Abortion: human right?

[Other Thafoo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2012
You're off five million people. Are you saying five million people aren't people? You monster.

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

Fetuses can't vote.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

Fetuses can't vote.

Shh, they can in his world.

[The Serbian Empire]

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

Fetuses can't vote.

Do fetuses become people though?

[Othelos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2012
You're off five million people. Are you saying five million people aren't people? You monster.

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

people aren't fully human beings until they are independent.

[Christian Democrats]

You're right, but legal abortion is supposed to be the exception rather than the rule under current international law.

Says who?

The UN. Are you even reading what I'm typing?

You're right, but legal abortion is supposed to be the exception rather than the rule under current international law.

The UN, I would guess, intended to leave those particular exceptions up to individual countries:

• Maternal health?
• Rape?
• Fetal defects?

The UN of the 1940s and 1950s never thought there should be an unrestricted "right to abortion" in international law. To the contrary, as I have said, it asserted its belief that unborn children are generally entitled to adequate legal protection of their rights.

You literally can't have equal rights, when one organism is inside of another.

That's your opinion; but, in the first post, you ask about international law.

International law says that unborn children have certain rights, but they are not explicitly labeled the equals of adult human beings. Not even teenagers, for that matter, are the equals of adults when it comes to human rights.

[Baiynistan]

Pre-quickening, I say abort away!

Post-quickening & pre-viability, I say morally grey while we continue to gather more scientific knowledge on the nature of foetal brain/sensory activity (I would personally prefer to avoid an abortion at this stage). Exceptions for health.

Post-viability, I argue that it is no longer exclusively the woman's decision regarding the life of the foetus. If the pregnancy occurs in a society with socialised health care or other parents/guardians are able to finance care, I say labour could be induced and the baby should get a fair shot at surviving. There's always demand for babies in the adoption business.

The notion that a foetus could be killed one day before due date is farcical and morally dubious. I'm surprised it's the majority poll choice.

[Shaggai]

It is certainly possible to view abortion as not a human right. However, if you wish to assert that abortion is not a human right, you must declare two things. First, that fetuses deserve the same rights as people. Second, that the right to life of others supersedes one's right to bodily sovereignty. The first is difficult to argue with, as it's really just a matter of opinion. However, most people don't consider all the implications of the second. If you believe that the right to life of others is more important that one's bodily sovereignty, you must support mandatory blood and organ donations. So I ask pro-life posters: Do you think that blood and organ donation should be mandatory? And if not, how do you reconcile the contradictions in your beliefs?

Your questions presuppose that a duty not to kill others necessarily includes a duty to save others' lives.

The two are the same. If you refuse to save someone, you are responsible for their death.

[The Rich Port]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2012
You're off five million people. Are you saying five million people aren't people? You monster.

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

Oh, my God, that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

Everyone, stop talking to this guy. He's obviously not serious.

[Greater Israelia]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

[Pandeeria]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2012
You're off five million people. Are you saying five million people aren't people? You monster.

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

A fetus isn't a person.

[Other Thafoo]

As I said earlier: fetuses have the rights of dead people. Which is to say, none. As with dead people, their fate is entirely decided by who is responsible for them. For corpses, it's decided by whoever survives the dead person. For a fetus, it's the person carrying them in their belly.

[Pandeeria]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

You know a higher population is bad, right?

[Greater Israelia]

Well, over 50 million people have already been killed off by abortion, and they certainly aren't people according to the secular scientists. That's almost 30% of the number of people who voted in the last election.

A fetus isn't a person.

Does one only become a 'person' in the sense of the law as soon as they are out of the birth canal completely? Let's try to bring this to its logical conclusion.

[United Marxist Nations]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

We don't want the population to be that high. Also, I don't think that many people in the US have been aborted.

[Greater Israelia]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

You know a higher population is bad, right?

Genesis 1:28

[Other Thafoo]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

Because of Abrahamic religion, there are billions less followers of Zoroastrianism in the world. You're going to have to answer to a very, very pissed-off Zoroaster when you die, sonnyboy.

[Dukats]

Ok I dont want to spam but at least say some scientists think the soul exists.I fell like an idiot when I spam,so why don't you look it up later.

Some are bound to, as some scientists are bound to enjoy pizzas. These opinions, however, do not really have so much relevance to their profession, as there is no empirical evidence to prove the existence of the soul, much like there is nothing to prove pizza is the best food. These views are just personal thoughts, not scientific validation.

How dare you sir!Pizza is the best food.

[Christian Democrats]

Your questions presuppose that a duty not to kill others necessarily includes a duty to save others' lives.

The two are the same. If you refuse to save someone, you are responsible for their death.

That's not actually true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

[Valaran]

Pre-quickening, I say abort away!

Post-quickening & pre-viability, I say morally grey while we continue to gather more scientific knowledge on the nature of foetal brain/sensory activity (I would personally prefer to avoid an abortion at this stage). Exceptions for health.

Post-viability, I argue that it is no longer exclusively the woman's decision regarding the life of the foetus. If the pregnancy occurs in a society with socialised health care or other parents/guardians are able to finance care, I say labour could be induced and the baby should get a fair shot at surviving. There's always demand for babies in the adoption business.

The notion that a foetus could be killed one day before due date is farcical and morally dubious. I'm surprised it's the majority poll choice.

Well its the largest minority choice, not a majority. Though I think this view point is fairly rational.

[The Serbian Empire]

Pre-quickening, I say abort away!

Post-quickening & pre-viability, I say morally grey while we continue to gather more scientific knowledge on the nature of foetal brain/sensory activity (I would personally prefer to avoid an abortion at this stage). Exceptions for health.

Post-viability, I argue that it is no longer exclusively the woman's decision regarding the life of the foetus. If the pregnancy occurs in a society with socialised health care or other parents/guardians are able to finance care, I say labour could be induced and the baby should get a fair shot at surviving. There's always demand for babies in the adoption business.

The notion that a foetus could be killed one day before due date is farcical and morally dubious. I'm surprised it's the majority poll choice.

I'm not shocked given how many feminists exist within the forum.

[Other Thafoo]

A fetus isn't a person.

Does one only become a 'person' in the sense of the law as soon as they are out of the birth canal completely? Let's try to bring this to its logical conclusion.

Yes.

[United Marxist Nations]

A fetus isn't a person.

Does one only become a 'person' in the sense of the law as soon as they are out of the birth canal completely? Let's try to bring this to its logical conclusion.

They can only become a person when they are alive; that is, when they are capable of surviving outside of the womb.

[Valaran]

You know a higher population is bad, right?

Genesis 1:28

....doesn't matter for non-Christians. The Ist amendment of the US constitution, as well as the Treaty of Tripoli, makes this irrelevant for US law.

[Greater Israelia]

I would argue that the population of the United States could be over 400,000,000 by now had abortion not occurred. As a result of the deaths of those children, the children that they could have had never existed, nor their children's children. There are a good 150,000,000 seemingly 'missing' people, because of abortion!

We don't want the population to be that high. Also, I don't think that many people in the US have been aborted.

50,000,000 people have been aborted so far. Many of those, a good 45,000,000 or more, would have had children. Those children would have had children.

None of those people exist because of this. This chain-reaction of 'what could've been' will be going on forever.

[Aquillus]

Anyway, I think in some circumstances, particularly if a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, abortion should be considered a right under medical care, but I suppose in other instances I can see why some people may not see this as so applicable, such as in the case of unnecessary third trimester abortions.