Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

I really want a response to the forced organ donation point. Why do pro-lifers consider it okay for a fetus to use a person's body against their will, but not for people to do so? Or do you actually think it is alright to use others' organs without consent in cases other than pregnancy?

 

Well, here's my problem: reading the sentences of most pro-"choice" people here have driven me to think that actually, abortions should be a lot MORE regulated, not less.

 

Most if the aeguments used could be continued on for eugenics, killing old and disabled people,

or generally everything thats not considered a "person" under varyung, quite personal, and biased definitions.

Here's my problem: pro-lifers seem to not consider any pregnant person a person. After all, people can't legally be forced to give up their organs. I think the pro-life definition of a person is far more personal and biased than the pro-choice one.

 

Pro-choice: personhood is given at birth, and never taken away

Pro-life: personhood is given at conception, and revoked whenever the person is pregnant (unless, in pro-lifers' opinions, said person has a good reason)

 

By allowing personhood to be revoked, the pro-life stance is much more open to treating the old and/or disabled as non-persons than the pro-choice one.

 

(I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that there's never reason for a person's personhood to be revoked. If I'm wrong, please let me know.)

Share this post


Link to post

(I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that there's never reason for a person's personhood to be revoked. If I'm wrong, please let me know.)

The law does not know that term at all. It only knows various rights that can and will be usually earned as you grow up, and that can and will be revoked if certain conditions apply, like both physical and mental illnesses.

 

And thats the problem: Since we can not define personhood without personal bias, its moot to discuss whether its murder (which needs to be a person if you take the strict sense of the definition of murder) - but it always IS killing.

 

 

My Grandmother lived on for 4 years with knowing noone around her atfer a series of strokes. She'd be sitting in her wheelchair, carted around by her husband, without knowing who that was, occasionally in hospital for various bodily deficits, never knowing as much as that food is good. Using the pro-choice advocacy of terminating "Parasites, that only feed off others" that would include her, no matter where you draw the line.

 

 

BTW: Did you note how you have distorted everything that htt71 said with just a single sentence? Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.

Share this post


Link to post

Brain-dead Canadian on life support to save fetus

A 32-year-old Canadian woman who has been declared brain dead is being kept on life support in a Victoria, British Columbia, hospital, with doctors working to keep her alive long enough to deliver her unborn son.

 

Robyn Benson was just 22 weeks pregnant when she complained of a headache and then collapsed on her bathroom floor, according to postings on a blog and fundraising site by her husband Dylan Benson. Her fetus, already named Iver Cohen Benson, has continued to grow in the womb.

Share this post


Link to post

The law does not know that term at all. It only knows various rights that can and will be usually earned as you grow up, and that can and will be revoked if certain conditions apply, like both physical and mental illnesses.

 

And thats the problem: Since we can not define personhood without personal bias, its moot to discuss whether its murder (which needs to be a person if you take the strict sense of the definition of murder) - but it always IS killing.

 

 

My Grandmother lived on for 4 years with knowing noone around her atfer a series of strokes. She'd be sitting in her wheelchair, carted around by her husband, without knowing who that was, occasionally in hospital for various bodily deficits, never knowing as much as that food is good. Using the pro-choice advocacy of terminating "Parasites, that only feed off others" that would include her, no matter where you draw the line.

 

 

BTW: Did you note how you have distorted everything that htt71 said with just a single sentence? Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.

Actually you have no idea if your grandmother knew what was going on. I knew of someone (not just "passing knowledge" - a close friend of a friend who I only ever met once) who was in PVS for THIRTEEN YEARS. Knew nothing of what was going on.

 

They said.

 

When he came out of it, and went on to live a fairly normal life, he was able to tell people quite a bit about the time he was believed to be totally out of it - including about some sexual assault he had been subjected to by a nurse - and no, it wasn't a dream - the nurse immediately confessed and was fired.

 

But - he was a person, with sentience. An embryo is not. Until you can survive outside the womb, on your own, you are not a person. Now the Canadian woman - I don't know about her family's wishes (the media are not always reliable) but a 22 week old foetus can often survive.

 

The mess of bloody cells that came out of me was in NO WAY a person.

