Home - List All Discussions

If we were right.....is it still okay?

A Question for pro-choicers

by: Hereforareason

Going from the base that Pro-choicers believe the unborn child is infact an unborn nonchild, and a Pro-lifer believes it is an unborn CHILD, here's the question.

Assuming that Pro-lifers are right and it is a child, a human being in the womb, then is abortion still okay? If so, why does this child not have the rights of a normal human being? What makes them unnormal? When do they become normal and with the rights stated in the Decleration of Independence?

No smart alecks please. Only seriouse answers.
Amber

reply from: NewPoster1

Even if I accepted the arguement that an embryo or fetus should be considered a person, I would still consider abortion to be acceptable because one person doesn't have the right to be physically attached to and physically inside of another person against that person's will.

reply from: bradensmommy

you just don't get it and I doubt you ever will.

reply from: Sigma

I assume you mean "if the fetus had rights equal to you and I". If this is not the case please correct me.

I agree with NewPoster. I ask you to imagine that I am in place of that fetus, with all of my rights intact. Do I have the right to live attached to the woman against her will? No, I do not. There is no requirement by law to give of your own body so that anaother may live, whether or not that other is considered a person with full rights.

If the fetus had equal rights to you or I, the fetus would not, legally, be able to be attached to her against her will if she did not want it there. So, yes, I would support abortion being legal were this the case.

reply from: AshMarie88

No one should have the right to destroy another innocent human life. It's bad enough other innocent people die every day, we don't need more people dying.

Abortion should never be allowed, no matter what you think. It kills innocent people, which is wrong!

Well, you get where I am going with this.

reply from: AshMarie88

I assume you mean "if the fetus had rights equal to you and I". If this is not the case please correct me.

I agree with NewPoster. I ask you to imagine that I am in place of that fetus, with all of my rights intact. Do I have the right to live attached to the woman against her will? No, I do not. There is no requirement by law to give of your own body so that anaother may live, whether or not that other is considered a person with full rights.

If the fetus had equal rights to you or I, the fetus would not, legally, be able to be attached to her against her will if she did not want it there. So, yes, I would support abortion being legal were this the case.

You are so lucky that before you were born, you had people fighting for your own life and own rights. Someone cared enough to let you live (your mom) and someone else cared enough that they fought for lives just like you, and even you yourself. You should be thankful.

And, yes, I would say a "fetus" has the right to live inside the mother until it's born. That's the way life works. It may not seem fair to the mother, but abortion is not at all fair to the human that did nothing to deserve to die.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88

I didn’t need rights, all I needed was my mother to want to have me. Yes, I am thankful to her that she was willing to sacrifice, both to remain pregnant and to raise me alone. I am glad she chose to have me, and I am glad she had a choice.

Tell me, if you had your way what would you have to thank your mother for? She didn’t choose to have you, she was forced to have you by law. What do you say? “Thanks, mom, for having sex”? The reason I can be thankful is because my mother could have chosen not to have me. Virtue is only virtue if it is by choice.


Then you are not asking for equal rights, you are asking for more rights for the fetus. In this way you wish women to have less rights when they are pregnant, as I could disconnect someone with full rights but women cannot disconnect the fetus.

I’m glad you agree it is not fair to the woman in question. The difference is, we are required to be fair to women (equal application of the law). And, honestly, if you ever ask me which is more important in the pregnancy relationship I would say it is the woman, every time. We should always be fair to her.

Actually, no. You just posted emotional rhetoric, nothing of substance. Where were you going with it?

reply from: yoda

It's fascinating how you proaborts want to nullify millions of years of natural evolution (or intelligent design, take your pick) by proclaiming an edict supported by nothing more than political correctness.

The act of gestating is as natural, and as much a part of each of us as breathing in and breathing out. You might as well say we have no right to breathe air. You might as well say no child has any right to parental care of any kind.

You live in a fantasy world of supreme court decisions, radical posturing, and uncompromising hedonism.

reply from: Tam

Okay, usually when people misuse "less" and "fewer," I let it slide. But this is a case where the meaning is changed by your mistake. You use "less rights" as though "rights" is a fluid commodity. In fact, rights is the plural of right, and one cannot have LESS rights, only FEWER rights.

For those who don't know the distinction: less is for what can't be counted, fewer is for what can be counted. Less sugar, fewer grains of sugar. Less trouble, fewer troubles. 12 items or fewer in the checkout lane. Less than human. Etcetera.

So when you say "less rights" you are implying that the mom's cup is half-empty while the child's is three-quarters full. But it's not something measurable in that manner. We are not speaking of "rights" as some nebulous quality, we are speaking of the right to receive legal protection from being murdered, the right to privacy, the right to contraception, etc, etc. These are DISCRETE rights.

No one is asking for MORE rights for the child (it doesn't have to be a fetus--all unborn children qualify, not just those in the fetal stage of development). What is the point is EQUAL rights for the child--specifically, EQUAL protection under the law. The woman's right to legal protection from murder is NOT affected whatsoever by extending the same right to her child. Do you understand--it is WHOLLY UNAFFECTED. No one is asking for "special" rights or "more" rights. Just one right--the right to legal protection from murder, just as the child's parents have.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Then you are not asking for equal rights, you are asking for more rights for the fetus. In this way you wish women to have less rights when they are pregnant, as I could disconnect someone with full rights but women cannot disconnect the fetus."

