Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I believe all people own their bodies and have the right to remove unwanted parasites from them, regardless of how the parasitic infection occurred or what species the infectious parasite is.
I find the concept of forced pregnancy morally reprehensible.

I suppose these two beliefs would put me firmly in the 'pro-choice' camp.

[Mavorpen]

Slavery has nothing to do with this. You asked if you could go around killing other people's dogs and I told you why you could not.

It was an analogy.

The question is, do you or do you not consider a fetus to be a woman's property?

It's an irrelevant question, really. It doesn't matter if it's property or not.

[Sanctissima]

It was an analogy.

The question is, do you or do you not consider a fetus to be a woman's property?

It's an irrelevant question, really. It doesn't matter if it's property or not.

Whether or not it's property determines whether or not the woman has a right to abort it.

[Mavorpen]

It's an irrelevant question, really. It doesn't matter if it's property or not.

Whether or not it's property determines whether or not the woman has a right to abort it.

No it doesn't. Being non-property doesn't give you the right to use a woman's body against their will because they aren't property themselves.

[Sanctissima]

I believe all people own their bodies and have the right to remove unwanted parasites from them, regardless of how the parasitic infection occurred or what species the infectious parasite is.
I find the concept of forced pregnancy morally reprehensible.

I suppose these two beliefs would put me firmly in the 'pro-choice' camp.

In these debates, someone always says the word "parasite" at least once.

Kudos, for not caring.

[Genivaria]

...And?

I'm sure that they also breathed air.

So calling unborn children "property" is kind of shallow.

And now youve resorted to strawmen, the last resort of a dishonest debator.

[Farnhamia]

Slavery has nothing to do with this. You asked if you could go around killing other people's dogs and I told you why you could not.

It was an analogy.

The question is, do you or do you not consider a fetus to be a woman's property?

Only in the sense that her arms and legs are. Up to the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is part of the woman's body and as such, it is her decision about continuing to maintain it as such. This is not to say that she will not consult her family and her physician and other people, but doing so is her choice. You talk as if you think having an abortion is something some women do with a la-di-dah, non-chalant attitude, "Oh, dear, I'm pregnant, best run down and have an abortion." I assure you, it is not.

[Ifreann]

But that quote has nothing to do with that. Nor does your "Speak for yourself, you're the one who's already been born." post.

It trumps the "you're not a woman, so what input do you have?" argument.

No, it doesn't.

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but maybe you should stop posting and figure out what you actually think about abortion and why you think it, instead of this fire and forget approach where you try new arguments against abortion as we refute the one you made previously.

---

Pro-Choice.

I have nightmares about having children and being forced to keep them. I would rather have the option to abort. Its in my self-interest.

Also, because Freedom.

I wasn't aware that you were in a position to get pregnant.

[Settrah]

I believe all people own their bodies and have the right to remove unwanted parasites from them, regardless of how the parasitic infection occurred or what species the infectious parasite is.
I find the concept of forced pregnancy morally reprehensible.

I suppose these two beliefs would put me firmly in the 'pro-choice' camp.

In these debates, someone always says the word "parasite" at least once.

Kudos, for not caring.

Ok then, as you are so caring and compassionate towards human life, what measures do you personally take in real life to put and end to child poverty?

Or are you one of those pro lifers that make a mountain out of a molehill to make the child be born, and then immediately couldn't give a crap about it once it sees daylight?

[Ashmoria]

You have an actual source or are you just making shit up.

Logically, most women who support absolute rights to abortion don't personally plan on having kids.

That's not to say they won't eventually have kids anyway, but more often than not, someone who is unconditionally pro-choice does not (or isn't planning to) have children of their own.

the majority of women having an abortion today are already mothers.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Reagan could have literally made fart noises and it would be more insightful than that quote.

Just because the man spent billions of US dollars trying to build a death star to destroy the Soviet Union doesn't mean that once in a while he didn't have a half-decent thought.

That's not the only way he fucked up

[Arcanda]

There's no 100% sure contraception.There's always a risk.
In my opinion, liberty is more sacred than life.Thus, I am pro-abortion.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I believe all people own their bodies and have the right to remove unwanted parasites from them, regardless of how the parasitic infection occurred or what species the infectious parasite is.
I find the concept of forced pregnancy morally reprehensible.

I suppose these two beliefs would put me firmly in the 'pro-choice' camp.

In these debates, someone always says the word "parasite" at least once.

Kudos, for not caring.

Because it is easy to draw parallels between the two. I fail to see how this now means they are not a caring person.

[Ashmoria]

That's not logical at all. And again, sources?

How many pro-choice people do you know of who have kids?

personally? all.

[Cwonation]

Some say that abortion is imoral, I say that allowing a baby to starve to death in front of a mother that can't feed it is beyond sadistic.

