Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Tekania]

So fuck the balance argument and leave it to the mother. Problem solved.

Would anyone accept such a thing in any other circumstance of equality of rights?

Rights aren't equal....... a fetus has no rights.

[Samuraikoku]

Nobody should have the right to commit murder simply because someone else violates their wishes.

Abortion.

ISN'T.

Murder.

[Danbershan]

Nobody should have the right to commit murder simply because someone else violates their wishes.

Abortion.

ISN'T.

Murder.

Murder is killing people. Foetuses aren't people.

[Mavorpen]

Then they don't have the capacity to take priority over the would-be mother's wishes.

Nobody should have the right to commit murder simply because someone else violates their wishes.

It's not violating her wishes. It's violating her rights to bodily sovereignty. Also, why are we even debating this? I already proved that making abortion illegal does not work.

[Norstal]

Abortion.

ISN'T.

Murder.

Murder is killing people. Foetuses aren't people.

I wish fetuses were people though. Then I can keep jars of fetuses and charge their donors with child custody payments. Then I shall get rich! RICH!

[Parchelon]

Exactly and if there is no evidence for their guilt and a heck of a lot of reason to believe that they can even form the mens rea then there cant be a conviction, no court in their right mind would convict someone with no evidence whatsoever of guilt and reasoning to the contrary.

What part of "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" didn't you understand?

The part where we are suddenly ok with humans being killed without even being considered guilty, and the whole part that you have not substantiated your claim.

[Zottistan]

Nobody should have the right to commit murder simply because someone else violates their wishes.

It's not violating her wishes. It's violating her rights to bodily sovereignty. Also, why are we even debating this? I already proved that making abortion illegal does not work.

Welcome to the abortion debate. It's basically arguing with a voice recording on a loop.

[Mavorpen]

The part where we are suddenly ok with humans being killed without even being considered guilty, and the whole part that you have not substantiated your claim.

They can't be considered guilty in court because they aren't human beings. We have substantiated our claims, you have not. All you have done is ignore dictionary definitions and run around in circles pretending like we've not already refuted your arguments.

[Samuraikoku]

I wish fetuses were people though. Then I can keep jars of fetuses

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Eldar

[Parchelon]

Yes but abortion is not a balance either considering it is the killing of a human being because another human finds its existence inconvenient.

You can't have a balanced solution, then, so grant the rights to the mother, given that she's an actual living human being and not just a potential human being.

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages! If it is a human being then our governments are permitting a grave injustice.

[Tekania]

What part of "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" didn't you understand?

The part where we are suddenly ok with humans being killed without even being considered guilty, and the whole part that you have not substantiated your claim.

That would be the part where the women's right to bodily autonomy succeeds ridiculous opinion of the rights of a barely differentiated clump of cells.

[Natair]

So, you're admitting that a fetus is no more sentient and important than a rock. But, I'm sick of you ignoring definitions. Let's look at some from the Oxford dictionary, shall we?

Being guilty has little to do with choice. You're wrong, yet again. But I'm sure you'll ignore this and in 5 pages you'll say, "THE FETUS CAN'T CHOOSE!"

This is high school law 101, our teacher drilled it into us, in order for there to be a crime you must establish that there was an illegal act committed and that the person in question willingly chose to commit the act. A Pilot of an air-plane is responsible for the people on board, but if by no fault of his own an engine explodes and 20 people die he is not at fault because even though he was responsible for their deaths he did not commission the crime.

Willingness to commit a crime is usually assumed and so the primary job of prosecutors is to prove that someone actually committed the criminal act, but again if someone is driving a car and having just past inspection the steering fails and the person careens into another car the driver of the first car wouldn't be guilty of reckless driving now would he? It was not his fault that the incident occurred, in this instance it was probably the inspector being an idiot, but with the airplane above it could just have easily been extreme weather that iced up the engines in a way never before seen that led to the engine just ripping itself apart.

So again back to the unborn, they have no capacity with which to form a guilty mind, much less the mental awareness to make any choices whatsoever and cannot therefore be guilty of a crime.

you aren't listening to me, a foetus hasn't the capacity to be guilty!

Then they don't have the capacity to take priority over the would-be mother's wishes.

Same argument, same answer.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

You can't have a balanced solution, then, so grant the rights to the mother, given that she's an actual living human being and not just a potential human being.

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages! If it is a human being then our governments are permitting a grave injustice.

And for dozens of pages people have been proving you wrong. A foetus is not a person (I am assuming you're using "human being" as a synonym).

[Samuraikoku]

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages!

It is not.

[Mavorpen]

You can't have a balanced solution, then, so grant the rights to the mother, given that she's an actual living human being and not just a potential human being.

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages! If it is a human being then our governments are permitting a grave injustice.

You're full of shit. And you claim to know law?

Edit: I forgot I made this post. But it goes to show how much you're ignoring posts that prove you wrong.

4. I have provided points as to why unborn children are human beings, but you have not provided any as to why they are not.

human being Pronunciation: /hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

man Pronunciation: /man/
Definition of man
noun (plural men /mɛn/)
1an adult human male:

woman Pronunciation: /ˈwʊmən/
Definition of woman
noun (plural women /ˈwɪmɪn/)
an adult human female:
a jury of seven women and five men

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty.

