ABORTION IS NOT TAKING A LIFE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER THERE

^That all depends on when you consider it to be a living thing. For a lot of people life begins within the first 2-4 weeks of conception. Its a matter of opinion.

What is such an opinion based on if not arbitration? Better to err on the side of caution.

how would you know if you never read it?

I don't exactly see the reasonable justification towards a cautionary measure.
The fetus does not have the capacity, in any way, to hold human rights. The mother is the sole guardian and host to the fetus, and thus has the right to control its fate. As the federal government does not own the female body, we are not at liberty to impose that a woman be forced to carry and give birth.

Opinon based on scientific evidence for some and for others on religious beliefs.

It's almost meaningless to speak of an opinion based on religious beliefs as similar to an opinion based on scientific evidence. Both are very different, held for very different reasons, and arrived at by very different methodology

One position suggests intellectual delibertation, while another suggests faithful adherence. Very different.

personally i'm for abortion i'm religous and all but if they can't grow up in a stable home and live a terrible life anyway why make them?

I think they'll get a second chanceand until your in this position you really shouldn't try to make this choice for someone else you might not know any of the circimstances for thes girls they shouldn't have alot of old guys put a rule against this! Just think how you would feel if this were happening to you.

Well this is what the argument is about. You are asserting an opinion that a fetus is not a human as fact. It is not so simple, I am afraid. I believe a fetus is a full-fledged human being due every right that you and I have. I do not believe a mother has the right to kill her unborn child.




If a government can determine that a woman is not allowed to kill her birthed child, why can it not do the same concerning her unborn child? The whole "it's my body and my choice" issue is absurd and moot; the issue should be whether or not we are dealing with human beings. If the consenus was reached that fetuses were human lives, the "my body, my choice" argument would be revealed as the monstrously selfish one that it is. I can't imagine any reasonable person saying to themselves, "Yeah, so it's a human being...still, I can't afford to raise it. I will kill it." This is the equivalent of killing a birthed child for financial reasons.



What proof is there that science has regarding when a child is or isn't a human being? I don't recall the scientific community setting a timeline.

that's because you don't recall correctly.

it's regarded as when the feotus can survive outside the mother's body.

basically, if you can C-section the feotus and use whatever technology and keep it alive, then it's a seperate human.

A fetus is certainly human. An embyro moving into human developement is so unlike a human it is nearly meaningless to describe it as one. The real issue is not whether or not we are dealing with human tissue, the issue is whether or not this tissue can be described as a person. And, not only a person, but a person which holds within itself the ability to the right of life, among other rights.



Clearly a fetus is not "full-fledged." I would say that as an analytical princible, the fetus is most certainly not "full-fledged." But, aside from that, the nature of rights plays a very large role in this debate. That being whether or not an unborn fetus has the ability to hold within itself the capacity to rights. If you're going to argue that it does, how?

Can the unborn fetus respect, understand, and or practice these rights? And, if it can not, who is inherently responsible for its being?

Also, if the unburn fetus is due the right to life, why not a non-human animal? In fact, is not a ape more closely resembling a person (in the case of mental capacity) than an unborn fetus or an embryo?



An unborn child is, at least culturally, much more different than a birthed child. We respect the birthed child as a cognitive body. It has the capacity within itself for the right to life, and as a free agent, the mother is not the sole body responsible for its life. Not to mention the mere acting of giving birth is a proclaimation of inherent responsibility. The mother and or guardian of said child is, in such an act, declaring their responsibility over the child. Also, there are a great number of far more obvious differences ontop of the more philosophical ones.



Selfish or not, the reality of the issue is that the mother is a living host to a sort of parasite. Given that the child is unwanted, we can not legally force the mother to have her body remain host. As the mother has the right to her property, most specifically her body, she can not be forced to be host to a child she does not wish to be host to. Your spiritualist morals have little influence, at all, on United States' law.

[quote name='Acid Bath Slayer' date='Jun 21 2006, 2:00 PM' post='2104849']
An embyro moving into human developement is so unlike a human it is nearly meaningless to describe it as one.[/quote]

But this is a natural stage of human development. How does this stage make the embryo unlike a human when this is precisely what a human is at that stage?

[quote]Clearly a fetus is not "full-fledged." I would say that as an analytical princible, the fetus is most certainly not "full-fledged."[/quote]

I disagree. Surely it is not a fully developed human, but I believe it is a full-fledged person.

