NationStates

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:

There is a difference between abortion and between life-saving surgery. Abortion is the termination of a human life, within the womb of another person. Surgery, on the other hand, involves an effort to save life. Individuals, who find that they are a match for someone else, freely cooperate together to have the necessary treatments performed. It is recognized that no one can be forced to adhere to such procedures. As regards to abortion, there are alternatives. Alternatives in that the child can be given up for adoption, that the woman can use birth control, etc. Abortions can be permitted if the woman's health is in absolute jeopardy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But anything beyond that is illogical and wrong. You cannot compare saving a person's life to destroying it.

False, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
Adoption implies that the woman was forced to carry the pregnancy out against her will, unacceptable.
Birth control is great and works very well in states that actually encourage and teach about it, southern states have some of the highest teen pregnancy AND abortion rates because of their severe negligence in contraception and education.
Fix those and unwanted pregnancies will plummet.

Galloism wrote:

Laurasia wrote:There is a difference between abortion and between life-saving surgery. Abortion is the termination of a human life,

Actually, abortion is the termination of support from another person's body. Death is the inevitable result of such termination of support.

within the womb of another person. Surgery, on the other hand, involves an effort to save life. Individuals, who find that they are a match for someone else, freely cooperate together to have the necessary treatments performed. It is recognized that no one can be forced to adhere to such procedures. As regards to abortion, there are alternatives. Alternatives in that the child can be given up for adoption, that the woman can use birth control, etc. Abortions can be permitted if the woman's health is in absolute jeopardy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But anything beyond that is illogical and wrong. You cannot compare saving a person's life to destroying it.

So my life doesn't matter to you?

You don't value all life enough to force people against their will to use their own bodies to save the lives of others?

I have to ask a very sensitive question here. If any of you are women, then I apologize for any offense which may lay in my words. I have only been arguing for what I strongly believe is the right in this case. I have argued that due to biological, religious, political, and ethical considerations, abortion is inherently wrong. I have proposed alternatives; I have sought to explain my views; and I have made comparisons to other situations. I have answered all of your questions. Do not think that my views about abortion imply some fanatical belief in "male supremacy" or in denying women their rights. Everyone is fully equal under our Constitution, and has the right to pursue their lives in a free and democratic society. Should not that same opportunity be given to the unborn?

Genivaria wrote:

Laurasia wrote:There is a difference between abortion and between life-saving surgery. Abortion is the termination of a human life, within the womb of another person. Surgery, on the other hand, involves an effort to save life. Individuals, who find that they are a match for someone else, freely cooperate together to have the necessary treatments performed. It is recognized that no one can be forced to adhere to such procedures. As regards to abortion, there are alternatives. Alternatives in that the child can be given up for adoption, that the woman can use birth control, etc. Abortions can be permitted if the woman's health is in absolute jeopardy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But anything beyond that is illogical and wrong. You cannot compare saving a person's life to destroying it.

False, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Indeed, there are those preemies who have survived abortion. If that happens then doctors are required by law to attempt to keep the preemie alive.

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Actually, abortion is the termination of support from another person's body. Death is the inevitable result of such termination of support.


So my life doesn't matter to you?

You don't value all life enough to force people against their will to use their own bodies to save the lives of others?

I have to ask a very sensitive question here. If any of you are women, then I apologize for any offense which may lay in my words. I have only been arguing for what I strongly believe is the right in this case. I have argued that due to biological, religious, political, and ethical considerations, abortion is inherently wrong. I have proposed alternatives; I have sought to explain my views; and I have made comparisons to other situations. I have answered all of your questions. Do not think that my views about abortion imply some fanatical belief in "male supremacy" or in denying women their rights. Everyone is fully equal under our Constitution, and has the right to pursue their lives in a free and democratic society. Should not that same opportunity be given to the unborn?

Everyone is equal, yes. The woman is equal to the fetus, and the fetus is in the woman's body against her consent. Therefore by law she should be able to remove it. They are both equal after all.

How hard is that to understand?

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Actually, abortion is the termination of support from another person's body. Death is the inevitable result of such termination of support.


So my life doesn't matter to you?

You don't value all life enough to force people against their will to use their own bodies to save the lives of others?

I have to ask a very sensitive question here. If any of you are women, then I apologize for any offense which may lay in my words. I have only been arguing for what I strongly believe is the right in this case. I have argued that due to biological, religious, political, and ethical considerations, abortion is inherently wrong. I have proposed alternatives; I have sought to explain my views; and I have made comparisons to other situations. I have answered all of your questions. Do not think that my views about abortion imply some fanatical belief in "male supremacy" or in denying women their rights. Everyone is fully equal under our Constitution, and has the right to pursue their lives in a free and democratic society. Should not that same opportunity be given to the unborn?

