Abortion Controversy

[ajapam]

"To outlaw abortion would be contrary to the right to life. The right to life includes the right to freedom of mind, reason and action for yourself. Forbidding a woman to get an abortion would be contrary to her reason, that tells her it would be detrimental to her own life to keep the fetus."

 

Ummm.... and to get an abortion is to prevent a child from living. I think the "right to life" includes the right to be alive. Since the child gets no choice in this (doesn't matter if you consider a fetus a child or not, the fact is that it's going to be) the same freedom you are giving to the woman is being taken away from the kid. That's just plain selfishness.

[xxxxxxxxx]

*Looking at poll results*

 

A very liberal bunch, we have here. What, Freemans mind doesn't attract any godfearers?

 

I'm pro-choice. Not for any particular reason. I just don't really like the thought of ANOTHER goddamned person walking around, sucking up my air, leaving a huge carbon footprint behind.

 

On an unrelated note: Who were the two people that didn't care? Do you really not have an opinion? Why open the topic if you didn't? Come to think of it, why is that even an option? You'd think "Pro-choice" would cover the "I don't care"-ers.

[Michael Archer]

The infant isn't taking resources from the mother because it *wants* to, so why should it be punished? Furthermore, even though one is dependent on the other, there are still two living things to take into consideration here. Your argument that a fetus is technically infringing on the mother is true enough from a certain point of view, but it does not follow that this invalidates the fetus' right to live, as it has no control over its actions. You say the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to use her body and resources, do you then also apply this to the situations that arise after a child is born? After all, it's still infringing upon the personal freedoms and resources of at least one parent if not given up for adoption. Also, you say that rights cannot infringe on other rights, but this is contrary to day-to-day life. Rights infringe on other rights all the time, and yet the majority of the time this does not invalidate them. It's something that will always happen as long as there is more than one person with unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources.

 

It's not being "punished", it's being removed because it's unwanted. You can't make someone want something. "Punished" implies that the government took action for a wrong doing.

 

Are you implying, just because it's alive, it has rights? That's something totally different; I urge you to check the "humans over other animals" thread. If you don't want to, here's a simple argument against that: your skin cells alive and life has rights. So if you pop a zit, you've committed murder. Rights only apply and pertain relevantly to human beings. (keyword: being. i.e. separate entity)

 

A baby is a physical separate entity; the government has no right to tell a woman how to use her body, but if she decides to let it be born, then she claims guardianship, and then leaves it in a dumpster; she has attempted murder. It that case, I better hope the government does something about it.

 

"Infringement of rights" is if it's not wanted. If someone wants to house a baby in their uterus and to claim guardianship, it's not infringement. If I choose to commit suicide, I'm not violating my right to life.

 

Rights don't infringe on rights all the time; if they didn't, they wouldn't be rights. Please name one right that infringes on another. Even if they did (which they don't), we wouldn't be fixing the problem by making more "rights" that infringe on real rights like the right to life.

 

Rights can't violate other rights. The fetus cannot have the right to life because that would infringe on the woman's right to life. Why is it ok to put her life in favor of the fetus?

 

Ummm.... and to get an abortion is to prevent a child from living. I think the "right to life" includes the right to be alive. Since the child gets no choice in this (doesn't matter if you consider a fetus a child or not, the fact is that it's going to be) the same freedom you are giving to the woman is being taken away from the kid. That's just plain selfishness.

 

Remember: just because something is alive, does not mean it has rights. You should read what I wrote previous to this.

 

It's selfishness to put my well-being first? If a woman is pregnant and dying and all her reason is screaming at her to preserve her own life and get an abortion, that's selfishness?

 

If I was a hobo who moved into your house during a brutal, Canadian winter and totally trashed your place, would you be offended if I called you "selfish" if you tried to kick me out?

 

The opposite is selfishness is altruism which means that your actions are only moral if they benefit someone other than you. That means altruism says that it's a virtue to give food to your neighbors while you're starving until you eventually die.

 

Now tell me: which is truly evil?

[Geneaux486]

It's not being "punished", it's being removed because it's unwanted. You can't make someone want something. "Punished" implies that the government took action for a wrong doing.

 

It's being killed. That's punishment. Punished meaning the government took action against a wrong doing is a different perspective, not a fact.

 

Are you implying, just because it's alive, it has rights?

 

Yes. Especially in the case of a developing fetus, which you know will develope into a full grown person, yes, it does have rights.

 

A baby is a physical separate entity

 

Still dependent on a guardian. The time to prevent an unwanted child is before conception, not after (non-consensual sex being an exception).

 

Rights don't infringe on rights all the time; if they didn't, they wouldn't be rights. Please name one right that infringes on another. Even if they did (which they don't), we wouldn't be fixing the problem by making more "rights" that infringe on real rights like the right to life.

 

Almost every right is infringing on another. As I said, we all have rights in a world with limited resources. Every time we receive something, we're depriving someone else of that same thing.

 

Rights can't violate other rights. The fetus cannot have the right to life because that would infringe on the woman's right to life. Why is it ok to put her life in favor of the fetus?

