Oppinions on abortion?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

1. Well, THAT"S WHY FETUSES CAN'T LEGALLY BE PEOPLE! You see where I was getting at now? If a fetus is legally human, then that could be used as a defense against for killing any child. BUt since they aren't, we can abort as many future babies as we want without fear of legal complications. Since it's more important to protect the rights of fully devoloped humans than non-humans.
2. That life begins at conception is objective. That ending life at conception is wrong is subjective. That is what I meant. That is my answer, and nothing else.
4. No, together they make a bunch of fetal cells. Still not a person. And whether or not infants are less human is irrelevant; alternatives exist to dealing with born children (adoption) that do not exist for fetuses. Therefore the problem can be solved without destroying anything.
7. ??? Rape is unwanted. You could claim that an unwanted fetus violates the rights of a woman by forcibly stealing resources from her body and posing serious health risks. This is especially true if proper contraception was being used. Hell, if I could I would go so far as to crimnally prosecute the fetus, just to make the point. That "not guilty by reason of infancy" thing is going bite me in the ass, but you get the point.

1. Holy crap, REALLY? The fetus isn't a person because abortion is legal, and abortion is legal because the fetus isn't a person?
2. Then that's what you should've said.
4. Together they make up a fetus. And infants being less human is certainly relevant. Alternatives exist, yes, but something doesn't become wrong because there are alternatives. Is it less wrong to kill an infant than to kill a toddler?
7. There's also automatism. Next you're gonna claim a kidnapping victim is guilty of trespass.

1. NONONONONONO!!! PAY ATTENTION! Abortion should be legal because of women's rights, and [insert pro-choice argument here]. Therefore fetuses should not be people, to avoid the legal problems that come with that. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to find an even simpler way to explain, because I don't think I feel like doing an abortion hand puppet show.
2. My mistake.
4. Again, right and wrong are not relevant. Therefore, who is "more human" is also irrelevant. It disturbs me the difficulty you have seperating morality from law. With abortion, the priamry reason it should be legal to kill fetuses is women's rights. This could theoretically apply to infants and toddlers too, but as you can just put them up for adoption, then there is no reason to kill them. Indeed, if there was a viable alternative to abortion that didn't involve killing the fetus then that would certainly be preferable, and then I would consider the possibilty of illegalizing abortion. UNfortuantely, there isn't one. Hence my pro-choice position.
7. A kidnapping victim is not guilty of trespass as the kidnapper had willingly taken him/her to his property. Therefore you can establish consent. Whereas with abortion I can establish lack of consent. But you're right about that automatism comment; obviously this wouldn't actually fly in court.

[Norstal]

It isn't necessarily, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the arguments used to justify abortion could just as well apply after birth. Why is it acceptable to kill someone before birth to spare them an unhappy future, but not to kill them after birth to spare them the exact same future?

No, you can't because of two reasons, our target is to give women more choices. We do not want abortions for everyone, obviously, only ones who wants one. Two, it targets fetuses, which is a subset of set called human beings. I repeat, we are NOT targeting human beings, merely a subset of it. If I tell you to shoot brown beer bottles and you shoot a grey bottle because you thought "oh, but you said bottles", I'd fucking slap you.

If it makes it any more clearer, I have a discrimination against fetuses or unborn people that stems for rationality (not all discrimination are irrational i.e I hate spiders because it bites me, but it's from the same kingdom). You have to make that discrepancy that unborn are not people and yes, granted, it'd be a little difficult since you perceive them as human beings and thus, you conclude it's a person. So you may ask, "what or who gave them personhood?", but what you forgot is that I can ask YOU the same question and you'd be even more confused (and whilst you can say "sperm egg smash makes person", the number of death from menstruation would be high , but all it does is turn those cells into a puddle of blood).

Which is why it is ultimately up to you when it is that a bunch of human cells have personhood. It is up to you to make that discrepancy. Thus rendering all of the metaphysical or ethical or moral aspects of abortion null. Which is why we must mainly focus on the women's rights part of this topic. Forget about the ethical aspects of killing fetuses. Just fucking forget about it. ASSUME that they are not a person and not humans. Assume they are the lowliest of the human class, which are greatly expendable and killed. Assume that they are different than people who managed to go outside the vagina.

