Abortion

[Wisp]

I know selective abortion (ie: a kid with down syndrome) is even more iffy than normal, but look at this.

 

Kids with down syndrome require an immense amount of time dedicated to them. A parent may have to quit their job. They often have to have heart surgery, and other body ailments, and the cost of those piles up. Without a second income supporting them, the parents may have to sell their house in order to keep up with medical bills etc.

 

The kid will grow up, never really live a full life, and in all likely-hood, die young.

 

Meanwhile, the parents have used a lot of their savings on it, and have to retire with less, and the kid is probably still living with them, or with a caretaker, which also takes money.

[baron8000]

As I say in this thread whenever it pops up

 

 

 

Woman's body, Woman's choice

 

 

 

You can argue the social impacts, political and moral reasonings all you want, at the end of the day, abortion will happen whether it is legal or not - pushing it underground will just have the effect of making the whole thing dangerous and illicit (read: same as alcohol, the sex industry, soft drugs).

 

 

 

I wouldn't stay in any country that would take away such a fundamental human choice as what we do with our bodies.

[Sly_Wizard]

I don't get it. Are you saying a man doesn't have a right to his own body, unlike a woman?

 

 

 

That's not the point I'm getting at. The main pro-abortion debate boils down to the fact that women are women and men aren't women, therefore arguing that women that have a fundamental right to decide what happens to a fetus. Well... Last I checked, rights aren't-- Nor can they be-- Established based on gender. Any "right" established on the basis of gender isn't a right. It's a priviledge. And that's the very thing that early feminists argued against.

 

 

 

You also need to remember that "what the world can hold" and "how many people at our current standard of living the world can hold". You're probably in the top ten percentile as far as standards of living goes, and keeping starvation at bay may very well be possible for three times our total number - I don't know - but I sincerely doubt your current standard of living would be appliable. Big gap between what can be accomplished when aiming for "not starving" and "awesome quality of life". That's not even touching life expectancy.

 

 

 

1.) Whomever I quoted said that the world was overpopulated. I was merely pointing out that it's not.

 

 

 

2.) The countries with the "lowest standards of living" don't even have the highest abortion rates (In general). In fact, the countries with the highest standard of living with the lowest population densities tend to have the greatest occurences of abortion.

 

 

 

And I can't say I understood the point about adoption numbers either. Care to clarify?

 

 

 

To simplify: Legalized abortion led to lower adoption rates (Especially post RvW in the U.S.). Less people looked-- And still look-- To adopt today than did pre-abortion legalization.

[Sly_Wizard]

I regard life as beginning when a foetus has a chance of surviving on its own as well as when it gains the ability to feel pain/suffering. Without referring to your own beliefs, what exactly is wrong with that reasoning?

 

 

 

 

 

Because it has no scientific basing. As I said earlier, life is a continuation from point A to Z. It doesn't start at point H with everything before then being nothing. "Viability" does not equal "Life starts here!". All viability means is that a fetus can survive outside of the womb on it's own. Nothing more and nothing more less. I doubt you'd argue that a person on life support is no longer alive for the fact that (s)he is unable to breath on his/her own. The same logic applies here. A zygote is a part of life as is a blastocyst, which is as a part of life as an embryo, which is as part of life as a fetus, which is as part of life as a baby, etc. all the way up until death.

 

 

 

 

By your logic, you may as well diagnose cancer as a lifeform of its own, and since you're pro-life, protect it with rights. Cancerous cells do have a different genetic make-up than the normal cells of the person concerned, and therefore have their own independent life after all. If someone tries to remove cancer, we can just reply with "You went into the sunlight, it's your own stupid fault", which is essentially the same logic some pro-life demonstrators use.

 

 

 

 

 

NO, a gazillion times over. Cancer is non-equatable to a fetus. Cancerous cells have NO propensity to ever grow into a human being (Or anything closely resembling a human or even to develop higher brain functions, since a lot of pro-choicers are so high on that) nor do they serve any positive biological function. The comparison of cancer to a fetus is a non-sequitur. It's non-sensical.

 

 

 

 

That has got to be the most moronic reasoning I've seen yet in this debate.

 

 

 

 

 

Appeals to ridicule. Nice! [/boratvoice]

 

 

 

No, it's not "moronic" simply because you say it is. If rights are going to be established based on gender, then we can effectively rescind all laws granting women rights on the basis of gender (The corollary to an argument needs to hold true, you know). Simply because you hate the logic doesn't make it moronic-- Especially since it's pretty solid logic to which you really have no argument against it.

