Abortion?

[fairmaiden]

Well I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajrvaL2oQ and it features a heavily pregnant woman confronting an anti-abortion campaign outside an abortion clinic.

I personally agree with the heavily pregnant woman. The anti-abortion protesters have no right to be filming the women going into the clinic, and they have no right to put such a graphic poster on the side of the building. Who knows how many women have been intimidated by them and decided to miss their abortion appointment?

People have plenty of different reasons for abortions, such as: not being able to care for the child properly, they were raped, etc.

That man with the go-pro has also broken privacy laws, and his camera should be destroyed. He has basically filmed women who I'm sure wanted to stay anonymous, who walked into the clinic. What was he planning to do with the footage?

What do you guys think?

[Karkat]

I pretty much agree with what you're saying.

To add to it, while I don't agree with the protesters, I feel that they should be able to protest peacefully- but somewhere where these women who are trying to get help are not affected.

[DeadEyes]

People are willing to overtake freedom of choice to impose their beliefs.

[Stronk Serb]

It's one thing protesting in front of government buildings against opression, but entirely another when you protest against something that simply doesn't affect you. If a woman is going to get an abortion, does it affect you? No, so shut the fuck up and go riot against your opressive government or do something productive.

[amgb]

Yeah I get that some people are against induced abortion but that's their opinion and they don't have to enforce it on women who may be going through a really tough time, and it's wrong to be recording them going in the clinic and mocking them for their choices because induced abortion is a choice and people really need to start showing more respect about that

[thatcountrykid]

Well I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajrvaL2oQ and it features a heavily pregnant woman confronting an anti-abortion campaign outside an abortion clinic.

I personally agree with the heavily pregnant woman. The anti-abortion protesters have no right to be filming the women going into the clinic, and they have no right to put such a graphic poster on the side of the building. Who knows how many women have been intimidated by them and decided to miss their abortion appointment?

People have plenty of different reasons for abortions, such as: not being able to care for the child properly, they were raped, etc.

That man with the go-pro has also broken privacy laws, and his camera should be destroyed. He has basically filmed women who I'm sure wanted to stay anonymous, who walked into the clinic. What was he planning to do with the footage?

What do you guys think?

I actually don't believe he broke the law. They are private citizens on the street and some states have laws where recordings only need to be consensual on one side. Really even if she was mad she can't do anything.

[Syrum]

If I recall in USA, You can film anyone in public, as long as not private property, so. They did have right.

[Stronk Serb]

If I recall in USA, You can film anyone in public, as long as not private property, so. They did have right.

What a dumb law. Here if it was without permission, he'd already be behind bars.

[thatcountrykid]

What a dumb law. Here if it was without permission, he'd already be behind bars.

not really no. then media outlets and millions of people would be behind bars. are we gonna jail little joey for taking a picture at disney land?

[CosmicNoodle]

What a dumb law. Here if it was without permission, he'd already be behind bars.

It's called freedom.


Anit-abortion idiots. Should leave her the fuck along and go pay attention to a issue that's actually important

[Syrum]

It is also illegal in my country, but remember America has free media for reason. My countries media is shit.

[Stronk Serb]

not really no. then media outlets and millions of people would be behind bars. are we gonna jail little joey for taking a picture at disney land?

Yeah they should be if the person doesn't permit them.

It's called freedom.


Anit-abortion idiots. Should leave her the fuck along and go pay attention to a issue that's actually important

Well, fuck that kind of freedom. What if someone's taking pictures of luttke kids on the beach and using them as jerk-off material?

[fairmaiden]

I actually don't believe he broke the law. They are private citizens on the street and some states have laws where recordings only need to be consensual on one side. Really even if she was mad she can't do anything.

If I recall in USA, You can film anyone in public, as long as not private property, so. They did have right.
But there are women who are going to that abortion clinic, anonymously, and he's filming them to intimidate them and goodness knows what else? What was he going to do with the footage? Put it online to shame these women? Forgive me for my speculation, however there aren't too many possibilities for this, as he is using a go-pro (which is turned on)

[thatcountrykid]

Yeah they should be if the person doesn't permit them.