[Alterrea]

I think that you can abort one "p" from the title.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I think that you can abort one "p" from the title.

It's too late; that p has already been carried to term.

[Veruxia]

People could choose what to do. Although I don't support it, I only support the people's decisions.

[Norstal]

So you don't inadvertently kill people who invade your homes? Wars? Stalkers? Robbers?

Please, don't think you have moral high ground. If anyone tries to kill you at night, you'd probably kill them too.

If you want to use that analogy, let's revisit an old argument. You invite somebody into your home. You then proceed to kill them. Have you committed murder, or were you merely defending your property?

This shit again?

Fetuses steals my blood, raids my refrigerators, throws piss at me, throws shit at me, and destroyed my properties. Of course I'd fucking kill anyone who tries to steal my blood without my permission.

[Robert Magoo]

It isn't necessarily, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the arguments used to justify abortion could just as well apply after birth. Why is it acceptable to kill someone before birth to spare them an unhappy future, but not to kill them after birth to spare them the exact same future?

No, you can't because of two reasons, our target is to give women more choices. We do not want abortions for everyone, obviously, only ones who wants one. Two, it targets fetuses, which is a subset of set called human beings. I repeat, we are NOT targeting human beings, merely a subset of it. If I tell you to shoot brown beer bottles and you shoot a grey bottle because you thought "oh, but you said bottles", I'd fucking slap you.

If it makes it any more clearer, I have a discrimination against fetuses or unborn people that stems for rationality (not all discrimination are irrational i.e I hate spiders because it bites me, but it's from the same kingdom). You have to make that discrepancy that unborn are not people and yes, granted, it'd be a little difficult since you perceive them as human beings and thus, you conclude it's a person. So you may ask, "what or who gave them personhood?", but what you forgot is that I can ask YOU the same question and you'd be even more confused (and whilst you can say "sperm egg smash makes person", the number of death from menstruation would be high , but all it does is turn those cells into a puddle of blood).

Which is why it is ultimately up to you when it is that a bunch of human cells have personhood. It is up to you to make that discrepancy. Thus rendering all of the metaphysical or ethical or moral aspects of abortion null. Which is why we must mainly focus on the women's rights part of this topic. Forget about the ethical aspects of killing fetuses. Just fucking forget about it. ASSUME that they are not a person and not humans. Assume they are the lowliest of the human class, which are greatly expendable and killed. Assume that they are different than people who managed to go outside the vagina.

What it's basically come down to for you is "we should have it because we want it." Real convincing.

Your idea that personhood cannot be defined basically says that everything is arbitrary. Since you're not an anarchist, you place final authority in the government. Again, why are you not a nationalist?

[Tuskenjaar]

as conservative as I am I believe it is a woman's right to decide what to do with her body and a baby that she doen't want. abortion is actually a great solution in the unfortunate event of rape.

[Norstal]

What it's basically come down to for you is "we should have it because we want it." Real convincing.

Go ahead, try and stop those women. You'd find that it's impossible.

Your idea that personhood cannot be defined basically says that everything is arbitrary. Since you're not an anarchist, you place final authority in the government. Again, why are you not a nationalist?

Again, what the fuck is the topic at hand?

[Robert Magoo]

If you want to use that analogy, let's revisit an old argument. You invite somebody into your home. You then proceed to kill them. Have you committed murder, or were you merely defending your property?

This shit again?

Fetuses steals my blood, raids my refrigerators, throws piss at me, throws shit at me, and destroyed my properties. Of course I'd fucking kill anyone who tries to steal my blood without my permission.

They didn't steal it. You offered it to them.

[Norstal]

This shit again?

Fetuses steals my blood, raids my refrigerators, throws piss at me, throws shit at me, and destroyed my properties. Of course I'd fucking kill anyone who tries to steal my blood without my permission.

They didn't steal it. You offered it to them.

I didn't fucking offered anything. They invaded me. I grant permission to the almighty penis, not its sperms.

[Robert Magoo]

What it's basically come down to for you is "we should have it because we want it." Real convincing.

Go ahead, try and stop those women. You'd find that it's impossible.

Your idea that personhood cannot be defined basically says that everything is arbitrary. Since you're not an anarchist, you place final authority in the government. Again, why are you not a nationalist?

Again, what the fuck is the topic at hand?

