Banning Abortion: Does It Make Sense?

[Hornburger]

And you can have that opinion. SHould your opinion be legislated?

I believe so, if there is enough people to go along with me.

And it is best for society that women's control of their bodies be taken away, that they are made slaves?

That's going a bit overboard, putting a law in banning abortion and murder of a child does not make a woman a slave.

As 3 of every 5 women will have an abortion in their lifetime, it affects A LOT of Americans.
It affect more Americans than most issues do.

I don't believe this statistic. Anyway, if it is right, shouldn't we do something to lessen this absurdly high number?

Yes, now contraceptives make sexual unions freely possible without it becoming a definitive committment. But, if it is too late, and a child is already in the picture, women should use the means that science places at their disposal- abortion, because a child who was not wanted at the moment of conception, can't blossom fully since it wasn't created in love and harmony.

People mature, and if the kid isn't taken proper care of, then it will simply be taken away. Anyway, the parents can always resort to adoption.

Why? A fetus does not have a conciousness. Up until the point of viability (usually 7months or sooner) I'd say abortions are perfectly acceptable.

Because a fetus feeds on the mother and is in the first, developing stages of a human being.

You're allowed your opinions of course, but they are extremely naive.
You believe it's murder, and believe murderers should have the death penalty...either way you condone killing. But you don't suggest viable compromises.

I never said all murderers should the death penalty, only some. Abortionists do not fit this category of treachory. The death penalty is a completely different scenario than abortion-in the death penalty, the the criminal already committed a HUGE wrong against all of society. In abortion, the baby did nothing. So it has nothing to do with condoning killing. What compromises do you speak of? I don't remember you suggesting many.

Birth control is not 100% effective...both men and women can and do have strong reproductive systems, strong enough that BC pills can and do, on occasion, fail. Condoms break...abstinence is the only 100% effective method and, let's face it, not many practice it past a certain age. With variables, abortion has to be a decision at times.

Answered by kal-el, the chances are like 0.1%

A woman undergoing fertility treatments who ends up with 8 or 9 embryos...none will live, so selective reduction is a viable alternative. If the law were rescinded except in cases of rape or health, it certainly is sure one desperate enough will use those and succeed in her quest.

I believe that people tend to follow the law, and on the whole, people are greatly deterred if they are to risk punishment for a certain action.

And it still falls on the matter of rights. While an embryo certainly exists, it does not as a viable seperate life and as it is in the woman's body and affecting her, it has to be her right to decide, abortion, adoption, whatever.

I believe the woman has a duty to society to protect that child.

Killing women as murderers because YOU think it's murder to abort is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

Killing babies because YOU think it's not murder is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

Even jailing them is-1.3 million women serving time???? Get real, kid

It's not like they'd be serving life sentences or anything. And get rid of the druggies from jail and put in these murderes for a bit. Anyway, when abortion was illegal, I highly doubt the prisons were THAT overcrowded. The prisons are much worse nowadays.

 

[kal-el]

People mature, and if the kid isn't taken proper care of, then it will simply be taken away. Anyway, the parents can always resort to adoption.

We now have the abilities and the technical knowhow to find a crippling or degenerative illness in a child pre-birth. Don't you think it would be immoral to condemn a child to live a life of hardship and misery just because of stupid Judeo-Christian beleiefs?

Because a fetus feeds on the mother and is in the first, developing stages of a human being.

That is the key word: fetus. It is not technically a human being, it's a fetus. No thoughts or feelings of personality, those are the qualities that makes an individual human. Again, a fetus does not own a concious. IMO life only begins at viability, that is when the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb, with artificial help, usually anywhere from 6-8 months.

 

[L'Image]

I believe so, if there is enough people to go along with me.

The crux of the matter is, a legislation based on subjective moral opinion would censor and punish those with differing views. If I believe eating carrots is a sin, I have no right to hinder you from eating carrots: this is a pretty simple concept that guarantees a society in which we are all free to have dissenting viewpoints and act on these, as long as we do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

If YOUR subjective morals were to be made a law we ALL had to follow, those with different morals would suffer. Under current legislation, if you believe abortion to be a sin or otherwise wrong, nobody is forcing you to undergo one. Under a legislation enforcing subjective opinion as public law, a purely totalitarian practice, women would be forced to surrender control over their body regardless of their belief in fetuses as non-life.

If you do not believe I have the right to hinder you from eating carrots, you cannot at the same time claim yourself to have any right hindering women from terminating pregnancies.

In abortion, the baby did nothing.

Killing babies because YOU think it's not murder is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

You say baby, I say fetus. You say life, I say a clump of cells (in development of becoming something more). If we cannot agree that a fetus is a life, there is, de facto, no basis for legislating as if it objectively were.

 

[tecoyah]

I propose an ammendment to the legislation....by which the use of juicing technology be granted (with permit) to those so inclined, or who would suffer undu hardship with the loss of Carrot Juice.

 

[Hornburger]

We now have the abilities and the technical knowhow to find a crippling or degenerative illness in a child pre-birth. Don't you think it would be immoral to condemn a child to live a life of hardship and misery just because of stupid Judeo-Christian beleiefs?

That's assuming the child will live a life of hardship and misery.

And my opinion has nothing to do with religion or belief. It only has to do with 2 things: 1) My thoughts that people generally tend to follow the law; and 2) My thoughts that a fetus is living.

That is the key word: fetus. It is not technically a human being, it's a fetus. No thoughts or feelings of personality, those are the qualities that makes an individual human. Again, a fetus does not own a concious. IMO life only begins at viability, that is when the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb, with artificial help, usually anywhere from 6-8 months.

If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality.

The crux of the matter is, a legislation based on subjective moral opinion would censor and punish those with differing views. If I believe eating carrots is a sin, I have no right to hinder you from eating carrots: this is a pretty simple concept that guarantees a society in which we are all free to have dissenting viewpoints and act on these, as long as we do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

If YOUR subjective morals were to be made a law we ALL had to follow, those with different morals would suffer. Under current legislation, if you believe abortion to be a sin or otherwise wrong, nobody is forcing you to undergo one. Under a legislation enforcing subjective opinion as public law, a purely totalitarian practice, women would be forced to surrender control over their body regardless of their belief in fetuses as non-life.

If you do not believe I have the right to hinder you from eating carrots, you cannot at the same time claim yourself to have any right hindering women from terminating pregnancies.

However, eating carrots has nothing to do with harm or injury. The state has the dual purpose of keeping its citizens safe from each other and keep them as happy as possible (By this second duty, for example, I mean the government must try to keep depressions in the economy as small and short as possible and the good times as long and big as possible). I think banning abortion fulfills the first of these obligations.

It would depend on how many people agree with me. If I am in fact part of the majority, then it is democratic. A totalitarian practice is making something law even if the majority of the population does not agree with it.

So you think men don't have any say on the issue? That is like saying if we go to war, women have no say on the topic because they most likely aren't going to fight on the front lines. What you are also saying is like, well, murder (not referring to abortion) should be legalized because no one is forcing me to murder. That type of logic is insensible and simply does not work.

 

[steen]

I believe so, if there is enough people to go along with me.

Even when it is uinconstitutional? The US Constitution protects the minority from having the majority's moral beliefs imposed on their body. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.

So do you favor disbanding the US Constitution?

That's going a bit overboard, putting a law in banning abortion and murder of a child does not make a woman a slave.