Well, fuck that kind of freedom. What if someone's taking pictures of luttke kids on the beach and using them as jerk-off material?

Well I'm sure you'd be arrested too then. If your gonna jail him for that you can't ignore the millions of others.

[CosmicNoodle]

Yeah they should be if the person doesn't permit them.



Well, fuck that kind of freedom. What if someone's taking pictures of luttke kids on the beach and using them as jerk-off material?

Well obviously if someone is clearly taking pictures of children for explicit purposes, the police will stop them, and who even cares? What does it matter what people do with pictures in there own home so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

[Stronk Serb]

Well I'm sure you'd be arrested too then. If your gonna jail him for that you can't ignore the millions of others.

I wouldn't be jailed because I ask for permission and take photos if I get a positive answer.

Well obviously if someone is clearly taking pictures of children for explicit purposes, the police will stop them, and who even cares? What does it matter what people do with pictures in there own home so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I don't want my ass to be a part of some creep's fantasies.

[fairmaiden]

Well I'm sure you'd be arrested too then. If your gonna jail him for that you can't ignore the millions of others.
Svarog wouldn't be arrested as I'm pretty sure he doesn't go around filming panicked and scared women who are going into abortion clinics. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't film little kids on the beach to use it as masturbation material.

[eli_w]

It's always going to be a moral grey area

[Tesserax]

Call me stupid, but I think a funny (though somewhat serious) idea would be for the pregnant women to act (and only act) like they're acting on a porn website, and be all seductive to the people with the camera. Now if the footage of this would be released, these people would simply be seen as perverts with a pregnant fetish. Again, call me stupid but it MIGHT be worth a shot :)

[thatcountrykid]

Svarog wouldn't be arrested as I'm pretty sure he doesn't go around filming panicked and scared women who are going into abortion clinics. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't film little kids on the beach to use it as masturbation material.

Where they are doesn't matter. If he considers filming and photographing people with out consent an arrest able offense you can't pick and choose who and where it's enforced. You'd be prejudiced and bias to do so.

And where the fuck did the filming kids thing come from.

[fairmaiden]

Where they are doesn't matter. If he considers filming and photographing people with out consent an arrest able offense you can't pick and choose who and where it's enforced. You'd be prejudiced and bias to do so.

And where the fuck did the filming kids thing come from.
There's a difference between filming random people in the street without consent and filming women who are going to an abortion clinic anonymously without consent.

The 'little kids' came from the point Svarog raised.

[thatcountrykid]

There's a difference between filming random people in the street without consent and filming women who are going to an abortion clinic anonymously without consent.

The 'little kids' came from the point Svarog raised.

Well then talk to scargo about that. As long as he was in public then he can do it. Outside the clinic is fair game.

[Syrum]

But there are women who are going to that abortion clinic, anonymously, and he's filming them to intimidate them and goodness knows what else? What was he going to do with the footage? Put it online to shame these women? Forgive me for my speculation, however there aren't too many possibilities for this, as he is using a go-pro (which is turned on)

If he's legally allowed to he's legally allowed too. I mean, yes they're going into that building, that building doesn't allow their cameras in, but the street/sidewalk is the governments. He's allowed to shame them if he likes. He can film whomever he wants on state property in America.

[Arkansasguy]

Well I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajrvaL2oQ and it features a heavily pregnant woman confronting an anti-abortion campaign outside an abortion clinic.

I personally agree with the heavily pregnant woman. The anti-abortion protesters have no right to be filming the women going into the clinic, and they have no right to put such a graphic poster on the side of the building. Who knows how many women have been intimidated by them and decided to miss their abortion appointment?

People have plenty of different reasons for abortions, such as: not being able to care for the child properly, they were raped, etc.

That man with the go-pro has also broken privacy laws, and his camera should be destroyed. He has basically filmed women who I'm sure wanted to stay anonymous, who walked into the clinic. What was he planning to do with the footage?

What do you guys think?

Indeed, who knows how many women have decided not to murder their children, as a result of these protestors?