Considering the argument that you're using (personhood cannot be defined) I'd say it's a relevant question.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

This shit again?

Fetuses steals my blood, raids my refrigerators, throws piss at me, throws shit at me, and destroyed my properties. Of course I'd fucking kill anyone who tries to steal my blood without my permission.

They didn't steal it. You offered it to them.

I locked the door and barred all the windows (contraception). They bored a hole in my roof.

[Robert Magoo]

They didn't steal it. You offered it to them.

I didn't fucking offered anything. They invaded me. I grant permission to the almighty penis, not its sperms.

You sent in the sperm.

[Norstal]

Considering the argument that you're using (personhood cannot be defined) I'd say it's a relevant question.

Not really no. Nationalism doesn't define personhood. I define personhood. And if you choose to define that personhood begins at conception then I'll ask you, why?

[Wazkyraque]

I believe in Pro-Choice because there are several nations, like Ethiopia, where Abortion is banned, they are over populated, and under nourished, and a lot women there have illegal abortions, this often kills or injures them, as well as the baby. I fear if America gets over populated, that this may become a issue America faces, also there are other things that make abortions ethical, like if the woman was raped, or will die if she has the baby.

[Norstal]

I didn't fucking offered anything. They invaded me. I grant permission to the almighty penis, not its sperms.

You sent in the sperm.

I locked the door and barred all the windows (contraception). They bored a hole in my roof.

[Robert Magoo]

Considering the argument that you're using (personhood cannot be defined) I'd say it's a relevant question.

Not really no. Nationalism doesn't define personhood. I define personhood. And if you choose to define that personhood begins at conception then I'll ask you, why?

If you define it, you should be an anarchist.

Your positions are inconsistent.

I've already given my definition and basis for personhood.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I believe in Pro-Choice because there are several nations, like Ethiopia, where Abortion is banned, they are over populated, and under nourished, and a lot women there have illegal abortions, this often kills or injures them, as well as the baby. I fear if America gets over populated, that this may become a issue America faces, also there are other things that make abortions ethical, like if the woman was raped, or will die if she has the baby.

Not really. ABortion is legal here (for now).

[Nulono]

It's the mothers body and her choice, wouldn't you rather have no child than a 16-and pregnante mistake that wont grow up to do anythign but ruin his/her mothers life? I mean you could always have a child later on in live.. (Till a certain age..)

I'd rather a child not be killed for the mother's mistake.

1. Holy crap, REALLY? The fetus isn't a person because abortion is legal, and abortion is legal because the fetus isn't a person?
2. Then that's what you should've said.
4. Together they make up a fetus. And infants being less human is certainly relevant. Alternatives exist, yes, but something doesn't become wrong because there are alternatives. Is it less wrong to kill an infant than to kill a toddler?
7. There's also automatism. Next you're gonna claim a kidnapping victim is guilty of trespass.

1. NONONONONONO!!! PAY ATTENTION! Abortion should be legal because of women's rights, and [insert pro-choice argument here]. Therefore fetuses should not be people, to avoid the legal problems that come with that. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to find an even simpler way to explain, because I don't think I feel like doing an abortion hand puppet show.
2. My mistake.
4. Again, right and wrong are not relevant. Therefore, who is "more human" is also irrelevant. It disturbs me the difficulty you have seperating morality from law. With abortion, the priamry reason it should be legal to kill fetuses is women's rights. This could theoretically apply to infants and toddlers too, but as you can just put them up for adoption, then there is no reason to kill them. Indeed, if there was a viable alternative to abortion that didn't involve killing the fetus then that would certainly be preferable, and then I would consider the possibilty of illegalizing abortion. UNfortuantely, there isn't one. Hence my pro-choice position.
7. A kidnapping victim is not guilty of trespass as the kidnapper had willingly taken him/her to his property. Therefore you can establish consent. Whereas with abortion I can establish lack of consent. But you're right about that automatism comment; obviously this wouldn't actually fly in court.

1. Sorry, but you first have to establish either that the fetus is not a person, or that the person of the fetus is irrelevant. Otherwise, you could use that argument on anyone.
4. Are you willing to criminalize abortion after viability? And why should morality and law be separated? If it is okay to kill someone, why does it become not okay when there is an alternative? There are plenty of things we don't absolutely have to kill, but we're still allowed to kill them.