"Murder of a child" has nothing to do with abortions, so please avoid such silly hyperbole. As for the banning of abortions, that involves denying the woman the RIGHT to control her own bodily resources. That very much is slavery. I find it odd that you advocate slavery and then are to scared to admit to your beliefs.

Are you ashamed of your position that advocated taking away the woman's right to control her own body?

I don't believe this statistic.[that 40% of American women have abortions in their liofetime]

That you don't believe that statistic doesn't invalidate it.

Anyway, if it is right, shouldn't we do something to lessen this absurdly high number?

Sure. prochoice are all for limiting the need for the woman to seek an abortion. Better sex-ed, better, cheaper and more available contraception as well as much better support of that woman once she is pregnant, these are all pro-choice goals. Unfortunately, most prolifers oppose one or more of these processes that could reduce the number of abortions. Prolifers are more into punishhing the woman than to help her, thus resorting to punitive, misogynistic legislation of their imposing moralistic hate mongeriung and removing support for women.

People mature, and if the kid isn't taken proper care of, then it will simply be taken away. Anyway, the parents can always resort to adoption.

Because a fetus feeds on the mother

Just like a parasite does.

Answered by kal-el, the chances are like 0.1%

And 0.1%^ of a lot of people having sex results in 58% of all abortions being per conception after the couple used contraception.

I believe the woman has a duty to society to protect that child.

WHEN there is a child, after birth. WHat duty does she have to society otherwise? Does everybody have the duty to protect "human life" whenever possible? Should you be FORCED to give your extra kidney to a patient who otherwise will die from kidney failure? If NOT, why should the woman be forced to give of her bodily resources and you should not? Why such hypocricy?

Killing babies because YOU think it's not murder is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

And nobody have advocated killing babies, so your claim is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

It's not like they'd be serving life sentences or anything.

Ah, so temporary imprisonment of 1 mill women each year is fine? Well, I am not surprised, as you are advocating 9 month enslavement of women as well. But then, you oppose the 15 minute enslavement of people in being forced to give blood. What an odd discrepancy, could it possibly be based on hypocrisy; in you not wanting to risk being subjected to what you want to FORCE women to do?

 

[steen]

If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality.

Mammals, f.ex. certainly feel pain. So, your argument doesn't make sense.

However, eating carrots has nothing to do with harm or injury.

It is harm and injury to the carrot.

The state has the dual purpose of keeping its citizens safe from each other and keep them as happy as possible (By this second duty, for example, I mean the government must try to keep depressions in the economy as small and short as possible and the good times as long and big as possible). I think banning abortion fulfills the first of these obligations.

Not at all, as it harms the woman to be enslaved. Only a florid misogynist can deny this. How does enslaving women NOT harm them and end up increasing their happiness?

Or did you not give the woman even one thought in your argument? Are you THAT misogynistic?

It would depend on how many people agree with me. If I am in fact part of the majority, then it is democratic.

Ah, but the US COnstitution protects individuals against the tyrrany of the majority. So your claimn is false.

So you think men don't have any say on the issue?

We have the say in saying anythign we want. However, we don't have the right to control the woman's body. We are not womens' slavers even though prolifers would love to be just that.

 

[L'Image]

If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality.

Yes, and we eat those animals. We certainly do not legislate for the preservance of their fetuses. A full-grown animal is also vastly different from any human or non-human fetus in that it has a perception of being alive; it can feel pain, hunger, sexdrive, and so on. A fetus is little than a host-dependent bundle of cells with the mere potential of becoming something more.

However, eating carrots has nothing to do with harm or injury.

And I would say that aborting a fetus hasn't, either, therefore your whole point becomes moot.

The state has the dual purpose of keeping its citizens safe from each other and keep them as happy as possible (By this second duty, for example, I mean the government must try to keep depressions in the economy as small and short as possible and the good times as long and big as possible). I think banning abortion fulfills the first of these obligations.

The state has this responsibility towards its citizens. I do not consider a fetus a citizen, and there is little non-religious grounds for doing so.

Legislating on such spiritual, subjectively moral grounds would overturn an actual state responsibility, namely protecting the right to free speech, belief and action where it does not interfere with someone else's right.

Secular legislation does in no way hinder you from believing abortion to be a sin, and deal with pregnancy accordingly.

It would depend on how many people agree with me. If I am in fact part of the majority, then it is democratic. A totalitarian practice is making something law even if the majority of the population does not agree with it.

After a certain point, the majority of the german population believed the anti-Jewish laws to be correct and agreeable. It did nonetheless not validate these laws as being of a democratic nature.

So you think men don't have any say on the issue?

Absolutely I do. I do not believe in forcing anybody to have a child, including men. Allowing a pregnancy to continue despite a man's objection is imposing parenthood on an unwilling individual.

However, women that undergo abortion in no way interfere with a man's possibility of rearing children in the future.

What you are also saying is like, well, murder (not referring to abortion) should be legalized because no one is forcing me to murder. That type of logic is insensible and simply does not work.

Legislation against murder is one of the most general laws in the world. Most all states have some legislative principle to that effect (although quite the few allow themselves to take lives via death penalties, torture, etc). This is because we can all, objectively, agree that murder equals taking a life; and taking a life is wrong on the grounds it harms other citizens - and our society simply could not work if we were all afraid of getting assasinated at whim all the time.

A fetus, however, is not legally a life. We cannot, in a secular manner, agree that it is or it isn't. We cannot assume that everyone, regardless of religion and philosophy, would agree to it being a living human being in the first place.

People that find jews or any other group of people to be less human than some other have no legal ground for claiming so, as we clearly and objectively can demonstrate all humans have basically the same DNA, the same needs, the same capacity for emotion etc. It is not disputable.

The same cannot be said of the status of a fetus - there simply is no way of objectively saying that, yes, this is a life, it has rights. And where you believe it has, and abortion equals murder, I have no right to force you to take a life -- just as you don't have the right to force a woman to keep something she considers, at that point of pregnancy, a mere collection of cells.

 

[kal-el]

That's assuming the child will live a life of hardship and misery.

Yes, of course. Should people be allowed to dictate that society allows children to be born afflicted with physical monstrousities, or a lifetime of sickness and handicap,when we know know how to avoid it?

And my opinion has nothing to do with religion or belief. It only has to do with 2 things: 1) My thoughts that people generally tend to follow the law; and 2) My thoughts that a fetus is living.

Sorry to inform you, but having abortions is not against the law. You guys are right IMO, a fetus is "alive" from the moment of conception, when all the cells form to make a new being, but, of course, what you pro-lifers fail to realize is at this moment the fetus has no moral status.

If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality.

What's your point? There is no evidence in biology or psychology to suggest that a fetus has any kind of awareness.

 

[Hornburger]

Re: Banning Abortion: Does it make sense?

Even when it is uinconstitutional? The US Constitution protects the minority from having the majority's moral beliefs imposed on their body. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. So do you favor disbanding the US Constitution?

The US Constitution also protects the right to life.

Murder of a child" has nothing to do with abortions, so please avoid such silly hyperbole.

In my opinion, it has very much to do with abortions. A fetus feeds and moves-it is living.

As for the banning of abortions, that involves denying the woman the RIGHT to control her own bodily resources. That very much is slavery. I find it odd that you advocate slavery and then are to scared to admit to your beliefs.