[Dempublicents1]

So fuck the balance argument and leave it to the mother. Problem solved.

Would anyone accept such a thing in any other circumstance of equality of rights?

Yes. As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. We let patients die because others will not donate blood or bone marrow. Donation of either is far easier and more convenient than carrying a pregnancy to term, as well as being much, much safer. In the case of a blood donation, it is likely that a single donation will save 3 separate lives. However, no one can be legally compelled to do either of these things or even to register on a bone marrow registry. This is true even if they are known to be a match for the patient, and no other match is known or available.

So we let human beings who need the bodies of others die all the time. We do so because those others have the right to determine the use of their bodies, even if denying use to another means that person's death. So even if we determine that an embryo or fetus has all the same rights as a born human being, why would they get the extra right of being able to use another person's body to survive when that person does not wish to allow said use?

[Parchelon]

I am not ignoring everything you say, but in order for there to be a crime you need an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind), the unborn foetus might very well be committing a guilty act, but certainly has no capacity to have the guilty mind. It is firstly it is unconsciousness and secondly is only just developing a mind with witch to make decisions. And unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are seen as innocent under the law. Considering that the unborn are legally hardly even regarded as persons under the current law it is impossible to say they are even so much as guilty of a crime. Even if they were persons however they still would not be able to form the mens rea to make the dwelling in the mother's womb without her consent a crime.

SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT JUSTICE

1. self defence is a right in certain circumstances.

And abortion is self defense.

2. We have the right not to be murdered or otherwise killed unjustly. Though this response is confusing to me to say the least.
[spoiler]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
(I am unwilling to copy and paste it here due to that unmentionables legal row with this game) articles number 2 and 3 are what I would have cited, particularly about no discrimination for reasons of birth and the right to life. Many nations including the USA, Canada and the UK have adopted this resolution

Arguments from authority mean nothing.

[/spoiler]

Please provide arguments.

[Mavorpen]

Please provide arguments.

Says the guy who used his High School law teacher to try to argue a point.

[Parchelon]

This is high school law 101, our teacher drilled it into us, in order for there to be a crime you must establish that there was an illegal act committed and that the person in question willingly chose to commit the act. A Pilot of an air-plane is responsible for the people on board, but if by no fault of his own an engine explodes and 20 people die he is not at fault because even though he was responsible for their deaths he did not commission the crime.

Willingness to commit a crime is usually assumed and so the primary job of prosecutors is to prove that someone actually committed the criminal act, but again if someone is driving a car and having just past inspection the steering fails and the person careens into another car the driver of the first car wouldn't be guilty of reckless driving now would he? It was not his fault that the incident occurred, in this instance it was probably the inspector being an idiot, but with the airplane above it could just have easily been extreme weather that iced up the engines in a way never before seen that led to the engine just ripping itself apart.

So again back to the unborn, they have no capacity with which to form a guilty mind, much less the mental awareness to make any choices whatsoever and cannot therefore be guilty of a crime.

Because your highschool teacher has a better definition of "guilty" than the Oxford dictionary.

Because he went to law school and learned the legal definition of guilty, yes.

[Samuraikoku]

Because he went to law school and learned the legal definition of guilty, yes.

You should sue him for malpractice.

[Mavorpen]

Because he went to law school and learned the legal definition of guilty, yes.

Which doesn't apply to a fetus since it is not a human being.

[Zottistan]

You can't have a balanced solution, then, so grant the rights to the mother, given that she's an actual living human being and not just a potential human being.

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages! If it is a human being then our governments are permitting a grave injustice.

You've been arguing it for dozens of pages despite the fact that on every single one of those pages, it's been proved wrong and you were forced to resort to circular arguing. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to actually have an argument.

[Farnhamia]

You can't have a balanced solution, then, so grant the rights to the mother, given that she's an actual living human being and not just a potential human being.

Its not a potential human being its an actual human being! Thats what I have been arguing for dozens of pages! If it is a human being then our governments are permitting a grave injustice.

Well, there we are, I guess. We say that a fetus, in the first trimester at least, is not a person and that therefore it is none of your business or the state's business what the woman decides to do with it. It really isn't your business, it's mine. You can pontificate all you like about personhood and murder and the slaughter of innocents, but when it comes down to it, it's none of your business.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's almost time for my weekly abortion and I want to get there right away. They have these really nice lemon cookies on Abortion Days but if you don't get there early, they're all gone.

[Samuraikoku]

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's almost time for my weekly abortion and I want to get there right away. They have these really nice lemon cookies on Abortion Days but if you don't get there early, they're all gone.

That's discrimination against those who can't abort.

[Parchelon]

They should have rights, though currently have been either stripped of them or have never had any (depending on which nation you are in, in some nations abortion is illegal in most if not all situations).

Why should they have rights? Is this going to come down to whether they are people again?

Why should they not have rights? We are talking about human beings at a stage of development every human being goes through in its natural growth to adulthood, to assume they are not persons is in itself a leep.