 

 

 

"Moving from feminism to female chauvinism one step at a time ;)"

 

 

 

 

If you're calling for an even distribution of food so the world can sustain more people (i.e., rationing), I'm all for it. Maybe I'm being judgemental, but I can't see you as the Communist type though.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the point. As I said above, the countries with the "lowest standards of living" don't even have the highest abortion rates (In general). In fact, the countries with the highest standard of living with the lowest population densities tend to have the greatest occurences of abortion. Currently, the world can safely house about 2x - 3x as many people as it holds, and Africa alone has the resources to provide enough food for all of them. Therefore, the argument that we need abortion because the world is overpopulated to be not only ridiculous, but unsubstantiated.

 

 

 

 

 

...and? Was there a point in there that I've missed?

 

 

 

 

 

Just pointing out that legalized abortion has made it so that less kids get adopted and that makinng abortion illegal would lead to an increase in the adoption rates :P

[Rebdragon]

Sly, you're are the paragon of a smartass, in the sense of it as a compound word, not as an undivided whole.

[jackattack]

Life. Oh, and for what it's worth-- Because I know someone will undoubtedly use the "Life doesn't begin until 22 weeks!" argument-- "Viability" doesn't mean "Life starts here!". Stages of development are fairly arbitrary, because life does not suddenly begin at one stage, with everything before then being nothing. It's a continuation, from a zygote to blastocyst to an embryo to a fetus to a baby, etc..

 

I regard life as beginning when a foetus has a chance of surviving on its own as well as when it gains the ability to feel pain/suffering. Without referring to your own beliefs, what exactly is wrong with that reasoning?

 

 

 

Whats wrong with it is that it's silly. You don't dispute that it is of the human species at the time of conception do you? And I'm not sure what all of the criteria of life are exactly but I know one of them. Not being dead. Are you going to say a baby is dead until it is viable? If it is human and it is alive what would ending it's life be called?

 

 

 

 

 

I know selective abortion (ie: a kid with down syndrome) is even more iffy than normal, but look at this.

 

Kids with down syndrome require an immense amount of time dedicated to them. A parent may have to quit their job. They often have to have heart surgery, and other body ailments, and the cost of those piles up. Without a second income supporting them, the parents may have to sell their house in order to keep up with medical bills etc.

 

The kid will grow up, never really live a full life, and in all likely-hood, die young.

 

Meanwhile, the parents have used a lot of their savings on it, and have to retire with less, and the kid is probably still living with them, or with a caretaker, which also takes money.

 

 

 

Babies, regardless of medical problems, who are "free for adoption,"generally do not wait long for families. There are waiting lists of couples who would like to adopt infants with Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida. The A K.I.D.S. Exchange reports that they have over 100 approved families waiting to adopt children with Down Syndrome. There are also a large number of couples who would like to adopt terminally ill babies, including babies with AIDS. ABC-TV's "20/20" reported that they had received over 25,000 self-addressed stamped envelopes from individuals wanting to adopt Romanian orphans. Over 10,000 people contacted NCFA after Parade Magazine's August 2, 1998, cover story on transracial adoption. (NCFA)

 

 

 

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/adoption.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

 

 

 

You must be confused. Republicans do a lot to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What they want is to keep them in the hands of law abiding citizens.

[venomai]

What they want is to keep them in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

Ironically, the more guns they supply to the so-called law abiding citizens, the more guns end up in the hands of criminals.

 

 

 

I know selective abortion (ie: a kid with down syndrome) is even more iffy than normal, but look at this.

 

I don't mean to come off as if I'm saying "down syndrome is nothing," as it certainly is a great task to deal with, but there are many physical disabilities that require much more care. Take, for example, severe cerebral palsy or Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have worked with special need children and, although I loved the kids, I must take my hat off to the parents who are not only able to devote hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and several hours a day of physically demanding work to keep the child alive, but are also willing to do so.

[DaN]

What they want is to keep them in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

Ironically, the more guns they supply to the so-called law abiding citizens, the more guns end up in the hands of criminals.

 

 

 

 

Most criminals are citizens, and all criminals where "law abiding" (since no one is born a criminal.)

[Ginger_Warrior]

Whats wrong with it is that it's silly. You don't dispute that it is of the human species at the time of conception do you? And I'm not sure what all of the criteria of life are exactly but I know one of them. Not being dead. Are you going to say a baby is dead until it is viable? If it is human and it is alive what would ending it's life be called?