Do not tell me what I do and do not believe. The woman DID have a choice, and she chose to have that baby when she did not take preventive measures before sex. Should have thought about that before, huh?

Slavery involves the ownership of people. No one is owning people, no one is buying or selling anyone. Please refrain from going overboard on your feminist rants, and stick to the topic at hand.

Which is more important, life or choice? My answer is life, when it affects another individual, as in the case of abortions.

Are you ashamed of your position that advocated taking away the woman's right to control her own body?

NO, STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE. Unless if you are pyschic, of course, but up to this point in my life I haven't met any.

That you don't believe that statistic doesn't invalidate it.

At least tell me where you got that statstic.

Again, even if it was right, which it's not, wouldn't that mean that we have to do something other than what we are doing now to stop abortion? Even if you believe it should stay legalized, I would be very surprised to hear if you would actually promote people getting abortions. All you are doing is proving my point about how we need to do something about it.

Sure. prochoice are all for limiting the need for the woman to seek an abortion. Better sex-ed, better, cheaper and more available contraception as well as much better support of that woman once she is pregnant, these are all pro-choice goals. Unfortunately, most prolifers oppose one or more of these processes that could reduce the number of abortions. Prolifers are more into punishhing the woman than to help her, thus resorting to punitive, misogynistic legislation of their imposing moralistic hate mongeriung and removing support for women.

Support preventive measures before she got pregnant. When she gets pregnant, you have a new duty to society. Didn't want that duty, should have thought about that condom and that birth control pill.

Just like a parasite does.

Yes, and a parasite is living. Are you promoting us killing fetuses now because they are parasites to the mother?

And 0.1%^ of a lot of people having sex results in 58% of all abortions being per conception after the couple used contraception.

No it doesn't. Less than 99.99% of people having sex don't use a condom and take birth control pills.

WHEN there is a child, after birth. WHat duty does she have to society otherwise?

To protect the life that she has created through her sexual activity.

Does everybody have the duty to protect "human life" whenever possible?

Parents have the duty to protect their children if their children are minors.

Should you be FORCED to give your extra kidney to a patient who otherwise will die from kidney failure? If NOT, why should the woman be forced to give of her bodily resources and you should not? Why such hypocricy?

Because in that instance, both people are innocent. An innocent person should not be forced to endanger themselves for someone else. In the case of abortion, people could use highly successful preventative measures, and if they don't, then the woman assumed the risk and now must go through with the pregnancy.

And nobody have advocated killing babies, so your claim is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

And nobody have advocated murdering women, so your claim is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

Ah, so temporary imprisonment of 1 mill women each year is fine?

If they committed such a crime, yes.

Well, I am not surprised, as you are advocating 9 month enslavement of women as well.

How about this crazy idea...TAKE SOME BIRTH PILLS

But then, you oppose the 15 minute enslavement of people in being forced to give blood. What an odd discrepancy, could it possibly be based on hypocrisy; in you not wanting to risk being subjected to what you want to FORCE women to do?

Completely different scenario, see above.

Mammals, f.ex. certainly feel pain. So, your argument doesn't make sense.

First of all, you don't know that fetuses can't feel pain. Second of all, feeling pain is not a necessary component in determing if something is living. If something has not yet developed nerves, or does not have nerves, it can be still alive.

It is harm and injury to the carrot.

Carrots are not citizens of the United States, and they are not human.

Not at all, as it harms the woman to be enslaved. Only a florid misogynist can deny this. How does enslaving women NOT harm them and end up increasing their happiness?

Or did you not give the woman even one thought in your argument? Are you THAT misogynistic?

Sometimes you have to decide whose happiness or future happiness is more important. I believe it is that of the one who did nothing wrong.

Ah, but the US COnstitution protects individuals against the tyrrany of the majority. So your claimn is false.

Laws are created if it is consented to by the MAJORITY of legislators.

We have the say in saying anythign we want. However, we don't have the right to control the woman's body. We are not womens' slavers even though prolifers would love to be just that.

We aren't the killers of babies, either. Which is more important, saving the life of an innocent, or making women go through with 9 months of labor, but still be alive and have the opportunity to be successful and happy afterwords?

 

[Hornburger]

Yes, and we eat those animals. We certainly do not legislate for the preservance of their fetuses. A full-grown animal is also vastly different from any human or non-human fetus in that it has a perception of being alive; it can feel pain, hunger, sexdrive, and so on. A fetus is little than a host-dependent bundle of cells with the mere potential of becoming something more.

I was only making the point that fetuses are alive, no matter the species, human, elk, skunk, whatever.. It can eat, feed, die, is composed of cells...and I forget the rest of the biology requirements for being alive. But I think it is.

And I would say that aborting a fetus hasn't, either, therefore your whole point becomes moot.

Even if you don't believe the fetus is "alive", if you have an abortion, there is still harm to the cells...but anyway, I was still only stating my opinion, not yours.

The state has this responsibility towards its citizens. I do not consider a fetus a citizen, and there is little non-religious grounds for doing so.

Well, I am considering the biology requirements for being alive, and to my knowledge, a fetus meets those requirements.

Legislating on such spiritual, subjectively moral grounds would overturn an actual state responsibility, namely protecting the right to free speech, belief and action where it does not interfere with someone else's right.

Secular legislation does in no way hinder you from believing abortion to be a sin, and deal with pregnancy accordingly.

My argument has nothing at all to do with spirtitual crap or religion. I simply believe a fetus is alive and that prohibiting abortion will result in more people not getting abortions.

After a certain point, the majority of the german population believed the anti-Jewish laws to be correct and agreeable. It did nonetheless not validate these laws as being of a democratic nature.

All I was talking about is that more people would have to agree with me in order to get the law passed. If you do not agree with how laws are created in this country, well then...move to canada lol. (j/k)

Absolutely I do. I do not believe in forcing anybody to have a child, including men. Allowing a pregnancy to continue despite a man's objection is imposing parenthood on an unwilling individual.

However, women that undergo abortion in no way interfere with a man's possibility of rearing children in the future.

Well...it's not always the man telling the woman not to get the abortion. Sometimes it's the man telling the woman TO get the abortion.

I do not believe in killing babies...lol...I just value life over a nine-term pregnancy, that's all.

Legislation against murder is one of the most general laws in the world. Most all states have some legislative principle to that effect (although quite the few allow themselves to take lives via death penalties, torture, etc). This is because we can all, objectively, agree that murder equals taking a life; and taking a life is wrong on the grounds it harms other citizens - and our society simply could not work if we were all afraid of getting assasinated at whim all the time.

A fetus, however, is not legally a life. We cannot, in a secular manner, agree that it is or it isn't. We cannot assume that everyone, regardless of religion and philosophy, would agree to it being a living human being in the first place.

People that find jews or any other group of people to be less human than some other have no legal ground for claiming so, as we clearly and objectively can demonstrate all humans have basically the same DNA, the same needs, the same capacity for emotion etc. It is not disputable.

The same cannot be said of the status of a fetus - there simply is no way of objectively saying that, yes, this is a life, it has rights. And where you believe it has, and abortion equals murder, I have no right to force you to take a life -- just as you don't have the right to force a woman to keep something she considers, at that point of pregnancy, a mere collection of cells.

Well, there is no absolute scientific proof of whether a fetus is living or not. If it really is living, you're killing someone. If it really isn't living, well then you have to go through a pregnancy. Which is worse?

