Foca

[cmpr94x]

The Freedom of Choice Act is the most radical act ever proposed on the topic of abortion. It will make aborting easier than getting one's ears pierced. If passed, it is predicted that 100,000 more abortions will happen each year.

http://www.aul.org/FOCA

I believe that this bill should not be passed. I am not pro-choice because I am under the view that abortion=killing. Its just giving the child no chance whatsoever to live. In this Act, I have also heard that it says that doctors are not allowed to say "No I do not want to abort the baby." They HAVE to perform the abortion no matter what their views on the subject are. The Act is called the Freedom of Choice Act, if it was really a freedom of choice act, then doctors should not be forced to perform abortions.

These are just my basic views on the subject. I would like you all to share your opinions on this.

 

[Aesir]

In this Act, I have also heard that it says that doctors are not allowed to say "No I do not want to abort the baby." They HAVE to perform the abortion no matter what their views on the subject are. The Act is called the Freedom of Choice Act, if it was really a freedom of choice act, then doctors should not be forced to perform abortions.

These are just my basic views on the subject. I would like you all to share your opinions on this.

I would suggest you read it because I'm failing to see how a doctor is forced to give an abortion he doesn't have to.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1173

Unless the act has gone through massive changes since the 111th congress. It just states that a woman has a fundamental right to decide if she wants an abortion or not. A right that should be protected under the constitution which is well with in congressional power to do so.

 

[SuperBowser]

This debate has nothing to do with whether or not you believe abortion is murder.

I don't really see how the website you linked jumps to the conclusions it makes from the quotes given. Maybe you should use a better source...

As far as I can tell, though, this law is basically worded extremely similarly to what England has. We suffer none of the problems that article claims would happen.

And yeah, it really doesn't force doctors to perform an abortion . It simply protects a woman who would normally be allowed an abortion from discrimination. eg. from a doctor who refuses to provide contact details of another professional that can help.

 

[cmpr94x]

The website given does not say that the doctor is forced.

 

[Crimson King]

My problem with anti-abortion legislation: you are speaking for others based on your beliefs.

While personally I would never condone an abortion, I see no reason why my opinion should blackball all women from getting one if they want to for whatever their reasons are. It's like the drug argument as well, just because I don't want to do them, doesn't mean I think they should be outlawed. Abortion is a serious thing, though, and requires a lot of consideration, but personally, if a woman is irresponsible enough to have abortions as a form of birth control imagine how she would destroy the life of that child.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Abortions almost always happen for important reasons. Situations where usually it is a better option for the mother and child both that she aborts. If you are concerned about not giving a child a chance, then you should also be against people who have protected sex, because that also denies a would-be child of a chance to live.

 

[Amide]

Wrong. Most abortions take place after unsafe sex.

I haven't deeply looked into this law, but having an abortion be a simple yes or no choice could have devastating effects on countless babies. Even pro choice activists need to limit their beliefs a bit here.

 

[Eor]

Wrong. Most abortions take place after unsafe sex.

That doesn't prove him wrong at all,

 

[Amide]

"Abortions almost always happen for important reasons."

I guess the "important" could be subjective, but killing a baby because of unsafe sex doesn't really seem vital.

 

[Aesir]

Wrong. Most abortions take place after unsafe sex.

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

I haven't deeply looked into this law, but having an abortion be a simple yes or no choice could have devastating effects on countless babies. Even pro choice activists need to limit their beliefs a bit here.

It's her choice all this bill does is allow a woman a fundamental right to decide if she wants to have a child or not.

Also people who get abortions are getting abortions probably after thinking about it and not on a whim. IE: School responsibilities, monetary responsibilities or problems at home.

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8]

source

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Exactly! Most people who get them didn't intend to have a child/are not prepared to. That is the whole point - Nobody has a child willingly then decides half way through pregnancy that they change their mind! Either they're contraceptive failed or a serious problem arises (Financially unable to care for child, birth defects, etc.).

