion is self-defense. Those unborn children are completely defenseless and completely innocent." - Right back at you. I find it discussing to ignore women the way you do. However, since you want to talk about what self-defense is, yup. The woman is deafening HER body. It is HERS to defend, and she may do whatever it takes.
Renegader says2015-07-29T12:27:03.0583815-05:00
Even if you don't buy the whole women's body thing, at least accept you cannot force your opinion of a bunch of cells on someone's life, and the government shouldn't be able to either.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T20:58:23.2683501Z
@TBR: “I am classifying it with what it is. If you insist on "child", you could say "unborn child". It still wouldn't be proper, but closer.” I don’t understand the “classifying” part of your comment. Now, I think you have missed the entire point. If the fetus is human and is considered to be the child of the mother, something I think you have only claimed is false without a sound argument to back it up, then allowing the mother to kill their child while still in the womb would also justify killing the child outside of the womb.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T20:59:24.0775399Z
@TBR: “Seriously? You don't seem to get this at all. The fetus is depended on the mother. Your example of denying a diabetic more closely illustrates MY point. A person gets to control what happens in her body (insulin levels) by their will, no another.” Seriously. Your argument is an argument about dependence. That is a bad argument to try and stand on because if we are to limit the right to life of humanity based on whether they are dependent on someone else for life, then you do justify their legal killings (of diabetics). I don’t see how it illustrates your point at all, and the end of your comment was about control of the body which has nothing to do with my argument.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T21:01:03.6217780Z
@TBR: I went ahead and grouped the next three comments because they were all in the context of each other. “No. It is the WOMENS too. Stop denying her the rights SHE has.” “- Keep blowing past every argument if you like, but we give rights to people to take life all the time. I have a right to defend myself with deadly force.” “Not according to the SCOTUS, and better than half the country.” It is the babies’ bodies that are being cut up TBR. The woman does not have authority over that body because it is not her body. Although the baby is dependent on the mother, it is still a separate body and life. To say that the mother can end this separate life is wrong and may justify other kinds of killings. Please, stop saying that I am denying women rights. That is the only argument you think I have “blown past”. I made it clear that a woman should not have the right to kill their unborn child, I don’t understand why this doesn’t make sense. The right of life the fetus has greatly outweighs because everyone deserves to live. The right to live is a human right. This has been made clear. Now what do you mean by “we give rights to people to take life all the time.” Who is given the right to kill? Is this about your argument of self-defense? Well, I will address that on the last comment. About the SCOTUS, I really don’t put my trust in 9 people to determine what is moral or not for an entire nation.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T21:03:54.7860752Z
@TBR: “Want ME to do something? Sure, how about you just type out the right of the woman first?” Absolutely not. Women should not have the right to end a life that is not theirs. I will not say that they should have that right. What I want to do is compare the rights and argue about which are more important (right to life compared to this one “right” you want women to have), but for some reason you keep wanting me to say that women should be allowed to abort their unborn children. Why can we not argue about which rights are more important whether or not I agree that women should have that right? We can still have a discussion about it. “Women are not part of humanity?”  Of course they are part of humanity, I never said they weren’t. What I am saying is that rights that apply for all of humanity come before rights of individual groups. The right to life applies to all, so those fetuses have the right to live. That outweighs the right you want women to have, and that right being able to abort their child.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T21:07:00.6924669Z
@TBR: “Right back at you. I find it discussing to ignore women the way you do. However, since you want to talk about what self-defense is, yup. The woman is deafening HER body. It is HERS to defend, and she may do whatever it takes.” Right back at you? Does this mean you agree that to consider abortion to be self-defense is wrong? That’s what I was saying. Ok, so you still think I am ignoring women huh? Look, you are blowing this WAY out of proportion. I am only saying that women should not be able to abort their child, but then you go off and say that I am completely ignoring women’s rights. I am extremely pro-choice for women. I think they should be able to choose their own husband (not arranged), choose their profession, choose where they live, choose how they live, etc. I simply don’t think that they should be allowed to abort their unborn children. To say that I want to violate all of women’s rights is totally false. About the self-defense, well, you completely ignored my entire argument for it. You did not address it. “Those unborn children are completely defenseless and completely innocent. They did not ask to be there, and they sure as heck do not intend to hurt their mother in any way. If this is really the argument that you are going to use, it's just hard to imagine that someone would actually compare abortion to self-defense. I am really sorry for you. Anyways, this is false because if it is a threat that the woman created, combined with the fact that the fetuses are defenseless and did NOTHING wrong…” To address directly your last statement, I say this: 1: The fetus is completely defenseless and has nothing wrong. You can only justify self-defense if the individual that was affected by the act of self-defense did something wrong. You cannot argue that the fetus did something wrong, much less something wrong by intention. 2: By justifying the killing of others to protect our own bodies you also justify us killing anyone, at anytime, anywhere. The reason is that everyone is a threat to our bodies in some way or another. Anyone could hurt, maim, kill, or others at any time, so by your logic we should be able to defend ourselves from everyone to “defend our bodies.” By your logic that would include killing any of those people. Finally (not an answer to what you said) you ignored my immoral argument. “Anyways, this is false because if it is a threat that the woman created, combined with the fact that the fetuses are defenseless and did NOTHING wrong, it is a position that is completely immoral, and really should not be a position that is ever taken.” Because you conceded that the position you are taking is immoral, you can garnish no ground from your “self-defense” argument. Basically, you can’t justify abortion with this argument.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T21:11:51.1195286Z
@Renegader: "Even if you don't buy the whole women's body thing, at least accept you cannot force your opinion of a bunch of cells on someone's life, and the government shouldn't be able to either." This argument suggests that we should allow women to abort their child. If you read the comments, you will understand why I don't agree with that.
