Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

[mmmcannibalism]

Put it another way, if you had to argue why you shouldn't be killed, you wouldn't just say "because I'm a human and so are you". You'd give reasons why your life has value. Or another scenario is what happens if a superior alien race come to earth - would they be right to start killing humans just because they're not one? Or would we like them to take into account the fact that we have some value as organisms that want to continue living

 

 

 

I already adressed this somewhere, there are different levels of cognitive ability for a full developed sample from a species. I judge animals to be at a lower level then humans, so as long as they are being used for food or some better purpose I dont see anything morally wrong with killing them. Obviously, you can say aliens would take this point of view, but it should be clear that humans are a level above any other animal on earth.

[Orpheus]

I present a question to you good people here: Define life. "Life" is a matter of morals as of when you can say life officially starts.

[mmmcannibalism]

I present a question to you good people here: Define life. "Life" is a matter of morals as of when you can say life officially starts.

 

 

 

life in the context of when is a fetus a person, or life in the context of which of these is alive (rock, pigeon, human)?

 

 

 

As to when a fetus becomes a person, thats obviously very tricky. Its hard to decide which of the hundreds of distinct steps of development we could choose. For personal matters its a fuzzy line of when it starts appearing like a baby. Legally, I think it should be set at either brain wave or neural development.

[dusqi]

Put it another way, if you had to argue why you shouldn't be killed, you wouldn't just say "because I'm a human and so are you". You'd give reasons why your life has value. Or another scenario is what happens if a superior alien race come to earth - would they be right to start killing humans just because they're not one? Or would we like them to take into account the fact that we have some value as organisms that want to continue living

 

 

 

I already adressed this somewhere, there are different levels of cognitive ability for a full developed sample from a species. I judge animals to be at a lower level then humans, so as long as they are being used for food or some better purpose I dont see anything morally wrong with killing them. Obviously, you can say aliens would take this point of view, but it should be clear that humans are a level above any other animal on earth.

 

 

 

But you obviously accept that there is a gradient, and it is not just a case of humans = good, other animals = bad. I was arguing against Sly_Wizard's view that the foetus is suddenly extremely valuable at the point of conception. I am in agreement with you that there is a fuzzy line, where science has to take many considerations into account, such as the presence of brainwaves as you mention.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Put it another way, if you had to argue why you shouldn't be killed, you wouldn't just say "because I'm a human and so are you". You'd give reasons why your life has value. Or another scenario is what happens if a superior alien race come to earth - would they be right to start killing humans just because they're not one? Or would we like them to take into account the fact that we have some value as organisms that want to continue living

 

 

 

I already adressed this somewhere, there are different levels of cognitive ability for a full developed sample from a species. I judge animals to be at a lower level then humans, so as long as they are being used for food or some better purpose I dont see anything morally wrong with killing them. Obviously, you can say aliens would take this point of view, but it should be clear that humans are a level above any other animal on earth.

 

 

 

But you obviously accept that there is a gradient, and it is not just a case of humans = good, other animals = bad. I was arguing against Sly_Wizard's view that the foetus is suddenly extremely valuable at the point of conception. I am in agreement with you that there is a fuzzy line, where science has to take many considerations into account, such as the presence of brainwaves as you mention.

[/hide]

 

 

 

okay so we agree there is matter of gradiants here. My main concern was that there is a difference between the issue of when it becomes a "person" and stops becoming a group of cells from a legal standpoint and the difference between a baby and a fully grown human.

 

 

 

just to clarify, when I said animals being used for a good purpose that involves death is acceptable that has a limit obviously; if we have to test a drug for side effects animal tests are an okay thing to me if it is protecting humans, but I dont believe in say beating animals just to test the effectiveness of a baton(poor example I know)

[raven_gaurd0]

Comparing a fetus to an animal seems valid to a point. Here; let me settle on this medium. Let us say that a fetus IS worth an animal.

 

 

 

So you have a dog. It's a very beautiful, unique, and loveable dog, but you're afraid you can't care for it financially (because it's pedigree demands very expensive food) or you don't have time to pay attention to it. What do you do with it? You can either keep it for 18 years and then it's dead, or off doing it's own thing, or you can put it up for adoption...or you can kill it before it really even has a chance for life. Here you are, killing this dog for no other reason than you didn't want to go through the effort of giving it a loving life, when it was a fantastic dog, and it's your idea in the first place to get him.