You have claimed these things without supporting them, and surprise surprise people here disagree with you. You have not proposed alternatives, as right now there are literally no alternative for an unwanted pregnancy, as has been explained to you. We have not said it was male supremacy, we have said it is denying women their rights because it is. Sure, but then no one has the right to attach themselves or to be inside a woman against the will of the woman, so if we were to treat fetuses equally, abortion would be legal.

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Actually, abortion is the termination of support from another person's body. Death is the inevitable result of such termination of support.


So my life doesn't matter to you?

You don't value all life enough to force people against their will to use their own bodies to save the lives of others?

I have to ask a very sensitive question here. If any of you are women, then I apologize for any offense which may lay in my words. I have only been arguing for what I strongly believe is the right in this case. I have argued that due to biological, religious, political, and ethical considerations, abortion is inherently wrong. I have proposed alternatives; I have sought to explain my views; and I have made comparisons to other situations. I have answered all of your questions. Do not think that my views about abortion imply some fanatical belief in "male supremacy" or in denying women their rights. Everyone is fully equal under our Constitution, and has the right to pursue their lives in a free and democratic society. Should not that same opportunity be given to the unborn?

Let's suppose the unborn have the same rights as grown adults from conception. Let's assume that. I have no problem arguing from that premise.

Under what circumstances does any born person have the right to use another person's body against their will? Be specific.

Galloism wrote:

Laurasia wrote:
I have to ask a very sensitive question here. If any of you are women, then I apologize for any offense which may lay in my words. I have only been arguing for what I strongly believe is the right in this case. I have argued that due to biological, religious, political, and ethical considerations, abortion is inherently wrong. I have proposed alternatives; I have sought to explain my views; and I have made comparisons to other situations. I have answered all of your questions. Do not think that my views about abortion imply some fanatical belief in "male supremacy" or in denying women their rights. Everyone is fully equal under our Constitution, and has the right to pursue their lives in a free and democratic society. Should not that same opportunity be given to the unborn?

Let's suppose the unborn have the same rights as grown adults from conception. Let's assume that. I have no problem arguing from that premise.

Under what circumstances does any born person have the right to use another person's body against their will? Be specific.

By "born person", that means that that individual should not tamper with a pregnancy unless if it places the mother's life in serious jeopardy, or it arose from rape or incest. These are very reasonable exceptions, and exceptions which can be effectively enforced. Anything else should not be permitted. This article, http://liveactionnews.org/10-reasons-no ... -abortion/, lists the reasons as to why abortion is wrong and indeed harmful to women. It does not empower them in any way. And it does not contribute effective benefits to society.

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Let's suppose the unborn have the same rights as grown adults from conception. Let's assume that. I have no problem arguing from that premise.

Under what circumstances does any born person have the right to use another person's body against their will? Be specific.

By "born person", that means that that individual should not tamper with a pregnancy unless if it places the mother's life in serious jeopardy, or it arose from rape or incest. These are very reasonable exceptions, and exceptions which can be effectively enforced. Anything else should not be permitted. This article, http://liveactionnews.org/10-reasons-no ... -abortion/, lists the reasons as to why abortion is wrong and indeed harmful to women. It does not empower them in any way. And it does not contribute effective benefits to society.

The article is full of shit.
Nothing but emotional appeals and baseless assumptions mean't to guilt trip.
Not impressed.

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Let's suppose the unborn have the same rights as grown adults from conception. Let's assume that. I have no problem arguing from that premise.

Under what circumstances does any born person have the right to use another person's body against their will? Be specific.

By "born person", that means that that individual should not tamper with a pregnancy unless if it places the mother's life in serious jeopardy, or it arose from rape or incest. These are very reasonable exceptions, and exceptions which can be effectively enforced. Anything else should not be permitted. This article, http://liveactionnews.org/10-reasons-no ... -abortion/, lists the reasons as to why abortion is wrong and indeed harmful to women. It does not empower them in any way. And it does not contribute effective benefits to society.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you under what circumstances a born person has the right to use another born person's body against their will. We're arguing from the premise the unborn have the same rights as the born.

Be specific. Under what circumstances do I have the legal right to use your body against your will?

