Abortion is Wrong?

[Muravyets]

all communists-in the forest

As opposed to all bricklayers in the skating rink.

[The Adrian Empire]

Having sex is a positive action, one does not have to have sex, while having consensual sex isn't wrong, it shouldn't be taken lightly that a child can result from it. Not using protection on top of this is just plain irresponsible, I see no reason why we as a society should be legitimizing irresponsibility that leads to the death of a human being.

The initial cause is a positive action, as you are not required to ever have sex. The willing consent to sex is in essense the willing consent to the process of reproduction, when one decides not to use contraception that is a negative action on a positive. So indeed, it is willing accepting the dependent since you committed the process of reproduction. The fact that you then choose to not use contraception is just a failure to use a failsafe.
And yes we should require women to give birth to human life they have willingly created, since there is no other law on Earth that says if someone benefits from my mistake I am allowed to kill them.

Sex isn't a positive or negative action; all actions are interpreted differently by all individual beings; there truly is no "Good or Bad Action". We can have our personal thoughts on what a good action is, and there very well might be an action that an overwelming majority of people might agree be Good or Bad; and that very well might be the case; However, the prior point still takes presidence.

I believe you are mistaken here, by positive and negative actions I do not speak of good or bad, as I agree that morality can not be grounded.
I speak of positive & negative actions as similar to positive & negative rights, I have the right to freedom of speech, this is a positive right, as I have the right to perform an action, I also had (thanks GWB) the right to not be detained without charge, as I had the right to be free from being unlawfully detained
I can have sex, if I then decide to have sex I am undertaking a positive action, if I do not I am taking a negative action
I can not use protection, if I decide not to I am undertaking a negative action, if I do use protection then it is a positive action since I have taken the positive response
Essentially, the positive action is yes I will, the negative is no I will not. Morality is not involved

I do agree with you on the next point; irresponsibility is a major problem; however, no law is every going to change this. In fact, repealing laws would be alot better for society for improving our responsibility. People should always use contraceptives; it's the most pr thing to do, it just makes sense that we'd use what we had available to us to make our lives better; especially when said product available has no down sides to it, if used correctly.

And as in most cases I agree with you, repealing frivolous and silly laws would make society more responsible, freedom is a very powerful source of responsibility, but laws that protect civil rights, like those against theft enforcing the right to property, and murder enforcing the right to life are certainly not the sort one repeals. The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life. Were that pregnancy could be terminated without the death of the foetus I would be in support of it, unfortunately it cannot at this time. So I will continue to be against the violation of the foetus's rights (again in my opinion it has rights, I know others like you disagree) until such time that the foetus can still live after the termination of the pregnancy.

What I do not agree with is your stance on what is and what is not life. I'll agree with you on one thing; babies and children should not be allowed to be messed with when in life; even by they're parents. The thing is, before born, the fetus is nothing. It's not human life; it's not even life. It's a organism that feeds off of it's host; in other words a parasite. Also, one more thing to ponder: Before born, when a fetus is physically dependent on it's host for support, if, before birth, the fetus is removed, the organism will not survive on it's own. I don't mean as in "It wouldn't be able to find food for itself." I'm meaning, literally, the fetus just will not be able to survive.

Yes, but I still don't believe that it's life is forfeit simply on the terms that it is not capable of self-dependent living as parasites (and those on welfare ) are indeed living creatures, a foetus in my opinion is still human life, on this we do not agree. Which means neither of our arguments will be effective. Since this dividing line covers all battlefields

[Grave_n_idle]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

But people DO have sex solely for pleasure. Even my Catholic friends have sex for pleasure, although they have extra complications, obviously.

If it wasn't pleasant, we wouldn't do it - which is why it's pleasant. Unfortunately for your strictly utilitarian argument, the fact that it IS pleasant means we do it a lot, even when we don't 'need' to.

[Dempublicents1]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

[The Adrian Empire]

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

A parasite is not considered a part of your body, similarly a foetus which has unique human DNA is not a part of it's host body merely borrowing nutrients and air from it.

Granted, that you can kill a parasite living in your body, but the point remains that a parasite is not your body. I would argue that despite acting as a parasite, this separate human life should not be legal to kill.
However were there an ability to terminate the pregnancy without ending this individual human life, I would not argue against such a procedure, and would actually like to see it legal, though I would still prefer it not used

Exactly; a fetus is not human life because it's physically independent on it's host for survival; it has not yet lived independently, and therefore is classified as having the potential for life; not being human life. Also, your not terminating human life, as there is no human life within a fetus that can be proved.