 

Because in most cases, only one of the two options results in both entities living. The developing child is already in existence, it's already growing, and will eventually become full grown. Rights can and will infringe on other rights, and it does not follow that this invalidates anyone's life.

[Michael Archer]

Are you implying, just because it's alive, it has rights?

Yes. Especially in the case of a developing fetus, which you know will develope into a full grown person, yes, it does have rights.

 

The fact that it will develop into a full grown person is irrelevant. Using the same logic, I can say that because I know that an adult will become a lifeless corpse eventually, I can treat him as if he already is e.g inter him, cremate him, give away all his assets according to his will.

 

You want to treat a fetus like a baby and give it the same rights, do you not?

 

And if you read the rest what I said after I said "Are you implying, just because it's alive, it has rights?", I used reductio ad absurdum to explain that life does not have inherent rights.

 

A baby is a physical separate entity

Still dependent on a guardian. The time to prevent an unwanted child is before conception, not after (non-consensual sex being an exception).

 

True, but at that point, the guardian has decided that their wish is to become the guardian and this is their own free will. No rights are being violated.

 

Who are you to say at what time and under what conditions other people should do their family planning? Who are you to say what they do with their own property? Do you think that some people have the right to initiate force on other people? If yes, then you have no idea what a "right" is.

 

Rights don't infringe on rights all the time; if they didn't, they wouldn't be rights. Please name one right that infringes on another. Even if they did (which they don't), we wouldn't be fixing the problem by making more "rights" that infringe on real rights like the right to life.

Almost every right is infringing on another. As I said, we all have rights in a world with limited resources. Every time we receive something, we're depriving someone else of that same thing.

 

Not true, but I can see what you mean. It's a common misconception. *ahem*

 

Your basic right is the right to life; this is where all other rights come e.g. right to liberty, freedom of speech, property, pursuit of happiness etc. Note that these are all rights to action, or rather freedom from action. The freedom of speech does not mean that the government must provide me with a microphone or a radio channel; it simply means that an individual or the government can not stop me from speaking my mind. The right to property does not mean others are forced to give you a house; it means that you can work and someday buy the house you desire without anyone stopping you.

 

You cannot have a right "to" things, since this would violate property rights of others e.g. to imply a "right of education", you would imply the right for a government to seize property from other people in order to pay for it. Goods and services are valuable and anything of value must be paid for. To give someone a right "to" something would be the government has to secure that right and the only way they can do that is to forcibly seize it from someone else, thus depriving them of their property rights. This is why when you "deprive" someone of a limited resource, you're not taking away any of their rights.

 

Read the Bill of Rights, Deceleration of Independence, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: you'll notice that they're all rights to action. Coincidence?

 

Actually, don't read the Canadian Charter: Section 1 redefines the word "inalienable" to mean exactly the opposite...that's not related. What am I getting mad about again? Oh yeah:

 

Rights can't violate other rights. The fetus cannot have the right to life because that would infringe on the woman's right to life. Why is it ok to put her life in favor of the fetus?

Because in most cases, only one of the two options results in both entities living. The developing child is already in existence, it's already growing, and will eventually become full grown. Rights can and will infringe on other rights, and it does not follow that this invalidates anyone's life.

 

That was a rhetorical question, but even so, your first sentence is not true. "Entity" is, "being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence" (taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary); a baby is not independent, separate, or self-contained. Your second sentence is irrelevant, as I explained in the beginning of this post and your third sentence is just plain wrong, as I explained in my rights rant. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will deprives her of her right to liberty. Liberty, comes from the right to life. So you are invalidating her life by invalidating her right to liberty and property.

 

Even if rights could violate other rights (WHICH THEY DON'T), who's to decide who's rights are better? Who decides who's rights supersedes another? Such decisions made, has led to the oppression and destruction of many societies. (the 'rights over other rights', I mean. I'm not saying that the anti-abortion movement has led to the destruction of many societies. Honest)

[ajapam]

If you're a woman and you're gonna have sex with people, you know you might get pregnant. I think they have a responsibility to keep the baby. Give it up for adoption. Don't have an abortion because you "don't want it." The truth is it's YOUR fault you got pregnant and you don't have to keep the baby after it's born.

 

This discussion is rather pointless in the end because no side is going to sway. The answer just seems plain obvious to me.Whatever. Majority wins, I guess, whether you like it or not.

[Michael Archer]

If you're a woman and you're gonna have sex with people, you know you might get pregnant. I think they have a responsibility to keep the baby.

 

We're not talking about history, we're talking about rights; I gather that you think that because you exercised one right poorly, another one gets taken away from you i.e. because you were careless when you used your right to have sex, you lose your right to liberty when you accidentally get pregnant.

 

Using the same logic, is it safe to say if I'm some active speaker against something, if they find out I'm wrong and have been spreading lies am I no longer allowed to speak again? Or another one: if I invest all my money into a company that then crashes, am I then not allowed to rebuild by wealth and start over? Am I forced to remain poor/pregnant?

 

Give it up for adoption. Don't have an abortion because you "don't want it." The truth is it's YOUR fault you got pregnant and you don't have to keep the baby after it's born.