 

I'll ignore the silly comment. By now I'm used to you disregarding anything partial to your own view of the world so it really means nothing.

 

 

 

If you want to go into the biological definition of "life" then you're going into an argument you will lose, I can assure you of that much. This is an ethical question, not a biological one.

 

 

 

You have your definition. I have mine. It's an argument that goes round in circles because to create a set definition for abortion you also have to create a set philosophical definition for "life", which is impossible since this definition is subjective depending on whether you regard independence to live for yourself and quality of life as factors.

 

 

 

"Life" quite clearly is not the simple matter of whether something is alive or not, but you seem to persist in demanding everyone reduce it to such a basic level like you do.

 

 

 

Just a question though: say a child is born with a disability which renders them incapable of work later on in life. There is no way for that person to fend for themselves, and they need someone else's money (i.e., the state's) in order to survive on basic security. Would you agree to raise taxes in order to provide for people in that situation; or is your pro-life stance so profoundly strong you still feel they need to provide for themselves?

[baron8000]

 

 

 

No, it's not "moronic" simply because you say it is. If rights are going to be established based on gender, then we can effectively rescind all laws granting women rights on the basis of gender (The corollary to an argument needs to hold true, you know). Simply because you hate the logic doesn't make it moronic-- Especially since it's pretty solid logic to which you really have no argument against it.

 

 

 

"Moving from feminism to female chauvinism one step at a time ;)"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just so you know, you aren't really going anywhere with this point - laws and rights exist based on gender everywhere (certainly in the UK, and hopefully other legal systems worth tuppence). Sometimes one gender will require a little more from a legal system simply because of how the genders operate and it certainly doesn't amount to the recission of female suffrage. Rights can, should be and have been established on the basis of gender - just because the genders are equal doesn't mean they are the same.

[Sly_Wizard]

Sly, you're are the paragon of a smartass, in the sense of it as a compound word, not as an undivided whole.

 

 

 

I know :

 

 

 

Just so you know, you aren't really going anywhere with this point - laws and rights exist based on gender everywhere (certainly in the UK, and hopefully other legal systems worth tuppence). Sometimes one gender will require a little more from a legal system simply because of how the genders operate and it certainly doesn't amount to the recission of female suffrage. Rights can, should be and have been established on the basis of gender - just because the genders are equal doesn't mean they are the same.

 

 

 

...Henceforth why I added in the whole "Moving from feminism to female chauvinism one step at a time" thing at the end of my paragraph (But, alas, it went unread). Rights established based on gender aren't rights, no matter how you try to justify them. How can they be? Laws based on gender are not egalitarian and, last I checked, gender equality is a type of egalitarianism. Therefore, bestowing unto one gender special "rights" while simultaneously denying the other gender those same "rights" violates the simple principle of gender equality (Which I thought women were big on). Rights are held by all citizens from birth. Anything established after birth and to only a select group of individuals are privileges. So how can it be a woman's "right" to decide whether or not to kill a fetus? It can't be, mainly because she wasn't born with the power to make that choice but it given to her by the powers-that-be. However, I'll play this game. Given your rationale, could you care to explain to me why a woman's right to vote shouldn't be rescinded? If it's acceptable to grant women "rights" based on the fact that they were born women, then it should also be acceptable to grant men "rights" on the basis that they were born men. To argue otherwise is to be hypocritical.

 

 

 

No one said that each gender should be the same, but rather equal. The entire abortion debate is built off of a gross inequality, and it's pretty easy to notice. That is, if you want to notice ;)

 

 

 

If you want to go into the biological definition of "life" then you're going into an argument you will lose, I can assure you of that much. This is an ethical question, not a biological one.

 

 

 

No, actually, you will lose. You'll be hard pressed to find too many biologists who don't argue that life begins at conception. The problem you have is that you argue life doesn't begin at conception, yet you provide 1.) no concrete period as to which you believe life begins and 2.) no basis upon which you can rationally define life without it being arbitrary (It'd be like me arguing that a 3-month old isn't alive yet a 4-month old is based on nothing other than my own opinions).

 

 

 

You have your definition. I have mine. It's an argument that goes round in circles because to create a set definition for abortion you also have to create a set philosophical definition for "life", which is impossible since this definition is subjective depending on whether you regard independence to live for yourself and quality of life as factors.