Yes, of course. Should people be allowed to dictate that society allows children to be born afflicted with physical monstrousities, or a lifetime of sickness and handicap,when we know know how to avoid it?

Wait, how would banning abortion result in many children with physical deformities? I got lost in that line of thinking, I apologize lol

Sorry inform you, but having abortions is not against the law.

Did I ever say abortion was against the law?

You guys are right IMO, a fetus is "alive" from the moment of conception, when all the cells form to make a new being, but, of course, what you pro-lifers fail to realize is at this moment the fetus has no moral status.

No moral status? What do you mean?

What's your point? There is no evidence in biology or psychology to suggest that a fetus has any kind of awareness.

Well, I'm not a biology freak so I know little about this kind of stuff, so maybe this makes my opinion not as important as someone who is good at science.

All I'm saying is that I think a fetus meets the biology requirements of life, and that a fetus doesn't need awareness, personality, etc etc. in order to be alive.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by Hornburger
Wait, how would banning abortion result in many children with physical deformities? I got lost in that line of thinking, I apologize lol

If we ban it, and women have no choice to do as they see fit,and let every child be born, they won't all be in perfect health. There are many factors invovled in this like drinking habits, smoking habits, drug habits, etc. It is indeed a crime against humanity to let children be born who will suffer all their lives when we know how to ensure that only healthy children be born.

Did I ever say abortion was against the law?

Ohh, you probably didn't. My bad.

No moral status? What do you mean?

Well, when life begins (the union of sperm and egg) the fetus is not human. It has no morality. Before the period of viability (6-8 months) the fetus is but a vegetable. What truly makes a human is possessing thoughts, personality, and feelings. A fetus hasnone of these. So, it has no moral status.

All I'm saying is that I think a fetus meets the biology requirements of life, and that a fetus doesn't need awareness, personality, etc etc. in order to be alive

Sure it needs them to be considered a living being. After viability the fetus is very much alive, and a human being. Therefore, I do not condone late-term abortions, cause after viability it is considered a seperate entity with seperate rights.

 

[L'Image]

Sorry, I have little time to respond in length right now, but one particular sentence by Hornburger irked me: "To protect the life that she has created through her sexual activity."

How come the role of the male is so easily excluded from this equation? Has he no responsibility or part in reproductive sexual activity? Men certainly are not the ones having to carry the fetus to term; they also usually don't take it upon themselves to act as primary caretakers after conception. As is often the case in our society, women get all the responsibility but none of the privileges of choice. In the skewed image of sexuality and reproduction often presented in the abortion debate, one has to marvel any consensual sex at all is taking place as it comes off as an incredibly unfair deal for women. Men can have all the irresponsible sex they wish, and then just sneak off unmentioned; women are left standing reprimanded and forced to solely bear both shame, responsibility and babies.

 

[Hornburger]

If we ban it, and women have no choice to do as they see fit,and let every child be born, they won't all be in perfect health. There are many factors invovled in this like drinking habits, smoking habits, drug habits, etc. It is indeed a crime against humanity to let children be born who will suffer all their lives when we know how to ensure that only healthy children be born.

Well, I just think that we can't just KILL the children with handicapps, they are still worth life. And many of these children won't have such deformities.

Ohh, you probably didn't. My bad.

It's all good.

Well, when life begins (the union of sperm and egg) the fetus is not human. It has no morality. Before the period of viability (6-8 months) the fetus is but a vegetable. What truly makes a human is possessing thoughts, personality, and feelings. A fetus hasnone of these. So, it has no moral status.

Interesting that you use the word vegetable...I know this is a little off-topic, but would you say that if someone has been in a hospital for like, 20 years, and has deteorated to such a state as a vegetable, would you say he/she/it isn't human? I'm just curious.

But what you said I will consider...

Sure it needs them to be considered a living being. After viability the fetus is very much alive, and a human being. Therefore, I do not condone late-term abortions, cause after viability it is considered a seperate entity with seperate rights.

mmm, yeah, I personally think it's living at the point of conception, but yeah...

 

[Hornburger]

Sorry, I have little time to respond in length right now, but one particular sentence by Hornburger irked me: "To protect the life that she has created through her sexual activity."

How come the role of the male is so easily excluded from this equation? Has he no responsibility or part in reproductive sexual activity? Men certainly are not the ones having to carry the fetus to term; they also usually don't take it upon themselves to act as primary caretakers after conception. As is often the case in our society, women get all the responsibility but none of the privileges of choice. In the skewed image of sexuality and reproduction often presented in the abortion debate, one has to marvel any consensual sex at all is taking place as it comes off as an incredibly unfair deal for women. Men can have all the irresponsible sex they wish, and then just sneak off unmentioned; women are left standing reprimanded and forced to solely bear both shame, responsibility and babies.

mmm, blame biology for making women bearing babies, but a life is a life. And I just don't see how the law can force two people to be in a relationship together, so I don't see how what you are talking about to be prevented. I understand men leaving women to be single mothers can be quite common and is treacherous; yet the only way I can see to prevent this is regular payments to the mother for the baby, something I think that the law already does.

And this is another key point to my argument in case my post was too long: Well, there is no absolute scientific proof of whether a fetus is living or not. If it really is living, you're killing someone. If it really isn't living, well then you have to go through a pregnancy. Which is worse?

 

[steen]

Re: Banning Abortion: Does it make sense?

The US Constitution also protects the right to life.

Really? So if the kidney patient is dying, then he has the RIGHT to force you to give up your extra kidney? After all, it won't kill you, but it will save his life?

Forced organ and blood donations are protected by the US Constitution? Or are you perhaps in error per your absolutist claim?

In my opinion, it has very much to do with abortions. A fetus feeds and moves-it is living.

But it is not a "child." So as I pointed out: "'Murder of a child' has nothing to do with abortions, so please avoid such silly hyperbole. " Is that part clear to you by now?

Do not tell me what I do and do not believe.

I am not, so drop the silly 'outrage." Rather, your argument is SUPPORTING the forcing the woman to give up control over her own body. hence, you ARE supporting her enslavement.

The woman DID have a choice, and she chose to have that baby when she did not take preventive measures before sex.

Your claim is false, as consent to sex is NOT consent to motherhood, or even to pregnancy. You may WISH for this to be so, but reality is very different than your wish.

And your position also ignores that 58% of abortions are per failure of contraception.

Should have thought about that before, huh?

Completely irrelevant, as sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than smokign is "consent" to lung cancer, or driving is "consent" to accidents.

[Slavery involves the ownership of people. No one is owning people, no one is buying or selling anyone.

And your position is that for 9 months, you can enslave the woman, you can own the right to control her bodily resources without her having a say about it. So your attempt at denying this rings hollow.

Please refrain from going overboard on your feminist rants,

Please cease your fascist hate mongering against pregnant women (yes, isn't this fun, we can go on and on with name-calling. Good way to fill up the page)

and stick to the topic at hand.

I am. When you take control over another person's life and body, then you are enslaving them.

Which is more important, life or choice? My answer is life, when it affects another individual, as in the case of abortions.

Then you also must be in favor of the one dying from kidney failure being able to FORCE you to give up that extra kidney of yours so he can survive. After all, his life trumps your choice to retain your kidney, right? Or was that argument of your so hypocritical that you only feel the fetus has that right against the woman, but nobody have that right against you? Are you busy assigning duties to others that you refuse yourself?