 

It is probably my fault. But it's my body and I get to say what goes in and out of it. If you don't like it, then don't abort your fetus. You have no right to dictate what I do with my property.

 

Similarly, if I want to donate my kidney, I have every right to the same way I have every right to get an abortion. You don't get to tell me what I do with my kidney.

 

(For the record, I'm not a girl; the statement was worded as if it wanted a response in the first person)

 

Majority wins, I guess, whether you like it or not.

 

Congratulations, you have just written the most vicious and evil statement I've ever read on this forum.

 

I dare you to tell your last sentence to a man getting lynched by the KKK. What's the problem? The Klan is the majority, they get to decide what happens whether you like it or not!

[Geneaux486]

The fact that it will develop into a full grown person is irrelevant. Using the same logic, I can say that because I know that an adult will become a lifeless corpse eventually, I can treat him as if he already is e.g inter him, cremate him, give away all his assets according to his will.

 

You want to treat a fetus like a baby and give it the same rights, do you not?

 

And if you read the rest what I said after I said "Are you implying, just because it's alive, it has rights?", I used reductio ad absurdum to explain that life does not have inherent rights.

 

The fact that we will one day die =/= a fetus will continue to develope.

 

You're comparing the end of a person's life with the literal beginning of a person's life. They are far from the same.

 

True, but at that point, the guardian has decided that their wish is to become the guardian and this is their own free will. No rights are being violated.

 

Who are you to say at what time and under what conditions other people should do their family planning? Who are you to say what they do with their own property? Do you think that some people have the right to initiate force on other people? If yes, then you have no idea what a "right" is.

 

Planning comes *before* another life is a factor. The developing human already exists, ergo it has rights. I'm fully aware of what the developing life does or does not deserve.

 

Read the Bill of Rights, Deceleration of Independence, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: you'll notice that they're all rights to action. Coincidence?

 

These are man's interpretation, and they are fallible. A government that claims to value human life must value human life at all stages. Fetal stage is just another stage. "Rights" or rather, what a person deserves, what events a person morally *does not deserve* to befall them, must extend to all stages of developement.

 

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will deprives her of her right to liberty. Liberty, comes from the right to life. So you are invalidating her life by invalidating her right to liberty and property.

 

But what is the woman pregnant with? A developing human being. Maybe that sounds callous to you, but I do not believe one person ever owns another, regardless of how depenent upon others they are.

 

Even if rights could violate other rights (WHICH THEY DON'T), who's to decide who's rights are better? Who decides who's rights supersedes another? Such decisions made, has led to the oppression and destruction of many societies. (the 'rights over other rights', I mean. I'm not saying that the anti-abortion movement has led to the destruction of many societies. Honest)

 

I will say again, rights always violate other rights in a world of limited resources. We all need the same things to surivive, and there is always a limit to those things. You seem to at least understand the reasoning of those who disagree with you, so why would the pro-life movement anger you?

[Michael Archer]

The fact that we will one day die =/= a fetus will continue to develope.

 

You're comparing the end of a person's life with the literal beginning of a person's life. They are far from the same.

 

Oh quite the contrary: they are very similar as in they're both natural stages of life. Birth cannot come without eventual death.

 

My point and my analogy was to say that it's absurd to treat a human in one stage of life as if they were in another i.e. we shouldn't treat alive people, like dead people and we shouldn't treat fetuses like babies.

 

Planning comes *before* another life is a factor. The developing human already exists, ergo it has rights. I'm fully aware of what the developing life does or does not deserve.

 

You keep on saying "it has rights" without saying why. You said that it has rights because it is life and I responded that just because something is alive does not mean it has rights. e.g. are cells in your body are alive, do they all have their own individual rights? You've said nothing in response.

 

Existence does not qualify for rights i.e. just because something exists does not mean it gets rights. I'm sure you already knew that.

 

Who are you to dispose of the lives of other people? What gives you the right for you to make people live their lives as you see fit? That's arrogance at its extreme. You are obviously not aware of what deserves rights if you're willing to throw away the life of a person in favor of a fetus. That's the complete opposite of individual rights.

 

These are man's interpretation, and they are fallible. A government that claims to value human life must value human life at all stages. Fetal stage is just another stage. "Rights" or rather, what a person deserves, what events a person morally *does not deserve* to befall them, must extend to all stages of developement.

 

Man's interpretation=the byproduct of epistemology. We don't know a lot of things, but we know in order to function in a society, the mind must be free with some sort of body capable of making sure we don't kill each other; to make sure of that, there's a force. The purpose of the government is to put that force into objective hands. Now, are you saying that we do not know that reason needs freedom? Are you saying we do not know that we need individual rights? Epistemology is something altogether; I should make a thread for that, but I'm not sure where it would go.

 

Why must it extend to all stages? It's easy enough to say that it must, but what's the reasoning? As I explained before, it's absurd to extend rights that protect people in social contexts to all stages of life where they simply wouldn't apply. A dead person does not have rights because they are not interacting with their fellow human. Fetuses do not have rights because while born humans need freedom to survive and function normally and peacefully in a society, a fetus does not.