 

[GoldShadow]

I don't understand why some people think they get to decide when life begins, and why they believe they should be allowed to control somebody else's uterus. Others have already said this, so I'm just going to echo what Mr. Lombardi and Aesir and CK have said.

I haven't deeply looked into this law, but having an abortion be a simple yes or no choice could have devastating effects on countless babies.

What exactly are you talking about here?

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Well... I'm all for killing babies, but abortion? No way.

If this is paired with a universal health care system, the result is going to be outrageous. Essentially the government would be paying for something that a large portion of America thinks is equatable to murder. DO NOT WANT!

The distinction of "when a life begins" is totally irrelevant to the issue. This is a sickeningly feeble argument, and it's the only thing abortion has to offer in it's defense.

The second an event occurs that leads to the birth of a child, the child exists. It's not about when it has a mind and can think OR about when it can survive on it's own (which is a long time even after it leaves the womb); rather, it's about when a person is determined to have come into existence. This means the second the sperm meets the egg. When this happens, a child WILL be born (aside from occasional miscarriage). Preventing the life of something is exactly the same as killing it. It's merely murder in advance.

If I were to go back in time and kill Eor's grandfather (not to single you out, but I need an example), it could be said that I killed Eor.

I'd like to say that this debate has nothing to do with my religion. If I were an Atheist, my feelings would be unchanged (aside from maybe asking myself if I think murder is wrong).

 

[Jam Stunna]

If you truly believe that abortion is like murder, then you have a moral obligation to prevent it. You DO NOT have the right to choose to murder someone.

I've always personally been against abortion, but the matter didn't crystallize until I found out I was going to be a father. Unless you have a child, nothing I say will make any sense (and if you do then I don't have to explain it to you), so I won't even try to explain what a profound impact it had on me. Suffice to say, I realized that a person comes from a zygote, and now that person is standing in front of me as I type this.

We're never going to agree on when life begins or doesn't, so I submit as neutral of a definition as I can come to: Under normal circumstances, a fertilized egg that has attached to the uterine wall will become a baby. It doesn't matter when it happens; it will happen.

With this as my own working definition, I have no problem with contraceptives or even the plan B pill. After all, a fertilized egg still becomes nothing if it never attaches. After that stage, there is still a 15% chance that a pregnancy will naturally terminate as a miscarriage. Outside of that, specific actions MUST be taken in order to terminate the pregnancy, and those actions are morally wrong in my view.

I think abortion is murder, and murder must be opposed in all circumstances. Abortion proponents have successfully spun this into a matter about woman choice and the right to do whatever they want with their body. Well, guess what: IT'S NOT THEIR BODY THAT THEY ARE ATTACKING. It's the baby that is destroyed in an abortion. My son takes up a room in my apartment that could be used for other things. He doesn't pay any bills, all he does is eat and make messes. Can I kick him out? It's my apartment, right?

Sex is an action that has consequences, and an abortion is an attempt to sidestep responsibility. The only surefire way to not make a baby is to not have sex (unless your name is Mary, apparently). Once you have sex, you're rolling the dice, and you must be prepared for all of the possible outcomes, including parenthood. If you're contraceptive fails, like mine did, TOO FUCKING BAD. That does not give you the right to take a life. No method of birth control is 100% effective, we all know that.

Elective surgical procedures are not guaranteed by the Constitution, or any law that I'm aware of. They shouldn't be, especially one in which a life is being taken.

 

[BFDD]

The distinction of "when a life begins" is totally irrelevant to the issue. This is a sickeningly feeble argument, and it's the only thing abortion has to offer in it's defense.

When life begins is a very important part of the issue. If life hasn't begun yet then it isn't murder.

The second an event occurs that leads to the birth of a child, the child exists.

Who are you to decide? You say when a life begins is not relevant and then define when life begins. Is it that you feel that it isn't a relevant argument because you have already decided the answer?

If I were to go back in time and kill Eor's grandfather (not to single you out, but I need an example), it could be said that I killed Eor.