TBR says2015-07-29T21:26:51.2920989Z
The only real argument you present is "its wrong" and cant admit that every human has a right to control their body. Lets just do it this way. Start very slow. Do YOU have the right to control your body? Would you allow the government to invalidate that right? Forget about abortion, just think of your own body.
mwedwards says2015-07-29T21:34:06.9248914Z
@TBR: Yes, I can control my body. I would allow the government to create legislation that would be used to persuade me away from useing my body in every way. I should not be allowed to murder, rape, rob, abuse, torture, kidnap, etc, anyone with my own body, so the government should be allowed to create rules that prevent me from doing so.
TBR says2015-07-29T21:38:50.5321444Z
Right - Baby steps. The government cant control MY body. That's all I want to get to. Again, don't worry about abortion yet. You can tell me its murder in a second or two, and you may be right, lets just get some meeting of the minds first. I (you too) have a right to control your own body, and the government can not pass laws saying otherwise?
mwedwards says2015-07-29T17:35:23.1823782-05:00
@TBR: Sure. That is different though from them passing legislation that would discourage us from using our bodies to do bad things.
Renegader says2015-07-30T02:00:15.6926691Z
See this is where your argument has collapsed. Many people don't view abortion as a "bad thing" or don't care. It is still their own body, and regardless of what you think of them, they have that right. Take smoking for instance. Almost all tobacco smokers know that it is harmful to themselves, but who are we to say that they can't do what they want with their bodies. Same goes for euthanasia. It has nothing to do with YOU.
TBR says2015-07-30T02:09:36.5786645Z
I'm not trying to attack you. Not yet anyway. What I want is you to agree that we each have a right to control our own body. Lets assume that, even if you cant type it out, you agree. Now, let me ask, do. Have a right to DEFEND my body?
mwedwards says2015-07-30T02:48:38.2975128Z
@Renegader: "...And regardless of what you think of them..." Just to set the record straight, I don't "think" of "them" in any bad way. Look, I have already answered the argument you are presenting, the argument that I shouldn’t be able to tell people what they can or cannot do to their own body. If you look at the comments you will see that I have answered this question, in fact quite a few may apply here. The main argument is that the baby is a separate body, and as such the woman should not be allowed to end its life because it is a separate life. Your examples don’t in any way take this into account, so group them and discard them. They don’t get you anywhere. “It has nothing to do with YOU.” *sigh* This has to do with the more than 50 million abortions that have occurred just here in the U.S., and whether or not that is right that those occurred. I say no, and if you don’t like then please, tell me why what I said in earlier comments that answered your argument were wrong.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T02:52:54.8605680Z
@TBR: "I'm not trying to attack you. Not yet anyway." Well I hope this doesn't come down to a name calling competition. ;) Look, I agree that the gov should not be allowed to throw us in metal suits that they can control and as such control our bodies and lives. I think that's wrong. So for the question of "defense", what's the situation? (I have answered this arg you know?)
