Abortion is wrong

EmilyRouse

@SkepticalOne
I'd argue otherwise. Identical twins may have nearly the same genetic makeup as one another, but they still have different makeup from their parents. They are individuals; They have individual fingerprints, slight genetic variances, etc. Clones are a similar deal; While they are identical to their parents, there are still slight variances in their appearance. And if an individual must be singular or separate, are conjoined twins not individuals from each other? Is a newborn not an individual until the umbilical cord is cut?

EmilyRouse

@Plaffelvohfen
It's not in my mind. It's in the Bible, in history, throughout miracles and such things.
And isn't it relevant? When having sex shouldn't one be aware of the risk? Accept that risk? Especially when not being safe?

EmilyRouse

@Dr_Maybe
No?
You made a false statement saying that Jesus is his own father, which isn't true, and I corrected it.

John_C_87

@EmilyRouse ;

The result is the same when not having sexual intercourse, the child, the baby will die by the woman's choice. It is still a pregnancy abortion when a woman makes that choice not to become pregnant. That is a United State shared by all woman who can become pregnant. The second basic principle is citizen ship and a baby is brought across an international border into a nation by the woman. 

Pregnancy Abortion is wrong when it is a lie, the state of lie by use of the word abortion is consistently higher when it is restricted by both united state and constitution. The idea was to destroy American United State Constitution because it with the process of United State tells a truth that is not popular and interferes with the agenda of some not all woman and men. 

All woman can be created equal by united state constitution. Example: A woman running to be elected to Executive office, or has been elected, can be placed in a United State created by basic principle under an promise to take oath, or once elected under oath be asked to tell truth on behalf of this united state.

A woman commits murder of a baby as a united state, she does this with all other woman when making the choice not to become pregnant. When a woman can become pregnant. All woman who know and understand they can become pregnant, understand they are in control of this action. All woman who do not understand they are in control of this action still do so unintentionally. As a United State the death takes place. This is a basic principle of bearing truth as a liberty for all, the true weight is shown to all woman as a united state.

The idea of Abortion came before the idea of the constitutional united states of America. Its seniority or majority give it no right in that state of the union as a presidential address. Its seniority or majority will give it no right in that state of the union as a presadera address.

John_C_87

In basic principle the medical definition of life starts at the creation of egg, when the egg is fertilized the life is extended by a treatment to preserve that life. This is a United State as well. The united state that is shared by all woman continues even when a woman is the medical doctor. The united state does not stop or change in any way, it remains united.

A female specific amputation is a principle of united state all doctor, all woman can as "basic" principle be placed inside the scope of United States Constitutional law.

Plaffelvohfen

EmilyRouse said:

@Plaffelvohfen
It's not in my mind. It's in the Bible, in history, throughout miracles and such things.
And isn't it relevant? When having sex shouldn't one be aware of the risk? Accept that risk? Especially when not being safe?

1: Hell (the proverbial pit of fire) doesn't have any anchor in reality, it IS in your mind... Saying it exists because it is written in the Bible is fallacious, it's like saying that the Lord of the Ring is proof of the existence of Sauron or the Elves... 

2: Having sex is NOT consent to pregnancy... It's consent to have sex, period... It's just a link in a causal chain of events, saying one is responsible for a pregnancy by merely having casual sex is like saying the mere fact of getting out of bed each day is consent to anything that could happen to you during the day... 

The core issue here... Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?.

If one answers yes, he must be prepared and able to demonstrate the logical steps that allows us to absolutely infer B from A... 
If B doesn't follow from A, then it's a settled matter and the right to abortion cannot be infringed upon... 

All the rest are red herring, deflections, special pleading, fallacies and avoidance... It's as simple as that... 

Dee

@EmilyRouse

The definition of life isn't straightforward, but sperm cells fit the bill. Yes, it's certainly as alive as any other cells in a male body. Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle.

So for you to be consistent a condom still denies  a sperm cell continued existence how is this ok , but abortion is not? 

Dee

@EmilyRouse ;

You state American Christianity is about love yet did not address even one point in my post regarding Americans Christians views on matters such as guns , why’s that?

