Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Parchelon]

Weather or not they have rights is not what is at debate but weather or not they should.

You clearly stated they have rights, despite people telling you otherwise.

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).

[Zottistan]

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.

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

[Parchelon]

So this debate boils down to one key philosophical question.

"What does it mean to be human?"

I don't consider myself qualified to answer this.

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

Edit: Even then, it has no right to force the mother to house it.

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

You clearly stated they have rights, despite people telling you otherwise.

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?

[Mavorpen]

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

Edit: Even then, it has no right to force the mother to house it.

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

Really? So if you try to force me to give you my kidney, then I can't defend myself?

[Tekania]

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

Really? So if you try to force me to give you my kidney, then I can't defend myself?

We've come fer ya liva'

[Samuraikoku]

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).

For reasons quite explained and developed before, you're wrong.

[Farnhamia]

Really? So if you try to force me to give you my kidney, then I can't defend myself?

We've come fer ya liva'

What, no braaaiinss?

[Zottistan]

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

Edit: Even then, it has no right to force the mother to house it.

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

[Mavorpen]

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?

guilty Pronunciation: /ˈgɪlti/
Definition of guilty
adjective (guiltier, guiltiest)
culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing:
he was found guilty of manslaughter
Williams pleaded guilty to three separate offences
justly chargeable with a particular fault or error:
she was guilty of a serious error of judgement
conscious of, affected by, or revealing a feeling of guilt:
he felt guilty about the way he had treated her
a guilty conscience
causing a feeling of guilt:
a guilty secret

responsible Pronunciation: /rɪˈspɒnsɪb(ə)l/
Definition of responsible
adjective
1 [predic.] having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role:
the cabinet minister responsible for Education
(responsible to) having to report to (a superior) and be answerable to them for one’s actions:
the Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible to Parliament
2being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it:
Gooch was responsible for 198 of his side’s 542 runs
morally accountable for one’s behaviour:
the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being
3(of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others:
she had risen rapidly to a high and responsible position in the civil service
capable of being trusted:
a responsible adult

[/spoiler]
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.

Funnily enough, because you feel the need to bring law into this, you have actually proven that killing a fetus is not murder.

So we can go two routes: we can use the actual definition of guilty, or we can go the law route and talk about mens rea, where you will admit to a fetus not being a human being and therefore killing it is not murder.

[Samuraikoku]

We've come fer ya liva'

What, no braaaiinss?

Having no brains doesn't damage your drinking. Having a bad liver...

[Tekania]

We've come fer ya liva'

What, no braaaiinss?

Nope, no brain eating zombies left....... we trapped them on the Bachmann compound and they finally succumbed to starvation.

[Farnhamia]

What, no braaaiinss?

Nope, no brain eating zombies left....... we trapped them on the Bachmann compound and they finally succumbed to starvation.

Just as well, I suppose.

[Parchelon]

Look tragic deaths are something, murders are something totally different, abortion is the willed killing of a human being, something that is planned and agreed upon beforehand and in most nations paid for by either a government, a health plan of some sort or by regular means of currency exchange.

Its like saying we shouldn't drive cars because there is a chance of people loosing control or making a mistake and someone dying. Flying a plane or going on a boat is the same thing, there is a chance of death involved but nobody would suggest that a total accident would warrant homicide or manslaughter charges. Or at the very least that as people grow older the chance of accidents occurring increases therefore anyone over 60 shouldn't be able to drive or else face (at least) manslaughter charges when a death occurs.

But we're not talking about tiny chances here! We're talking about a majority of pregnancies: Most conceptions end in miscarriage. Not a few, not some, but most.

That doesn't make pregnancy like driving a car. That makes pregnancy like going out on a drunken joy ride at 100mph or more. The chances of the fetus dying aren't small; they're better than even.

So what right do we have to start pregnancies when the odds of the baby dying are better than half? How can that kind of reckless, willful endangerment of precious human life be justified?

And any (nearly every) pregnancy during which an abortion occurs there is a murder! If (that's a big if) pregnancy were like drunk driving then abortion is like assassinations committed with a gun. Though sometimes abortions fail and occasionally a foetus is born alive and allowed to live.

A miscarriage is an unfortunate accident, it is hardly comparable with an intentional killing. A miscarriage is something not willed but sadly still happens, we do not live in a perfect world and pregnancy is necessary for the survival of our species.

[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.

Bullshit alert.

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!"

[Northern Dominus]

What, no braaaiinss?

Nope, no brain eating zombies left....... we trapped them on the Bachmann compound and they finally succumbed to starvation.

You forgot to throw Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland in there as well. They signed the same letter after all.

[Mavorpen]

Thanks for the logical response.

Thanks for breaking the page.

[Christ and His Kingdom]

Fully in support of the OP. And no I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat when it comes to economic issues, Libertarian in Foreign Policy and lean Conservative (I am pro-life, pro traditional marriage although I do believe that any form of discrimination or poor treatment of an LGBT individual should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, contrary to conservative ideology I oppose capital punishment and I am in favor of gun control) in Social Issues. So in the truest sense of the word I believe I am an Independent. PS: I will be voting for Obama over Romney although I would like Ron Paul to be President more than anybody.

[Mavorpen]

PS: I will be voting for Obama over Romney although I would like Ron Paul to be President more than anybody.

Oh my gods... Another person that more than likely knows nothing about Ron Paul.

[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.

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?

[Mavorpen]

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?

Let me guess, "ABORTION IS LIKE SLAVERY!"

No, it's not.

[Farnhamia]

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

That's not how Roe v. Wade was decided. Wiki sayeth:

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[23] Douglas in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[24]

The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[25] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

It really is none of the state's business whether or not a woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term, it being a matter between her (and anyone else she cooses to include) and her doctor. And the state may not prevent a doctor from practicing medicine freely without some compelling interest. In this case the Court found no compelling interest on the part of the state.

[Parchelon]

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.

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

[Zottistan]

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

I like how you didn't answer this. It makes me feel good about my metaphorical capabilities.

EDIT: Oh, wait, it was answered. Mah bad.

[Samuraikoku]

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

Depends on the case, the answer I'll give.