 

 

 

That, my friend, is not justice.

[raven_gaurd0]

What did the ball of cells ever do to you?

 

 

 

And aren't you just a larger ball of cells?

 

 

 

That means I can kill you when you become an inconvenience to me?

[raven_gaurd0]

Fetuses are known to squirm, react when poked, they even get erections if they're male while they're in the womb, and they try to claw away from the vacuum that sucks them out of their mothers womb, and you insist that they aren't living?

 

 

 

As for zygotes, why inhibit their potential?

 

 

 

Here's an analogy that might strike close to your liberal heart.

 

 

 

Wind back time two months. President-Elect Obama hasn't DONE anything in office, but if I killed him I would be prosecuted as if he were the best president EVAR, even though he hasn't done anything yet. That is punishment of potential.

 

 

 

Killing a baby has the same sentence as killing an adult, and why is that? Babies are easier to kill and they're much smaller, and they haven't done anything. But they had the potential to be an adult.

 

 

 

See the logic here?

[mmmcannibalism]

Wind back time two months. President-Elect Obama hasn't DONE anything in office, but if I killed him I would be prosecuted as if he were the best president EVAR, even though he hasn't done anything yet. That is punishment of potential.

 

 

 

and your basing that assumption off of? Seriously, you hurt your own point when you make ridiculous claims like that. If you killed Obama you would be prosecuted for oh I dont know killing someone.

 

 

 

Im pro life and I find you really annoying, your just hurting your own cause because you make pro lifers look like radical nutcases.

[raven_gaurd0]

No, you don't like me because of my other political views.

 

 

 

Assassination is a political crime that bears a difference of sentencing depending on the potential of the person. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. President-Elect has the 100% potential and will become the president, so if I kill him, it will count as me killing the president. Apply the same logic to fetuses and humans.

[Range_This11]

I find anyone with a Storm Trooper air-humping and a 14 year old-esque signature like that hard to take seriously. In the end, pro-choice is always going to win because when presented to the supreme court, it is more constitutional. The government cannot tell you what to do with your body, which includes a baby you are carrying.

[mmmcannibalism]

No, you don't like me because of my other political views.

 

 

 

Assassination is a political crime that bears a difference of sentencing depending on the potential of the person. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. President-Elect has the 100% potential and will become the president, so if I kill him, it will count as me killing the president. Apply the same logic to fetuses and humans.

 

 

 

So you dont get punished for murder unless its the president, I wasnt aware it worked that way.

[raven_gaurd0]

No, you don't like me because of my other political views.

 

 

 

Assassination is a political crime that bears a difference of sentencing depending on the potential of the person. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. President-Elect has the 100% potential and will become the president, so if I kill him, it will count as me killing the president. Apply the same logic to fetuses and humans.

 

 

 

So you dont get punished for murder unless its the president, I wasnt aware it worked that way.

 

 

 

...I'm going to break code and tell you that you are, in fact, a moron. Yes, man. I was insinuating that you are only tried for murder if you assassinate the president. That's EXACTLY what I was saying with that analogy.

 

 

 

And I don't know. It's your body, yes, but that logic is rather...misleading. It is ALIVE in your body. So...if I ate somebody without killing them, or somehow managed to infuse them to myself, it would be legal to kill them? It doesn't seem right.

 

 

 

And I know, my signature is...not the most mature thing...but hey, I got to have a light-hearted something for all the heavy duty fighting I do.

[Range_This11]

 

And I don't know. It's your body, yes, but that logic is rather...misleading. It is ALIVE in your body. So...if I ate somebody without killing them, or somehow managed to infuse them to myself, it would be legal to kill them? It doesn't seem right.

 

 

 

And I know, my signature is...not the most mature thing...but hey, I got to have a light-hearted something for all the heavy duty fighting I do.

 

Right, but see you didn't conceive said person that was infused in your body. A woman's choice will be respected by the Supreme Court, and thank goodness it will.

 

 

 

And if by "heavy duty fighting" you mean "uneducated reasoning", then I suppose you would need something as immature as that to get you through the day.

