Is a fetus a human being?

[Fantasea]

Ah, but as the sperm and egg are both alive, and therefore life is present BEFORE conception, the claim, be it an opinion or not, is outright false. IT is as false as claiming that "The sun revolves around the Earth." And as false as claiming that Pi = 3.0 Or as false as claiming that the Earth is flat.

You can have the OPINION that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth or that Pi is 3.0 but that still leaves it an outright falsehood.

So yes, opinions can be proven false, can be proven outright lies.

Therefore, the claim that life begins at conception is disproven by the FACT that the sperm and egg cells are alive.

So yes, your OPINION can be proven wrong.

The only thing that is flat is your argument whiich is entirely off point.

You know perfectly well that the reference is to the life of a human child commencing at conception. Sperm, by itself, or an egg, by itself, will never produce anything. It is the combining of the egg and the sperm that concieves a child.

Give us a break; open your biology book and do some reading.

 

[steen]

The only thing that is flat is your argument whiich is entirely off point.

You know perfectly well that the reference is to the life of a human child commencing at conception. Sperm, by itself, or an egg, by itself, will never produce anything. It is the combining of the egg and the sperm that concieves a child.

Nope, they conceive a zygote.

Give us a break; open your biology book and do some reading.

It would be nice if you did. Then you woild know that "child" is a developmental stage that begins after birth.

But then spewing lies about this hasn't bothered you until now, so no doubt you will continue to lie as much or more as what you have done so far.

 

[Fantasea]

Nope, they conceive a zygote.
It would be nice if you did. Then you woild know that "child" is a developmental stage that begins after birth.

But then spewing lies about this hasn't bothered you until now, so no doubt you will continue to lie as much or more as what you have done so far.

Persons far better credentialled than you disagree.

 

[mpg]

Ah, but as the sperm and egg are both alive, and therefore life is present BEFORE conception, the claim, be it an opinion or not, is outright false. IT is as false as claiming that "The sun revolves around the Earth." And as false as claiming that Pi = 3.0 Or as false as claiming that the Earth is flat.

You can have the OPINION that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth or that Pi is 3.0 but that still leaves it an outright falsehood.

So yes, opinions can be proven false, can be proven outright lies.

Therefore, the claim that life begins at conception is disproven by the FACT that the sperm and egg cells are alive.

So yes, your OPINION can be proven wrong.

Be serious. You can just as easily say that life has been around for billions of years, but that's beside the point. The point is that a person's life has to start sometime. How could you miss that?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Persons far better credentialled than you disagree.

Appeal to Authority.

 

[Felicity]

Appeal to Authority.

Do you think citing credentials is a bad thing? You know....not every rhetorical device is a bad one....parallelism is good, allusion can help make a point more clear, understatement can highlight irony....appeal to reason, appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority are all valid as well. It's when you misuse a rhetorical tool that you fall into the fallacies that are so dear to your heart.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Do you think citing credentials is a bad thing? You know....not every rhetorical device is a bad one....parallelism is good, allusion can help make a point more clear, understatement can highlight irony....appeal to reason, appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority are all valid as well. It's when you misuse a rhetorical tool that you fall into the fallacies that are so dear to your heart.

Citing credentials is irrelevant to the actual argument. Not, they aren't valid. Appeal to emotion and authority to prove a point ae never valid: that's why they are always logical fallacies.

I don't care what degree they have, since "biology" degrees are largely irrelevant when it comes to philosophy discussions. There is no biological argument here, because you cannot go from biology to ethics anyway. You can quote all day long when conception begins--it simply doesn't matter, because personhood is a well-established ethical concept, and ethics is philosophy. Personhood is based off of philosophical criteria, and from the last "authority" that you guys provided (you know, the one who thought dogs were primates) your sources aren't too credible in the first place.

 

[Fantasea]

Citing credentials is irrelevant to the actual argument. Not, they aren't valid. Appeal to emotion and authority to prove a point ae never valid: that's why they are always logical fallacies.

I don't care what degree they have, since "biology" degrees are largely irrelevant when it comes to philosophy discussions. There is no biological argument here, because you cannot go from biology to ethics anyway. You can quote all day long when conception begins--it simply doesn't matter, because personhood is a well-established ethical concept, and ethics is philosophy. Personhood is based off of philosophical criteria, and from the last "authority" that you guys provided (you know, the one who thought dogs were primates) your sources aren't too credible in the first place.