 

If an embryo is a person - take it carefully out of the womb and let it live. Find a way to do that. But don't force the woman to carry it. It is her absolute right not to.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

And thats the problem: Since we can not define personhood without personal bias, its moot to discuss whether its murder (which needs to be a person if you take the strict sense of the definition of murder) - but it always IS killing.

Pulling this out because I think I tried to address this: Religiously it is not wrong to kill (according to Christianity and Jeudism. I'm sure Islam is covered here as well but I am aware there are some religions that have a more narrow view) I mean we eat meat yes? Homo Sapiens are not scavengers like our ancestors, we kill for our food. Once again unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't believe you can logically argue from this standpoint, especially since the animals you eat will be more aware of their deaths than the fetus will be, especially in the first trimester.

Share this post


Link to post
Pulling this out because I think I tried to address this: Religiously it is not wrong to kill (according to Christianity and Jeudism. I'm sure Islam is covered here as well but I am aware there are some religions that have a more narrow view) I mean we eat meat yes? Homo Sapiens are not scavengers like our ancestors, we kill for our food. Once again unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't believe you can logically argue from this standpoint, especially since the animals you eat will be more aware of their deaths than the fetus will be, especially in the first trimester.

it is not wrong to kill animals, yes, but please be aware that this is covered at least three to four times in each of the religious base-works (e.g. the bible) with varying words and open for interpretation.

 

Nowhere does it cover whether an unborn (or stillborn baby) ever had a soul. Each soul is special, and especially in judaism, the emphasis is on hand-picking the soul by an angel to put into that special person. Now, it is not said if that happens on birth or earlier, so this still leaves the possibility of being earlier - and if it is a human soul in the fetus, then you can be sure that you shall not murder applies.

 

As this is only spiritual, it can not scientifically proven or falsified. But the religions always decide towards the conception part, not the birthing.

 

So trying to make that argument about religion is surely backfiring.

 

--

 

That aside: It was not religion I was referring to. It's just that anyone saying its not murder, its just killing, should have to ask themselves: whats different to killing a dog, a cat, your old incapacitated neighbour? Yes, there are differences, but if you just define those as "brain functions" or "sentience", well, its not gonna work out either.

Share this post


Link to post
it is not wrong to kill animals, yes, but please be aware that this is covered at least three to four times in each of the religious base-works (e.g. the bible) with varying words and open for interpretation.

 

Nowhere does it cover whether an unborn (or stillborn baby) ever had a soul. Each soul is special, and especially in judaism, the emphasis is on hand-picking the soul by an angel to put into that special person. Now, it is not said if that happens on birth or earlier, so this still leaves the possibility of being earlier - and if it is a human soul in the fetus, then you can be sure that you shall not murder applies.

 

As this is only spiritual, it can not scientifically proven or falsified. But the religions always decide towards the conception part, not the birthing.

 

So trying to make that argument about religion is surely backfiring.

 

--

 

That aside: It was not religion I was referring to. It's just that anyone saying its not murder, its just killing, should have to ask themselves: whats different to killing a dog, a cat, your old incapacitated neighbour? Yes, there are differences, but if you just define those as "brain functions" or "sentience", well, its not gonna work out either.

Noble has addressed that the soul is not present until birth according to Jeudism, and there are places in the bible where abortion is not only talked about but practiced. Including as a test as to whether the woman was unfaithful. In the verse the woman is given contaminated barley. If the fetus is aborted or if she becomes barren she cheated (This was within religous laws, so I don't think abortion was spoken about directly from god, but abortion has been practiced in biblical times)

Share this post


Link to post
Noble has addressed that the soul is not present until birth according to Jeudism, and there are places in the bible where abortion is not only talked about but practiced.

im not one of the faithful religious types, so yes, maybe it was established somewhere. thoughts on the second part of my post, please, instead?

Share this post


Link to post

Killing is not inherently evil, and if I had to make the choice between my life and a fetus I'd choose my own. If you fight back in self-defence and cause an injury that kills your attacker that is not evil. Killing opposing forces in war is not evil (not refering to civilians, but two armies locked in combat). Killing an animal for your dinner is not evil.

 

Context is what is important in these cases, and in the context that the fetus is not self aware, and cannot feel pain it becomes the choice of the person affected by the fetus. If you kill a dog in an inhumane way it can be seen as evil because the animal suffered at your hand, if you kill your incapacitated neighbor and did so without their consent (refering to neighbor as an in general community member) then that can be seen as evil since they or their family have no say in it. (Note: I support doctor assisted suicide, especially in cases where the patient is in pain.)