[fairmaiden]

Indeed, who knows how many women have decided not to murder their children, as a result of these protestors?
''murder'' is a term that shouldn't be used. There are plenty of women who visit that clinic for valid reasons. If the woman is pregnant as a result of rape, then I would not be surprised if she turns up to that clinic.

[Arkansasguy]

''murder'' is a term that shouldn't be used. There are plenty of women who visit that clinic for valid reasons. If the woman is pregnant as a result of rape, then I would not be surprised if she turns up to that clinic.

Why not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that place's sole function was to kill children, they don't perform any legitimate medical procedures?

[Dortmund]

I've always been against people who do this as morally it's wrong.

It might be legal, yes but forcing your belief upon others is most certainly not right. Yes, if these people don't want children and get pregnant then it's their own fault but anti-abortionists fail to think through a full picture. Once the child is born it's none of their concern and frankly they couldn't give a crap. It's essentially a case of pro-life.

You can end up with a child in a home where it's not wanted, can't be looked after properly for whatever reason. The child also may have conditions or disabilities. Or the child could be shoved in a home, growing up knowing that their biological parents didn't want them. At the end of the day each person is different and going for an abortion for different reasons. It's all about thinking of a childs, and your own quality of life at the end of the day.

Rape victims and young people are a whole different matter but I'm not even going to go into that.

We live in a diverse, multicultural world and people's ignorance in trying to force their beliefs on others is going to accomplish nothing.

[Arkansasguy]

I've always been against people who do this as morally it's wrong.

It might be legal, yes but forcing your belief upon others is most certainly not right. Yes, if these people don't want children and get pregnant then it's their own fault but anti-abortionists fail to think through a full picture. Once the child is born it's none of their concern and frankly they couldn't give a crap. It's essentially a case of pro-life.

You can end up with a child in a home where it's not wanted, can't be looked after properly for whatever reason. The child also may have conditions or disabilities. Or the child could be shoved in a home, growing up knowing that their biological parents didn't want them. At the end of the day each person is different and going for an abortion for different reasons. It's all about thinking of a childs, and your own quality of life at the end of the day.

Rape victims and young people are a whole different matter but I'm not even going to go into that.

We live in a diverse, multicultural world and people's ignorance in trying to force their beliefs on others is going to accomplish nothing.

But the premise here is really absurd. We as a society force our views on other murders on people (we prohibit them), why not abortion?

[Dortmund]

But the premise here is really absurd. We as a society force our views on other murders on people (we prohibit them), why not abortion?

The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Furthermore it depends on the definition of when a child becomes a person. Whilst in the womb is can't live independently. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? The majority of the time someone gets an abortion the baby is nowhere near fully or even partially formed. At this stage you're moving something that doesn't even look human yet. It has the ability to in future but that's not in the present.

When you start taking solid rights away from people that's where you get a slippery slope and when you begin that it's a case of where does it end.

[Arkansasguy]

The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Furthermore it depends on the definition of when a child becomes a person. Whilst in the womb is can't live independently. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? The majority of the time someone gets an abortion the baby is nowhere near fully or even partially formed. At this stage you're moving something that doesn't even look human yet. It has the ability to in future but that's not in the present.

When you start taking solid rights away from people that's where you get a slippery slope and when you begin that it's a case of where does it end.

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. For instance, I assume you would agree that feeding children antifreeze should be illegal. I also assume that if you have kids, you will give them water. Now if we take your above line of reasoning, why should the state be able to tell others not to feed their kids antifreeze, but not able to tell you not to give them water? The answer, of course, is that feeding children antifreeze is evil, whereas giving them water is good. So too, banning abortion is good, whereas mandating contraception and sterilization is evil.

[Dortmund]

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. For instance, I assume you would agree that feeding children antifreeze should be illegal. I also assume that if you have kids, you will give them water. Now if we take your above line of reasoning, why should the state be able to tell others not to feed their kids antifreeze, but not able to tell you not to give them water? The answer, of course, is that feeding children antifreeze is evil, whereas giving them water is good. So too, banning abortion is good, whereas mandating contraception and sterilization is evil.

Not necessarily. As I said it depends on the definition of when it's an actual being. In the first trimester when the baby is barely formed and is still essentially a lump of cells. It can't function properly without the mother, whose body it is. The woman controls the use of her body and within law she can have that baby aborted if she wants to.

