Abortion: human right?

[Neutraligon]

I see, so force a woman to carry the results of someone who forced themselves on her, forcing her to know everyday she was raped and must now deal with the medical issues all pregnancies bring...brilliant. You just made pregnancy worse then a punishment.

So by your argument, it is acceptable to end someone's life before they have the opportunity to possibly become someone extremely successful and do wonderful works on earth is a bad thing, but arguing for the wanton murder of a child regardless of the circumstances of it's conception is somehow a positive? Whether you choose to accept that a foetus is a child or not is irrelevant: it is an entity, it is alive, and as such is murder.

We cannot predict the future, so what they could be does not matter. Second abortion is not murder (read OP) third abortion does not kill a child (a child is someone after birth and before 13. Also nice appeal to emotion. Killing a human does not a murder make. Killing in self defense for instance is not murder.

[Dyakovo]

I see, so force a woman to carry the results of someone who forced themselves on her, forcing her to know everyday she was raped and must now deal with the medical issues all pregnancies bring...brilliant. You just made pregnancy worse then a punishment.

So by your argument, it is acceptable to end someone's life before they have the opportunity to possibly become someone extremely successful and do wonderful works on earth is a bad thing, but arguing for the wanton murder of a child regardless of the circumstances of it's conception is somehow a positive? Whether you choose to accept that a foetus is a child or not is irrelevant: it is an entity, it is alive, and as such is murder.

No, our argument is that women are people, not ambulatory incubators.

[Galloism]

Many do, but sometimes things fail.

It happens.

And you're accepting the chance of things failing when you have sex.

It happens.

Aye, but just like a broken arm or a disfigured face from a car accident, we try to fix things and return them (as much as possible) to original condition after an accident.

[Galloism]

So by your argument, it is acceptable to end someone's life before they have the opportunity to possibly become someone extremely successful and do wonderful works on earth is a bad thing, but arguing for the wanton murder of a child regardless of the circumstances of it's conception is somehow a positive? Whether you choose to accept that a foetus is a child or not is irrelevant: it is an entity, it is alive, and as such is murder.

No, our argument is that women are people, not ambulatory incubators.

What?

These notes I stole from Todd Akin are completely wrong!

[Pragia]

No? I'm in favor of forcing those who agreed to reproduction to have their children and their father to support them. I said that those who didn't consent shouldn't be forced to.

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Which you still have yet to argue instead of beginning from square one.

[Galloism]

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Just like if you ride in a car, you consent to the possibility of looking like Don Knots brother - the ugly one.

[Godular]

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Nope. Consent to sex means consent to sex, nuffin' more.

[Wanderjar]

So by your argument, it is acceptable to end someone's life before they have the opportunity to possibly become someone extremely successful and do wonderful works on earth is a bad thing, but arguing for the wanton murder of a child regardless of the circumstances of it's conception is somehow a positive? Whether you choose to accept that a foetus is a child or not is irrelevant: it is an entity, it is alive, and as such is murder.

We cannot predict the future, so what they could be does not matter. Second abortion is not murder (read OP) third abortion does not kill a child (a child is someone after birth and before 13. Also nice appeal to emotion. Killing a human does not a murder make. Killing in self defense for instance is not murder.

Using bold text in the OP to state that a foetus is not a person doesn't make it accurate. The straining for an attempt to circumvent the fact that a foetus is still an unborn human child simply proves, to me, that people will go at great lengths to clear their conscience of approving the murder of an unborn. I find it curious that every individual who argues for abortion has indeed been born.

I agree, we cannot predict the future. That means that we cannot see that the individual in question is going to be evil, so why punish the unborn for a deed it has not committed?

[Galloism]

We cannot predict the future, so what they could be does not matter. Second abortion is not murder (read OP) third abortion does not kill a child (a child is someone after birth and before 13. Also nice appeal to emotion. Killing a human does not a murder make. Killing in self defense for instance is not murder.

Using bold text in the OP to state that a foetus is not a person doesn't make it accurate. The straining for an attempt to circumvent the fact that a foetus is still an unborn human child simply proves, to me, that people will go at great lengths to clear their conscience of approving the murder of an unborn. I find it curious that every individual who argues for abortion has indeed been born.

I agree, we cannot predict the future. That means that we cannot see that the individual in question is going to be evil, so why punish the unborn for a deed it has not committed?

It's not being punished. It's being evicted.

