Abortion discussion in Turkey

[Ashmoria]

so why do we have to have another discussion of abortion instead of a discussion of TURKEY which we dont have every freaking day with the same freaking points over and over again?

Probably because the fact that it's another country doesn't mean it's not the exact same issue....

probably

but since abortion is only legal to 10 weeks its not the same issue that we have in the US.

then there is the whole very interesting cesearean delivery thing. thats quite a different issue.

[Scotovy]

Do you want me to also prove that one plus one equals two and that sin^2+cos^2=1 or what?

No. I'd like proof that humans don't have natural rights.

No one said that.

[Genivaria]

Who exactly do you think the nutritions used and space inside women belongs to?

They belong to the child for the duration of pregnancy. The woman has donated her uterus to the child.

'Donated' implies permission, if a woman wants to get an abortion she obviously is NOT donating.

[Jedi8246]

The soul of a person has desires.

No such thing as a soul.

Prove it.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Unborn children have a perfect right to remain where they originated. They have no intention to use the woman's body; and they cause no great harm to the woman, who usually put the child there by consent.

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
This is not a hard concept, sweetie.
If the fetus originated in a bathtub or a meadow of daisies, sure, it has a right to remain there. But it originates in a woman's body, and has no right to use another person's body against their will, whether or not it will cause harm. No one and nothing has any right to anyone's body ever, for any purpose.

Every woman who allows a penis inside her knows that she may get pregnant. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

[Jedi8246]

They belong to the child for the duration of pregnancy. The woman has donated her uterus to the child.

'Donated' implies permission, if a woman wants to get an abortion she obviously is NOT donating.

She gave permission when she had sex.

[Genivaria]

No such thing as a soul.

Prove it.

Burden of Proof is on you.

[Scotovy]

No such thing as a soul.

Prove it.

Christ. Please learn how to debate.

[Jedi8246]

No. I'd like proof that humans don't have natural rights.

No one said that.

Lots of people have said that.

[Hallistar]

Thinking is noticeable by bioelectric activity in certain cells if I'm not mistaken. Cells that fetuses lack until well into pregnancy.

The soul of a person has desires.

Oh, so now we're going to use an unfalsifiable idea as knowable as a three headed invisible pony as a signifigant factor in an issue like pregnancy.

[Great Nepal]

They belong to the child for the duration of pregnancy. The woman has donated her uterus to the child.

Through a contract, I assume...
Mind if I see the copy of that contract of temporal lease of uterus between women and foetus?

If one consents to Russian roulette, one accepts the possibility of being shot.
If one consents to vaginal intercourse, one accepts the possibility of becoming pregnant.

If one consents to go out on the road, one accepts the possibility of getting killed.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
This is not a hard concept, sweetie.
If the fetus originated in a bathtub or a meadow of daisies, sure, it has a right to remain there. But it originates in a woman's body, and has no right to use another person's body against their will, whether or not it will cause harm. No one and nothing has any right to anyone's body ever, for any purpose.

Every woman who allows a penis inside her knows that she may get pregnant. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

Then getting in a car is consent to getting in a wreck and therefore people in wrecks deserve no medical attention.

[New Rogernomics]

so why do we have to have another discussion of abortion instead of a discussion of TURKEY which we dont have every freaking day with the same freaking points over and over again?

The more you discuss, the more you get closer to the solution. I'm against any restriction on women's body but the both sides seem to make some sense so I enjoy reading them.

I don't see how economic inefficiency and a resulting rise in poverty makes any sense; even less so when you criminalize people for following human nature and having sex for recreation, and alternatively forcing women to bear children from rape (or forcing rape victims to be married to their rapists) is just as morally abhorrent as the act of rape itself.

[Scotovy]

No one said that.

Lots of people have said that.

Show me.

[Jedi8246]

Prove it.

Burden of Proof is on you.

No it isn't. He made a claim, I'm asking him to back up that claim,

[Kemaliste]

The more you discuss, the more you get closer to the solution. I'm against any restriction on women's body but the both sides seem to make some sense so I enjoy reading them.

Enjoying us westerners take the rip out of each other are you

Very sly

It's actually good to know that we Turkish people are not the only one discussing this issue.

[Samuraikoku]

Prove it.

Burden of Proof is on you.

He has escaped every confrontation to Burden of Proof. He's not worth debating.

[Great Nepal]

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
This is not a hard concept, sweetie.
If the fetus originated in a bathtub or a meadow of daisies, sure, it has a right to remain there. But it originates in a woman's body, and has no right to use another person's body against their will, whether or not it will cause harm. No one and nothing has any right to anyone's body ever, for any purpose.

Every woman who allows a penis inside her knows that she may get pregnant. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

Everyone who steps outside their home knows that they may get hit by a car, raped, or murdered. Consent to getting out of your house is consent to all those things.

[Gideus]

Thinking is noticeable by bioelectric activity in certain cells if I'm not mistaken. Cells that fetuses lack until well into pregnancy.

The soul of a person has desires.

A soul is related to laws in what way? A soul is a religious concept and laws should not be related to religion. A soul should have no bearing on the rights of someone to terminate something within themselves. A soul is not something that can be used in politics, science, laws, etc. in a place where so many conflicting beliefs exist. Saying that also essentially means that if someone has a soul you are not allowed to kill them.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jainists(if there are any left...), Pagans(Nordic, Egyptian, Greek, Roman pagans... I know some people who follow said belief system/believe in said gods), etc. They all have different views on souls. IN somewhere like the United States, they all exist, and they all deserve equality. To make a law based of a primarily Christian/Jewish/Islamic belief is to ignore a lot of others. In Turkey, I am not sure of the religious percentages, but it is still ignorant of their leader to do something like this when there are at least people who do not believe in said beliefs in said country.

[Mercurea]

Of course abortion is an issue outside of the US! In most countries there are pro-life and pro-choice positions. In Colombia for example, even with more than three quarters of the population being against abortion, the Supreme Court decided to make it legal. The country's largest political parties are against abortion (Conservatives and the National Unity Party). Most of the other parties are pro-choice (Liberals, Democratic Pole, Greens).

The last pro-choice president left in 1998, but any other president has been able to make it illegal again. Not even the congress has been able to do so, as a minority in the National Unity Party is pro-choice. That's why abortion is becoming one of the main concerns of the conservative party.

[Genivaria]

'Donated' implies permission, if a woman wants to get an abortion she obviously is NOT donating.

She gave permission when she had sex.

No she didn't. She gave permission for someone to have sex with her, nothing else.

[Jedi8246]

Every woman who allows a penis inside her knows that she may get pregnant. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

Then getting in a car is consent to getting in a wreck and therefore people in wrecks deserve no medical attention.

They accept the possibility of getting into a wreck. They can't decide to kill the person who caused the crash.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

No such thing as a soul.

Prove it.

Prove that unicorns exist.
HOW DO ARGUE WURK GAISE

[EnragedMaldivians]

Who exactly do you think the nutritions used and space inside women belongs to?

They belong to the child for the duration of pregnancy. The woman has donated her uterus to the child.

Clearly not... otherwise they wouldn't be seeking abortion?

If one consents to Russian roulette, one accepts the possibility of being shot.

If one consents to vaginal intercourse, one accepts the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy is not the same as consenting to becoming pregnant, let alone carrying to term.

The notion that a woman must donate her uterus for a clump of cells to develop into a baby she must deliver is pretty fucking stupid.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Burden of Proof is on you.

No it isn't. He made a claim, I'm asking him to back up that claim,

You claimed the soul has desires. Therefor, you claimed that souls exist, and have desires.

Neither of which is supported by science.

Prove your claim.