 

 

 

Viability =/= Start of life (Otherwise people on life support are dead. Which they're not given the medical definition of death.)

 

 

 

Consciousness =/= Start of life (Otherwise people under the age of 3'ish are dead, as their ability to recall events and think critically is severly inhibited.)

 

 

 

Sentience =/= Start of life (For nearly the same reason as consciousness. People under certain ages-- At least a year-- Aren't able to feel and/or think subjectively.)

 

 

 

Sapience =/= Start of life (See 'consciousness'.)

 

 

 

Being born =/= Start of life (Otherwise, someone three seconds before they're born is dead, and that just doesn't make any sense to say.)

 

 

 

Ummm... I think that's pretty much all the objections right there, and none of them provide adequate reason to believe that life starts at any of those instances.

 

 

 

"Life" quite clearly is not the simple matter of whether something is alive or not, but you seem to persist in demanding everyone reduce it to such a basic level like you do.

 

 

 

Life is not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. It's not like... Astrophysics or something :|

[Ginger_Warrior]

pro-abortion

 

What the Hell does that mean?

 

 

 

If you're going to argue with someone, I find understanding their argument to be a fundamental skill.

 

 

 

We're pro-choice. No one here is honestly suggesting we go around to all pregnant women and encourage them to have an abortion

 

 

 

If you want to go into the biological definition of "life" then you're going into an argument you will lose, I can assure you of that much. This is an ethical question, not a biological one.

 

 

 

No, actually, you will lose. You'll be hard pressed to find too many biologists who don't argue that life begins at conception. The problem you have is that you argue life doesn't begin at conception, yet you provide 1.) no concrete period as to which you believe life begins and 2.) no basis upon which you can rationally define life without it being arbitrary (It'd be like me arguing that a 3-month old isn't alive yet a 4-month old is based on nothing other than my own opinions).

 

Well since you're such an expert of the definition of a living organism, you might want to tell me how a bunch of cells about the size of a baked bean can reproduce into another organism?

 

 

 

Viability =/= Start of life (Otherwise people on life support are dead. Which they're not given the medical definition of death.)

 

Being put on a life support machine doesn't necessarily equate to being non-viable. Again, you're using a term which means different things depending on its context, and muddling it up into an objective term. When talking about a fertilised egg, you are talking in a different context than a fully grown adult on life support.

 

 

 

Surely the point as far as Medicine is concerned is this - you cannot apply a rule to every case. Each case in Medicine is its own case, and should be treat as such. If having a baby is going to endanger the mother, or if the level of suffering that baby will be put into once born is too extreme (through disability, a lack of parenthood or a poor standard of living etc.), it becomes justified to have an abortion on the grounds that it is the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

That's what people like you forget - an abortion isn't something you can just have. It requires the consent of not just your own GP, but another GP before the procedure goes ahead. It is one of the most regulated treatments provided by a GP, and with good reason. So I'd watch it when trying to argue Medicine is against the concept of abortion.

 

Consciousness =/= Start of life (Otherwise people under the age of 3'ish are dead, as their ability to recall events and think critically is severly inhibited.)

 

define:conscious

 

"knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts; "remained conscious during the operation"; "conscious of his faults"; "became conscious that he was being followed""

 

Can a 2-year-old feel pain? Yes. Is pain a sensation? Yes. Therefore, it is conscious.

 

 

 

Again, stop using biological points when your knowledge is so clearly lacking.

 

 

 

Sentience =/= Start of life (For nearly the same reason as consciousness. People under certain ages-- At least a year-- Aren't able to feel and/or think subjectively.)

 

When have I ever used the word "sentience". Stick to what I'm actually saying, rather than ranting in complete irrelevance.

 

 

 

Sapience =/= Start of life (See 'consciousness'.)

 

See above.

 

 

 

Being born =/= Start of life (Otherwise, someone three seconds before they're born is dead, and that just doesn't make any sense to say.)

 

Try reading what people are saying rather than lecturing us constantly about what the definition of life ought to be. I've never even said that.

 

 

 

"Life" quite clearly is not the simple matter of whether something is alive or not, but you seem to persist in demanding everyone reduce it to such a basic level like you do.

 

 

 

Life is not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. It's not like... Astrophysics or something :|

 

You're quite right. We should turn all cases concerning Medicine into simple, basic understanding. Forget the mother's condition, forget the mother's capacity to bring up a child, forget the fact there are too many children needing adoption already - the only thing that really matters is an unborn foetus which has no rights prior to consciousness in law.