It isn't necessarily, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the arguments used to justify abortion could just as well apply after birth. Why is it acceptable to kill someone before birth to spare them an unhappy future, but not to kill them after birth to spare them the exact same future?

No, you can't because of two reasons, our target is to give women more choices. We do not want abortions for everyone, obviously, only ones who wants one. Two, it targets fetuses, which is a subset of set called human beings. I repeat, we are NOT targeting human beings, merely a subset of it. If I tell you to shoot brown beer bottles and you shoot a grey bottle because you thought "oh, but you said bottles", I'd fucking slap you.

Infants are also a subset of human beings, and legalizing infanticide would also give women another choice.

If it makes it any more clearer, I have a discrimination against fetuses or unborn people that stems for rationality (not all discrimination are irrational i.e I hate spiders because it bites me, but it's from the same kingdom). You have to make that discrepancy that unborn are not people and yes, granted, it'd be a little difficult since you perceive them as human beings and thus, you conclude it's a person. So you may ask, "what or who gave them personhood?", but what you forgot is that I can ask YOU the same question and you'd be even more confused (and whilst you can say "sperm egg smash makes person", the number of death from menstruation would be high , but all it does is turn those cells into a puddle of blood).

Which is why it is ultimately up to you when it is that a bunch of human cells have personhood. It is up to you to make that discrepancy. Thus rendering all of the metaphysical or ethical or moral aspects of abortion null. Which is why we must mainly focus on the women's rights part of this topic. Forget about the ethical aspects of killing fetuses. Just fucking forget about it. ASSUME that they are not a person and not humans. Assume they are the lowliest of the human class, which are greatly expendable and killed. Assume that they are different than people who managed to go outside the vagina.

If you are arguing that abortion should be legal because the unborn child is not a person, don't even bring up topics such as overpopulation or orphanages, because they are completely irrelevant. If the child is a person, they are insufficient justification. If the child is not a person, they are unnecessary justification. Either way, they're irrelevant.

People could choose what to do. Although I don't support it, I only support the people's decisions.

If people should be allowed to choose what to do whether or not it's immoral, why have any laws at all?

as conservative as I am I believe it is a woman's right to decide what to do with her body and a baby that she doen't want. abortion is actually a great solution in the unfortunate event of rape.

Why is it "great" to kill a child for his/her father's non-capital crime committed before he/she even existed? Why shouldn't she be allowed to decide what to do with a born baby she doesn't want?

If you want to use that analogy, let's revisit an old argument. You invite somebody into your home. You then proceed to kill them. Have you committed murder, or were you merely defending your property?

This shit again?

Fetuses steals my blood, raids my refrigerators, throws piss at me, throws shit at me, and destroyed my properties. Of course I'd fucking kill anyone who tries to steal my blood without my permission.

What it's basically come down to for you is "we should have it because we want it." Real convincing.

Go ahead, try and stop those women. You'd find that it's impossible.

Um, it's impossible to stop crime in general. Should we legalize everything?

Your idea that personhood cannot be defined basically says that everything is arbitrary. Since you're not an anarchist, you place final authority in the government. Again, why are you not a nationalist?

Again, what the fuck is the topic at hand?

If you're gonna take the stance that abortion is okay because the government says so, you have to face up against all the government-sanctioned atrocities throughout history and throughout the world.

[Norstal]

Not really no. Nationalism doesn't define personhood. I define personhood. And if you choose to define that personhood begins at conception then I'll ask you, why?

If you define it, you should be an anarchist.

Your positions are inconsistent.

What? No. I don't agree with the laws. Doesn't mean I sought to destroy everything about the government. That's fucking moronic.

I've already given my definition and basis for personhood.

Where?

[Norstal]

Infants are also a subset of human beings, and legalizing infanticide would also give women another choice.

Are fetuses infants? Did I not just fucking said we should target fetuses, nothing else?

If you are arguing that abortion should be legal because the unborn child is not a person, don't even bring up topics such as overpopulation or orphanages, because they are completely irrelevant. If the child is a person, they are insufficient justification. If the child is not a person, they are unnecessary justification. Either way, they're irrelevant.

Or in other words, you have no arguments against pro-choice, but you won't admit it. Thanks for playing.