 

The fetus does not have the ability to consent, but it also does not have the right to use a woman's body without her permission, and abortion can therefore be seen as a means of selfdefence from an intruder.

Edited by brairtrainer

Share this post


Link to post

Though I'm a skeeved that no one mentions whether or not she wanted to remain in the ICU, this is a little different from Texas. There is no law in place requiring this of the medical team (Canadian law is fairly blunt about personhood being granted to born humans only) and it looks like her family is in favor of this decision. Plus none of them are going to get a bill. It is still creepy and wrong if she didn't have a clear directive about this sort of occurance, though.

Share this post


Link to post
it is not wrong to kill animals, yes, but please be aware that this is covered at least three to four times in each of the religious base-works (e.g. the bible) with varying words and open for interpretation.

 

Nowhere does it cover whether an unborn (or stillborn baby) ever had a soul. Each soul is special, and especially in judaism, the emphasis is on hand-picking the soul by an angel to put into that special person. Now, it is not said if that happens on birth or earlier, so this still leaves the possibility of being earlier - and if it is a human soul in the fetus, then you can be sure that you shall not murder applies.

 

As this is only spiritual, it can not scientifically proven or falsified. But the religions always decide towards the conception part, not the birthing.

 

So trying to make that argument about religion is surely backfiring.

 

--

 

That aside: It was not religion I was referring to. It's just that anyone saying its not murder, its just killing, should have to ask themselves: whats different to killing a dog, a cat, your old incapacitated neighbour? Yes, there are differences, but if you just define those as "brain functions" or "sentience", well, its not gonna work out either.

I don't have proof, but I think I remember that judaism has 40 days for the unborn to get its soul.

 

another thing: not even half of sucessful fertilized eggs make the implan (which takes about 6-12 days), so, basically half of possible pregnancies abort before they even begun, so, conception is not a good staring point imho.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, studies have shown that babies develop a sense of feeling pain at five months. They can think, kinda, and feel. Honestly I think that's just downright cruel, I mean killing a clump of human cells is wrong, but if it can feel pain... Wow. Although I do understand your point.

...You do realize that most abortions happen before the 5-month period, right? Actually before even sooner? (3 months, I think?). Abortions done after that period are generally only done because the fetus is no longer viable, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb (any "life" it had would be nothing but agony and then death), or there are serious health risks possibly as serious as death for the mother. They're not generally done because the fetus is unwanted at that point.

 

 

Now, again. I want an answer:

 

Are you, or are you not, okay with the idea of forcibly harvesting spare bits (like blood and one kidney and whatnot) from people even if they say no provided it will save the life of another person? Hell, taking their organs even if it kills them to save the life of another?

 

 

To me, even if a fetus is a person abortion must STILL be a right. Because no other person can strap me down and take my blood to save a life. They cannot force me to donate my kidney. So why, then, should a fetus be granted more rights to freely use the body of another--up to and including causing permanent changes and/or damages up to and including death--when no other person can do that to me?

 

You are literally arguing for granting a fetus "super personhood"--you are making the fetus more of a person than any other born person is. And, depending on where you live, you are arguing for granting pregnant females less rights to control what happens to their bodies than a corpse.

 

That aside: It was not religion I was referring to. It's just that anyone saying its not murder, its just killing, should have to ask themselves: whats different to killing a dog, a cat, your old incapacitated neighbour? Yes, there are differences, but if you just define those as "brain functions" or "sentience", well, its not gonna work out either.

Simple.

 

The cats and dogs are not human. Therefore it is not murder. Murder is specific to humans.

 

The old, incapacitated neighbour, however, is still human. Unlike a fetus, however they are capable of existing without directly requiring the draining of resources from the body of a host. (If, for example, it were possible for them to be cared for entirely using machines, they would be able to live without the assistance of another human aside from any maintenance or repair work to the machines, which I could consider more equatable to a human who can live on their own but needs assistance from such a thing like a breathing device or some such thing than a fetus that requires being connected to a host body to drain resources from it)

Share this post


Link to post
Though I'm a skeeved that no one mentions whether or not she wanted to remain in the ICU, this is a little different from Texas. There is no law in place requiring this of the medical team (Canadian law is fairly blunt about personhood being granted to born humans only) and it looks like her family is in favor of this decision. Plus none of them are going to get a bill. It is still creepy and wrong if she didn't have a clear directive about this sort of occurance, though.

