abortion

[survivor17]

Do you believe in abortion why or why not?

[Camazotz]

Oh gosh, we've had a million threads like this before, so I'll be brief:

Abortions should be treated as last-resorts and not as a method of birth control. I respect the right of every woman to choose whether or not she wants to have a child or not- in this regard, I'm pro-choice. Teenagers need to be better educated on safe sex and the many methods of birth control; a lack of education among teens causes a majority of unwanted teen pregnancy. Nobody should be burdened with supporting a child or a family when they're not ready, but if you take the risks of having sex, you are consenting to the consequences of what sex can lead to. This should not dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she doesn't want to have a child, but abortions are not intended to be a form of birth control due to the physical harms it has to a woman's reproductive parts. We shouldn't judge or blame any woman that has an abortion, but we should learn from the mistakes of those that have unsafe sex; plenty of women are forced into a situation where an abortion is necessary and it'd be terrible to blame them, but there are many teens that need to learn and respect the consequences of unsafe sex.

[Lovelife090994]

To me abortion is something to go to if raped or abused. But to me it shouldn't be birth control either. Personally I am not with abortion but I am not against a woman wanting one either. However the word makes me cringe. So many people try to have kids and yet they can't whilst others can and have abortions.

[TapDancer]

Oh gosh, we've had a million threads like this before, so I'll be brief:

Abortions should be treated as last-resorts and not as a method of birth control. I respect the right of every woman to choose whether or not she wants to have a child or not- in this regard, I'm pro-choice. Teenagers need to be better educated on safe sex and the many methods of birth control; a lack of education among teens causes a majority of unwanted teen pregnancy. Nobody should be burdened with supporting a child or a family when they're not ready, but if you take the risks of having sex, you are consenting to the consequences of what sex can lead to. This should not dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she doesn't want to have a child, but abortions are not intended to be a form of birth control due to the physical harms it has to a woman's reproductive parts. We shouldn't judge or blame any woman that has an abortion, but we should learn from the mistakes of those that have unsafe sex; plenty of women are forced into a situation where an abortion is necessary and it'd be terrible to blame them, but there are many teens that need to learn and respect the consequences of unsafe sex.

I could not have said this better myself^

[Miserabilia]

I think abortion is fine as long as it's in an early stage.

[Left Now]

Oh gosh, we've had a million threads like this before, so I'll be brief:

Abortions should be treated as last-resorts and not as a method of birth control. I respect the right of every woman to choose whether or not she wants to have a child or not- in this regard, I'm pro-choice. Teenagers need to be better educated on safe sex and the many methods of birth control; a lack of education among teens causes a majority of unwanted teen pregnancy. Nobody should be burdened with supporting a child or a family when they're not ready, but if you take the risks of having sex, you are consenting to the consequences of what sex can lead to. This should not dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she doesn't want to have a child, but abortions are not intended to be a form of birth control due to the physical harms it has to a woman's reproductive parts. We shouldn't judge or blame any woman that has an abortion, but we should learn from the mistakes of those that have unsafe sex; plenty of women are forced into a situation where an abortion is necessary and it'd be terrible to blame them, but there are many teens that need to learn and respect the consequences of unsafe sex.

^Thanks for being BRIEF (!) !

Well,I believe a woman is allowed to have an abortion but only until fetus is still not older than 4 months.Also,when life of mother herself is endangered because of fetus,well abortion is fine in that time too.

[Vlerchan]

Her body. Her decision.

I'm for abortion until viability (25 weeks-ish) and even then I tend towards term, state-funded where needed.

I'm also for ensuring a good standered of education about birth control, safe sex, abortion, etc., like Camazotz said: abortions present dangers, and we should be attempting to limit the number performed to as little as possible.

[AgentHomo]

I am fully supportive of the woman's choice. If she wants to abort the fetus any time right up to birth, let her. As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is still physically attached to her so it's still her choice. Abortion should be available to everyone as an option. Oh and the ignorant prolifers should just shut up and stop shaming the women who seek abortion as an option. It's their body, their choice. Simple as that.

[Gamma Male]

I'm pro choice.

I think it's funny that so many prolifers are also against comprehensive sex-ed and handing out condoms at school.

[Capto]

I don't like the idea of abortions once neurulation begins.

[proshots]

I believe in abortion because sometimes people are not ready to have a baby yet

[comicgeeknerd101]

It`s all about the fetus`s rights.

Because inside of the womb is a human being; innocent, with their own future life, hopes, desires, and dreams. I just personally think an abortion takes away the fetus`s (who is a human being) right to live, and is therefore murder.

Just think about, what would happen if a random man were to stab a pregnant woman and kill the fetus? He would be convicted for murder. Is abortion any different?

[Miserabilia]

It`s all about the fetus`s rights.

Because inside of the womb is a human being; innocent, with their own future life, hopes, desires, and dreams. I just personally think an abortion takes away the fetus`s (who is a human being) right to live, and is therefore murder.

Just think about, what would happen if a random man were to stab a pregnant woman and kill the fetus? He would be convicted for murder. Is abortion any different?

innocent, with their own future life, hopes, desires, and dreams.

No offense but they really don't have any of those yet.
They simply aren't developed enough.

I just personally think an abortion takes away the fetus`s (who is a human being) right to live, and is therefore murder.

I would concider it murder too if they took away the right to live of a full living being.
An early stage feutus however, is not nearly a completely living being.
You are thinking towards the future; the unborn baby isn't going to miss anything, because it simply never even started to know or feel it's existence; the same way a women's eggcell or a man's seamen don't know their existence.

Just think about, what would happen if a random man were to stab a pregnant woman and kill the fetus? He would be convicted for murder.

He wouldn't, unless the women dies.

It`s all about the fetus`s rights.

What about women's rights to have controll over their own body?
It's a natural right.

[Typhlosion]

If fetuses are full human beings, then why aren't they included in the demographic or taxes? Either fight for that, or allow women to have a choice.

Maybe they didn't have the choice then, so let's give them one now.
And if they did, who are we to tell what to do with their bodies? Not us.

[Irishperson15]

No, I am pro-life. I can understand why people may feel it is necessary in the case of rape but I don't think so. I think the woman should continue with the and let the life they bring to the world be something positive. Even if they are not keeping the child, they could give it to a childless couple longing for a baby and who can't have one!

The only instance i believe abortion should be allowed is if continuation of the pregnancy would cause severe harm to the mother or even death. From the moment of conception, the potential is there and the foetus begins to develop. It deserves a chance.

[ImCoolBeans]

I'm pro-choice. As Camazotz said, abortion should be used more so as a last resort than a method of birth control. We should respect a woman's decision to keep or abort a baby, regardless of which she chooses.

I'm pro choice.

I think it's funny that so many prolifers are also against comprehensive sex-ed and handing out condoms at school.

Right? I've always found that funny too. If you're pro-life, why try to shelter children/teens away from valuable knowledge to prevent unwanted/accidental pregnancies. Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

[Miserabilia]

No, I am pro-life. I can understand why people may feel it is necessary in the case of rape but I don't think so. I think the woman should continue with the and let the life they bring to the world be something positive. Even if they are not keeping the child, they could give it to a childless couple longing for a baby and who can't have one!

The only instance i believe abortion should be allowed is if continuation of the pregnancy would cause severe harm to the mother or even death. From the moment of conception, the potential is there and the foetus begins to develop. It deserves a chance.

Mmm...
I get sick of the idea of a woman having to feel a baby growing in her... a baby that is the child of a man that raped her that she doesn't even know and she probably hates and fears now, and then having a growing thing as a consistent reminder, then having to go trhough pain and suffering to deliver the child you never wanted to the world...
Doesn't fit right with me.

[Irishperson15]

Mmm...
I get sick of the idea of a woman having to feel a baby growing in her... a baby that is the child of a man that raped her that she doesn't even know and she probably hates and fears now, and then having a growing thing as a consistent reminder, then having to go trhough pain and suffering to deliver the child you never wanted to the world...
Doesn't fit right with me.

But think of the joy she could receive when she sees the baby?

Fair point though, but if the mother doesn't want it and, let's say, she goes through with the pregnancy, imagine how happy she could make another couple when they can adopt this newborn baby because they are unable to have their own children?

[Irishperson15]

I'm pro-choice. As Camazotz said, abortion should be used more so as a last resort than a method of birth control. We should respect a woman's decision to keep or abort a baby, regardless of which she chooses.



Right? I've always found that funny too. If you're pro-life, why try to shelter children/teens away from valuable knowledge to prevent unwanted/accidental pregnancies. Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

I'm pro-life and I'm not against contraception or sexual education. What i AM against is when people use abortion AS contraception. In the case of normal intercourse with a partner, people should be mature enough to understand the implications of their actions if they do not use protection. What i believe is that if a woman becomes pregnant in this instance, then she should accept full liability and so should the man because they have created something and they should be mature enough to handle that. However, they should not use abortion as means of contraception because they didn't use it during intercourse.

[backjruton]

It's their decision and well... nothing we can do to stop that. So I guess I believe in it...

[Miserabilia]

But think of the joy she could receive when she sees the baby?

Fair point though, but if the mother doesn't want it and, let's say, she goes through with the pregnancy, imagine how happy she could make another couple when they can adopt this newborn baby because they are unable to have their own children?

But think of the joy she could receive when she sees the baby?


Joy???!
The child of a rapist?
Don't you think that's basicly emotional destruction, not to mention a conflict between emotion and maternal instincts, and you don't want those to collide because some weird mental disorders can come from it.

[Irishperson15]

Joy???!
The child of a rapist?
Don't you think that's basicly emotional destruction, not to mention a conflict between emotion and maternal instincts, and you don't want those to collide because some weird mental disorders can come from it.

Yes but if SHE doesn't then she can give it to someone else who can receive joy from it. The fact that it is the child of a rapist does not make it any less of a child or give it any less rights than a child conceived to a couple in a loving marriage. It is not the child's fault and I believe it unfair they be punished.

What is a teenager's father was a murderer? Should they be punished because of what their father did? The same principle applies my friend

[Miserabilia]

Yes but if SHE doesn't then she can give it to someone else who can receive joy from it. The fact that it is the child of a rapist does not make it any less of a child or give it any less rights than a child conceived to a couple in a loving marriage. It is not the child's fault and I believe it unfair they be punished.

What is a teenager's father was a murderer? Should they be punished because of what their father did? The same principle applies my friend

It is not the child's fault and I believe it unfair they be punished.

I'm sorry but what child?
And what's unfair about it, they don't even have devloped brains they can't think feel or be aware, they're a developing lump of cells.

What is a teenager's father was a murderer? Should they be punished because of what their father did? The same principle applies my friend

No, because a feautus is not a live thinking conscious person.
There's a giant difference.

Also defending the rights of something that can't even think yet seems a bit silly if you're going to throw away a women's right to controll her own body.

[Irishperson15]

I'm sorry but what child?
And what's unfair about it, they don't even have devloped brains they can't think feel or be aware, they're a developing lump of cells.



No, because a feautus is not a live thinking conscious person.
There's a giant difference.

Also defending the rights of something that can't even think yet seems a bit silly if you're going to throw away a women's right to controll her own body.

Aside from rape (before you say) - then the woman should be aware that unprotected sex can result in the successful conception of a child and if she has the right to control her own body, fair enough, but the child also has the right to life. You can't insult my intelligence and attempt to insult me for standing up for a defenseless being's life. Look at a picture of a foetus. I'm pretty sure it resembles a human to me. Even in early stages, you couldn't say it was "a bunch of cells" - and although a foetus may not be able to think for itself, it still breathes through the help of its mother and it is supplied through the mother. I find it one of the saddest things in life that the sanctity of life is disregarded in such a casual manner for a woman's 'right' to control her body. As forementioned, exclusive of rape, a woman should be mature enough to understand the possible implications of unprotected sex and if a foetus develops, then that is a direct consequence of that and that's the way it is.

Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB0EIHFHeIw
and then tell me that it's ok. I respect your opinion certainly, but what I struggle to come to terms with is how you cannot justify your opinion with a sufficient reason. Everyone deserves a chance. I'm giving you a chance right now to convince me to be pro-choice, as are you giving me a chance. Everyone deserves one.

[Vlerchan]

... but the child also has the right to life.
Irish law makes a distinction between child and fetus. I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

Though why should the child - who's really not considered a child under the law - right's contravene the rights of the woman?: I'm fine with granting individuals the right to life but not when that right extends to allowing them deny others there own base rights (bodily autonomy is guaranteed under the Irish constitution). Look at it this way:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

I'm pretty sure it resembles a human to me.
I'm signalling this line out of your appeal to emotion because it's the most obviously disingenuous: appeals to emotion are disingenuous.

... life is disregarded in such a casual manner for a woman's 'right' to control her body.
Why should the rights of non-human beings contravene the rights of actual human-beings?

[Irishperson15]

Irish law makes a distinction between child and fetus. I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

Though why should the child - who's really not considered a child under the law - right's contravene the rights of the woman?: I'm fine with granting individuals the right to life but not when that right extends to allowing them deny others there own base rights (bodily autonomy is guaranteed under the Irish constitution). Look at it this way:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.


I'm signalling this line out of your appeal to emotion because it's the most obviously disingenuous: appeals to emotion are disingenuous.


Why should the rights of non-human beings contravene the rights of actual human-beings?

I'm sorry but that is a bad example. Like I said, except for the case of rape, a woman has willingly underwent sexual intercourse so she should be aware of the possible outcomes of her actions and it is still a human being. It has rights and potential. I don't expect you to believe what I do because you're an atheist and I have a different view of sanctity of life than you are likely to have due to your lack of belief in God (which I am not condemning, your decision). The fact of the matter is you are still killing a living thing which has the potential to become so much more. It's not the fact of "it's a foetus" or "it's not" that I care about, it's the fact that it is a living being. Furthermore, sorry fellow pro-lifers but I can no longer refer to an unborn child as a "human", whoops, excuse my Catholic ignorance

Bodily autonomy that's nice, but, when a woman wants to become a mother she has to make sacrifices for her children, like all our mothers have done. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse without protection then they should be aware that pregnancy is a possible consequence. Why should the child's potential be taken away before it is even given a chance? We all get chances everyday, but how would you like yours taken away before you even try?

[Vlerchan]

I'm sorry but that is a bad example[1]. Like I said, except for the case of rape, a woman has willingly underwent sexual intercourse so she should be aware of the possible outcomes of her actions[2] and it is still a human being[3].
[1]: Why do you believe that it's okay to kill living beings in cases where the woman was raped?

[2]: If I walk through a back-alley in Finglas - stereotypes are fun! - and am set upon by a number of undesirable individuals should I not be allowed defend myself? This is a reductio ad absurdum of your argument here: volunteering to engage in one action doesn't mean that you are also volunteering to engage in other actions associated with that original action (in this case carrying a child to term).

[3]: This is simply wrong.

It has rights and potential. I don't expect you to believe what I do because you're an atheist and I have a different view of sanctity of life[4] than you are likely to have due to your lack of belief in God (which I am not condemning, your decision).[5] The fact of the matter is you are still killing a living thing which has the potential to become so much more. It's not the fact of "it's a foetus" or "it's not" that I care about, it's the fact that it is a living being[6].
[4]: But you support killing living beings in cases where the woman was raped?

[5]: My religious stance is irrelevant to my stance on abortion: rights are rights.

[6]: Why should the rights of a non-human being contravene the rights of an actual human being? You never answered.

Bodily autonomy that's nice[7], but, when a woman wants to become a mother [8] she has to make sacrifices for her children, like all our mothers have done[9]. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse without protection then they should be aware that pregnancy is a possible consequence[10]. Why should the child's potential be taken away before it is even given a chance?[11] We all get chances everyday, but how would you like yours taken away before you even try?[12]
[7]: Okay.

[8]: The problem is that she doesn't want to be a mother. I thought this was pretty obvious in her pursuit of an abortion.

[9]: She's not a mother until the child is born.

[10]: It's also a possible consequence with contraception. Should the woman who claim to have used contraception but still got pregnant be allowed an abortion?

[11]: Because the other alternative is to deny the mother her base human rights.

[12]: In relation to the fetus: I doubt it cares because it's not capable of caring.

EDIT:
Furthermore, sorry fellow pro-lifers but I can no longer refer to an unborn child as a "human", whoops, excuse my Catholic ignorance[13]:.
[13]:Feel free to. You're just wrong in it.

[Irishperson15]

[1]: Why do you believe that it's okay to kill living beings in cases where the woman was raped?

[2]: If I walk through a back-alley in Finglas - stereotypes are fun! - and am set upon by a number of undesirable individuals should I not be allowed defend myself? This is a reductio ad absurdum of your argument here: volunteering to engage in one action doesn't mean that you are also volunteering to engage in other actions associated with that original action (in this case carrying a child to term).

[3]: This is simply wrong.


[4]: But you support killing living beings in cases where the woman was raped?

[5]: My religious stance is irrelevant to my stance on abortion: rights are rights.

[6]: Why should the rights of a non-human being contravene the rights of an actual human being? You never answered.


[7]: Okay.

[8]: The problem is that she doesn't want to be a mother. I thought this was pretty obvious in her pursuit of an abortion.

[9]: She's not a mother until the child is born.

[10]: It's also a possible consequence with contraception. Should the woman who claim to have used contraception but still got pregnant be allowed an abortion?

[11]: Because the other alternative is to deny the mother her base human rights.

[12]: In relation to the fetus: I doubt it cares because it's not capable of caring.

EDIT:

[13]:Feel free to. You're just wrong in it.


Yes, correctly stated rights are rights. You're missing my point, I'm not saying I approve of abortion in the case of rape (if you read earlier posts ...) but I am trying to say I understand why people may undertake abortion in that case. Just because they can justify abortion but it doesn't make it right. I added it in because I was corrected before so i was merely acknowledging another point of view. And I am not wrong. I am following the teachings of the Catholic church. Life begins at the moment of conception. That is what we are taught to believe. Religion is relevant in this respect because my beliefs about the value of life are differing from yours.

Also, the ally example, that is very different. Abortion is killing a defenseless human being who relies on its mother for help and support, yet you are comparing that to using proportionate force if a group of people attack you in an ally?