Letting the child live is not giving them more rights, it is giving them EQUAL rights. Everyone is equal, because they have the right to live.

"I’m glad you agree it is not fair to the woman in question. The difference is, we are required to be fair to women (equal application of the law). And, honestly, if you ever ask me which is more important in the pregnancy relationship I would say it is the woman, every time. We should always be fair to her."

Haha, I am now laughing because of what you just said.

We are not required to be more fair to women. It's an option. And second, always be fair to the woman? Fine, I'll be fair to her, I will just go against her wanting to kill her own child via womb. That is not being unfair to the woman, even tho you may think so.

reply from: AshMarie88

It's kind of funny, men saying the women are more important and that they should have the choice to kill the baby... It almost leads me to believe that the same men who say that, are men who always have sex and encourage the women they have sex with to abort, and also leave the women if they didn't want to abort.

It's all about irresponsibility to them, it seems...

reply from: yoda

You've got that right! The majority of men who support abortion desperately want an escape from the responsibility of child support and other such obligations, while still being able to sleep around.

reply from: domsmom

Very well put Ash! It's only a few months to the mother, but a lifetime for the child! Nothing but a way out of standing up and being responsible for your actions. Dont want a baby? Keep ya' dang panties up! That's the only 100% way too be sure....

reply from: Sigma

Tam,

It is a way of talking about it. If the law disallows abortion, it will have given priority to the fetus over any rights the woman has. So the fetus, in a sense, has “more” while the woman has “less”. Right now the woman has “more” while the fetus has “less”.

Yes, but as a whole the way I stated can be used as a visual.

Equal rights for the fetus does not allow it to live attached to the woman. No one has the right to live attached to another against that other’s will, so anyone the fetus is equal to would not have the right you wish to give the fetus. You would have to give the fetus special dispensation to live attached to another.

The woman’s right to privacy is affected if the gov’t mandates pregnancy. The woman’s guarantee to equal protection is affected when she cannot disconnect someone attached to her against her will. A woman’s personal liberty is affected by a fetus attached to her. You cannot logically say her rights are unaffected by disallowing abortion.

AshMarie88

Who has the right to live attached to someone else against the other’s will? I do not have that right and you do not have that right. You wish to give the fetus that right?

No, we are Constitutionally bound to be fair (in the sense of being equal) to the woman. You say “it may be unfair to the woman...” but we are not allowed to do that.

Actually, you think it’s unfair. You just don’t care.

reply from: Sigma

If this is referring to me, I never said I was a man

reply from: tabithamarcotte

If this is referring to me, I never said I was a man

I think she was referring to men in general.

What is it with this "woman doesn't have to have someone attatched to her against her will thing"? Like yodavater said, gestation is one of the most natural processes that occur in the mammilian class.
It's a simple matter of trading a few months of discomfort for someone else's lifetime. Could it be that hard??? I've never experienced it, but hey, whenever I asked some other woman, she said it was not all too horrible. The great pro-choice activists of the recent (and not so recent) past has driven the idea that pregnancy is terrible and not to be stood for.

reply from: Sigma

Ah, thank you

This does not mean that is can or should be required. Natural does not equal good, natural does not equal cannot be changed.

If you honestly ask this question, you must be prepared for some women to answer "yes". You do not want an honest answer, you assume everyone will say "no".

Pregnancy does have risks, pregnancy does have significant affects on the woman's body, emotions, health and psyche. It should always be gone through willingly in part because it has such significant effects. It should never ever ever be required against the woman's desire.

How bad it is for the woman varies from woman to woman. You ask one and there were no ill-effects, you ask another and there may be permanent effects. It should be up to the woman involved whether her answer is "yes" or "no" to your question.

reply from: AshMarie88

Did you know abortion is 4 times more deadly than childbirth? Talk about many risks...

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Ah, thank you

This does not mean that is can or should be required. Natural does not equal good, natural does not equal cannot be changed.

What kind of natural things? ...Besides pregnancy.

If you honestly ask this question, you must be prepared for some women to answer "yes". You do not want an honest answer, you assume everyone will say "no".

I've never heard a woman who has said "yes" yet, so I will wait for the day when one does. Surely there are women out there who don't want the discomfort, but hey, who's fault is that? If not for those good ol' pro-choicers, comfort would not be a necessary part of life. Somehow people in the past have lived without constant comfort, and we can now.

Pregnancy does have risks, pregnancy does have significant affects on the woman's body, emotions, health and psyche. It should always be gone through willingly in part because it has such significant effects. It should never ever ever be required against the woman's desire.

How bad it is for the woman varies from woman to woman. You ask one and there were no ill-effects, you ask another and there may be permanent effects. It should be up to the woman involved whether her answer is "yes" or "no" to your question.

If some women are going to be so intent on not getting pregnant since it's too much of a problem for them, then I have the perfect solution: ABSTINENCE. *GASPOMGNOTABSTINENCE*

reply from: Hereforareason

Wow this one took off!



By physically attached, would you consider babies depending on their mother's for food and the elderly depending on people for their care as physically attached and therefore in the same boat?
Is it then okay to end lives that are too draining on you?

Yes that is correct.