At least tell me where you got that statstic.

Center for Disease Control Annual Abortion Survey. The latest one, I believe is the 2001 survey. I don't think the 2002 data has been presented yet.

Again, even if it was right, which it's not,

yes, it is. Why are you deceptive about this?

wouldn't that mean that we have to do something other than what we are doing now to stop abortion? Even if you believe it should stay legalized, I would be very surprised to hear if you would actually promote people getting abortions. All you are doing is proving my point about how we need to do something about it.

Sure we do. Any time we can avoid a medical procedure is good. So there are ways to reduce the need for an abortion. Better sex-ed, better, cheaper and more available contraception, and better support for pregnant women and new parents. All of these will reduce the number of abortions. Now, if you can persuade the prolife fundies to NOT protest these things, then we will see the number of abortions go down.

Support preventive measures before she got pregnant.

We agree on that one.

When she gets pregnant, you have a new duty to society.

Nope.

Didn't want that duty, should have thought about that condom and that birth control pill.

So once again, you declare your support for the 58% of abortions that result after the use of contraceptives.

Yes, and a parasite is living.

Agreed.

Are you promoting us killing fetuses now because they are parasites to the mother?

Nope. I am promoting the woman having the say in whether she abort or not. I am not rpomoting abortions. I am not rpomoting reasons for abortions, as that is not my issue; that is only the woman's issue.

No it doesn't. 99.99% of people having sex don't use a condom and take birth control pills.

Ah, but 58% of those who have abortions ARE using contraception, your misleading deception none withstanding.

To protect the life that she has created through her sexual activity.

She has no such duty. Your wishful thinking is not a fact to her.

Parents have the duty to protect their children if their children are minors.

Which is true at birth, when there actually is a child.

Because in that instance, both people are innocent. An innocent person should not be forced to endanger themselves for someone else.

Ah, but what does "innocence" have to do with it. You clearly stated that there is a right to life and showed no conditions such as guilt/innocence, age, developmental stage or anything like that. If there is a RIGHT to life, then the kidney patient has the right to live at your bodily resources' expense. he has then the right to force you to give up your extra kidney even against your will.

But then, this is nothing more than what you insist the woman's duty is. You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to assign a duty to the woman that you wouldn't accept yourself, would you? because that would be so disappointing in you turning out to be as hypocritical as the rest of the prolifers.

In the case of abortion, people could use highly successful preventative measures,

That would be great. Unfortunately, "fervent" religious prolife types seek to restrict access to these.

and if they don't, then the woman assumed the risk and now must go through with the pregnancy.

Nope.

And nobody have advocated murdering women, so your claim is a bit over the top and totally void of logic.

What stupid crap is this? Nowhere did I talk about murdering women. please stop that crap; slander is still slander, even if it is you spewing the false accusations.

If they committed such a crime, yes.

The crime of not fitting their lives into your moral schema. But, of course, the US Constitution also protects them from you imposing your punitive, theocratic misogyny on them.

How about this crazy idea...TAKE SOME BIRTH PILLS

How about Birth CONTROL Pills? :lol: And 58% of abortions, of course, already are from pregnancies after contraceptive use.

Completely different scenario, see above.

Your claim is false. In both cases, the issue is the use of a person's bodily resources against the person's will in order to save another person's life. The scenarios are exactly the same. Your reluctance to deal with this fact is duly noted.

First of all, you don't know that fetuses can't feel pain.

I know that they camn't feel ANYTHING AT ALL until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, so the 99+% of all abortions have no issue of fetal pain involved to begin with. THAT I know. So you can keep your silly claims to yourself.

Second of all, feeling pain is not a necessary component in determing if something is living.

Quite. Sperm and egg are alive.

If something has not yet developed nerves, or does not have nerves, it can be still alive.

But it can't FEEL anything.

Carrots are not citizens of the United States, and they are not human.

And, interestingly enough, the embryo and fetus are not citizens of the United States. Thanks for confirming that your argument is invalid.

Sometimes you have to decide whose happiness or future happiness is more important. I believe it is that of the one who did nothing wrong.

The only "one" there is the woman, so that's a really easy determination to make.

Laws are created if it is consented to by the MAJORITY of legislators.

As long as the laws are not unconstitutional. That is stuff you should have learned in 7th Grade civics.

We aren't the killers of babies, either.

But then, neither are prochoice, nor are OB/GYN physicians who perform abortions, so that rant is highly irrelevant.

Which is more important, saving the life of an innocent, or making women go through with 9 months of labor, but still be alive and have the opportunity to be successful and happy afterwords?

Which is more important, saving the life of an innocent or making people go through with a brief surgery to donate a kidney, but still be alive and have the opportunity to be successful and happy afterwords?

Which is more important, saving the life of an innocent or making people go through with a 15 minuet process of giving blood but still be alive and have the opportunity to be successful and happy afterwords.

When is it OK to force people to give up their bodily resources? merely to save a life? So you support forced blood donation and kidney donation? Or do you only support such when YOU are not at risk of having such a duty imposed on you? It is OK to force women, but not you?

Uhum, that's what I noted.

 

[kal-el]

Well, I just think that we can't just KILL the children with handicapps, they are still worth life. And many of these children won't have such deformities.

IMO that would be alot better for them. They will be forced to endure a life of hardship and turmoil, constant poking and prodding. Until science has the means available to cure these handicaps, IMO abrtion is a very viable option.

Interesting that you use the word vegetable...I know this is a little off-topic, but would you say that if someone has been in a hospital for like, 20 years, and has deteorated to such a state as a vegetable, would you say he/she/it isn't human? I'm just curious.

Of course not, being in a vegetative state, means you are still able to retain thought and memory. In that case, I would think it would be the right thing to do to pull the plug if the said person is in extreme physical pain which can't be releived by science, or, when the person's faculties have diminished to the point where they can no longer think effectively.

But what you said I will consider...

:2razz:

mmm, yeah, I personally think it's living at the point of conception, but yeah...

How, pry tell, can it be living when it is a clump of cells, unable to process anything?

 

[Hornburger]

How, pry tell, can it be living when it is a clump of cells, unable to process anything?

hmmmmmm hmmmmmm hmmmmmmmm

I'll have to see, I dunno, it is difficult to see how a bunch of cells can in fact be alive (referring to early terms, not late terms). However, the embryo is injected with DNA...which I think is important. The only other thing is that if fetuses are living, then it is killing someone, but if fetuses aren't living, it's just a pregnancy women have to go through.

So, I guess my reasoning depends upon the outcomes of each if the specific side is right or wrong...about how if the pro-choicers are wrong, it is murder, but if pro-lifers are wrong, then it women enduring a nine-month pregnacy.

Of course not, being in a vegetative state, means you are still able to retain thought and memory. In that case, I would think it would be the right thing to do to pull the plug if the said person is in extreme physical pain which can't be releived by science, or, when the person's faculties have diminished to the point where they can no longer think effectively.

Agreed. It helps if they made out a will, but that's a whole different issue entirely lol

Sorry I didn't reply Steen...but I don't see that discussion leading to any new and open-minded discussions and a more effective conclusion, which I feel is the main reason for debating...so I guess I'll just sum up my opinions here...no offense is intended, don't take it the wrong way lol

 

[sissy-boy]

On that question, I would say the unborn citizen. The child didn't do anything wrong and didn't have any choice in the matter, but the adult DID have a choice, they could have took birth pills or refrained from having sex.