 

 

 

I'm bored with arguing with people who use subjective arguments based on complete ignorance to the individual case, as objective matters of principle. As baron so rightly put it, I object to living in a country which refuses its citizens the right to do with their own bodies as they please.

[mmmcannibalism]

do any of the people trying to set the beginning of life at conception actually think they will accomplish anything? The definition of life should be set at a reasonable level before any nerve or brain functions could have developed. I hate the fact that we will never be able to eliminate abortions completely but driving them under ground does nothing.

 

 

 

if we want to fix the problem we need to put the money into sex ed programs and encouraging adoption.

[saif]

as a female i support abortion. I don't care if i kill babies tbh. I'd rather not ruin my life...then add another life to an already over populated world.

[Sly_Wizard]

What the Hell does that mean?

 

 

 

If you're going to argue with someone, I find understanding their argument to be a fundamental skill.

 

 

 

We're pro-choice. No one here is honestly suggesting we go around to all pregnant women and encourage them to have an abortion.

 

 

 

Since no one said anything about "suggesting we go around to all pregnant women and encourage them to have an abortion", I'm just going to ignore your comment (Since it's an obvious attempt at distorting what's meant by 'pro-abortion') (:

 

 

 

Well since you're such an expert of the definition of a living organism, you might want to tell me how a bunch of cells about the size of a baked bean can reproduce into another organism?

 

 

 

...What the hell does that "reproduce into another organism" mean? Nothing can do that.

 

 

 

Being put on a life support machine doesn't necessarily equate to being non-viable. Again, you're using a term which means different things depending on its context, and muddling it up into an objective term. When talking about a fertilised egg, you are talking in a different context than a fully grown adult on life support.

 

 

 

Now you're just playing semantics. Viability is not confined to just a fetus and is the capacity for a living thing to live on and it's own and grow under normal conditions (Without the use of external support). You can't play the "Since it's not viable it isn't alive!" card for a fetus while simultaneously denoucing the same logic when applied to a living organism of a different category. It doesn't work.

 

 

 

Surely the point as far as Medicine is concerned is this - you cannot apply a rule to every case. Each case in Medicine is its own case, and should be treat as such. If having a baby is going to endanger the mother, or if the level of suffering that baby will be put into once born is too extreme (through disability, a lack of parenthood or a poor standard of living etc.), it becomes justified to have an abortion on the grounds that it is the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

A.) In the U.S., something like 98%'ish of all abortions occur for non-health and/or rape issues (If you can find a newer study with different statistics, we'll use that). The main reason why people have an abortion: Because they just don't want a kid at the moment (See previous poster's response). Why people continue to argue based on something which constitutes a fringe of a fringe of the total reasons for having an abortion is beyond me. It's, at best, highly disingenuous.

 

 

 

B.) It's not better to be dead than alive. That logic is fundamentally flawed, since all living things have a predisposition to live. That is, nothing wants to die (Excluding those individuals with extreme mental issues). It's like... The most basic rule of life.

 

 

 

Following your logic, we should simply kill off everyone living in extreme poverty, as it's better to be dead than it is to be alive and live a hard life.

 

 

 

That's what people like you forget - an abortion isn't something you can just have. It requires the consent of not just your own GP, but another GP before the procedure goes ahead. It is one of the most regulated treatments provided by a GP, and with good reason. So I'd watch it when trying to argue Medicine is against the concept of abortion.

 

 

 

I don't know what GP is, but ummm... A women can pretty much get an abortion so long as the doctor agrees to perform the operation and she has the money to pay for it. That's it.

 

 

 

define:conscious

 

"knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts; "remained conscious during the operation"; "conscious of his faults"; "became conscious that he was being followed""

 

Can a 2-year-old feel pain? Yes. Is pain a sensation? Yes. Therefore, it is conscious.

 

 

 

Again, stop using biological points when your knowledge is so clearly lacking.

 

 

 

...And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why one should never really solely on dictionary definitions.

 

 

 

The majority of people simply cannot recall anything before they were the age of three'ish (A few, extraordinary people can recall events from as early as one year old). Consciousness is not just about feeling pain. It's about thought, feelings (As you said), internal knowledge, self-awareness of one's own existence, etc.-- Something which babies simply don't possess.

 

 

 

For your next performance I bet you're going to open up a dictionary and tell me that a fetus is a parasite :lol:

 

 

 

When have I ever used the word "sentience". Stick to what I'm actually saying, rather than ranting in complete irrelevance.