I disagree entirely.

What we have here is an attempt to use emotional arguments to overcome the strength of facts.

The abortion advocates learned early in the game that they can't be seen to be advocating the destruction of unborn children, so they de-humanize the occupant of the womb by referring to it in medical terms, de-humanizing it for the first two trimesters by using the invention of "personhood" for which it sets criteria which cannot be attained until the third trimester pf pregnancy.

It's not a matter of going from biology to anything. Biology is the factual destination, supported by obstetrics, embryology, fetology, and genetics. All of these disciplines confirm by research, without question, that the occupant of a womb, from the moment of conception is a complete human being which, if not a victim of pre-mature death, will die a natural death in old age, many decades hence.

A growth process commences at conception and continues seamlessly through many stages, pre-birth and post birth throughout one's entire life. Every human exists in a constant state of change. Look at the grammar school class pictures of a child. The annual changes are quite profound but the daily changes go unnoticed. The rate of growth in the womb is even more profound. Yet, when examined, at no time, can the fetus be identified as anything but a fully human child.

The argument for the presence of brain waves extends from about three weeks to about six months. But even at six months, nine months, twelve months, can it be definitively determined what is really going on inside the head of a child? Why should a more fully developed brain or stronger brain waves be the determinant of whether one should be qualified to escape the skilled abortionist?

As I think about it, consider this as proof that the notion pf personhood is invalid. There is absolutely no time limit with respect to a legal abortion on demand. A child in the womb may be legally aborted at any point in the pregnancy up to the very day it has chosen to notify its mother that her labor has begun. Not even the Supreme Court recognizes the concept of personhood based upon brain development or brain waves.

Wow! another argument shot down.

So, once more I must ask for authoritative, factual refutation of the statement that fully human life, entitled to birth, begins at conception.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I disagree entirely.

What we have here is an attempt to use emotional arguments to overcome the strength of facts.

On your part, yes. Your entire argument is based off of the emotional ploy that something is valuable simply because it possess human DNA. Calling it a child and using gory pictures is the typical "emotional" fallacy employed by the anti-abortion advocates.

The abortion advocates learned early in the game that they can't be seen to be advocating the destruction of unborn children, so they de-humanize the occupant of the womb by referring to it in medical terms, de-humanizing it for the first two trimesters by using the invention of "personhood" for which it sets criteria which cannot be attained until the third trimester pf pregnancy.

[

Anti-abortion advocates have a philosphically weak position, so they resort to emotional appeals. They try to humanize a lump of inane cells and then try to link it to something that actually is aware. Treating a brainless wonder as a valuable person who isn't is philosophically weak.

It's not a matter of going from biology to anything. Biology is the factual destination, supported by obstetrics, embryology, fetology, and genetics. All of these disciplines confirm by research, without question, that the occupant of a womb, from the moment of conception is a complete human being which, if not a victim of pre-mature death, will die a natural death in old age, many decades hence.

It's also irrelevant and it's also not the only biological fact you could use. Most of bioethics is against you, but then again, I don't go by numbers = right as you go by credentials = right.

Few argue it isn't human, so to say otherwise is a strawman of the real argument. Even if it were human, it's still irrelevant to the moral question. Killing a human is not always immoral.

The argument for the presence of brain waves extends from about three weeks to about six months. But even at six months, nine months, twelve months, can it be definitively determined what is really going on inside the head of a child? Why should a more fully developed brain or stronger brain waves be the determinant of whether one should be qualified to escape the skilled abortionist?

Brain waves become apparent about about 6 weeks, while the ability to experience pain comes at about 12-13 weeks, according to the biostastics at the back of my ethics textbook. Utilitarian ethics begins only when a being has the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Having brainwaves at all is the beginning of human potenial actualization. No brain = no value. Humans are only philosophically valued for their intellectual capacity--none of which exists without a minimally functioning brain.

As I think about it, consider this as proof that the notion pf personhood is invalid.[/.quote]

Good for you. Most ethicists don't. Since you love playing the credentials game, I will support the position of mainstream ethics that personhood is a valid concept. You are the only (wait, your not even an ethicist!) haha. Nevermind.

There is absolutely no time limit with respect to a legal abortion on demand. A child in the womb may be legally aborted at any point in the pregnancy up to the very day it has chosen to notify its mother that her labor has begun. Not even the Supreme Court recognizes the concept of personhood based upon brain development or brain waves.