[mmmcannibalism]

Well, you said assassinating the president elect would get you prosecuted because of his potential which is grossly innacurate. My problem is that you are setting an absolute statement, if any human cell cannot be killed then almost any action is murder. Scraping your knee is manslaughter etc.

 

 

 

Law is based off of the common morality not whatever absolute unyielding view you choose to take. Believing life believes at conception is fine, but in effect putting such strict restrictions is going to drive the abortion industry underground and lead to more deaths. As much as I despise the fact that abortion does occur, trying to just ban it is not going to help anyone. That as why as a pro life person I dont like you, there is a difference between wanting to protect life and forcing your views down someones throat.

[raven_gaurd0]

I want to protect those who have no protection. I think it's tragic if somebody dies in an underground abortion, but I mourn them not; they made the choice to go for it. The baby did not make a point to die. They had no choice.

 

 

 

And yes, I shove my beliefs down peoples throats, you know why? Because you do it, and he does it, and EVERYBODY does it. It's called expressing yourself.

 

 

 

A scraping of skin cells from the knee has no potential to be human.

 

 

 

And Range, please don't insult me. I have done no ill to you.

 

 

 

The baby did not have the choice to be put into that woman's womb. It just happened, through the womans fault. Similarly, if I ate somebody in tact, they did not have the choice to be put there, but they are there.

 

 

 

Heavy duty fighting, by the fact that I believe I'm fighting over life and death. That's heavy, man.

[Rebdragon]

Am I the alone in finding this whole "potential" argument a load of bull? I've never heard that argued before in abortion debates, and I can't see any logic in it.

[i_love_burritos]

Am I the alone in finding this whole "potential" argument a load of bull? I've never heard that argued before in abortion debates, and I can't see any logic in it.

 

 

 

I completely agree. Can't stipulate and ponder, on what could've been.

 

Learnt that from zealous, communists that say, if China didn't invent gunpowder, essentially - we would live in a massive pile of suck.

 

 

 

 

 

Relevant to the topic: This "potential" argument is bordering on the realms of, absudity and Christian "logic". It's basically saying people are "fated" to do things.

[mmmcannibalism]

And yes, I shove my beliefs down peoples throats, you know why? Because you do it, and he does it, and EVERYBODY does it. It's called expressing yourself.

 

 

 

You do realize there is a difference between wanting good laws to protect life and just trying to force a far right position on everyone right? Expressing your beliefs is not forcing them down someones throat, good debate is based on the exchange of ideas not your Im write your a baby killer bs.

[scotishobbit]

I think what we as humans fail to understand is every case is circumstantial. It isn't all right or all wrong. While I would never have one but I respect other women rights to have one.

[Blyaunte]

I want to protect those who have no protection. I think it's tragic if somebody dies in an underground abortion, but I mourn them not; they made the choice to go for it. The baby did not make a point to die. They had no choice.

 

 

 

 

Tell me is it right for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE an individual to use his or her body to preserve the life of someone who is already born?

 

 

 

For example, lets say, Oprah Winfrey needed your liver could the government just take yours without your permission?

 

 

 

Why not simply define "everything containing human DNA" as a person, and thereafter require all citizens to make their bodies and bodily parts readily available to all others, including those already out of the womb, who might need them in order to go on living?

 

 

 

Why restrict the "right to life" to the unborn?

 

 

 

Once you accept that notion, based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born?

 

 

 

How about requiring every able-bodied citizen make his body accessible to any patient who might need it in order to survive?

 

 

 

Would you agree to this kind of law?

 

 

 

What part of your own body are you willing to offer to someone who may require it to ensure their continued existence?

 

 

 

Or do you think only female bodies should be available for use as life support?

[scotishobbit]

 

 

 

The baby did not have the choice to be put into that woman's womb. It just happened, through the womans fault.

 

 

 

 

 

Not always. You are forgetting rape. Or is that a womens fault too? One of my friends was on the pill and still got pregnant. Is that her fault?

[raven_gaurd0]

 

 

 

The baby did not have the choice to be put into that woman's womb. It just happened, through the womans fault.

 

 

 

 

 

Not always. You are forgetting rape. Or is that a womens fault too? One of my friends was on the pill and still got pregnant. Is that her fault?

