Does anyone think to consider the rights of the Abortionee?

[MKULTRABOY]

Im not comparing fetuses. They want to get rights for fetuses yet not for beings more sentient and complex and conscious than one.

 

[prometeus]

Is the zef a human? Yes. Does it deserve human rights?

Why would a biological classification deserve rights while others do not?

 

[digsbe]

Why would a biological classification deserve rights while others do not?

Human rights stem from being human. I think our progeny deserve rights.

 

[mac]

Im not comparing fetuses. They want to get rights for fetuses yet not for beings more sentient and complex and conscious than one.

Right, you are comparing the human fetus to adult animals. This comparison is false in so many ways. A human fetus is not a dog/cat/fish. The development, life expectancy, biology, and mental capacity is not equitable. It doesn't make the least bot of difference that you think an adult wombat is more sentient than an 8th week fetus.

Your statement is also false by ignoring the many protections afforded most animals by human beings. Why should you go to prison for destroying an eagle egg but not for destroying and unborn child?

 

[prometeus]

Human rights stem from being human.

Does that mean that because we are violating bovine rights we will be held accountable?
If you really think about it there are no such thing as human rights, it is redundant. There are only rights. Humans are the ones who came up with the notion and conveniently assigned them only to themselves. Why aren't there rights for cows and pigs? Are we taking advantage of them because they are less capable?

I think our progeny deserve rights.

Once they are born.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

We speak of rights and entitlements. Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?

A lot of people do . . exhaustively, all the time, in almost every debate on the subject.

I consider it with my view - I consider it and determine that sometimes certain rights trump others. Any possible right of a being that's yet fully (or nearly fully) developed does not trump the many other aspects to the issue that I stand by with my support of it (as in: the right of the other children possibly in a family to continue to receive good care and nurturing from parents. The rights of the parents to be able to wait and ensure a solid, stable future for said children. The right of a mother to actually have options if, say, her birth control fails. . . and so forth)

The abortion issue is so complicated - there's more to it than *just* the unborn or *just* the mother.

 

[digsbe]

Does that mean that because we are violating bovine rights we will be held accountable?
If you really think about it there are no such thing as human rights, it is redundant. There are only rights. Humans are the ones who came up with the notion and conveniently assigned them only to themselves. Why aren't there rights for cows and pigs? Are we taking advantage of them because they are less capable?

What are the bovine rights? This is not an equal comparison. Do you support human rights?

Once they are born.

No, once they are conceived. I was born almost 4 weeks early. Why would other 8 month old babies in the womb be killed legally while I escaped that due to my physical location outside of a uterus? Why is it ok to kill them at 8 months inside a uterus while it wouldn't be ok to kill me at 8 months outside of the uterus?

 

[molten_dragon]

We speak of rights and entitlements. Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?

Actually, the argument is generally over whether or not it has any rights. A lot of pro-choicers (myself included) will admit that if a fetus was a person, and had a right to life, abortion should be illegal.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually, the argument is generally over whether or not it has any rights. A lot of pro-choicers (myself included) will admit that if a fetus was a person, and had a right to life, abortion should be illegal.

Hmm - interesting.

I belive a fetus has rights which are to be protected *only if* the mother chooses to birth.

 

[Animus]

because it is humans and not animals who decide the animals fate.

With your logic:
because it's the mother and not the fetus who decides its fate

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Because it is born of people, and barring some unfortunate and statistically unlikely event, is progressing through it's stages of life just like the rest of us.

Just like the rest of us. How many children have we killed this year for being in the wrong place and the wrong time?

I'll also note that miscarriage is far more common than you seem to be implying.

 

[mac]

Just like the rest of us. How many children have we killed this year for being in the wrong place and the wrong time?

I'll also note that miscarriage is far more common than you seem to be implying.

How many have "we" killed? I'm not sure what you are reffering too, please expound.

Miscarriage is not induced abortion. My intent in that statement is to point out the rare cases where the child fails to develop fully without miscarrying.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

How many have "we" killed? I'm not sure what you are reffering too, please expound.

Our military activities. There is collateral damage. Some of that damage is dead children. Killed, much like the aborted child, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our moral outrage seems selective; is it because the aborted children would have been born American? According to our laws, they were not Americans yet.

Miscarriage is not induced abortion. My intent in that statement is to point out the rare cases where the child fails to develop fully without miscarrying.

All I'm saying is that failing to develop normally is not as uncommon as you imply. There's an awful lot of luck involved in a healthy baby being born.

 

[mac]

Our military activities. There is collateral damage. Some of that damage is dead children. Killed, much like the aborted child, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our moral outrage seems selective; is it because the aborted children would have been born American? According to our laws, they were not Americans yet.

Children (and anyone else) dieing due to warfare is equally horrible. This, however, is an abortion discussion.

All I'm saying is that failing to develop normally is not as uncommon as you imply. There's an awful lot of luck involved in a healthy baby being born.

Statistically, birth defects are rare. This isn't an attempt to diminish the suffering of those with such defects, so, I don't understand why you're taking issue with that statement.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Children (and anyone else) dieing due to warfare is equally horrible. This, however, is an abortion discussion.

That's my point, actually. They are equally horrible, and yet we recognize the one as necessary-- often for far more spurious reasons-- and condemn the other. Children are a blessing from the Heavens; I have always believed so. But sometimes they are a blessing our families are ill-prepared to bear, and I think we must learn to accept that sometimes abortion is at least the best option for the family, and at most, that it is sometimes necessary. It is a decision best left to the families involved.