[Godular]

We cannot predict the future, so what they could be does not matter. Second abortion is not murder (read OP) third abortion does not kill a child (a child is someone after birth and before 13. Also nice appeal to emotion. Killing a human does not a murder make. Killing in self defense for instance is not murder.

Using bold text in the OP to state that a foetus is not a person doesn't make it accurate. The straining for an attempt to circumvent the fact that a foetus is still an unborn human child simply proves, to me, that people will go at great lengths to clear their conscience of approving the murder of an unborn. I find it curious that every individual who argues for abortion has indeed been born.

I agree, we cannot predict the future. That means that we cannot see that the individual in question is going to be evil, so why punish the unborn for a deed it has not committed?

The only punishment is in forcing the woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

We cannot predict the future, so what they could be does not matter. Second abortion is not murder (read OP) third abortion does not kill a child (a child is someone after birth and before 13. Also nice appeal to emotion. Killing a human does not a murder make. Killing in self defense for instance is not murder.

Using bold text in the OP to state that a foetus is not a person doesn't make it accurate. The straining for an attempt to circumvent the fact that a foetus is still an unborn human child simply proves, to me, that people will go at great lengths to clear their conscience of approving the murder of an unborn. I find it curious that every individual who argues for abortion has indeed been born.{Then it should be in the form of a question if you're really the answer, which I'll provide}

I agree, we cannot predict the future. That means that we cannot see that the individual in question is going to be evil, so why punish the unborn for a deed it has not committed?

The straining for an attempt to circumvent the fact that a foetus is still an unborn human child simply proves, to me, that people will go at great lengths to clear their conscience of approving the murder of an unborn.

Yes, because everyone has conscience when they're about to die giving birth. There is no factor of conscience within abortion. Abortion concerns life, responsibility, and more factor, conscience not part if one really should require/want a abortion.
And again:

I see, so force a woman to carry the results of someone who forced themselves on her, forcing her to know everyday she was raped and must now deal with the medical issues all pregnancies bring...brilliant. You just made pregnancy worse then a punishment.

No:

Sperm-/->Baby

Sperms are the cells that are the double in creating a baby, so actually, it is required to have sperm or a reproductive cell.

Sperm+Ovum-->Zygote-->Fetus (What you're killing)-->Baby

Wrong:

Sperm + Ovum = Zygote{The beginning cell, Not a human, it is still in cell form, lasts up to week 8} = Embryo{Starts at week 8, Ends at Week 12} = Fetus{The baby}

Zygote is the cell, Embryo is the formed body of many cells reproducing, and neither can be considered human due to the fact that a embryo is till developing into the stage of growth, and Zygotes are simple cells.

I find it curious that every individual who argues for abortion has indeed been born.

Because they are arguing those who are requesting those who want something that will inevitably bring much hardship and possible death is enough, and I see nothing how this contributes.

I agree, we cannot predict the future. That means that we cannot see that the individual in question is going to be evil, so why punish the unborn for a deed it has not committed?

Because it would better to not gamble with your chances of what will haunt you.

[Othelos]

So if you break your arm in a car crash, you won't have it fixed?

Fixing a broken part of the body=/=killing a baby that you consented to having.

Exactly what part of not consenting = consenting?

[Othelos]

Consent to Sex=/= consent to pregnancy and/or parenthood.

Yes it is. The biological purpose of sex is procreation and parenthood.

No, not always. People give their babies up for adoption, or have abortions all the time. Or, they use contraception.

[Dyakovo]

Fixing a broken part of the body=/=killing a baby that you consented to having.

Exactly what part of not consenting = consenting?

The part where, apparently, he gets to decide whether or not other people have consented.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Yes it is. The biological purpose of sex is procreation and parenthood.

No, it isn't. People give their babies up for adoption, or have abortions all the time.

Not according to his logic

[Othelos]

I have a problem with the poll. I do not believe that abortion is acceptable even when a woman is raped, but I do however believe that if the woman's life is in danger then it becomes acceptable.

That's why the option is "and/or"

Before people call me a chauvinist, I used to believe that rape was an acceptable situation until, about two or three years ago, I read an article in the New York Times by a trauma surgeon at New York General entitled something to the effect of 'Don't I deserve to live?'

The basic premise was that this surgeon was the product of a rape, yet the woman decided, reluctantly, to have and raise the child. Said child grew up and went to Harvard Medical School (I believe) and became a trauma surgeon. He made a very persuasive argument that even though his mother was raped, he deserved to live and became a highly successful and excellent humanitarian. This kinda turned my head in and I had to ponder on it for awhile, but I see his point as being valid. Such a man is not his sperm donor (father is a title which I believe is undeserving of someone such as that despicable rapist, I love my father dearly and view it as a title of the highest honour), he is an independent person who deserves to live. If the woman finds it unbearable, she can give the child for adoption to a loving home, there are many.

For what it's worth, my best friend was another such case. He was however given up for adoption and now is a community organizer and former sergeant in the US Army, having done civil affairs and serving in Africa to develop communities and make people's lives better. He is a great man, and deserved to live.

Said person could also grow up to be a genocidal maniac, like Hitler. You can't argue long-term outcome, because it's unknown, and irrelevant to present/near future reality.

[Benuty]

Depends really, because If I recall humanity hasn't given birth in over 25 years thus the last of the old newborns are now 25 years old. Besides an abortion would be entirely immoral with the human race going down the drain.

President Roslin? Is that you?

Perhaps.

[Mavorpen]

It also used for enjoyment of a person, and if you say that it makes a woman a object, think of people that aren't heterosexual.


Wrong again by misinterpreting what I say. You are not agreeing to parenthood because you would never use the condom unless you want the condom to break.

1. You get enjoyment from it because your brain is instinctually hard wired to enjoy pro creation, it's to promote survival and ensure the next generation.

No it isn't. Humans aren't dogs. We don't have sex only when the female is the most fertile. In humans and many other social species, sex very clearly does not solely serve the purpose of reproduction, or else we would have sex at only specific times of the year. Humans have sex whenever they feel like it, which, would be extremely stupid from an evolutionary standpoint if the only goal was reproduction, as getting and having sex uses resources and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

[Pragia]

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Which you still have yet to argue instead of beginning from square one.

Which post have I not been arguing, I thought I've been pretty good at answering everyone

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Nope. Consent to sex means consent to sex, nuffin' more.

No, if I commit a bank robbery, I am doing it knowing I risk arrest.

Fixing a broken part of the body=/=killing a baby that you consented to having.

Exactly what part of not consenting = consenting?

Where did I say that not consenting=consenting?

Yes it is. The biological purpose of sex is procreation and parenthood.

No, not always. People give their babies up for adoption, or have abortions all the time. Or, they use contraception.

1. Which is still fulfilling the purpose of creating the next generation.
2. Which are irresponsible and frankly sadistic if they enjoy having abortions frequently.
3. Which is a chemical abortion in plan B, or perfectly acceptable in preventative medicines.

Exactly what part of not consenting = consenting?

The part where, apparently, he gets to decide whether or not other people have consented.

Sorry that people aren't allowed to just going around fucking each other without a care in the world, killing off anything that'd dare inconvenience them.

[Benuty]

Depends really, because If I recall humanity hasn't given birth in over 25 years thus the last of the old newborns are now 25 years old. Besides an abortion would be entirely immoral with the human race going down the drain.

I should watch that movie again.

The books far drearier considering Europe has pretty much collapsed in it.

[Othelos]

I should watch that movie again.

The books far drearier considering Europe has pretty much collapsed in it.

Europe is pretty close. Children are treated like precious resources in Germany :/

[Mavorpen]

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

No, it does not, and no court would ever take this stupid argument seriously.

Actually, see if you understood what reasonable expectation meant, you would understand that my source is everywhere. Everywarning label on every product. including your coffee cup.

I'm not interested in your false equivalencies. I'm interested in the claim that it's true in cases such as pregnancy. Because that would mean that if a woman who had sex with her husband, became pregnant, and then entered a coma, the husband wouldn't be able to make any decisions on her behalf period. Even if they beforehand had no intentions to have a child at that point in time, you're telling me that because she had sex, she consented to pregnancy, and therefore the husband cannot give permission for an abortion.

Or if the woman became pregnant and had a life threatening incident that resulted in her being in a vegetable state thereby forcing her to be on life support. What precedent is there that the father would have no right to pull the plug? After all, according to you, she consented to the sex, therefore consented to pregnancy, and therefore that consent cannot be broken.

Or, is that claim just plain bunk?

[Mavorpen]

No, if I commit a bank robbery, I am doing it knowing I risk arrest.

Which is irrelevant because you would be arrested regardless of whether you consent.

This is the worse example you could have given.

[Kelinfort]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no matter your view on abortion, it must be legal for the health of the mother's sake, for the sake of happiness, and for the sake of the state. Banning abortion neither prevents the practice nor discourages it.