Abortion: human right?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If women can abort fetuses by themselves unaided, then yes, it's a human right that cannot be taken from them. If not, then they aren't losing anything.

Why? I fail to see why distinction between things that are possible with technology and things that are possible "naturally" has any inherent moral implications. (In other words, just because something is "natural" doesn't make it good, and just because something is "unnatural" doesn't make it bad)

"You can't do it naturally" is an absolutely idiotic argument against getting cancer treatment, so I fail to see why it should be any more significant against abortion

We're talking rights, not morality.

[Othelos]

There's no force involved. Doctors freely chose that profession.

If someone wants an abortion, and a doctor is willing to provide it, then they can have an abortion. But that doesn't make it a right. If there are no doctors available, all the rights in the world won't get you an abortion. As far as I'm concerned, rights are for things that cannot be taken from you, not for things that must be provided to you.

People can get abortions without doctors. That's the problem with making abortion illegal: it becomes dangerous. Coat hangers, anyone?

[Northern-Armeania]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

[Othelos]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

[Silent Majority]

Why? I fail to see why distinction between things that are possible with technology and things that are possible "naturally" has any inherent moral implications. (In other words, just because something is "natural" doesn't make it good, and just because something is "unnatural" doesn't make it bad)

"You can't do it naturally" is an absolutely idiotic argument against getting cancer treatment, so I fail to see why it should be any more significant against abortion

We're talking rights, not morality.

Rights are philosophically grounded in normative ethics

[Northern-Armeania]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

Killing Jews in NAZI Germany was legal in NAZI Germany, its that not murder?

[Ifreann]

There's no force involved. Doctors freely chose that profession.

If someone wants an abortion, and a doctor is willing to provide it, then they can have an abortion. But that doesn't make it a right. If there are no doctors available, all the rights in the world won't get you an abortion. As far as I'm concerned, rights are for things that cannot be taken from you, not for things that must be provided to you.

Then your understanding of rights is not consistent with reality.

[Neutraligon]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

You also forgot the logical fallacy in that argument.

[MERIZoC]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

If the fetus can survive on it's own, there should not be an abortion. Not many people dispute that argument.

[Nimzonia]

Having sex and juggling chainsaws are both actions that have potential negative consequences, and if you decide to do them anyway, then you need to be prepared to accept and live with the negative outcomes. Saying "but I didn't consent to that" doesn't get you out of the mess you got yourself into. If you take a gamble and lose, it's your problem. You don't have a right for it to be cleaned up for you.

yes, but if you gamble and get pregnant, you can stop being pregnant.

There are lots of things you can have, that are not human rights. I think you have a right to not be stopped from having an abortion, but I don't think you have a right to have one. Rights are things which you must have under all circumstances. Abortions are just conveniences of our wealthy, technologically advanced modern world.

[Neutraligon]

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

Killing Jews in NAZI Germany was legal in NAZI Germany, its that not murder?

At that time, no it wasn't.

[MERIZoC]

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

You also forgot the logical fallacy in that argument.

The Strawman?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If someone wants an abortion, and a doctor is willing to provide it, then they can have an abortion. But that doesn't make it a right. If there are no doctors available, all the rights in the world won't get you an abortion. As far as I'm concerned, rights are for things that cannot be taken from you, not for things that must be provided to you.

Then by that definition every right you or I have is not a right, simply because they can all be taken from you.

Maybe you should learn the definition of Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and Inherent Rights.

[Northern-Armeania]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

If the fetus can survive on it's own, there should not be an abortion. Not many people dispute that argument.

Ive had debates on here where people have

[Neutraligon]

yes, but if you gamble and get pregnant, you can stop being pregnant.

There are lots of things you can have, that are not human rights. I think you have a right to not be stopped from having an abortion, but I don't think you have a right to have one. Rights are things which you must have under all circumstances. Abortions are just conveniences of our wealthy, technologically advanced modern world.

Umm, abortions have existed for a very ling time, hell they were written about in the bible. And again by that definition there are no rights.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There are lots of things you can have, that are not human rights. I think you have a right to not be stopped from having an abortion, but I don't think you have a right to have one. Rights are things which you must have under all circumstances. Abortions are just conveniences of our wealthy, technologically advanced modern world.

Umm, abortions have existed for a very ling time, hell they were written about in the bible. And again by that definition there are no rights.

Chapter and Verse?

[Othelos]

murder is unlawful killing, so abortion is not murder.

Killing Jews in NAZI Germany was legal in NAZI Germany, its that not murder?

No. Murder is based on legality, not morality.

[Neutraligon]

You also forgot the logical fallacy in that argument.

The Strawman?

Appeal to emotion.

[Nimzonia]

If someone wants an abortion, and a doctor is willing to provide it, then they can have an abortion. But that doesn't make it a right. If there are no doctors available, all the rights in the world won't get you an abortion. As far as I'm concerned, rights are for things that cannot be taken from you, not for things that must be provided to you.

Then your understanding of rights is not consistent with reality.

Rights are legally defined and subject to change. I disagree with the current definition.

[Ifreann]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

Do you only support rights for things you think are cute? That's abhorrent.

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe the babies have a right to life, its that simple, also if your pro choice Google image a fetus. They are so CUTE!!!!!!
Look at the picture on this link and tell me why killing that baby that could survive on its own is not murder.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ss/ ... tus_10.htm

If the fetus can survive on it's own, there should not be an abortion. Not many people dispute that argument.

34% of NSG apparently disagrees, the largest voting category.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Killing Jews in NAZI Germany was legal in NAZI Germany, its that not murder?

No. Murder is based on legality, not morality.

Was still wrong though. As is abortion. By the religious definition, it is murder.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If the fetus can survive on it's own, there should not be an abortion. Not many people dispute that argument.

34% of NSG apparently disagrees, the largest voting category.

Cause NSG is such a great polling sample.

[Neutraligon]

Umm, abortions have existed for a very ling time, hell they were written about in the bible. And again by that definition there are no rights.

Chapter and Verse?

Start at numbers 5:11

[Draica]

Abortion is murder, period.