- Jan 17, 2006
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
Should abortion be legal?
Peralin said:Good poll, I'd like to see the results in a few months. No, it should not be legal. Nobody knows for sure whether the fetus is or is not a living human being. It's not worth the risk that we might be killing millions of little innocent children.
Vandeervecken said:Rights accrue at birth. A fetus is not born, and has no standing under the Constitution.
Even if one were to foolishly grant a fetus rights, it could not have rights that supersede the host.
Nobody has the right to life when it requires the body of an unwilling host to do so.
conserv.pat15 said:Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion?
Vandeervecken said:Directly? Nowhere. However as the government is NOT given the power in the Constitution to ban it, then under the 9th and 10th amendments that is a right retained by the people. Of course you can also cover it under the 1st and 14th Amendments as well.
conserv.pat15 said:None of those amendments gives the right to an abortion. None of those amendments keep the government from banning abortion. Where are you getting the right to an abortion in the 1st amendment?????!!!!! The 9th and 10th amendments don't prevent the government from banning abortion. Also, an argument can be made that an abortion violates the 14th amendment.
conserv.pat15 said:Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion?
U.S.Repub1 said:I agree I think it is a baby from the time the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell. And if the Liberals think that it is not a baby at 4 weeks the brain starts to function. At 5 and a halve weeks the heart starts to beat.
Kandahar said:Those are meaningless moments that have nothing to do with a right to life. A pig has a beating heart and a functioning brain too.
conserv.pat15 said:Those are not meaningless moments... these moments strengthen the argument proving that the fetus is a living human being.
Vandeervecken said:As he pointed out those are not things exclusive to a human being and thus pointless in the role you wish to assign them.
The fetus is a parasite that needs a host to keep it alive, the host has the right to evict. It is really that simple.
conserv.pat15 said:It doesn't matter if they are not exclusive to humans. Those are still signs of life, proving that the fetus is living. Also, just because the baby needs help from it's mother to grow does not mean that it is not a life. A fetus is a growing and development stage of life, just as birth is a stage, childhood is a stage, adulthood is a stage, ect.
By the way... can you comment on my other post earlier in this thread.
Stace said:Can you tell me how YOU have a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do regarding matters of her body? How is it affecting YOUR life if she has an abortion? I have yet to find someone from the pro life side that can answer those questions logically.
Stace said:Well, it does matter if those functions are exclusive to humans or not. We surely don't think twice about butchering a hog, even though it has a beating heart and brain functions. Why is that not considered murder to most people? We don't need red meat or pork or any of that to survive, so why kill these innocent animals?
Can you tell me how YOU have a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do regarding matters of her body? How is it affecting YOUR life if she has an abortion? I have yet to find someone from the pro life side that can answer those questions logically.
conserv.pat15 said:Are you serious?! Killing an animal and killing a human are two completely different things... If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you...
conserv.pat15 said:In regards to your questions... What about the body of the female baby that is being aborted? Why are you against protecting that females(or male) body?
conserv.pat15 said:As for your other question... It affects my life because I think unborn children are human beings and I am against aborting them.
conserv.pat15 said:Blahblahblah, I am too lazy to read back and find the quote in which you said that if something was not specifically stated in the constition, it was illegal or should be made illegal.
Kandahar said:How is a pig fetus at a similar point in the pregnancy any functionally different from a human fetus at 4-5 weeks? They even LOOK the same.
I majored in biology and minored in psychology, and let me tell you, there's no evidence of any consciousness in human beings until well after birth. And as far as I'm concerned, conciousness is the only basis for protecting human life because any other basis is either arbitrary or could easily apply to animals too.
Because it's a parasite and requires the enslavement of a host. If you woke up strapped to a table, and a doctor told you that he was going to remove your kidney against your will because someone else needed it to survive, would you be OK with this? What if he told you that you'd be so sick from this that you'd be unable to continue your normal life for the next nine months, and furthermore there was a slight chance that you'd die during the procedure? How is that any different than forcing a woman to carry a child to term?
That's not an answer because I already explained why the reasons behind a prohibition on murder don't apply to fetuses.
Memnon said:Well, there is nothing in the Constitution that says I cannot eat grapes while standing upside down reading a book, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Forgive me if my understanding of the American constitution is flawed, I am Canadian and woefully ignorant of the fine points of your law.
Now, for my personal stance on abortion: I do not feel that abortion should be made illegal. I support the women's right to choose.
a) I do not think a fetus is alive. While I would not go so far as to call it a "clump of cells", I do not consider something "alive" until it is capable of surviving outside the womb. As far as scientists can tell, and I will agree with this until it is disproven, this point is ten weeks, or almost at the third trimester.
b) On this note, abortion is not murder, as the fetus is not yet a "living" being. As someone very eloquently put earlier, the fetus is something that depends on the mother, and should, at the mothers DISCRETION, be removed within reason (meaning, not into the third trimester).
c) In light of some people saying that they feel that a fetus is alive when the sperm and egg meet, the potential for life is not enough to act on. See above statements.
Please note that I am not interested in replies that have anything to do with God, Jesus, religion, the Bible, etc. because I don't care about those. I care about facts. This isn't directed at people that have posted here, it is just my experience on previous debate forums.
conserv.pat15 said:You liberals don't make sense... stop trying to compare the value of a human fetus vs. an animal fetus.
conserv.pat15 said:Also, Kandahar, your analogy is poor at best.
Kandahar said:That's a slippery slope. If abortions are illegal/immoral in the third trimester because the fetus is theoretically capable of surviving outside the womb with intensive care, what happens if new-and-improved technology makes it possible for the fetus to survive outside the womb in the second trimester? Do those abortions suddenly become illegal/immoral too?
I see no reason to outlaw abortion at ANY point in the pregnancy. Whether it's capable of surviving outside the womb is an arbitrary criterion.