It could also be said that if an unwanted child grows up to be a murderer, anti-abortionists support murder. If preventing life is the same as murder then any contraceptive is murder. Not having sex is murder. Resisting **** is murder. By not having sex you are preventing the fertilization of an egg cell which is preventing life. Basically the line can really be drawn as far back as you want, so why set it at when an egg is fertilized?

Sex is an action that has consequences, and an abortion is an attempt to sidestep responsibility. The only surefire way to not make a baby is to not have sex (unless your name is Mary, apparently). Once you have sex, you're rolling the dice

I agree with this part. If you can't handle the consequences, don't do it. The problem is some people don't have a choice or are to young to fully understand the consequences.

I don't know if abortion is murder or not, it really isn't up to me or anyone else to decide when life begins. I don't like it and would not recommend that anyone get an abortion, but I also don't like country music and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Every situation is different and every person is different people should be able to decide for themselves. Our country was founded on the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Aesir]

Doesn't the term "Someone" indicate person hood? Person hood isn't a state that's easily defined. If we take your advise and take the middle ground (which isn't very middle groundish at all really) we would be committing continuum fallacy. Or perhaps you're treading on a slippery slope? Either way assuming life begins at conception is generally a bad idea.

But allowing partial birth abortions generally doesn't feel right either, so I say we take a true middle ground. Abortion should be allowed prior to the development of a conscientiousness. However a conscientiousness doesn't just pop up out of no where, it needs certain things to maintain it. Which luckily is enough time for a mother to decide if she wants to carry or not. So maybe we're not picking conscientiousness per say but instead picking when the system of conscientiousness develops.

 

[SuperBowser]

Sex is an action that has consequences, and an abortion is an attempt to sidestep responsibility.

No. Abortion is dealing with the consequences.

Not everyone holds the same definition of a human as you. Especially when you draw a ridiculous line between a clump of cells and the same clump of cells attached to something. Under your definition I would view purposely preventing a clump of cells from attaching to the uterine wall as murder too.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Doesn't the term "Someone" indicate person hood? Person hood isn't a state that's easily defined. If we take your advise and take the middle ground (which isn't very middle groundish at all really) we would be committing continuum fallacy. Or perhaps you're treading on a slippery slope? Either way assuming life begins at conception is generally a bad idea.

But allowing partial birth abortions generally doesn't feel right either, so I say we take a true middle ground. Abortion should be allowed prior to the development of a conscientiousness. However a conscientiousness doesn't just pop up out of no where, it needs certain things to maintain it. Which luckily is enough time for a mother to decide if she wants to carry or not. So maybe we're not picking conscientiousness per say but instead picking when the system of conscientiousness develops.

I think you meant "consciousness" . But anyways, how can you possibly define such a timeframe? Most people can't define their own consciousness, much less someone else's.

EDIT-

No. Abortion is dealing with the consequences.

Not everyone holds the same definition of a human as you. Especially when you draw a ridiculous line between a clump of cells and the same clump of cells attached to something. Under your definition I would view purposely preventing a clump of cells from attaching to the uterine wall as murder too.

That distinction is not as ridiculous or inconsequential as you think. A baby cannot form before attachment. A baby can afterwards. That's not semantics, that's fact and as such I think an appropriate place to draw the line.

My main point anyway is that the opinion "I find abortion personally objectionable yet I support the right" is an inconsistent one. Due to the stakes and the moral implications, you must find abortion either to be okay for everyone, everywhere, including yourself, or the opposite. It's not a debate that supports compromise.

 

[Aesir]

I think you meant "consciousness" . But anyways, how can you possibly define such a timeframe? Most people can't define their own consciousness, much less someone else's.

I blame firefox spell check for that one wow.

I'm not choosing consciousness per say I'm choosing the developments that lead into a consciousness. (Cerebral Cortex, Brain, Heart, ect..) Consciousness doesn't just sprout up it's a progression as the fetus develops. Once these things develop a consciousness has all it needs to exist. Without these things there's no possibility of a consciousness, so that's my argument.

 

[SuperBowser]

That distinction is not as ridiculous or inconsequential as you think. A baby cannot form before attachment. A baby can afterwards. That's not semantics, that's fact and as such I think an appropriate place to draw the line.