In fairness, you do throw quite a lot down at once so it is easy to miss something when one is tired. In response, the rights of the baby human contravene to the rights of the mother because the mother has chosen to take part in intercourse and this is the consequence. She must take responsibility for her actions.

If she doesn't want to be a mother, why is she having unprotected sex with a mature, fertile male then? Think about it logically, if she really didn't want to why didn't they use means of contraception, whether natural or artificial, available to them at the time? And, as you correctly pointed out, contraception is not 100% effective and, in that case, if she is having sex outside of marriage then that's her problem. If not, one of the marriage vows is be open to the possibility of children so they should continue with the pregnancy if they made a vow that they would be open to the possibility of children.

Just to clarify again, I didn't say it was ever OK to kill living human beings when the woman was raped, I just acknowledged that others may feel that is so and I respect their opinion in that case, but no other.

[Miserabilia]

Aside from rape (before you say) - then the woman should be aware that unprotected sex can result in the successful conception of a child and if she has the right to control her own body, fair enough, but the child also has the right to life. You can't insult my intelligence and attempt to insult me for standing up for a defenseless being's life. Look at a picture of a foetus. I'm pretty sure it resembles a human to me. - and although a foetus may not be able to think for itself, it still breathes through the help of its mother and it is supplied through the mother. I find it one of the saddest things in life that the sanctity of life is disregarded in such a casual manner for a woman's 'right' to control her body. As forementioned, exclusive of rape, a woman should be mature enough to understand the possible implications of unprotected sex and if a foetus develops, then that is a direct consequence of that and that's the way it is.

Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB0EIHFHeIw
and then tell me that it's ok. I respect your opinion certainly, but what I struggle to come to terms with is how you cannot justify your opinion with a sufficient reason. Everyone deserves a chance. I'm giving you a chance right now to convince me to be pro-choice, as are you giving me a chance. Everyone deserves one.

Aside from rape (before you say) - then the woman should be aware that unprotected sex can result in the successful conception of a child

Yes she should.

and if she has the right to control her own body, fair enough, but the child also has the right to life.

Sigh...
No, simply, because there is no child yet.
Once the child is developed, I'm against abortion (so late abortion),
because then we can speak of a child.
An embryo is not a child.

You can't insult my intelligence and attempt to insult me for standing up for a defenseless being's life.

Not insulting you.

Look at a picture of a foetus. I'm pretty sure it resembles a human to me.

It looks like a human, and a sperm looks like a tadpole.
I personaly kind of think an embryo looks like a seahorse, or a peanut.
When they start to look like humans, that's because their bodies are slowly taking shape, but they are not near finished or developed.

Even in early stages, you couldn't say it was "a bunch of cells"

I can, as a matter of fact I am a bunch of cells myself, but the difference is that I am a fully thinking and aware finished human being.

it still breathes through the help of its mother and it is supplied through the mother.

Which only puts emphasis on how it's not near a human being yet.
You can almost see it as a part of the mother.

I find it one of the saddest things in life that the sanctity of life is disregarded in such a casual manner

There is no sanctity of life when there is no life.
There is no life yet.
There is a collection of live cells, but no life yet.
A feutus is not an organism, it's a start to the devlopement towards being human.

for a woman's 'right' to control her body.

Pff, ye, because youknow,
women and their "rights".

a woman should be mature enough to understand the possible implications of unprotected sex

yes she should.

Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB0EIHFHeIw
and then tell me that it's ok.

That second video was ridiculous; just look at the title.

"
What So-Called Pro-Choicers Cannot Watch From Start To Finish
"

Well I did watch it from start to finish and it was a bunch of images of featuses. Which I do not find particulary tasteful, but okay, I watched it, and so what?
What am I supposed to learn from that?

but what I struggle to come to terms with is how you cannot justify your opinion with a sufficient reason.

On what did you base this?
I already gave you reasons and I'll give them again.

- Women's right
- Feutuses can not think or feel and are not alive yet

You not being satisfied by these arguments does not mean I have no justifaction, just that you did not accept them.

[Irishperson15]

Yes she should.



Sigh...
No, simply, because there is no child yet.
Once the child is developed, I'm against abortion (so late abortion),
because then we can speak of a child.
An embryo is not a child.



Not insulting you.



It looks like a human, and a sperm looks like a tadpole.
I personaly kind of think an embryo looks like a seahorse, or a peanut.
When they start to look like humans, that's because their bodies are slowly taking shape, but they are not near finished or developed.



I can, as a matter of fact I am a bunch of cells myself, but the difference is that I am a fully thinking and aware finished human being.



Which only puts emphasis on how it's not near a human being yet.
You can almost see it as a part of the mother.



There is no sanctity of life when there is no life.
There is no life yet.
There is a collection of live cells, but no life yet.
A feutus is not an organism, it's a start to the devlopement towards being human.



Pff, ye, because youknow,
women and their "rights".



yes she should.



That second video was ridiculous; just look at the title.

"
What So-Called Pro-Choicers Cannot Watch From Start To Finish
"

Well I did watch it from start to finish and it was a bunch of images of featuses. Which I do not find particulary tasteful, but okay, I watched it, and so what?
What am I supposed to learn from that?



On what did you base this?
I already gave you reasons and I'll give them again.

- Women's right
- Feutuses can not think or feel and are not alive yet

You not being satisfied by these arguments does not mean I have no justifaction, just that you did not accept them.

But it is an insult to my intelligence. Yea, you're a bunch of cells, but you think and you're a living thing, just like that unborn child. I just can't see how you can say it's ok to kill it. I'm sorry but I just cannot comprehend that in my head.

[Miserabilia]

But it is an insult to my intelligence. Yea, you're a bunch of cells, but you think and you're a living thing, just like that unborn child. I just can't see how you can say it's ok to kill it. I'm sorry but I just cannot comprehend that in my head.

but you think and you're a living thing, just like that unborn child.

No,
1: It does not think
2: It is not a living thing.

It is biologicaly not alive yet.
You can deny it all you want but it is a fact that it is lifeles untill developed to be atleast somewhat independent.

I just can't see how you can say it's ok to kill it.

It's not murder, as it's not a living thing.

I think i've repeated myself enough times now,
but it's really simple.
An early stage feutus is not alive and it doesn't think.
It's not murder, unless you concider ejacultion genocide.

[Irishperson15]

No,
1: It does not think
2: It is not a living thing.

It is biologicaly not alive yet.
You can deny it all you want but it is a fact that it is lifeles untill developed to be atleast somewhat independent.



It's not murder, as it's not a living thing.

I think i've repeated myself enough times now,
but it's really simple.
An early stage feutus is not alive and it doesn't think.
It's not murder, unless you concider ejacultion genocide.

Well it has a heart doesn't it? Something that is either not alive, or else dead if you like, would not have a beating heart. As you attempted to say it is "lifeless until developed to be at least somewhat independent". So, does that mean that a person who is being kept alive by machines carrying out all bodily functions, such as breathing and kidney functions, etc is less of a human than me or you? Like a baby, they also has a heartbeat, but because they are brain-dead and unable to do anything, even natural body functions, does that make them less of a human too? If what you think is what you believe to be right, I respect that, but, going by your logic, then someone kept alive by a machine who can do nothing by themselves or even think independently is the same as an unborn baby because neither of them can do anything themselves, but they both have a heartbeat? ..

[Vlerchan]

Yes, correctly stated rights are rights.
Until the right in question contravenes your moral values.

Then it's expendable.

You're missing my point, I'm not saying I approve of abortion in the case of rape[1] (if you read earlier posts ...)[2] but I am trying to say I understand why people may undertake abortion in that case[3].
[1]: Do you support legislating for abortion in cases where the woman has been raped?

[2]: I haven't. I just don't have the time: I skimmed through the posts on this page.

[3]: What makes it understandable?

Just because they can justify abortion but it doesn't make it right.
I find what you feel to be right or wrong to be quite irrelevant if I'm honest: the pro-choice position is moral-relativist and centers around allowing people to decide themselves what is right or wrong when it comes to their own bodies independent of your opinion. I personally believe that bodily autonomy right should be upheld even when it clashes with my own moral particularities.

And I am not wrong. I am following the teachings of the Catholic church. Life begins at the moment of conception. That is what we are taught to believe.
The teachings of the Catholic Church in regards to life, etc. move against the prevailing legal and scientific opinions, as well as the actual English definition of 'human being'. You can believe you're right here, and as I said before: go ahead, whilst counterproductive I'm not all that concerned with your religiously-motivated redefinition of the word 'human being', but as far as society is concerned and for all extents and purposes: it's just a pseudoscientific redefinition of a word commonly understood to not extend to the unborn.

Though, I must ask: from where have you encountered this belief that it's fine to impose Catholic teachings, life begins at contraception, etc., on non-Catholics through legislation? I'd be fine with the Catholic community upholding their own beliefs within the Catholic community, through threat of a good old public shaming, or whatever, but I only see arrogance in a Catholic community that feels it should have the right to impose its values and ways of living on non-Catholics.

Religion is relevant in this respect because my beliefs about the value of life are differing from yours.
I recognise that.

And that's why I'm pro-choice.

Also, the ally example, that is very different.
It's supposed to be different. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

As long as we can agree that the base logic is fallacious then differing pre-conditions are irrelevant.

In response, the rights of the baby human contravene to the rights of the mother because the mother has chosen to take part in intercourse and this is the consequence.
see: reductio ad absurdum.

I've no idea where you have latched onto this notion that to agree to engage in one act is to agree to engage in all associated acts.

If she doesn't want to be a mother, why is she having unprotected sex with a mature, fertile male then?
Lots of reasons:

Violent Force, i.e., rape.
Psychological Force, i.e., peer pressure.
From being under the influence of a drug, inc. alcohol, or drugs.
Fun.
And so on.

Think about it logically, if she really didn't want to why didn't they use means of contraception, whether natural or artificial, available to them at the time?
Because perhaps contraception wasn't available at the time?

If the sex wasn't planned, as can occur in the scenarios I listed, I've no idea how such an expectation might come about.

And, as you correctly pointed out, contraception is not 100% effective and, in that case, if she is having sex outside of marriage then that's her problem.
I don't see how the sex occurring within or without marriage makes a difference: this is just Catholic arrogance rearing its ugly head again. People shouldn't be denied their rights because they are not living the way you want them to.

If not, one of the marriage vows is be open to the possibility of children so they should continue with the pregnancy if they made a vow that they would be open to the possibility of children.
This isn't a part of any legal marriage contract that I'm aware of.

It might be a part of a Catholic wedding ceremony - and if you want to force Catholic woman through pregnancies by threat of public shaming, that"s fine, if morally revolting in my opinion - but I've no idea why those who were not involved in Catholic wedding ceremonies need adhere to your wedding vows.

So, does that mean that a person who is being kept alive by machines carrying out all bodily functions, such as breathing and kidney functions, etc is less of a human than me or you?
Yes.

It's also entirely legal for the family to terminate the lives of these people.

[Lovelife090994]

Until the right in question contravenes your moral values.

Then it's expendable.


[1]: Do you support legislating for abortion in cases where the woman has been raped?

[2]: I haven't. I just don't have the time: I skimmed through the posts on this page.

[3]: What makes it understandable?


I find what you feel to be right or wrong to be quite irrelevant if I'm honest: the pro-choice position is moral-relativist and centers around allowing people to decide themselves what is right or wrong when it comes to their own bodies independent of your opinion. I personally believe that bodily autonomy right should be upheld even when it clashes with my own moral particularities.


The teachings of the Catholic Church in regards to life, etc. move against the prevailing legal and scientific opinions, as well as the actual English definition of 'human being'. You can believe you're right here, and as I said before: go ahead, whilst counterproductive I'm not all that concerned with your religiously-motivated redefinition of the word 'human being', but as far as society is concerned and for all extents and purposes: it's just a pseudoscientific redefinition of a word commonly understood to not extend to the unborn.

Though, I must ask: from where have you encountered this belief that it's fine to impose Catholic teachings, life begins at contraception, etc., on non-Catholics through legislation? I'd be fine with the Catholic community upholding their own beliefs within the Catholic community, through threat of a good old public shaming, or whatever, but I only see arrogance in a Catholic community that feels it should have the right to impose its values and ways of living on non-Catholics.


I recognise that.

And that's why I'm pro-choice.


It's supposed to be different. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

As long as we can agree that the base logic is fallacious then differing pre-conditions are irrelevant.


see: reductio ad absurdum.

I've no idea where you have latched onto this notion that to agree to engage in one act is to agree to engage in all associated acts.


Lots of reasons:

Violent Force, i.e., rape.
Psychological Force, i.e., peer pressure.
From being under the influence of a drug, inc. alcohol, or drugs.
Fun.
And so on.


Because perhaps contraception wasn't available at the time?

If the sex wasn't planned, as can occur in the scenarios I listed, I've no idea how such an expectation might come about.


I don't see how the sex occurring within or without marriage makes a difference: this is just Catholic arrogance rearing its ugly head again. People shouldn't be denied their rights because they are not living the way you want them to.


This isn't a part of any legal marriage contract that I'm aware of.

It might be a part of a Catholic wedding ceremony - and if you want to force Catholic woman through pregnancies by threat of public shaming, that"s fine, if morally revolting in my opinion - but I've no idea why those who were not involved in Catholic wedding ceremonies need adhere to your wedding vows.


Yes.

It's also entirely legal for the family to terminate the lives of these people.

How is a person on life support any less of a human? If that's the case then my mother and I weren't human at some point.

I'm going to say this. He is stating an opinion. Just because he is Catholic doesn't mean he is imposing. In fact you are imposing. What to the people who are pro-life? What are we now lesser in the eyes of this supposedly equal law? His beliefs are not just his, many agree that life is at conception. Him disagreeing with abortion does not stop it. If anything your rhetoric denies him right to an opinion since you aren't agreeing to disagree.

[CosmicNoodle]

Honestly I do have an in depth opinion of this topic, the only thing is that we have had this thread so many times before (I'm talking tens of times a day) that I just can't be bothered answering anymore...

[Vlerchan]

How is a person on life support any less of a human?
It doesn't possess the characteristics necessary for me to consider it a full.human.

He is stating an opinion[1]. Just because he is Catholic doesn't mean he is imposing[2]. In fact you are imposing. What to the people who are pro-life?[3] What are we now lesser in the eyes of this supposedly equal law?[4] His beliefs are not just his, many agree that life is at conception. Him disagreeing with abortion does not stop it[5]. If anything your rhetoric denies him right to an opinion since you aren't agreeing to disagree[6].
[1]: In a debate subforum. And I am debating his opinion.

[2]: Please quote where I said this. Thanks.

[3]: Please read the argument I put forward. Thanks.

[4]: Please quote where I even implied this. Thanks.

[5]: Yes, it does. That's how democracy works: he and the majority oppose abortion, and consequently Ireland doesn't have abortion.

[6]: How? He's entirely free to defend his opinion on this debate subforum. He's plenty of voice.

[Lovelife090994]

It doesn't possess the characteristics necessary for me to consider it a full.human.


[1]: In a debate subforum. And I am debating his opinion.

[2]: Please quote where I said this. Thanks.

[3]: Please read the argument I put forward. Thanks.

[4]: Please quote where I even implied this. Thanks.

[5]: Yes, it does. That's how democracy works: he and the majority oppose abortion, and consequently Ireland doesn't have abortion.

[6]: How? He's entirely free to defend his opinion on this debate subforum. He's plenty of voice.

Do you realize how ignorant and arrogant you sound? It's just an opinion, let him have it. And how dare you monster! Even a human on life support is a human. You have no empathy do you? Well if you are a psychopath we can help you. This is general discussions and the only place on VT with these topics.

[Vlerchan]

Do you realize how ignorant and arrogant you sound? It's just an opinion, let him have it. And how dare you monster! Even a human on life support is a human. You have no empathy do you? Well if you are a psychopath we can help you. This is general discussions and the only place on VT with these topics.
I'm too tired to humour your ad hominem with another response.

Have a nice day, Lovelife.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm too tired to humour your ad hominem with another response.

Have a nice day, Lovelife.

I'll keep you in prayer. I'll add you to my prayer list. Have a pleasant evening. Maybe one day you'll learn to accept and tolerate different opinions.

[lyhom]

I'll keep this short, since there's about 4 million threads on this and even more statements and rebuttals, I'll agree that the woman should have a choice with a strong recommendation of doing it before 24 weeks (or however long it takes for the fetus to feel a decent amount of pain, mostly because I find that it's a decent medium without being too harmful later on). All other details and rebuttals are found in the two threads on here as of now, and I'm not too interested in repeating them when these threads are both pretty short.

Also, Christopher, you've told people disagreeing with you multiple times that "it's my/[my side's] opinion, let me/them have it!", despite you not giving any examples (aside from regular, healthy debate) of how they're not letting you state your opinion. You've also made a few personal attacks to other members, usually the whole "How could you?"/"Have you no... ?" style of guilt-tripping sprinkled in typical name-calling.

You're free to do that, but it doesn't help you look like you've won this debate.

Bye. (Also, sorry if this seems too harsh or too off-topic. :P)

[DerBear]

Simple, I believe in abortion as I believe in the right of a choice but I do believe the father should have some degree of input as usually they don't.

[Lovelife090994]

I'll keep this short, since there's about 4 million threads on this and even more statements and rebuttals, I'll agree that the woman should have a choice with a strong recommendation of doing it before 24 weeks (or however long it takes for the fetus to feel a decent amount of pain, mostly because I find that it's a decent medium without being too harmful later on). All other details and rebuttals are found in the two threads on here as of now, and I'm not too interested in repeating them when these threads are both pretty short.

Also, Christopher, you've told people disagreeing with you multiple times that "it's my/[my side's] opinion, let me/them have it!", despite you not giving any examples (aside from regular, healthy debate) of how they're not letting you state your opinion. You've also made a few personal attacks to other members, usually the whole "How could you?"/"Have you no... ?" style of guilt-tripping sprinkled in typical name-calling.

You're free to do that, but it doesn't help you look like you've won this debate.

Bye. (Also, sorry if this seems too harsh or too off-topic. :P)

If you wanted to quote me, then do so. You might think I'm insane and go back and forth a lot huh? Well, good, you're not the first. Now on to the words.

What debate? I'm talking. If you think I want to win some petty debate then don't. I don't seek to win anything. I couldn't anyway since my opinion seems to be unpopular. Have you any idea how many times I'm called wrong for wanting to save a baby? What is wrong with not wanting a child to be killed?