[quote] But, aside from that, the nature of rights plays a very large role in this debate. That being whether or not an unborn fetus has the ability to hold within itself the capacity to rights. If you're going to argue that it does, how?[/quote]

By arguing that it is a human being. All human beings have certain rights.

[quote]Can the unborn fetus respect, understand, and or practice these rights?[/quote]

Why is this relevant?

[quote]Also, if the unburn fetus is due the right to life, why not a non-human animal?[/quote]

The answer is in your question. Do not derail this into a comparison between animals and human fetuses. The context of this debate has been clearly centered around human life, not animal life.

[quote] In fact, is not a ape more closely resembling a person (in the case of mental capacity) than an unborn fetus or an embryo?[/quote]

This is a preposterous comparison; the embryo will meet and surpass the mental capacities of an ape. Using this pitiful logic, we can say that a birthed infant is less human than an ape.



[quote]An unborn child is, at least culturally, much more different than a birthed child. We respect the birthed child as a cognitive body. It has the capacity within itself for the right to life, and as a free agent, the mother is not the sole body responsible for its life. Not to mention the mere acting of giving birth is a proclaimation of inherent responsibility. The mother and or guardian of said child is, in such an act, declaring their responsibility over the child. Also, there are a great number of far more obvious differences ontop of the more philosophical ones.[/quote]

None of this issues deal with whether or not we are talking about a human being.


[quote]Selfish or not, the reality of the issue is that the mother is a living host to a sort of parasite.[/quote]

I guess this is the sort of dehumanization that makes it easy to justify the killing of our children.

[quote]Given that the child is unwanted, we can not legally force the mother to have her body remain host.[/quote]

And yet we can legally force her to take care of the child once it is born? That does not make sense.

[quote] As the mother has the right to her property, most specifically her body, she can not be forced to be host to a child she does not wish to be host to.[/quote]

Why can't she be forced? Human beings have rights in this country. If the unborn child is a human being, then the government can compel her to carry it to term just as it can compel her to support it financially or to not abuse it.

[quote]Your spiritualist morals have little influence, at all, on United States' law.
[/quote]

'Kay.

It is not human until it is human. An embryo is an embryo, and a human is a human.

Humans do not have rights when they are embryos. That is like a bird flying while it is an egg. Does that make any sense?

Let's look at it from your point of view, that fetuses are human.

You're saying that all human beings have certain rights, and I agree, but lest we forget, the mother is a human being as well. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not guaranteed to the unborn alone.

Why can't she be forced? Have you forgotten about those "certain rights" you mentioned in the same post?

Even if the government compels the mother to keep the child, what kind of life would that child have? A trauma-induced one almost for certain.

Maybe I sound a bit cold, but I'm wondering something. What has an unborn fetus done to make it so much more worthy than a mother or father? Having babies does ruin lives. Getting pregnant alone ruins lives. So if the mother wants an abortion, why shouldn't she? Has the fetus done anything to make it more important than her? Its life hasn't even begun, if it was cut off, would it notice?

In my honest, blunt opinion? I believe that fetuses are worthless. I believe that despite how cute babies are, they are completely worthless as well. Only in maturation does a human gain and associate values in life, as only in maturation does it acquire knowledge to affect its life. Fetuses, as well as babies, have absolutely nothing making them worthly to live. We keep them, because if not, there would be no more humans. We deal with them, because if we don't, we would go extinct. But if I had to pick whether to kill a woman or a baby, I would, without even thinking, kill the baby.

You are not born with value. You gain the value with life.

I can't wait to see how you all respond. I apologize in advance for saying what I think.

Some rights (right to live) take precedence over others (right to an emotionally/financially comfortable life). The right to life, liberty, and happiness is not limited to people who have been born. A human life is worth more than any inconvenience another human might suffer.

Also, the mother knows full well the "consequences" of having sex. It's not like kids sprout from nowhere.



I would never compel a mother to keep a child she didn't want. She should have it and give it up for adoption.

I would say that this is far more an issue of personhood, as opposed to human developement. If you think you can win the argument by simply defining anything of human development or origin as a human being and moving onto define a human being as having a certain amount of rights, you're wrong. At this moment, your argument seems entirely rhetorical (if not even a begging of the question). Give me a reason to believe that a fetus should have a right to life.