 

A government that claims value to human life would actually do the opposite: it would allow the inalienable right of a woman to get an abortion and objectively determine the difference between all stages of life and treat humans in different stages accordingly. Death is just another stage of life, as natural as birth.

 

A government is supposed to protect individual rights. Your mind needs freedom to function normally, so rights protect that. Fetuses do not interact with other humans in a way that their mind needs to be free; this is why they don't have rights. A government that valued life would recognize this and uphold the right to get an abortion as it comes from the right to property, which comes from right to liberty, which comes from the right to life.

 

But what is the woman pregnant with? A developing human being. Maybe that sounds callous to you, but I do not believe one person ever owns another, regardless of how depenent upon others they are.

 

So it's ok for fetus to own a woman and her life uterus, but not ok for her to own her own body, her uterus and her life? In what universe is that fair or makes sense?

 

I'm not saying that a woman owns her fetus; I am saying that she owns her body and she gets to decide what goes in and out of it.

 

I don't believe that you don't believe one person owns another; you're trying to convince me that a fetus has a right to reside in property that its owner does not approve or want. You think that the fetus gets to dictate the terms of its host's life.

 

If you truly did believe in self-autonomy, you would be pro-abortion.

 

I will say again, rights always violate other rights in a world of limited resources. We all need the same things to surivive, and there is always a limit to those things. You seem to at least understand the reasoning of those who disagree with you, so why would the pro-life movement anger you?

 

Are you even reading what I'm saying? Rights will never violate rights for the simple reason that you don't have a right to a resource. I can see how you'd think it was possible; you probably think that it's possible to have a right to a good or service.

 

As I said before, rights are only to action and they won't violate anyone else's rights. You have yet to name one right that can possibly used to violate another right. The "limited resource" thing doesn't count, since you do not and can not have a right to a resource.

 

Why does the pro-life movement anger me? I see these people who link hands to block abortion clinics; they claim to have love for the embryos, but in reality, they actually hate mankind; some of them go and shoot up abortion clinics and doctors in the name of "the right to life". Parenting and even giving birth to a child is a horrible experience for one not prepared for the physical and mental turmoil involved. These tasks are impossible if you're not ready for them. I'm shocked by the fact that people can condemn a fellow human being to such horror against their will. I'm at a loss for words when they claim that your body does not belong to you and that you serve only as a human breeding pig. They don't love embryos, they hate life, liberty and reason.

 

And then they call themselves "pro-life".

[Axeldeath]

Death is just another stage of life, as natural as birth.

 

I'm not arguing with the rest of your post but isn't death the end of life, not another stage?

[Bjossi]

Hm, maybe we could all commit suicide and then write about our experiences here afterwards.

[BTGBullseye]

Hm, maybe we could all commit suicide and then write about our experiences here afterwards.

I agree, but Michael Archer should go first...

[Geneaux486]

First I will post the definition of a right as defined by the dictionary, and I will work off of that:

 

a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

 

Now:

 

Oh quite the contrary: they are very similar as in they're both natural stages of life. Birth cannot come without eventual death.

 

My point and my analogy was to say that it's absurd to treat a human in one stage of life as if they were in another i.e. we shouldn't treat alive people, like dead people and we shouldn't treat fetuses like babies.

 

I understood your point, and it is flawed. Treating a living person as a dead person is not the same as treating a fetus as though it's further along in developement. Even if they were similar, it's irrelevant, as I advocate simply treating a fetus as what it undeniably is: a developing human being who's natural life cycle will lead it to grow.

 

You keep on saying "it has rights" without saying why. You said that it has rights because it is life and I responded that just because something is alive does not mean it has rights. e.g. are cells in your body are alive, do they all have their own individual rights? You've said nothing in response.

 

Cells in your body will not grow into individual people, this is the point at which this particular analogy fails.

 

Existence does not qualify for rights i.e. just because something exists does not mean it gets rights. I'm sure you already knew that.

 

Something that is alive deserves rights that extend to its capacity. A living fetus that will grow into an adult deserves rights that extend to its capacity to become a complete human being. Its humanity is not theoretical, it is simply what will happen.

 

Who are you to dispose of the lives of other people? What gives you the right for you to make people live their lives as you see fit? That's arrogance at its extreme. You are obviously not aware of what deserves rights if you're willing to throw away the life of a person in favor of a fetus. That's the complete opposite of individual rights.

 

It is certainly not in opposition with individual rights. Furthermore, I could respond to your question here with the exact same question. What gives us the right to decide that a developing person does not deserve the same chance at life that the rest of us have gotten? Whether or not it is a burden is irrelevant when it is already alive.

 

Why must it extend to all stages? It's easy enough to say that it must, but what's the reasoning? As I explained before, it's absurd to extend rights that protect people in social contexts to all stages of life where they simply wouldn't apply. A dead person does not have rights because they are not interacting with their fellow human. Fetuses do not have rights because while born humans need freedom to survive and function normally and peacefully in a society, a fetus does not.