TBR says2015-07-30T02:57:47.7082426Z
Well, you haven't really. You jumped to calling me a monster. Regardless, you are still tap-dancing around. You have a right to control your body, you have a right to defend your body, the next step is simple. A fetus, of your own making, that is a human fetus, your biological production, and alive, you have the right abort that life. The entire pro-life argument is sentimentality with no substance.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T03:22:04.7348372Z
@TBR: "You jumped to calling me a monster." I did? I apologize if I did, but could please point out where I did this. I think I said I was "almost disgusted" at one point, but I don't recall calling you a monster. "Regardless, you are still tap-dancing around." I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what I am "tap-dancing" around.I I As for the rest of what you said, I ANSWERED IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sigh* I will try again. 1: "The fetus is completely defenseless and has nothing wrong. You can only justify self-defense if the individual that was affected by the act of self-defense did something wrong. You cannot argue that the fetus did something wrong, much less something wrong by intention." As I have said, it is not the fetus's fault that it is where it is. As such, to say that killing it is self-defense is just not right because it literally had no control over whether or not it was present, much less come into existence. Also, fetuses are completely innocent, they have done nothing wrong, and as such you cannot justify killing them as an act of self-defense because the one that is being killed in this case did nothing to deserve death by an act of self-defense. I ALREADY SAID THIS!!! 2: "By justifying the killing of others to protect our own bodies you also justify us killing anyone, at anytime, anywhere. The reason is that everyone is a threat to our bodies in some way or another. Anyone could hurt, maim, kill, or others at any time, so by your logic we should be able to defend ourselves from everyone to “defend our bodies.” By your logic that would include killing any of those people." If we are to take the most innocent and defenseless life in existence and say that we may kill it out of "self-defense", then that does justify the killings I mentioned in the quotations. Everyone is a threat TBR, so why should we not be allowed to kill anyone and justify it as an act of "self-defense"? You didn't even challenge this! 3: "Finally (not an answer to what you said) you ignored my immoral argument. “Anyways, this is false because if it is a threat that the woman created, combined with the fact that the fetuses are defenseless and did NOTHING wrong, it is a position that is completely immoral, and really should not be a position that is ever taken.” Because you conceded that the position you are taking is immoral, you can garnish no ground from your “self-defense” argument. Basically, you can’t justify abortion with this argument."' If you can answer this argument TBR, then we can talk more about this whole thing. Until then, you are speaking from a platform that is highly immoral on the "self-defense" argument and as such you can gain nothing this argument.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:33:07.0096179Z
"@TBR: "You jumped to calling me a monster." I did? I apologize if I did, but could please point out where I did this." - I apologize too. Looked above and you only said I "discuss" and "shock" you .
TBR says2015-07-30T03:34:56.3803656Z
"I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what I am "tap-dancing" around." - I am asking questions that you equivocate on. I said I would address any questions, when my first questions were answered. You still cant get to the first one. Regardless, we are moving on.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:37:33.6507517Z
"I I As for the rest of what you said, I ANSWERED IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sigh* I will try again. 1: "The fetus is completely defenseless and has nothing wrong." - You are looking for what YOU consider "something wrong". If you would simple work along the path I was leading you, you MIGHT understand where pro-choice is coming from, but you cant even let any words out of your mouth that may seem anything like giving in. The fetus is NOT welcomed within the woman's body, she has the right to defend her body. It makes no difference that it is HER zygote, or if it is human, these are ALL sentimental arguments.
Varrack says2015-07-30T03:38:59.2676821Z
Yo TBR we should totally do this debate in the future sometime.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:39:14.4907445Z
You can only justify self-defense if the individual that was affected by the act of self-defense did something wrong. You cannot argue that the fetus did something wrong, much less something wrong by intention." - Intention has nothing to do with protection. It is clear in case law. While I could use any example, might as well use Travon Martin. He had no intent, but the case ended in "self-defence".
TBR says2015-07-30T03:41:24.3047837Z
"By justifying the killing of others to protect our own bodies you also justify us killing anyone, at anytime, anywhere." First, you DO have the right to kill anyone to protect your own body. Second, this is a very CLEAR instance where control of what can use your body is at issue.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:43:19.7718637Z
"Everyone is a threat TBR, so why should we not be allowed to kill anyone and justify it as an act of "self-defense"? You didn't even challenge this!" - The case of the fetus residing within the woman's body and using it without her consent is as clear a case as there can be. This is not something I have to work hard at to defend. I can show you an ultrasound of a fetus, ask you "do you want to allow this fetus use of your body?" If you say "NO" then, there you go.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:44:06.4918685Z
"Finally (not an answer to what you said) you ignored my immoral argument. “Anyways, this is false because if it is a threat that the woman created, combined with the fact that the fetuses are defenseless and did NOTHING wrong, it is a position that is completely immoral, and really should not be a position that is ever taken.” - You have made no moral argument other than say it is immoral. Work harder.