 

 

 

I never said you said it. I was going over all the arguments given as to when life starts. And, I lol'ed at the last sentence. Can you say irony? I can.

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

*See above*

 

 

 

Try reading what people are saying rather than lecturing us constantly about what the definition of life ought to be. I've never even said that.

 

 

 

I never said you did.

 

 

 

*See above the former 'see above'*

 

 

 

You're quite right. We should turn all cases concerning Medicine into simple, basic understanding. Forget 1.) the mother's condition, forget 2.) the mother's capacity to bring up a child, forget 3.) the fact there are too many children needing adoption already - the only thing that really matters is an unborn foetus which has 4.) no rights prior to consciousness in law.

 

 

 

1.) Within this age of modern technology and medicine, medical reasons for abortions are almost a non-factor as they account for so few of the abortions done worldwide.

 

2.) Irrelevant. She shouldn't be having sex if she's unable to rear a child. Srsly. That logic won't stop me from having to pay for a child if I happen to father one.

 

3.) Yet again, legalized abortion is having a negative impact on the adoption rate. How many times must I say this?

 

4.) No. Fetuses have minimal rights prior to personhood, not no rights prior to consciousness.

 

 

 

I'm bored with arguing with people who use subjective arguments based on complete ignorance to the individual case, as objective matters of principle. As baron so rightly put it, I object to living in a country which refuses its citizens the right to do with their own bodies as they please.

 

 

 

I lol'ed hard.

 

 

 

You haven't used ONE non-subjective argument. Not one.

 

 

 

You go on about how abortion should be legal because of rape and health concerns. In response, I tell you that the overwhelming majority of abortion cases are not done for the prior two reasons (98% according to the study I provided), yet you ignored it.

 

 

 

You go on about how abortion should be legal because, if it were illegal, we'd have women falling over dead from "back alley abortions". In response, I provide you with a study from WHO and a graph which disputes both of these claims, yet you ignored it.

 

 

 

You go on about how the world is overpopulated and how we need abortions. In response, I provide you with a study which shows that abortions do not occur in the countries with the highest population densities, yet you ignored it.

 

 

 

You say that instead of arguing against abortion, I should be arguing for adoption. I provide you with a study which says that an increase in legalized abortion has led to a decrease in the adoption rate, yet you ignored it.

 

 

 

Hell, you even ignored the whole point about how "rights are established upon all humans prior to birth", therefore meaning abortion cannot be a right because 1.) It's not established upon all humans and 2.) It's only conferred upon females after birth (Making it a privilege), yet you ignored it.

 

 

 

So, please tell me, who's the one arguing subjectively? You haven't produced one iota of evidence for any of your claims, mainly because they're bullplucky.

 

 

 

(And when I say you I'm not speaking of you in general, but rather people who argue for abortions.)

 

 

 

And there's a difference between doing something to your body and harming a human who is being housed in your body. A big difference. The fact that a human fetus-- Much like all mammals-- Is carried to term within the mother's body is to allow for the more complete development of higher brain functions (Which is an evolutionary adaptation and why the more, for lack of a better word, "advanced" species give birth to live young). You can't turn a biological actuality into a "right".

[jackattack]

I'm no scientist but I think that some of the characteristics of life are growth, reproduction, and metabolism. Now I'm not sure how you can apply all of those to a specific organism because that would mean someone who is sterile isn't alive. But a baby meets those as much as anything else. If you are trying to figure out when it gets it's 'soul' or whatever you would call it, that is another story. And I don't see how a pro-life stance has anything to do with raising taxes to care for people with disabilities.

[baron8000]

 

 

 

Rights established based on gender aren't rights, no matter how you try to justify them. How can they be? Laws based on gender are not egalitarian and, last I checked, gender equality is a type of egalitarianism. Therefore, bestowing unto one gender special "rights" while simultaneously denying the other gender those same "rights" violates the simple principle of gender equality (Which I thought women were big on).

 

 

 

My way wasn't denying anybody a right, in my way everyone, male or female has the right to do what they want with their body - surely nothing could be more equal? If a man wanted to cut off his arm, his decision, if a woman wants to remove a foetus dependant on her, so be it. I fail to see how a "you can do what you want with your own self" is a sexist right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rights are held by all citizens from birth.