Again this is where we disagree, I believe that regardless of not having lived independently, the foetus is still living and therefore has a right to it's life. I believe we will not agree on any point of each others argument if we disagree on this issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I am in favour of people having the choice. There is a significant difference.

Yes, you are in favor of people having the choice to abortions.
You are for abortions.

That doesn't logically follow.

For example - I'm personally against abortion, but I don't believe it is my place to force other people to adhere to my beliefs.

I'm not 'for abortion', but I am in favour of people having the choice - making a lie of your argument.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's obviously different if your killing single cell organisms then if you kill a living baby.

"living" is redundant, because no one can kill what does not live.

Define "baby" please.

Hmm.. someone appears to be channeling Judge Death....

[Grave_n_idle]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

Murder is not about a killing it is about a goal to be achieved by it. The death of the obstacle is just a casualty on the road to the objective.

Much of the time, this is true.

Which kind of puts a hole in your attempt to use it as an attempt to ridicule the argument.

[The Adrian Empire]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live. I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

[Karsol]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

They aren't symbiotic, they are parasites, it is a one way relationship, they drain the womans bodily resources without any return benefits.

[Dempublicents1]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

There are all sorts of cases in which one person needs the use of another's body to live. I could, for instance, need a bone marrow transplant to live and you might be the only known match. You would not be required to donate, despite the fact that said donation would take much less of your time and carry far less medical risk than pregnancy. Same goes for a blood transfusion. People can and do die all the time simply because the people out there who could have donated these tissues to help them live exercised their own rights and chose not to. Even if we go as far as discussing live organ transplants, we really aren't talking about much (if any) more risk to the donor than a pregnancy carries for the pregnant woman, yet no one can be forced to give up one of their organs to another.

I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

I don't think it should be. My body is my own. Nobody else should have any "right" to use it without my express permission.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

[The Adrian Empire]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live. I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

They aren't symbiotic, they are parasites, it is a one way relationship, they drain the womans bodily resources without any return benefits.

They are symbiotic in that barring extraneous circumstance they are not life-threatening to the person, self-defence therefore is not an applicable right unless the symbiont becomes life-threatening. Pain is in this case not applicably a form of attack, in the same way that if I inadvertently knocked you into a wall causing you pain you could not shoot me

[Karsol]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live. I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

They aren't symbiotic, they are parasites, it is a one way relationship, they drain the womans bodily resources without any return benefits.

They are symbiotic in that barring extraneous circumstance they are not life-threatening to the person, self-defence therefore is not an applicable right unless the symbiont becomes life-threatening. Pain is in this case not applicably a form of attack, in the same way that if I inadvertently knocked you into a wall causing you pain you could not shoot me

Wrong definition.
Symbiotes give benefits to their host to balance out what nutrients they suck up.
A parasite just feeds, not all parasites kill their hosts, flat worms for example, the just sit in your gut and suck up nutrients...like babies.

[The Adrian Empire]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live. I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

They aren't symbiotic, they are parasites, it is a one way relationship, they drain the womans bodily resources without any return benefits.

They are symbiotic in that barring extraneous circumstance they are not life-threatening to the person, self-defence therefore is not an applicable right unless the symbiont becomes life-threatening. Pain is in this case not applicably a form of attack, in the same way that if I inadvertently knocked you into a wall causing you pain you could not shoot me

Wrong definition.
Symbiotes give benefits to their host to balance out what nutrients they give out.
A parasite just feeds, not all parasites kill their hosts, flat worms for example, the just sit in your gut and suck up nutrients...like babies.

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.
Flat worms won't however will not leave your body in nine moths to become a doctor, or even a genocidal dictator, therefore we can kill the flatworm as it is not human, the baby however is human

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument of one person requiring the benign use of another person in order to live. More importantly whether the host would have the right to kill said benign user, as they are indeed burdensome, however considering that the person is:
a) A living human being
b) will leave in a timely fashion of their own accord
c) the host had not tried to prevent the user from using her body and in fact did actions that would cause the users condition

[Karsol]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument

Scientifically it is not, until it has higher brain functions, it is no more a person than a bacon sandwich.

[Karsol]

The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life.

Why does the fetus have more rights than other persons with rights, in your view? I have a right to life, but I cannot use another person's body against her will, even if I need to do so to live. Why does a fetus have more rights than me?

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live. I would argue that unless the effects of the symbiont become life-threatening to the host it is not a right to kill said dependent.
Would therefore it be legal for you to kill someone who had attached themselves to your arm and began to extract nutrients from your body, it is very legal for you to remove said person, but if the removal would directly cause his death. The legality of the action is indeed in question

They aren't symbiotic, they are parasites, it is a one way relationship, they drain the womans bodily resources without any return benefits.