I do believe abortion is murder, it is the murder of a living human, and therefore aborters should be criminilized for that action.

But abortion is a sacred rite and has existed on the planet since the beginning of time:
Abortion As A Sacred Right

by Nevada Kerr

Abortion is a sacred rite that has been performed by women for centuries. The midwife, healer, shaman or witch is the holy abortionist. She has been hounded by christians for millennia. It is time for this witch-hunt to end!

With the help of the holy abortionist, in the form of the death goddess, the crone, or the medusa, we will overcome this new onslaught by the christian fanatics. Century after century these zealots try to impose their feeble morality on women. They claim that god has sovereign power over issues of life and death.

This is far from the truth. Women as the goddess incarnate in all her forms and in particular in the shape of the hag, shrew, or fury who devours life in her gaping mouth with her sharp fangs, has sovereign power over issues of life and death. Let us not forget that when she decides her children are fated to die, so be it! She is the mother of necessity. She is the groomless bride who traverses the bridge between the worlds and carries the souls of aborted children to the other side. Like Lilith, she mercifully robs them of their breath. We are all on loan here and the death goddess must protect her own interests! No one can argue with the whirlwind who sweeps the doomed away! Her word is law!

Today we hope to invoke the wisdom and justice of the sacred abortionist, and in defense of women we scoff at these hysterical christians! All hope for an overpopulated planet is born in the darkness of her lethal grasp! Praise loudly the victorious destroyer of unwanted and unneeded children! She who has the right of jurisdiction owns the souls of this earthly tribe! You may shudder, shake, and tremble! These are appropriate responses. Fear, awe, dread, and reverence are what the death mother has come to expect! With sickle in hand, she seizes the sated and weary souls of the damned!

These christians here today only make her job more difficult than it needs to be. Like a goblin-mother, she who suckles the stillborn babe also comforts the mad and possessed. Beloved and misguided christians--know that you are vigilantly watched over by the ever-present destroyer who will someday swoop down upon you and gracefully carry you away! The nature of desire, the truth of life itself has always been death--the all-seeing one who demands responsibility from those who procreate and overpopulate this overburdened planet.

Do not misunderstand! She means to do harm! You can invoke your insane and giddy god all day long. It will do no good. He has no power here! She who whets your appetite with sexual pleasures also whets the knife. She grasps, binds, and enthralls! The holy abortionist only summons those who are deserving of the call! She is free from imperfection! Like husks removed from grain, the unborn are hers! She marks her territory, a boundary these christians here today have crossed over.

These misguided christians think they can strike a bargain with the grave, shriek at the whirlwind, bellow and screech at the all-devouring one. The fearful one, the holy abortionist is deaf to their pleading and will win in the end!

There is in all things a pattern that is part of our universe. It has symmetry, elegance, and grace--those qualities you find always in that which the true artist captures. You can find it in the turning of the seasons, in the way sand trails along a ridge, in the branch clusters of the creosote bush or the pattern of its leaves. We try to copy these patterns in our lives and our society, seeking the rhythms, the dances, the forms that comfort. Yet, it is possible to see peril in the finding of ultimate perfection. It is clear that the ultimate pattern contains its own fixity. In such perfection, all things move towards death.


-from "The Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

 

[L'Image]

I was only making the point that fetuses are alive, no matter the species, human, elk, skunk, whatever.. It can eat, feed, die, is composed of cells...and I forget the rest of the biology requirements for being alive. But I think it is.

I said it had no perception of being alive. If there has been any confusion over terms here, let me state I do believe a fetus to be "life" in the same sense an amoeba can be called "life", however I do not find there to be any rational grounds for equating a fetus to some sort of sentient human being.

If you are consistent enough to believe no ant, amoeba or other cellular constellations should ever be harmed, I congratulate you on your hardcore line. It is a quite impossible goal to set, though, considering your body kills germs and such on a second-to-second basis. And what shall we do with all natural abortions? Only 40% of all embryos do after all successfully implant, most of the remaining 60% being rejected due to genetic deficiency.

Even if you don't believe the fetus is "alive", if you have an abortion, there is still harm to the cells...but anyway, I was still only stating my opinion, not yours.

Your opinion is fine, and yours to do with as you please - but please, refrain from legislating it as mandatory for the rest of us.

My argument has nothing at all to do with spirtitual crap or religion. I simply believe a fetus is alive and that prohibiting abortion will result in more people not getting abortions.

On what grounds is a fetus a human life as we know it? On what grounds can something which is not yet human have human rights? On what grounds do you equate these evolving cells to a sentient human being? None, unless you believe the result of sperm meeting egg to be something divine or otherwise spiritual. Without such a faith-based component, all that it is is cells. Just like those cells your body sheds daily, except more versatile.

All I was talking about is that more people would have to agree with me in order to get the law passed. If you do not agree with how laws are created in this country, well then...move to canada lol. (j/k)

You seem to have missed my point, or be unwilling to answer my implied question.

Do you believe that a law which oppresses the views and rights of a minority, somehow automatically gains validity by having a majority backing? Was the majority support for Hitler's policies justification enough for imposing his group's policies on other groups?

Well...it's not always the man telling the woman not to get the abortion. Sometimes it's the man telling the woman TO get the abortion.

An abortion taking place does not hinder any of the parties to procreate in the future. Hindering a pregnancy from being terminated, on the other hand, does severely interfere with the autonomy of individual citizens. Allow abortion, and you allow people to do as they wish with their own body - forbid it, and you take away that right.

It's very simple: respecting women's right over their own body does not in any way hinder men from having children - just from having them in an unwilling woman's uterus.

Society seems to not have come that far, after all, if we still have people believing in men having the right to decide over women's bodies as if they were property.

Well, there is no absolute scientific proof of whether a fetus is living or not.

Thank you for conceding to my point. As you yourself now point out, there is no secular ground for any government to legislate against abortion. And I for one wouldn't like to live in a country governed by religious law, such as say Iran.

If it really is living, you're killing someone. If it really isn't living, well then you have to go through a pregnancy. Which is worse?

What if carrots are actually the most advanced form of life on earth? What if trees are alive? What if animals are? (Oh, wait...)

Forcing someone to undergo a pregnancy for no reason other than your own morals consider it appropriate, is a terrible thing to do. Pregnancy has some tangible, physical risks and side effects for the woman; is extremely painful; permanently alters the vagina and abdomen; often results in milder, or in rare cases more grave, incontinency; and last but definitely not least, results in a new life that wasn't planned, and thus cannot be guaranteed a parent ready and/or responsible enough to take care of it.

 

[L'Image]

mmm, blame biology for making women bearing babies, but a life is a life.

Women do bear children, but no woman can create a child all on her own. It takes sperm to do that. To be impregnated against one's will also requires a male active in the impregnation, something you seem to have entirely missed when talking about pregnant women as if they were solely responsible for the pregnancy.

A life is a life and a carrot is a carrot - what does this have to do with you wanting to allow a fetus to become a life no matter the objections of those that have to carry it?

And I just don't see how the law can force two people to be in a relationship together, so I don't see how what you are talking about to be prevented.

