So, Abortion.

[Olthar]

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

Why is there a distinction?

Because the law needs there to be a distinction between legal persons and non-legal persons.

[Gaelic Celtia]

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.

Everyone has their own "moral justice" therefore it should not be forced on some poor woman who does not want to keep her child and has reasons for doing so. It is absurd to take away the woman's right to live her life as she sees fit because of someone else's definition of moral justice.

[Planeia]

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.

To be honest, I'd support science all the way in researching that. The main goal is to ensure no one has to die.

But alas, that seems more like science fiction. I hope it'll be achieved in the near future though.

[Auralia]

Why is there a distinction?



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.

I never said they were. My point was that if an entity is dependent on another, that does not mean they are the same entity. That is a gross oversimplification most evident in the examples I provided.

[Galloism]

Why is there a distinction?



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.

Wait, WHAT?

Great, now where am I going to put this gallon of blood?

[Mavorpen]

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.

And not a single one was peer reviewed.

Please, don't link to articles on anti-drug sites that use links to OTHER anti-drug sites and expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Individuality-ness]

Women aren't medical supplies.

Wait, WHAT?

Great, now where am I going to put this gallon of blood?

Don't you deliver those to Satan down below?

[Condunum]

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.

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

[Gaelic Celtia]

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.

And a fetus is not a human being, nor a citizen. So therefore, the laws do not apply to it. They do apply to the mother, who is both. Therefore, the choice is entirely hers.

[Galloism]

Wait, WHAT?

Great, now where am I going to put this gallon of blood?

Don't you deliver those to Satan down below?

I don't deliver to my inferiors. They come to me.

[Zweite Alaje]

It had several sources for its information.

And not a single one was peer reviewed.

Please, don't link to articles on anti-drug sites that use links to OTHER anti-drug sites and expect anyone to take you seriously.

It has links to pro-drug sites and sources as well...

[Auralia]

Why is there a distinction?

Because the law needs there to be a distinction between legal persons and non-legal persons.

Why?

[Individuality-ness]

Don't you deliver those to Satan down below?

I don't deliver to my inferiors. They come to me.

I'm quite sure he'd like to know that. Shall I call him?

[Auralia]

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.

And a fetus is not a human being, nor a citizen. So therefore, the laws do not apply to it. They do apply to the mother, who is both. Therefore, the choice is entirely hers.

And I argue we should change the law to reflect reality: a fetus is a human being and deserving of legal rights.

[Olthar]

Because the law needs there to be a distinction between legal persons and non-legal persons.

Why?

Go take a college course on law if you really want to know.

[Fixdeluxe1]

It should be illegal except in exceptional circumstances (such as in cases of rape, or severe health risk to either the child or the parent). If people don't want a baby, they should use protection. Why go through the entire process which basically ends a human life before it's even born into this world when you can take precautions to ensure that it doesn't occur in the first place, whilst still enjoying the benefits of birth-controlled sex?

Seems logical to me.

[Atollus]

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.

You shouldn't need even a basic understanding of politics or history to understand how completely wrong this can be. Laws can be very arbitrary. And tend to be as subjective as the morality of the humans who make them.

[Galloism]

I don't deliver to my inferiors. They come to me.

I'm quite sure he'd like to know that. Shall I call him?

You go for it. 666-666-6667

Some ass already beat him to the punch on the last six.

Heh. Someone who likes bothering him.

[Desperate Measures]

Women aren't medical supplies.

I never said they were. My point was that if an entity is dependent on another, that does not mean they are the same entity. That is a gross oversimplification most evident in the examples I provided.

I'm not seeing how it is an oversimplification. You are saying that the fetus has more of a right to a woman's body than the woman does. Why?

[Mavorpen]

And not a single one was peer reviewed.

Please, don't link to articles on anti-drug sites that use links to OTHER anti-drug sites and expect anyone to take you seriously.

It has links to pro-drug sites and sources as well...

No shit. Because it had a section COVERING the other side's stance. And still, not a single one is peer reviewed.

I have no clue why I'm even bothering.

[Planeia]

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.

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

And so you suppose the answer is to kill those who take the rights of others?

[Gaelic Celtia]

And a fetus is not a human being, nor a citizen. So therefore, the laws do not apply to it. They do apply to the mother, who is both. Therefore, the choice is entirely hers.

And I argue we should change the law to reflect reality: a fetus is a human being and deserving of legal rights.

Why? Is it sentient? Is it self aware? Does it think? Does it contribute to the nation it resides in? Is it a citizen? Can it represent itself in a court of law? No? Then again, it cannot apply to a fetus. It is not a human anymore than a tumor is a human. It is a simple mass of cells without a mind or thought.

I do however, think after the heart begins to beat, it is too late. But, again, entirely up to the potential mother.

[Condunum]

I'm quite sure he'd like to know that. Shall I call him?

You go for it. 666-666-6667

Some ass already beat him to the punch on the last six.

Heh. Someone who likes bothering him.

I'm pretty sure Jim has that number

[Zweite Alaje]

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.

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

[Condunum]

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

And so you suppose the answer is to kill those who take the rights of others?

No, remove them from the other person. If they so happen to die... Well, they're dead. The solution isn't making abortion illegal, it's improving life support for underdeveloped fetuses.