Until it such a directive comes to light I think the hospital is doing the right thing by listening to her husband's wishes. He'd probably have the best idea as to what she wanted, and with no deformaties present it seems relatively safe, I hope though that if a directive comes to light the hospital will respect her wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Until it such a directive comes to light I think the hospital is doing the right thing by listening to her husband's wishes. He'd probably have the best idea as to what she wanted, and with no deformaties present it seems relatively safe, I hope though that if a directive comes to light the hospital will respect her wishes.

Pretty much. It bothers me, personally, to think of being on either side of that situation, but I think they're doing the right thing absent of any preexisting directive.

Share this post


Link to post

The law does not know that term at all. It only knows various rights that can and will be usually earned as you grow up, and that can and will be revoked if certain conditions apply, like both physical and mental illnesses.

I do know that "person" is a legal term, though to be fair, the legal definition may not be relevant, since I think it has to do with being able to enter into contracts and such. So I'll try to frame this in terms of the specific right I'm concerned with: bodily autonomy. That is, a person has the right to decide what to do with their own body. This right persists even after death. Yet, pro-lifers say that pregnant people do not get the right to bodily autonomy. A pregnant person's organs may be used against their will. Therefore, corpses have a right that living humans do not. Why is that not problematic to you?

 

And thats the problem: Since we can not define personhood without personal bias, its moot to discuss whether its murder (which needs to be a person if you take the strict sense of the definition of murder) - but it always IS killing.

Not quite right. Because we cannot agree on personhood in this case, we cannot establish that abortion is murder, because murder requires that it is a person that is killed. However, we can establish that it is not murder, by showing that even if it was a person that was killed, it would not be murder. That is what I have been saying, over and over: it is unambiguously legal to kill in self defense if lethal force is the only possible way to protect yourself. Unwanted pregnancy is a violation of the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. There is no way to end early-term pregnancy without killing the fetus. Therefore, it is justified to kill the fetus, regardless if it is a person or not.

 

No one has disputed that a fetus is alive, and that abortion kills it.

 

My Grandmother lived on for 4 years with knowing noone around her atfer a series of strokes. She'd be sitting in her wheelchair, carted around by her husband, without knowing who that was, occasionally in hospital for various bodily deficits, never knowing as much as that food is good. Using the pro-choice advocacy of terminating "Parasites, that only feed off others" that would include her, no matter where you draw the line.

No, it doesn't include her. A fetus is a parasite because they require the body of a person to survive. Your grandmother required assistance, but did not have to be physically attached to a human being to take nutrients from. A social "parasite" is not the same as a biological parasite.

 

BTW: Did you note how you have distorted everything that htt71 said with just a single sentence? Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.

Yes, I did that on purpose. This sentence, in particular:

By allowing personhood to be revoked, the pro-life stance is much more open to treating the old and/or disabled as non-persons than the pro-choice one.

was meant to distort the pro-life stance, similarly to how you twisted the pro-choice one. I did that to show you that it's not only the pro-choice stance that can be twisted so that it supports horrible things. In actuality, I think that applying either the pro-choice or pro-life stances to the disabled, etc., is wrong. Abortion is a very different scenario, and should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post

Most if the aeguments used could be continued on for eugenics, killing old and disabled people,

or generally everything thats not considered a "person" under varyung, quite personal, and biased definitions.

 

From ABC/Washington Post poll:

 

“Seventy-nine percent of “very” conservatives oppose abortion in all or most cases, while 80 percent of liberals support it (partly, in this case, because nearly three in 10 liberals profess no religion).”

 

You don’t have to worry about the pro-choice people. They want safety nets. The pro-life people are more likely to embrace austerity.

 

Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.

 

No, for the pro-life, you must not be one of the 47%.