 

Anything established after birth and to only a select group of individuals are privileges. So how can it be a woman's "right" to decide whether or not to kill a fetus? It can't be, mainly because she wasn't born with the power to make that choice but it given to her by the powers-that-be. However, I'll play this game. Given your rationale, could you care to explain to me why a woman's right to vote shouldn't be rescinded? If it's acceptable to grant women "rights" based on the fact that they were born women, then it should also be acceptable to grant men "rights" on the basis that they were born men. To argue otherwise is to be hypocritical.

 

 

 

No one said that each gender should be the same, but rather equal. The entire abortion debate is built off of a gross inequality, and it's pretty easy to notice. That is, if you want to notice ;)

 

 

 

 

Wrong I'm afraid, there is no such thing as a complete, undeniable right (unless you want to bring in a divine source, but then of course, we'd have a whole argument over God, Allah or the deity of your choice, anyway i'm pretty sure you aren't arguing the religious angle, feel free to bring that up if you wish but ill presume against it for now). Rights, as well as privileges are given by society, nothing more to it than that - if society (either as a whole through democracy, or part through dictatorship) decides that a right exists, then it exists, if society decides no, the right doesn't exist, simple as that really. All the hope and dreams and pleas to the opposite are incorrect, rights are a human creation that whilst apply at birth, are certainly not some inner flame of unassailable protection you seem to be making them out to be. Its a harsh realisation, but there we go.

 

 

 

I'm not playing a game, but I'll explain my rationale (again). I believe it is ever persons right (and of course, this will only be the case if society should deem it so) that everyone can do as they wish with their own body, be it beneficial or otherwise. I fail to see any good argument against this fundamental right (although feel free to argue against it if you wish). Whilst this creates inherently unequal results (i.e. a woman can choose to abort a foetus in her own body, whilst a man will never be presented with such a scenario) these results are created only because of inherent inequalities (in a purely biological sense, which no sane person could deny) between the genders which any sensible legal system should incorporate.

 

 

 

TL:DR women arent given the right to abort because they are women, they are given the right to do what they want to do with their bodies because they are human

[Sly_Wizard]

My way wasn't denying anybody a right, in my way everyone, male or female has the right to do what they want with their body - surely nothing could be more equal? If a man wanted to cut off his arm, his decision, if a woman wants to remove a foetus dependant on her, so be it. I fail to see how a "you can do what you want with your own self" is a sexist right.

 

 

 

A.) Cutting off an arm isn't comparable to aborting a fetus.

 

 

 

B.) Your body/apart of your body and housed in your body are two seperate matters. An arm, for example, is fully controlled by your own body. You have absolute will over it, and if ever removed from the body will never become anything other than an arm (A rotting one, at that!) no matter how much time you give it. A fetus, however, might be dependant on the mother for sustenance, but it's certainly not a part of her body as it has the potential to operate on it's own given due time.

 

 

 

Wrong I'm afraid, there is no such thing as a complete, undeniable right (unless you want to bring in a divine source, but then of course, we'd have a whole argument over God, Allah or the deity of your choice, anyway i'm pretty sure you aren't arguing the religious angle, feel free to bring that up if you wish but ill presume against it for now).

 

 

 

Erm... Those rights established by God are universalist. Hence the reason why I didn't mention them, instead focusing on egalitarian rights. The first is more subjective; the second one isn't.

 

 

 

Rights, as well as privileges are given by society, nothing more to it than that - if society (either as a whole through democracy, or part through dictatorship) decides that a right exists, then it exists, if society decides no, the right doesn't exist, simple as that really. All the hope and dreams and pleas to the opposite are incorrect, rights are a human creation that whilst apply at birth, are certainly not some inner flame of unassailable protection you seem to be making them out to be. Its a harsh realisation, but there we go.

 

 

 

What you wrote out isn't really a reality. All you said were "Rights are what people make them out to be" which, following that line of reasoning, means we can rescind a woman's right to vote under the argument that those specific "rights" should be reserved to men. You didn't, and still haven't, addressed the fact that rights extend beyond race, gender, religion, age, orientation etc. etc. etc. and that once they stop applying to all in favor of a select group, that they stop being "rights", turning into nothing more than "privileges". I'm not so sure where your argument is coming from, mainly because the whole "rights" versus "privileges" thing is pretty concrete. You can't promote equal rights while using the phrase "A woman's choice". It doesn't exactly fit. You have to hold men and women to the same standards, and that's either both men and women get an "opt-out-of-parenthood" clause or you make it illegal to have an abortion (Since it's illegal for a man to do the male equivilent of having an abortion, i.e., skip town).