So you obviously don't think that a woman should be "bogged down" by an unborn child.
What would happen if all woman decided it was their "right" to take the lives of their children in order to be more comfortable?

Amber

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,

Abortion, in the time frame that most abortions are done, is safer than childbirth.

tabithamarcotte

I don't intend to give a comprehensive list. Disease is natural, for one thing.

I meant in a more philosophical sense. Those who have abortions obviously have said "yes". You wish to assume "no", when some would indeed say going through a pregnancy is indeed too hard to face.

Ah yes. The dirty sluts got pregnant so now we'll teach them by making them keep their pregnancies. Pregnancy is just a tool for teaching responsiblity, it's a beating stick for making people be good.

Abstinence is fine, but guess what? The woman is already pregnant. Being abstinent will do nothing at this point.

reply from: Hereforareason

It's not a punishment. It's a result.
If you dump sugar into the gas tank of the car your Dad bought you, and then your Dad tells you that he can't afford to get a new engine you will have to work and pay for it, is it punishment? You might think so. But it is a result. It's being a responsable adult and taking care of your problems, making things right. \

Difference is, that girl has a life inside her. It's hard to find an anology that quite fits. Because instead of burnig her hand on a stove, or ruining a car by her wrong doing, she has created something that lives, that has a soul and that will one day breath on it's own. Something preciouse. She is no longer her own self. She has a greater responsability than ever a dog owner had for taking care of a litter of puppies instead of drowning them. She has made one mistake. But 2 mistakes dont' make a right, they make it worse.

Amber

reply from: AshMarie88

No, that is not true.

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

Besides, abortion is never safe. One life is ALWAYS ended by abortion. Millions of lives each year. I would barely call that "safe".

reply from: NewPoster1

If you're referring to that study which I believe was done in Finland than you're overlooking several key facts. According to that study a woman is four times more likely to die within a year if she has an abortion, it never states that she is four times more likely to die from an abortion. This study is innaccurate because it fails to take into account negative external factors that are more prevalent among the women who chose to have an abortion. When I did some research on this subject a few months ago I found that the maternal mortality rate for a first trimester abortion is less than 1 in 530,000, for a second trimester abortion it is about 1 in 17,000, for a full-term pregnancy it is about 1 in 8,000 and for a ceasarian section it is about 1 in 2,000.

reply from: Sigma

Hereforareason

The two cases you mentioned could be considered as "attached" in a metaphysical sense, but I don't believe you could make a case that they are physically attached, no.

It is ok to stop them draining you, yes. If it is possible to do so, you must do this without harming them. Both children and the elderly can be removed from your care without harming them, and it is perfectly ok to do so. The fetus in the womb cannot be removed without serious trauma to the woman and certain death for the fetus, in the time frame that the vast majority of abortions are performed. However, in all cases the woman can stop supporting those who drain her. If it is a physical drain on her physical body, the woman's rights to her body are impacted, and she can certainly stop that.

I'm not certain what you mean by "bogged down", so I assume you simply mean to be pregnant. This statement isn't exactly accurate, I don't think women should be required to be "bogged down" by law. Whether she should or should not be is opinion.

They could not, since the children have protection by law. They could not in my view, either, since they would be required to remove the children from their care without harming them, which is nearly always possible in our society.

reply from: NewPoster1

By physically attached, would you consider babies depending on their mother's for food and the elderly depending on people for their care as physically attached and therefore in the same boat?
Is it then okay to end lives that are too draining on you?

No, because they aren't physically attached to and physically inside of their caregivers.

reply from: AshMarie88

If you're referring to that study which I believe was done in Finland than you're overlooking several key facts. According to that study a woman is four times more likely to die within a year if she has an abortion, it never states that she is four times more likely to die from an abortion. This study is innaccurate because it fails to take into account negative external factors that are more prevalent among the women who chose to have an abortion. When I did some research on this subject a few months ago I found that the maternal mortality rate for a first trimester abortion is less than 1 in 530,000, for a second trimester abortion it is about 1 in 17,000, for a full-term pregnancy it is about 1 in 8,000 and for a ceasarian section it is about 1 in 2,000.

I don't believe that.

And you're forgetting about the 1 million children that are killed by abortions each year. But I guess they don't count, they're not anything important.

reply from: NewPoster1

If you're referring to that study which I believe was done in Finland than you're overlooking several key facts. According to that study a woman is four times more likely to die within a year if she has an abortion, it never states that she is four times more likely to die from an abortion. This study is innaccurate because it fails to take into account negative external factors that are more prevalent among the women who chose to have an abortion. When I did some research on this subject a few months ago I found that the maternal mortality rate for a first trimester abortion is less than 1 in 530,000, for a second trimester abortion it is about 1 in 17,000, for a full-term pregnancy it is about 1 in 8,000 and for a ceasarian section it is about 1 in 2,000.

I don't believe that.

And you're forgetting about the 1 million children that are killed by abortions each year. But I guess they don't count, they're not anything important.

I was under the impression that we were debating the risk that pregnancy/abortion poses to the woman, not the fetus. Whether the fetus "counts" is the decision of the woman that it's physically inside of and physically attached to.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88

From: http://www.northlandfamilyplanning.com/nfpc/non_surgical_abortion.asp

Since 1973, doctors have been performing surgical abortions in this country. First trimester abortion has less than 1% complication rate and is at least ten times safer than childbirth.