John_C_87

Dee said:

@EmilyRouse

The definition of life isn't straightforward, but sperm cells fit the bill. Yes, it's certainly as alive as any other cells in a male body. Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle.

So for you to be consistent a condom still denies  a sperm cell continued existence how is this ok , but abortion is not? 

We are still describing Pregnancy abortion as united state. WE will walk through basic principles step by step.
1.) While the number of lives change in question by the united state presented of sperm in all men is greater then one or so eggs in all women who created egg, or eggs. 
2.) The basic principle that separates men from woman is the number of lives represented by sperm, or egg is not equal and in men is so much higher it is humanly impossible be saved them one by one with the help of one woman.
3). This creates a legal precedent fort possible divorce, while also addressing the united state that it is just as unreasonable to demand a woman have one man fertilize a high number of eggs over her time as fertile.
4.) Pregnancy abortion, AKA Abortion is a united state that creates an excuse to ignore the presumption of innocence as focus of principle held by its state.
5.) Female specific amputation is a constitutional address to the loss of innocence made on a confession not all woman are asked to make on the same basic principle all woman can be created equal by in united state.
6.) The basic principle to be placed in united state for union between man and woman with pregnancy is the crossing of International border. Not the idea of when life starts.
7.) The United State constitutional right in basic principle that is to be represented by all woman in a united state of independence, if that is what is sought is the official control of entry of a person, a person dependent on her directly, without relief of second for possibly months, the official stop of crossing by the person, by the woman is always a return to the destination of egg and sperm. 
8.) The crime if crime cannot take place unless the woman self-incriminates herself past the reason/ motives of official stop are proven beyond those.

 (This is a declaration of Presidential United state in the matters of the union set by abortion as presented from a position outside the Privilege Executive office.)
Preamble: All men are created equal by use of President of United State. Not law, United State.
I yield time.

EmilyRouse

@John_C_87
No- because abortion is murdering an individual, with the genetic code capable of becoming a fully fledged adult, while not having sex is just an egg not being fertilized. An egg doesn't have the genetic capacity to become an adult. Without a sperm it never will become an adult. It's not possible. But an aborted baby did have that capacity; Thus, it is wrong.
To say that because the egg is scientifically alive, it's okay to kill everything because we naturally kill eggs doesn't work; You could say the same thing about an amputation. That arm is technically alive- but it's not an individual. An egg isn't an individual capable of living a full life until it's combined with a sperm, and thus, has it's own unique genetic code.

EmilyRouse

@Plaffelvohfen No- getting out of bed you have no idea what may happen. Casual, unsafe sex has a clear and obvious risk. It's more like fishing; You might get a bite, you might not. But you KNOW that both are a possible result of what you're doing. By saying abortion should be allowed because sex isn't consent for pregnancy is saying people shouldn't bear responsibility for their own actions. 
And really, It's more of this; Does the right to life allow someone to temporarily reside in someone else's body?
Should an infant be allowed to be malnourished and die because it's mother doesn't want to let the infant use her body without consent to get breast milk?

EmilyRouse

@Dee
Can a sperm cell become a human being without the egg?
No. It cannot.
Can the fetus become a human being?
Yes. It can.
That is why killing a sperm is not an abortion. It's not killing a potential human being. It's just getting rid of some of what you use to make a human being.
Killing sperm is like throwing out some flour, while abortion is like taking the baking cake out of the oven and crushing it.

EmilyRouse

@Dee
Because this is a debate on abortion, not guns?

Dee

@EmilyRouse

Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism
So again how are your pro life views consistent as you’re denying the potential of the sperm by using contraception , contraception is used to prevent a life being born,  abortion achieves the same result 

Dee

@EmilyRouse

Yet you brought religion into it when you stated ......
It's a huge missconception that we are all hatred and anger. We do have opinions, they may be unpopular, but they are founded in love of the people. Because, from our minds, without such things you'll burn in hell. And we HATE that. I HATE the idea of people burning in hell.