Now, essentially what is a lump of cells is dependant on the mother, it can't function at all and will die without her. Can that really be called a person? At this point in the first trimester you can barely distinguish it as an actual human life form, so how is this murder? It has potential to be a human but not in it's current state. So if it's not human then it has no rights. Which essentially riddles your whole 'anti-freeze to kids' arguments pointless.

I mean, for example with rape, a 14 year old girl is raped by someone. Are you seriously telling me that you expect her to give birth at that age? Then furthermore with all that emotional trauma that goes with it. That's essentially destroying one life to save another. This happens in other cases as well with various people.

It's easy for someone who is pro-life and anti-abortion to sit there and scoff at such arguments from those who want an abortion and that's because it doesn't affect them in the slightest. Once that baby is out alive and well they don't care and they'll simply move onto the next person they wish to demonise since they've little else better to do. Not trying to be harsh there but that is the simple reality of it.

[Arkansasguy]

Not necessarily. As I said it depends on the definition of when it's an actual being. In the first trimester when the baby is barely formed and is still essentially a lump of cells. It can't function properly without the mother, whose body it is. The woman controls the use of her body and within law she can have that baby aborted if she wants to.

Now, essentially what is a lump of cells is dependant on the mother, it can't function at all and will die without her. Can that really be called a person? At this point in the first trimester you can barely distinguish it as an actual human life form, so how is this murder? It has potential to be a human but not in it's current state. So if it's not human then it has no rights. Which essentially riddles your whole 'anti-freeze to kids' arguments pointless.

I mean, for example with rape, a 14 year old girl is raped by someone. Are you seriously telling me that you expect her to give birth at that age? Then furthermore with all that emotional trauma that goes with it. That's essentially destroying one life to save another. This happens in other cases as well with various people.

It's easy for someone who is pro-life and anti-abortion to sit there and scoff at such arguments from those who want an abortion and that's because it doesn't affect them in the slightest. Once that baby is out alive and well they don't care and they'll simply move onto the next person they wish to demonise since they've little else better to do. Not trying to be harsh there but that is the simple reality of it.

The point of the antifreeze argument was to refute your slippery slope fallacy.

And yes, intentionally killing a human embryo is murder, as it is a human being.

And yes, if a person gets pregnant through rape, they should not be allowed to kill the child. The child is innocent.

The last paragraph is ad hominem.

[Dortmund]

The point of the antifreeze argument was to refute your slippery slope fallacy.

And yes, intentionally killing a human embryo is murder, as it is a human being.

And yes, if a person gets pregnant through rape, they should not be allowed to kill the child. The child is innocent.

The last paragraph is ad hominem.

The literal definitions of a human embryo and a human being are two totally different things that's my point. There's so many features that makes the two completely different.

As for the rape part, you're essentially saying to a rape victim, you were raped, tough luck, and good luck having the kid. What sort of attitude is that to have towards someone. It's not the potential yet not formed kids fault obviously, but at the same time it's not the victims fault. Out of the two the victim is going to put themselves first every time rather than spend the rest of their teen years going through hell when they're still only a child themselves. The general though itself is traumatic.

As for my last paragraph I think that was more common knowledge rather than ad hominem. People can have their opinions but when it doesn't affect them it's useless.

[Arkansasguy]

The literal definitions of a human embryo and a human being are two totally different things that's my point. There's so many features that makes the two completely different.

As for the rape part, you're essentially saying to a rape victim, you were raped, tough luck, and good luck having the kid. What sort of attitude is that to have towards someone. It's not the potential yet not formed kids fault obviously, but at the same time it's not the victims fault. Out of the two the victim is going to put themselves first every time rather than spend the rest of their teen years going through hell when they're still only a child themselves. The general though itself is traumatic.

As for my last paragraph I think that was more common knowledge rather than ad hominem. People can have their opinions but when it doesn't affect them it's useless.

Consider the literal definition of a human being. A being that is human. A human embryo certainly is that, just as a human infant or human adult.

You're right that it's neither of their faults. Thus why neither of them should be killed for it.