Galloism wrote:

Laurasia wrote:
By "born person", that means that that individual should not tamper with a pregnancy unless if it places the mother's life in serious jeopardy, or it arose from rape or incest. These are very reasonable exceptions, and exceptions which can be effectively enforced. Anything else should not be permitted. This article, http://liveactionnews.org/10-reasons-no ... -abortion/, lists the reasons as to why abortion is wrong and indeed harmful to women. It does not empower them in any way. And it does not contribute effective benefits to society.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you under what circumstances a born person has the right to use another born person's body against their will. We're arguing from the premise the unborn have the same rights as the born.

Be specific. Under what circumstances do I have the legal right to use your body against your will?

I would also like to hear an actual response to this.
Here's another one, why is it that we have to have a person's permission to use their organs after they die when they could save someone's life?
Why do we give a corpse more rights than a woman?

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has not ruled Guilt Trip Ultrasounds unConstitutional.

Galloism wrote:

Laurasia wrote:
By "born person", that means that that individual should not tamper with a pregnancy unless if it places the mother's life in serious jeopardy, or it arose from rape or incest. These are very reasonable exceptions, and exceptions which can be effectively enforced. Anything else should not be permitted. This article, http://liveactionnews.org/10-reasons-no ... -abortion/, lists the reasons as to why abortion is wrong and indeed harmful to women. It does not empower them in any way. And it does not contribute effective benefits to society.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you under what circumstances a born person has the right to use another born person's body against their will. We're arguing from the premise the unborn have the same rights as the born.

Be specific. Under what circumstances do I have the legal right to use your body against your will?

You have twisted the terminology. The unborn child is within the born person's body, and that born person is their mother. They are being nurtured and developed within their mother's body. From the moment of conception, they have obtained their own form, separate from that of the mother's. Human reproduction is such that each of us arises from the same source. "Fetuses" require a place for their development, and such development should not be interrupted by outside forces.

As regards to surgical operations, and other procedures, no one should use another unless if they have full consent. Human beings can consent. Babies cannot. Babies are therefore deserving of protection by society, to help those who are unable to help themselves.

Genivaria wrote:

Galloism wrote:That's not what I asked you. I asked you under what circumstances a born person has the right to use another born person's body against their will. We're arguing from the premise the unborn have the same rights as the born.

Be specific. Under what circumstances do I have the legal right to use your body against your will?

I would also like to hear an actual response to this.
Here's another one, why is it that we have to have a person's permission to use their organs after they die when they could save someone's life?
Why do we give a corpse more rights than a woman?

You must have that person's permission because that is logical. Again, we are talking about human beings capable of consent, versus the helpless unborn who cannot consent. And a woman, on her part, does not have the right to govern who lives and who dies, of those being nurtured within her. You cannot pick and choose between children.

Laurasia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I would also like to hear an actual response to this.
Here's another one, why is it that we have to have a person's permission to use their organs after they die when they could save someone's life?
Why do we give a corpse more rights than a woman?

You must have that person's permission because that is logical. Again, we are talking about human beings capable of consent, versus the helpless unborn who cannot consent. And a woman, on her part, does not have the right to govern who lives and who dies, of those being nurtured within her. You cannot pick and choose between children.

Yes in the same way that you require a woman's permission.
Why is that difficult for you?

Laurasia wrote:

Galloism wrote:That's not what I asked you. I asked you under what circumstances a born person has the right to use another born person's body against their will. We're arguing from the premise the unborn have the same rights as the born.

Be specific. Under what circumstances do I have the legal right to use your body against your will?

You have twisted the terminology. The unborn child is within the born person's body, and that born person is their mother. They are being nurtured and developed within their mother's body. From the moment of conception, they have obtained their own form, separate from that of the mother's. Human reproduction is such that each of us arises from the same source. "Fetuses" require a place for their development, and such development should not be interrupted by outside forces.

As regards to surgical operations, and other procedures, no one should use another unless if they have full consent. Human beings can consent. Babies cannot. Babies are therefore deserving of protection by society, to help those who are unable to help themselves.

Ok, so let's modify it a little bit. I'm in a coma after being hit by a bus filled with undocumented immigrants from Mars. I therefore can no longer consent. I deserve protection by society.

You are fully conscious and able to consent.

Under what circumstances can I use your body against your will? So far you have yet to name one way.

Galloism wrote:

Laurasia wrote:You have twisted the terminology. The unborn child is within the born person's body, and that born person is their mother. They are being nurtured and developed within their mother's body. From the moment of conception, they have obtained their own form, separate from that of the mother's. Human reproduction is such that each of us arises from the same source. "Fetuses" require a place for their development, and such development should not be interrupted by outside forces.