I could care less what SCOTUS thinks. SCOTUS is not composed of trained ethicists. It goes by law, not ethics.

Wow! another argument shot down.

Wow! Hardly. You just keep repeating an invalid philosophical opinion as if that's a refutation. That might work in the playgrounds by you, but not in the real world.

So, once more I must ask for authoritative, factual refutation of the statement that fully human life, entitled to birth, begins at conception.

1. Life does not equate to right of life--in fact, there is no such thing as a right to life at any expense nor is there a right to use someone else's body as a house.

2. I need not refute your claim, becaues it's alltogether irrelevant. Not only a strawman of the argument at hand, your entire appeal to the biology of conception is a clever red herring i If you want to prove someting irrelevant, go ahead pal.

3. Of course human life begins at conception. That is, however, not the issue at hand, since that does not, in any way, give a being a "right" to anything. Membership of a species does not give anything philosophically. A fetus has none of the characteristics of anything we hold valuable in human life, and the potential argument is significantly weak.

In fact, even if the fetus WERE a person, it still wouldn't even matter always that it had a right to life. YOu can kill something with 'rights' and have it be justified.

 

[WinterSun]

Of course a human fetus is a human. A cat fetus would be a cat. A seed is a seed or a plant. The human fetus is a seed that would be a human. But human doesn't make it "divine" as most humans are unworthy of breeding.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantasea
So, once more I must ask for authoritative, factual refutation of the statement that fully human life, entitled to birth, begins at conception.

1. Life does not equate to right of life--in fact, there is no such thing as a right to life at any expense nor is there a right to use someone else's body as a house.

2. I need not refute your claim, becaues it's alltogether irrelevant. Not only a strawman of the argument at hand, your entire appeal to the biology of conception is a clever red herring i If you want to prove someting irrelevant, go ahead pal.

3. Of course human life begins at conception. That is, however, not the issue at hand, since that does not, in any way, give a being a "right" to anything. Membership of a species does not give anything philosophically. A fetus has none of the characteristics of anything we hold valuable in human life, and the potential argument is significantly weak.

In fact, even if the fetus WERE a person, it still wouldn't even matter

Your answer, while admittedly lengthy, is totally unresponsive. I ask for fact and you spew forth unfounded opinion. Simply a regurgitation of the same old nonsense.

Have you any equally qualified sources who can refute what these doctors have to say? I think not.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

 

[George_Washington]

Appeal to Authority.

Dude, you really over use all of those "textbook" fallacies to the point where it is not only annoying but you're just wrong in the usage. When discussing a subject, any subject, a person with credentials in that field is naturally more credible than somebody who has none, unless it can be proven that that person is incorrect.

You're way too much into this textbook rhetoric stuff. Those fallacy points are more or less just general guidelines to be used in an argument; they aren't set in stone so to speak.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Dude, you really over use all of those "textbook" fallacies to the point where it is not only annoying but you're just wrong in the usage.

Nonsense. My useage is right on the money, my friend. If you find them annoying, don't commit them. Point out why appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy: Observe:

This is your general argument (the pro life side)

Appeal to Authority

John: Makes statement
Tim: I disagree
John: You're wrong! (lists 5 people with PH.D's who agree with him)
Tim: THeir logic is wrong, and their facts are irrelevant
John: But more people with Ph.D's agree with me, therefore you're wrong!

Red Herrings:

John: Abortion is ok because of X criteria that govern personhood as a convention of ethcis
Tim: I dsiagree! Something is valuable because it's alive and human! This biology text so! This means that even 1 human cell at conception is equally as valuable as the life of a 12 year old boy!
John: Timmy, biology is descriptive, not normative. Ethics goes by principles and axioms and subjective value statements, not biological fact. You cannot go from "fact" to "ought."

Tim: Ethical principles are irrelevant and wrong: only my authorities are correct! Biology states that life is life at conception

John: Ok timmy, I guess you are going to ignore all of ethics, only support your sources, and keep up this biological diatribe that has nothing to do with ethics. Just because something is human and alive does not mean it deserves all the rights associated with humans. Do you not comprehend why humans are valuable? If a human had none of the characteristics of what makes a human valuable, you would consider it equal to other humans?

Tim: YES! biology says what biology says (ahuck!). One cell, full rights!