Of course it's semantics. A baby can form before attachment too. Otherwise you wouldn't prevent it attaching to the uterine wall.

 

[Crimson King]

You are all missing the point of this law. It's not to decide whether you think abortion is right or wrong. By and large, even the people among the people who have them, abortion is considered a serious and severe thing.

The law in question is to decide whether a woman has a choice to subject herself to this. Personally, I think a woman is just as capable of a man as making a decision. For a baby, it comes from the woman, she suffers any side effects from it, so it is her choice as to whether or not the child is allowed to come to term.

The point is this: it doesn't matter if you are against, it matters if you are for a woman's right to have one under ANY circumstance. If a woman is going to die in child birth, and she has two kids at home, an abortion might save a lot of lives. If a woman was ***** maliciously by her father or brother or boyfriend, that baby will serve as a reminder to her, and she may lash out on him or her.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The law in question is to decide whether a woman has a choice to subject herself to this. Personally, I think a woman is just as capable of a man as making a decision. For a baby, it comes from the woman, she suffers any side effects from it, so it is her choice as to whether or not the child is allowed to come to term.

If abortion is murder, then you DO NOT have this choice. That's why before you can debate a law about abortion, you must debate the ethical/moral implications first. Those issues have to be defined, because the law is a morality one at heart.

 

[BFDD]

If abortion is murder, then you DO NOT have this choice.

True, if it really is murder than we should stop it. You just have to be able to prove that the line you drew is the correct one. What is so special about attaching to the uterine wall? Why not draw the line to before the development of consciousness/the parts necessary for consciousness. Before it can think it is just a parasitic tumor.

Like I said before innocent until proven guilty. You can't just make a law to ban something because some people think it is murder. I have passed people on the street that look really creepy and I think they look like murderers. Should have them sent to prison because they might murder someone?

 

[Jam Stunna]

True, if it really is murder than we should stop it. You just have to be able to prove that the line you drew is the correct one. What is so special about attaching to the uterine wall? Why not draw the line to before the development of consciousness/the parts necessary for consciousness. Before it can think it is just a parasitic tumor.

Like I said before innocent until proven guilty. You can't just make a law to ban something because some people think it is murder. I have passed people on the street that look really creepy and I think they look like murderers. Should have them sent to prison because they might murder someone?

The reason why the consciousness definition doesn't work is because that's unknowable and totally speculative. How do you define consciousness? What parts are necessary for its development? How do you test for consciousness? Are any of those questions even answerable?

Whatever the line is, it has to be observable. Right now, the line is drawn at the end of the first trimester because you can point and say, "This is a real, definable point in the fetus' development." Although I think that line should be moved forward, it at least makes logical sense to choose a point that is definitive, as opposed to something as nebulous and murky as when consciousness starts.

 

[SuperBowser]

Actually the line is drawn at the point at which the fetus could survive on its own without the mother. I think this is roughly 24 weeks.

You've yet to prove why the line you draw is correct or any less speculative than BFDD's. The potential to become a baby isn't the same as being a baby and that potential exists before attachment to the uterine wall.

 

[BFDD]

I was not suggesting that we should draw the line at consciousness. I don't know where the line should be draw and it really doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. That was my whole point. It should be up to each individual to decide where the line is for themselves. Until we can know for sure when life starts we can't just assume that it is murder.

I was showing that arbitrary lines can be drawn anywhere you want. I was asking why your line is any better than any of the others. You can observe the formation of the brain so why not pick that as the line? Why not draw the line at a fertilized egg? There are plenty observable places to draw a line. You have yet to explain your line is better than any other one.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I had a pretty long response, but I remembered something that I read on another site.

Your point is that we can't know where life begins, right? That all starting points are arbitrary? That we don't know for sure that we're taking a life?

Well, the opposite of that is true as well. How do you know that you're not taking a life? You said yourself that we can't be sure. If that's the case, what is your justification for taking the risk that you are destroying a life?