Eitherway, to honestly suggest that a fetus is a full-fledged human, just like you or me, is ridiculous. We are not cognitive equals, we are not moral equals, and we do not share the same rights. Plus, your entire argument is based on the assumption that a human being is due rights inherently (despite mental capacity, developement, etc.). This is something you have yet to explain, and you don't expect us all to just accept it?

I'm sorry but I haven't read your previous posts so I don't know where you stand on abortions for health purposes. As it was mentioned many times before, there are cases where the mother is pressed to abort the fetus for her own life. So, in such instances, whose rights take precedence?

If the mother knows the consequences of sex and still whores around, I would say that she is immoral if she goes for an abortion. I certainly do not condone it. However, in our world, whoring isn't the only way kids can... "sprout".

You wouldn't compel her to keep the child once it is born, but you would compel her to carry it to full term, letting it feed from her body though she fully rejects it with everything that she is? I wonder what such a law would do to a woman's state of mind.

To everyone who said the fetus has rights or is human:

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.

"Isn't the fetus "life", and therefore has a right to life?"

You are equivocating on the term "life" which is a concept that includes everything that is living. Dogs are "life" but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees "life", yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Rights apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike dogs, trees, ants -- and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings -- and not parts of beings -- survive by reason. Please keep in mind what a right is: a right is a moral sanction for freedom of action in a social context. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only action it must take is nothing, i.e., wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

Taylor``

Totally against it. I don't like it at all.

It's basically like murder. only the murdered child hasn't even been born

^ Thank you for so wonderfully explaining your opinion to us in lengthy detail. This is the debate forum. If you do not explain your position, do not post.

1. I'm not trying to win an argument.
2. How am I wrong to define a human as a human, regardless of its stage of development?



Because it is a human being. Why shouldn't it have a right to life?



Why? We offer that consideration to infants. Why not the unborn as well? The only difference is the stage of development.



Preposterous. Should we deny life to children and the handicapped? Do you understand the implications of using such criteria to determine what rights we offer people?

[quote name='Spirited Away' date='Jun 22 2006, 11:47 AM' post='2106796']
I'm sorry but I haven't read your previous posts so I don't know where you stand on abortions for health purposes. As it was mentioned many times before, there are cases where the mother is pressed to abort the fetus for her own life. So, in such instances, whose rights take precedence?[/quote]

From my religious point of view, neither. I do not believe in choosing one life over another. But that is just my personal view and has nothing to do with how I view the legality of such a practice.

[quote]However, in our world, whoring isn't the only way kids can... "sprout".[/quote]

Of course not, but what is your point here?

[quote]You wouldn't compel her to keep the child once it is born, but you would compel her to carry it to full term, letting it feed from her body though she fully rejects it with everything that she is? I wonder what such a law would do to a woman's state of mind.
[/quote]

Her state of mind is less important than the life of another human being.

[quote name='Angelina Taylor' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:05 PM' post='2106813']
To everyone who said the fetus has rights or is human:

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time.[/quote]

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

[quote]This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.[/quote]

The fetus has its own body. It is not the fetus' fault that it has to exist inside of a woman who rejects her motherly obligations and does not deserve to die because of this.

[quote]To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body.[/quote]

What superior rights are you talking about? This is about a woman's right to convenience versus a fetus' right to live. When the convenience of one is put above the life of another, then you've got your superior rights.


[quote]The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole.[/quote]

Abortion is one of the great examples of what you have just described. All rights, except that to life, are moderated to some extent.

[quote](falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved)[/quote]

How am I "against" the lives of women who wish to abort their children?

[quote]Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers...a woman is not a breeding pig.[/quote]

Who has suggested or implied otherwise?

[quote]"Isn't the fetus "life", and therefore has a right to life?"

You are equivocating on the term "life" which is a concept that includes everything that is living. Dogs are "life" but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees "life", yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.[/quote]

This is what we can call a Straw Man. I have never made the argument you have outlined above. I have said that a fetus is a human, and therefore shares the same rights as all of us. It is mindlessly simplistic to refer to it as human tissue. A flake of my skin can be called human tissue but it will never grow into a human being.

[quote]Rights apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike dogs, trees, ants -- and fetuses).[/quote]

So the young and the mentally handicapped are not to be considered human beings? They hardly survive by the use of reason.

[quote]A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only action it must take is nothing, i.e., wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.[/quote]

You could say the same of young children.