 

Share this post


Link to post

A life is a life. Once a clump of HUMAN cells is created it is alive. It may not be sentient, but it is alive. And you, taking he opera unity away from this defenseless undeveloped human is INHUMANE! Do you understand how terrible abortion is? Or are you just preaching for it because you want every liberty you can get, regardless of what happens in the process. WELL HERE YOU GO, take your freedom! I want you to have it, no really, take your freedom to kill undeveloped innocent life forms to the max. Go ahead, because I want you to know that even though you talk choice and freedom you really bear an intent to forget about the child, forget about the life form that literally can't survive without it's mother. Yes it's a parasite, and yes it's a clump of cells, but it is a HUMAN CLUMP OF CELLS! It is the human parasite! We all are just parasitic clumps of cells. Instead of a mother though, we take from the Earth and other Humans. Welcome to humanity, we are a disease. However, I'm proud to be this disease! I'm a human, thinking, breathing, feeling life form and I'm determined to let everyone else have that same liberty too! Understand?

 

Edit: I'm feeling a bit tired and out of breath after writing this. Feel free to criticize, it's what I expect at this point being a pro lifer. I'll reply eventually, probably not right away though... I'll be watching smile.gif

Can you describe the difference between a fetus and my arm aside from potential, then? Is it a crime to hurt or kill cells on my arm? Basically, you saying that it is wrong to kill human cells, regardless if is sentient/a person or not, is saying that it is equally wrong to amputate my arm if cancer was present on it, for example, or if I had flesh-eating disease located on it.

 

To me, the mentality is the most important thing in describing a person or not. Your physical makeup does not matter. If my dog suddenly fulfilled the human condition, I would consider it a person. If we met sentient aliens, they would be people. A fetus does not fulfil any of the human condition, it's a parasite, it cannot survive without using my body, and I don't want it using my body. It isn't a child, it isn't a human being, it isn't a person, it's just human flesh. So bye-bye.

 

 

My Grandmother lived on for 4 years with knowing noone around her atfer a series of strokes. She'd be sitting in her wheelchair, carted around by her husband, without knowing who that was, occasionally in hospital for various bodily deficits, never knowing as much as that food is good. Using the pro-choice advocacy of terminating "Parasites, that only feed off others" that would include her, no matter where you draw the line.

 

People keep on mixing up being able to survive outside the womb with being able to survive without help from other people. She is her own person; a fetus is not its own person. One is a parasite, as it cannot survive without drawing nutrients from the host, the other one can survive without drawing nutrients from the host. So no, it doesn't include her. If she needed to be connected to my body 100% of the time in order to survive, then yes, she would be a parasite. Please research the definition of a biological parasite and the issue of bodily autonomy.

 

 

BTW: Did you note how you have distorted everything that htt71 said with just a single sentence? Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.

See, I find that to be inexcusable. If you do take that position, the consequences of your actions not only force the children to be miserable and live with higher rates of suicide and depression, but you force the mother to do the same. You force the mother to be stuck with a child that she isn't ready for financially, mentally, or physically. Forced-birthers are saying that a mistake should be taken as punishment. They'd rather that I have a child now, because a condom broke; instead of me aborting it, continuing on my path of education, and having a planned child where they'd be wanted, properly supported, and have an overall happier life, forcing an unwanted mistake child is better just because they'd be alive, and their condition of life doesn't matter. Alternatively, they think that forcing me to have a child, something that I REALLY do not want, is a good thing. They don't care that the consequences of their actions will cause a ton of harm on myself, and they just tell me to throw it into the horrible adoption system.

 

 

That is why it's forced birth, and not pro-life; a miserable life is better than no life at all, and the lives ruined because of it don't count.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

A life is a life. Once a clump of HUMAN cells is created it is alive. It may not be sentient, but it is alive. And you, taking he opera unity away from this defenseless undeveloped human is INHUMANE! Do you understand how terrible abortion is? Or are you just preaching for it because you want every liberty you can get, regardless of what happens in the process. WELL HERE YOU GO, take your freedom! I want you to have it, no really, take your freedom to kill undeveloped innocent life forms to the max. Go ahead, because I want you to know that even though you talk choice and freedom you really bear an intent to forget about the child, forget about the life form that literally can't survive without it's mother. Yes it's a parasite, and yes it's a clump of cells, but it is a HUMAN CLUMP OF CELLS! It is the human parasite! We all are just parasitic clumps of cells. Instead of a mother though, we take from the Earth and other Humans. Welcome to humanity, we are a disease. However, I'm proud to be this disease! I'm a human, thinking, breathing, feeling life form and I'm determined to let everyone else have that same liberty too! Understand?

