Is abortion right? (What's your view on abortion?)

[Condunum]

Appeal to authority. Dictionaries are not your friend. Regardless, this is semantics. Inside the mother against her will. Happy? There, now she still has the right to protect her bodily sovereignty,

Appeal to authority is a valid tactic, and dictionaries are the base of all debates, because we argue with words.

Appeal to an inappropriate authority is a non-valid tactic. But if we were having a debate about what happened in some historical event, and then we brought in a guy with a PhD in history who spend seven years of his life studying it, that would be a valid appeal, as he would be a proper authority to go to on that matter.

Recanted. It doesn't really matter anyway, because he's just arguing semantics.

[Condunum]

When the baby becomes sentient/sapient, it should cassify as a person and be counted as murder. E.G. pretty much anything up from the first trimester to around the second trimester. However, even if the fetus is sentient/sapient, the mother's life comes first and if her life is in danger the fetus should be aborted if the mother wishes to.

What? Do you mean anything past the first and second trimester, good sir?

[The Steel Magnolia]

When the baby becomes sentient/sapient, it should cassify as a person and be counted as murder. E.G. pretty much anything up from the first trimester to around the second trimester. However, even if the fetus is sentient/sapient, the mother's life comes first and if her life is in danger the fetus should be aborted if the mother wishes to.

Sentience occurs around 6 months in. Sapience at 2 years. Bodily Sovereignty still overrides it.

[Unilisia]

If I want to kill something growing inside me, it's my choice. Anyone who says otherwise should actually carry a child inside themselves. It isn't pleasant, and although the end result of being a mother is, when that is taken away from you, you don't want that chance again because its not worth going through the same pain oncemore.

And yes, I have a biased opinion.

[Medok]

When the baby becomes sentient/sapient, it should cassify as a person and be counted as murder. E.G. pretty much anything up from the first trimester to around the second trimester. However, even if the fetus is sentient/sapient, the mother's life comes first and if her life is in danger the fetus should be aborted if the mother wishes to.

Sentience occurs around 6 months in. Sapience at 2 years. Bodily Sovereignty still overrides it.

Source?

[ALMF]

There is only one consideration that needs to be made to determine the legality of Abortion.

Is the Fetus alive? A seperate individual person?

If no: Then it up to the woman, because its a basic right to be able to chose whatever you want to do with your body. Do you really think banning tattoos or piercings would be upheld? Nope. No one is even seriously pursuing it. If a Fetus is no more a person than a cat, or a tree, or what have you, then abortion is no more the State's affair than piercings or tattoos.

If a Fetus is a person or a moral patient, then its murder, and abortion should always be illegal.

Since the science points more towards the 'no' side, and since I'm not a sexist scumbag, I'm extremely pro-Choice.

A seperate individual person? Certainly completely not

[ALMF]

The womb is in the mother. Fuck, the womb is the mother. If it were a child, rights would not include the right to invade the bodily sovereignty of another person.

Invade v.

1. To move into.
2. To enter by force in order to conquer.
3. To infest or overrun.

None of these are accurate descriptions of what happens when a person becomes pregnant.

Yes for 2, but persisly 3

[The Steel Magnolia]

Sentience occurs around 6 months in. Sapience at 2 years. Bodily Sovereignty still overrides it.

Source?

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 9209161911

[ALMF]

Since I seem to be continuosly playing Devil's Advocate against my own side in this thread:

How is the Fetus at fault?

How is a tapeworm at fault?

someone is thinking not reacting. thanks

[Djentmark]

How is a tapeworm at fault?

someone is thinking not reacting. thanks

:3

[ALMF]

How is a tapeworm at fault?

A tapeworm isn't a person.

Keep in mind, I think that a Fetus is NOT a person. But, if, for the sake of Arguement, a Fetus IS a person, then killing it when it isn't at fault is murder.

But I don't think a Fetus is a person.


@Cummunist: That's a very broad justification for murder, if you extrapolate it out.

Eccept a pheatis is more like a tapeworm than a person

[Straight From Above]

A tapeworm isn't a person.

Keep in mind, I think that a Fetus is NOT a person. But, if, for the sake of Arguement, a Fetus IS a person, then killing it when it isn't at fault is murder.

But I don't think a Fetus is a person.


@Cummunist: That's a very broad justification for murder, if you extrapolate it out.

Eccept a pheatis is more like a tapeworm than a person

I agree, except for my cousin Jessica who matured to be more like a tapeworm than a person.

[ALMF]

If I want to kill something growing inside me, it's my choice. Anyone who says otherwise should actually carry a child inside themselves. It isn't pleasant, and although the end result of being a mother is, when that is taken away from you, you don't want that chance again because its not worth going through the same pain oncemore.