[quote]http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

Taylor``
[/quote]

Aaaah, the ugly head reveals itself. Sorry if I don't consider capitalism to be the benchmark of human rights. But I have to say the abortion/capitalism connection makes sense--selfishness meets selfishness, aye?

Okay fine.

Why would you want to kill a human being? A unborn baby is still human.
Even if they barely have all their toes and fingers, it is still a human being. Give me one REALLY GOOD reason to kill a baby?

Only reasons I've heard are some of these:
1. They don't want to go to parenthood.
2. They don't want to deal with it due to finacial problems.
3. They are worried about what their parents will say (if it is a teenage mother/father)

No matter the reason, it is still wrong to get rid of a baby.

mur·der
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

Reading these definitions, abortion to me is still murder.

What evidence do you have that early fetus' are alive? The only thing we can really tell is that they grow. Potatoes grow too, yet we chop them up and eat them.

simple.

make aborted feotuses up for implantation in a surrogate mother.

if no surrogate mother steps forward, then the the feotus is incinerated.

all you pro life people, YOU can step forward and carry the child to term. YOU can save the life.

and you know what? no one will set forward. very little. all those women at pro life rallies? they won't step forward.

hippocrits. they won't ruin THIER lives to save a "life". but they're sure ready to ruin someone else's.

Month One:



Mommy
I am only 8 inches long
but I have all my organs.
I love the sound of your voice.
Every time I hear it
I wave my arms and legs.
The sound of your heart beat
is my favorite lullaby.







Month Two



Mommy
today I learned how to suck my thumb.
If you could see me
you could definitely tell that I am a baby.
I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though.
It is so nice and warm in here.









Month Three



You know what Mommy
I'm a boy!!
I hope that makes you happy.
I always want you to be happy.
I don't like it when you cry.
You sound so sad.
It makes me sad too
and I cry with you even though
you can't hear me.







Month Four



Mommy
my hair is starting to grow.
It is very short and fine
but I will have a lot of it.
I spend a lot of my time exercising.
I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes
and stretch my arms and legs.
I am becoming quite good at it too.







Month Five



You went to the doctor today.
Mommy, he lied to you.
He said that I'm not a baby.
I am a baby Mommy, your baby.
I think and feel.
Mommy, what's abortion?







Month Six



I can hear that doctor again.
I don't like him.
He seems cold and heartless.
Something is intruding my home.
The doctor called it a needle.
Mommy what is it? It burns!
Please make him stop!
I can't get away from it!
Mommy! HELP me!







Month Seven



Mommy
I am okay.
I am in Jesus's arms.
He is holding me.
He told me about abortion.
Why didn't you want me Mommy?






Every Abortion Is Just . . .





One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.


^^
i got this thing on myspace and i read it and i make me even more against abortion...but i think if the gurl and guy decide to haev sex and they are not ready to take on a baby they should wait..but if a gurl was raped it different...but i say i all against abortion..its wrong...

month one: i don't give a shit. i'm the size of a period.

month two: i have less of a heart and less of a brain than a worm. I am the size of a pencil eraser.

month three: i'm smaller than a barbie. I don't really have a brain- just a mass of cells.

month four: jesus f**ked me today. it felt good.

month five: read the rules.

month six: i'm f**king tired of that thing.

month seven: go away.

month eight: okay, maybe i'm not beign fair.

month nine: make good posts that contain more than something you copied from somehwere else online, something with facts, or go away.

^ that was on a myspace bulliten thing, its obnoxious to see that stuff but w.e

So neither take precedence, then the mother should be able to get an abortion to save her own life. Right? It's nice that we don't have to be in a situation where we have to make such a choice, but there are women who must make that decision. I was just wanting to know if you'd view them as immoral. Wouldn't abortions be okay in this case?


You said "Also, the mother knows full well the "consequences" of having sex. It's not like kids sprout from nowhere" and that was my answer. In this world, rape happens, not just whoring. I believe that in those situations, women have the right to abort.


I disagree. In my opinion, the mental stability and physical health of the mother is more precious than the life of her unborn. Of course, if I was a mother, I would not make that statement so easily, but I would also not take my life, or my happiness, lightly either.

Since your view is that state of mind of the adult is not as precious as the life of an unborn, I was wondering if you would you agree with me if I say that happiness is crucial to life? Also, do you believe in the death penalty? Just a yes or no is fine.

No. That would be putting the mother's life above the child's.