Plaffelvohfen

@EmilyRouse

I'm not saying that abortion should be allowed because consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but I'm saying that assuming it is (your position), is not a good enough reason to ban it...

It's like driving a car, every time you get behind the wheel and drive your car, you acknowledge there's a risk of an accident, right? You wouldn't think (I hope) of denying healthcare to anyone in a car crash because they acknowledge that risk of accident? Even someone who drives drunk has a right to healthcare in the event of a crash, right? 

Denying abortion rights to someone who got pregnant is like denying medical care to someone who crashed his/her car... 

The reason for allowing abortion is the fact that A) the right to life, doesn't infer B ) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent... Contrary to many pro-choice advocates, I don't mind granting personhood to seconds old fetuses, I do treat them as if they actually had all the rights a grown adult has, even though they do not have those (and should not either), but it doesn't matter to my argument so I can grant it...

Unless you can demonstrate that A absolutely infer B, then you have no grounds (except personal religious beliefs) on which to justify a ban on abortions.

That said, this only addresses the legality or abortion...  On the specific question here (is it "wrong") the answer is whatever you want it to be since Morality is subjective in nature it can be either right or wrong, both answers are valid...

John_C_87

@EmilyRouse ;

No- because abortion is murdering an individual, with the genetic code capable of becoming a fully fledged adult, while not having sex is just an egg not being fertilized.

So, in basic principle a human egg is an individual who is not allowed to have material needed by a woman to grow a genetic code. The human egg then dies therefore the pregnancy that has started by the creation of the egg in all woman as united state officially becomes terminated by pregnancy abortion. Yes or no?

We are trying to preserve a united state together with all woman who may become pregnant and with American Constitution. Basic principle and legal precedent. A woman doctor or woman scientist share this United State with all other woman. Correct? All men share this united state with sperm. Correct?

We all commit the same kind of murder men and woman. Correct? We share a united state of blame. The exception is if we mature without this united state as man and woman.

Without a sperm it never will become an adult.

In basic principle all you are saying is without the extension of life a woman must allow with treatment, a person will never cross her border into a Nation as United State. It looks as though there is trouble holding a presumption of innocence required by female specific amputation. A presumption not required by and admission like pregnancy abortion, or simply saying abortion.

To say that because the egg is scientifically alive, it's okay to kill everything because we naturally kill eggs doesn't work;

We are not saying that yet. The woman helping to preserve American United State Constitution and  I.

No, I’m proving a united state exists in the use of abortion which is larger in context than you are telling. It is due to fact you do not know and understand the united state that is created with all people, or you do not care of the legal state it unites with all people.

Female specific amputation is a united state that is much more restrictive than simply amputation itself. It is also more restrictive than abortion itself, part of that restriction involves the removal of self-incrimination by use of admission. Basic principle.

A death was the constant state where the egg and sperm lived. The environment was to harsh to allow the immigration into a Nation this is a presumption of innocence as united state.  

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
I'm not saying that abortion should be allowed because consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but I'm saying that assuming it is (your position), is not a good enough reason to ban it...
Yeah it is Plaffelvohfen the full context of abortion is being limited by telling lies. The simple argument is that pregnancy does not hold a united state in basic principle of good health. Abortion is wrong intelligence is not part of this test required for a woman who does not know to have a female specific amputation, the independent state in basic principle here is of international entry into a country all woman are created equal by their quality of united state.

As American we have a obligation to creates the union of United state in basic principle and legal precedent. Self-incrimination of a woman as united state is legal precedent enough to ban pregnancy abortion from legislation. Denying abortion rights to someone who got pregnant is like denying medical care to someone who crashed his/her car... No it is not anything like that. Being wrong at preserving a united State Constitutional right unknown is not directing a person or woman toward a United State Constitutional preservation.

Unless you can demonstrate that A absolutely infer B, then you have no grounds (except personal religious beliefs) on which to justify a ban on abortions. Okay well there is another way. Always was a 2nd way, a united state Constitutional union. Sorry that legal obligation to America was abandon there is only a presumption of innocence and that takes us all as united state only so far.