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

The Court notes that induced early abortions have become safer than childbirth

From: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144351;jsessionid=nxWWj5Gl7so7uCCP8I?cookieSet=1&journalCode=publhealth

Abortion is an extremely safe and common medical procedure. In the United States, over one million women had an abortion in the year 2000. Advances in early abortion techniques have helped to increase the proportion of early procedures, the safest type

reply from: AshMarie88

I still don't believe it. Unless the child is not killed by an abortion, I am going with my theory it is not safe.

ABORTION: It leaves one dead, one wounded.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88

As you wish.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Thirty studies have shown that having an abortion can cause breast cancer. In fact, any sudden and premature ending to a pregnancy does, including unintended miscarriages.

A study has shown that 42% of women who had an abortion showed signs of depression and anxiety.

The book LIME 5 by Mark Crutcher exposes hundreds of botched abortion cases.

And, finally, you can never forget the fact that someone, sometimes two, people die during an abortion.

For something so much safer than childbirth, it seems to hurt and kill people a lot.

reply from: Sigma

Sorry, no.

The results should make it clear that studies which are properly designed show pregnancies that end in abortion don't increase the risk of breast cancer.

-Professor Valerie Beral, Director, Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford

Some previous reviews on abortion and breast cancer have reached mistaken conclusions because they mixed together data from reliable and unreliable types of study.

-Professor Sir Richard Peto, from the Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit in Oxford

Professor Valerie Beral and colleagues found out of the 83,000 women, only 44,000 had predicated in reliable studies.

They were asked before they were diagnosed with cancer to tell researchers whether or not they had an abortion or miscarriage.

Results from these women showed that for those who had miscarried there was no increased risk of breast cancer compared to the general population.

The risk was actually slightly lower among those who had an abortion.

And:

the only notice from the U.S. National Cancer Institute is to question the methodology of the studies that have found links between abortion and breast cancer. Many of them rely on women self-reporting abortions, creating the possibility that those who later developed breast cancer will admit to having had an abortion and those who have not developed breast cancer will not. Others used samples too small to be considered statistically valid.

“The relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been the subject of extensive research,” according to a fact sheet distributed by the National Cancer Institute. “However, evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either spontaneous or induced abortion is inconsistent. Some studies have indicated small elevations in risk, while others have not shown any risk associated with either induced or spontaneous abortions.”

As for the Daling study:
Daling’s study also found that teenagers under age 18 and women over age 30 who have an abortion more than double their breast cancer risk. Those with a family history of the disease increase their risk 80 percent. Daling’s most dramatic finding was that teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who procure an abortion face a risk of breast cancer that is incalculably high. All 12 women in her study with this history were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45.

Because the study relied on self-reports of abortions and because the risk did not vary consistently with the number of abortions, the woman’s age or the length of pregnancy, a commentary published in the same issue of the journal said the evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link remained “weak and inconsistent.”

From: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/818/context/cover/
Many researchers are troubled, however, by the trend because the weight of current scientific evidence does not seem to support a link between breast cancer and abortion

From: http://www.breastcancer.org/research_abortion.html
In February 2003, an expert panel at the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed all available studies on links between pregnancy, abortion, and breast cancer. The experts concluded, based on the evidence from all the studies, that there is no link between natural or induced abortions and breast cancer risk

From: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/breast
-this one has tons of information about breasts in general and breast cancer in particular. Below I've highlighted important info found under 'risks':
Much research has been done to learn whether having an abortion or a miscarriage affects a woman's chance of developing breast cancer later on. Large, well-designed studies have consistently shown no link between abortion or miscarriage and the development of breast cancer.

http://www.reproductiverights.org/crt_cen_brstcancerqa.html

http://www.flnow.org/Abortion%20myths.htm
-I admit, these two are most likely biased, but they still have factual information.

reply from: Sigma

Hereforareason, I'm sorry, missed this one.

Pregnancy is indeed a possible result. I don't believe one can reasonably dispute this. What I said is that you wish to treat it as a punishment when you make it legally required to continue it.

And if you can afford it you buy a new engine. You are not required to endure any particular consequence. Because you ruined the engine does not mean you cannot replace it.

She is always her own self. Being pregnant does not change that, nor does it change that she has control over who uses her body. Yes, pregnancy is a very unique situation and it is difficult to find analogies that tie in all the aspects of it, I agree.

Mistakes are part of life. It is part of making your own decisions as an adult to make mistakes. She may indeed make the wrong decision, but that does not mean we should take decisions out of her hands. That is showing extreme disrespect. Whatever she may do, however immoral she is or we think she is, we would be immoral to do this thing to her. We cannot make her moral, morality is based on making decisions. Without free will, we cannot be moral or immoral.

She does indeed have a great deal of responsibility associated with her pregnancy. She can either accept responsibility or not accept it. If she is required to continue the pregnancy by law, she is not being responsible because she is forced to continue it. It can only be a responsible decision (in the sense of personal responsibility, I'm not talking about legal responsibility) if she takes the responsibility herself. None other can do this for her, nor should we.

reply from: RePit

Just wondering, do you think a human ever 'deserves' to die?

Do you think because a woman has sex and results in pregnantcy that she 'deserves' the burden of a child?

reply from: RePit

Do you have a source for this?

