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.