[Irishperson15]

Until the right in question contravenes your moral values.

Then it's expendable.


[1]: Do you support legislating for abortion in cases where the woman has been raped?

[2]: I haven't. I just don't have the time: I skimmed through the posts on this page.

[3]: What makes it understandable?


I find what you feel to be right or wrong to be quite irrelevant if I'm honest: the pro-choice position is moral-relativist and centers around allowing people to decide themselves what is right or wrong when it comes to their own bodies independent of your opinion. I personally believe that bodily autonomy right should be upheld even when it clashes with my own moral particularities.


The teachings of the Catholic Church in regards to life, etc. move against the prevailing legal and scientific opinions, as well as the actual English definition of 'human being'. You can believe you're right here, and as I said before: go ahead, whilst counterproductive I'm not all that concerned with your religiously-motivated redefinition of the word 'human being', but as far as society is concerned and for all extents and purposes: it's just a pseudoscientific redefinition of a word commonly understood to not extend to the unborn.

Though, I must ask: from where have you encountered this belief that it's fine to impose Catholic teachings, life begins at contraception, etc., on non-Catholics through legislation? I'd be fine with the Catholic community upholding their own beliefs within the Catholic community, through threat of a good old public shaming, or whatever, but I only see arrogance in a Catholic community that feels it should have the right to impose its values and ways of living on non-Catholics.


I recognise that.

And that's why I'm pro-choice.


It's supposed to be different. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

As long as we can agree that the base logic is fallacious then differing pre-conditions are irrelevant.


see: reductio ad absurdum.

I've no idea where you have latched onto this notion that to agree to engage in one act is to agree to engage in all associated acts.


Lots of reasons:

Violent Force, i.e., rape.
Psychological Force, i.e., peer pressure.
From being under the influence of a drug, inc. alcohol, or drugs.
Fun.
And so on.


Because perhaps contraception wasn't available at the time?

If the sex wasn't planned, as can occur in the scenarios I listed, I've no idea how such an expectation might come about.


I don't see how the sex occurring within or without marriage makes a difference: this is just Catholic arrogance rearing its ugly head again. People shouldn't be denied their rights because they are not living the way you want them to.


This isn't a part of any legal marriage contract that I'm aware of.

It might be a part of a Catholic wedding ceremony - and if you want to force Catholic woman through pregnancies by threat of public shaming, that"s fine, if morally revolting in my opinion - but I've no idea why those who were not involved in Catholic wedding ceremonies need adhere to your wedding vows.


Yes.

It's also entirely legal for the family to terminate the lives of these people.

I never said I would support legalising abortion in the case of rape, I am saying that in that particular case, I can understand why it may come to someone's mind.

Please don't speak against the church on account of me. I'm not trying to impose my views, if you can justify your opinion then that's what I'm doing too. You think my view is wrong, and that's fair enough, but I'm just trying to justify it by saying why I think the way I do.

Also, I have no idea why you mentioned 'public shaming' and the like. I never said that. There's not much point shaming a mother that had an abortion because what's done is done. That's not my intention. And obviously abortion is legal, that's the point of this argument. I'm trying to say why I think it shouldn't be legal. But as correctly stated, yes, that is just my opinion and I acknowledge why others may feel differently. I think this is one of these issues that you can never change someone's perspective on.

Again, you mention the 'arrogance' and 'denying rights', it's not my decision to decide what people do. As you did say, we all have our 'right', but what I am trying to do is just show people why I cannot accept being pro-choice. I do understand why you and many others are pro-choice but I''m merely attempting to show why I can't be as it goes against everything I was taught and brought up with.

[Miserabilia]

Well it has a heart doesn't it? Something that is either not alive, or else dead if you like, would not have a beating heart. As you attempted to say it is "lifeless until developed to be at least somewhat independent". So, does that mean that a person who is being kept alive by machines carrying out all bodily functions, such as breathing and kidney functions, etc is less of a human than me or you? Like a baby, they also has a heartbeat, but because they are brain-dead and unable to do anything, even natural body functions, does that make them less of a human too? If what you think is what you believe to be right, I respect that, but, going by your logic, then someone kept alive by a machine who can do nothing by themselves or even think independently is the same as an unborn baby because neither of them can do anything themselves, but they both have a heartbeat? ..

Well it has a heart doesn't it? Something that is either not alive, or else dead if you like, would not have a beating heart.

I don't think you know the biological definition of alive.
Something that is alive can sense move feed and reproduce.
A feutus can do nothing independedly, it is not alive.
It's simple.

So, does that mean that a person who is being kept alive by machines carrying out all bodily functions, such as breathing and kidney functions, etc is less of a human than me or you?

No, because they as a human should be able to do all life functions; if they can't than they personaly are still human, and humans that are not dead are by definition alive; a feutus however can never do something independetly.

[Irishperson15]

I don't think you know the biological definition of alive.
Something that is alive can sense move feed and reproduce.
A feutus can do nothing independedly, it is not alive.
It's simple.



No, because they as a human should be able to do all life functions; if they can't than they personaly are still human, and humans that are not dead are by definition alive; a feutus however can never do something independetly.

I do understand that something is alive, which is, ironically, what you are failing to understand. The characteristics of something that are alive are movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. The baby respires through oxygen that is given to it from the mother's blood-rich placenta as the blood diffuses over to the baby. The oxygen is used in respiration and the respiration provides the babies body cells with energy to grow. So, yes, it cannot yet respire independently, but it does move and it certainly grows. Secondly, it is sensitive as it can react to harsh movements like if the mother fell, etc. it can be seen to distress the unborn child. Obviously it cannot yet feed itself and the like, but it grows and it moves and the reason it grows is through the help of its mother. So, am i still naive as to what a living thing is? So, it grows, it moves, it is highly dependent on its mother, yes, but it is still alive.

[Miserabilia]

I do understand that something is alive, which is, ironically, what you are failing to understand. The characteristics of something that are alive are movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. The baby respires through oxygen that is given to it from the mother's blood-rich placenta as the blood diffuses over to the baby. The oxygen is used in respiration and the respiration provides the babies body cells with energy to grow. So, yes, it cannot yet respire independently, but it does move and it certainly grows. Secondly, it is sensitive as it can react to harsh movements like if the mother fell, etc. it can be seen to distress the unborn child. Obviously it cannot yet feed itself and the like, but it grows and it moves and the reason it grows is through the help of its mother. So, am i still naive as to what a living thing is? So, it grows, it moves, it is highly dependent on its mother, yes, but it is still alive.
. The characteristics of something that are alive are movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition.
Which I know how to say in my own language, not in english.
So sorry for the inconvient use of my words earlier, but I had no idea how to say those things in english, so I just tried.

The baby respires through oxygen that is given to it from the mother's blood-rich placenta as the blood diffuses over to the baby. The oxygen is used in respiration and the respiration provides the babies body cells with energy to grow. So, yes, it cannot yet respire independently, but it does move and it certainly grows.
Well that's the point.
It can do nothing independently.
It can not perform life functions independently, it is not alive.

it can be seen to distress the unborn child.
They can be seen to have primitive reflexes to movement.

. Obviously it cannot yet feed itself and the like, but it grows and it moves and the reason it grows is through the help of its mother.
There is no but.
It isn't alive.
It's that simple.

So, am i still naive as to what a living thing is? So, it grows, it moves, it is highly dependent on its mother, yes, but it is still alive.
I think you pretty much just showed yourself how it is in fact not alive.

[Vlerchan]

@IrishPerson15: Would you mind individually quoting the portions of my post when you want to refute them? It makes it much easier on me. Thanks.

I never said I would support legalising abortion in the case of rape, I am saying that in that particular case, I can understand why it may come to someone's mind.
So, you understand the harmful psychological effects that come with disallowing woman abortions, but still support disallowing woman abortions?

It should also be noted that supporting abortion legislation, and supporting abortion itself, are two different things. I'm talking about legislation (i.e. enshrining the right to access abortion within the law), and have been the entire time. Reading your post(s), I'm not sure you realise that support for one (legislation) doesn't necessarily mean you support the other (abortion procedures), it just means that you are open to the idea that people might think differently to you. If it is that you are intent on oposing both the act and the law, then I'd appreciate if you responded to the points in the last response I gave regarding bodily autonomy (the entire basis of my argument), which you seemed to have missed.

Please don't speak against the church on account of me.
I'm not.

I'm talking about the Catholic Community (in Ireland), which lobbies against allowing abortion in Ireland. Though, your views are also representative of that of the Catholic Church, so it wouldn't be wrong to extend my criticisms to them, too.

I'm not trying to impose my views.
In being against legislating for abortion, as distinct from abortion itself - l'm focusing on the legal as opposed to the ethical here , you are imposing your views on others (though the democratic process), this lack of legislation making it illegal to have an abortion.

Also, I have no idea why you mentioned 'public shaming' and the like.
Historically, the threat of public shaming (and irregular public shamings) have been used to coerce individuals, particularily woman, into conforming to church teachings. I was suggesting that if abortion in Ireland was legal, the Catholic Community could enforce its moral values through this means, as opposed to through state force, or the threat of state force.

Of course, I agree that shaming woman after abortions is redundant, not to mention a host of other negative descriptors.

And obviously abortion is legal, that's the point of this argument.
No, it's not. Or it's not in Ireland, at least.

In Ireland a woman can only access abortion if the pregnancy poses a risk to her life. I can get up the relevant legislation if you want.

I'm trying to say why I think it shouldn't be legal.
Which I refuted, and you forgot (?) to respond to.

I think this is one of these issues that you can never change someone's perspective on
I've had my perspective change over the last 12 months or so, so.

Again, you mention the 'arrogance' and 'denying rights', it's not my decision to decide what people do.
The Catholic Community lobby to stop woman accessing abortion, and thus lobby to stop woman accessing their base rights.

In supporting the criminalisation of an act, you're playing your hand in taking a 'decision to decide what people do.'

As you did say, we all have our 'right', but what I am trying to do is just show people why I cannot accept being pro-choice.
Currently, Irish woman are denied this right, and the influential Catholic Community lobby has played a large role in this.

Also again, for extra clarity, I'm not asking you to support woman having abortions, but rather to support woman having the right to access abortion. That's what the pro-choice position is about: it's possible to be anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

Simple, I believe in abortion as I believe in the right of a choice but I do believe the father should have some degree of input as usually they don't.
Define: 'input', and expand on the 'degree' desired.

I don't support men holding control over woman's bodies.

Something that is alive can sense move feed and reproduce.
So, is it then ethical to murder an eight year old boy or girl?

I couldn't [win] anyway since my opinion seems to be unpopular.
Just because your opinion is unpopular going in doesn't mean you can't 'win'. Just present a substantial argument, and be prepared to defend it: if it makes sense then people will (hopefully - there is exceptions) recognize such regardless of their current opinion. I've argued lots of unpopular positions here: radical-feminism, soviet apologism, communism and left-anarchism and anti-capatalism-in-general, and have never been put off by their original unpopularity. It shouldn't matter what the position is, but rather the argument.

[Lovelife090994]

@IrishPerson15: Would you mind individually quoting the portions of my post when you want to refute them? It makes it much easier on me. Thanks.


So, you understand the harmful psychological effects that come with disallowing woman abortions, but still support disallowing woman abortions?

It should also be noted that supporting abortion legislation, and supporting abortion itself, are two different things. I'm talking about legislation (i.e. enshrining the right to access abortion within the law), and have been the entire time. Reading your post(s), I'm not sure you realise that support for one (legislation) doesn't necessarily mean you support the other (abortion procedures), it just means that you are open to the idea that people might think differently to you. If it is that you are intent on oposing both the act and the law, then I'd appreciate if you responded to the points in the last response I gave regarding bodily autonomy (the entire basis of my argument), which you seemed to have missed.


I'm not.

I'm talking about the Catholic Community (in Ireland), which lobbies against allowing abortion in Ireland. Though, your views are also representative of that of the Catholic Church, so it wouldn't be wrong to extend my criticisms to them, too.


In being against legislating for abortion, as distinct from abortion itself - l'm focusing on the legal as opposed to the ethical here , you are imposing your views on others (though the democratic process), this lack of legislation making it illegal to have an abortion.


Historically, the threat of public shaming (and irregular public shamings) have been used to coerce individuals, particularily woman, into conforming to church teachings. I was suggesting that if abortion in Ireland was legal, the Catholic Community could enforce its moral values through this means, as opposed to through state force, or the threat of state force.

Of course, I agree that shaming woman after abortions is redundant, not to mention a host of other negative descriptors.


No, it's not. Or it's not in Ireland, at least.

In Ireland a woman can only access abortion if the pregnancy poses a risk to her life. I can get up the relevant legislation if you want.


Which I refuted, and you forgot (?) to respond to.


I've had my perspective change over the last 12 months or so, so.


The Catholic Community lobby to stop woman accessing abortion, and thus lobby to stop woman accessing their base rights.

In supporting the criminalisation of an act, you're playing your hand in taking a 'decision to decide what people do.'


Currently, Irish woman are denied this right, and the influential Catholic Community lobby has played a large role in this.

Also again, for extra clarity, I'm not asking you to support woman having abortions, but rather to support woman having the right to access abortion. That's what the pro-choice position is about: it's possible to be anti-abortion, but pro-choice.


Define: 'input', and expand on the 'degree' desired.

I don't support men holding control over woman's bodies.


So, is it then ethical to murder an eight year old boy or girl?


Just because your opinion is unpopular going in doesn't mean you can't 'win'. Just present a substantial argument, and be prepared to defend it: if it makes sense then people will (hopefully - there is exceptions) recognize such regardless of their current opinion. I've argued lots of unpopular positions here: radical-feminism, soviet apologism, communism and left-anarchism and anti-capatalism-in-general, and have never been put off by their original unpopularity. It shouldn't matter what the position is, but rather the argument.

Hello, pet, maybe I can help your mind again to point out where you are attacking this individual. One, the Catholic Church is not one person so when you criticize it you are criticizing billions. Two, his holding an opinion against abortion does not stop a woman from walking into the abortion clinic. Three, did he say he goes to clinics and publically shames? I haven't seen it anywhere nor have I seen him pounce on you. No, you are asking him to change. You cannot force anyone to change. You've no more power here than an anonymous speaker. No, pro-choice seems to be, support us or face vitriol.

[Vlerchan]

Sigh.

Hello, pet[1], maybe I can help your mind again to point out where you are attacking this individual[2]. One, the Catholic Church is not one person[3] so when you criticize it you are criticizing billions[4]. Two, his holding an opinion against abortion does not stop a woman from walking into the abortion clinic[5]. Three, did he say he goes to clinics and publically shames?[6] I haven't seen it anywhere nor have I seen him pounce on you[7]. No, you are asking him to change[8]. You cannot force anyone to change[9]. You've no more power here than an anonymous speaker[10]. No, pro-choice seems to be, support us or face vitriol[11].
[1]: Hi c:

[2]: That'd be great. As usual, feel free to quote the relevant.

[3]: I never said it was. It's an organisation.

[4]: No, I'm not. You're mixing up the organisation with the religion. There's also not 'billions' of Catholic adherents.

[5]: Yes, it does. We don't have abortion legislated for in Ireland because people like him got together and opposed it. I explained this last night.

[6]: Please quote where I said he did. Thanks.

[7]: Fantastic. Quote the relevant here, too.

[8]: I'm debating in a debate subforum. Is that problematic?

[9]: I'm aware of that. And that is why I'm trying to convince him through debate.

[10]: Cool.

[11]: Would you mind quoting the more virulent portions of my last post? Thanks.

If I can be honest for a moment, Lovelife, I'm starting to get sick of these irrelevant diversions. I'm aware that you've a problem with me, or whatever, so there's no need for these daily reminders. It's only distracting from the topic, especially when you don't even seem to read what I actually post.

[Lovelife090994]

Sigh.


[1]: Hi c:

[2]: That'd be great. As usual, feel free to quote the relevant.

[3]: I never said it was. It's an organisation.

[4]: No, I'm not. You're mixing up the organisation with the religion. There's also not 'billions' of Catholic adherents.

[5]: Yes, it does. We don't have abortion legislated for in Ireland because people like him got together and opposed it. I explained this last night.

[6]: Please quote where I said he did. Thanks.

[7]: Fantastic. Quote the relevant here, too.

[8]: I'm debating in a debate subforum. Is that problematic?

[9]: I'm aware of that. And that is why I'm trying to convince him through debate.

[10]: Cool.

[11]: Would you mind quoting the more virulent portions of my last post? Thanks.

If I can be honest for a moment, Lovelife, I'm starting to get sick of these irrelevant diversions. I'm aware that you've a problem with me, or whatever, so there's no need for these daily reminders. It's only distracting from the topic, especially when you don't even seem to read what I actually post.

I have a problem with the fact that you and others are trying to change someone. I can't have that now can I? And just so know, this may be my alter-ego talking.

[Capto]

"A fetus is not alive."

Wow, I didn't really biology was spurned and ridiculed to this extent. I thought people had some respect for science. A sad state this world is in.

A fetus is technically self-sustaining given that its mitochondria indeed undergo respiration/fermentation and that its component cells indeed attempt to maintain homeostasis. Anabolic and catabolic [as aforementioned] processes clearly take place within the fetus itself. The fetus solely takes nutrients, antibodies, thermal energy, and water from the mother. Hell, it has a closed circulatory system distinct from and separate from the mother's.

Oh and wow! A fetus isn't human? Perhaps we should create a distinct subspecies, or maybe even a distinct species?

Oh right, I forgot, fetuses aren't alive. Thus they can't be classified under Linnaean binomial nomenclature, huh.

Wow, dumb me.

[Miserabilia]

So, is it then ethical to murder an eight year old boy or girl?


No, they can actualy reproduce, I mean not yet, but they have genitalia and they are just not activiated with the right hormones; even though their brains can produce those hormones.
See what I mean?
It's not just that a feutus doesn't do these things, it can't, it still relies on the mother.

"A fetus is not alive."

Wow, I didn't really biology was spurned and ridiculed to this extent. I thought people had some respect for science. A sad state this world is in.