 

[BFDD]

I can't justify it to myself so I wouldn't recommend it, but other people might not feel the same way. We can't make laws based on a maybe. Like I said before innocent until proven guilty. We don't imprison people because they might be murderers, why should we ban something that may or may not be bad.

If we go back to my country music example. I don't like it and I wouldn't suggest anyone listen to it. Also on the show MANswers (a really credible source...sarcasm) they cited a study that showed cities with the most country music radio stations also have the highest suicide rate. Some country songs are really sad and depressing and though the chance is slim, it could cause people to kill themselves. Should we risk people's lives for music?

Not the best example but I think it still gets my point across. It is still a matter of opinion when life begins. Until we have solid evidence of when life begins then we can't ban it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I can't justify it to myself so I wouldn't recommend it, but other people might not feel the same way. We can't make laws based on a maybe. Like I said before innocent until proven guilty. We don't imprison people because they might be murderers, why should we ban something that may or may not be bad.

You've come back to that inconsistent position again. We're not talking about likes or dislikes (as in music), we're talking about something that you consider morally indefensible, yet you would allow others to do it. I assume that you are personally opposed to abortion because you do consider it to be taking a life. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

[BFDD]

I believe that it is possible that it is taking a life. Mostly the possible physical and mental issues that go along with an abortion are why I don't recommend it. I personally do not think the risk is worth it. The key word there is THINK. What I think and believe should not be made into law as much as I may think I am right without any evidence I cannot insist on making it law.

I'm not sure what is inconsistent about my argument. I don't believe laws should be made because something might be bad.

 

[Oracle]

For the whole "abortion is/isn't murder" argument, I propose this example.

Enrique is going to become a professional football player. He was drafted, basically already on the team, on his way to his first practice. I shoot him in the knees, so he has no chance of recovery at all and cannot play football.
How is this different than if I shot him in the knees after his first season? Either way, I stopped his future playing of football professionally, thus, he can't make the money he should be making and I am completely responsible for the money he is not making anymore.

 

[Aesir]

For the whole "abortion is/isn't murder" argument, I propose this example.

Enrique is going to become a professional football player. He was drafted, basically already on the team, on his way to his first practice. I shoot him in the knees, so he has no chance of recovery at all and cannot play football.
How is this different than if I shot him in the knees after his first season? Either way, I stopped his future playing of football professionally, thus, he can't make the money he should be making and I am completely responsible for the money he is not making anymore.

Wow was that a bad example in no way can your example take into account of contraceptive failure, spouse abandonment, ****, a malformation. Also a simple "I can't care for this baby" Cannot apply to that example, so it's a really bad example to begin with.

However to answer it, the football player has civil liberties a first trimester fetus does not. It lacks person hood which begins when the ability to have cognitive functions exists.

 

[Firus]

Wow was that a bad example in no way can your example take into account of contraceptive failure, spouse abandonment, ****, a malformation. Also a simple "I can't care for this baby" Cannot apply to that example, so it's a really bad example to begin with.

Um...actually, he said at the beginning that it was solely to the point of whether or not it's murder under normal circumstances. Since it's under normal circumstances, it shouldn't HAVE to take into account any of that.

As for those individual arguments, let's start with contraceptive failure. Before you have sex, you should take into account that contraceptives can fail. If you don't want to have a baby, or cannot afford to have a baby, don't have sex period. We act as if sex is a given here.

Spouse abondonment. Okay, if your husband abandons you and you're pregnant and you truly cannot afford to take care of the baby, put it up for adoption. Simple as that.

****, same thing. Although I'd be for an abortion in this case, it may be hard to determine definitively

Malformations, if a baby is malformed to a point where their physical health is in danger, an abortion might be required.

As for "I can't take care of this baby", again, back to two previous arguments. Either don't have sex in the first place or put the baby up for adoption. I don't know why the first solution is to kill it.

Overall, I think that abortion is okay if the baby and/or the woman's physical health is at risk.