 

As I said, rights should extend to the capacity of the organism to which they are applied. A developing life derves its chance at development, but it would not, for example, deserve the right to vote.

 

A government that claims value to human life would actually do the opposite: it would allow the inalienable right of a woman to get an abortion and objectively determine the difference between all stages of life and treat humans in different stages accordingly. Death is just another stage of life, as natural as birth.

 

A government that claims to value human life will use its laws to protect all developing human life, which it claims to value.

 

A government is supposed to protect individual rights. Your mind needs freedom to function normally, so rights protect that. Fetuses do not interact with other humans in a way that their mind needs to be free; this is why they don't have rights.

 

Would you apply this type of reasoning to a comatose person as well? Should a person who's footing the bill to keep that person alive be able to pull the plug if he already knows that the person will eventually come out of the coma? Going by the above logic, you would have to say "yes", and this is where we disagree.

 

A government that valued life would recognize this and uphold the right to get an abortion as it comes from the right to property, which comes from right to liberty, which comes from the right to life.

 

And I would agree with this if I believed that one person ever has the right to own another. I do not believe this. Clearly we disagree at our core perceptions of rights.

 

So it's ok for fetus to own a woman and her life uterus, but not ok for her to own her own body, her uterus and her life? In what universe is that fair or makes sense?

 

I'm not saying that a woman owns her fetus; I am saying that she owns her body and she gets to decide what goes in and out of it.

 

 

The fetus does not own the woman, it is simply dependent on her. As human beings we have all been dependent on others for survival at some point or another. To argue that this invalidates our rights to life at any point after that life has begun is absurd.

 

I don't believe that you don't believe one person owns another;

 

I don't care.

 

you're trying to convince me that a fetus has a right to reside in property that its owner does not approve or want. You think that the fetus gets to dictate the terms of its host's life.

 

I'm not trying to covince you of anything. My argument is not meant to persuade, but to inform. The fetus does not get to dictate anything, it merely happens that it does. It is not doing so of its own free will, but since it is a living organism with the capacity to grow into a fully functioning human being, it does not follow that this infringement invalidates its life.

 

Are you even reading what I'm saying? Rights will never violate rights for the simple reason that you don't have a right to a resource. I can see how you'd think it was possible; you probably think that it's possible to have a right to a good or service.

 

As I said before, rights are only to action and they won't violate anyone else's rights. You have yet to name one right that can possibly used to violate another right. The "limited resource" thing doesn't count, since you do not and can not have a right to a resource.

 

 

This is based on a perception of rights that is not factual. To be fair, neither is mine. Rights can extend to goods, services, and resources. A living person has the right to eat. A child has the right to recieve an education. This is not always the case from a legal standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, unless there is a discernable difference between two organisms, they deserve the same rights. To put it another way, if we recieve an education as children, then it follows that other children deserve an education as well. If we are able to eat, it follows that everyone else deserves to eat as well. There is no moral justification for denying these things, and this is why I believe rights, from a moral standpoint at the very least, extend to goods, services, and resources.

 

Why does the pro-life movement anger me? I see these people who link hands to block abortion clinics; they claim to have love for the embryos, but in reality, they actually hate mankind; some of them go and shoot up abortion clinics and doctors in the name of "the right to life".

 

To claim that they hate mankind relies on a perception of their motives that you are incapable of seeing. It would be more reasonable to say that their behavior is detrimental to mankind, but again, this is a matter of perspective. Protests will have limited results, and the murder of doctors who perform abortions is never justyfiable under any circumstance. However, the pro-life movement itself is just that, pro-life. In favor of life at all stages. And what about the mother? Does she have the right to every comfort and aid she can get to assist her with childbirth? Absolutely. I do not believe this extends to the destruction of another life.

 

I'm shocked by the fact that people can condemn a fellow human being to such horror against their will. I'm at a loss for words when they claim that your body does not belong to you and that you serve only as a human breeding pig. They don't love embryos, they hate life, liberty and reason.

 

No one is condemning anyone to anything by opposing abortion in and of itself. Childbirth is a natural process that has to be undertaken in order for our species to continue to survive, no one is forcing a woman to have to give birth in this way, it's simply the way the body works. It would be morally wrong to forbid a woman from having a c-section or taking pain killers, but this is not part of the pro-life stance. At pregnancy there are two living organisms to take into consideration. The mother, who deserves all the assistance she needs, and the developing child, who deserves the same opportunity to grow and develope that we have all gotten.

[Michael Archer]

And I would agree with this if I believed that one person ever has the right to own another. I do not believe this.

 

Thank you! I could not agree more!

 

But this is where you have a problem: In order for you to be convincing, your points have to be consistent. No one will take you seriously if you have completely opposite and mutually exclusive ideas, like this one:

 

Rights can extend to goods, services, and resources. A living person has the right to eat. A child has the right to recieve an education.

 

These two ideas to do not work. First you say a human being should never own another, but in the very next breath, you say that people are allowed to own other people in their resources; food and education are valuable; they must be payed for. You advocate people owning other people as financial slaves to pay for their education and their food.