John: But Timmy, that one cell has no brain, has no self-awareness, and has no preference-formulation ability, thus is irrelevant to a preference utilitarian when comparing like prefernces. Life, according to Utilitarians, and many other forms of Ethics, is not valuable simply beause it's alive, but because of it's characteristics. From a Utilitarian perspective, we determine what gives something rights and moral consideration based on a minimal criterion of pain and suffering--that consideration becomes more apparent as the creature becomes self-aware, since suffering and pleasure capability dramatically increase. The preferences of those who have achieved awareness and can suffer are worth more than those who have not and cannot.

Since a fetus has no self-awareness, and it doesn't even feel pain untill around the 13th week, there is really no need to cause suffering and the disrespect of the preferences of the Mother. We are not talking about equal, or even relatively equal beings. A human without self-awareness, or even brainwaves, is a mindless blob of worthless flesh. It has no intrinsic merit. You see Timmy, the mistake you are making is that you are claiming biology is King and automatically gives Humans rights--that's not a "biological" consideration.. Rights don't exist in reality, but are confered via society and human reason--they are a subjective product of Philosophy. So, in essence, claiming that "personhood" is irrelevant and wrong because it is philosophy is dishonest, timmy, because the fact that all humans are concieved as genetically human does not inantely confer any "rights" on said being: that's a decision society has to make, and one must ask: why does society confer rights on people? What makes people valuable extrinsically. Since no human is intrinsically valuable, we must strive (philosophically) to determine what is valuable extrinsically about humans. Simply saying we are all members of the same species, and nothing else is, therefore we are only deserving of rights-protections, is wrong. You must justify why, and since Humans are not special, godly creations, there must be some secular, concrete reason why.



Washington, you should know what my point about authorities refers to and its intention: I am not saying using authorities is bad: however, she is simply regurgitating the opinions of her own sources and totally irrelevant biological facts no one is disputing. Essentially, her appeal to Authority is mixed with appeal to numbers (traditional) in which the argument doesn't matter, just the fact that she has more "credentialed" people than the opposing side. Neither the credentials nor the quantity of credentialed officials matters as you should surely know from our debate on Hitler. I have as many, if not more, credentialed historians than you do, yet you don't seem to rush to support MY highly acclaimed historians. Obviously, you are using a double standard.

Fantesea disclaims any ethics authority that disagrees with her and consistantly masturbates to her pro-life (biased) sources

When discussing a subject, any subject, a person with credentials in that field is naturally more credible than somebody who has none, unless it can be proven that that person is incorrect.

Of course a person with credentials is important, but his word isn't sacrosanct. I have many credentialed supporters, but the problem lies in that it doesn't matter how many you have--the problem is that our philosohpies are based on different axioms and principles, therefore, our authorities will always come to different conclusions. Our ethics systems have different value structures and cannot be reconciled. You can quote that a fetus is human all day long and it won't matter one Iota. This is your fault: credentials don't make your argument right. You are appealing to the credentials by commenting that "more people with credentials agree with me." That's irrelevant to the information at hand.

You're way too much into this textbook rhetoric stuff. Those fallacy points are more or less just general guidelines to be used in an argument; they aren't set in stone so to speak.
__________________

It's not textbook rhetoric: what do you mean, general guidlines? So it's partially ok to lie, distort the truth, and reach false conclusions from false premises? It's ok to attack the man, not the message? It's ok to claim victory simply because you have more credentials? I go by argument, not credentials, and that's how everyone should do it.

Those rules are critical, and those rules are being broken consistantly by Fantasea: I have many authorities--I don't consistantly harp on them as the pro-life side loves to do.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Dude, you really over use all of those "textbook" fallacies to the point where it is not only annoying but you're just wrong in the usage. When discussing a subject, any subject, a person with credentials in that field is naturally more credible than somebody who has none, unless it can be proven that that person is incorrect.

Of course you must use sources, but those sources don't constitute the argument, which is fantesea's tactic: she merely rattles off a bunch of people who agree with her and claims automatic victory, regardless of authorities which disagree with her.

Most of her "sources" I have also shown to have unrelable, stupid errors ,and also, most of her source information is irrelevant to the discussion of personhood in ethics.

 

[Donkey1499]

Of course you must use sources, but those sources don't constitute the argument, which is fantesea's tactic: she merely rattles off a bunch of people who agree with her and claims automatic victory, regardless of authorities which disagree with her.

Most of her "sources" I have also shown to have unrelable, stupid errors ,and also, most of her source information is irrelevant to the discussion of personhood in ethics.