A fetus is technically self-sustaining given that its mitochondria indeed undergo respiration/fermentation and that its component cells indeed attempt to maintain homeostasis. Anabolic and catabolic [as aforementioned] processes clearly take place within the fetus itself. The fetus solely takes nutrients, antibodies, thermal energy, and water from the mother. Hell, it has a closed circulatory system distinct from and separate from the mother's.

Oh and wow! A fetus isn't human? Perhaps we should create a distinct subspecies, or maybe even a distinct species?

Oh right, I forgot, fetuses aren't alive. Thus they can't be classified under Linnaean binomial nomenclature, huh.

Wow, dumb me.

Let me ask you something;
if you remove a feutus from the womb and place it in the outside world, could it possibly survive?
Could it possibly survive without help from the mother or any simulation of that?

[Capto]

Let me ask you something;
if you remove a feutus from the womb and place it in the outside world, could it possibly survive?
Could it possibly survive without help from the mother or any simulation of that?

Of course not.

That doesn't modify its status of being alive.

By your incredibly flawed reasoning, any parasite and members of several other symbiotic relationships would be considered nonliving as well.

[Miserabilia]

Of course not.

That doesn't modify its status of being alive.

By your incredibly flawed reasoning, any parasite and members of several other symbiotic relationships would be considered nonliving as well.

No, but they aren't human.
I'm trying to say a feutus is not a living human being.
A living human being can support itself.
Not to mention this is just my view on it but there isn't even a solid answer to the question of when a feutus is considered alive, so no I don't even think I'm right on this, I thought so earlier but I was wrong in thinking that was the truth, because it's just a vague area.

[Babs]

Why i'm pro-choice:
1) Because women, whether the sex was consensual or not, have the right to their own bodies. and what women do with THEIR OWN BODIES should not be decided by a bunch of men, by which I mean the government. Whatever their reason for an abortion is (they can't afford to keep a child, probably can't find people to adopt it, or just don't want to/can't afford to go through childbirth, etc.) they have a right to an abortion so I want none of that "only if it's rape" bullshit. It's their body, so do me a kindness and stifle.
2) It doesnt actually hurt the fetus. Contrary to what many pro-life people say, a fetus does not feel pain or sadness when it's aborted. it doesn't know it's being aborted. it doesn't "scream out". these are scientific facts. A lot pro-life people will say "people are pronounced dead when the heart stops. why aren't they pronounced alive when the heart starts?" when in reality people are pronounced dead when all brain activity stops. otherwise why would people bother trying to restart the heart. Regular brain activity does not happen until well past the deadline for a legal abortion, so they wouldn't be "pronounced alive" when the heart starts.
No, the fetus (at this point it isnt a baby) doesn't have any hopes or dreams or joy. It's utterly insane that a fetus, without any sort of consciousness, is given the right over a living, breathing woman.
3) I don't want to be associated with the pro-life movement. I understand it's not every prolifer who does this but it's enough for me to not want association with it. they harass and shame women outside of abortion clinics (it's illegal to do so btw) because a woman made a choice to protect her own body. They have spread so many lies (saying it screams out or it's sad, or even saying a picture of a cat fetus was a human fetus for some unknown reason) and do pointless bullshit that's supposed to make an impact but failed miserably. Instead of pointless protests that no one gives a fuck about, why not give the time and resources put into said protests and give it to broke, single mothers, who are in a situation that people get abortions simply to avoid? theyre in need but instead you lay on the floor with a red sheet over your body. ok. cool.
if you personally would never get an abortion under any circumstances, that's fine by me. just stop policing women's bodies. that's why it's called pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.

[Vlerchan]

and what women do with THEIR OWN BODIES should not be decided by a bunch of men, by which I mean the government.
The government is elected by a roughly equal proportion of men and woman. It's on their mandate that access to abortion is restricted.

Though I agree with the general message here: woman should have control over their own bodies and governments are either male-dominated or demonstrated by 'male' personalities (- I'd actually go as far to say that governments are inherently masculine constructs but that's another discussion.)

[Capto]

No, but they aren't human.
I'm trying to say a feutus is not a living human being.
A living human being can support itself.
Not to mention this is just my view on it but there isn't even a solid answer to the question of when a feutus is considered alive, so no I don't even think I'm right on this, I thought so earlier but I was wrong in thinking that was the truth, because it's just a vague area.

No.

A fetus is generally established by the scientific community from its inception as a combination between the first sperm and the egg to be a distinct member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

To say otherwise is simply sheer stupidity.

There's basic biology involved here, not much else.

Besides, a fetus can, given the correct situation, support itself. It has the facilities to carry out all the necessary processes of life in favorable circumstances. This is quite obviously distinct from being unable to support itself.

[Miserabilia]

No.

A fetus is generally established by the scientific community from its inception as a combination between the first sperm and the egg to be a distinct member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

To say otherwise is simply sheer stupidity.

There's basic biology involved here, not much else.

Besides, a fetus can, given the correct situation, support itself. It has the facilities to carry out all the necessary processes of life in favorable circumstances. This is quite obviously distinct from being unable to support itself.

Sorry, I meant living human being with emphasis on living, not that they aren't human because ofcourse they are with human dna etc.

I don't quite aggree that it can support itself, it can't eat for example.

Though I was completely wrong for saying they definetly aren't alive earlier.
I take that all back, but there's not a clear guideline for when a feutus exactly is concidered alive.
I'd be happy if you provided one and I'd adjust to it.
I've only kind of looked at it one way, but after doing some more research on when exactly a feutus is alive and when not,
I'm not quite sure.

[Gamma Male]

What does it matter whether a fetus is "alive" or not? That whole debate's pointless. What matters is if they're sentient, which they aren't.

[Capto]

Sorry, I meant living human being with emphasis on living, not that they aren't human because ofcourse they are with human dna etc.

I don't quite aggree that it can support itself, it can't eat for example.

Though I was completely wrong for saying they definetly aren't alive earlier.
I take that all back, but there's not a clear guideline for when a feutus exactly is concidered alive.
I'd be happy if you provided one and I'd adjust to it.
I've only kind of looked at it one way, but after doing some more research on when exactly a feutus is alive and when not,
I'm not quite sure.

Except there is a clear guideline. A fetus is alive because it operates with processes of life and under the guidelines of life.

Fetuses and their predecessors eat. They take in nutrients for the express purpose of producing energy.

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. The zygote is alive. After cleavage, the morula, then the blastula, then the gastrula is alive. Then the fetus is alive. It is a living being by all definitions of the term. Provided that certain external circumstances are fulfilled, it has the full capability to fulfill all basic functions that comprise life. Thus, it is alive.

What does it matter whether a fetus is "alive" or not? That whole debate's pointless. What matters is if they're sentient, which they aren't.

A fetus is sentient.

What matters isn't that, which is generally irrelevant, but instead general viability of the organism.

[Miserabilia]

What does it matter whether a fetus is "alive" or not? That whole debate's pointless. What matters is if they're sentient, which they aren't.

Haha, true, but we kind of got off track because of the whole "killing babies" statement.

[Capto]

Haha, true, but we kind of got off track because of the whole "killing babies" statement.

What do babies have to do with fetuses given a specific developmental time frame.

[Miserabilia]

What do babies have to do with fetuses given a specific developmental time frame.

Not sure what you mean.

[Capto]

Not sure what you mean.

I mean what I asked.

[Miserabilia]

I mean what I asked.

And I didn't understand your question because I'm dumb.

What do babies have to do with fetuses given a specific developmental time frame.

What do they have to do with fetuses?
That's not very specific, I still don't see what you mean.

[Music Lover]

It doesn't possess the characteristics necessary for me to consider it a full.human.

So, what charasteristics do you need to think someone is a full human? Please inform me, as I want to understand on what principles you stand :)


A feutus can do nothing independedly, it is not alive.


It CAN move independently. It is very weird to me that you keep onto this statement even though you know that its mother does not control its movements.


No, because they as a human should be able to do all life functions; if they can't than they personaly are still human, and humans that are not dead are by definition alive; a feutus however can never do something independetly.

Is a foetus dead? Is a foetus of the species homo sapiens?


So, you understand the harmful psychological effects that come with disallowing woman abortions, but still support disallowing woman abortions?


I don't fully understand them and what they are. That would be hard as I ave not heard detailed stories about someone who's experienced it or known anyone who's experienced it. Although I do acknowledge it may be a really trying experience.
And to answer the second part of your question, although it wasn't directed at me: Yes.

Another question for you:
Do you understand the harmful psychological effects that come with undergoing abortion? If so, do you still support allowing abortions?


So, is it then ethical to murder an eight year old boy or girl?

It's not murder if they are not human :rolleyes:

What does it matter whether a fetus is "alive" or not? That whole debate's pointless. What matters is if they're sentient, which they aren't.

How do you measure or determine a foetus's sentience?

And a coma patient is insentient too, right? If you are consistent with your logic I assume you are also for euthanasia of coma patients?

[Miserabilia]

It CAN move independently. It is very weird to me that you keep onto this statement even though you know that its mother does not control its movements.


It can only move in the exact right circumstance where it is being kept alive; that's not really independent.
A feutus on it's own, out in the open, can't do anything because it simply will not live.



And a coma patient is insentient too, right? If you are consistent with your logic I assume you are also for euthanasia of coma patients?

There is a very simple reason that argument doesn't work.
For example; I can say that human beings have two legs.
"So are you saying people without legs aren't human?!?!"
No, I am saying humans in general, have two legs.
Just like I can say that a human being is first a baby then a toddler, etc.
People without legs, are an exception;
just like people with anything diferent than the "ideal" human are exceptions;
like coma patients.
ALL humans, however, were once feutuses,
and feutuses in general are not sentient,
so they can not feel pain or anything at all which supports his argument.
"So are yous saying coma patients should be euthanized because they are not sentient?"
No, because come patients are humans and theycan be sentient; they might wake up one day,
and what coma patients actualy experience during a coma is not even sure yet,
they may have dreams or whatever.

[Vlerchan]

So, what charasteristics do you need to think someone is a full human? Please inform me, as I want to understand on what principles you stand :)
Awareness.

Though in terms of the abortion debate I've already made it clear that I'm in favour of woman terminating their pregnancies irrespective of the foetus' level of development.

Do you understand the harmful psychological effects that come with undergoing abortion? If so, do you still support allowing abortions?
Yes.

Woman are volunteering to undergo an abortion. This is obviously not the case with pregnancy if it's only the threat of state-force that keeps them from getting an abortion.

It's not murder if they are not human :rolleyes:
I never said that.

Murder is a legal term. If a 'thing' - human, foetus, animal, etc. - is not protected from being killed under the law then 'murder' is not a term applicable to their killing.

[Music Lover]

A feutus on it's own, out in the open, can't do anything because it simply will not live.

This also applies to a 2-month old baby.


There is a very simple reason that argument doesn't work.
For example; I can say that human beings have two legs.
"So are you saying people without legs aren't human?!?!"
No, I am saying humans in general, have two legs.
Just like I can say that a human being is first a baby then a toddler, etc.
People without legs, are an exception;
just like people with anything diferent than the "ideal" human are exceptions;
like coma patients.
ALL humans, however, were once feutuses,
and feutuses in general are not sentient,
so they can not feel pain or anything at all which supports his argument.
"So are yous saying coma patients should be euthanized because they are not sentient?"
No, because come patients are humans and theycan be sentient; they might wake up one day,
and what coma patients actualy experience during a coma is not even sure yet,
they may have dreams or whatever.

Currently all I've seen from you is rules with LOADS of exceptions. I'd like to know from what principles and basic rules you make your exceptions. What is the foundational truth you base your opinions on?

Example:
Anything that is not dead and is a human is alive. By logic fetuses are alive then, because they are not dead and they are human. Yet you make an exception on it.
On what grounds do you make the exception(s) that you make? I suspect you yourself don't know either, but I'd like to be proven wrong.

Awareness.

Please do your best to define this. Is it the same as sentience? Or different? How much and in what ways?
How do you measure or determine awareness?

Though in terms of the abortion debate I've already made it clear that I'm in favour of woman terminating their pregnancies irrespective of the foetus' level of development.
So abortion a day before the expected date of birth should in your opinion be allowed, but after a day (sopposing the baby is born on the expected day) a magical threshold is broken?
Does the baby become aware at birth or is there something else that contributes to your stance?


Woman are volunteering to undergo an abortion. This is obviously not the case with pregnancy if it's only the threat of state-force that keeps them from getting an abortion.

Ok so your basic idea is that people should be able to make bad decisions, and it is not justified to restrict a behaviour if the negative consequences only affect them and consenting individuals?


I never said that.

Murder is a legal term. If a 'thing' - human, foetus, animal, etc. - is not protected from being killed under the law then 'murder' is not a term applicable to their killing.

Sarcasm alert ;)

But on a more sincere note:
Where do you think our right to life comes from?

[Vlerchan]

Please do your best to define this. Is it the same as sentience? Or different? How much and in what ways?
How do you measure or determine awareness?
Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness


So abortion a day before the expected date of birth should in your opinion be allowed[1], but after a day (sopposing the baby is born on the expected day) a magical threshold is broken?[2]
[1]: If it's possible to safely extract the foetus then I wouldn't see the point. If such is not possible then - whilst I wouldn't support such a late-term abortion - then the woman should be allow to chose to abort.

[2]: Yes. It's unwanted existence no longer breaches the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Does the baby become aware at birth or is there something else that contributes to your stance?
As far as I'm aware, awareness comes at about 30 weeks-ish.

Ok so your basic idea is that people should be able to make bad decisions, and it is not justified to restrict a behaviour if the negative consequences only affect them and consenting individuals?
In a social-sense. I believe that people should have the right to freedom of speech, expression and person.

In an economic sense I get somewhat more restrictive.

Where do you think our right to life comes from?
It comes from an agreement amongst the populations of a certain territory that the right to life exists (or should exist) and a further agreement that they will actively seek to uphold it, through violent force or otherwise.

[Music Lover]

[indent]Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.


Is it in any circumstances possible for awareness to exist without it being observable by an outsider?

[1]: If it's possible to safely extract the foetus then I wouldn't see the point. If such is not possible then - whilst I wouldn't support such a late-term abortion - then the woman should be allow to chose to abort.

Ok you do not see the point but do you think the pregnant woman should be able to make the desicion even if you do not see the point (or if there is any point altogether)


[2]: Yes. It's unwanted existence no longer breaches the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Please explain to me your current understanding of that right in regards to what it encompasses and more importantly on what basis it exists :)


As far as I'm aware, awareness comes at about 30 weeks-ish.

On what premises?


In a social-sense. I believe that people should have the right to freedom of speech, expression and person.
In an economic sense I get somewhat more restrictive.

I do not totally follow you. Can you please specify with some examples :)


It comes from an agreement amongst the populations of a certain territory that the right to life exists (or should exist) and a further agreement that they will actively seek to uphold it, through violent force or otherwise.

So do you believe rights are granted by community?

[Vlerchan]

Is it in any circumstances possible for awareness to exist without it being observable by an outsider?
Perhaps.

I don't actually know. I can look into it later if you want.

Ok you do not see the point but do you think the pregnant woman should be able to make the desicion even if you do not see the point (or if there is any point altogether)
Yes.

Please explain to me your current understanding of that right in regards to what it encompasses
It's defined thus in the South African Constitution:

Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right

to make decisions concerning reproduction;
to security in and control over their body; and
not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

I'd personally define it as one's right to self-determination in regards to matter's concerning that of the body.

... and more importantly on what basis it exists.

[2] It exists because we agree it exists and go to lengths to ensure it's upholding. I wrote this in regards to laws before but it's applicable to rights:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

Replace 'law' with 'right'.

On what premises?
I don't understand what you are asking here.

Awareness, in the sense defined by the wikipedia definition I offered, is what I'm referring to.

I do not totally follow you. Can you please specify with some examples :)
In regards to individuals lives I'm not in favour of intervening unless the matter is:

Economic in nature.
Or I am intending to uphold some pre-defined right such as freedom of speech, expression, or person.

I'm in favour of - when it concerns consenting adults (defined 18+):

Allowing individuals to engage in open criticism of their governments (derived from freedom of speech rights).
Allowing individuals to engage in hate-speech (derived from freedom of speech rights).
Allowing individuals to wear wear swastika arm-bands (derived from freedom of expression rights).
Allowing individuals to get discriminatory tattoos (derived from freedom of expression rights)
Allowing individuals to use drugs.
Allowing individuals to engage in gay orgies with hired-prostitutes (derived from freedom of person rights).

However when it concerns matters economic in nature I support restricting individual freedom. Like:

Disallowing individuals to sell their services at a rate of that below the minimum wage.
Disallowing individuals to dump surplus product into Irish borders at cheap rates and thus undermine Irish industry.

This is because I believe that political-freedoms are pointless without a certain degree economic power and thus am prepared to restrict the rights of others when it concerns matters that are economic in nature in so that I can allow individuals to hold this certain degree of economic power and access their political freedoms.

So do you believe rights are granted by community?
Yes. Rights are a resultant of communal agreement.

There's no such thing as a 'natural right'.

[Music Lover]

Perhaps.

I don't actually know. I can look into it later if you want.


Ok report back when you know :)


Yes.

Gotcha



It's defined thus in the South African Constitution:

Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right

to make decisions concerning reproduction;
to security in and control over their body; and
not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

I'd personally define it as one's right to self-determination in regards to matter's concerning that of the body.


Understood.

I don't understand what you are asking here.

Awareness, in the sense defined by the wikipedia definition I offered, is what I'm referring to.

I was just asking how do you determine that awareness starts at 30 weeks.


In regards to individuals lives I'm not in favour of intervening unless the matter is:

Economic in nature.
Or I am intending to uphold some pre-defined right such as freedom of speech, expression, or person.

I'm in favour of - when it concerns consenting adults (defined 18+):

Allowing individuals to engage in open criticism of their governments (derived from freedom of speech rights).
Allowing individuals to engage in hate-speech (derived from freedom of speech rights).
Allowing individuals to wear wear swastika arm-bands (derived from freedom of expression rights).
Allowing individuals to get discriminatory tattoos (derived from freedom of expression rights)
Allowing individuals to use drugs.
Allowing individuals to engage in gay orgies with hired-prostitutes (derived from freedom of person rights).