And yes, I have a biased opinion.

And you have men like me standing behind you

[Norstal]

If I want to kill something growing inside me, it's my choice. Anyone who says otherwise should actually carry a child inside themselves. It isn't pleasant, and although the end result of being a mother is, when that is taken away from you, you don't want that chance again because its not worth going through the same pain oncemore.

And yes, I have a biased opinion.

And you have men like me standing behind you

Stalker.

Or coward? Go stand in front.

[Norstal]

Why do you hate women? No, I won't do that. Bad Condy.

Bodily autonomy. If it's a child and she doesn't want it there, she has a right to remove it when she damn pleases, because it's her body. If it isn't, there is no ethical issue.

The unborn child, who has rights independent of the mother, is a separate human being lying within the womb of the mother.

I'd say we should be able to abort a 40 year old human in a mother's womb.

[Unilisia]

If I want to kill something growing inside me, it's my choice. Anyone who says otherwise should actually carry a child inside themselves. It isn't pleasant, and although the end result of being a mother is, when that is taken away from you, you don't want that chance again because its not worth going through the same pain oncemore.

And yes, I have a biased opinion.

And you have men like me standing behind you

As far as I know, I'll never be getting an abortion because I'm never going to try to have a child again. If the situation arose where I became pregnant again, aborting it would be putting it out of its misery before it can grow to be a living being.

[Condunum]

The unborn child, who has rights independent of the mother, is a separate human being lying within the womb of the mother.

I'd say we should be able to abort a 40 year old human in a mother's womb.

Fair enough. If she didn't want him there, his fault.

[Christian Democrats]

This barbaric procedure touted as a "right" should be outlawed, unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent the death of the mother.

You mean the right to bodily sovereignty? I know of no other right that is relevant in this context.

The "bodily sovereignty" argument is about the dumbest argument that supporters of legalized abortion use because, unless someone is an anarchist, he or she holds the belief that society should be able to compel people to take or to refrain from certain actions.

The unborn child, who has rights independent of the mother, is a separate human being lying within the womb of the mother.

I'd say we should be able to abort a 40 year old human in a mother's womb.

If the woman had consented to an activity that she knew could result in a 40-year-old human being appearing in her womb, then I would argue that she has no right to remove that person if such removal would result in the death of that 40-year-old person.

[Risottia]

So?

So then they'll want all kinds of things. Self-determination, autonomy as sentient beings....offices, too, probably.

Oh my! Next time they'll even ask to... WEAR TROUSERS and DRIVE CARS! AAIIIEEEE!!! RAMPANT IMMORALITY! BURN THE WITCHES!

[Straight From Above]

I'd say we should be able to abort a 40 year old human in a mother's womb.

Fair enough. If she didn't want him there, his fault.

I'm a 37 year old human, and I was in someone's mother's womb three weeks ago.

Can you abort me?

For less than the competition?

[Arkinesia]

A fetus IS A PARASITE. It sucks the blood out of the woman and uses it for food and eventually becomes a baby. It can be a WANTED parasite, but it is a parasite, and there is no way around it.

A fetus is a parasite until you walk into an academic or scientific setting. In biological terms a fetus is not parasitic. I know it's a blog but the guy uses sources that would qualify for a college essay.

That is to say you can't have it both ways. You can't tell creationists that their version of theory is not correct out one side of the mouth and that a purely invented definition of what constitutes a parasite is right out the other.

EDIT: A quote from a pro-choice friend of mine:

Cancerous cells are as human as a zygote in that it is a clone of the mother. Fetus though? That's going too far. Once you have a functioning brain, then you're a person. That's the long and short of it. Your location, inside or outside your mother's womb, doesn't matter.

[Condunum]

You mean the right to bodily sovereignty? I know of no other right that is relevant in this context.

The "bodily sovereignty" argument is about the dumbest argument that supporters of legalized abortion use because, unless someone is an anarchist¹, he or she holds the belief that society should be able to compel people to take or to refrain from certain actions.

I'd say we should be able to abort a 40 year old human in a mother's womb.

If the woman had consented to an activity that she knew could result in a 40-year-old human being appearing in her womb, then I would argue that she has no right to remove that person if such removal would result in the death of that 40-year-old person.²

1: Lol. I'm a Centrist, and I hold those views. You don't need to be an anarchist to maintain those views.

2: That's not how sex works.

[Ifreann]

Abortions for all!

[Condunum]

Abortions for all!

*looks over* Oh, so you're hear for the job!
Here, take these tickets. Ever ticket is good for one free abortion. You'll be paid by the abortion, so go fast!

[Alowwvia]

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE IN FULL CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BODIES


TRULY, THESE ARE THE WORST OF TIMES