why abortion is good.

[Mavorpen]

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.

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

[Neutraligon]

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.

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

Some people disagree with this fact, hence the problem. For those who are pro-choice, the fetus is not "alive" per-say and therefore it is not murder to perform the abortion. In addition the mother's rights trump whatever rights the fetus would eventually had. It is the mother who gives rights the the child, thus if she wants the child, to ill it or cause it harm is a crime. if the mother does not want the child, abortion is not a crime. On the other hand, those who are pro-life feel that the child's right to life trumps the mothers right to bodily integrity as it is a child and human.

[Mavorpen]

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

Some people disagree with this fact, hence the problem. For those who are pro-choice, the fetus is not "alive" per-say and therefore it is not murder to perform the abortion. In addition the mother's rights trump whatever rights the fetus would eventually had. It is the mother who gives rights the the child, thus if she wants the child, to ill it or cause it harm is a crime. if the mother does not want the child, abortion is not a crime. On the other hand, those who are pro-life feel that the child's right to life trumps the mothers right to bodily integrity as it is a child and human.

I don't understand at all why people disagree. As a parent, it is your duty for you to do what is best for your CHILD if you are planning on keeping it and you expect it to grow up healthy. A fetus is not a child however, and if the mother does not want it, that is her choice. Of course there should be regulations, I don't think anyone pro-choice disagrees that abortion should NOT be a form of birth control. We all agree people should use contraception. What me and a lot of people don't like is the complete hypocrisy of "pro-life" people. If they want to lower abortion rates, they need to tackle the problems that make abortion more prevalent, such as bad education, poverty, etc. Instead they want to ruin the lives of doctors, control the mother's life, etc.

[The Treorai]

The first sentence of the first paragraph of your post is completely contradictory to the second sentence in the second paragraph, though.

Ahh, quite true. I realize my mistake. I meant that I would not make women not get abortions. They have the right to choose to get an abortion as long as the child inside is a normal, healthy one. But if it is defective, then I would enforce abortion.

They only get to choose if it is not something that must be deleted.

Sorry though, did that clear up my mistake a bit?

Wait... So someone born with Autism should be "Deleted"? By the logic everyone in the world who is born with something wrong with them, should be killed in the streets by the Thousands.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

Some people disagree with this fact, hence the problem. For those who are pro-choice, the fetus is not "alive" per-say and therefore it is not murder to perform the abortion.

Actually, no - that's not necessarily it, at all.

There is no legal structure to force one person to physically support another person against your will. Example - if YOU need blood, and I have it, I cannot be legally compelled to give you my blood. If your body needs one of my organs, I cannot be legally compelled to donate it to you, or even to allow you to be hooked up to me in some macabre fashion that allows you to use my organs against my will.

Thus, the question of whether a foetus is a person or even human may add extra leverage to the 'pro-choice' argument - but it's not actually needed. The law does not allow even alive human people to use the life-sustaining mechanisms of another person's body against their will.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

You oppose the 'right' to have an abortion based on the fact that the mother has no right to have an abortion?

Either way you look at that, it's either circular or wrong. Mothers DO have the right to have abortions in many places, thus you can't oppose their right to have an abortion based on the fact they have no right... because they DO have that right.

If you oppose a woman's right to abort where she HAS the right to abort, then your own argument is false.

On the other hand, if you're arguing that women have no right to abort where women do NOT have the right to abort - then you are justifying your position NOT on logical grounds, but on the grounds that the right is forbidden - it is forbidden BECAUSE it is forbidden.

I'm sure you can see why that s such a terrible argument, because it means they should be allowed to abort IF the law changes and they gain the right.


As for the argument that the 'child' has the right to live... no one has the right you're describing. A person cannot be forced to bodily support your need for organs or nutrients against their will. The 'right' you claim would not be conforming to the rights of other people - but creating an entirely NEW right from whole cloth, just to further your need for a special exception argument to justify enforced pregnancy,

[Divair]

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.

The fetus is not a child, and the mother has the right to do whatever she wants to her body.
If you have the potential to die, should we bury you now? No?
Then why does a fetus that has the potential to become a human have a right to live?
And what if the mother was raped? Or if the mother will die during birth?