 

Defenseless. Curious ideal. You also think everyone deserves the same liberty. But you don't women to have abortions. So you're contradicting yourself. Or does a pregnant woman surrender HER rights? Even if the fetus is a person/human/whatever, why does it have the right to take over someone's life? Why is ONE life more important then ONE life?

 

Thanks bro biggrin.gif I'll gladly take MY RIGHTS. Nope, it's the POTENTIAL to be a human. Clump of cells that are from humans.

 

 

I should stop here but you know, if this offends anyone, these are my views. If I don't want it, I don't give a censorkip.gif about it's welfare over mine. I'm in charge of my body and what happens to it. No one else. I would gladly, if abortions were banned, I somehow got infected with that parasite, I would abort it. Myself. Maybe I would die from it. But I would rather die at my own hands than die from someone else telling me I *can't* abort it. I can be the most evil person in your eyes but in my own, I'm my own martyr.

 

 

You didn't answer KageSoras question either. Maybe you could answer it, a few of use are in the dark with it.

 

You say the child has rights... So, I'm guessing that you're okay with the idea of people being forcibly strapped down and having blood and stuff that they can live without harvested from their bodies against their will provided it will save a life, right? You're totally okay with that?

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post
A life is a life. Once a clump of HUMAN cells is created it is alive. It may not be sentient, but it is alive. And you, taking he opera unity away from this defenseless undeveloped human is INHUMANE! Do you understand how terrible abortion is? Or are you just preaching for it because you want every liberty you can get, regardless of what happens in the process. WELL HERE YOU GO, take your freedom! I want you to have it, no really, take your freedom to kill undeveloped innocent life forms to the max. Go ahead, because I want you to know that even though you talk choice and freedom you really bear an intent to forget about the child, forget about the life form that literally can't survive without it's mother. Yes it's a parasite, and yes it's a clump of cells, but it is a HUMAN CLUMP OF CELLS! It is the human parasite! We all are just parasitic clumps of cells. Instead of a mother though, we take from the Earth and other Humans. Welcome to humanity, we are a disease. However, I'm proud to be this disease! I'm a human, thinking, breathing, feeling life form and I'm determined to let everyone else have that same liberty too! Understand?

Do you believe amputation is wrong? Because when someone gets a part of their body surgically removed they are "killing" human cells.

Share this post


Link to post
You say the child has rights... So, I'm guessing that you're okay with the idea of people being forcibly strapped down and having blood and stuff that they can live without harvested from their bodies against their will provided it will save a life, right? You're totally okay with that?

This. Much of this debate, I find, is 2 framings of the same issue; the pro-"life" people saying that if you abort the fetus, you "murder" it. They're assuming the fetus has a right to live. I, naturally, disagree. A fetus is a clump of cells, much like a tonsil or a scab. Does my scab, or my tonsil, have a soul? Is it "murder" to remove and thus kill a tonsil? No.

 

On the other side of the fence, you have the pro-choice people saying that the fetus' existence is your choice, and that keeping it alive it an option, not a right. It's existence within the woman's body is a privilege, not a right.

 

I don't believe any woman should be forced to "save" her fetus. You don't have to save people with your organs/blood, do you? A fetus does not have a right to live; the woman brought it into this world, accidental or not, and she should be able to take it out if she so desires. Her body, her choice. Moreover, the rights of the living take precedence over the rights of the not-yet-living.

 

Something tells me this abortion argument wouldn't even exist if religion didn't exist and/or men were also physically affected by a woman's pregnancy smile.gif The lack of the whole "soul" and "life at conception" thing would make it more difficult to argue for pro-"life", for sure.

 

I hardly even understand the "pro-life" argument. You shouldn't abort because.....you'll go to Hell? Because the fetus is more important that you as a person? Because the Bible says so? Because it's a "sin"?

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of, found this a bit earlier.

 

user posted image

 

The egg isn't a chicken, yet. The acorn isn't a tree, yet. The silk isn't made into a dress...yet. Nor is that fertilized egg a person...YET. They all have the POTENTIAL to be these things though. However, the egg may not hatch into a chicken because it was laid inopportunely so it was ignored. The acorn might just rot because it was growing in an area with too many trees and the ecosystem couldn't support it. The silk might not be made into a dress because the silk might be too defective beyond repair.