Edit: nevermind, I see you have provided one already.

Edit2: The methodology of the study isn't sound.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent, I assume this is directed at me. If not, apologies.

You must give evidence, not simply state such a thing.

No, she had protection of State law, not Constitutional law (if that. Depending on her age abortion may not have been illegal. It has been made illegal in recent history). The Constitution does not mention abortion and the Legislature cannot regulate it for this reason. Whether her mother had to go through the fetal stage is irrelevant to the rights she now possesses.

This proves nothing. Literally. Your conclusion does not logically follow, the fetus could indeed have more rights than the woman (and does, if abortion is disallowed).

Personal responsibility is personal. She should indeed assume responsibility. We cannot force her to be responsible though, she can only do it herself. Personal choice. She has the legal right to be irresponsible.

I think that's very responsible. You will never have an abortion. Good for you This does not justify disallowing abortions legally, however. You cannot legally regulate thoughts, nor can you legally regulate consensual sex (referring to the method of sex, the position, etc).

Personal feelings do not justify abortion. The situation of pregnancy does, regardless of the woman's feelings in the matter. If one is in that situation, it does not matter the reason in terms of the legality. We do not legislate against motivations, generally.

reply from: yoda

An excellent point, cp. I note that you got no response from the proaborts, and I can see why.

reply from: Tam

An excellent point, cp. I note that you got no response from the proaborts, and I can see why.

Yeah, because the child has "less rights." LOL

"Say, ma, can I borrow a cup o' rights?"

reply from: AshMarie88

Just wondering, do you think a human ever 'deserves' to die?

Do you think because a woman has sex and results in pregnantcy that she 'deserves' the burden of a child?

You know what? If I was home and someone broke in, and me and my friend were the only ones there, and the person that broke in tried to kill us, then I would want that person to die. Yes. If someone tried to kill me or my family, yes. I'm sorry, that is just how I feel.

A child is not a burden. Besides, the woman would have the child and realize what sex can result in. The child should not have to pay for the parents' mistake.

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

There was no response because the point was irrelevant to the discussion. A pro-life person tried to point out that childbirth was safer than abortion, and evidence was given to counter this.

reply from: yoda

So you are now claiming that you only respond to those things that are on topic for the thread? When did you start that policy?

Could it be that the point he made is just too strong for you to handle?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

I don't even think you know what you're talking about anymore. I never said anything of the sort that concernedparent could or could not post on this topic. Concernedparent said: Why the arguments about which is safer? That isn't or should not be directed at pro-choice people since we did not raise the issue.

Concernedparent did not address anyone specifically, and, by the question asked, should be answered by the one who raised the issue originally.

What point is that?

reply from: Sigma

Ok. There was a discussion on which was the greater risk to the woman, abortion or childbirth. A pro-life person said that abortion was 4 times more likely to kill the woman than childbirth (not exact words I believe, I'm paraphrasing). Evidence was given to counter this. A pro-life person attempted to show that abortion leads to breast cancer, and so was more of a risk. Evidence was given to counter this. That is why there was a discussion on the relative risks.

As to your point, it is a disingenuous question. In our discussions, abortion is assumed to kill the fetus regardless of gender. "The woman" when used in our discussion obviously refers to the woman who is pregnant. Our discussion was not on loss of life, but on relative risks to the pregnant woman.

Do you wish to start a new discussion then?

I have given logical evidence in other threads.

They would have equal rights to live, yes. There are other rights involved besides that, however.

You have shown nothing. You have stated a thing without logical support. Yes, they would have an equal right to live, but that is not the entirety of the rights involved.

Two people have the right to life. Person B trespasses on the other's property. In some states, person A can kill person B because of this. Is this a "right to kill"?

I have, or at least logically asserted with my question in another thread:
Do you agree that I am not required to prevent your death by giving of my own body, even if I directly and deliberately caused your condition?

You answered something to the affect that allowing you to die is different than killing you. I will continue that discussion in that other thread, but I have not "just stated it", I am attempted to show you why it is true.

I am. Calm down.

I was pointing something out about your example. I don't need to provide evidence in this case. My assertion is that the fetus will have more rights than the mother if abortion is disallowed. You cited something to the effect that when a girl grows up and becomes pregnant she will not be able to have an abortion. I responded that your example proved nothing, the fetus could have more rights than the girl in the example you posed.

Laws are only in effect when the irresponsibility involves legal matters. Sex is not a legal matter, nor is pregnancy. One can have sex irresponsibly with as many men as one chooses. The fact that you had sex irresponsibly does not mean you cannot treat a STD you may have caught from your irresponsibility. Your personal responsibility in this area is your personal responsibility. The law does not enforce responsible behavior, the law enforces legal behavior (legal responsibility). Our personal responsibility is our own.

You brought up different sexual positions and the use of toys. I responded that these are not legally enforcable. Calm down.

I am trying to logically prove that preventing or severing a connection is justification to kill, if that is the only way to prevent or sever the connection. Even if it is not the only way to sever or prevent the connection, one does have the right to prevent or sever the connection even if it will lead to the death of the person connected. There are cases where organs are stolen from a person (if I remember correctly), but I don't think you will accept that. Do you wish to discuss the connection issue here, or in that other thread?