John_C_87

Sorry this may have been written better as. As American we have a obligation to maintain the union of United state, not As American we have a obligation to creates the union of United state. 

jesusisGod777

@John_C_87

The United States constitution has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, first and foremost.

the separation of powers divide the responsibility of governent in the forms of checks and balances.

When specifically reffering to law,
 ameThe twenty-seven articles in the Constitution have nothing to do with abortion.

Your arguments fallacy.

Your idea that people have sovereighn powers is the most absurd nonsense in the world.

Laws limit social aspects of a society.

So where are you assuming that the Constitution has anything to do with abortion or the sovereighnty of rights?

If you haven't realized the majority of the Constitution has to do with war laws.

Fallacy.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

@Plaffelvohfen

Based on your logic I'll use simple terms because you find complex terms ambitious.

O= opinions
R=right
W=wrong
I=inherant
P=Perception
M=M  fact
after ofI

I=true while I , is not o
Since I is not o, I is not wrong
However o is therefore not M

Since o is not matter of fact
Matter of fact is i

Therefore since matter of fact is I

And o is not matter of fact

You assume I is not wrong as I has not been stated, therefore since I has not been stated

You have stated an o and therefore what you have stated is not M as I and M are the same.

Therefore based on your own logic your statement is P and evaluation of the other person's statement as I insinuates that W dictates why abortion is not wrong.

However you have never stated I, you have suggested o without stating I so no inference can be made about I as it's related to O and therefore can not be regarded as a logical statement.

What you asserted is a logical inequality as your not asserting anything. Your making a baseless claim.

Jesus is Lord and abortions wrong.

Since P

Therefore

Abortion is inherantly wrong because it is murder, and murder is wrong.

Check my statement for logic as

I stated 

W=wrong 
M=murder

Mw= murder is wrong

A=abortion equal murder

Therefore since a =m, and m=w a=w. 

You guys literally have no idea how to make logical statements nor what they are.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

jesusisGod777

@SkepticalOne

Considering you stated a miscarriage is possible

A fetus must be alive before it's born as birth does not determine a fetus life

Therefore a fetus is alive before it's born

Therefore a fetus lives in the womb.

jesusisGod777

@John_C_87

If you assume something conditionally makes abortion right, you assert that abortion is wrong, in general.

jesusisGod777

How about this, it's evident that anyone who claims they have a right to their bodies doesn't want children.

Why not have a surgery where their uterus is removed?

jesusisGod777

For clarity in the debate, when does a fetus ever stop being a human Embryo.

Jesus is Lord.

EmilyRouse

@EmilyRouse
It's independent- but not an individual. Not a human being. A sperm has only half the genetic code needed to make a human being, while a fetus has all of it, and is already in the process of forming.

Dee

It's independent- but not an individual. Not a human being. A sperm has only half the genetic code needed to make a human being, while a fetus has all of it, and is already in the process of forming.

So how is a fetus an individual? Why is it morally wrong to abort a fetus is it because it’s a living entity? Why should a fetus have the right to life without a women’s consent?  It is there by permission which you seem to think she has no right to withdraw why would you grant a right to an unborn over the right of a woman to bodily autonomy?

John_C_87

jesusisGod777 said:

@John_C_87

If you assume something conditionally makes abortion right, you assert that abortion is wrong, in general.

Pregnancy Abortion is wrong, female specific amputation is a united state constitutional right. The condition that makes it this united state constitutional right is no self-incrimination as a united state. There is no assumption there is a magic trick. Now we see the self-incrimination, then we don't see the self-incrimination.

For clarity in the debate, when does a fetus ever stop being a human Embryo.
For clarity in the debate when does a fetus ever stop being human never it was a human egg from the start. A fetus is simply an human at a certain age and did not die. There are two choices as a united state held by woman and in both choices the end result is to kill the baby. 

The argument you make explained in the simplest way as united state is all a person needs to be allowed to cross International border is DNA. This may be true in a condition of the future however it does not justify a risk to the woman's life as United State. The woman's border is not an united state with a nations border and the difference is clear. That simple. "I preserve constitution, not the presumption of guilt by use of admission."

A choice a woman makes to not save any one of the many eggs she produces over her time capable to bear child is a pregnancy abortion. The woman simple either dies not understand the admission to use it correctly, Or can somehow prove she is not official stopping what has begun a pregnancy. The united state in pregnancy is that all babies will need a egg to nurture by a mother and keep alive, how that is done may very, but is a united state.

John_C_87

@Dee ;

 It is there by permission which you seem to think she has no right to withdraw why would you grant a right to an unborn over the right of a woman to bodily autonomy?
She does not have the Constitutional right to withdraw...…...A woman has a united state constitutional right to return, a child does not fit the united state of basic principle to return and egg or sperm to the basic principle so a united state weight to bear of death held with the ongoing union between a man and woman does not continue. The baby only shares the United State of death with a mother.

Example: provided JesusisGod777 can create a child, she either is part of a united state that kills a baby by allowing the egg to die, or He is part of a united state that kills a baby by allowing a number of sperm to die. The united legal state to bear is death that men and woman share of a baby.  

So how is a fetus an individual?
Dee basic principle is that the sperm is human sperm not fish sperm swimming to fish eggs on the ground. Human eggs and Human sperm as united state this includes scientist and really, really, smart people.. who can create a child not young children or babies who cannot. separate ourselves form the independent acts that place us at risk by united state.

EmilyRouse

@EmilyRouse
The woman, in most cases, DID consent.
She had sex of her own free will, and shouldn't be able to terminate the fetus because of her own selfishness. A fetus is an individual because of it's own individual, or unique, genetic code. It's ability to grow into an independent and unique human being with only its own DNA and nutrients from its mother.
The fetus is not like a sperm, because a sperm, not combined with an egg, will not become an adult human. An egg, left not combined with a sperm, will not become an adult human. An embryo, the combination of egg and sperm, will become an adult human, provided it has the time and isn't forcefully killed through abortion.

EmilyRouse

@Plaffelvohfen It's not like a car crash; A car crash is a disaster, something completely out of control and unexpected, often the fault of someone else. But, if it is the woman's fault, then she has to pay compensation, even in a car crash. The biological purpose of sex is to create children. It's more like eating a food you know might make you sick. It's entirely your own choice, and if it goes in a way you don't like, you still have to face the consequences for your actions

EmilyRouse

@Dee
Because I was correcting a statement you made about religion, and what religion is, and, seeing as religion is a part of my abortion argument, I felt it was necessary to point out not all religion is filled with hatred and anger as people often claim.

Plaffelvohfen

@EmilyRouse

 The biological purpose of sex is to create children.

Biological purpose is not the only valid purpose of sex... This notion is based on archaic religious puritanism...

It's more like eating a food you know might make you sick.

Would you deny someone medical care if they did eat something that they knew might make them sick (like seafoods or peanuts)?? 

You're still evading the core issue though... Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?

John_C_87

EmilyRouse said:

X@EmilyRouse 
@John_C_87
The woman, in most cases, DID consent.
She had sex of her own free will, and shouldn't be able to terminate the fetus because of her own selfishness. A fetus is an individual because of it's own individual, or unique, genetic code. It's ability to grow into an independent and unique human being with only its own DNA and nutrients from its mother.
The fetus is not like a sperm, because a sperm, not combined with an egg, will not become an adult human. An egg, left not combined with a sperm, will not become an adult human. An embryo, the combination of egg and sperm, will become an adult human, provided it has the time and isn't forcefully killed through abortion.

@John_C_87 ;

Are you expecting seeming other than a human from a human female egg. DNA is not need to describe the women's living egg as human. Sorry.

True however you are not explaining how not fertilizing the egg with sperm is an accident. Not allowing the sperm a chance at fertilizing an egg is an accident. This is a united state basic principle every male and female scientist share by its creation meaning an even larger United State.