If you see where I'm going with this, the cells of human (lol) might happen at the worst time, it may not be able to be cared for right, it might not even FORM a fetus. Not to mention the various other problems a person that has to be an incubator against her will would have to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey guys, it's htt71 and I messed up the order on this rant... Sorry about that.

 

"I hardly even understand the "pro-life" argument. You shouldn't abort because.....you'll go to Hell? Because the fetus is more important that you as a person? Because the Bible says so? Because it's a "sin"?"

 

The fact that you assume everyone who is pro life is religious is laughable. I mean really, did you base your entire stance on the fact that some of us happen to be religious? This is simply rediculous, try again. To answer your statement, we believe the killing of HUMAN fetuses is wrong, not for any specific reason (It varies by person), but simply because you are killing a human. Now, the term human is apparently subjective, so take it as you will, but to me, your right to LIVE begins at conception. Why anyone would say you have NO RIGHT TO LIVE because you lack cognitive function is horrible. So now we should go around "Aborting" brain-dead people because they can't think or feel? Is that morally right? Also, who gets to choose? If the mother gets to choose, then can a hospital go against the wishes of the person or family because it's the hospital's patient, and the patient is simply reliant on them, therefore gets no say. This is just wrong. Or, what about orphans? Can an orphanage just kill an orphan that relies on them for food, shelter, and life, because they don't want it anymore? I want an honest answer, can they?

 

"This. Much of this debate, I find, is 2 framings of the same issue; the pro-"life" people saying that if you abort the fetus, you "murder" it. They're assuming the fetus has a right to live. I, naturally, disagree. A fetus is a clump of cells, much like a tonsil or a scab. Does my scab, or my tonsil, have a soul? Is it "murder" to remove and thus kill a tonsil? No."

 

You're relating fetuses to scabs, as if they were useless dead weights. Wow, you are the pinnacle of good aren't you? Also, your scab or tonsil suddenly has the ability to form into a thinking, feeling, sentient creature if let grow? I was unaware of this. I was also unaware that your scab or tonsil had a soul. (subjective by religion or lack of.)

 

"I don't believe any woman should be forced to "save" her fetus. You don't have to save people with your organs/blood, do you? A fetus does not have a right to live; the woman brought it into this world, accidental or not, and she should be able to take it out if she so desires. Her body, her choice. Moreover, the rights of the living take precedence over the rights of the not-yet-living.

 

By this logic it MUST be ethical for a mother to murder her son or daughter at any time, because she brought it into this world, so fittingly she should take it out if she chooses. That surely seems like the kind of thing society wants. Also, i find your "Not yet living" statement to be hilarious, really. It's alive, this is a fact. Whether it has rights isn't. (Sorry, I put the wrong quotes together, but it's fixed.)

 

Defenseless. Curious ideal. You also think everyone deserves the same liberty. But you don't women to have abortions. So you're contradicting yourself. Or does a pregnant woman surrender HER rights? Even if the fetus is a person/human/whatever, why does it have the right to take over someone's life? Why is ONE life more important then ONE life?"

 

First of all, calm down. Secondly, a life that cannot control it's own existence nor can it do anything other than be, should be protected in some slight way. The woman can take care of herself (usually) the fetus can't. It needs more things than say the woman. You preach equality of life, I preach justice of life. Your point being it doesn't deserve to live because it requires me to sustain it, and going it more is unethical. My point being it needs more to live, so it deserves more to live. Both are worth a life, but one simply needs more. Not that it's worth more.

 

~Removed~

 

I'll be watching. (Yeah, I'm so pissed I'm not putting a message or an emoticon. Deal with it.)

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

Also, to finally answer this.

 

 

You say the child has rights... So, I'm guessing that you're okay with the idea of people being forcibly strapped down and having blood and stuff that they can live without harvested from their bodies against their will provided it will save a life, right? You're totally okay with that?

 

The fetus a no point in time harvests an entire organ, takes more blood than it needs or would kill the mother, and it obviously wasn't against your will, if you have sex a biproduct HAPPENS TO BE A CHILD! Also, when did I say that the woman had no rights? Because I just made a post that explains my position even more. There's your answer.

 

Sorry it's kinda blunt and offensive, I'm in a bad mood. Read my last post and you will see why.

 

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.