 

[majora$$hole]

Is the zef a human? Yes. Does it deserve human rights? This is what the debate is about. I do believe that human life in all stages is worthy of human rights and the right to life. We have committed many atrocities by rationalizing why it is ok to deny certain groups human rights. One example would be enslaving Africans and not giving them full citizenship and denying them their human rights because they were genetically different. I believe the same atrocity is committed in rationalizing why we should deprive unborn humans of their human rights, including their right to life.

are the LIVING cells in a corpse human? yes. is it alive? no, at least not according to the law. maybe in some spiritual sense it is alive but it would start to stink in a short while. in the law's point of view the same should be for zef's they are not alive until the brain is functioning, imo.

 

[mac]

That's my point, actually. They are equally horrible, and yet we recognize the one as necessary-- often for far more spurious reasons-- and condemn the other. Children are a blessing from the Heavens; I have always believed so. But sometimes they are a blessing our families are ill-prepared to bear, and I think we must learn to accept that sometimes abortion is at least the best option for the family, and at most, that it is sometimes necessary. It is a decision best left to the families involved.

They are equally horrible but unrelated in all but the very basic of my point. you can not condemn one without celebrating the other. If the wanton loss of life resulting from war is an injury to your existence than so should be abortion. The existence of one does not excuse the existence of the other but heighten the severity of it. Love life, all life, and prevent the senseless, needless ending of it. We don't recognize one as necessary....we recognize it as unavoidable. It's unavoidable due to the inherent faults of our design. The things that make us human make us awful, blood thirsty, and beautiful at the same time. We can not completely eradicate the horrid tendencies within us without eradicating the humanity within us. We can lessen the impact of our humanity on humanity while reveling in what makes us human without eliminating it. We only do that by celebrating the beauty of humanity while condemning the scars, pain, and fundamental selfishness of what makes us us.

 

[Troubadour]

Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?

I can respect any position that is legitimately, consistently pro-life: I.e., opposing capital punishment, opposing the hunting of animals for sport, condemning cruel experimentation on animals, supporting human rights, opposing wars of aggression, supporting vegetarianism or veganism, etc. If someone who subscribed to all or most of these was also against abortion, I could respect their viewpoint though I would still disagree. But the people I've seen who describe themselves as "pro-life" are often some of the most virulently anti-human, anti-life people on every subject other than fetuses, so it doesn't strike me as an honest movement so much as a kind of perverse displacement of neglected compassion on to something that probably doesn't need it.

 

[Ikari]

I can respect any position that is legitimately, consistently pro-life: I.e., opposing capital punishment, opposing the hunting of animals for sport, condemning cruel experimentation on animals, supporting human rights, opposing wars of aggression, supporting vegetarianism or veganism, etc. If someone who subscribed to all or most of these was also against abortion, I could respect their viewpoint though I would still disagree. But the people I've seen who describe themselves as "pro-life" are often some of the most virulently anti-human, anti-life people on every subject other than fetuses, so it doesn't strike me as an honest movement so much as a kind of perverse displacement of neglected compassion on to something that probably doesn't need it.

This is stupid. Consistently pro-life would have nothing to do with animals or plants. Pro-life is in respect to human life. As for pro-choice, are they for all choices? Doubtful. The choice for someone to buy a fully automatic weapon? To smoke in bars and restaurants? No, pro-choice is just as much a propaganda name as pro-life and in the context in which they are both used, they refer to abortion only. Jesus ****ing christ.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We can lessen the impact of our humanity on humanity while reveling in what makes us human without eliminating it. We only do that by celebrating the beauty of humanity while condemning the scars, pain, and fundamental selfishness of what makes us us.

I do not believe that you can truly love something only for its beauty.

 

[Paschendale]

Until a child is born, it is physically attached to, and a part of its mother. Until it is capable of existing on its own outside of her body, then it is not a separate person. It is no more a person than an arm or a leg. The crux of the issue is not "do fetuses have rights", it is "whose rights (the fetus vs the mother) win out when they are in conflict?"

Forcing a woman to carry a child that she does not want to carry is clearly infringing on her rights. In a warm and fuzzy way, of course it's a bad thing to kill an unborn child. But it is worse to require a person to allow another creature to feed off of them, and then require that person to devote the rest of their life to caring for this parasite. If you have to harm one person to benefit the other, how can you choose to hurt a living, intelligent person over an incomplete creature?

 

[Ikari]

A fetus is not a parasite, it's part of normal human reproduction. People who make nonsense arguments like that only hurt their own argument. You could use property rights instead of some appeal to ignorance. But we can go this route if you want. If you have to harm one person to benefit the other, how can you choose to hurt the living, innocent life which made no choice to engage in behavior which could have undesirable consequences?

 

[OscarB63]

But it is worse to then require that person to devote the rest of their life to caring for this parasite. If you have to harm one person to benefit the other, how can you choose to hurt a living, intelligent person over an incomplete creature?

unless of course that person is that father of the child. which is my problem with the "pro-choice" crowd. all they really give a rat's ass about is the woman's right to do whatever she wants and to hell with the child or the father. how is it any less wrong to force a man to pay to support a child he did not want for 18 years than it is to force a woman to carry a child she did not want for 9 months?

 

[bowerbird]

We speak of rights and entitlements. Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?

Does that include the over 50% of fertilised eggs that fail to implant?

Does it also include the 20% of natural abortions (miscarriages)?

 

[bowerbird]

unless of course that person is that father of the child. which is my problem with the "pro-choice" crowd. all they really give a rat's ass about is the woman's right to do whatever she wants and to hell with the child or the father. how is it any less wrong to force a man to pay to support a child he did not want for 18 years than it is to force a woman to carry a child she did not want for 9 months?

It would be interesting case in law if you challenged that - and my memory might be faulty but I do not think there has been a case where a "father" of a child conceived through artificial insemination, where he did NOT consent to the use of his sperm has had to pay maintenance