But, what if you have two sides of an argument that can be factually proven. Is that a stalemate? Arguments like that are probably rare, tho.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Dude, you really over use all of those "textbook" fallacies to the point where it is not only annoying but you're just wrong in the usage.


Nonsense. My useage is right on the money, my friend. If you find them annoying, don't commit them. Point out why appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy: Observe:

This is your general argument (the pro life side)

Appeal to Authority

John: Makes statement
Tim: I disagree
John: You're wrong! (lists 5 people with PH.D's who agree with him)
Tim: THeir logic is wrong, and their facts are irrelevant
John: But more people with Ph.D's agree with me, therefore you're wrong!

Red Herrings:

John: Abortion is ok because of X criteria that govern personhood as a convention of ethcis
Tim: I dsiagree! Something is valuable because it's alive and human! This biology text so! This means that even 1 human cell at conception is equally as valuable as the life of a 12 year old boy!
John: Timmy, biology is descriptive, not normative. Ethics goes by principles and axioms and subjective value statements, not biological fact. You cannot go from "fact" to "ought."

Tim: Ethical principles are irrelevant and wrong: only my authorities are correct! Biology states that life is life at conception

John: Ok timmy, I guess you are going to ignore all of ethics, only support your sources, and keep up this biological diatribe that has nothing to do with ethics. Just because something is human and alive does not mean it deserves all the rights associated with humans. Do you not comprehend why humans are valuable? If a human had none of the characteristics of what makes a human valuable, you would consider it equal to other humans?

Tim: YES! biology says what biology says (ahuck!). One cell, full rights!

John: But Timmy, that one cell has no brain, has no self-awareness, and has no preference-formulation ability, thus is irrelevant to a preference utilitarian when comparing like prefernces. Life, according to Utilitarians, and many other forms of Ethics, is not valuable simply beause it's alive, but because of it's characteristics. From a Utilitarian perspective, we determine what gives something rights and moral consideration based on a minimal criterion of pain and suffering--that consideration becomes more apparent as the creature becomes self-aware, since suffering and pleasure capability dramatically increase. The preferences of those who have achieved awareness and can suffer are worth more than those who have not and cannot.

Since a fetus has no self-awareness, and it doesn't even feel pain untill around the 13th week, there is really no need to cause suffering and the disrespect of the preferences of the Mother. We are not talking about equal, or even relatively equal beings. A human without self-awareness, or even brainwaves, is a mindless blob of worthless flesh. It has no intrinsic merit. You see Timmy, the mistake you are making is that you are claiming biology is King and automatically gives Humans rights--that's not a "biological" consideration.. Rights don't exist in reality, but are confered via society and human reason--they are a subjective product of Philosophy. So, in essence, claiming that "personhood" is irrelevant and wrong because it is philosophy is dishonest, timmy, because the fact that all humans are concieved as genetically human does not inantely confer any "rights" on said being: that's a decision society has to make, and one must ask: why does society confer rights on people? What makes people valuable extrinsically. Since no human is intrinsically valuable, we must strive (philosophically) to determine what is valuable extrinsically about humans. Simply saying we are all members of the same species, and nothing else is, therefore we are only deserving of rights-protections, is wrong. You must justify why, and since Humans are not special, godly creations, there must be some secular, concrete reason why.



Washington, you should know what my point about authorities refers to and its intention: I am not saying using authorities is bad: however, she is simply regurgitating the opinions of her own sources and totally irrelevant biological facts no one is disputing. Essentially, her appeal to Authority is mixed with appeal to numbers (traditional) in which the argument doesn't matter, just the fact that she has more "credentialed" people than the opposing side. Neither the credentials nor the quantity of credentialed officials matters as you should surely know from our debate on Hitler. I have as many, if not more, credentialed historians than you do, yet you don't seem to rush to support MY highly acclaimed historians. Obviously, you are using a double standard.

Fantesea disclaims any ethics authority that disagrees with her and consistantly masturbates to her pro-life (biased) sources


Quote:
When discussing a subject, any subject, a person with credentials in that field is naturally more credible than somebody who has none, unless it can be proven that that person is incorrect.