However when it concerns matters economic in nature I support restricting individual freedom. Like:

Disallowing individuals to sell their services at a rate of that below the minimum wage.
Disallowing individuals to dump surplus product into Irish borders at cheap rates and thus undermine Irish industry.

This is because I believe that political-freedoms are pointless without a certain degree economic power and thus am prepared to restrict the rights of others when it concerns matters that are economic in nature in so that I can allow individuals to hold this certain degree of economic power and access their political freedoms.


Gotcha, won't ask for more details because that would start to go off topic pretty fast :)


[2] It exists because we agree it exists and go to lengths to ensure it's upholding. I wrote this in regards to laws before but it's applicable to rights:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

Replace 'law' with 'right'.

..........

Yes. Rights are a resultant of communal agreement.

There's no such thing as a 'natural right'.

I don't see such a view on rights being at all solid.

If rights are reduced to the level where community can grant or refuse them, and there are no natural rights, then community can decide horrific things.
It means during World War 2, the Nazis didn't infringe on Jews' rights, because the community had asserted that they didn't have any rights.

Think about that for a moment. There are Probably many other real examples out there. And various hypothetical scenarios can show to any sane human being how such a viewpoint is WRONG on so many levels.

[Vlerchan]

I was just asking how do you determine that awareness starts at 30 weeks.
I don't actually know how it was determined.

I just know that it has been determined to begin at about 30 weeks.

I don't see such a view on rights being at all solid.
How do you view rights?

More importantly, where are they derived from?

If rights are reduced to the level where community can grant or refuse them, and there are no natural rights, then community can decide horrific things.
Yes. I agree. That doesn't mean that your rights objectively exist though.

However, I'm willing to bet that your support the retraction of at least some rights (if not on the gross scale the Nazi government did it): a murderers right to free-movement (freedom of body), a childs right to purchase and snort cocaine (freedom of speech and freedom of body), etc. If not them, I'm sure you yourself can get imaginative and decide on some restrictions to individuals rights.

Think about that for a moment. There are Probably many other real examples out there. And various hypothetical scenarios can show to any sane human being how such a viewpoint is WRONG on so many levels.
You didn't explain how it's wrong.

You just brought up an example of one group of individuals not having their right to life respected/enforced on an institutionalised scale and decided that since you found it a disturbing reality then my logic must be wrong.

[Music Lover]

I don't actually know how it was determined.

I just know that it has been determined to begin at about 30 weeks.


Ok.

How do you view rights?
Rights are something that is fundamental, they exist whether they are upheld or not, or respected. (I.e. ways of violating rights.)
I also view that there are much less human rights than the UN standards specify. For example free education is not a right, but it is a privilege.

So there are a few rights that are fundamental, i.e. natural that are still there whether a party recognises it or not.

I am currently not sure which all are on the list, but life is definitely there.


More importantly, where are they derived from?


For me the basis is that we are created by God in His image with these rights.

And I also acknowledge that the same foundational rights can be found even if the person does not believe in God. They are still there and can be discovered.


Yes. I agree. That doesn't mean that your rights objectively exist though.

However, I'm willing to bet that your support the retraction of at least some rights (if not on the gross scale the Nazi government did it): a murderers right to free-movement (freedom of body), a childs right to purchase and snort cocaine (freedom of speech and freedom of body), etc. If not them, I'm sure you yourself can get imaginative and decide on some restrictions to individuals rights.
Why can my rights not objectively exist?

And on your second point, yes I do support retraction. This is because some rights override others. And violation of the rights of others cannot go unanswered.
This question though, reaches my limits on my understanding, but I'll try to explore these scenarios and point out exactly what fundamental truths apply.

The murderer:
The murderer has violated others' right to life. I am not wise enough to know what would be the best thing to do as a punishment. But I do know that it is just to punish someone who has violated the right of others.

The cocaine child:
The obligation of the parents to love their child overrides the right to freedom the child has, if that endangers more important freedoms of the child, like life.



You didn't explain how it's wrong.

You just brought up an example of one group of individuals not having their right to life respected/enforced on an institutionalised scale and decided that since you found it a disturbing reality then my logic must be wrong.

the logic you used is wrong, because if carried out, it means THEY DIDN'T HAVE a right to life, because community had taken it away from them. It didn't exist. There were no rights. That means there was NO WRONG done.

Now, I know you do not actually think that way, but the idea you claimed to believe in is just that. You do not believe so because you just said a community can violate the right to life. Previously you said community can grant rights.

I ask to you: How did Jews have a right to life if the community they lived in didn't grant it to them?

_____________________________________


And let's apply this all back to abortion.

There have been MANY MANY MANY MANY different views here on what are the premises for an abortion being OK. :)
Some people claim sentience, some awareness, some self-sufficiency.
Yet every time I am presented with a principle and I try and apply to any other situation, I find the other party has to make an exception. So much, in fact, that I am starting to wonder, whether the exception is not the other situations, but abortion.

I personally am convinced that humans have a natural, foundational right to life and we are not allowed to infringe upon it. I also view that the only moment of time life can be seen as starting by any measure of good reason is conception. I don't see any other reasonable alternative.

[Vlerchan]

Rights are something that is fundamental, they exist whether they are upheld or not, or respected. (I.e. ways of violating rights.)
They might exist in your mind. But in an objective sense unless a right is being upheld by a community then the right does not exist within that community.

And I also acknowledge that the same foundational rights can be found even if the person does not believe in God. They are still there and can be discovered.
Would you mind directing me to as where these rights can be found or discovered?

Why can my rights not objectively exist?
They can. But only if they are being actively enforced.

And on your second point, yes I do support retraction.
So, because you (let's pretend you = community here) decided that the murderer or childs rights didn't exist, they ceased to exist? Am I reading this right?

The obligation of the parents to love their child overrides the right to freedom the child has, if that endangers more important freedoms of the child, like life.
Where does this obligation come from?

Does this mean there is never a case where a parent doesn't love their child?

the logic you used is wrong, because if carried out, it means THEY DIDN'T HAVE a right to life[1], because community had taken it away from them[2]. It didn't exist. There were no rights. That means there was NO WRONG done[3].
[1]: Yes. I don't see how such a conclusion might be seen as illogical.

[2]:The community stopped recognising it and consequently stopped enforcing it and thus it ceased to exist.

[3]: I personally believe that there was wrong done irregardless of whether rights were infringed upon or not. The legality of the act is irrelevant to my perception of the morality of a certain act. Something being legal doesn't necessarily make it moral, as this argument implies.

Now, I know you do not actually think that way, but the idea you claimed to believe in is just that. You do not believe so because you just said a community can violate the right to life[4]. Previously you said community can grant rights[5].
[4]: In this case the right didn't exist because the community as a whole stopped recognising it and thus stopped enforcing it.

[5]: I said that it is only on the agreement within a community that a right exists, and further common agreement within the same community to enforce this rights, that a right comes into existence.

I ask to you: How did Jews have a right to life if the community they lived in didn't grant it to them?
They didn't.

Disclaimer: this doesn't mean I support what happened.

I personally am convinced that humans have a natural, foundational right to life and we are not allowed to infringe upon it. I also view that the only moment of time life can be seen as starting by any measure of good reason is conception. I don't see any other reasonable alternative.
In your opinion, what characteristics as held by life-at-conception make such life comparable to a full human being?

[Music Lover]

They might exist in your mind. But in an objective sense unless a right is being upheld by a community then the right does not exist within that community.

Well you know my position.

Would you mind directing me to as where these rights can be found or discovered?

You said you didn't think killing Jews was right or that you agreed with it. If there were no rights violated, what made the act(s) wrong?


They can. But only if they are being actively enforced.

Okay.

So, because you (let's pretend you = community here) decided that the murderer or childs rights didn't exist, they ceased to exist? Am I reading this right?

No they don't cease to exist. But some rights are more important than others, and such if two rights are in conflict, the more important one can override the other IN THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. :)


Where does this obligation come from?

The idea of parenthood, which comes from natural law.


Does this mean there is never a case where a parent doesn't love their child?

No. It means they SHOULD love their child. Whether they do or do not is a different question.

[1]: Yes. I don't see how such a conclusion might be seen as illogical.

I didn't say it was illogical. I stated it was wrong. Morally.
If rights are taken away, it justifies doing wrong. If there are no natural rights, what dictates what is wrong and what is right?


[2]:The community stopped recognising it and consequently stopped enforcing it and thus it ceased to exist.

Understood.

[3]: I personally believe that there was wrong done irregardless of whether rights were infringed upon or not. The legality of the act is irrelevant to my perception of the morality of a certain act. Something being legal doesn't necessarily make it moral, as this argument implies.

So what then is the basis for deciding the morality of an act? What is it that makes practically every human, when asked if it is okay to kill an innocent human being, to answer negatively?

In your opinion, what characteristics as held by life-at-conception make such life comparable to a full human being?

Humanity. Being human and being alive. Being created in God's image.
It is not a part of the woman's body at any stage. The woman has a right to her own body, but she cannot ethically decide upon the taking of another's life.

[Aajj333]

I believe in abortion. Why: there is a lot of evidence to suggest it exists.

[Miserabilia]

Currently all I've seen from you is rules with LOADS of exceptions. I'd like to know from what principles and basic rules you make your exceptions. What is the foundational truth you base your opinions on?

Example:
Anything that is not dead and is a human is alive. By logic fetuses are alive then, because they are not dead and they are human. Yet you make an exception on it.
On what grounds do you make the exception(s) that you make? I suspect you yourself don't know either, but I'd like to be proven wrong.



Anything that is not dead and is a human is alive.

No, any organism that shows signs of living is alive.
But for this example let's take the definition you just said.

By logic fetuses are alive then, because they are not dead and they are human.

yes, they are by the definition you just gave.

Yet you make an exception on it.

What???
No, I'm not making an exception on the example you just made up.
That's not even close to the definition of alive I am following.

On what grounds do you make the exception(s) that you make? I suspect you yourself don't know either, but I'd like to be proven wrong.

Did you read my post? Like at all?
Anything that does not follow the ideal definition of a human is an exception;
ofcourse there's no such thing as a perfect human being.
Everyone has a flaw.
Like I said;
homo sapiens walk upright on two legs and have large skulls to hold their large brains, they have functioning eyes and ears and can feel and taste.
Does that mean that people in wheelchairs, or blind and deaf people aren't human?
No. They are human, but they are an exception because they have a flaw in one of those areas; they are still human.



It is not a part of the woman's body at any stage. The woman has a right to her own body, but she cannot ethically decide upon the taking of another's life.

So a woman's own egg cells aren't even a part of her own body according to you?

[Vlerchan]

You said you didn't think killing Jews was right or that you agreed with it[1]. If there were no rights violated, what made the act(s) wrong?[2]
[1]: No, I said that once the Jews right to life stopped being recognised and consequently enforced by their community, their right to life ceased exist.

[2]: What in your opinion makes killing wrong? I also disagree with the idea that if it is legal then it is morally correct - it's just nonsensical.

No they don't cease to exist. But some rights are more important than others, and such if two rights are in conflict, the more important one can override the other IN THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.
Please explain how they are in conflict.

You are retracting her right to free movement after she infringed on someone's right to life. There's no conflict of interest there.

The idea of parenthood, which comes from natural law.
Natural Law - like Natural Rights - is another thing I consider to be socially constructed. Where does this Natural Law find itself coming from?

Would you also mind linking me to a page that discusses this Natural Law though? I'm interested.

I didn't say it was illogical[3]. I stated it was wrong. Morally[4]. If rights are taken away, it justifies doing wrong.[5] If there are no natural rights, what dictates what is wrong and what is right?[6]
[3]: You said: "the logic you used is wrong".

[4]: Morality is another social-construct. There's no such thing as an objective right or wrong - which is why cultural practices (eg: promiscuity, extra-martial sex etc.) differ from culture to culture and period to period.

[5]: Perhaps to the people who have taken the rights away. It doesn't necessarily infer such for those existing outside such a context.

[6]: There's entire schools of thought dedicated to discussing this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)

So what then is the basis for deciding the morality of an act?[7] What is it that makes practically every human, when asked if it is okay to kill an innocent human being, to answer negatively?[8]
[7]: Lots of different people have given lots of different answers to this. There's no correct or incorrect answer at that. I personally like Consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) though I don't have much of an interest in ethics.

[8]: Most human's grew up in societies which enforced the idea that killing was wrong and due to this socialisation grow up to believe that killing is wrong.

Humanity[10]. Being human and being alive. Being created in God's image[9]. It is not a part of the woman's body at any stage[10]. The woman has a right to her own body, but she cannot ethically decide upon the taking of another's life[12].
[10] Define: "humanity".

[11]: Yes, it is. It's a part of her body the entire pregnancy, she sustains it.

[12]: Why in your opinion should the foetus be allowed to contravene the woman's right to bodily autonomy?

[Faolan]

I agree with Hillary Clinton in that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." If it's illegal, women are still going to attempt it, but in dangerous situations that could quite possibly kill them.

[Sir Suomi]

I don't really agree with it, and if at all possible, I would discourage it. However, it is a woman's choice, and it's her right to do what she pleases. However, I'd prefer it be within 20 weeks of conceiving, and a woman after her second abortion should have tubal ligation performed on her, because honestly after the second she's clearly not using protection on purpose, and is simply using abortion as a scapegoat. However, this rule would be negated in terms of rape and possible health issues that would come with the birth of the child for the mother.

[Music Lover]

[1]: No, I said that once the Jews right to life stopped being recognised and consequently enforced by their community, their right to life ceased exist.

Ok because i was a bit confused by this:

You just brought up an example of one group of individuals not having their right to life respected/enforced on an institutionalised scale and decided that since you found it a disturbing reality then my logic must be wrong.

I got confused whether or not you thought their right to life existed or not. From that quote I thought you said their right to life existed but it wasn't enforced or respected. Because now you say if it isn't enforce it doesn't exist. Which is it. Please choose so that we are on the same page.



[2]: What in your opinion makes killing wrong? I also disagree with the idea that if it is legal then it is morally correct - it's just nonsensical.
I asked first, and in doing so I am trying to answer your previous question. Please answer :)

Oh and a quick trivial question:
You previously very much put law and rights in the same category. Is there to you a difference in law and rights?

Please explain how they are in conflict.


Let me take the most simple example I can think of.
The right to move freely and the right to own property and do what you want with it.
They would be in conflict if person A would want to move into person B's plot of land but person B doesn't want him to.

You are retracting her right to free movement after she infringed on someone's right to life. There's no conflict of interest there.

Yes there is. I believe the murderer would be very interested in moving freely. And community and whichever body of power decided upon her imprisonment is very interested in restricting that, because if the right were to not be restricted in her case, it would conflict the interest of others to not have their life endangered.

Tell me how there ISN'T a conflict of interests. Because I can see so many.

Natural Law - like Natural Rights - is another thing I consider to be socially constructed. Where does this Natural Law find itself coming from?

Answer this question: (After you do so, I will follow up with others)
Are there situations in life where a human being ought to do or should do something, but he is left with the decision of whether he WILL do so?

Would you also mind linking me to a page that discusses this Natural Law though? I'm interested.

On one hand, I would like to discuss in our own words and own understanding about these and from that I am inclined to say no and rather talk myself. But on the other hand, I know that I have not come up with these ideas by myself, but learned them from wiser men who have well articulated them to me.

I'm thinking why not both :P

So here is two resources for you.
First is the first 30 pages or so of C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity. The first 30 or so pages only talk about right and wrong and it is only after this that he starts specifically talking about Christianity.
(You can read the whole book, of course, if you want to. It is in my opinion a very clearly written book explaining Christianity. So if you're interested in understanding Christianity, you can read more than the first 30 pages. Your call.)

The second is this series of videos of Judge Napolitano talking.
http://connect.freedomworks.org/university/courses/331943
I don't remember where exactly he talks about natural law, but the whole thing is worth watching. There is quite a bit of good stuff on history and the U.S. constitution.
It's approximately 30 minutes total.

[3]: You said: "the logic you used is wrong".
Apologies for my bad wording. What I meant to communicate was that using your logic morally wrong things can be justified.

But as I see more into this, I am beginning to suspect we don't mean the same thing by the word rights.

[4]: Morality is another social-construct. There's no such thing as an objective right or wrong - which is why cultural practices (eg: promiscuity, extra-martial sex etc.) differ from culture to culture and period to period.

The evidence suggests that there is objective right and wrong. For example: As far as I know, every human community has agreed that humans should not, all other things being equal, kill another human being. And as far as I know, even if practices differ on extra-marital sex etc. differ between communities, in every community there is the idea of "don't sleep with my girl". Even if they are the most hypocritical in following that i.e. don't sleep with mine but i'll sleep with yours.

If moral relativism was truly viable, there would be much more fluctuation on morals on a much more foundational level.


[6]: There's entire schools of thought dedicated to discussing this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)

Which one are you part of then? Consequentialism?

[7]: Lots of different people have given lots of different answers to this. There's no correct or incorrect answer at that. I personally like Consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) though I don't have much of an interest in ethics.

Why do like it more than the others?

[8]: Most human's grew up in societies which enforced the idea that killing was wrong and due to this socialisation grow up to believe that killing is wrong.

Where do you think that idea is rooted in? How does a society as a whole get to believe killing is wrong?

[10] Define: "humanity".

Being human.

[11]: Yes, it is. It's a part of her body the entire pregnancy, she sustains it.

Being connected to her body and being a part of her body are two different things.
First of all: a fetus is recognised by the body of the mother as a separate body and tries to get rid of it with antibodies. The only reason a fetus survives is because it releases chemical substances which weaken the immune system within the uterus.
I think that clearly shows that the two are separate bodies. There are many other reasons why it is not the same body but that one is enough.

[12]: Why in your opinion should the foetus be allowed to contravene the woman's right to bodily autonomy?[/QUOTE]

Because it has a life. And that life should not be taken.
I.e. the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy, at least in this case.
Tell me why in your opinion should a woman be allowed to decide to take the life of her child?



________________________________________________________________________________ _____

No, any organism that shows signs of living is alive.
But for this example let's take the definition you just said.

Actually I was paraphrasing you:
and humans that are not dead are by definition alive;

yes, they are by the definition you just gave.


And you gave too. Or do you retract your statement "humans that are not dead are by definition alive"

What???
No, I'm not making an exception on the example you just made up.
That's not even close to the definition of alive I am following.

