Abortion: human right?

[Sin and Debauchery]

Depends on the situation. But if you voluntarily made that person, you are responsible for it, and as soon as it becomes sentient killing it is the very definition of murder.

Your rights end where the other's rights begin.

People don't choose to become pregnant.

Hummmm, a lot of them do...not all children are born because of broken condoms

And if someone became pregnant and it wasn't rape, they chose, even if not directly. As i said before, all adults have to live with the consequences of their actions, be they intended or unintended.

I also did not intend to crash into another car, but i chose to do it when i decided to check my phone instead of keeping my eyes on the road.

[Murkwood]

Section 3 begs to differ:



Also, for all you Commies fawning over the UDHR, look at Article 17.

The UDHR applies to human beings. Fetus's are not human beings. Here's article 25.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Abortion is a medical service, and thus applies to this.

But it's not a necessary medical service.

[Northern-Armeania]

Women should be able to augment their bodies in whatever way they want.

Agreed.

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

[Unitaristic Regions]

People don't choose to become pregnant.

Hummmm, a lot of them do...not all children are born because of broken condoms

And if someone became pregnant and it wasn't rape, they chose, even if not directly. As i said before, all adults have to live with the consequences of their actions, be they intended or unintended.

I also did not intend to crash into another car, but i chose to do it when i decided to check my phone instead of keeping my eyes on the road.

All accidents are choices?

You learn something new every day...

[Arkolon]

Dead baby = successful abortion.

Dead murderer = botched execution.


When my mother was pregnant with my brother, the genetics counselor said he was going to have down's syndrome and would be severely mentally retarded for his entire life, and that he should be aborted. He turned out perfectly normal. That genetics counselor tried to kill a perfectly normal kid based off of a wrinkle in his brain we saw on the ultrasound. You see though, that's not the only issue. You want to kill a fetus/unborn child mainly for one of two reasons- they will have some undesirable trait (you're going for a master race like Hitler.) or the mother was impregnated while having sex but doesn't want a baby. (You are horribly irresponsible and hopefully will never reproduce.)

Now, that being said, let's say the mother was impregnated from a rape. This is different, because the mother is not at fault here. Here are some nonlethal ways to solve the problem of what to do with the kid-

Put them up for adoption, raise the kid as your own, or (less desirably) make the rapist take care of them.


As to those of you who want to have sex without the risk of having a baby, you can either shove a cobalt-60 rod up your fallopian tubes or you can have your testicles surgically removed.. Sex is a tool to carry on the species, not something people do becuz itz fun dawg. Thank you for your time.

-A person whose brother was nearly killed off because of abortion.

The purpose of sex is not just to get pregnant.

Frequent enjoyment of sex is the cornerstone of a rebellious adolescence. Although its side effects do include an increased pulse and the possible creation of another human lifeform, I'm pretty sure sex is mostly used for fun as opposed to being solely restricted to missionary between the bedsheets for the sole purpose of procreation.

[Othelos]

People don't choose to become pregnant.

Hummmm, a lot of them do...not all children are born because of broken condoms

And if someone became pregnant and it wasn't rape, they chose, even if not directly. As i said before, all adults have to live with the consequences of their actions, be they intended or unintended.

I also did not intend to crash into another car, but i chose to do it when i decided to check my phone instead of keeping my eyes on the road.

I meant that people don't literally choose to become pregnant. You can try to become pregnant, or you can try not to get pregnant. That's why people always argue over whether or not sex also means consent to pregnancy - it's not 100% up to choice.

[Olthar]

Agreed.

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

I would be fine with taxpayers supporting prettier boobs.

[Sin and Debauchery]

No, sorry, that is not how it works. You either do something or you don't, and you take responsibility for it, that is the definition of being an adult and a free citizen instead of being a happy-go-lucky teenager. You can only remove your consent up to a certain point in the fetus development cycle, after that point the being becomes sentient, and killing a sentient human being is a crime.

Don't want to raise the child? give it up for adoption, but you have no right to kill a fellow human being.

Yes, you do, if it's violating your bodily sovereignty.

Well, guess what, there is no such thing as "body sovereignty" in a modern non-anarchic society. You have rights, and those rights end when you infringe another one's rights, that is the overarching agreement that we all agreed upon by belonging to a state.

[Othelos]

Agreed.

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

Seeing as getting fake boobs and having a child are two different things completely, no. But, you can support it with your money if you want

[Arkolon]

Agreed.

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

It isn't a right at all. It's a temporary privilege that a relatively new institution pretends to give you. The only rights are natural rights, which are all negative-- meaning that there isn't anything to finance. If a "right" requires taxation in order to be carried out as a right, what kind of right is it really?

[The Serbian Empire]

Yes, you do, if it's violating your bodily sovereignty.

Well, guess what, there is no such thing as "body sovereignty" in a modern non-anarchic society. You have rights, and those rights end when you infringe another one's rights, that is the overarching agreement that we all agreed upon by belonging to a state.

Government: The thing that makes "It's my body and I can do what I want" a false analogy.

[Othelos]

Yes, you do, if it's violating your bodily sovereignty.

Well, guess what, there is no such thing as "body sovereignty" in a modern non-anarchic society. You have rights, and those rights end when you infringe another one's rights, that is the overarching agreement that we all agreed upon by belonging to a state.