Of course a person with credentials is important, but his word isn't sacrosanct. I have many credentialed supporters, but the problem lies in that it doesn't matter how many you have--the problem is that our philosohpies are based on different axioms and principles, therefore, our authorities will always come to different conclusions. Our ethics systems have different value structures and cannot be reconciled. You can quote that a fetus is human all day long and it won't matter one Iota. This is your fault: credentials don't make your argument right. You are appealing to the credentials by commenting that "more people with credentials agree with me." That's irrelevant to the information at hand.
Quote:
You're way too much into this textbook rhetoric stuff. Those fallacy points are more or less just general guidelines to be used in an argument; they aren't set in stone so to speak.
__________________

It's not textbook rhetoric: what do you mean, general guidlines? So it's partially ok to lie, distort the truth, and reach false conclusions from false premises? It's ok to attack the man, not the message? It's ok to claim victory simply because you have more credentials? I go by argument, not credentials, and that's how everyone should do it.

Those rules are critical, and those rules are being broken consistantly by Fantasea: I have many authorities--I don't consistantly harp on them as the pro-life side loves to do.
__________________

Wow! Over a thousand words in another failing effort to suppress biological fact in favor of opinion in an attempt to justify this:

Some humans are persons; some humans are non-persons.​

 

[cherith]

I don't know.

Is a baby a human being? I don't know since the doctors have to spak it to get it to breathe on it's own. I don't know.

 

[Donkey1499]

HEY! I've got an idea! Let's ask Spock; from Star Trek. With all his wisdom and intelligence, I'm pretty sure he could tell us if a fetus is a human being or not! LOL

 

[Fantasea]

HEY! I've got an idea! Let's ask Spock; from Star Trek. With all his wisdom and intelligence, I'm pretty sure he could tell us if a fetus is a human being or not! LOL

If you can't find him, you could try Dr. Benjamin Spock. His books on raising children ruined millions of kids during the sixties and seventys.

 

[Donkey1499]

Here's a question I have. Why do mothers suddenly get more rights than the fathers? It's like women have more rights than men! If the woman wants to have an abortion, fine, but what if the father of the fetus rejects the thought of abortion? Shouldn't it be a mutual agreement? Shouldn't both make an agreement since the woman needed the man to even consider maybe having a child? It's just as much his as it is hers.

"Well, it's my body!!!"
So? If you don't want children, here's two choices.
1.) Either use some form of protection, or
2.) Just don't have sex.
I don't understand why people have to be so stupid. It boggles my mind.
But someone will reply to me saying, "You can't tell women not to have sex, and you can't force them use protection either!!!"
Well, I've one more thing to add. Fine, don't use protection and keep having sex. But when you become pregnant, then both parents need to be MATURE about it and raise the kid. They wanted to do an ADULT ACTIVITY, so now they have to be ADULTS and raise the kid they created. Don't run with the big dogs if you can't keep up.

 

[steen]

Here's a question I have. Why do mothers suddenly get more rights than the fathers? It's like women have more rights than men!

Not true. Both have the right to control their own bodily resources. That is the same right, not a discrepancy as you are misleading us regarding.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, fine, but what if the father of the fetus rejects the thought of abortion?

Once he is pregnant, he has the ame right to decide what happens with his bodily resources.

Shouldn't it be a mutual agreement?

That would be nice. But he doesn't have the right to control what happens with her body. He doesn't have the right to enslavbe her. Forced use of a person's bodily resources is illegal.

Are you saying we should make that legal?

Shouldn't both make an agreement since the woman needed the man to even consider maybe having a child? It's just as much his as it is hers.

And if they are making an agreement to have a child, then they can indeed do that.

"Well, it's my body!!!"
So? If you don't want children, here's two choices.
1.) Either use some form of protection, or
2.) Just don't have sex.

Or have an abortion if you get pregnant against your will.

By the way, something you obviously did NOT know is that 58% of all abortions are after pregnancy from sex with the use of birth control. Obviously, you have no problem with those abortions, right? After all, they did just what you demanded, used protection.

I don't understand why people have to be so stupid. It boggles my mind.

Yes, prolifers are showing themselvbes inordinarily stupid; I share your puzzlement in why it is your side has to be so stupid!

But someone will reply to me saying, "You can't tell women not to have sex, and you can't force them use protection either!!!"

And that would be correct.

Well, I've one more thing to add. Fine, don't use protection and keep having sex. But when you become pregnant, then both parents need to be MATURE about it and raise the kid.

That is, IF there end up being a kid born. That is, unless the woman has an abortion. She doesn't "need" to do anything that YOU want her to do. It is not your life, it is not your body, and you don't have the right to be a slaver and take control over her body away from her.