Um, it's impossible to stop crime in general. Should we legalize everything?

No. But this is a victimless crime.

If you're gonna take the stance that abortion is okay because the government says so, you have to face up against all the government-sanctioned atrocities throughout history and throughout the world.

I disagree with its laws and I am discontent with its past. Doesn't mean the entire concept of governance and politics are somehow useless.

[Robert Magoo]

If you define it, you should be an anarchist.

Your positions are inconsistent.

What? No. I don't agree with the laws. Doesn't mean I sought to destroy everything about the government. That's fucking moronic.

Why not destroy the government? There is no purpose for external law under your system of morality, since you define personhood.

I've already given my definition and basis for personhood.

Where?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=116515&p=5982287#p5982287

I can start citing biblical passages too, if you like.

I admit that I am not the authority in right and wrong, therefore I must support the concept of law. I do not believe government is that authority, therefore I am not a nationalist. What's your basis?

[Grave_n_idle]

Argue that the fetus isn't a person if you want,

I'm not 'arguing' it, it's a fact.

You have yet to give one good reason why a foetus IS a person, rather than just a clump of cells.

A sperm isn't a person. An egg isn't a person. The initial production of conception obviously isn't a person. An un-implanted egg isn't a person.

In ancient Israel, you wouldn't have been a person till you took your first actual breath. In ancient Egypt, you wouldn't have been a legal person until you reached the age of majority and gained your own name.. Most of us think Egypt took it a bit far. You're arguing that the Hebrews left it late - but you're offering absolutely nothing in it's place except insolence.

Personally - and I admit it's maybe influenced by the fact that I am a career scientist - I can't see any logical argument for 'person-hood' before coherent brain function. My opinion, at least, has the basis of scientific reason.

Offer something of substance.

It is. To attack the person instead of the argument is the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Actually, not unless I claim that I somehow invalidate or dis-prove your argument. If I say I think you are dumb, that's rude (and maybe flaming) but not actually an ad hominem fallacy. If I claim your argument is WRONG because you are dumb, that's ad hominem.

When I was a 6 week fetus I was just a fetus, and when I was a 14-year teenager I was just a teenager. I was me, and I was human nonetheless.

In what realistic way were you 'you' when you were a six week foetus? Do you have memories, for example?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

1. NONONONONONO!!! PAY ATTENTION! Abortion should be legal because of women's rights, and [insert pro-choice argument here]. Therefore fetuses should not be people, to avoid the legal problems that come with that. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to find an even simpler way to explain, because I don't think I feel like doing an abortion hand puppet show.
2. My mistake.
4. Again, right and wrong are not relevant. Therefore, who is "more human" is also irrelevant. It disturbs me the difficulty you have seperating morality from law. With abortion, the priamry reason it should be legal to kill fetuses is women's rights. This could theoretically apply to infants and toddlers too, but as you can just put them up for adoption, then there is no reason to kill them. Indeed, if there was a viable alternative to abortion that didn't involve killing the fetus then that would certainly be preferable, and then I would consider the possibilty of illegalizing abortion. UNfortuantely, there isn't one. Hence my pro-choice position.
7. A kidnapping victim is not guilty of trespass as the kidnapper had willingly taken him/her to his property. Therefore you can establish consent. Whereas with abortion I can establish lack of consent. But you're right about that automatism comment; obviously this wouldn't actually fly in court.

1. Sorry, but you first have to establish either that the fetus is not a person, or that the person of the fetus is irrelevant. Otherwise, you could use that argument on anyone.
4. Are you willing to criminalize abortion after viability? And why should morality and law be separated? If it is okay to kill someone, why does it become not okay when there is an alternative? There are plenty of things we don't absolutely have to kill, but we're still allowed to kill them.

1. I believe I already have established it's irrelevance. Ethics is too much of a varible to be useful to law. Therefore the decision shouldn't be based on "Whether we consider them to be people or not", but on what is best ofr society at large.
4. I have said that I was willing to illegalize abortion after viablity, as a compromise. And morality and law must be seperated. Just look at countries where it's not (or they at least don't make the effort; no country fully succeds at it.), places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. As for your last point, just because we're allowed to kill them doesn't mean we should. I presume you're talking about hunting, which I am against unless you derive a living from it or are consuming the animal. Recreational hunting should be banned.