 

The fact that you made this comment, tells me you do not believe the concept individual rights. This says a lot about your stance on abortion.

 

This is based on a perception of rights that is not factual. To be fair, neither is mine.

 

Are you saying that we humans make up and define rights i.e. that reality and rights are subjective? Humans use reason to survive; reason does not function without rights. Rights exist, because humans exist and use reason; it's not up to humans to decide what rights are. Do you remember the Deceleration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They're saying that they're not making these rights up; they're just there and we're just perceiving them.

 

 

I understood your point, and it is flawed. Treating a living person as a dead person is not the same as treating a fetus as though it's further along in developement. Even if they were similar, it's irrelevant, as I advocate simply treating a fetus as what it undeniably is: a developing human being who's natural life cycle will lead it to grow.

 

Now you are changing what you said earlier. You said you wanted to ascribe rights to a fetus as if it was a real human being i.e. self-autonomy and the right to life. I never said I didn't want to treat a fetus as what is isn't; you said that. You said you wanted to treat it and ascribe the same rights to it, as a baby.

 

The fetus does not own the woman, it is simply dependent on her. As human beings we have all been dependent on others for survival at some point or another. To argue that this invalidates our rights to life at any point after that life has begun is absurd.

 

We are sometimes dependent on other people, by their permission only; permissions are not rights. It wouldn't invalidate your right to life if you chose to keep the fetus.

 

I do not have the right to go into your house and demand you feed and clothe me; if you want want to feed and clothe me, you can and you still retain your autonomy. I have your permission only, which can be revoked at any time.

 

It's the same situation with a woman and her fetus.

 

I'm not trying to covince you of anything. My argument is not meant to persuade, but to inform.

 

Distinction without a difference. Moving on.

 

The fetus does not get to dictate anything, it merely happens that it does. It is not doing so of its own free will, but since it is a living organism with the capacity to grow into a fully functioning human being, it does not follow that this infringement invalidates its life.

 

Fetus doesn't have free will? Good, but I'm going to hold you to that.

 

Rights are only relevant to beings in social situations where their faculty of reason must be free for it to function normally i.e. human beings. You said yourself that a fetus is not yet a fully functioning human being; I'm going to hold you to that, too.

 

A fetus is not a human being, it's a potential human being; an acorn is to an oak tree as a fetus is to a human being. Yet, you would be crazy to call a pile of acorns a forest; you would also be crazy to call a fetus a human being, if you accept the first premise.

 

To force a woman (keyword: force) to remain pregnant, does invalidate her life. You're sentencing her to nine months of enslavement; to carry a fetus that consumes her resources against her will and you're forcing her to go through a very painful and potentially dangerous child birth; the whole process might leave her emotionally depraved for the rest of her life. Her right to liberty and property come from her right to life ergo by taking away her right to liberty and property by forcing her to remain pregnant, you are invalidating her life.

 

To claim that they hate mankind relies on a perception of their motives that you are incapable of seeing. It would be more reasonable to say that their behavior is detrimental to mankind, but again, this is a matter of perspective. Protests will have limited results, and the murder of doctors who perform abortions is never justyfiable under any circumstance. However, the pro-life movement itself is just that, pro-life. In favor of life at all stages. And what about the mother? Does she have the right to every comfort and aid she can get to assist her with childbirth? Absolutely. I do not believe this extends to the destruction of another life.

 

They are not saying that they're "in favor of life at all stages." They're saying they're in favor of the embryos at the expense of a woman's life. That's anti-life. If they were truly in favor of life in all stages, they would recognize that the woman was there first and she's a completely rational being and that no human is allowed to live off another as a parasite. That's why it makes me mad when they call themselves "pro-life."

 

No one is condemning anyone to anything by opposing abortion in and of itself. Childbirth is a natural process that has to be undertaken in order for our species to continue to survive, no one is forcing a woman to have to give birth in this way, it's simply the way the body works.

 

Actually, you're right. You can oppose abortion without violating anyone's rights; to do this you would have to say, "I think abortion is wrong, but I'm in no position to tell anyone how to run their lives." But if you say, "I think abortion is wrong, so I'm going to my congressman to get him to pass a law to outlaw abortion", that would be condemning a person by violating their rights, but the anti-abortionists are saying the latter.

 

You are condemning someone to force them to bear and give birth to a child against their will.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Huge posts are huge...

[Fujin]

*Looking at poll results*

 

A very liberal bunch, we have here. What, Freemans mind doesn't attract any godfearers?

 

I'm pro-choice. Not for any particular reason. I just don't really like the thought of ANOTHER goddamned person walking around, sucking up my air, leaving a huge carbon footprint behind.

 

On an unrelated note: Who were the two people that didn't care? Do you really not have an opinion? Why open the topic if you didn't? Come to think of it, why is that even an option? You'd think "Pro-choice" would cover the "I don't care"-ers.

 

People are born every day, and I am Pro-choice. Because everyone should be able to choose certain things, women are right , it is their body.

[Geneaux486]

These two ideas to do not work. First you say a human being should never own another, but in the very next breath, you say that people are allowed to own other people in their resources; food and education are valuable; they must be payed for. You advocate people owning other people as financial slaves to pay for their education and their food.