As regards to surgical operations, and other procedures, no one should use another unless if they have full consent. Human beings can consent. Babies cannot. Babies are therefore deserving of protection by society, to help those who are unable to help themselves.

Ok, so let's modify it a little bit. I'm in a coma after being hit by a bus filled with undocumented immigrants from Mars. I therefore can no longer consent.

You are fully conscious and able to consent.

Under what circumstances can I use your body against your will?

Personally I'm actually in favor of the 'opt-out' instead of 'opt-in' when it comes to organ donations but that's getting off topic.

Genivaria wrote:

Galloism wrote:Ok, so let's modify it a little bit. I'm in a coma after being hit by a bus filled with undocumented immigrants from Mars. I therefore can no longer consent.

You are fully conscious and able to consent.

Under what circumstances can I use your body against your will?

Personally I'm actually in favor of the 'opt-out' instead of 'opt-in' when it comes to organ donations but that's getting off topic.

I'd actually concur with that, but, as you said, that's beyond the scope.

Genivaria wrote:

Laurasia wrote:You must have that person's permission because that is logical. Again, we are talking about human beings capable of consent, versus the helpless unborn who cannot consent. And a woman, on her part, does not have the right to govern who lives and who dies, of those being nurtured within her. You cannot pick and choose between children.

Yes in the same way that you require a woman's permission.
Why is that difficult for you?

That is not in the same way. As I have said time and time again, unborn life deserves full protection from society and from us. Would you do in your child for the sake of convenience? Would you put your child to death to satisfy your own desires and wishes? I would hope not.

Laurasia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Yes in the same way that you require a woman's permission.
Why is that difficult for you?

That is not in the same way. As I have said time and time again, unborn life deserves full protection from society and from us. Would you do in your child for the sake of convenience? Would you put your child to death to satisfy your own desires and wishes? I would hope not.

An unborn fetus is not considered a child by reasonable standard.
There is no child in this discussion, stop trying to use the word 'child' as a smokescreen.

Genivaria wrote:

Laurasia wrote:That is not in the same way. As I have said time and time again, unborn life deserves full protection from society and from us. Would you do in your child for the sake of convenience? Would you put your child to death to satisfy your own desires and wishes? I would hope not.

An unborn fetus is not considered a child by reasonable standard.
There is no child in this discussion, stop trying to use the word 'child' as a smokescreen.

Honestly, if there was a child who would die unless mom gave her a kidney, and mom refused to give up one of her kidneys, I would oppose attempts to force her by force of law to give up a kidney even to save her own child.

Laurasia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Yes in the same way that you require a woman's permission.
Why is that difficult for you?

That is not in the same way. As I have said time and time again, unborn life deserves full protection from society and from us. Would you do in your child for the sake of convenience? Would you put your child to death to satisfy your own desires and wishes? I would hope not.

Why do you keep calling a fetus a child? Do you ever hear a couple going "Hey, here's our kid" when discussing the woman's pregnancy?

Galloism wrote:

Genivaria wrote:An unborn fetus is not considered a child by reasonable standard.
There is no child in this discussion, stop trying to use the word 'child' as a smokescreen.

Honestly, if there was a child who would die unless mom gave her a kidney, and mom refused to give up one of her kidneys, I would oppose attempts to force her by force of law to give up a kidney even to save her own child.

By law sure it would be wrong to force her but the big difference is that we can find another kidney that could save the child.

Genivaria wrote:

Galloism wrote:Honestly, if there was a child who would die unless mom gave her a kidney, and mom refused to give up one of her kidneys, I would oppose attempts to force her by force of law to give up a kidney even to save her own child.

By law sure it would be wrong to force her but the big difference is that we can find another kidney that could save the child.

Even if we couldn't because of XYZ reasons, and the child was doomed to die, I would oppose using force of law to force her to give up a kidney (or a piece of her liver, or whatever).

Freefall11111 wrote:

Laurasia wrote:That is not in the same way. As I have said time and time again, unborn life deserves full protection from society and from us. Would you do in your child for the sake of convenience? Would you put your child to death to satisfy your own desires and wishes? I would hope not.

Why do you keep calling a fetus a child? Do you ever hear a couple going "Hey, here's our kid" when discussing the woman's pregnancy?

Bad example because yes actually I have, but that's usually pretty late in the pregnancy.

Galloism wrote:

Genivaria wrote:By law sure it would be wrong to force her but the big difference is that we can find another kidney that could save the child.

Even if we couldn't because of XYZ reasons, and the child was doomed to die, I would oppose using force of law to force her to give up a kidney (or a piece of her liver, or whatever).

And I agree, doesn't mean I'd have sympathy for her.