So, Abortion.

[Desperate Measures]

No. A child can be unborn.

Wait, A child can put shoved back into the womb? Why was I not told of this? Why?

Because everytime we do that, the future sends another terminator.

[Marangia]

I simply want to post my opinion so here we go. I do not like the idea of abortion. I would prefer the mother to keep the child; and if they're a teenager, then that sucks. They should keep it anyways. However, in cases of rape, incest, or medical conditions which would cause death in both parties involved, it's kinda acceptable to me.
Aka, I'd never get an abortion. But if someone else wants one, then fine...it's not my business..I just won't approve of it.

[Condunum]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

Well, yes. For one, human beings don't have a right to life, persons do.

[Olthar]

Is this an unreasonable definition?

Yes.

[Zweite Alaje]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

womyn's choice, bro laik yeah.

[Atollus]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

Nope. Key word here though is "Individual".

Individual adj.

Existing as a distinct entity; separate

Fetus do not apply here.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

It is when the fetus you describe as being "alive" is not capable of conscious thought, is not a individual human being with a mind and personality of it's own, and is not subject to the laws o the united states and has no rights. Therefore, it cannot be classified, legally, as murder.

[Frisivisia]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

Yes.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I simply want to post my opinion so here we go. I do not like the idea of abortion. I would prefer the mother to keep the child; and if they're a teenager, then that sucks. They should keep it anyways. However, in cases of rape, incest, or medical conditions which would cause death in both parties involved, it's kinda acceptable to me.
Aka, I'd never get an abortion. But if someone else wants one, then fine...it's not my business..I just won't approve of it.

Why would rape, which doesn't even have any higher (like +2 percentage points from incest) chance of birth defects in most cases, be grouped with those other things?
Do zygotes, embryos and fetuses have a right to be born unless one of the parents is a certain type of person?

[Desperate Measures]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

The definition isn't subjective. Find a way to remove the fetus from the woman without killing it and there needn't be anymore abortions.

[Condunum]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

womyn's choice, bro laik yeah.

Glad you've finally accepted the wrongs of your ways, Alaje.

[Avenio]

Yes, but the sperm as an individual entity ceases to exist. Its constituent parts do not, but they merge with those of the egg to form a completely different entity: a zygote, which is a human being.

Of course, that does put lie to the argument that humans have an 'inherent capacity for sapience' if humans only get that capacity in a certain stage of their development.

Look at the excerpts from embryology textbooks I posted earlier in this thread: they all agree that a human being is created at fertilization.

If you want me to look at one of your posts, go and find it yourself. I am not looking back through 20 pages to find your own argument for you.

[Auralia]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

Well, yes. For one, human beings don't have a right to life, persons do.

Why is there a distinction?

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

Nope. Key word here though is "Individual".

Individual adj.

Existing as a distinct entity; separate

Fetus do not apply here.

Fetuses are individual entities. They reside within their mother, and they rely on their mother for sustenance, but they are separate entities, just as a sick person is separate from his or her feeding tube or IV.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wait, A child can put shoved back into the womb? Why was I not told of this? Why?

Because everytime we do that, the future sends another terminator.

Damnit, future.

[Mavorpen]

No. She's saying that it wouldn't increase if they were legalized. And lo and behold, there's significant evidence to support this.

yay

For a second there I thought you had actual peer reviewed research. Instead you gave me...the opposite.

[Individuality-ness]

No. Choosing to have sex isn't the same as choosing to have a baby.

Oh okay, so choosing not to use a condom is not the same as choosing to have a baby, I get it now.

Of course not, condoms aren't the only means of birth control out there.

[Zweite Alaje]

Subjective definitions of "child" are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I argue that all living human individuals are human beings who have the right to life. Is this an unreasonable definition?

It is when the fetus you describe as being "alive" is not capable of conscious thought, is not a individual human being with a mind and personality of it's own, and is not subject to the laws o the united states and has no rights. Therefore, it cannot be classified, legally, as murder.

He didn't say anything about murder. Also legality doesn't necessarily equate to moral justice.

[Condunum]

Well, yes. For one, human beings don't have a right to life, persons do.

Why is there a distinction?

Because human beings aren't special fairies, and rights come from the law.

[Auralia]

Yes, but the sperm as an individual entity ceases to exist. Its constituent parts do not, but they merge with those of the egg to form a completely different entity: a zygote, which is a human being.

Of course, that does put lie to the argument that humans have an 'inherent capacity for sapience' if humans only get that capacity in a certain stage of their development.

Not sure I understand what you're saying.

Look at the excerpts from embryology textbooks I posted earlier in this thread: they all agree that a human being is created at fertilization.

If you want me to look at one of your posts, go and find it yourself. I am not looking back through 20 pages to find your own argument for you.

Click here.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Fetuses are individual entities. They reside within their mother, and they rely on their mother for sustenance, but they are separate entities, just as a sick person is separate from his or her feeding tube or IV.

Yes. they rely on their mother. They cannot live on their own. AKA a parasite. It is not an individual, because it can not be independent.

[Desperate Measures]

Because everytime we do that, the future sends another terminator.

Damnit, future.

Someday we'll understand their mysterious ways.

[Zweite Alaje]

yay

For a second there I thought you had actual peer reviewed research. Instead you gave me...the opposite.

It had several sources for its information.

[Condunum]

Nope. Key word here though is "Individual".

Individual adj.

Existing as a distinct entity; separate

Fetus do not apply here.

Fetuses are individual entities. They reside within their mother, and they rely on their mother for sustenance, but they are separate entities, just as a sick person is separate from his or her feeding tube or IV.

Ya like its totes a seprut enterty, it just like, totes lives off the mother and inside her and stuff.

[Desperate Measures]

Well, yes. For one, human beings don't have a right to life, persons do.

Why is there a distinction?

Nope. Key word here though is "Individual".

Individual adj.

Existing as a distinct entity; separate

Fetus do not apply here.

Fetuses are individual entities. They reside within their mother, and they rely on their mother for sustenance, but they are separate entities, just as a sick person is separate from his or her feeding tube or IV.

Women aren't medical supplies.

[Auralia]

Why is there a distinction?

Because human beings aren't special fairies, and rights come from the law.

Not an answer. Laws are not arbitrary; as I said before, they're rooted in reason, evidence and ethics. It is rational, ethical, and consistent with the available scientific evidence, to grant legal rights to all human beings, including fetuses.