I am talking about you not only disregarding women's autonomy, but also blaming women and women only for a pregnant state.

You talk of pregnancy as the "duty" of a woman. Is it justifiable to have legislation that blocks women from any control over their body once impregnated, while the men having done the impregnating are completely invisible and free of any responsibility? You have tried to justify such a law by claiming women are to blame themselves. That simply is not true, so where are the men in your argumentation? How come women are the only ones forced to accept the "duty" that arises from a mutual activity?

 

[Hornburger]

I said it had no perception of being alive. If there has been any confusion over terms here, let me state I do believe a fetus to be "life" in the same sense an amoeba can be called "life", however I do not find there to be any rational grounds for equating a fetus to some sort of sentient human being.

And if you are wrong, you are murdering. If pro-lifers are wrong, all that is happening is women have to go through a pregnancy. And there is no proof either way.

If you are consistent enough to believe no ant, amoeba or other cellular constellations should ever be harmed, I congratulate you on your hardcore line. It is a quite impossible goal to set, though, considering your body kills germs and such on a second-to-second basis. And what shall we do with all natural abortions? Only 40% of all embryos do after all successfully implant, most of the remaining 60% being rejected due to genetic deficiency.

Society does not protect animals like it does humans. And "natural abortions" are different they have died of natural causes. Like when a man dies from natural caues, no one goes to jail. However, is someone stabs that man and he dies, then the murderer goes to jail.

Your opinion is fine, and yours to do with as you please - but please, refrain from legislating it as mandatory for the rest of us.

When did I ever say it is mandatory to ban abortion? Never, from what I recall.

On what grounds is a fetus a human life as we know it? On what grounds can something which is not yet human have human rights? On what grounds do you equate these evolving cells to a sentient human being? None, unless you believe the result of sperm meeting egg to be something divine or otherwise spiritual. Without such a faith-based component, all that it is is cells. Just like those cells your body sheds daily, except more versatile.

Again...if you are wrong, you are murdering. If pro-lifers are wrong, all that is happening is women have to go through a pregnancy. And there is no proof either way.

You seem to have missed my point, or be unwilling to answer my implied question.

Which was?

Do you believe that a law which oppresses the views and rights of a minority, somehow automatically gains validity by having a majority backing? Was the majority support for Hitler's policies justification enough for imposing his group's policies on other groups?

To get a law passed, you can't just have a minority back it...that would make no sense whatsoever

An abortion taking place does not hinder any of the parties to procreate in the future. Hindering a pregnancy from being terminated, on the other hand, does severely interfere with the autonomy of individual citizens. Allow abortion, and you allow people to do as they wish with their own body - forbid it, and you take away that right.

Allow abortion, and people die. Forbid it, and you save some.

It's very simple: respecting women's right over their own body does not in any way hinder men from having children - just from having them in an unwilling woman's uterus.

What does men have to do with this disucssion?

Society seems to not have come that far, after all, if we still have people believing in men having the right to decide over women's bodies as if they were property.

mm, everyone should be able to have their opinions heard, not just women. It's a terrible thing if women think that it is more important to kill a baby instead of going through with a pregnancy.

Thank you for conceding to my point. As you yourself now point out, there is no secular ground for any government to legislate against abortion. And I for one wouldn't like to live in a country governed by religious law, such as say Iran.

OMG, how many times do I have to say my reasoning has nothing to do with religion? I’m a friggen atheist…so enough said on that subject.

Anyway, my point there was that since we have no way of knowing who is REALLY right, we’d have to look at the results of each side: If pro-lifers are right, then a woman has to go through with pregnancy. If pro-choicers are right, then you kill a child. Until we get scientific proof of either side, go with the less destructive decision.

What if carrots are actually the most advanced form of life on earth? What if trees are alive? What if animals are? (Oh, wait...)

Seriously, what are you talking about? lol

Forcing someone to undergo a pregnancy for no reason other than your own morals consider it appropriate, is a terrible thing to do. Pregnancy has some tangible, physical risks and side effects for the woman; is extremely painful; permanently alters the vagina and abdomen; often results in milder, or in rare cases more grave, incontinency; and last but definitely not least, results in a new life that wasn't planned, and thus cannot be guaranteed a parent ready and/or responsible enough to take care of it.

Hmmm, again, I seem to be repeating myself: What if you are wrong? I am not saying that you definitely are, but what if you are? You don’t know for sure if you are right or not. And if you are wrong, you still are murdering a child. If you are right, a woman has to go through with 9 months of pain…

Women do bear children, but no woman can create a child all on her own. It takes sperm to do that. To be impregnated against one's will also requires a male active in the impregnation, something you seem to have entirely missed when talking about pregnant women as if they were solely responsible for the pregnancy.

umm…I know it takes two people to have sex lol…I don’t see why this is relevant to the discussion. Women are the people who have the fetus, not men…yes, it is terrible for men to leave a women, but how can you force two people to be in a relationship together? I don’t understand your point.

A life is a life and a carrot is a carrot - what does this have to do with you wanting to allow a fetus to become a life no matter the objections of those that have to carry it?

Because the woman and the man could have used preventative measures before having sex. And they may be killing a baby.

I am talking about you not only disregarding women's autonomy, but also blaming women and women only for a pregnant state.

What? No, men should use condoms before having sex…

You talk of pregnancy as the "duty" of a woman. Is it justifiable to have legislation that blocks women from any control over their body once impregnated, while the men having done the impregnating are completely invisible and free of any responsibility? You have tried to justify such a law by claiming women are to blame themselves.

Men and women are to blame for not taking necessary preventative measures.

That simply is not true, so where are the men in your argumentation?

I don’t recall ever saying that women have the only responsibility in this situation, so please do not put words into my mouth.

How come women are the only ones forced to accept the "duty" that arises from a mutual activity?

How can you prosecute a man in this situation? Yes, the man would be wrong for leaving the mother, but you can’t FORCE him to stay. You can’t force two people to be in a relationship together. They both have duties, but the mother is the one who is bearing the child, so blame genetics and biology.

 

[L'Image]

And if you are wrong, you are murdering. If pro-lifers are wrong, all that is happening is women have to go through a pregnancy. And there is no proof either way.

"All that is happening"? Denying someone the autonomy of their own body and imposing subjective belief upon others is quite a bit happening, in my opinion.

Society does not protect animals like it does humans.

Exactly. Thus your comparison to animals was completely irrelevant, unless you are willing to claim we have a duty to protect ALL things that qualify for being called "living".

In case you don't remember what was being refuted here, you wrote: "If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality."

And "natural abortions" are different they have died of natural causes.

Nonetheless they die. My point is that abortions are natural. Whether man-induced or not, abortion is a completely normal thing devoid of any greater drama. I do not see why a proclaimed atheist would want to induce human tragedy where there is none.

When did I ever say it is mandatory to ban abortion? Never, from what I recall.

You are proposing legislation, no? If you're not, what is there to argue about? Don't like abortions, don't do them. Quite simple. It is rather hard debating the morality of an issue that has no arguments beyond faith-based ones; you believe it is life, I don't... and that's sort of as far as it can go, unless you decide to try to legally enforce your view on me, which is the point where I object to the utter disrespect and totalitarianism of your position.

Again...if you are wrong, you are murdering. If pro-lifers are wrong, all that is happening is women have to go through a pregnancy. And there is no proof either way.