Finally, in response to the first post, abortion already is almost easier than getting your ears pierced. At the very least, they need to have the same standards; unless I'm mistaken, you need to be 18 or older or have a parent or guardian present when you get your ears pierced. Yet you could get an abortion and theoretically never have your parents find out about it. What the hell? That just encourages high schoolers to screw around without any consequences.

 

[Aesir]

Um...actually, he said at the beginning that it was solely to the point of whether or not it's murder under normal circumstances. Since it's under normal circumstances, it shouldn't HAVE to take into account any of that.

His idea of a normal circumstance is actually a very rare circumstance so then whats the point?

As for those individual arguments, let's start with contraceptive failure. Before you have sex, you should take into account that contraceptives can fail. If you don't want to have a baby, or cannot afford to have a baby, don't have sex period. We act as if sex is a given here.

Contraceptives have a 99% success rate you have a better chance getting hit by a car then having a contraceptive fail.

Spouse abondonment. Okay, if your husband abandons you and you're pregnant and you truly cannot afford to take care of the baby, put it up for adoption. Simple as that.

Yeah because Adoption homes are so great right? Lets completely ignore the obvious problems that come from them.

All passive aggression aside adoption is only good when there's a family that wants the baby. Not only that adoption comes with many social problems both for the mother and the child.

****, same thing. Although I'd be for an abortion in this case, it may be hard to determine definitively

Yes lets make a woman carry the outcome of a traumatic experience. As for adoption look above.

As for "I can't take care of this baby", again, back to two previous arguments. Either don't have sex in the first place or put the baby up for adoption. I don't know why the first solution is to kill it.

Again this ties into the contraceptive part, with a 99% success rate it's unreasonable to tell people not to have sex in the first place especially when there's such a huge safety net.

It's not the first, but it should be a solution for mother and shouldn't be told by people she can't. The rights of the mother should trump the rights of the unborn child.

 

[cmpr94x]

Contraceptives have a 99% success rate you have a better chance getting hit by a car then having a contraceptive fail.

This should be taught to many people because, while using contraceptives, with a 1% chance of fertilization happening, roughly 1 out of 100 women will have a baby. You have to realize that the only perfect contraception is ABSTINENCE. In my opinion, if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, then they should not have sex. However, many women choose to have sex and they use contraceptives. The contraceptives do not work and then they get an abortion.

(Sorry Aesir, didn't see this: Aesier: "Again this ties into the contraceptive part, with a 99% success rate it's unreasonable to tell people not to have sex in the first place especially when there's such a huge safety net.

It's not the first, but it should be a solution for mother and shouldn't be told by people she can't. The rights of the mother should trump the rights of the unborn child."

 

[SuperBowser]

Well, the opposite of that is true as well. How do you know that you're not taking a life? You said yourself that we can't be sure. If that's the case, what is your justification for taking the risk that you are destroying a life?

How do you justify using contraception?

 

[Aesir]

This should be taught to many people because, while using contraceptives, with a 1% chance of fertilization happening, roughly 1 out of 100 women will have a baby. You have to realize that the only perfect contraception is ABSTINENCE. In my opinion, if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, then they should not have sex. However, many women choose to have sex and they use contraceptives. The contraceptives do not work and then they get an abortion.

(Sorry Aesir, didn't see this: Aesier: "Again this ties into the contraceptive part, with a 99% success rate it's unreasonable to tell people not to have sex in the first place especially when there's such a huge safety net.

It's not the first, but it should be a solution for mother and shouldn't be told by people she can't. The rights of the mother should trump the rights of the unborn child."

The success rate is taught to people, this is also why people use multiple contraceptives. Pill/condom.

Also I've already stated this but it's unreasonable to assume people won't have sex, especially considering how effective contraceptives are. You have a better chance of getting hit by a car. This is one of those things where I wish Liberals and Conservatives would work together, They should agree to protect a woman's privacy but also work to make sure abortions are rare.

 

[RDK]

This should be taught to many people because, while using contraceptives, with a 1% chance of fertilization happening, roughly 1 out of 100 women will have a baby. You have to realize that the only perfect contraception is ABSTINENCE. In my opinion, if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, then they should not have sex. However, many women choose to have sex and they use contraceptives. The contraceptives do not work and then they get an abortion.