 

 

 

I'm not playing a game, but I'll explain my rationale (again). I believe it is ever persons right (and of course, this will only be the case if society should deem it so) that everyone can do as they wish with their own body, be it beneficial or otherwise. I fail to see any good argument against this fundamental right (although feel free to argue against it if you wish). Whilst this creates inherently unequal results (i.e. a woman can choose to abort a foetus in her own body, whilst a man will never be presented with such a scenario) these results are created only because of inherent inequalities (in a purely biological sense, which no sane person could deny) between the genders which any sensible legal system should incorporate.

 

 

 

And, yet again, your body/part of your body is not the same thing as housed in your body. A fetus is not an extension of the female (It has it's own DNA plus the inherent ability to survive outside of the womb given proper developmental time), therefore it cannot be considered her body. Since it's not an extension of her body, the "I should be able to do what I want with my body" rationale becomes irrelevant. If you want to cut off your legs, no one is stopping you. It only becomes a problem when you begin to endanger the life of someone else. Like I said in my last post, biological actualities do not, never have, and never will equal a "right". Biological actualities are just that; actualities.

 

 

 

...And, just to be a broken record, your entire argument boils down to the fact that women are born women. You can skirt and dance around that all you like, but it's what it boils down to.

 

 

 

TL:DR women arent given the right to abort because they are women, they are given the right to do what they want to do with their bodies because they are human.

 

 

 

*See above*

[kMzLeader]

In my opinion, its up to women what they want to do with their bodies.

 

 

 

Thats right.. their bodies.

 

 

 

- kMzLeader

[mmmcannibalism]

In my opinion, its up to women what they want to do with their bodies.

 

 

 

Thats right.. their bodies.

 

 

 

- kMzLeader

 

 

 

thats fine, personally im more concerned with what they are doing to the body inside them in this discussion. So with that we are back to a when is it a seperate body and not just a group of cells debate which is a definition of life debate. As ive stated Id love an ideal world where conception could be the start of life but i would count life as the time clearly before neural and brain development.

 

 

 

If a woman wants to take an icepick and ram herself in the arm repeadetly I see no reason to stop her presuming shes sane. If a woman wants to smoke in an area where it wont effect anyone else all the power to them if we arent going to give them state money to treat it. The reason for being pro choice is to protect unborn lives not control adult ones.

[baron8000]

It seems Wizard we're arguing over a different basis that can never be resolved, you think the foetus is separate from the mother at conception whereas I consider it only to be a separate human life once it reaches the stage of viability (or whatever you wish to call it - although, you mention this in your discussion of my arm analogy - "given due time" etc, it seems you recognise, at least subconsiously, the importance of viability).

 

 

 

I think that these views are based in the realms of personal belief (and I don't necessarily mean religious ones) - who knows where life begins? No-one (at least, I doubt an internet forum is about to discover it) so maybe this is just one of those debates that simply comes down to personal gut feelings. I'll consider our abortion debate concluded at it seems no one will change anyones view on when life begins/a soul emerges or however we wish to phrase it.

 

 

 

I still don't think you understand my argument on rights - I mean rights in a very legal sense (and this is getting away from the whole abortion debate as well, it seems to be a moral choice). Rights in a legal sense simply means an ability given to a person by law for a purpose; a landowner has a right to sell his land, a person has a right to be free from attack etc etc. What defines these rights therefore is who ever creates the law - bringing us down into the realm of politics. You make a great deal about egalitarianism but, I have to say, that is just another political belief on what people should have what rights. Equal rights are indeed a much desired thing in modern society (as it should be, to a point) but I'll state again, in a legal sense (i.e. in the sense that actually allows one to enforce said rights) there are no rights, other than those created by the legislature, thus, they can be unequal, maybe even should be unequal should the situation demand it (hell, whilst unilateral and unassailable equal human rights in its purest sense sounds like a great thing, I can assure its not).

 

 

 

The above paragraph is a fairly tiny summary of what i'd like to try and explain about legal rights (and why they are the most important, at least in western culture) but without dragging up my jurisprudence notes I can't go into massive detail, so, I hope you understand (and I don't mean to patronise, and I certainly don't mean agree), feel free to reply if you want more detail and I'll gladly work on something (although, I'll consider our abortion debate sidelined/over as I really don't see it going anywhere other than a "its separate/no its not" argument to which nobody really has an answer).