It's still ad hominem.

[Dortmund]

Consider the literal definition of a human being. A being that is human. A human embryo certainly is that, just as a human infant or human adult.

You're right that it's neither of their faults. Thus why neither of them should be killed for it.

It's still ad hominem.

So what generally at the time of most pregnancies that is merely a lump of cells is a human being then? It has no distinguishable features whatsoever at this stage. It is unable to do anything independently. But that means it's still a 'human being'?

If that's so I'm simply going to stop as there's no use trying to persuade someone otherwise if that's their general view. The general problem here is what people consider to be a human being. That's the barrier in this instance.

I still don't believe it alright to go outside an abortion clinic and guilt trip. In many countries other than America the mere filming of it would be illegal. Especially as it's footage would be use to slander others.

[Arkansasguy]

So what generally at the time of most pregnancies that is merely a lump of cells is a human being then? It has no distinguishable features whatsoever at this stage. It is unable to do anything independently. But that means it's still a 'human being'?

If that's so I'm simply going to stop as there's no use trying to persuade someone otherwise if that's their general view. The general problem here is what people consider to be a human being. That's the barrier in this instance.

I still don't believe it alright to go outside an abortion clinic and guilt trip. In many countries other than America the mere filming of it would be illegal. Especially as it's footage would be use to slander others.

It is a being that is human. Do you dispute that?

[Dortmund]

It is a being that is human. Do you dispute that?

Yes. As I've already said countless times it's a lump of cells, it can't function properly, it can't do anything itself and has at the trimester point no characteristics which identify itself as human. It doesn't even move at this point. It's at this point I question how it can at that point be considered a human being.

Later on when it develops some of these there's no doubt it's a human being, but until then.

[Arkansasguy]

Yes. As I've already said countless times it's a lump of cells, it can't function properly, it can't do anything itself and has at the trimester point no characteristics which identify itself as human. It doesn't even move at this point. It's at this point I question how it can at that point be considered a human being.

Later on when it develops some of these there's no doubt it's a human being, but until then.

First of all, there are characteristics which can identify it as human, such as DNA. Second, it is a member of the Homo Sapiens species, and it is a distinct identity from its mother. Thus, by virtue of its ontological capacity for human capabilities, it possesses the moral rights of a human person.

[Ivander]

First, whether it is human or not, dead or alive, It is that woman's right to make that decision and no one else. The same way, as we established, that it is those peoples rights to record. Whether it is alive or not, its up to our perspectives, who are we to force our opinions on others. So to say that it is "murder" is uncalled for, and horrible thing to tell a mother or a woman that is about, or even has, made this difficult decision. I believe that we can all exercise our rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Second, let's stop this BS, I can bet good $$ non of us has any legitimate schooling in the medical or any scientific field to use terms such as "homosepien species" or "DNA" or ect. Before we start pointing finger an calling this women "murderers" let's get into that woman's shoes and feel what she is going through, and what let to her making this difficult decision (rape, ect.). And then into how she must it felt seen those people recording her, then we can post our opinions. I hope non of us has to ever be in her place and have to make a decision like this.
With my best English, Ivander

[Arkansasguy]

First, whether it is human or not, dead or alive, It is that woman's right to make that decision and no one else. The same way, as we established, that it is those peoples rights to record. Whether it is alive or not, its up to our perspectives, who are we to force our opinions on others. So to say that it is "murder" is uncalled for, and horrible thing to tell a mother or a woman that is about, or even has, made this difficult decision. I believe that we can all exercise our rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Second, let's stop this BS, I can bet good $$ non of us has any legitimate schooling in the medical or any scientific field to use terms such as "homosepien species" or "DNA" or ect. Before we start pointing finger an calling this women "murderers" let's get into that woman's shoes and feel what she is going through, and what let to her making this difficult decision (rape, ect.). And then into how she must it felt seen those people recording her, then we can post our opinions. I hope non of us has to ever be in her place and have to make a decision like this.
With my best English, Ivander

Civilized people is who we are. It is a fundamental characteristic of civilization to force opinions on people, especially regarding homicide and the like.

"Homo Sapien" and "DNA" are not overly complicated concepts. A High School biology class makes one readily equipped to use these correctly.

I'm not aware of anyone calling anyone a murderer in this thread. Pro-lifers tend to be less inclined to speak of individuals, and more inclined to speak of concepts and actions.

[Vlerchan]

Civilized people is who we are.
I don't think its civilised to believe that woman's bodies belong to the societies in which they live.

Thus, by virtue of its ontological capacity for human capabilities, it possesses the moral rights of a human person.
Even in early classical liberal conceptions of natural rights ones rights ended where another's started.

In my view the fetous' right to life stops where the woman's right to control over her own body starts.

[fairmaiden]

Why not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that place's sole function was to kill children, they don't perform any legitimate medical procedures?
If you were a woman, and if you were put in such a situation, I'm sure you'd dramatically change your opinion.

[Arkansasguy]

I don't think its civilised to believe that woman's bodies belong to the societies in which they live.


Even in early classical liberal conceptions of natural rights ones rights ended where another's started.

In my view the fetous' right to life stops where the woman's right to control over her own body starts.

Why should I accept liberal concepts of natural rights?

If you were a woman, and if you were put in such a situation, I'm sure you'd dramatically change your opinion.

Ad hominem.

[Dortmund]

It's legal so therefore a women who wants an abortion and has the rights to what happens with her body is going to go ahead with it.

Some people outside screaming, shouting and demonising them is helping anyone.

Futhermore I don't understand the repeated use of the phrase 'ad hominem' as if it's some kind of legitimate response, it's kind of just bypassing the argument that people are presenting to the discussion.

[Vlerchan]

Why should I accept liberal concepts of natural rights?
You don't have to. I just want us all to be aware how what natural rights are is not a set thing.

However I do question the logic behind your conception of natural rights. In a given scenario the unborn have more rights than other individuals. It has a (positive) right which allows it to use the woman's body without her permission. However other people - like to-be rapists for example- do not have this right regardless of their circumstances.

Unless we aren't all equal under God or something. That would seem to be the natural conclusion to this unequal allocation of rights.

---

Further I ask how you feel about the below:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

Does the violinist have a right to the woman's body too?

[Arkansasguy]

It's legal so therefore a women who wants an abortion and has the rights to what happens with her body is going to go ahead with it.

Some people outside screaming, shouting and demonising them is helping anyone.

Futhermore I don't understand the repeated use of the phrase 'ad hominem' as if it's some kind of legitimate response, it's kind of just bypassing the argument that people are presenting to the discussion.

The argument that I would think differently is fallacious. If that were true, it would not affect the rightness or wrongness of the acts in question.

You don't have to. I just want us all to be aware how what natural rights are is not a set thing.

However I do question the logic behind your conception of natural rights. In a given scenario the unborn have more rights than other individuals. It has a (positive) right which allows it to use the woman's body without her permission. However other people - like to-be rapists for example- do not have this right regardless of their circumstances.

Unless we aren't all equal under God or something. That would seem to be the natural conclusion to this unequal allocation of rights.

---

Further I ask how you feel about the below:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

Does the violinist have a right to the woman's body too?

A distinction must be made for this scenario. If a person were to stab the violinist (who is innocent of wrongdoing in this) to death, or otherwise directly kill him, such would still be murder. This is analogous to what most abortions are.

Now simply unplugging him is analogous to inducing miscarriage, and the like, as is sometimes done to abort early pregnancies. In this matter, it would it licit to unplug the violinist. What differentiates this from pregnancy is nature itself. Pregnancy occurs according to nature, thus why the fetus has a natural right to grow in its mother's womb. The violinist has no such right by nature.

[Vlerchan]

A distinction must be made for this scenario. If a person were to stab the violinist (who is innocent of wrongdoing in this) to death, or otherwise directly kill him, such would still be murder. This is analogous to what most abortions are.
It seems like the morals when it concerns ending someone's life differ on the basis of the levels of gore involved.

Now simply unplugging him is analogous to inducing miscarriage, and the like, as is sometimes done to abort early pregnancies.
Is deliberately inducing a miscarriage not murder?

Pregnancy occurs according to nature, thus why the fetus has a natural right to grow in its mother's womb.
I think the fact that unintentional miscarriages occur means that nature doesn't care about this supposedly natural right.

[losingNemo]

Unconstitutional. Yes, as citizens we have the right to protest, but we also have the right to freedom and privacy. The man filming these women were clearly invading their privacy and should be arrested. This whole thing is just sort of sickening—the filming, at least, and them not being kept anonymous? Horrible.

[Arkansasguy]

It seems like the morals when it concerns ending someone's life differ on the basis of the levels of gore involved.

It differs based on whether it's direct or indirect.

Is deliberately inducing a miscarriage not murder?

Deliberately creating a situation where one is deprived of something which one has a right to and which results in death is murder.

I think the fact that unintentional miscarriages occur means that nature doesn't care about this supposedly natural right.

Such an argument could be used to justify any murder.

[Vlerchan]

It differs based on whether it's direct or indirect.
So intention doesn't matter at all?

It also does seem like if something relies on me for support and I deliberately unplug myself from it then blame lies directly on me. Perhaps that is just my opinion though.

Deliberately creating a situation where one is deprived of something which one has a right to and which results in death is murder.
Of course you then go and define the unborn as having a right to use the mother's body.

That's convenient.

Such an argument could be used to justify any murder.
That's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Though please explain how.

[Arkansasguy]

So intention doesn't matter at all?

It also does seem like if something relies on me for support and I deliberately unplug myself from it then blame lies directly on me. Perhaps that is just my opinion though.[QUOTE]

Such is murder if you have a duty to provide for them.

[QUOTE]Of course you then go and define the unborn as having a right to use the mother's body.

That's convenient.

That follows from nature.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Though please explain how.

All sorts of unintentional deaths occur. Your argument could be used to therefore declare any killing acceptable.

[Vlerchan]

Such is murder if you have a duty to provide for them.
This duty then rests on "natural law"?

That follows from nature.
You're quite far from proving this.

So far all I have is your word to go on.

All sorts of unintentional deaths occur. Your argument could be used to therefore declare any killing acceptable.
Right. I'm not justifying the killing on these grounds. I'm just arguing that people don't have a natural right to not be killed.

Do you see the difference?

[Arkansasguy]

This duty then rests on "natural law"?

Yes.

You're quite far from proving this.

So far all I have is your word to go on.

A course in biology would be helpful.

Right. I'm not justifying the killing on these grounds. I'm just arguing that people don't have a natural right to not be killed.

Do you see the difference?

Ok.

[Vlerchan]

A course in biology would be helpful.
I have no idea how a course in biology would help me realise that a mother has a natural in-born duty (a moral and non-scientific claim) to her unborn young.

[Arkansasguy]

I have no idea how a course in biology would help me realise that a mother has a natural in-born duty (a moral and non-scientific claim) to her unborn young.

It would help you realize that the fetus's right proceeds from nature.

[Vlerchan]

It would help you realize that the fetus's right proceeds from nature.
I suppose this will just be where we end our discussion then.

It was nice debating with you.

[the main man]

I don't think its morally right but people should have a choice

[Dennis98]

It isn't right towards baby , towards society , towards nature and God ... And it should be abolished . Only in special cases like for example ; in case of rape , in case of mutations , in financial case , or if mother's life is in dangerous it should be allowed , in all other cases NO .

[Living For Love]

It isn't right towards baby , towards society , towards nature and God ... And it should be abolished . Only in special cases like for example ; in case of rape , in case of mutations , in financial case , or if mother's life is in dangerous it should be allowed , in all other cases NO .

Man, you absolutely hit the nail on the head with that comment.

I'd probably only not include the "financial cases" in that list of yours, but each case is a case, I guess.

[Dennis98]

Man, you absolutely hit the nail on the head with that comment.

I'd probably only not include the "financial cases" in that list of yours, but each case is a case, I guess.

"Financial case" on West and here on Balkan isn't same ... Here , more you're poor , you have more children .. So there is plenty of families that have monthly revenues are max 100e and have 10+ children , which is insane ... So I would even make abortion free in that kind of cases .