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

Some people disagree with this fact, hence the problem. For those who are pro-choice, the fetus is not "alive" per-say and therefore it is not murder to perform the abortion. In addition the mother's rights trump whatever rights the fetus would eventually had. It is the mother who gives rights the the child, thus if she wants the child, to ill it or cause it harm is a crime. if the mother does not want the child, abortion is not a crime. On the other hand, those who are pro-life feel that the child's right to life trumps the mothers right to bodily integrity as it is a child and human.

I wonder where you stand...
No matter what you say, it is a fetus, not a child. That is a key distinction. Baseless opinion has no place in science. There are biological requirements for life, which the fetus does not meet. For instance, it cannot survive on its own. You cut the umbilical cord, and it fails. Therefore, it cannot be alive.
If you are going to argue anti-abortion, at least use a somewhat legitimate argument.

[The Alma Mater]

For instance, it cannot survive on its own.

You'll need to phrase that better. This wording suggests that someone who will die without medical attention is already dead.

However, GnI already nicely pointed out that you cannot force other people to share their blood, organs etc with you even if you would die without them anyway- so this little slip does not really matter for the debate at this moment

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

For instance, it cannot survive on its own.

You'll need to phrase that better. This wording suggests that someone who will die without medical attention is already dead.

No, actually, I do not.
These are set rules of biology, and it just gets the point across.
You see, once something is alive, it is living. It has life. Therefore, once the criteria are met, they have been met for the rest of the existence of that being. If something was never alive, it cannot die.

[Crispicaea]

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.

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

1. That thread.

2. The child has the right to live. That falls under all three by that logic.

3. Really? Because I'm pretty sure something that is made of human tissue, is made within a human, and has everything a human has is human.

What I want to know is this. If a mother can kill a child because she doesn't want it, why can't people kill themselves? Why can't people kill their aging grandparents? Why can't we shoot dogs and cats on the street? If I'm in a crowded elevator, does the fact that I'm allowing the use of my air mean I can kill the people in the elevator?

[Divair]

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

1. That thread.

2. The child has the right to live. That falls under all three by that logic.

3. Really? Because I'm pretty sure something that is made of human tissue, is made within a human, and has everything a human has is human.

What I want to know is this. If a mother can kill a child because she doesn't want it, why can't people kill themselves? Why can't people kill their aging grandparents? Why can't we shoot dogs and cats on the street? If I'm in a crowded elevator, does the fact that I'm allowing the use of my air mean I can kill the people in the elevator?

Again, it is NOT a child. It is a fetus. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no memory, it does not have awareness.
It has the POTENTIAL to be a child. Using that logic, you have the POTENTIAL to be dead. Should we bury you?
And what if the mother was raped? Or if the mother will die during birth?

[Mavorpen]

1. No offense, but I thought you were leaving...

2. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That falls under Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

3. The fetus is not a child, nor a human, therefore it has no rights.

We have established these 2 facts already...

1. That thread.

2. The child has the right to live. That falls under all three by that logic.

3. Really? Because I'm pretty sure something that is made of human tissue, is made within a human, and has everything a human has is human.

What I want to know is this. If a mother can kill a child because she doesn't want it, why can't people kill themselves? Why can't people kill their aging grandparents? Why can't we shoot dogs and cats on the street? If I'm in a crowded elevator, does the fact that I'm allowing the use of my air mean I can kill the people in the elevator?

No, because it is a FETUS not a child. If you say child one more time, I'm done, because you have an issue with reading. Wow... it is painfully obvious you do not understand the basics of our argument.

Uh, people can commit suicide in many places. America is just retarded. They can't kill their grandparents because they aren't a part of their body. Uh, we can't shoot cats and dogs because again, America is hypocritical. You can't kill the people in the elevator because they aren't a part of your body, they are their own full enteyies who function in society, while a fetus is a parasite that serves no function, and thus it has no rights or its rights are overridden by the one who gave it life.

[The Alma Mater]

You'll need to phrase that better. This wording suggests that someone who will die without medical attention is already dead.

No, actually, I do not.
These are set rules of biology, and it just gets the point across.
You see, once something is alive, it is living. It has life. Therefore, once the criteria are met, they have been met for the rest of the existence of that being. If something was never alive, it cannot die.