Do you know what bodily sovereignty is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

being a member of a state isn't violating your sovereignty.

[Sin and Debauchery]

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

I would be fine with taxpayers supporting prettier boobs.

Actually....me too

How are political parties not putting this on their manifestos?

[NSG Debate Liberonscien]

Who the hell would think partial birth abortion is ok?

[Atlanticatia]

Agreed.

So if its a right does that mean that taxpayers should be funding it?

All medically necessary health care services should be publicly funded if there is a public health care system. If the breast surgery is done because someone has breast cancer (and had a double mastectomy or something), or has some other type of medical problem that would require breast augmentation, then it should be funded. In some instances, it's not cosmetic.

It's more that people have a right to choose what medical services they receive. So, if we have a publicly funded health system, then we should fund whatever is deemed medical necessary.

[The Serbian Empire]

Who the hell would think partial birth abortion is ok?

Radical feminists?

[Eastern Equestria]

repeated for emphasis

[Arkolon]

I would be fine with taxpayers supporting prettier boobs.

Actually....me too

How are political parties not putting this on their manifestos?

"Although the Right Honourable gentlemen of the Conservative Party have declared their 2017 task to be achieving a triple-A credit rating, we have instead selected aiming for a perky double-digit B instead."

[Atlanticatia]

Actually....me too

How are political parties not putting this on their manifestos?

"Although the Right Honourable gentlemen of the Conservative Party have declared their 2017 task to be achieving a triple-A credit rating, we have instead selected aiming for a perky double-digit B instead."

Only a perky double-digit B!? This Government is shameful! Double-D..er..credit rating for all!

[Sin and Debauchery]

Well, guess what, there is no such thing as "body sovereignty" in a modern non-anarchic society. You have rights, and those rights end when you infringe another one's rights, that is the overarching agreement that we all agreed upon by belonging to a state.

Do you know what bodily sovereignty is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

being a member of a state isn't violating your sovereignty.

The non-wikipedia concept of "bodily sovereignty" is often used in the context of no restrictions whatsoever (basically, the law of the jungle). This is because sovereignty is often interpreted in the most direct way possible: absolute power over something. And in the context of a state no one has absolute power over anything.

But this is semantics, the link that you used defeats your argument anyway:

described those possessed of a mind conducive to self-ownership as sovereign individuals, which have supreme authority and sovereignty over their own choices, without the interference of governing powers, provided they have not violated the rights of others

When you kill someone else, you are in violation of his right to life.

[Arkolon]

"Although the Right Honourable gentlemen of the Conservative Party have declared their 2017 task to be achieving a triple-A credit rating, we have instead selected aiming for a perky double-digit B instead."

Only a perky double-digit B!? This Government is shameful! Double-D..er..credit rating for all!

Eh, I've never been into anything so large that it has its own miniature gravitational field around it, mostly because, well, it sags, but if you're into that kind of wo-- Greece-tier credit rating, then that's up to you.

[Sin and Debauchery]

"Although the Right Honourable gentlemen of the Conservative Party have declared their 2017 task to be achieving a triple-A credit rating, we have instead selected aiming for a perky double-digit B instead."

Only a perky double-digit B!? This Government is shameful! Double-D..er..credit rating for all!

The Labour party promises a double D "credit rating" (wink wink) with no back pain and with eternal perkiness! Vote labour!

[Northern Davincia]

Every child has the potential to benefit humanity altogether. In regards to medical research, abortion should be allowed if the child will not survive or the mother. It should also be allowed when the mother was not consenting or of age to raise a child. To just deny the opportunity of life to something that can't even decide for itself makes quite a few people uncomfortable. But there's always the possibility that this can go too far. We need to question the morals going on rather than just "They don't want to have a kid, so we should let them do whatever they want".

[Othelos]

Do you know what bodily sovereignty is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

being a member of a state isn't violating your sovereignty.

The non-wikipedia concept of "bodily sovereignty" is often used in the context of no restrictions whatsoever (basically, the law of the jungle). This is because sovereignty is often interpreted in the most direct way possible: absolute power over something. And in the context of a state no one has absolute power over anything.

But this is semantics, the link that you used defeats your argument anyway:

described those possessed of a mind conducive to self-ownership as sovereign individuals, which have supreme authority and sovereignty over their own choices, without the interference of governing powers, provided they have not violated the rights of others

When you kill someone else, you are in violation of his right to life.

Right. Except, in the case of abortion, the mother may not have consented to getting pregnant in the first place. So without that consent, the fetus is violating her bodily sovereignty, and she is perfectly within her right to abort it.

[Ifreann]

True, I suppose. I was thinking more permanent and failsafe solutions.

A vasectomy/tubal ligation is very permanent and very failsafe unless the doctor is a complete idiot.

According to what law?

Most states recognize in their constitutions the right to life.

Also, the UDHR says in article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Most states also afford people the right to self defence, and have a military force for use in war. Obviously they do not criminalise all killing of human beings. So again, what law says that killing a sentient human being is a crime?

---

Who the hell would think partial birth abortion is ok?

Radical feminists?

People who would rather women have an abortion and live than remain pregnant and die.