 

The fact that you made this comment, tells me you do not believe the concept individual rights. This says a lot about your stance on abortion.

 

No, one human being never has the right to own another. One person cannot look at another and say "That is my property". A person claiming their right to food and education =/= owning someone as a financial slave. I advocated nothing even close to what you're claiming I did. What it tells you about me is irrelevant.

 

Are you saying that we humans make up and define rights i.e. that reality and rights are subjective? Humans use reason to survive; reason does not function without rights. Rights exist, because humans exist and use reason; it's not up to humans to decide what rights are. Do you remember the Deceleration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They're saying that they're not making these rights up; they're just there and we're just perceiving them.

 

We humans percieve rights based on our own common sense and reason. Being able to reason is not a prerequesite for having rights, living is. The capacity in which an entity can live determines what rights it has in a moral sense. Whether or not we acknowlege these rights (which is a matter of choice, both yours and mine) is a different matter altogether, and it is what you are arguing here.

 

You said you wanted to ascribe rights to a fetus as if it was a real human being i.e. self-autonomy and the right to life. I never said I didn't want to treat a fetus as what is isn't; you said that. You said you wanted to treat it and ascribe the same rights to it, as a baby.

 

 

I changed nothing. A fetus is just another stage of a developing human being. It is a living, growing thing.

 

We are sometimes dependent on other people, by their permission only; permissions are not rights. It wouldn't invalidate your right to life if you chose to keep the fetus.

 

I do not have the right to go into your house and demand you feed and clothe me; if you want want to feed and clothe me, you can and you still retain your autonomy. I have your permission only, which can be revoked at any time.

 

It's the same situation with a woman and her fetus.

 

A comparison resulting from a logical fallacy. Your comparison of going into a person's house and demanding food and clothing would only be comparable to a woman and her fetus were that person to say that because you couldn't take care of yourself, you should be killled.

 

Rights are only relevant to beings in social situations where their faculty of reason must be free for it to function normally i.e. human beings.

 

So you keep insisting, but it ain't getting any more true the more you say it. Rights are relevant to life. Social situations are one instance in which they are relevant. Rights are important indetermining what can or cannot be done to a living thing, what should or should not be allowed. If you truly do not believe that rights extend past humans that can reason, then your definition of rights is simply insufficient.

 

A fetus is not a human being, it's a potential human being; an acorn is to an oak tree as a fetus is to a human being. Yet, you would be crazy to call a pile of acorns a forest; you would also be crazy to call a fetus a human being, if you accept the first premise.

 

 

A fetus is a developing human being, not a potential human being. It already exists, it is already growing. It's the same as a seed that has already been planted. The plant is developing, but it is still a plant.

 

To force a woman (keyword: force) to remain pregnant, does invalidate her life. You're sentencing her to nine months of enslavement; to carry a fetus that consumes her resources against her will and you're forcing her to go through a very painful and potentially dangerous child birth; the whole process might leave her emotionally depraved for the rest of her life. Her right to liberty and property come from her right to life ergo by taking away her right to liberty and property by forcing her to remain pregnant, you are invalidating her life.

 

And it's a shame that the process has to be so painful. Again I say, we do not have the right to decide that killing the fetus is a viable solution to this problem, as it involves taking the life of a developing human being. If left unharmed, the fetus will continue to grow and develope. We do not have the right to deprive it of a chance we ourselves were given, as there is no discernable difference between the fetus and us when we were fetuses. We were certainly not more deserving of life than any other fetus.

 

They are not saying that they're "in favor of life at all stages." They're saying they're in favor of the embryos at the expense of a woman's life. That's anti-life. If they were truly in favor of life in all stages, they would recognize that the woman was there first and she's a completely rational being and that no human is allowed to live off another as a parasite. That's why it makes me mad when they call themselves "pro-life."

 

They support life at all stages and are therefore pro life. Your perspective does not change theirs. Your views on the issue are not theirs, and their views exist independently of yours. What you are doing is reinterpreting their motives, which is difficult because motives are impossible to prove.

 

You can oppose abortion without violating anyone's rights; to do this you would have to say, "I think abortion is wrong, but I'm in no position to tell anyone how to run their lives." But if you say, "I think abortion is wrong, so I'm going to my congressman to get him to pass a law to outlaw abortion", that would be condemning a person by violating their rights, but the anti-abortionists are saying the latter.

 

I think abortion is wrong, and oppose it to the extent that my voting rights will allow. Going by this same argument of yours, you are still violating a right to life by aborting a fetus. Again I will say, one possible outcome results in two lives being spared, while the other results in only one. You talk about the harm to the mother as if the process of getting an abortion is completely harmless. There are risks both physically and mentally. There is no way to go through life without risks and without struggles. It's part of being human.

[Michael Archer]

No, one human being never has the right to own another. One person cannot look at another and say "That is my property". A person claiming their right to food and education =/= owning someone as a financial slave. I advocated nothing even close to what you're claiming I did. What it tells you about me is irrelevant.

