why abortion is good.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Wait, wait, wait... What are you saying... That the rights of any "being" are based on their sentience, and that if a being baring similarity to another being that has sentience, has sentience to a much lesser degree, that less intelligent being has less rights to the extent that they may be killed if deemed necessary or convenient?

With new capacities comes new rights. It's a discrete thing, though. The capacity to feel pain implies the right to be free from unnecessary suffering. The capacities of self-awareness and self-valuation imply the right to not be killed.

Interesting... I disagree. I also have another question. Would you consider a race of "beings" or even computers that attained a more efficient or capable intelligence than humans to have more fundamental rights or ethical superiority to humans in a utilitarian system?

Only if these beings have a new capacity that induces a new right beyond the right to life.

[Desperate Measures]

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

Slaughtered? Really? Sorry, slaughter is something along the lines of SLAUGHTERhouses or the Holocaust. What do you call destroying an ant hill? What do you call destroying a bee hive? What do you can killing bacteria by taking medicine? A fetus is a bunch of cells that can barely feel pain, can't reason, and is a parasite to the mother. Your argument fails.

Baby, child, person, slaughter, kill, murder. Let him use any words he wants to try to up the "ick" factor.

[Mavorpen]

Slaughtered? Really? Sorry, slaughter is something along the lines of SLAUGHTERhouses or the Holocaust. What do you call destroying an ant hill? What do you call destroying a bee hive? What do you can killing bacteria by taking medicine? A fetus is a bunch of cells that can barely feel pain, can't reason, and is a parasite to the mother. Your argument fails.

The child is a human being who is taken into a clinic and killed uncerimoniously. That sounds like slaughter, no? Bees, ants and bacteria aren't humans. A fetus is a human, and the offspring of the mother, and should thus be allowed to live.

What the hell? A child is not being killed, a FETUS is. Can you read? Who cares if they aren't human? They are alive. They are fully developed. A fetus is much less important than a bee. A bee will pollinate. What will the fetus do that is productive for the world? Nothing. Nothing at all.

[Rocotia]

Since we have been asked to take tis to a new forum I made one: viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=12&t=156651

[Ashmoria]

Are you trolling? You obviously have not lived in an orphanage.

I'm not trolling, I just prefer to allow the child to survive.

i highly recommend that you not have an abortion

and that you leave that decision to the rest of the people who have to make it for themselves.

[Rocotia]

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

Slaughtered? Really? Sorry, slaughter is something along the lines of SLAUGHTERhouses or the Holocaust. What do you call destroying an ant hill? What do you call destroying a bee hive? What do you can killing bacteria by taking medicine? A fetus is a bunch of cells that can barely feel pain, can't reason, and is a parasite to the mother. Your argument fails.

OK, get this straight everybody. A fetus is NOT a parisite. The definition of a parisite is:

parasite
 [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
parasite, plant or animal that at some stage of its existence obtains its nourishment from another living organism called the host. Parasites may or may not harm the host, but they never benefit it. They include members of many plant and animal groups, and nearly all living things are at some time hosts to parasitic forms. Many bacteria are parasitic on external and internal body surfaces; some of these invade the inner tissues and cause disease (e.g., typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and some types of pneumonia). Parasitic plants cause great losses among food crops and trees (see diseases of plants). Parasites are more prevalent in the animal and protist kingdoms; most are invertebrates, chiefly worms, e.g., the fluke, tapeworm, and trichina (see trichinosis); arthropods, e.g., the flea and louse; and protozoans. Among the protozoan parasites that cause human disease are Amoeba (or Entamoeba ) histolytica, the cause of amebic dysentery and liver abscess, and the several species of Plasmodium responsible for the three main types of malaria. Most parasites are obligate; i.e., they are unable to survive apart from their hosts. Often this is because in the course of evolution they have lost various of the organs necessary to live as independent units. Many parasites also have extremely specialized reproductive systems and complex life cycles, involving more than one host. Some higher plants and animals are parasitic, e.g., the dodders (vines of the morning glory family) and the cuckoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. Organisms that obtain their nourishment from dead organic matter are called saprophytes or saprobes, e.g., mushrooms. An epiphyte, or air plant, although it lives in association with another plant, is not a parasite. See also symbiosis.

Relationship between two species in which one benefits at the expense of the other. Ectoparasites live on the body surface of the host; endoparasites live in their hosts' organs, tissues, or cells and often rely on a third organism (the carrier, or vector) to transmit them to the host. The cuckoo and cowbird practice brood parasitism, laying eggs in other birds' nests to be raised by the foster parents. In social parasitism, one type of animal parasitizes animals of the same type (e.g., one ant species on different ant species). Hyperparasitism occurs when parasites are parasitized (e.g., protozoans hyperparasitize a flea on a dog).