TBR says2015-07-30T03:46:46.2662009Z
@Varrack - We should. I have one pending I have been slow to accept. I know we had several in the queue. Just trying to not take any debate I can't be sure I will complete. I had a short streak of forfeit rounds that made me feel bad.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:24:58.3008486Z
@TBR: “I apologize too. Looked above and you only said I "discuss" and "shock" you .” Well, I meant no ill will toward you. If I have offended you in any way, I’m sorry.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:25:32.9174705Z
"@TBR: “- I am asking questions that you equivocate on. I said I would address any questions, when my first questions were answered. You still cant get to the first one. Regardless, we are moving on.” I’m sorry if I seem like I am being unresponsive. I do feel that I have answered your questions on the matter. Maybe you wanted some broader answers, but I tend to answer more specifically on the topic at hand. "
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:28:12.0696907Z
@TBR “You are looking for what YOU consider "something wrong". If you would simple work along the path I was leading you, you MIGHT understand where pro-choice is coming from, but you cant even let any words out of your mouth that may seem anything like giving in.” TBR, I could make a very similar argument about what you’re saying. (in regards to the first sentence) We have both argued why we believe certain aspects of the topic are “something wrong” or “something right”. What we need to be doing is arguing more about which side is right or wrong, not whether we are biased. We are both arguing from biased standpoints, as you are pro-abortion and I am anti-abortion. WE consider right and wrong differently. Please do not try and pin your argument just on me. Moving on, I have made my position clear. You may attack it if you want, I am happy to argue against them. Again though, I am willing to argue about anything without conceding anything to you. I really am, I don’t know why I must concede anything. “The fetus is NOT welcomed within the woman's body, she has the right to defend her body. It makes no difference that it is HER zygote, or if it is human, these are ALL sentimental arguments.” Yes, but the fetus could not control it being there. It did not try to be there. It was most likely actions made by the woman that put it there, so I really think you will struggle to get anywhere with this argument if the fetus did not have control over whether or not it exists. It does make a difference if the zygote is her’s because that makes it her child. If it is her child and she is allowed to kill it then that would justify the killings of children outside the womb. And it makes all the difference whether or not it is human. If it is human then it has the right to life, arguably the most important right that exists, something you have failed to refute. About the “sentimental” part, well, even if it is sentimental you still have to argue that they are wrong. Just saying it is sentimental gets you no where.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:29:26.8097698Z
@TBR: “Intention has nothing to do with protection. It is clear in case law. While I could use any example, might as well use Travon Martin. He had no intent, but the case ended in "self-defence".” If I’m correct that case was extremely controversial and many were upset by the decision. I’m surprised you would use this because it gives you no ground; people hated the decision and thought it was extremely unjust. You seem to think that the law is just, and as such we should look at it as a moral compass. I find it odd that you would suggest we should do this. It destroys all arguments and opposition without looking at the merits of those arguments, and really does support government control. Think about it, if they make any law no matter what is, by your logic it is morally correct because it is a law. This is not a good answer to my argument you attempted to refute, as such the argument stands.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:30:58.9283603Z
@TBR “First, you DO have the right to kill anyone to protect your own body. Second, this is a very CLEAR instance where control of what can use your body is at issue.” Ok, I suppose I should clarify something. We do have the right to kill others, but with punishment. To rephrase, by justifying the killing of others to protect our own bodies you also justify us killing anyone, at anytime, anywhere with no punishment.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:35:11.8839818Z
@TBR “The case of the fetus residing within the woman's body and using it without her consent is as clear a case as there can be. This is not something I have to work hard at to defend. I can show you an ultrasound of a fetus, ask you "do you want to allow this fetus use of your body?" If you say "NO" then, there you go.” What do you mean you don’t have to work hard to defend this? This argument is ridiculous, it is the dependence argument. You just worded it differently. Cross-apply all of my counter-dependence arguments here to answer this. Also cross-apply my #1 argument against your self-defense argument here as I have rebutted your argument against it. This arg applies somewhat to the “consent” part.
mwedwards says2015-07-30T05:35:43.4117839Z
@TBR: “You have made no moral argument other than say it is immoral. Work harder.” Really? I have restated and added to this argument 2 or 3 times with no opposition. I think I have worked pretty hard here. If you read the comments you will see that I did make a moral argument and defended it quite clearly.
mayahcw says2015-10-26T21:08:38.3893478Z
Just a reminder that a 20 week old baby is no longer a "blastocyst".

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.