 

 

 

Rape is the one single exception that I make in which case I believe that abortion is justified. I still dislike it, but I believe that the woman has a right to get an abortion in such a case.

 

 

 

As for Blyaunte's argument, it goes back to what Scotishobbit quoted me on. I did not create Oprah Winfrey, therefore I have no obligation to them. I have made no choice to put Oprah Winfrey under my direct care, in which that if I did not care for her, she would die. A pregnant woman, however, has.

 

 

 

Yes, Scotishobbit, rape is the exception, because it wasn't a choice, but you make a choice to get knocked up knowing the risks, then you have a baby which you are morally obliged because it is yours, to feed and protect at least until birth.

 

 

 

As for the whole 'potential' argument, it's not 'unsure predictions of the future'. A fetus WILL develop into a human being, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[Dalcyte]

Comparing a fetus to an animal seems valid to a point. Here; let me settle on this medium. Let us say that a fetus IS worth an animal.

 

 

 

So you have a dog. It's a very beautiful, unique, and loveable dog, but you're afraid you can't care for it financially (because it's pedigree demands very expensive food) or you don't have time to pay attention to it. What do you do with it? You can either keep it for 18 years and then it's dead, or off doing it's own thing, or you can put it up for adoption...or you can kill it before it really even has a chance for life. Here you are, killing this dog for no other reason than you didn't want to go through the effort of giving it a loving life, when it was a fantastic dog, and it's your idea in the first place to get him.

 

 

 

That, my friend, is not justice.

 

 

 

Oh please.

 

How one sided you are. And i don't mean like "ohh ur not thinking like i think so ur wrong". I mean like you're not looking at the full scope of the situation, you're just focusing in on one area and ignoring the rest. I think abortion is a tricky issue, and if you believe that human life starts at that point, then who am i to tell you that you're wrong and your ethics are warped because mine are different? I can't say that. It's just like arguing if god is real or not. There's no way to advance any argument. You either believe or you don't, and i tolerate either opinion.

 

 

 

I do not tolerate arguments like this, however.

 

First, the dog is fully sentient in this case. A blastosphere is not sentient, for it has no brain. You're talking about a situation where you kill something that has been born already, rather than killing something that hasn't had a thought yet, which is what everyone else here is talking about. Need better analogy.

 

 

 

Second, your point is 100% acurate except the whole thing i adressed in the first part. Yes, it is quite unfortunate. That dog could've won Westminster or something! Who knows what it could've accomplished? Shame that the dog was killed. But, let's suppose that this dog was a championship winning dog for a moment. You adressed the care and the money necessary to handle this dog. Well let's say this woman was in line to get a great job at a great pharmacutical company, and was in line to maybe even cure AIDS. But now she has to devote all her time and energy to this dog, feeding it, caring for it, and she has to arrest her dreams.

 

 

 

Basically, the point is, you can't look at this through an intraverted lens. You have to see the full spectrum, realize that it effects many more people than the potential child. I'm not trying to prove here that abortion should go on, i am trying to prove that this argument, that claims that killing a potential child is unjust to what the child could've become, is unfair. It does not respect the woman involved in the situation. And say she does keep the child. She does give up on her dreams. What then? The child has to suffer through a miserable 18 years, going through a life where it cannot be supported? A life that could perpetuate more situations like this? I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're definitely not. But i am saying that it's more complicated than you try to make it.

[raven_gaurd0]

I've addressed many of the problems. I feel that the sentience of the zygote is a largest point you have; however, I have taken into full effect and mind the effect that the rearing of the child will have on society. I believe that if you read back a few pages, you may find arguments addressing this issue - on both sides. I, personally, believe that we need not to kill the children, but rather encourage abstinence and SAFE SEX. Condoms, birth control, period regulation, period watch, everything you can to make sure that you don't become pregnant. When a woman gets pregnant, it's her choice, and while the sentience of the zygote is up for debate, it is definitively a thriving organism in and of it's own right. Since it was the woman's choice to have unsafe sex and to have a zygote, it is morally wrong to kill the child.

 

 

 

Sure, there are social repercussions for the child, but the moral repercussions of ending the life is worse. At least there is flexibility, choice, and help outside of the womb for the child; there is only one source of help inside the womb: the mother. And she, I feel, has an obligation to keep the her choice.