For the most part no. I would mostly view any abortion for this reason as immoral.



Abortions because of rape happen so rarely that they bear hardly any relevance at all to the discussion.



I do not. It is again an issue of choosing convenience over human life.



I respect your opinion on this matter regardless of how loathsome I find it to be.



Yes it is crucial. I do not accept that a person in any of these situations could never be happy.



No.

come on, still no takers?

1) So you would that both mother and child die?

2) Wanting to live is immoral?

3) I'm quite surprised that someone who have been so staunch on claiming that every life is equal would choose to say that the 310,000+ "human beings" are irrelevant.

Break down: most statistics will say something like only 1% of abortions are from rape. According to the AGI SURVEY, 1% of abortions are due to rape. Between the 1980s and 1990s, the Alan Guttmacher Institute cited 1,550,000 rape cases per year; one percent of that number would roughly tantamounts to 15,500 abortions due to rape per year. So in about a 20 years period, there have more than 310,000 abortions of such cases. Of course, these numbers do not take into account unreported abortions which may add hundreds or thousands more to that number. Also, KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE NUMBER ARE US FOCUSED. The worldwide number of abortion is supposed to be close to 46 million a year.

4) Sanity, piece of mind, happiness are conveniences?

5) Why do you find a person's need for mental stabilty and physcial health over that another's life loathesome? It may be selfish, but why is it loathsome to you?

6) So you don't think that rape or any trauma of that degree could ruin a person's life?

7) This will sound stupid since it is quite clear, but I have to ask, Aren't you Christian? Doesn't the Bible authorizes capital punishment?

No. I was referring to cases in which the mother would die but the child would not.



No it isn't, and that isn't the argument I made.



I didn't say any human beings are irrelevant. I said that, for the sake of argument, abortions because of rape are irrelevant.



Of course. It is more convenient for a woman to get an abortion than to have her child.



Selfishness of that level is loathsome.



It could have a traumatic impact but I do not believe that they will be forever incapable of happiness. I wonder how many rape victims commit suicide because of their predicament, or wish that they had been murdered instead of raped? They still have their lives while the aborted children do not even have that.



The Old Testament commands it, but those laws were fulfilled when Christ was sacrificed on the cross.

Yo mama was pro life!

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it




That really is an awesome idea. No killing and it won't put anyone in an adoption home.
If I was a woman, I'd do it. I'd even consider it for my future wife if she wanted to! I'll bet plenty of women would do it.

It's funny how all you anti-life people say this. It sure is a good thing your parents were pro life, or we wouldn't be able to hear all of your wonderful little nonsense rants.

Oh... wait.

I dont think its right..

-_-

1. This is a debate forum, isn't it?
2. Alright, it's human.



Alright, the burden of proof is on your side.
You have to tell me why a fetus should have rights, otherwise I can't give a meanigful rebuttle.

Note: "It's a human," is not an explanation.



Oh, yeah. You're exactly right. We offer all human beings, despite circumstances and developement, the same rights and priveledges. We treat them the same too. An infant is capable of living on its own. It has freedom of choice! Don't treat it like a baby!

An unborn child has little to no objective value in today's world. Also, as it does not hold the reponsibilities of personhood, we, in no way, owe it a right to life. That obligation has not been secured.



Terry Schiavo. She was human.
But, I most certaintly would not grant her the same rights as I would myself or other people of sound mind and body. A right isn't just a fancy little law, it requires a kind of responsibility, guardianship, and understanding. We assume guardianship for our birthed young, but no one other than the mother can assume that role for an unborn fetus.

really now?

everyone's willing to sacrafice someone else's life. not many are willing to sacrafice thier own, expecially for someone else's "mistake".

my mom was not pro life. I was born because my parents wanted me- not because they felt some sort of obligation to keep me alive.

trust me, it does great lengths for your sanity when you know your wanted by your parents.

^^--- would you rater be sad cuz they didn't want you or DEAD --- sucked thru a tude to a horrible painful death

Ok, that's fine an dandy. All I said was that I would do it. You can make that assumption and I can make mine: I'm sure there's plenty of women who would be willing to raise the baby inside them. But neither of us can actually prove either statement... so, what's your point? And I'm really not trying to nit pick your posts but I just thought I'd tell you to watch your spelling. I'd want you to do the same for me. You misspelled 4 words there.




So, wait... it's not a parents obligation to keep their child alive? So, I guess parents should just have the kids and leave them be? Oh, wait... but then that would defeat the purpose of parenting all together.

1) Why did you do that when I asked specifically in cases where mothers had to abort for health purposes?

2) What was the argument you made? I asked that in cases where mothers abort because of health reasons, would you see that as immoral and you said yes. The reason why she would abort her child because the complications could kill her, thus she would want an abortion. In that case, why is it immoral to want to abort the baby in order to live?

3) No, you said that they happen so rarely that they do not bear relevance to the argument. I in turn argue that they do bear relevance because you argued that all life is equal. Why would you say that all life is equal, yet belittle the lives of abortions from rape by saying that they're not relevant? They are relevant because, even if they are "rarely" lost, they are still lives, are they not according to you?

4) You agreed that happiness is crucial to life, yet now you claim that it is a convenience? Which is it, because conveniences aren't crucial to our lives.

5) So then, you would be okay with giving a woman mental torture so that one unborn can see sunlight. I suppose that's applaudable, depending on if you're the woman or the unborn.

6) Well, to easily answer question, google "suicide after rape". To save you time though, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 30% of rape survivors comtemplate suicide after rape. How many succeed, I don't know. We must also take into account that not all rapes are reported (for every 1 that is report another 3 to 10 are not), so the number of suicides after rape may be higher.

Now my question would be, why would a woman *want* or *need* to have the child of the whoreson that raped her if she is so unstable that she wants to kill herself?

7) Explain to me "the laws were fufilled", are you saying that it is no longer aurthorized by the Bible?

...that is precisely the kind of case I discussed. A mother who has to abort the child to save her own life. If she does not abort, she will die but her child may survive.



If the baby could live, that is immoral. She is choosing her life over another human being.



*sigh* Please try to follow along here: I made the argument that, statistically, using abortions from rape is a poor defense of abortion rights because of their rare occurrence. It has nothing to do with the value of human life; it has to do with the value of a particular argument.



Your premise that "crucial" is exclusive of "convenient" is false.



Like I said, a person's mental state is less important than another person's life.



But it looks like we can conclude that a great majority of rape victims find that their lives are not so bad that they would rather be dead.



How is this a relevant question?



I am saying it is no longer commanded by the Bible.

i ken spel ass baddy ass i vant n i ken stel macke meselve klear.

yes, it's the parent's obligtion. you're forgetting one thing though- a feotus isn't a child. you can argue semantics with me, or you can accept it. No more than an egg is a chicken or an acorn is an oak tree.

sure, it could be one. but that doesn't mean it is.

you have too much faith in humankind. you believe in people. People are selfish, heartless things that play havoc with nature.

all you've got to look at is the priests molesting the choir boys and you know, people = shit.

everything in moderation. that includes morality and virtue.

I am so darn confused, it's like you're talking in circles to me.

Me: So neither take precedence, then the mother should be able to get an abortion to save her own life. Right? It's nice that we don't have to be in a situation where we have to make such a choice, but there are women who must make that decision. I was just wanting to know if you'd view them as immoral. Wouldn't abortions be okay in this case?

You: No. That would be putting the mother's life above the child's.

Me: So you would that both mother and child die?

You: No. I was referring to cases in which the mother would die but the child would not.

Me: Why did you do that when I asked specifically in cases where mothers had to abort for health purposes?

You: ...that is precisely the kind of case I discussed. A mother who has to abort the child to save her own life. If she does not abort, she will die but her child may survive.

You: If the baby could live, that is immoral. She is choosing her life over another human being.


You're saying that it's not okay for a woman to abort a fetus in order for herself to live? That's the *bleep-est* sense of "equality" I have ever encounter. Here's an example senerio. Lets say there's a glass of water between two people, you and me, and both need exactly that amount to live, thus the glass cannot be shared. Only one can drink from it yet because they're so "equal" of importance that there is no way to determine who shall drink it or who shall die of thirst. You're saying that if I drink it, then I am immoral, but it's okay if you drink it? What makes you not immoral?

In likeness, it's okay for the mother to die for the child, but not okay for the child to die for the mother?

If you could live and I die, aren't you immoral and vice versa? Either way, if the mother dies, then the child is immoral and if the child dies, then the mother is immoral. To me, there is nothing immoral or moral about the situation. It's the highest form of desperation. Why is it so wrong to be desperate for life? The child is not in the wrong, nor is the mother.


It may be tempting but refrain from patronizing me. I have shown a modicum of respect, please endeavor the same.
I am saying that abortions from rape has relevancy because it does have much to do with the value of human life. I have explain in detail why that is so. I am not using that argument to defend abortion rights in general, I am using it to oppose your idea that all reasons for abortions are wrong, specifically.
I gathered that I have to be specific, thus using even "rare" events, because you are against "all" reasons for abortion. Why? I do not condone abortions of convenience, but I do believe in abortions for desperate situations. I wanted you to see that in desparation, there is no fault.


Elaborate, because "crucial" can be both exclusive and inclusive of "convenience" depending on the situation.

And if you haven't surmised my opinion, a fetus is hardly worth the ruination of a woman's life.


How did you reach that conclusion? Have you been raped?


Relevant in that we are talking about abortions and state of mind. If you cannot answer or would not like to, then say so.


So, no longer commanded, but allowed. That's all I wanted to know.

I am STRONGLY against it...i think that abortion is a DESPICABLE thing to do. The baby is a baby as soon as it takes seed in the womb...it doesnt matter if it has fingers or toes or hair...it is still a human being. Do you actually know what they do to those poor things. I bet most people dont...otherwise they wouldnt be so strongly for it. When they do the abortion, the baby is old enough to move around and you can see the baby[in a ultrasound]. They actually cut babies up into little peices, pour things in the womb to burn the baby alive and then suck the remains up. How SICK is that? Oh and i know what im talking about because ive seen pictures of it while my sister did a report on it. Who gives you the right to kill innocent life just because you made a mitake or you cant support it. If you are dumb enough to have sex without protection or abstience then you shouldnt be so suprised when you have a child in your womb a few weeks later...think people. If you cant support the child then there is a thing called ADOPTION! Now there are people raped and molested who cant help it, but once again there is adoption. Your parents werent pro-abortion otherwise you wouldnt be here. People are put in jail for killing people [innocent or not]. Yet do you see any of these mothers or abortion doctors going to jail? They are killing innocent people. Killing people who could have been...the next president, or pope, or rockstar, or leader. These innocent babies have become the mauters for today and the future.

i vote this thread closed for attracting too many noobs.

Haha, Justin.

Not likely. Some other "noob" will make a new topic and we'll all have deja vues.

I would offer you the glass of water. Your analogy is a false one because both of us have the ability to understand the implications of the situation.



The child cannot be immoral because it does not have the ability to make a choice. The child is not able to choose what can happen, only the mother can.




Desperation for life at the expense of others is immoral.



Because I believe that it is immoral to kill a child for selfish reasons.




I completely disagree with you.




It's really not going to be useful to discuss semantics.



I understand that. I disagree with that argument and its premise.




No, I have not been raped. I have come to that conclusion due to the lack of rape victims who have died from suicide.




I won't answer because it has nothing to do with the current discussion.



One might argue that the way Christ taught and lead is contrary to an attitude that would favor the use of a death penalty.

Then simply change the analogy to where you handicapped, or a vegetable. If I do not offer you the glass, I am immoral because I value my life more than yours?

Then if only the mother can choose and she desperately chooses her own life, she is immoral? So, the child is excused of all burdens of morality, though his living inadvertently means his mother's death, and that makes everything right? Sounds like the only moral you can accept, is for the mother to commit suicide for the sake of the child's life. Interestingly enough, I think suicide is considered a sin.



But aren't you arguing that the life of the child is "equally" desperate for life as the life of the mother?



Silly rabbit, that wasn't a question for you. But, if it is truly selfish to want to live, then mankind is in unrepentant sin until the day he dies.



Humor me. You said it's false, yet there is no explanation of why that is so.



First, your stats?

Second, you argue that all life is equal, yet you easily discard those who have died from suicide after rape?



Then one might as well argue against the Bible.

Your analogy is still quite flawed. But in short, yes you are immoral.



Yes.



It's not any fault of his own.



It's not suicide. Suicide requires a positive action to be taken.



The child's life is equally valuable. If you don't find it immoral if a mother chooses to save her own life rather than her child's, well that's your worldview and I do not share it.




It is selfish to want to live at the expense of other people. And I never said mankind was sinless.



An explanation would detract from the main topic and take up more time than I would like.



Please refer to your own post regarding that matter.



How am I discarding any lives?




How so?