And now you phrased it better. Good boy - you're through to the next round

[The Alma Mater]

2. The child has the right to live.

So do you. Yet you cannot force me to give you a bloodtranfusion (especially if that goes against my religion ) or a kidney - even if you would die without those. Nor can you hook me up to a machine that draws nutrients from my body and fills it with all kinds of hormones and junk for 9 months without my permission.

Why should a fetus have more rights than you ?

[Grave_n_idle]

2. The child has the right to live.

"Child" is an appeal to emotion. Try to imbue it with a personality, and maybe you'll change opinions.

Where do you believe this 'right' originates, and what are it's limitations?

[Crispicaea]

1. That thread.

2. The child has the right to live. That falls under all three by that logic.

3. Really? Because I'm pretty sure something that is made of human tissue, is made within a human, and has everything a human has is human.

What I want to know is this. If a mother can kill a child because she doesn't want it, why can't people kill themselves? Why can't people kill their aging grandparents? Why can't we shoot dogs and cats on the street? If I'm in a crowded elevator, does the fact that I'm allowing the use of my air mean I can kill the people in the elevator?

Again, it is NOT a child. It is a fetus. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no memory, it does not have awareness.
It has the POTENTIAL to be a child. Using that logic, you have the POTENTIAL to be dead. Should we bury you?
And what if the mother was raped? Or if the mother will die during birth?

Potential is good enough. When potential deals with life, then potential is enough to justify action.
Raped: Adoption.
Die: Can't say for sure, so there's no guarantee.

[Mavorpen]

Again, it is NOT a child. It is a fetus. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no memory, it does not have awareness.
It has the POTENTIAL to be a child. Using that logic, you have the POTENTIAL to be dead. Should we bury you?
And what if the mother was raped? Or if the mother will die during birth?

Potential is good enough. When potential deals with life, then potential is enough to justify action.
Raped: Adoption.
Die: Can't say for sure, so there's no guarantee.

Lmao. So just because everyone has potential to do bad, we should start murdering people left and right because of their "potential"?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Potential is good enough.

Why?

When potential deals with life, then potential is enough to justify action.

How far are you willing to carry this logic? How much "potential" does something need to heave before you think that we ought to treat the potential as actual? Given future cloning technology, every skin cell is a "potential" human being. Every time you scratch yourself, you're committing a holocaust of potential human lives.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

No, actually, I do not.
These are set rules of biology, and it just gets the point across.
You see, once something is alive, it is living. It has life. Therefore, once the criteria are met, they have been met for the rest of the existence of that being. If something was never alive, it cannot die.

And now you phrased it better. Good boy - you're through to the next round

What in Hades is with the condescension?
You are the one who was ignorant of the criteria for life, and failed to observe the particular aspect I was describing.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Lmao. So just because everyone has potential to do bad, we should start murdering people left and right because of their "potential"?

No, because potential only matters when it's convenient for him.

[Mavorpen]

Lmao. So just because everyone has potential to do bad, we should start murdering people left and right because of their "potential"?

No, because potential only matters when it's convenient for him.

Indeed, that seems to be painfully true.

[The Alma Mater]

And now you phrased it better. Good boy - you're through to the next round

What in Hades is with the condescension?
You are the one who was ignorant of the criteria for life, and failed to observe the particular aspect I was describing.

No, *I* understood you perfectly. I just pointed out that the way you phrased things would not be understood by people on the opposite side of the debate.
You corrected that by rephrasing.

And the condenscending tone... well, you are SImon Cowell

[Divair]

Again, it is NOT a child. It is a fetus. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no memory, it does not have awareness.
It has the POTENTIAL to be a child. Using that logic, you have the POTENTIAL to be dead. Should we bury you?
And what if the mother was raped? Or if the mother will die during birth?

Potential is good enough. When potential deals with life, then potential is enough to justify action.
Raped: Adoption.
Die: Can't say for sure, so there's no guarantee.

So should we ban ejaculating?
Sperm are potentially children as well!
And adoption doesn't just magically work. Adoption centres are overpopulated, and in countries outside the USA, are usually horribly underfunded as well. This comes from experience. I've made hundreds of humanitarian trips to Ukraine, Romania, Poland, etc.
And YOU can't say for sure, doctors can. Why should we risk or just throw away a woman's life? What gives YOU the right to do that?

[Wiztopia]

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.

Wrong. She always has the right. Its a woman's rights issue. Also there is no child.