They wanted to do an ADULT ACTIVITY, so now they have to be ADULTS and raise the kid they created.

There is no "kid" until birth. And no, the woman doesn't have to do ANYTHING that you want her to do. If you don't want her to abort, make it worth her while to not abort. That is all you can do. Are you going to put your wallet where your mouth is?

Don't run with the big dogs if you can't keep up.

Are you saying you are running back to mom now?

 

[DHard3006]

The most common, logically-consistent answers are that we are trying to protect their "thoughts," or their "personality," or their "capacity for rational thinking." This is, after all, the only trait humans have that the animals we routinely kill do not have.

However, a fetus does not have these traits. It's still unclear exactly at what point in development these traits develop, but the evidence suggests that (for the most part) they don't develop until well after birth.

Sounds like you are describing an insane person. We do not execute insane people for crimes they commit because of the very same reason you claim we can kill unborn children, we just call it an abortion.

 

[Donkey1499]

Not true. Both have the right to control their own bodily resources. That is the same right, not a discrepancy as you are misleading us regarding.
Once he is pregnant, he has the ame right to decide what happens with his bodily resources.
That would be nice. But he doesn't have the right to control what happens with her body. He doesn't have the right to enslavbe her. Forced use of a person's bodily resources is illegal.

Are you saying we should make that legal?
And if they are making an agreement to have a child, then they can indeed do that.
Or have an abortion if you get pregnant against your will.

By the way, something you obviously did NOT know is that 58% of all abortions are after pregnancy from sex with the use of birth control. Obviously, you have no problem with those abortions, right? After all, they did just what you demanded, used protection.
Yes, prolifers are showing themselvbes inordinarily stupid; I share your puzzlement in why it is your side has to be so stupid!
And that would be correct.
That is, IF there end up being a kid born. That is, unless the woman has an abortion. She doesn't "need" to do anything that YOU want her to do. It is not your life, it is not your body, and you don't have the right to be a slaver and take control over her body away from her.
There is no "kid" until birth. And no, the woman doesn't have to do ANYTHING that you want her to do. If you don't want her to abort, make it worth her while to not abort. That is all you can do. Are you going to put your wallet where your mouth is?
Are you saying you are running back to mom now?

Another Pro-Choice nut? My first sentence was directed at the law that says women don't need to let the father know if they're having an abortion. Which is wrong, the father owns the fetus just as much as the mother does. It takes two to make one in this case.

Men can't get pregnant, don't be retarded.

The fetus inside the woman is NOT her body, but a seperate entity. Once again, the mother needed a father to make the child. Both genes from both parents in that fetus, so the fetus belongs to both, not just the mother. It's not her body that she's dealing with, but another being.

Pregnancy against one's will is a tough one to decide. But really, it's not the child's fault, so why should it suffer?

Actually, both sides can be kinda stupid. Wise up.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm only making reccomendations and saying that people need to approach this topic with some common sense.

"There is no kid until birth"? That is only speculation. Even scientists can't all agree. But nonetheless, it is still another being in the womb. I take it from a Christian point of view. Leviticus 17:11 states "The life of every living thing is in the blood.... Blood, which is life...". Now, blood doesn't begin to circulate in the fetus until the 18th day after the "encounter". So thus, abortion BEFORE the 18 day cutoff is fine, in my opinion. The fetus becomes a being once the blood circulates. That is my stance.

I don't see what my mother has to do with this. Just another cheap shot, I suppose.

 

[FISHX]

God it is god to see some people never change hey Steen

How you been by the way not heard anything from you for a while?

 

[Iriemon]

=

...

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm only making reccomendations and saying that people need to approach this topic with some common sense.

"There is no kid until birth"? That is only speculation. Even scientists can't all agree. But nonetheless, it is still another being in the womb. I take it from a Christian point of view. Leviticus 17:11 states "The life of every living thing is in the blood.... Blood, which is life...". Now, blood doesn't begin to circulate in the fetus until the 18th day after the "encounter". So thus, abortion BEFORE the 18 day cutoff is fine, in my opinion. The fetus becomes a being once the blood circulates. That is my stance.

You say people need to approach this with some "common sense" and in the next paragraph base your position on abortion based on the conclusion that "blood is life" stated in a text that was written 5000 years ago? LOL!

If "blood is life", you are committing murder every time a blood sample is taken.