 

Yes it does. If you claim your right to food and education, you're claiming a right to monetary value. Because they're valuable, someone must pay for it. Because you say it's a "right", and the government's job is to protect rights, this mean that the government can seize money from people against their will to pay for it.

 

You're using an agent of force to obtain money from someone who does not want to give you money. How is that not slavery?

 

We humans percieve rights based on our own common sense and reason. Being able to reason is not a prerequesite for having rights, living is. The capacity in which an entity can live determines what rights it has in a moral sense. Whether or not we acknowlege these rights (which is a matter of choice, both yours and mine) is a different matter altogether, and it is what you are arguing here.

 

You 're right: reason is not a perquisite for rights, rights are the prerequisite for reason i.e. reason can not exist without rights.

 

The woman has the right to life and property, the fetus does not. There is no such thing as a right to live as a parasite, although you seem to think there is since you said we have a "right" to education and food, so that does explain your stance on abortion.

 

A comparison resulting from a logical fallacy. Your comparison of going into a person's house and demanding food and clothing would only be comparable to a woman and her fetus were that person to say that because you couldn't take care of yourself, you should be killled.

 

And what fallacy is that, exactly?

 

Ok fine, let's change the analogy. Say it's a brutal winter and the person is an invalid. If you kick them out of your house, they would surely die. Despite this, they still stay only in your house by your permission which I say again, is not a right.

 

So you keep insisting, but it ain't getting any more true the more you say it. Rights are relevant to life. Social situations are one instance in which they are relevant. Rights are important indetermining what can or cannot be done to a living thing, what should or should not be allowed. If you truly do not believe that rights extend past humans that can reason, then your definition of rights is simply insufficient.

 

Rights extend to any being that has the capacity to reason; as I said before, reason cannot exist without rights. So, if we met an alien race who had the capacity of reason, they too would have rights.

 

Rights are not relevant to life per se. Skin cells are life, but they have no rights. Are you saying that we should ascribe rights to a skin cell?

 

What exactly is your point?

 

A fetus is a developing human being, not a potential human being. It already exists, it is already growing. It's the same as a seed that has already been planted. The plant is developing, but it is still a plant.

 

Semantics. A fetus is akin to an acorn in the sense that they're both potential, but not actual human beings/oak trees. Acorns are not dead until they're planted; they are very much alive before they are planted. Would you still call a group of acorns a forest?

 

And it's a shame that the process has to be so painful. Again I say, we do not have the right to decide that killing the fetus is a viable solution to this problem, as it involves taking the life of a developing human being. If left unharmed, the fetus will continue to grow and develope. We do not have the right to deprive it of a chance we ourselves were given, as there is no discernable difference between the fetus and us when we were fetuses. We were certainly not more deserving of life than any other fetus.

 

We do not have the right to decide to kill the fetus, but whoever is housing it does.

 

A developing human being =/= an actual human being i.e. killing an actual human being would involve initiating force, and is murder; killing a developing human being is not initiating force, since there is no right to exist as a parasite.

 

We weren't aborted because our mothers decided to keep us and we are now separate entities that do not live as parasites. If we claim our right to life, we don't violate any one else's rights. You cannot argue the right to life of a fetus without arguing its right to exist as a parasite against someone's will.

 

They support life at all stages and are therefore pro life. Your perspective does not change theirs. Your views on the issue are not theirs, and their views exist independently of yours. What you are doing is reinterpreting their motives, which is difficult because motives are impossible to prove.

 

If they think that a fetus' life can and should come at the expense of a real human's life, then they do not support life at all stages. Just because you say they do, doesn't mean they do.

 

I think abortion is wrong, and oppose it to the extent that my voting rights will allow. Going by this same argument of yours, you are still violating a right to life by aborting a fetus. Again I will say, one possible outcome results in two lives being spared, while the other results in only one. You talk about the harm to the mother as if the process of getting an abortion is completely harmless. There are risks both physically and mentally. There is no way to go through life without risks and without struggles. It's part of being human.

 

Good thing that we live in a republic and not a democracy; in the former, the rights of others are not subject to a majority vote. Vote away.

 

How is that the same argument? Killing a human being involves initiating force and violating rights, killing a fetus does not since its right to life means right to live as a parasite.

 

Of course there are risks to abortion; that's why a pregnant woman must use the power of her reason to decide what is the best course of action for her own well-being: birth or abortion.

[Axeldeath]

Hm, maybe we could all commit suicide and then write about our experiences here afterwards.

I agree, but Michael Archer should go first...

 

You know once QuietGrave see's this post your gonna get another warning

[J.C.]

Oh, I'm sure BTGbullseye was just kdding. By that standard, my man Bjossi was inciting mass suicide...

 

This is a very controversial topic. Heated arguments will ensue.

 

On a more serious note, if you want my opinion... well, I don't deal in absolutes. Absolutes breed Extremism, Extremism usually end up with a bunch of dead people.

 

I once saw a very graphic video of a sonogram of an abortion. The unborn ferus screamed as it was being ripped apart... I just can't forget those images.

 

I think EnviMea's original post is as good as it gets.