Don't even try what? Personal feelings do not justify abortion. At least legally. On a side note, supply and demand is one reason abortion will always be with us (and has always been with us). There is a demand, and there will be a supply to satisfy that.

reply from: galen

sig,

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are so lucky that before you were born, you had people fighting for your own life and own rights. Someone cared enough to let you live (your mom) and someone else cared enough that they fought for lives just like you, and even you yourself. You should be thankful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn’t need rights, all I needed was my mother to want to have me. Yes, I am thankful to her that she was willing to sacrifice, both to remain pregnant and to raise me alone. I am glad she chose to have me, and I am glad she had a choice.

**********************************************************
Based on this part of your statement... How old are you? Were you born after RvW... didi your mom really have a choice... why are you using this particular argument.?

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark

reply from: Sigma

Based on the quote, I would say you make a reasonable assumption.

reply from: Sigma

This is partly why illegal abortions could not be tracked by the CDC, but, again, has little relevance in this thread.

Yes, I gave what I believed and logical reasoning why I believe it to be so. You have not done as much.

I demand concrete evidence when you state that the fetus being considered a person necessarily requires abortion being banned nationally. The burden of proof is greater upon you than upon me when you make such a claim. All I must logically show is an example or provide logical reasoning of ones right to ones body being greater than another’s right to live using that body and your point is defeated. Which I have done, but which you refuse to see.

You are not showing what you wish to show, or are missing the point on purpose. This isn’t about whether when or if the fetus grows into a woman what rights it will have. This is about what rights a fetus has compared to born people. The fetus, were you to have your way, would then have the right to live attached to another against that other’s will. Can you provide an example of who else has the right to do this? If not, a fetus would not have equal rights to everyone else, but greater rights.

Thank you. Yes, there is no “right to kill” desired for abortion. There is the belief that abortion should fall under “justifiable homicide”. It does not apply to only life-threatening scenarios, and you have not provided logical reasoning why it necessarily cannot be so.

In this scenario, however, you would be justified removing them by force if they would not leave. Killing them isn’t necessary to remove them, but you are allowed to remove them.

I’m not sure there is any case of the sort, which is why we work with analogies and logical suppositions. I gave one such logical supposition, and you have not given any logical reason why it would not be that way.

Not specifically, no. We do have a right to freedom, however, and that does include the freedom to be irresponsible in our personal lives. Members of society are legally held responsible when their actions violate the law. Sex does not do this. Pregnancy does not do this.

Your objection is flawed, you add a factor I did not have in my example. I am not talking about affecting another, I am talking about affecting yourself. When another is involved their rights are considered and no longer is merely our personal life. Obviously at this point you’re saying “aha! The fetus is another!” but you would be missing the point. The point is that irresponsible behavior in our personal life is a freedom we have.

Humor? Abortion is too serious of a subject for humor

Actually, it should if your goal is its elimination. Our “war on drugs” is so ineffective to be comical, and there is some support for the idea that legalizing many drugs will result in less of a drug problem. If your goal is the elimination of abortion, your target should be demand, not supply.

Human trafficking is also a demand problem, as our problems with our borders show. We have been completely ineffective in stopping illegal immigrants from Mexico, as we do not enforce our legislation targeting companies who hire these illegal immigrants. Were we to eliminate these companies that create the demand, the flow should slow or stop (once the immigrants get the messege).

You stop demand, you stop supply. You stop supply, you get illegal supply. Disallowing abortion sweeps the problem under the rug and declares it solved.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's what I thought.

reply from: MoaningMike

I'll concede that argument, concernedparent. I feel the same way. If people wanna engage in sport-like sexual activities, or sex in general, they need to be prepared to reap what they sow. Whatever comes out of that activity is now their responsibility, and whether or not they like it, it cannot be avoided.

reply from: yoda

How does a human embryo "trespass"?

I notice that you usually say that just before you start cursing at us and getting edited. Is that a warning?

reply from: Sigma

Do you practice misunderstanding posts? I did not say that, I said one can forcibly remove them, or have them removed. I even specified that killing is not necessary to remove them. If they resist, and you reasonably fear for your safety you can kill them in self-defense. In some states, Florida for example, if they enter your house, car, boat, etc unlawfully they’re dog food, even if they are not armed and do not threaten you.

Are you referring to your quote about collapsing Roe? That had little to do directly with abortion; it had to do with State justification. Your quote meant: If the fetus were considered a person, a State can have justification to restrict abortion. It did not say if the fetus were a person, abortion is illegal. You are trying to show that abortion will necessarily be illegal, which you have not done and cannot do with that quote alone.

It seems you cannot stay on a point. I am not using this to justify anything, I am making a claim.

I am not trying to justify abortion with this. You agree with my point here Being irresponsible, by itself, means nothing. Whether or not the woman caused this to happen means nothing, because sex is not illegal and having sex irresponsibly is not illegal.

Your insistence that every little thing I say is my justification for abortion makes it difficult to debate you. No, I am not using this to justify abortion, my point was that making it illegal does not solve the problem if your goal is actually the elimination of abortion. Laws against rape do not stop rape, all it allows us to do is punish those who rape. To stop rape you have to address the reasons rape happens. You have to decrease demand, and if you have ideas toward that end that would be great.

reply from: Sigma

You accepted it as fact before, I assumed you knew it as fact as well. I suppose this means you didn't actually read the law :-\

Section 1 of the bill creates a presumption that a person is in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury when he or she is using “defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury” under certain conditions. Those conditions are:

Where the person against whom the force is used had unlawfully or forcibly entered, or attempted to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle or

Had removed or attempted to remove another from the dwelling, residence, or vehicle,against that person’s will, and

The person using “defensive force” knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful or forcible entry or act had occurred.