There is no proof either way amoeba aren't life. Isn't that where we come from? Aren't amoeba human life waiting to happen? By the same line of reasoning, shouldn't you refrain from masturbating - imagine, all that sperm going to waste... What if I am right and both sperm, amoeba and carrots are to be considered living? In that case, you are slaughtering millions of people everytime you polish off!

Isn't it safer if I legislate you to refrain from masturbating?

To get a law passed, you can't just have a minority back it...that would make no sense whatsoever

That wasn't the issue. Does majority support in ITSELF validate a law as just and democratic?

Allow abortion, and people die. Forbid it, and you save some.

Allow masturbation, and people die. Forbid it, and you save some.

What does men have to do with this disucssion?

You brought them up.

And I still believe they should have no right in hindering a woman from terminating pregnancy, as her doing so has no consequence to their body or future procreation. This follows from the simple concept of men not being allowed to force anyone to have sex with them.

It's a terrible thing if women think that it is more important to kill a baby instead of going through with a pregnancy.

Kill a baby, eat a carrot... your definition of the fetus as a baby is quite useless as the rest of us cannot agree on it.

I'll finish my reply later, I have some carrots on the stove!

 

[Hornburger]

"All that is happening"? Denying someone the autonomy of their own body and imposing subjective belief upon others is quite a bit happening, in my opinion.

You are taking my point out of context. I was referring to how a pregnancy is not much in comparison to death. I know a pregancy is very dangerous, but in comparison to a sure death, I would rather save someone's life and give someone else a little bit of pain.

Exactly. Thus your comparison to animals was completely irrelevant, unless you are willing to claim we have a duty to protect ALL things that qualify for being called "living".


In case you don't remember what was being refuted here, you wrote: "If something doesn't have thoughts, feelings, and personality, it doesn't mean it isn't living. Many animals has as much thought as a human fetus, and have no feelings or personality."

ehh, I change my mind, we don't know if it's alive or not, lol

Nonetheless they die. My point is that abortions are natural. Whether man-induced or not, abortion is a completely normal thing devoid of any greater drama.

Man-induced is the only reason why it should be prosecuted...that's the whole crime...we can't prosecute nature...

I do not see why a proclaimed atheist would want to induce human tragedy where there is none.

I'm not, I believe I may be saving someone's life, and I think a life is worth a little pain.

You are proposing legislation, no? If you're not, what is there to argue about? Don't like abortions, don't do them. Quite simple. It is rather hard debating the morality of an issue that has no arguments beyond faith-based ones; you believe it is life, I don't... and that's sort of as far as it can go, unless you decide to try to legally enforce your view on me, which is the point where I object to the utter disrespect and totalitarianism of your position.

No, I am not proposing legislation. I propose that the Supreme Court looks into an abortion case and overturns the Roe v. Wade precedent. However, many people would have to be on board because precedents are not overturned too often. So I think it should happen, but realistically, I don't think it will happen.

This sums up my argument: We don't know either way if it a fetus is living or not. The less disastrous choice is pregnancy, so I say ban abortion. meh, just my opinion, just like yours is that it's not a life.

There is no proof either way amoeba aren't life. Isn't that where we come from? Aren't amoeba human life waiting to happen?

umm, yes an amoeba is living, and I don't think humans were once amoebas lol.

By the same line of reasoning, shouldn't you refrain from masturbating - imagine, all that sperm going to waste... What if I am right and both sperm, amoeba and carrots are to be considered living? In that case, you are slaughtering millions of people everytime you polish off!

But...you need to draw the line somewhere...and sometimes you physically need to get rid of such sperm, that's why wet dreams and crap happens. And anyway, there was no conception, no DNA was injected, so there is no life.

Isn't it safer if I legislate you to refrain from masturbating?

That wouldn't protect anyone's life...there was no conception...

That wasn't the issue. Does majority support in ITSELF validate a law as just and democratic?

Nop, legislators decide what is best for the people...I don't get your point, all I was saying is that I'd need a majority so a new rulilng can be made.

Allow masturbation, and people die. Forbid it, and you save some.

No, people don't die in masterbation. A sperm is not a life. The body just makes more sperm during the adolescent years.

You brought them up.

I did? Don't think so, but whatever lol, doesn't matter.

And I still believe they should have no right in hindering a woman from terminating pregnancy, as her doing so has no consequence to their body or future procreation. This follows from the simple concept of men not being allowed to force anyone to have sex with them.

Who is the "they" that you refer to, men? You said men can have an opinion on this matter, but now you seem to be contradicting yourself. And how does men being allowed to force anyone to have sex with them matter in the case of abortion? I don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Kill a baby, eat a carrot... your definition of the fetus as a baby is quite useless as the rest of us cannot agree on it.

Neither side knows for sure whether it is living or not. So it doesn't matter whether you think it really is living or not, actually. I'll say it one more time lol, if pro-lifers are right, then a pregnancy. If pro-choicers are right, then murder. If it was between murder and pregnancy, I'd choose pregnancy every time.

 

[ngdawg]

You are taking my point out of context. I was referring to how a pregnancy is not much in comparison to death. I know a pregancy is very dangerous, but in comparison to a sure death, I would rather save someone's life and give someone else a little bit of pain.


ehh, I change my mind, we don't know if it's alive or not, lol


Man-induced is the only reason why it should be prosecuted...that's the whole crime...we can't prosecute nature...


I'm not, I believe I may be saving someone's life, and I think a life is worth a little pain.


No, I am not proposing legislation. I propose that the Supreme Court looks into an abortion case and overturns the Roe v. Wade precedent. However, many people would have to be on board because precedents are not overturned too often. So I think it should happen, but realistically, I don't think it will happen.

This sums up my argument: We don't know either way if it a fetus is living or not. The less disastrous choice is pregnancy, so I say ban abortion. meh, just my opinion, just like yours is that it's not a life.


umm, yes an amoeba is living, and I don't think humans were once amoebas lol.

But...you need to draw the line somewhere...and sometimes you physically need to get rid of such sperm, that's why wet dreams and crap happens. And anyway, there was no conception, no DNA was injected, so there is no life.


That wouldn't protect anyone's life...there was no conception...


Nop, legislators decide what is best for the people...I don't get your point, all I was saying is that I'd need a majority so a new rulilng can be made.


No, people don't die in masterbation. A sperm is not a life. The body just makes more sperm during the adolescent years.


I did? Don't think so, but whatever lol, doesn't matter.


Who is the "they" that you refer to, men? You said men can have an opinion on this matter, but now you seem to be contradicting yourself. And how does men being allowed to force anyone to have sex with them matter in the case of abortion? I don't understand your line of reasoning here.


My definition of a fetus of a baby is that neither side knows for sure whether it is living or not. So it doesn't matter whether you think it really is living or not, actually. What does matter is which would be worse if: the fetus was living as opposed to if the fetus was not living. Murder vs. Pregnancy? I'd choose pregnancy every time.

[/QUOTE]
Here's a challenge for you, then. GET PREGNANT.:roll:
I am simply in awe and not in a good way, of how YOU think an unwanted pregnancy is 'easy'. Wanted ones are tough enough. So, two lives get ruined? That's easy for whom, exactly? You'd rather force a miserable situation on someone just so YOU can say, 'look at me, I saved a fetus!'? Oh, but now you've destroyed this woman, her future, her trust..but that's ok, it was easy