The woman, in most cases, DID consent.
She had sex of her own free will, and shouldn't be able to terminate the fetus because of her own selfishness

I am just going to start by say this is not a presumption of Innocence by united state for all woman. I also will not dismiss you because of religious belief.  In a separate united state all woman are representing a citizen, who is crossing a international border as a united state along with consent given while actively seeking suiter. The egg and sperm are both going to die unless a woman does something that might prevent it by performing a pregnancy abortion as united state.

The preservation that is being made is in united State basic principle and legal precedent.

Dee

@EmilyRouse

Because I was correcting a statement you made about religion, and what religion is, and, seeing as religion is a part of my abortion argument, I felt it was necessary to point out not all religion is filled with hatred and anger as people often claim.

No you were not “correcting a statement “ I made , you were giving an opinion on a statement I made but you cannot say how my view is incorrect.

I stated that American Christians have re -invented Jesus into an all American version of Jesus , how can American Christians call themselves such when the majority support the carrying of a gun , resist universal health care for all  , social welfare and social housing? 

How does the above fit in with the teachings of Jesus? 

One only has to look on this site where a sizable amount of American Christians rabidly attack others for daring to suggest decent social welfare systems and attack those who call for the banning of guns 

Dee

@EmilyRouse

The woman, in most cases, DID consent.

So?

She had sex of her own free will, and shouldn't be able to terminate the fetus because of her own selfishness. A fetus is an individual because of it's own individual, or unique, genetic code. It's ability to grow into an independent and unique human being with only its own DNA and nutrients from its mother.

Mostly yes , but yet her own free will has to be denied when it comes to her bodily autonomy whys that?
Why do you deny the woman a right yet grant an unborn a right which trumps any rights she has?
Why do you call a woman “selfish” if she wishes to abort?
What if her partner leaves her? Or doesn’t want a child? What if she’s destitute , a drug addict or homeless?
Just to satisfy your view on what’s morally correct she should be forced to give birth to what she’s does not want why’s that?
A fetus is still there by permission you say this cannot be withdrawn do you wish the government to intervene in a woman’s right to bodily autonomy?

The fetus is not like a sperm, because a sperm, not combined with an egg, will not become an adult human. An egg, left not combined with a sperm, will not become an adult human. An embryo, the combination of egg and sperm, will become an adult human, provided it has the time and isn't forcefully killed through abortion.

The fetus is a potential human in progress,  a sperm also has potential to become a human once it isn’t forcefully killed through contraception , how are your views consistent if you wish to ban one and not the other? 

Why do you believe an egg and a sperm may be terminated seperately but not together? 

John_C_87

@Dee ;
Why do you deny the woman a right yet grant an unborn a right which trumps any rights she has?
Because it is not a right the woman did not already have, it is not EmilyRose who is denying the right. Emily simply does not have the answer that is demanded from her by the attack made on united state and constitution.

EmilyRouse

@Plaffelvohfen
The right to life does give the right to temporarily use someones body, due to the fact the fetus was conceived under the knowledge that pregnancy may occur, and that one's irresponsibility with their sex life does not constitute a right to kill the unborn child.

EmilyRouse

@John_C_87
If you have an egg, it doesn't become a human. it cannot. No matter what you do, unless combined with sperm to become an embryo it cannot be a human individual. Same goes for sperm.
Even so- you claim the egg is alive, so then how much more alive is the fetus? The fetus which is capable of developing and growing, becoming even more human as it does so.

EmilyRouse

@Dee A sperm has potential; But the process hasn't started yet. To kill a sperm is to stop something before it begins. To kill a fetus is to kill a human being.
And I'm not saying woman shouldn't have rights. We do have rights! like the right to not have sex if we don't want children. You then list a lot of what if situations- the fact is, as I stated in my first argument, all of these situations have better solutions then killing the child.
The fetus may be there by permission- but why does that give us permission to retract that? To decide we have the right to KILL someone because they reside, temporarily, in our own body. It's only nine months. Nine months and a lesson about responsibility. If the woman had sex knowing she might get pregnant, why should there be an option to disregard the fetus' life? It's like signing a waver; You can't just say "I take it back". It's already been done.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

You're still evading the core issue though..
Not having an answer is not evading the issue.
 Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?Yes. That is not a basic principle that is made within the scope of request for independence of woman as a United State. You are asking woman like EmilyRose to take part in what you describe as a crime. Looking for immunity as a united state for independence of all woman.