If someone breaks into your house, the law assumes they mean violence and allows you to kill him. He does not have to be armed.

It continues:
This section of the bill also creates a presumption that a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Then goes on to define what a "dwelling" is and what a "residence" is.

The practical effects of this section include:

Eliminating the questions of fact regarding whether a person had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary – the presumption requires that the jury find that when he or she uses deadly force he or she is necessarily in reasonable fear to that extent, under the conditions set forth above.

The same is true of the presumption created with regard to the intent of the one entering or attempting to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence will be presumed to be true, not a question of fact.

There now is no question about whether or not one has justification to kill the intruder. It is assumed.

Not all killing is murder, as you can see. Abortion is killing, but that does not make it murder. Murder, by definition, is illegal. There is no legal murder. Yes, Roe would collapse for that reason because the basis of Roe was that a State has no justification for restricting access to abortion. If the fetus has Constitutional protection, a State can have justification. This does not mean abortion is automatically restricted, it allows States to restrict it.

Is there no justified killing on your planet?

No, but that one is irresponsible does not disallow changing an undesired consequence. The fact of irresponsibility means nothing.

You are confusing legal and illegal actions. If you do something illegal (or something legal that caused something illegal to happen) and you were irresponsible, then you can be proven negligent. That is not the case in our situation.

Nothing, I was responding to your point. Now that you are shown you cannot logically defend that point I'm assuming a retreat is in order.

We weren't going in circles, we were having a discussion about how to actually eliminate abortion.

reply from: Sigma

My mistake, I apologize.

Where? I posted where it says that intent is presumed, what do you use to counter this claim? Keep in mind that what you posted was regarding changes in the law, so you may be looking at the wrong section.

I'm still getting warmed up Your argument seems to be that the fetus having a 'right to life' necessarily means abortion is murder. To counter this, I am doing a few things. First, I need to establish that laws regarding killing and murder vary from State to State. Second, I need to establish that killing another can be justified in certain situations by these States. This means that the 'right to life' does not negate other's rights in all situations.

These two nullify your argument that the 'right to life' is blanket. After this I would need to show, either through examples or logical reasoning, that abortion can be classified by a State as justified killing. Since you seem to have trouble accepting my two original claims, I have not really moved on to my reasoning that abortion can be justified. I am aware that once I have shown my reasoning you can simply quit the debate citing something along the lines of "you just don't get it!", but I feel I will have won the debate at that point

Yes, one is restricted to legal means to do so. However, I am speaking more generally than abortion at this point, or assuming abortion is legal.

When I speak of changing ones consequence, I am speaking of it as, for example, setting a broken limb changing the consequence of living with a broken limb. You do not have to live with a broken limb because you can set it. Abortion does change whether or not one bears a child, and changes whether one is pregnant It can indeed be a means of avoiding responsibility, but avoiding responsibility, by itself, is not illegal.

My point, generally, is that the fact of irresponsibility does not disallow abortion, and that enforcing personal responsibility should not be the justification for disallowing it. Saying that one cannot do something illegal to avoid responsibility begs the question for this point.

No, I don't perceive agreement on such a point as retreat. I perceive it as agreement, though definitely not total. It takes a great deal of effort for you to agree even on an unrelated point.

reply from: Sigma

Read page 6: Effect of Proposed Changes

The link you posted was regarding changes in the law that are in effect as of October 1, 2005.

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent, perhaps you should allow me to make my points instead of assuming what my point will be. I cannot continue to correct you on what my point is.

I am not applying this law to abortion. I am not claiming the fetus is a trespasser with my point here.

Can you prove this? Show that it is logically true? Can you show other cases where a State made a killing justified and SCOTUS reversed it?

I seem to be the only one trying to make any progress. I make a point and you jump "This doesn't justify abortion hahahahaha!", when I am not trying to do so. You're slowing down the debate.

Then you misunderstand what I was talking about.

Do you even know how an argument works? I am building a premise for us both to work from.

I am not justifying abortion with this point. Yes, the person killed has commited a crime. Violating or infringing another's rights can be a crime.

Obviously killing random people (innocent or otherwise) is not typically justified. However, this law provides for killing someone who thought he was sneaking into his own house, or other innocent mistakes. Even if the intruder sees the gun and runs the owner is justified in shooting him in the back. Because the intruder is in the owner's house.

However, all I needed to show is that justified killing varies from State to State. States determine what killing is justified, would you agree?

reply from: Tam

How does a human embryo "trespass"?