[Avenio]

OK, get this straight everybody. A fetus is NOT a parisite. The definition of a parisite is:

plant or animal that at some stage of its existence obtains its nourishment from another living organism called the host. Parasites may or may not harm the host, but they never benefit it.

Emphasis mine. So it is a parasite then. Good to know.

[Mavorpen]

[quote="
OK, get this straight everybody. A fetus is NOT a parisite. The definition of a parisite is:

parasite
 [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
parasite, plant or animal that at some stage of its existence obtains its nourishment from another living organism called the host. Parasites may or may not harm the host, but they never benefit it. They include members of many plant and animal groups, and nearly all living things are at some time hosts to parasitic forms. Many bacteria are parasitic on external and internal body surfaces; some of these invade the inner tissues and cause disease (e.g., typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and some types of pneumonia). Parasitic plants cause great losses among food crops and trees (see diseases of plants). Parasites are more prevalent in the animal and protist kingdoms; most are invertebrates, chiefly worms, e.g., the fluke, tapeworm, and trichina (see trichinosis); arthropods, e.g., the flea and louse; and protozoans. Among the protozoan parasites that cause human disease are Amoeba (or Entamoeba ) histolytica, the cause of amebic dysentery and liver abscess, and the several species of Plasmodium responsible for the three main types of malaria. Most parasites are obligate; i.e., they are unable to survive apart from their hosts. Often this is because in the course of evolution they have lost various of the organs necessary to live as independent units. Many parasites also have extremely specialized reproductive systems and complex life cycles, involving more than one host. Some higher plants and animals are parasitic, e.g., the dodders (vines of the morning glory family) and the cuckoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. Organisms that obtain their nourishment from dead organic matter are called saprophytes or saprobes, e.g., mushrooms. An epiphyte, or air plant, although it lives in association with another plant, is not a parasite. See also symbiosis.

Relationship between two species in which one benefits at the expense of the other. Ectoparasites live on the body surface of the host; endoparasites live in their hosts' organs, tissues, or cells and often rely on a third organism (the carrier, or vector) to transmit them to the host. The cuckoo and cowbird practice brood parasitism, laying eggs in other birds' nests to be raised by the foster parents. In social parasitism, one type of animal parasitizes animals of the same type (e.g., one ant species on different ant species). Hyperparasitism occurs when parasites are parasitized (e.g., protozoans hyperparasitize a flea on a dog).

"Plant or animal that at some stage of its existence obtains its nourishment from another living organism called the host. Parasites may or may not harm the host, but they never benefit it." Uh, that's what a fetus does. I didn't realize someone could fail so much.

[Rocotia]

Knowing many women with babies, a baby DOES benifit the mother.

[The Truth and Light]

Knowing many women with babies, a parisite DOES benifit the mother.

It's the other way around.

[Mavorpen]

Knowing many women with babies, a parisite DOES benifit the mother.

That is subjective, and we are talking about the FETUS, not any stage in its life after.

[Ashmoria]

Since we have been asked to take tis to a new forum I made one: viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=12&t=156651

what they meant was to start a new thread in this forum.

[Avenio]

Knowing many women with babies, a baby DOES benifit the mother.

Biologically-speaking, though, the act of developing a baby is a net negative in terms of energy usage, nutrition and the health of the mother. That's why it can be argued that it is parasitic.

[Grave_n_idle]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the three unalienable rights. A fetus can challenge two of those. It can take the life away from the mother as well as happiness. Making abortion illegal takes away Liberty. Period. Perhaps if you actually opened your mind, you would see this easy to understand logic without need of explanation.

Except if you take away the life of the baby, you're violating its right to life.

I am a real, adult human. If my body could not survive without draining nutrition from the body of another human, the law would not permit me to compel you to sustain my biology against your will.

It's really very simple. You mean to plead special exception for a foetus - rights that not only don't resemble the legal rights of others, but actually replace them.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not a "baby." You know that as well as we do. And why should a woman have to go through nine months of pregnancy just to satisfy your morality? It's none of your business what I do with my reproductive system.

So does it just magically become a baby when it's out of the mother?

Magically? No. No more than it's 'magic' that marks the transition from person to corpse, or egg and sperm to conception.

The seed and the tree are connected, but the seed is not the tree - and the difference is time. Not magic.

[Grave_n_idle]

Lol? The adoption rate would still be horrible. Not only this, but adoptions often don't work out for the adopting family anyway. You want to put children through suffering, destroy the life of a doctor and possibly a mother, just because you feel like you should control the body of said mother?

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

This would be a compelling argument if the same people arguing for a 'pro-life' agenda actually protected innocent children. But the sad reality is that their concern tends to fade as soon as the umbilical cord is cut. Once you're out of the womb, you're on your own - and they dare to talk to others about rights and choice. And they dare to claim that the pro-choice platform relies on a 'magical' division.

[Mavorpen]

How about the pro-life people go adopt someone in an orphanage. You want them to put the kid up for adoption, go adopt some. Go prove you care about the lives of those children.

[Grave_n_idle]

The effect is the same. And I never slaughter irresponsibly.

The effect is that the baby lives... The intention is totally different. They're not thinking "women don't deserve rights, let's subjugate them." Abortion is the epitome of irresponsibility.

We must be using different definitions for 'responsible'.

Even if we agree to agree that unprotected sex is irresponsible, abortion is a responsible decision. It's not irresponsible just because you don't like it - that's just not what the word means.

[Desperate Measures]

Nobody's pro life because they want to control women. They want to protect the lives of the innocent children that are being slaughtered in the name of irresponsibility and the misplaced notion of personal liberty.

This would be a compelling argument if the same people arguing for a 'pro-life' agenda actually protected innocent children. But the sad reality is that their concern tends to fade as soon as the umbilical cord is cut. Once you're out of the womb, you're on your own - and they dare to talk to others about rights and choice. And they dare to claim that the pro-choice platform relies on a 'magical' division.

These are almost ALWAYS the same people the fight for greater social welfare. I remember how they went on and on about Octomom and all the wonderful life she brought into the world.

[Grave_n_idle]

Correction: Murder is never responsible. Also, haven't you already seen that our orphanages have more than a surplus. Stop using that argument.

Saying that adoption isn't a solution because the orphanages have a lot of kids is ludicrous. They'll still take care of the child. It's better to let the child live and have a chance at a normal life rather than kill it and give it NO chance.

It's better? By what measure?

Are you really willing to offer to pay the costs required to sustain a million people?

Or are you happy to just insist on their existence at the cost of other people... people that need to have the courage of your convictions for you?

[Dajtri]

Knowing many women with babies, a baby DOES benifit the mother.

Not always. What about teenagers who get pregnant? In many cases, the baby prevents the mother from reaching her full potential. The money she'd spend on the baby could be spent on an education, or starting a business. And then when she's older and ready to have a child, she can.

[Bluth Corporation]

But it's not relevant! Abortion is justifiable because an unwanted unborn fetus is no more than a parasite, and since the mother has total control over her own body she's entitled to expel it just like she's entitled to expel any other parasite. If you were a Christian, you'd know this.

Please do tell the difference between an unwanted baby and a wanted one? What makes a wanted baby different than an unwanted baby, or parasite, as you called it? Just the mother's attitude toward it?

Exactly. And since it's the mother's body where it's taken up residence, that's the only thing that matters.

then you're argument's moot because I know multiple families who would LOVE to adopt these unwanted "parasites".

Those multiple families don't own the mother's body, however.

And what about the baby's rights to its own body? Its right to live?

It doesn't have any.

It's a parasite, not a person.

It's a choice, not a child.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Have they admitted that they don't give a shit about "babies," but rather see the children as "consequences" that people have to suffer for daring to touch each other's genitals? That's about the most irreducible form of an anti choice "position" I've yet come across.

[Rocotia]

Have they admitted that they don't give a shit about "babies," but rather see the children as "consequences" that people have to suffer for daring to touch each other's genitals? That's about the most irreducible form of an anti choice "position" I've yet come across.

That's just about what they are saying.

[Crispicaea]

I see three unalienable rights. One of them is life. None of them are not sex without consequences, and none are the ability to murder your child because you "control your body". In fact, the control of one's body is not even mentioned, so I do not see where your logic comes from.

Now, I do see where it says that I can destroy the US government if it infringes upon my rights, but since the US government as already thrown that one out, I'd say that Jefferson's "unalienable rights" are as alienable than any.



Do you think this is a conspiracy? We don't want to take away anybody's rights, and if murder is a right then it ought to be taken.

You don't want to take rights away? So you support abortion based on the fact that if you oppose it you are in favour of stealing the mother's rights?

No, I oppose it based on the fact that the mother has no right to have an abortion, whereas the child has a right to live.