 The egg was part of the body in question and a woman knows what increases the risk of preserving the life longer.( EmilyRose) American Constitution holds a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. (EmilyRose) may simply not know all united state created by woman that may make this unholy act necessary. It is not the burden of judicial separation to teach her these things.

The basic issue is the woman and man have made no agreement with a Nation, let alone each other to establish a immigration as a pardon on capital punishment. It is the independent woman or persons burden to present a presumption of innocence to the general welfare of American United State Constitution.

Plaffelvohfen

EmilyRouse said:

@Plaffelvohfen
The right to life does give the right to temporarily use someones body, due to the fact the fetus was conceived under the knowledge that pregnancy may occur, and that one's irresponsibility with their sex life does not constitute a right to kill the unborn child.

No, you seem to misunderstand the problem, you're saying that the mere "knowledge of a risk" is a form of consent... You haven't shown me the logical steps leading from the right to life, to a right to use someone body without consent... 

If the right to life infers a right to use someone body, it would imply that I (or anyone) would have a right to any compatible organ present in anyone, whether they agree or not, if my life depended on it...  I need a lung to survive and you're compatible? Then I can take one of yours without your consent, I don't even have to ask you because well, right to life... Do you have a problem with this?

Dee

@EmilyRouse

A sperm has potential; But the process hasn't started yet. To kill a sperm is to stop something before it begins. To kill a fetus is to kill a human being.

A fetus has potential , a sperm has potential you’re stopping the  process only earlier , Are you saying a sperm is not living? To kill a fetus is to stop something before it’s born 

And I'm not saying woman shouldn't have rights. We do have rights! like the right to not have sex if we don't want children. You then list a lot of what if situations- the fact is, as I stated in my first argument, all of these situations have better solutions then killing the child.

But you are saying women should only have certain rights , Can a woman not change her mind? How are your solutions better than anyone else’s ?
You are directly saying an unborn should have the right to use a woman’s body without her permission 

The fetus may be there by permission- but why does that give us permission to retract that? To decide we have the right to KILL someone because they reside, temporarily, in our own body. It's only nine months. Nine months and a lesson about responsibility. If the woman had sex knowing she might get pregnant, why should there be an option to disregard the fetus' life? It's like signing a waver; You can't just say "I take it back". It's already been done.

Here body her choice. Do you think women do so for fun? Did you ever look into the why’s? That’s a sweeping generalization regarding responsibility you make , is a woman not being responsible if she realizes she cannot give a child the love and care it requires?

Of course she can say “I  take it back”, so again why do you grant an unborn a right but deny a women a right in favour the unborn? 

Why  should  an unborns supposed rights trump those of the born?

Why should someone or something be allowed you use your body without your consent?

Dee

@EmilyRouse

Sorry double post 

EmilyRouse

@Plaffelvohfen
That wouldn't give that consent- because the right to take anyone's organ would cause that person to die; Your right to life doesn't compromise others right to life. The thing about a fetus and abortion is that the fetus isn't going to kill the woman. (unless it's a medical abortion, which I support). So why should the fetus have it's right to life compromised just because the woman doesn't want to sustain it?

EmilyRouse

@Dee
A sperm, on it's own, cannot and will not become a human. It will not become an adult. It will not grow and develop a heartbeat or a brain.
A fetus has the capability of doing these things unaided, aside from the basic nutrients necessary.
Why should the the rights of the born trump that of the unborn? Seeing as the unborn are alive, why do we not all have equal rights? Why is the body of the woman worth more then the body of her child? Why should someone changing their mind give them the right to kill someone else? Why not change your mind and use adoption? Or safe surrender?
Why isn't the action of creating a child consent? Why does a child, who has no say in it's own creation, deserve a death penalty for a creation it played no part in? The parents created the child, fertilized the egg. So why do we abort the child? If the fetus didn't come to be in the woman's uterus of it's own will, how is it not consented? To say that it's not consented to stay, temporarily in the woman's body, when she and the man are the reason the fetus is there doesn't add up.