I did not make it up :)
Let's take the definition you proposed:
"any organism that shows signs of living is alive"
A fetus shows sign's of living, right? Even an embryo right after fertilisation shows signs of living at the cellular level.

Did you read my post? Like at all?
Anything that does not follow the ideal definition of a human is an exception;
ofcourse there's no such thing as a perfect human being.
Everyone has a flaw.
Like I said;
homo sapiens walk upright on two legs and have large skulls to hold their large brains, they have functioning eyes and ears and can feel and taste.
Does that mean that people in wheelchairs, or blind and deaf people aren't human?
No. They are human, but they are an exception because they have a flaw in one of those areas; they are still human.

What I meant is that you use rules to justify abortion, for example lack of sentience, but when applied to another situation you don't follow it in that case.
Another one you've mentioned during this thread is development, but I don't think you would advocate killing underdeveloped children once born.
And you've mentioned being able to survive on their own, but I don't think you advocate killing 2 month old babies.

What I'm trying to say is: Do you have a particular rule you follow when deciding whether you follow through with using the rule consistently or not, or is there some rule you haven't stated which you DO use consistently, but haven't told us about.

So a woman's own egg cells aren't even a part of her own body according to you?

I was talking about a fertilised egg cell. Which becomes a new human being. A womans unfertilised egg cells are part of her own body and she can do whatever she wants to them.
But once it is fertilised, it is not a part of her body anymore.

[Vlerchan]

I got confused whether or not you thought their right to life existed or not. From that quote I thought you said their right to life existed but it wasn't enforced or respected. Because now you say if it isn't enforce it doesn't exist. Which is it. Please choose so that we are on the same page.
I'm saying: "If it isn't enforced, it doesn't exist."

Here's what I wrote originally:

Laws/Rights exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws/rights within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law/right objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law/right. Independent of the community that the law/right is agreed upon and maintained the law/right itself does not exist, though this does exclude the idea behind the law/right from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law/right requires both belief and active maintenance.

You previously very much put law and rights in the same category. Is there to you a difference in law and rights?
No, both are social-constructs, and both exist on the same basis (belief and maintenance.)

Note: I'm talking about them in a philosophical sense, as opposed to a legal sense here.

Are there situations in life where a human being ought to do or should do something, but he is left with the decision of whether he WILL do so?
Yes.

Though, it's important to realise here that what 'ought' or what 'should' be done is only an opinion.

They would be in conflict if person A would want to move into person B's plot of land but person B doesn't want him to.
This doesn't answer the question I put forward.

And this is because society holds an individuals right to property-ownership over an individuals right to free-movement. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French anarchist, actually wrote a very interesting book (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm) on this subject, which I'd suggest people read if they can. It's quite insightful, even if I've found that I disagree with it a fair bit.

Yes there is. I believe the murderer would be very interested in moving freely[1]. And community and whichever body of power decided upon her imprisonment is very interested in restricting that, because if the right were to not be restricted in her case, it would conflict the interest of others to not have their life endangered[2].
[1]: After the murder. So, his rights still aren't in conflict with that of the now-dead.

[2]: You don't have the right not to have your life endangered. That would necessitate banning so many things.

[Natural Law]
Okay. Cool. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll try get through both of your sources at some stage. Thanks. c:

The evidence suggests that there is objective right and wrong.
There is no evidence.

There also can't be evidence, because omnisentience doesn't exist (that we can verify).

As far as I know, every human community has agreed that humans should not, all other things being equal, kill another human being.
This is untrue.

And as far as I know, even if practices differ on extra-marital sex etc. differ between communities, in every community there is the idea of "don't sleep with my girl".
This is also untrue.

If moral relativism was truly viable, there would be much more fluctuation on morals on a much more foundational level.
Well, no. If you can accept that some people have differing opinions on 'non-foundational ' issues, such as extra-martial sex, then I've no idea why you wouldn't extend this to people having differing opinions on more foundational issues. Though, you accepting that moral fluctuations exist on a non-foundational level means that you accept moral-relativism, because you're accepting that morals, even if you want to label them 'non-foundational', exist relative to the individual.

Which one are you part of then? Consequentialism?
I'm not really part of any. I've no interest in ethics great enough to justify locking myself into any single school.

Why do like it more than the others?
I don't know, really.

I suppose I just believe that sometimes bad needs to be done in order for good to come about, and that's inevitable.

Where do you think that idea is rooted in? How does a society as a whole get to believe killing is wrong?
I believe that it came to most people that killing is generally counterproductive and an inefficient means of dealing with problems.

Usually, it results in reprisals, etc. by the family, the community at large, or other parties affected by the killing.

Being human.
Foetus' being human is contested legally, philosophically, and scientifically.

Whilst you might consider a foetus human, I don't consider it your right to push your opinions in regard to human life, esp. when they are so unbacked, on other people when it involves denying them their own rights.

Tell me why in your opinion should a woman be allowed to decide to take the life of her child?
I don't believe that the foetus should be allowed to contravene the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

I consider abortion an act of self-defence.

[Miserabilia]

Actually I was paraphrasing you:

And you gave too. Or do you retract your statement "humans that are not dead are by definition alive" [1]

I did not make it up :)
Let's take the definition you proposed:
"any organism that shows signs of living is alive"
A fetus shows sign's of living, right? Even an embryo right after fertilisation shows signs of living at the cellular level. [2]

What I meant is that you use rules to justify abortion, for example lack of sentience, but when applied to another situation you don't follow it in that case. [3]
Another one you've mentioned during this thread is development, but I don't think you would advocate killing underdeveloped children once born. [4]
And you've mentioned being able to survive on their own, but I don't think you advocate killing 2 month old babies. [5]

What I'm trying to say is: Do you have a particular rule you follow when deciding whether you follow through with using the rule consistently or not, or is there some rule you haven't stated which you DO use consistently, but haven't told us about. [6]

I was talking about a fertilised egg cell. Which becomes a new human being. A womans unfertilised egg cells are part of her own body and she can do whatever she wants to them.
But once it is fertilised, it is not a part of her body anymore. [7]

[1]: I'm not sure if your crowmanning my statement of just didn't read it.

Here's what I said.

and humans that are not dead are by definition alive;

Here's what you somehow made of it

Anything that is not dead and is a human is alive.

[2]: Any cell in an orgnanism shows life on cellular level.
My foot is made of living ells showing life but that doens't mean my foot is a live organism.

[3]: I've already been through why that's not the same thing.

[4]: Same problem as earlier, already been though this.

[5]: Two month old babies are fairly indepedent. They are aware and able to do atleast some independent movement and eating and they can drink on their own, even though they still need a mother.

[6]: That's a confusing sentence. No I don't have a rule that i keep by to keep on to other rules, if that was what you are trying to say?
Not sure what you mean.

[7]: That's a whole different subject; are they?
I'd say and most others would aggree they are as they are inside her body being fully supported by her. She's fully responsible for all it's growth and feeding even when it's a differnt organism.
Just because something is not the same orgnism doesn't mean it's not part of their body.
Bacteria are also a part of our bodies, and we need them to survive. Sorry for the crude comparison but it's the same issue.
Also, would you deem the "rights' of an non sentient growing lump of cells more important than the rights of a fully aware intelligent grown woman?
Because by that logic we should not allow cancer to be removed; cancer cells have different dna because of mutation; they aren't the same organism, so not part of the body by your logic.

[StUnicorn]

Yes, I am pro-choice. I believe that if you are not ready to be a parent, you don't have to be. The fetus wont care if you abort it.

[zrt12907]

Will I judge someone for an abortion? No. I don't think it should be legal, but that isn't the America I live in. I can't change the law. Do I condone it? No. For me it comes down to what if that child who was aborted the next Gandhi, what if that child who was aborted fifteen years ago, could have been you. It is easy to say sure go ahead it isn't a child yet. But in the blink of an eye it becomes one. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. The right to live is important and necessary. From the moment a child is conceived, there is a form of an organism, it rapidly evolves and eventually grows finger nails. And there is thought, not necessarily complex, but it is there. It is my belief that every child should receive the chance to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even if it is your body, what is nine months to someone's potential hundred years of greatness. And yeah there is the dud in the bunch, but that isn't decided at birth, that comes from the childhood. I think adoption is the superior route. The thousands upon thousands of people in America yearning for a child but unable to conceive.

[Miserabilia]

Yes, I am pro-choice. I believe that if you are not ready to be a parent, you don't have to be. The fetus wont care if you abort it.

I have always thought about it like this too.
Most people seem to think the feutus is more important than the woman, so let's say it is hypotheticaly; hety feutus, would you mind if we abort you?
Obviously the feutus doesn't know or care. It can't.

[LuciferSam]

I agree with Hillary Clinton in that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." If it's illegal, women are still going to attempt it, but in dangerous situations that could quite possibly kill them.

This.

[Vlerchan]

For me it comes down to what if that child who was aborted the next Gandhi.
What if we aborted the next Mussolini?

[Music Lover]

What if we aborted the next Mussolini?

What if we didn't but Mussolini had a better place to live in and his life wouldn't be a tragedy of gaining power for evil but could instead live a normal life?

[Vlerchan]

What if we didn't but Mussolini had a better place to live in and his life wouldn't be a tragedy of gaining power for evil but could instead live a normal life?
The point of my post was these 'what if' questions are pretty pointless and aren't a good enough argument for restricting freedom of bodily autonomy.

[AbigailBM98]

Abortion is taking a life
Taking a life is murder
Murder is wrong and rightly illegal
Abortion is wrong and should be illegal

[Gamma Male]

Abortion is taking a life
Taking a life is murder
Murder is wrong and rightly illegal
Abortion is wrong and should be illegal

Fetuses aren't alive in the sense that they are separate organisms from the mother. "Killing" a fetus is no more wrong than "killing" an appendix.

[Miserabilia]

Abortion is taking a life
Taking a life is murder
Murder is wrong and rightly illegal
Abortion is wrong and should be illegal

eating potatos means taking them out of the ground
taking them out of the ground is taking their life
taking a life is murder
murder is wrong and rightly illegal
eating potatos is wrong and should be illegal

[Music Lover]

Fetuses aren't alive in the sense that they are separate organisms from the mother. "Killing" a fetus is no more wrong than "killing" an appendix.

So are you saying a fetus is the same organism as the mother?

[Gamma Male]

So are you saying a fetus is the same organism as the mother?

Basically, yes. A fetus is a part of the mother.

[Ben_Frost]

Basically, yes. A fetus is a part of the mother.

A fetus is a separate being from the mother, the genome in their cells codifies different cell proteins that give them their identity. Aborting is stopping the development of the tissues that will become a new being if performed before the 20 weeks of gestational age. After that, it's definitely murder...

[Music Lover]

Basically, yes. A fetus is a part of the mother.

Actually scientifically the mother and a fetus are distinct different organisms due to having a different genetic code.

Or is there some other rule you are using to declare it is part of the mother?

[Miserabilia]

Actually scientifically the mother and a fetus are distinct different organisms due to having a different genetic code.

Or is there some other rule you are using to declare it is part of the mother?

... okay listen;
yes gamma male was incorrect when he said they're the same organism;
however this is just lost in meaning; what I'm assuming he meant is that at that point the feutus is a part of her body, which is correct.

She is supporting it and it exists as part of her.
They are a different organism, but still part of the body; just like bacteria are a part of your body, and hair is part of your body, neither of those things are made of your living dna containing cells.

If you are going to say it should have rights because it's a differnt organism, we should also support cancer.

[Gamma Male]

Actually scientifically the mother and a fetus are distinct different organisms due to having a different genetic code.

Or is there some other rule you are using to declare it is part of the mother?

Well, that depends upon how you define "separate organism".

But to be honest I'm not in interested in getting in a debate over the definitions of words like life and human, because those are just words. Fetuses are what they are, and whether or not we decide to classify them as "alive" is irrelevant, because being alive does not qualify you for moral consideration. Plants and microbes are alive, but they don't need moral consideration. And I don't think we should extend moral consideration to fetuses either because in my opinion science has conclusively shown that they're not sentient, and they don't posses the the qualities necessary to feel pain.

[flappybird]

Well, that depends upon how you define "separate organism".

But to be honest I'm not in interested in getting in a debate over the definitions of words like life and human, because those are just words. Fetuses are what they are, and whether or not we decide to classify them as "alive" is irrelevant, because being alive does not qualify you for moral consideration. Plants and microbes are alive, but they don't need moral consideration. And I don't think we should extend moral consideration to fetuses either because in my opinion science has conclusively shown that they're not sentient, and they don't posses the the qualities necessary to feel pain.

Agreed.

The main problem with abortion is that it can be gender specific. Otherwise abortion is fine.

[Music Lover]

Well, that depends upon how you define "separate organism".

Of course, because words can have different meanings.

But to be honest I'm not in interested in getting in a debate over the definitions of words like life and human, because those are just words.

Understood.

Fetuses are what they are, and whether or not we decide to classify them as "alive" is irrelevant, because being alive does not qualify you for moral consideration.

Not on its own no

Plants and microbes are alive, but they don't need moral consideration.

Of course not (not considering secondary consequences)

And I don't think we should extend moral consideration to fetuses either because in my opinion science has conclusively shown that they're not sentient, and they don't posses the the qualities necessary to feel pain.

And here is where we differ on many parts. First on the conclusiveness of their insentience: How do you determine lack of sentience?

And next, why should sentience matter in this issue? Honestly I am wondering this. Could you help me understand, since I do not currently?
Is it because (assuming sentience starts at a given point) before sentience they can't feel pain? Is that what makes abortion OK?

... okay listen;
yes gamma male was incorrect when he said they're the same organism;
however this is just lost in meaning; what I'm assuming he meant is that at that point the feutus is a part of her body, which is correct.

She is supporting it and it exists as part of her.
They are a different organism, but still part of the body; just like bacteria are a part of your body, and hair is part of your body, neither of those things are made of your living dna containing cells.

If you are going to say it should have rights because it's a differnt organism, we should also support cancer.

My two rules for rights I have stated many times: Humanity and life. Neither on their own should get a right to life.

And okay semantics aside, even if the fetus is a "part" of her body, it has a right to life. If you kill some bacteria in your body, I won't care because of the bacteria, since it doesn't have a right to life. Maybe because of you if you kill some important bacteria and thus danger your health.
But a human who is alive has a right to life and thus I cannot say that abortion is acceptable.

Do you understand where my position is rooted and how firmly?
How about your own position?

[Gamma Male]

Of course, because words can have different meanings.



Understood.



Not on its own no



Of course not (not considering secondary consequences)



And here is where we differ on many parts. First on the conclusiveness of their insentience: How do you determine lack of sentience?

And next, why should sentience matter in this issue? Honestly I am wondering this. Could you help me understand, since I do not currently?
Is it because (assuming sentience starts at a given point) before sentience they can't feel pain? Is that what makes abortion OK?
Sentience precludes the ability to feel pain. When I say "sentient" I'm simply referring to the capacity to feel emotion. Not to be confused with the ability to react the stimuli, something plants and microbes posses. One could say that plants can feel because they react to environmental stimuli, but that's not what I mean by "feel". What I mean is the actual emotion.

As to whether or not sentience qualifies something for moral consideration, well, ask yourself. Why do do moral things at all? Putting aside guilt and threat of punishment by God or the judical system, which I'm assuming are secondary reasons, if you saw a little girl outside laying in the mud with a stab wound, I'm assuming you would help her. But why? What exactly is it that motivates you? I think if you really think about it you'll find that the true reason is because she's in pain, and you don't want her to be in pain because pain is obviously bad. Hence, the reduction of the total amount of pain and suffering in the world is the reason most people do moral things. But if fetuses don't feel pain, why help them? Like I said before, you can't hurt a fetus anymore than you can hurt an appendix. I
If you don't believe fetuses are nonsentient I encourage you to go off and do your own research on the subject by looking at nonbiased, reputable medical books, articles, and websites and form your own opinions as to why we should or shouldn't extend the realm of moral consideration to fetuses.

[Music Lover]

Sentience precludes the ability to feel pain. When I say "sentient" I'm simply referring to the capacity to feel emotion. Not to be confused with the ability to react the stimuli, something plants and microbes posses. One could say that plants can feel because they react to environmental stimuli, but that's not what I mean by "feel". What I mean is the actual emotion.

Ok how do you determine whether a being feels emotions?

As to whether or not sentience qualifies something for moral consideration, well, ask yourself. Why do do moral things at all? Putting aside guilt and threat of punishment by God or the judical system, which I'm assuming are secondary reasons, if you saw a little girl outside laying in the mud with a stab wound, I'm assuming you would help her. But why? What exactly is it that motivates you? I think if you really think about it you'll find that the true reason is because she's in pain, and you don't want her to be in pain because pain is obviously bad. Hence, the reduction of the total amount of pain and suffering in the world is the reason most people do moral things.

Actually there is more to it than pain. The most simple way to demonstrate it is that if someone told me or you, don't worry, she's on anesthetic and doesn't feel a thing, we wouldn't suddenly calm down and let her bleed to death. We would recognize that there still is damage that can be reduced or prevented if we do something to help. The real issue isn't pain, it is damage. And we know we should minimize the damage because she has a right to life.

It is the same reason as why a loving parent will sometimes be cruel to be kind. At that point the parent doesn't think "I will inflict pain because pain is good". The parent thinks about what will help the child grow.
The fundamental isn't about shielding from pain. Otherwise playing should be outlawed. It's not about pain. It's about growth vs. damage.

But if fetuses don't feel pain, why help them? Like I said before, you can't hurt a fetus anymore than you can hurt an appendix.

And as I know it, not feeling pain is irrelevant in this issue. It still doesn't make it any less damaging to the fetus or negate its humanity.

If you don't believe fetuses are nonsentient I encourage you to go off and do your own research on the subject by looking at nonbiased, reputable medical books, articles, and websites and form your own opinions as to why we should or shouldn't extend the realm of moral consideration to fetuses.

Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on these, can you suggest your favorite text explaining how a fetuses nonsentience can be proven?

[Miserabilia]

My two rules for rights I have stated many times: Humanity and life. Neither on their own should get a right to life.


Would you host a funeral for the death of a single fertilized cell? Woulf you say a single fertilized cell, which is just a bunch of proteins ready to start growing, has more rights than a fully grown woman? I just wonder.




And okay semantics aside, even if the fetus is a "part" of her body, it has a right to life. If you kill some bacteria in your body, I won't care because of the bacteria, since it doesn't have a right to life. Maybe because of you if you kill some important bacteria and thus danger your health.
But a human who is alive has a right to life and thus I cannot say that abortion is acceptable.


Again, placing the feutus rights above the woman's, for some undefined reason.





Do you understand where my position is rooted and how firmly?
How about your own position?

No and yes.

[CharlieHorse]

Who assumed living things have a right to life? There is no right to life. Life just is like anything else in the universe.
I think there's too many humans on this earth, and if the opportunity to prevent a birth of yet another human comes up, and it benefits the mother, then IMO it's immoral not to take it.

[Music Lover]

Would you host a funeral for the death of a single fertilized cell?

Well supposing I'd find out somehow it isn't a normal period, I'd probably not at least be indifferent towards it, I would probably be a bit sad that we didn't see more of that life.

Woulf you say a single fertilized cell, which is just a bunch of proteins ready to start growing, has more rights than a fully grown woman? I just wonder.

No but it/he/she has equal rights.

Again, placing the feutus rights above the woman's, for some undefined reason.

Actually I have stated it:
The right to life, especially in a natural situation like pregnancy, of a human being is more important than the right to bodily autonomy.


No and yes.

Ok let me try to help you understand. There are people, like me who are convinced murder is the act of taking an innocent human life, irrespective of the definition given in the law. I.e. if the law said and the whole community said killing a certain group of individuals isn't murder, killing them would still be murder.

And there are people, like me, who are convinced that a fertilized egg cell is as much a human being as you or me. That they are as precious and with a right to life. And that taking that life equals murder.

This means that when we ask the question "Would you advocate killing 2-month old babies because it is infringing upon the mothers freedom?" or something like that, we actually see the two situations being fundamentally the same.

[Miserabilia]

Well supposing I'd find out somehow it isn't a normal period, I'd probably not at least be indifferent towards it, I would probably be a bit sad that we didn't see more of that life.


A fertilized egg is no more sentient or important than a bacteria or a fungus growing on my old lunchbox. There's nothing special about it unless you play the "what if" game, which is a waste of time because it doesn't achieve anything.
If life is so previous,
we should pay more time and money in the saving of newborn children in poor countries where newborn babies regulary die of deseases shortly after birth, instead of spending time to make sure we get even more children ourself.



No but it/he/she has equal rights.
Actually I have stated it:
The right to life, especially in a natural situation like pregnancy, of a human being is more important than the right to bodily autonomy.


Then they are not equal. not only are you unjustifingly placing rights in some kind of order of importance, you're also giving a right to live to something non living and non sentient.




Ok let me try to help you understand. There are people, like me who are convinced murder is the act of taking an innocent human life, irrespective of the definition given in the law. I.e. if the law said and the whole community said killing a certain group of individuals isn't murder, killing them would still be murder.


k.




And there are people, like me, who are convinced that a fertilized egg cell is as much a human being as you or me. That they are as precious and with a right to life. And that taking that life equals murder.


You can be convinced of that all you want but you're ignoring the facts and conclusions that hunderds of years of research have showed.
You can call a fertilized egg more "alive" than a sperm cell, but it's not. You have no argument to support the life of a sperm over a fertilized egg.




This means that when we ask the question "Would you advocate killing 2-month old babies because it is infringing upon the mothers freedom?"

A 2 month old baby is not part of the mother's freedom. It's not part of her body, and the baby is sentient and aware. That's not a very good example of whatever you're trying to give.



or something like that, we actually see the two situations being fundamentally the same.

No, we don't. They're completely different by above mentioned reasons.

[Vlerchan]

No but it/he/she has equal rights.
When negative rights (i.e., your right to life, etc.) where first devised, they were divised on the basis that they only extended until another begun. I can accept that a cell has a right to life, but it would contradict the very spirit of the rights you are pushing, to deny one their own rights in order to allow for the cells rights in this regard to exist.

[Music Lover]

A fertilized egg is no more sentient or important than a bacteria or a fungus growing on my old lunchbox. There's nothing special about it unless you play the "what if" game, which is a waste of time because it doesn't achieve anything.

Well As I said before: Lack of sentience is irrelevant in my opinion as to whether abortion is ok.

And to me and other pro lifers there IS something more precious than a bacteria on a lunchbox.

If life is so previous,
we should pay more time and money in the saving of newborn children in poor countries where newborn babies regulary die of deseases shortly after birth, instead of spending time to make sure we get even more children ourself.

Why not both? :cool:

Then they are not equal. not only are you unjustifingly placing rights in some kind of order of importance, you're also giving a right to live to something non living and non sentient.

And againwe disagree on premises. I don't give a right to life to something which is not alive. I have every reason to believe a fertilised egg cell is AS ALIVE as the mother. So I am not making any unfair placement of rights. Starting from my premises I am convinced that my conslusions are totally justified. And I am also convinced 100% that my basic premises are correct. If I am not, show me wrong.

You can be convinced of that all you want but you're ignoring the facts and conclusions that hunderds of years of research have showed.

Ok since you are the expert on this please refer me to what is your opinion the best text that conclusively states embryos or under 18 week fetuses are NOT alive.

You can call a fertilized egg more "alive" than a sperm cell, but it's not. You have no argument to support the life of a sperm over a fertilized egg.

And why should I support the "life" of a sperm more than the life of a fertilised egg cell?

And how wuold you know what arguments I do and don't have? :rolleyes:

A 2 month old baby is not part of the mother's freedom. It's not part of her body, and the baby is sentient and aware. That's not a very good example of whatever you're trying to give.

I understand that for you the two situations are VERY different. But there are also people who see the two situations VERY ALIKE and that is why they make the comparison. I was just trying to illustrate our point of view, because you said you didn't understand my perspective and why it is there.

And as to the freedom: Are you sure that a mother is totally free if she has a 2 month old? Are you sure there are no obligations to care for them?

No, we don't. They're completely different by above mentioned reasons.

I was saying that pro lifers see it that way, not you and me. Me and other pro lifers.

When negative rights (i.e., your right to life, etc.) where first devised, they were divised on the basis that they only extended until another begun.

Can you please clarify what you mean by this?

I can accept that a cell has a right to life, but it would contradict the very spirit of the rights you are pushing, to deny one their own rights in order to allow for the cells rights in this regard to exist.

Can you clarify what you mean by the spirit of these rights?

[Vlerchan]

Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
It's fine to have rights.

It's not fine to use these rights as leverage to deny others there own rights.

[Miserabilia]

Well As I said before: Lack of sentience is irrelevant in my opinion as to whether abortion is ok.

And to me and other pro lifers there IS something more precious than a bacteria on a lunchbox.



Why not both? :cool:



And againwe disagree on premises. I don't give a right to life to something which is not alive. I have every reason to believe a fertilised egg cell is AS ALIVE as the mother. So I am not making any unfair placement of rights. Starting from my premises I am convinced that my conslusions are totally justified. And I am also convinced 100% that my basic premises are correct. If I am not, show me wrong.



Ok since you are the expert on this please refer me to what is your opinion the best text that conclusively states embryos or under 18 week fetuses are NOT alive.



And why should I support the "life" of a sperm more than the life of a fertilised egg cell?

And how wuold you know what arguments I do and don't have? :rolleyes:



I understand that for you the two situations are VERY different. But there are also people who see the two situations VERY ALIKE and that is why they make the comparison. I was just trying to illustrate our point of view, because you said you didn't understand my perspective and why it is there.

And as to the freedom: Are you sure that a mother is totally free if she has a 2 month old? Are you sure there are no obligations to care for them?

I was saying that pro lifers see it that way, not you and me. Me and other pro lifers.

Can you please clarify what you mean by this?

Can you clarify what you mean by the spirit of these rights?

You and other pro lifers may hold these opinions but remember that they are factualy wrong.

[bobbi]

I don't like the idea of abortion but I don't hate people who agree with it. I see abortion as killing a poor defenseless undeveloped human being and if a person does not want a baby there is always adoption.

[gothy]

Oh gosh, we've had a million threads like this before, so I'll be brief:

Abortions should be treated as last-resorts and not as a method of birth control. I respect the right of every woman to choose whether or not she wants to have a child or not- in this regard, I'm pro-choice. Teenagers need to be better educated on safe sex and the many methods of birth control; a lack of education among teens causes a majority of unwanted teen pregnancy. Nobody should be burdened with supporting a child or a family when they're not ready, but if you take the risks of having sex, you are consenting to the consequences of what sex can lead to. This should not dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she doesn't want to have a child, but abortions are not intended to be a form of birth control due to the physical harms it has to a woman's reproductive parts. We shouldn't judge or blame any woman that has an abortion, but we should learn from the mistakes of those that have unsafe sex; plenty of women are forced into a situation where an abortion is necessary and it'd be terrible to blame them, but there are many teens that need to learn and respect the consequences of unsafe sex.

I agree

[Music Lover]

Let me answer some posts I left unanswered:

Yes.

Though, it's important to realise here that what 'ought' or what 'should' be done is only an opinion.

Can any opinion be better than another?

And this is because society holds an individuals right to property-ownership over an individuals right to free-movement. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French anarchist, actually wrote a very interesting book (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm) on this subject, which I'd suggest people read if they can. It's quite insightful, even if I've found that I disagree with it a fair bit.

I tried reading it, but he rambles way too much and i got really frustrated and had to stop :rolleyes: But I ended up reading a shorter explanation of the idea and yes I disagree with it too.

[2]: You don't have the right not to have your life endangered. That would necessitate banning so many things. Of course you don't have a right for that. That is why I only mentioned they have an interest in not increasing the risk of death.


This is untrue.
This is also untrue.
Actually it is, ("As far as I know")
But if there is something I don't know, please teach me.


Well, no. If you can accept that some people have differing opinions on 'non-foundational ' issues, such as extra-martial sex, then I've no idea why you wouldn't extend this to people having differing opinions on more foundational issues. Though, you accepting that moral fluctuations exist on a non-foundational level means that you accept moral-relativism, because you're accepting that morals, even if you want to label them 'non-foundational', exist relative to the individual.

People having different opinions on what is right and what is wrong does not make any difference as to WHAT ACTUALLY IS right and wrong :) If I firmly believe I will not die because of an electric shock and stick two iron nails into the socket and grab hold, I am likely to die. Because beliefs and opinions do not influence what the truth actually is. It only means what that person THINKS is the truth.

I'm not really part of any. I've no interest in ethics great enough to justify locking myself into any single school.

I was not necessarily asking for a take on a deep philosophical standpoint. Just trying to understand how you base right and wrong on. On what basic principles do you stand on when deciding your opinion on what is wrong and what is right?

I believe that it came to most people that killing is generally counterproductive and an inefficient means of dealing with problems.

Is there anything else fundamentally wrong with killing other than it is inefficient and counterproductive?
Is inefficient and counterproductive bad?

Usually, it results in reprisals, etc. by the family, the community at large, or other parties affected by the killing.

Why do you think killing invokes such strong emotions within people close to the victim? Is any anger towards the murderer justified?

Foetus' being human is contested legally, philosophically, and scientifically.

Please direct me to your favorite text explaining how it is contested.

Whilst you might consider a foetus human, I don't consider it your right to push your opinions in regard to human life, esp. when they are so unbacked, on other people when it involves denying them their own rights.

I thought your position was that rights are granted by community? I am a part of community, so shouldn't I have a say in what rights people have?

And please show me how my opinions are unbacked.

I don't believe that the foetus should be allowed to contravene the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Why should the woman's right to bodily autonomy be allowed to conflict with the fetus' right to life?


I consider abortion an act of self-defence.

I don't. In almost all cases the woman's life is not endangered.


[6]: That's a confusing sentence. No I don't have a rule that i keep by to keep on to other rules, if that was what you are trying to say?
Not sure what you mean.

I meant to ask what is the basic foundational truth(s) you hold upon which you base your opinion on abortion.

It's fine to have rights.

It's not fine to use these rights as leverage to deny others there own rights.

If you believe as rights are granted by community, shouldn't each community be allowed to decide what you can do with your rights and cannot?

And using that principle it can be also turned around:
It is not fine to use the right to bodily autonomy to deny a fetus the right to life.

You and other pro lifers may hold these opinions but remember that they are factualy wrong.

I have asked you to show me how they are factually wrong. I have yet to receive a proper backed up reply.

[Vlerchan]

Can any opinion be better than another?
Only in anothers opinion.

That is why I only mentioned they have an interest in not increasing the risk of death.
So, we don't have a conflict of rights here. Okay.

But if there is something I don't know, please teach me.
In slave-holding civilizations it was common that a slavemaster might hold complete dominance over his/her slave: up to the point, see: the Vikings, that rape and murder of ones slave was deemed acceptable. Today, it's the case in some countries that one can legally kill a tresspasser, and killing convicted criminals is also common practice across the world.

In terms of polyamoury, open releationships aren't that uncommon: I know a woman on another board, who's married, who's involved in one of these releationships. Lots of pornstars also find themselves in polyamorous releationships, if we want to get general. Historically, woman in Nepal have also been quite polygamous, holding multiple partners, which I'll admit is unusual for a historical civilisation.

People having different opinions on what is right and what is wrong does not make any difference as to WHAT ACTUALLY IS right and wrong
I've no idea how you reached this conclusion.

If I firmly believe I will not die because of an electric shock and stick two iron nails into the socket and grab hold, I am likely to die.
Entirely different.

It can be empirically shown and that engaging in such activity is hazardous. This is unlike morality.

On what basic principles do you stand on when deciding your opinion on what is wrong and what is right?
If an action results in more good than harm occurring then I considered it 'right'.

I see no harm occurring in abortion since the fetous isn't sentient and the woman is.

Is there anything else fundamentally wrong with killing other than it is inefficient and counterproductive?[1]
Is inefficient and counterproductive bad?[2]
[1]: Not in any objective sense.

[2]: I believe it is.

Is any anger towards the murderer justified?
I believe it generally is.

Please direct me to your favorite text explaining how it is contested.
It's non-partisan and everything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

I thought your position was that rights are granted by community?
It is. That's my opinion on rights.

I am a part of community, so shouldn't I have a say in what rights people have?
Please present a logically coherent argument as to why individuals shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies.

And please show me how my opinions are unbacked.
Defining human life is a philosophical question and philosophical opinions are by definition unbacked.

The lack of concensus in the scientific community doesn't help.

Why should the woman's right to bodily autonomy be allowed to conflict with the fetus' right to life?
The fetus' right to life only exists because we're disregarding the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If we are to agree that both rights exist, bodily autonomy and life, then we're left with allowing each to act on them.

Do you believe that it should be your right to evict from your property intruders, up to and including with the use of violent force?

I don't. In almost all cases the woman's life is not endangered.
The woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy throughout the pregnancy.

It's just rare that it's in grave danger.

If you believe as rights are granted by community, shouldn't each community be allowed to decide what you can do with your rights and cannot?
Feel free to present a logically coherent argument granting control over an individuals body to their communities.

It is not fine to use the right to bodily autonomy to deny a fetus the right to life.
The fetus' has a right to life. It just doesn't have the right to deny another their own rights.

If we can agree that both rights exist, then it's a matter of letting events play out naturally.

[Miserabilia]

Why should the woman's right to bodily autonomy be allowed to conflict with the fetus' right to life?


This is usualy what abortion debates come down to.
A fetus only gets thier right to live because of the woman's body.
The woman is fully aware and intelligent and can make choices.
There ya have it.

[Lovelife090994]

This is usualy what abortion debates come down to.
A fetus only gets thier right to live because of the woman's body.
The woman is fully aware and intelligent and can make choices.
There ya have it.

So taking the baby's life is seen as just? How is that fair? The woman should realize that she is no longer a she but a we because she holds life in her. Life some people will never be able to have.

[Lovelife090994]

Only in anothers opinion.


So, we don't have a conflict of rights here. Okay.


In slave-holding civilizations it was common that a slavemaster might hold complete dominance over his/her slave: up to the point, see: the Vikings, that rape and murder of ones slave was deemed acceptable. Today, it's the case in some countries that one can legally kill a tresspasser, and killing convicted criminals is also common practice across the world.

In terms of polyamoury, open releationships aren't that uncommon: I know a woman on another board, who's married, who's involved in one of these releationships. Lots of pornstars also find themselves in polyamorous releationships, if we want to get general. Historically, woman in Nepal have also been quite polygamous, holding multiple partners, which I'll admit is unusual for a historical civilisation.


I've no idea how you reached this conclusion.


Entirely different.

It can be empirically shown and that engaging in such activity is hazardous. This is unlike morality.


If an action results in more good than harm occurring then I considered it 'right'.

I see no harm occurring in abortion since the fetous isn't sentient and the woman is.


[1]: Not in any objective sense.

[2]: I believe it is.


I believe it generally is.


It's non-partisan and everything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml


It is. That's my opinion on rights.


Please present a logically coherent argument as to why individuals shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies.


Defining human life is a philosophical question and philosophical opinions are by definition unbacked.

The lack of concensus in the scientific community doesn't help.


The fetus' right to life only exists because we're disregarding the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If we are to agree that both rights exist, bodily autonomy and life, then we're left with allowing each to act on them.

Do you believe that it should be your right to evict from your property intruders, up to and including with the use of violent force?


The woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy throughout the pregnancy.

It's just rare that it's in grave danger.


Feel free to present a logically coherent argument granting control over an individuals body to their communities.


The fetus' has a right to life. It just doesn't have the right to deny another their own rights.

If we can agree that both rights exist, then it's a matter of letting events play out naturally.

With rights by the community why don't we ostracize like the Greeks did? If rights are given by the community then why do any of us have rights when there is hatred to everything? Why is killing a fetus right when a woman has to realize that she is now "two"? She is herself and is caring life.

[darkangel91]

I personally think that abortion is wrong after about two weeks. No idea how this fits into the conversation, but yeah. Before then, it might be acceptable, but even then, I think it is a serious decision that should NOT be taken lightly... in general I think it's wrong unless having the baby would seriously endanger the health of the mother, or if the baby would have an incurable genetic disease. If it's an unwanted teen pregnancy, don't take out the parents' mistake on the child - just give it up for adoption, for goodness's sake. That's what I think.

[Music Lover]

Only in anothers opinion.

So if someone believes that genocide is morally right there is nothing objectively wrong with that, since it is all opinions?

In slave-holding civilizations it was common that a slavemaster might hold complete dominance over his/her slave: up to the point, see: the Vikings, that rape and murder of ones slave was deemed acceptable. Today, it's the case in some countries that one can legally kill a tresspasser, and killing convicted criminals is also common practice across the world.

Yes, but these are only a minority of the people. In general if you look at the society and the largest group of individuals in it, their life was protected. In general the population is not all slaves, but most have been free men.

Trespassers are not the bulk of the population either, especially since everyone would know that could result in death.

Convicted criminals are not either the majority.

My point was that taking absolutely normal circumstances of a normal man that hasn't wronged anybody, that his right to life is agreed on in every civilization I know of.

In terms of polyamoury, open releationships aren't that uncommon: I know a woman on another board, who's married, who's involved in one of these releationships. Lots of pornstars also find themselves in polyamorous releationships, if we want to get general. Historically, woman in Nepal have also been quite polygamous, holding multiple partners, which I'll admit is unusual for a historical civilisation.

Ok first of all, from what I have observed, there is a much higher concentration of liberals regarding to sexuality than in the real world, for whatever reason. Maybe they can feel more at home with people who think alike. I don't know what is the underlying reason, but that is something I have observed. What I've seen is that polyamoury is not the general consensus in most places.

And pornstars are definitely not a good representation of the general population in regards to sexuality ethics. Only the most liberal with regards to sexuality would even think about doing sex on video or pictures.

With regards to Nepal, as you said: It is unusual. They are not representative of the general human population. And I didn't either find a statistic on how common it was historically before it was banned. Do you happen to know?

I've no idea how you reached this conclusion.

Well it is because I don't believe in moral relativism. I believe right and wrong are independent of opinion. Since you seem to firmly believe in moral relativism then it probably seems preposterous to you that right and wrong are independent of anyones opinion on it.

Entirely different.
It can be empirically shown and that engaging in such activity is hazardous. This is unlike morality.

Ok this is again an instance where an example won't bring light to the issue because of differences in fundamental beliefs.

If an action results in more good than harm occurring then I considered it 'right'.

How do you determine whether the results are more good than harmful? Is this objective or subjective?

I see no harm occurring in abortion since the fetous isn't sentient and the woman is.

We both know sentience is not the issue for you, because if you consistently followed it, you would approve killing coma patients.

What other rule than sentience do you use? Either with that or instead of that?

[2]: I believe it is.

What if a society agrees that counterproductive and inefficient is good?

I believe it generally is.
Why do you think the anger towards the murderer is justified?

It's non-partisan and everything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

I could add to the one on conception "full genetic code of a new and unique human being" Which wouldn't anymore apply to all the cells of the woman's body.

And from this text I see conception as the least problematic.

It is. That's my opinion on rights.

Please present a logically coherent argument as to why individuals shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies.[QUOTE=Vlerchan;2840949]

Well going by your understanding of rights: If the community doesn't grant that right to them :)

Going by my understanding of rights:
Taking the life of an innocent unique human being is wrong.
(For arguments sake let's say the fetus is part of the womans body) A fetus is a uniques human being, but it is part of the woman's body.
A fetus has by no deliberate action of its own done any wrong to anyone, thus it is innocent.
Taking the life of a fetus is wrong.
Thus the woman does not in all cases have a right to control their body.

If that is logically incoherent, please explain how.

[QUOTE=Vlerchan;2840949]Defining human life is a philosophical question and philosophical opinions are by definition unbacked.
The lack of concensus in the scientific community doesn't help.

Doesn't the challenging nature of determining when life starts provide even more reason to oppose abortion?

The fetus' right to life only exists because we're disregarding the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If we are to agree that both rights exist, bodily autonomy and life, then we're left with allowing each to act on them.

Or we have to decide which is more important (If going by your understanding of rights)

Or we have to find out which is more important (if going by my understanding of rights)

Do you believe that it should be your right to evict from your property intruders, up to and including with the use of violent force?

I am undecided on this as currently. Up to an extent yes, but I am unsure how much force is justified.


The woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy throughout the pregnancy.
It's just rare that it's in grave danger.

Yay I get to learn something new :D Please educate me how a normal uncomplicated pregnancy increases the risk of dying?

But whether it increases the risk or not: Didn't we both agree that you don't have a right to have your life not endangered? In that case it would be inconsequential.

Feel free to present a logically coherent argument granting control over an individuals body to their communities.

From my understanding of rights I cannot build one.

From your understanding of rights:
All rights are either granted or refused by community.
Bodily autonomy is a right.
Bodily autonomy can be granted or refused by community.

The fetus' has a right to life. It just doesn't have the right to deny another their own rights.
If we can agree that both rights exist, then it's a matter of letting events play out naturally.

If you played out events naturally, abortion wouldn't be an option, right?
And it is not the fetus that denies the mother her right to bodily autonomy. If anything 'screws her over', it is nature, because it places her in 'bondage' to a human life. It my seem on the surface like a cruel fate, but I believe, when you go deeper into it beneath the surface, that not taking the life and loving and caring for a baby is one of the most fulfilling, maturing and educational experiences a woman (or teenager) could have.
Not saying to become irresponsible with sex (I am all for abstinence before marriage etc.) But I'm saying if you have been irresponsible, don't be even more irresponsible afterwards.

This is usualy what abortion debates come down to.

Yes it does. And it has been about it for very long. Now is only the first time I directly asked those words.

A fetus only gets thier right to live because of the woman's body.

Can you please clarify what you mean by this?

The woman is fully aware and intelligent and can make choices.

Are those the three criteria which are required (allowing for loss of some of then as exceptions) for someone to have a right to life in your opinion?

I personally think that abortion is wrong after about two weeks.

What magical threshold is crossed at 'about two weeks'?

I think it's wrong unless ... the baby would have an incurable genetic disease.

Do you mean disabilities?

[Miserabilia]

So taking the baby's life is seen as just? How is that fair? The woman should realize that she is no longer a she but a we because she holds life in her. Life some people will never be able to have.

The woman "should"'nt realize anything, as she is a life too. A sentient aware thinking intelligent life that can decide for herself what she does with her body, whether or not what she does with herself is concidered moraly correct by certain people is irrelevant because she has rights.



Can you please clarify what you mean by this?


The feutus grows and comes from the woman's body.



Are those the three criteria which are required (allowing for loss of some of then as exceptions) for someone to have a right to life in your opinion?


No, but they have moraly more right to live than something that can not think or feel at all. I would choose to save the life over a human being than that over a potato, even though both are alive.

[Vlerchan]

So if someone believes that genocide is morally right there is nothing objectively wrong with that, since it is all opinions?
Yes.

Do you believe that acts of genocide by god in the bible were morally right?

My point was that taking absolutely normal circumstances of a normal man that hasn't wronged anybody, that his right to life is agreed on in every civilization I know of.
And?

I'm listing instances were killing is considered by large numbers of people morally right. I can keep going too.

Ok first of all, from what I have observed, there is a much higher concentration of liberals regarding to sexuality than in the real world, for whatever reason.
I've no idea what you were trying to say here.

I'm not sure it's relevant though.

What I've seen is that polyamoury is not the general consensus in most places.
I'm just listing instances were polyamoury is considered morally correct.

With regards to Nepal, as you said: It is unusual.
It's still the best example going: an entire civilisation that felt there was nothing wrong with polyamoury.

Also, promiscuity amongst men is a lot more common in history: I just didn't point to examples because you specifically wanted the opposite.

Since you seem to firmly believe in moral relativism then it probably seems preposterous to you that right and wrong are independent of anyones opinion on it.
It doesn't seem preposterous because I'm a 'moral relativist' - which I'm not: I'm a nihilist.

It seems preposterous because nobody can put forward a logically coherent argument supporting the idea of moral universalism.

Ok this is again an instance where an example won't bring light to the issue because of differences in fundamental beliefs.
No.

Your example didn't bring light to the issue because it is irrelevant.

How do you determine whether the results are more good than harmful? Is this objective or subjective?
I try to rely on objective fact as much as I can.

We both know sentience is not the issue for you, because if you consistently followed it, you would approve killing coma patients.
I wouldn't support allowing individuals to kill coma patients because they have no basis to kill coma patients. The woman who's having her rights trampled does have a basis to kill the foetus.

I've a question for you:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

In your opinion is it moral to force me to stay plugged into the Violinist?

I could add to the one on conception "full genetic code of a new and unique human being" Which wouldn't anymore apply to all the cells of the woman's body.
That's addressed in the text. It says: "not a very good argument, since so do all the cells of the body".

And from this text I see conception as the least problematic.
And I don't have a problem with this opinion.

I just have a problem with you forcing it on other people.

What if a society agrees that counterproductive and inefficient is good?
Feel free to suggest a society that believed this.

Why do you think the anger towards the murderer is justified?
Because the actions of a murderer lost them a loved one.

Well going by your understanding of rights: If the community doesn't grant that right to them.
Why would a community not grant them? I'm looking for an argument that the community might use.

Taking the life of an innocent unique human being is wrong[1].
A fetus is a uniques human being[2], but it is part of the woman's body.
A fetus has by no deliberate action of its own done any wrong to anyone, thus it is innocent.[3]
Taking the life of a fetus is wrong[4].
Thus the woman does not in all cases have a right to control their body.
[1]: Presumes that murder is objectively wrong.
[2]: Debatable. See: link.
[3]: Sure.
[4]: That's a logically coherent moral argument. If we pretend your assumptions are true.

The problem is that you're presuming that your moral values trump everyone else's moral values. I also asked for a reason that a woman might not have control over her own body: I was speaking in general: I want you to create a logically coherent argument as to why woman shouldn't be allowed control over their own bodies at all. If you then believe that woman should be allowed control over their own bodies then I would like you to explain why you believe that should be the case.

Doesn't the challenging nature of determining when life starts provide even more reason to oppose abortion?
No.

It's actually a good reason to allow for abortion in all cases to term because we can't be expected to all agree on the definition of a term as vague as 'human life': in such a case I would be free to get my abortion, and would do so because I believe it is morally correct, and you would also be free to get your abortion, but would not do so because you don't believe it is morally correct. Unless we take your position and presume ones opinion is objectively correct then everyone should be happy, because then everyone's opinion is being taken into account when it matters.

Or we have to decide which is more important
I can't understand how you'd come to that conclusion.

We agree that an individual has the right to X and an individual has the right to Y. If individuals have these rights then where does the idea come from that (presuming you still believe they have these rights) it's okay to retract one for the benefit of the other: you can't agree that the rights exist and then favour one over the other at the same time.

Please educate me how a normal uncomplicated pregnancy increases the risk of dying?
All pregnancies carry the risk of illness or death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-complications.html

Didn't we both agree that you don't have a right to have your life not endangered?
No.

I disagreed. Upholding it is just infeasible.

Bodily autonomy can be granted or refused by community.
I'm asking for the case the community might give against bodily autonomy proper.

If you played out events naturally, abortion wouldn't be an option, right?
No. If it played out naturally the woman would be allowed to treat with as much respect or disdain as she wanted the being that was trampling on her rights because that wouold be her right.

And it is not the fetus that denies the mother her right to bodily autonomy.
It is when the existence of the fetus' and the consequences that come with its abortion are use as a basis to deny the woman her rights.

But I'm saying if you have been irresponsible, don't be even more irresponsible afterwards.
I generally agree with this.

I just don't believe that it's justifiable to threaten violent force in order to secure it.

[danny7]

I think the government should stop telling women what to do with their bodies.

I am pro-choice. Really what one woman chooses to do with her body affects NO ONE but the woman herself. If a woman wants to have an abortion because she is a victim of rape, doesn't want the baby, or simply as a birth control method then let them! As a birth control?, you might say, yes a birth control. But that would damage her reproductive parts, you then say. Yes, exactly, her reproductive parts, not yours.

The controversy and ethical conundrum is the notion that you're killing a human life. It's a fetus. Then people bring the argument " well would you like it if you had been aborted?" well.. um... i wouldn't know since I was never alive to know what life is. There's a difference between dying and never being born.

[carolinae]

if the girl wants to have an abortion, there should be nothing stopping her. if she doesn't want an abortion then she must want the baby, no?

[GeekGirl1]

The issue with abortions is that having them, depending on the facts, infringes upon the rights of either:

a) the baby to live, or
b) the mother to control her body.

My rational is this: As it cannot be proven that abortion is not killing the baby in the late term, I think it should be illegal after the point where it can no longer be proven a human is not being killed. This is because killing an infant is unquestionably a greater evil then restricting what a woman can do with her body.

I know I'd never have an abortion, personally.

[Vlerchan]

The issue with abortions is that having them, depending on the facts, infringes upon the rights of either:
One can accept that both exist at the same time

It's just about realising that the fetus' right to life isn't so much a right to life in this case as much as a right live off the woman's body: the woman is protecting/upholding her own right to bodily autonomy more than anything else. It's in the same vein as how one might protect their property (rights) against an intruder.

My rational is this: As it cannot be proven that abortion is not killing the baby in the late term, I think it should be illegal after the point where it can no longer be proven a human is not being killed.
Define: "human".

It's simply easier to accept that there is no set point (ask ten people the above questions and you're as likely to get eleven answers), and it should be up to the individual who's wanting to undergo an abortion to reflect on this themselves.

This is because killing an infant is unquestionably a greater evil then restricting what a woman can do with her body.
Well, no, as explained above, this is all just opinions.

[ElectricForest]

With exceptions of rape victims, I'm completely against it. I'm very stubborn with this topic because I was adopted, and if my birth mother decided to kill me while still growing and developing I wouldn't exist, and that gets me a little angry to even think about. I'm a pretty open minded guy but there is no reason to abort a child when you can just go through with it and let a family who wants a child or can't produce a child, adopt yours. I'm not saying giving birth is a walk in the park, but you took the risk and you must be responsible. To me abortion is a way to avoid responsibility and repercussions for risky actions. Also those who are for it seem to say that "well theyre carrying the baby its their choice" which to me is bullshit. It was also their choice to risk pregnancy each time they had sex. But so what? Appearently that choice means nothing and no one seems to bring it up. And instead of telling the parents to assume responsibility we tell them "yeah just kill it and pretended this isnt your own fault"

Well before I get too angry I'll stop myself. Also when I say "you" I mean the parents, not just the woman.

[Snookers]

When talking about abortion, I think it's a really delicate mater. Yes, I do believe that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies, but when it comes to abortion there is the potential life in game, so the problem should be treated more seriously.
I totally agree with Camazotz, if teenagers would be educated regarding this matter, they would know how to protect themselves, they would learn about pregnancies and also STD's and they would be aware of what the consequences are when commiting unprotected sex.

I don't think that abortion means killing someone. What makes us human beings and "alive" is our brain. Thanks to it we have the ability to learn, think for ourselves, have a personality..etc etc while the fetus needs around 25 weeks to develop a brain, thus being "alive". Most abortions are made 18 max 20 weeks.

If you smash a seed, does that mean you cut down a tree?

Lastly, I would say that I am pro-choice. Why would people bring a life in this world, if they don't have conditions for he/she to be raised? Or if the mother is not ready to have a child?
"but teh child iz alive! it haz a chance to lyve! lol yolo" Does that what really matters? the fact that a child is alive, even though he or she lives in poverty or has an irresponsible mother? You only brought this soul on earth for it to be unfortunate and mistreated.

If a female has a abortion she is a killer and a bad person. But people seem to go blind and turn their heads on mothers who drink heavily, smoke, abuse and not educate their children.

[ElectricForest]

Lastly, I would say that I am pro-choice. Why would people bring a life in this world, if they don't have conditions for he/she to be raised? Or if the mother is not ready to have a child?
"but teh child iz alive! it haz a chance to lyve! lol yolo" Does that what really matters? the fact that a child is alive, even though he or she lives in poverty or has an irresponsible mother? You only brought this soul on earth for it to be unfortunate and mistreated.

Again, I revert back to my point of assuming responsibility. The mother and father took the risk of pregnancy, right? Condom or not its a risk. Even if it was a complete accident.

If you accidentally spill milk on the floor, are you just going to leave it and not assume responsibility?

In reference to the last part about living in poverty, if the mother was considering abortion, wouldnt you assume she doesnt want the baby? The fact that adoption can give that child not only a responsible family, but the chance to live a healthy life. Doesn't that sound more reasonable than preventing that fetus from becoming a life? Or the fact that the baby can give a family something they couldnt do on their own, have a child?

[Miserabilia]

Again, I revert back to my point of assuming responsibility. The mother and father took the risk of pregnancy, right? Condom or not its a risk. Even if it was a complete accident.

If you accidentally spill milk on the floor, are you just going to leave it and not assume responsibility?

In reference to the last part about living in poverty, if the mother was considering abortion, wouldnt you assume she doesnt want the baby? The fact that adoption can give that child not only a responsible family, but the chance to live a healthy life. Doesn't that sound more reasonable than preventing that fetus from becoming a life? Or the fact that the baby can give a family something they couldnt do on their own, have a child?

Or you know, we could just adopt the thousand and thousands of children already in foster care or with abusing parents, and not force all pregnant mothers to bring more children into an incapable envirement.

[Vlerchan]

snip.
Do you believe that individuals should have control over their own bodies?

Doesn't that sound more reasonable than preventing that fetus from becoming a life?
I don't think anyone but the woman-in-question is really capable of answering this question.

[Gigablue]

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

I think this is really the best analogy. I've heard similar versions of this argument, and I've yet to hear a valid refutation. It really emphasizes that abortion is about bodily autonomy, and that is doesn't matter whether the foetus is considered a person or not. No person has the right to use another persons body against their will, even if they would die by not doing so.

[Kayonce]

I'm just gonna put my simple response about this - No, I don't believe in abortion. Having sex is something you engage in when you know you are mature enough to know what the consequences are to come along with it, which pregnancy is one of the big ones. If you laid down with some one, knowing what you did, then in my eyes it's wrong and a life that didn't even have a chance shouldn't be taken away.