[Settrah]

Some say that abortion is imoral, I say that allowing a baby to starve to death in front of a mother that can't feed it is beyond sadistic.

Pro lifers don't bother with that. Apparently only the birth itself matters, but after that the baby is on it's own.

But hey, apparently they 'care'.

[Genivaria]

Some say that abortion is imoral, I say that allowing a baby to starve to death in front of a mother that can't feed it is beyond sadistic.

Pro lifers don't bother with that. Apparently only the birth itself matters, but after that the baby is on it's own.

But hey, apparently they 'care'.

Its there way of appearing to be compassionate without having to do anything productive.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I hold the opinion that whether something is inside or outside a uterus is a pretty fucking trivial criterion for deciding whether or not it's a living being.

A very common argument against hurting or killing living beings is that, whilst most can't really feel and think stuff as complex as humans can, they can still feel pain.

So I think that we should settle on a definition of "living being whose killing is acceptable" and use that, but do without any double standards ; in any event, whether something is or isn't in a womb should have nothing to do with it.

No rights are really absolute, and the right to bodily integrity should be no exception. You should have the right to abortion up until a point in the fetus' development. After that, abortion should be illegal and prosecuted like homicide.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is 'alive' or 'human' or a 'person' or any of the above. It matters whether the woman wants it in her body or wants it gone.

No it doesn't.

As I've said, no right is absolute, and the right to bodily integrity is no different.

If you get cold feet and you're past the term, tough fucking shit. If there's no medical reason, wait and have a C-section or else be rightfully treated like a murderer.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I hold the opinion that whether something is inside or outside a uterus is a pretty fucking trivial criterion for deciding whether or not it's a living being.

A very common argument against hurting or killing living beings is that, whilst most can't really feel and think stuff as complex as humans can, they can still feel pain.

So I think that we should settle on a definition of "living being whose killing is acceptable" and use that, but do without any double standards ; in any event, whether something is or isn't in a womb should have nothing to do with it.

No rights are really absolute, and the right to bodily integrity should be no exception. You should have the right to abortion up until a point in the fetus' development. After that, abortion should be illegal and prosecuted like homicide.

Late term abortions are only performed out of medical necessity, so it's important that they be legal.

Legal for medical reasons, of course.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

That's the stupidest opinion I've ever heard.

So in this fantasy world of yours do parents have the right to euthanize their minor children????

Parents actually have absolute power over a Minor's decisions legally in America. That includes pulling the plug in a grave case.

well duh, but that's obviously not what he meant.

He was all like "the legal guardians can choose to do what they want with it, really."

[Old Hope]

Whether or not it's property determines whether or not the woman has a right to abort it.

No it doesn't. Being non-property doesn't give you the right to use a woman's body against their will because they aren't property themselves.

There are some things that seem wrong with this.
The mother was dependant on that, too. Some time ago.
The unborn didn't choose as well.
It is a human being, with a unique gene set.
I've heard enough about "right to choose" and "right to life"... to know that those are conflicting rights in this situation.
If you do something risky willingly, you have to accept the consequences.
You chose, and have to do your duty. To protect and help the child.(By the way, this is the duty of the father, too, ofc.).
There were some arguments about helping the mother and the child. Yes, the society should help the mother and the child to survive and to have an acceptable life.

[TomKirk]

Up until fairly recently (in a historical context) abortion has been strictly condemned and restricted.

This is reverse of the truth. Late abortions were medically dangerous and restricted on those grounds, but "abortion prior to quickening can never be the subject of indictment under common law" (Blackstone's Commentaries). Legislation against abortion did not start until the 1870's.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Up until fairly recently (in a historical context) abortion has been strictly condemned and restricted.

This is reverse of the truth. Late abortions were medically dangerous and restricted on those grounds, but "abortion prior to quickening can never be the subject of indictment under common law" (Blackstone's Commentaries). Legislation against abortion did not start until the 1870's.

I'm not sure I want to know what kind of abortion methods they had back then.

[New Hampshire Republic]

This is reverse of the truth. Late abortions were medically dangerous and restricted on those grounds, but "abortion prior to quickening can never be the subject of indictment under common law" (Blackstone's Commentaries). Legislation against abortion did not start until the 1870's.

I'm not sure I want to know what kind of abortion methods they had back then.

A knife, and a shitload of a Vaseline.

[Ashmoria]

This is reverse of the truth. Late abortions were medically dangerous and restricted on those grounds, but "abortion prior to quickening can never be the subject of indictment under common law" (Blackstone's Commentaries). Legislation against abortion did not start until the 1870's.

I'm not sure I want to know what kind of abortion methods they had back then.

that's why they were made illegal--too much damage done.