They are symbiotic in that barring extraneous circumstance they are not life-threatening to the person, self-defence therefore is not an applicable right unless the symbiont becomes life-threatening. Pain is in this case not applicably a form of attack, in the same way that if I inadvertently knocked you into a wall causing you pain you could not shoot me

Wrong definition.
Symbiotes give benefits to their host to balance out what nutrients they give out.
A parasite just feeds, not all parasites kill their hosts, flat worms for example, the just sit in your gut and suck up nutrients...like babies.

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.
Flat worms won't however will not leave your body in nine moths to become a doctor, or even a genocidal dictator, therefore we can kill the flatworm as it is not human, the baby however is human

Like you said, that mass of cells may become the next Mendeleev or the next pol-pott, I'd rather have flat-worm if I was female, just to be safe.

[Muravyets]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument

Your opinion =/= the definition of "person" for the sake of assigning legal rights. But let's discuss your opinion for a moment: Who is MORE of a person -- a fetus or a woman?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument

But, if you're going to argue that something is the 'only observable case of' something, shouldn't it first be absolutely certain that it IS a case of something?

In this case, you're suggesting we use something as the only observable case of x, where it's just your OPINION that it even counts as x.

That would be bad science.

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument of one person requiring the benign use of another person in order to live. More importantly whether the host would have the right to kill said benign user, as they are indeed burdensome, however considering that the person is:
a) A living human being
b) will leave in a timely fashion of their own accord
c) the host had not tried to prevent the user from using her body and in fact did actions that would cause the users condition

Sorry added a bit

[Central Slavia]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

Murder is not about a killing it is about a goal to be achieved by it. The death of the obstacle is just a casualty on the road to the objective.

Much of the time, this is true.

Which kind of puts a hole in your attempt to use it as an attempt to ridicule the argument.

Exactly. it is true.
Therefore if someone kills his husband to collect life insurance and marry someone else she should according to your logic be prosecuted for fraud, not murder as the death was just a sideways occurence

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument of one person requiring the benign use of another person in order to live. More importantly whether the host would have the right to kill said benign user, as they are indeed burdensome, however considering that the person is:
a) A living human being
b) will leave in a timely fashion of their own accord
c) the host had not tried to prevent the user from using her body and in fact did actions that would cause the users condition

Sorry added a bit

a) It's not been shown that a foetus IS 'a living human being'. I'd say that's a VERY hard thing to show, if not impossible - certainly before the 20th week or so.

b) Not sure about this one - I don't think it's a trend we follow elsewhere. You go see your doctor for an intenstinal infestation, he doesn't tell you it's not worth medicating because those creepy-crawlies are going to crawl out of your butt sooner or later, anyway.

c) Actually, 'hosts' often try to prevent the user, in this particular scenario - by use of contraception. Regardless - we don't tend to make medical treatment conditional on your actions - we don't refuse ER treatment to someone who chose to drive a car, if they get ina wreck... we don't even refuse to treat food-poisoning (or intensticnal infestations) because the person CHOSE to eat contaminated food.

[Grave_n_idle]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

Murder is not about a killing it is about a goal to be achieved by it. The death of the obstacle is just a casualty on the road to the objective.

Much of the time, this is true.

Which kind of puts a hole in your attempt to use it as an attempt to ridicule the argument.

Exactly. it is true.
Therefore if someone kills his husband to collect life insurance and marry someone else she should according to your logic be prosecuted for fraud, not murder as the death was just a sideways occurence

Why fraud? Did they conceal the manner of death, and pretend it was natural causes? If so - that is both fraud AND murder.

I'm not sure quite what you think you're arguing here.

Are you arguing that women would tend to have foetuses dissected, even if there was non-destructive abortion as an alternative?

[Central Slavia]

]
Hell, if I'm going to be made to do it, I expect to be compensated for my time and expenses, plus lost wages and hazard pay. That should put my compensation a good bit higher per hour than the fees of my attorney, whose fees, if I need him to sue the state on my behalf, will also be paid by the state, along with court costs.

So...$250/hour for the lawyer...plus how much more than that for me...

Poor you - you should not have fucked then.
In the department if i put my hand into the hydraulic sheet-metal cutter despite the guards and explicit discouragement to do so, i am not applicable to collect injury money.
I get healthcare, but that is just because the state believes that although i did an idiotic thing, i still can be useful, and therefore preserving my life has value.
The state did not get you pregnant, it merely forbids you killing a new citizen forming