No. This is not how statistics work.

A 1/100 fail rate does not mean 1 out of every 100 instances involving contraceptives will fail. It means that every time you engage in intercourse and use contraceptives, there's a 1 out of 100 chance that it will fail and you will have a baby as a result.

It resets every time. Repeated instances doesn't somehow magically increase your chances with every instance.

And why are we even still arguing about abortion? Before the first trimester, it's more than obvious that the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is not a human being.

Giving human rights to a fetus before its brain has fully devloped (I.E., consciousness) is like trying to give human rights to a toad or a worm. Both are wholly more fully developed organisms than an "unborn child" in its first trimester.

Individual human rights implies that:

A) the disputed party is in fact an individual; fetuses are not individuals, nor are they independent, and

B) that the disputed party is a human being. Fetuses are not human beings; they are merely human, just like my skin cells are human. If you're honestly arguing that the cells that comprise a fetus before consciousness is developed has all the genetic ingredients to form a human being, remember that so does every other single cell in your body.

For the whole "abortion is/isn't murder" argument, I propose this example.

Enrique is going to become a professional football player. He was drafted, basically already on the team, on his way to his first practice. I shoot him in the knees, so he has no chance of recovery at all and cannot play football.
How is this different than if I shot him in the knees after his first season? Either way, I stopped his future playing of football professionally, thus, he can't make the money he should be making and I am completely responsible for the money he is not making anymore.

This whole "shooting a football player in the kneecap" analogy is completely ridiculous. We don't bestow rights onto something that potentially requires rights; we bestow rights on something that actually requires rights.

You say "But in a few months, the [baby / fetus/ what have you] will become a human being, with real feelings, emotions, and brain activity!" By this line of logic, we should be able to go around murdering old people, since perhaps in a few months, they're going to die anyway.

Calling fetuses "unborn children" is like referring to old people as "undead adults".

 

[cmpr94x]

No. This is not how statistics work.

A 1/100 fail rate does not mean 1 out of every 100 instances involving contraceptives will fail.

I am saying 1 out of 100 roughly.

Giving human rights to a fetus before its brain has fully devloped (I.E., consciousness) is like trying to give human rights to a toad or a worm. Both are wholly more fully developed organisms than an "unborn child" in its first trimester.

Because it gets no chance whatsoever of surviving.

Individual human rights implies that:

A) the disputed party is in fact an individual; fetuses are not individuals, nor are they independent, and

How are they independent if they DEPEND on nutrients from the mother?

B) that the disputed party is a human being. Fetuses are not human beings; they are merely human, just like my skin cells are human. If you're honestly arguing that the cells that comprise a fetus before consciousness is developed has all the genetic ingredients to form a human being, remember that so does every other single cell in your body.

By this do you mean that if you tore off a piece of skin that it will develop into a human? Because no, thats impossible.


This whole "shooting a football player in the kneecap" analogy is completely ridiculous. We don't bestow rights onto something that potentially requires rights; we bestow rights on something that actually requires rights.

You say "But in a few months, the [baby / fetus/ what have you] will become a human being, with real feelings, emotions, and brain activity!" By this line of logic, we should be able to go around murdering old people, since perhaps in a few months, they're going to die anyway.

How is he saying that at all?

Calling fetuses "unborn children" is like referring to old people as "undead adults".

Humans are basically sacks comprised of developed DNA. Fetuses are sacks of undeveloped DNA.

 

[cF=)]

If abortion is murder, then you DO NOT have this choice. That's why before you can debate a law about abortion, you must debate the ethical/moral implications first. Those issues have to be defined, because the law is a morality one at heart.

There is absolutely no moral question behind abortion, what you determine as murder is in fact only legal killing. Pulling the plug on people, the death penalty and abortion are all things allowed in a lot of states (if not all like abortion), what's then telling you fetuses have a granted and inherent right to live?

anybody posting here should have a look at the old topic: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=186377