Plaffelvohfen

EmilyRouse said:

@Plaffelvohfen
That wouldn't give that consent- because the right to take anyone's organ would cause that person to die; Your right to life doesn't compromise others right to life. The thing about a fetus and abortion is that the fetus isn't going to kill the woman. (unless it's a medical abortion, which I support). So why should the fetus have it's right to life compromised just because the woman doesn't want to sustain it?

You can donate a kidney, a liver lobe, a lung or part of a lung, part of pancreas, intestines as well as blood and bone marrow without dying and be fully functioning... So according to you, I could take from you any of those without your consent (if I need them) because of my right to life... 

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
@EmilyRose

No, you seem to misunderstand the problem, you're saying that the mere "knowledge of a risk" is a form of consent... You haven't shown me the logical steps leading from the right to life, to a right to use someone body without consent..

Sperm is alive the woman is consenting to a vast umber of things to live inside her body by consent of sexual intercourse. You are testing EmilyRose on united state constitutional right as a woman. Again in basic principle she is only not giving consent to bring those lives to the United State of American.

If the right to life infers a right to use someone body, it would imply that I (or anyone) would have a right to any compatible organ present in anyone, whether they agree or not, if my life depended on it...  I need a lung to survive and you're compatible? Then I can take one of yours without your consent, I don't even have to ask you because well, right to life... Do you have a problem with this?  You mean other than it is not an accurate analogy. Where has medical science set the constitution required for all woman that sperm is dead before sexual contact takes place.

EmilyRose
@Plaffelvohfen
A sperm, on it's own, cannot and will not become a human. It will not become an adult. It will not grow and develop a heartbeat or a brain.
Sperm alive on its own once allowed to enter independence by consent inside a woman cannot and will not become a human is your argument made against Plaffelvohfen, both EmilyRose and Plaffelvohfen commit the same wrong against truth and American United State Constitution by the use of alibi as united state. 

The one thing held as united state is a egg and sperm are alive by medical, science, man, and woman. Arguing age or the Genetic make up does not matter all we need to know is the living human egg &sperm is human. This cause to establish a relief of official command in navigation to representation.

SkepticalOne

EmilyRouse said:

@SkepticalOne
I'd argue otherwise. Identical twins may have nearly the same genetic makeup as one another, but they still have different makeup from their parents. They are individuals; They have individual fingerprints, slight genetic variances, etc. Clones are a similar deal; While they are identical to their parents, there are still slight variances in their appearance. And if an individual must be singular or separate, are conjoined twins not individuals from each other? Is a newborn not an individual until the umbilical cord is cut?

If genetic uniqueness determines individuality, then two genetically identical fetuses would be one individual. The fact that DNA mutates as people go through life and eventually makes identical twins genetically unique from one another is irrelevant. Individuality is not about genetics.

Conjoined twins are a good example to illustrate what two individuals in 1 body looks like - each twin has likes, dislikes, fears, joys: distinct personalities - all dependent on individual consciousnesses. Without consciousness, there is no individual.  Consciousness cannot exist without the physical substrate of the cortex  - and a majority of the development of a fetus occurs without a cortex. With this in mind, a properly developed newborn could be an individual before cutting the umbilical cord.

SkepticalOne

jesusisGod777 said:

@SkepticalOne

Considering you stated a miscarriage is possible

A fetus must be alive before it's born as birth does not determine a fetus life

Therefore a fetus is alive before it's born

Therefore a fetus lives in the womb.

"Having life" and "being alive" are two different things in my estimation.  If 'having life' is all it takes for rights to be attached, then why do we work to eradicate measles, HIV, and/or cancer? For the record, I've never denied a fetus has life. Its just that I find "has life" to be an absurdly low standard (that must be applied arbitrarily) for stripping control of a body away from its owner.