Good question. I think trespassing means entering a forbidden area. [edited to add: I just checked, and it does include the concept of ENTRY] I think in order to ENTER an area, one must first EXIST. Since the child never exists outside the womb and does not, therefore, ENTER the womb, it would be hard to prove trespassing had occurred. Plus, the womb is hardly forbidden to the child--it is his/her home. All those arguments about an intruder in one's home--sure, to a woman, her entire body is HER home, but her womb is her CHILD'S home, plain and simple. Abortion is far less similar to shooting an unwelcome trespasser in my home than it is to entering the home my tenant has lawfully rented from me, and shooting him or her.

reply from: yoda

Precisely. Abortion is also similar to the incarceration of an innocent person into a tiny cell, and then killing them because you want that cell to be empty.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, this is true. However, a State may infringe upon Constitutional rights with sufficient justification. The right to acquire an abortion is considered a Constitutional right. It is covered under the 'right to privacy'. Every person has a 'right to life', but States may allow infringment on that right for different reasons (such as defending your property). Protecting your body from being used can be justification. Whether it is sufficient or not is opinion between us, since there is no legal precedence as far as I know.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yes, this is true. However, a State may infringe upon Constitutional rights with sufficient justification. The right to acquire an abortion is considered a Constitutional right. It is covered under the 'right to privacy'. Every person has a 'right to life', but States may allow infringment on that right for different reasons (such as defending your property). Protecting your body from being used can be justification. Whether it is sufficient or not is opinion between us, since there is no legal precedence as far as I know.

Are you saying that a woman's body is merely property? If so, then rape would just be as much as trespassing. If you're not trying to, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

reply from: Sigma

No, but I can see how you would come to that conclusion. It was merely an example of States infringing on the ‘right to life’

reply from: Sigma

Then you have not been paying attention. Given the rights involved, States can be justified in allowing abortion with or without precedents, and you have offered nothing conclusive that would prevent it. The quote you love so much does not apply to this situation.

Then go on your way continuing to believe it

reply from: Sigma

Then you were not paying attention. It's difficult to debate when you do not read my posts, but the discussion seems to have wound down. Good day to you.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sigma: when you said the fetus has no right to be attached to the woman, you say it like it is the baby's fault it's there. If the mother would just practice abstinence, she wouldn't have to deal with the "deadly" stage of pregnancy.

reply from: bradensmommy

Didn't you know laurissa that a fetus is like a parasite, a disease, that needs to be removed! Mainly by a suctioning device that leaves them without a head.

reply from: Sigma

You may interpret what I said in that way, but my belief does not require the fetus to be at fault. Whether or not you are at fault, you have no right to live attached to me.

Abstinence does not help a woman who is pregnant. That is like telling her to close the gate after the horse has escaped. Yes, she should, in my opinion, practice abstinence if she has no wish to be pregnant or at least use 2 forms of BC correctly (thereby reducing the chance of pregnancy to effectively nil) but that does not solve her problem.

What is the "deadly" stage of pregnancy?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Not one stage by itself; people say the pregnancy in general is just extremely deadly.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

reply from: Sigma

Regardless, neither you nor I would be allowed to live attached to another against the other's will in a similar situation.

That's wonderful for those who wish to continue the pregnancy and mother a child. Not all women do and pregnancy puts stress on a woman's body, sometimes a great deal of stress. That should not be dismissed out of hand, especially if the woman does not wish to be pregnant.

reply from: Sigma

Hypothetically there is. While I am aware of no cases where one person is attached to another against that other's will, it takes little to imagine that this would not be legally allowed.

What does or does not justify abortion would of course vary between us. Whatever the 'normal discomforts of pregnancy', only one person has to go through them and only she can gauge how much 'discomfort' she suffers. Only she should decide if she wishes to continue to go through them.

Which she has the right to do, before and after birth.

reply from: Sigma

If that person infringes upon your rights, you may be able to. Depends on the State.

Again, if that someone is infringing upon your rights, you may be able to.

Everyone has a right to remove a child from their care.

reply from: yoda

Only before it is born. Only when they can claim "privacy rights" for the act of killing that child.

After that, they are obliged to treat it as a human being.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If that person infringes upon your rights, you may be able to. Depends on the State.

Again, if that someone is infringing upon your rights, you may be able to.

Everyone has a right to remove a child from their care. Yes, but no one has the right to remove the child's life.
How is a child partially born any different from a child fully born? It has the same brain, the same feet, the same hands, the same body. I just don't see how it is not human when it is half way out of the mother.

reply from: Sigma

No, one has the right to remove a child from your care after it is born. Safe haven laws, adoption, giving it to a friend, giving it to a relative, etc. There are a myriad of options open to a woman with a born child to remove that child from her care that do not involve harming the child.

Before birth, the woman also has the right to remove the fetus from her care. In the time-frame that the vast majority of abortions are performed, death is the only result possible for the fetus. Yet, the woman has the right in both instances to remove it from her care.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I don't see why a woman can't just trade nine months for someone's life. If she doesn't want the child, she should put it up for adoption and after that PRACTICE ABSTINENCE.

reply from: Sigma

Adoption is a parenting choice, not a pregnancy choice. During the pregnancy adoption is not an option. She only has two options: continue or abort.

reply from: Sigma

That is how we are comparing the two in this thread.

Your opinion is noted.

reply from: Sigma

In both cases the woman removes a dependent from her care. They can be compared in that way.

False, but I've already seen that you close your eyes to that which does not agree with you. I've little desire to rehash old arguments with you.

reply from: yoda

Then rehash THIS, BABY-KILLER!

reply from: Sigma

Read my posts. My comparison acknowledges that before birth the fetus is killed and after birth the child is not.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics