Abortion is wrong

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
Reminder we are looking for the basic way to explain.

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... 
The lack in you ability to defended and preserve American united state constitution, any constitution at minimal makes your united state created for an analogy a seriously mistake. Only when those parts of the anatomy are create by your body, held inside your body, are from many living organism you let into your body to knowingly die, while one remains under you bodies care and has all of those things grown you wish to amputate to remove as a woman from yourself is allowable. Neither EmilyRose, I , or united state of all woman need to believe what you say is true from the start you are taking things from some else's body. Bedsides upon a death the person can having the form of payment take the organs back as stipulation and recignition of risk of donation and return as possible death.

You are speaking in desperation plaffelvohen not united state constitutional representation. It doesn't make you wrong it means direction to understand basic principle or legal precedent may be needed in the ability to form a  more perfect state of the union made by the topic. What do you think is the basic principle of concern that is used to create the united state between all woman.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;
"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.

The control of the body is an absurdly low standard to united an admission with all woman that is not true. You are not explaining why an admission of a murder must be used for all woman as a united state to stop am from of immigration to a nation.

If 'having life' is all it takes for rights to be attached, then why do we work to eradicate measles, HIV, and/or cancer? Because the united state all woman make is to kill the living egg until such time as to not kill the living egg. Measles, HIV, and Cancer kill their human host. The aging eggs right is conditional as a united state with other human eggs and human sperm. None of that is reason why any woman must risk her life to immigrate an person into a Nation, or must self-incriminate themselves or others to a crime as united state.

Dee

@EmilyRouse

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.

Neither will a fetus on its own 

A fetus has the capability of doing these things unaided, aside from the basic nutrients necessary.

It certainly will not , and nutrients as you say are necessary and cannot be obtained “unaided” 

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?

Yes I know you’re in favor of women not having bodily autonomy. So let’s say it’s a given that life and being alive means one gets equal rights why does a Cat , Dog or Cow not have the same rights as the unborn also?

It’s a fact a Cat is a living entity with more intelligence than a fetus why should Cats not have equal rights?

Again you haven’t investigated why women abort and seem to have a one fix for all as in adoption , you do not hold all lives to be of equal value no one does .Imagine a burning hospital you have the chance to save a screaming child or a 1,000 frozen embryos , I bet you save the child like everyone else why’s that? 

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.

Why isn't the action of creating a child consent? 

So consent not be withdrawn and why not? 

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? 

How is a fetus a “child” and even if that’s a given why does a sperm  or egg deserve a death penalty through contraception as it has no part in such?

The parents created the child, fertilized the egg. So why do we abort the child? 

Why do we use contraception? To prevent a potential human  coming into being this is  exactly what abortion does , you seem to be a moral gradualist as you use terms like “child” for a fetus why’s that?

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.

So you agree then with abortion if a woman is raped? 

If a woman has consensual sex becomes pregnant she must be forced to give birth against her wishes , is that your position? 

Do you also to be consistent believe women who abort should get life in prison for “child”murder if not why not?

 

EmilyRouse

@Dee
And no human will survive on it's own without nutrients. To say, because a fetus needs nutrients to survive, it's not human, doesn't make sense.
Animals do have rights, actually. That's why we have organizations ensuring ethical treatment of animals. What's really wrong is how we put animals down, peacefully euthanizing them, while we tear our own unborn limb from limb.
I have investigated why people abort, as listed in my very first post.
The reason people save a screaming child is because, in such a situation, people don't think logically. People's instincts are to protect their young; And a child screaming causes people to react on that instinct. 
Then again; I never said we should value the unborn over anyone else, I simply said they have value and we shouldn't irrationally kill them.
Why should consent be allowed to be withdrawn, and then have the child punished because the mother decides she doesn't want it to live?
A sperm and egg are not living humans like a fetus is. And even if, in some way they were, why would that give you a right to kill a fetus? The sperm and egg will not become living unless they first become an embryo. That embryo will become living, without becoming something else. All it needs to become what you consider alive is time, and the basic nutrients ALL living things need to survive.
I use the term child because that's what I see a fetus as; To me it's just another human being. Contraception prevents fertilization. Abortion kills the fetus, preventing development and birth.
Another what if. Should murder be justified by a minority? Less then 1% of abortions are a result of rape.
A certain amount of people are murdered in self defense; Does this mean all murder is okay?
That is to say- even if we allow abortion for rape victims- should we not instead put our focus on punishing rapists? Locking them up, rather then killing the offspring?
And no, I don't want women to be locked up for abortions. I want them to be consoled. Treated with respect, and dignity, understanding.
Which, in all honesty, I haven't expressed very well. I tend to be more angry then empathetic when I talk, but I do understand why people have abortions. 
I think, instead, the people who should be punished are the abortionists. The women are victims of circumstance. Fear, inability to care for a child. They are pressured into abortion, shown it as an escape. I don't think they should be punished. The woman didn't kill the child; The abortionist did.

SkepticalOne

John_C_87 said:

The control of the body is an absurdly low standard to united an admission with all woman that is not true. You are not explaining why an admission of a murder must be used for all woman as a united state to stop am from of immigration to a nation.

Do you mean to suggest a person's body is not their own property? If a person cannot own their own body then a person can own nothing.  I encourage you to rethink your view on this.

Also, those intimating 'abortion is murder' would need to establish the personhood of the unborn as well show the killing of this 'person' is unjustified before claims of "murder" should be taken seriously.

If 'having life' is all it takes for rights to be attached, then why do we work to eradicate measles, HIV, and/or cancer? Because the united state all woman make is to kill the living egg until such time as to not kill the living egg. Measles, HIV, and Cancer kill their human host. The aging eggs right is conditional as a united state with other human eggs and human sperm. None of that is reason why any woman must risk her life to immigrate an person into a Nation, or must self-incriminate themselves or others to a crime as united state.

 Measles, HIV, and cancer can kill a human, but so can pregnancy. Can we at least agree a woman shouldn't die due to complications of pregnancy?

jesusisGod777

@Dee

A Fetus is defined as a living baby. Read a science book.

Jesus is God.

jesusisGod777

@SkepticalOne

A body is defined by the sum of it's parts.

Women have a reproductive system therefore the nature of their body is reproduction, 

Therefore since a women's body is charecteristic of reproduction her rights do not violate the sense and purpouse of her own body.

Her body is subject to it's nature.

Your arguments irrational

Jesus is Lord and God.

jesusisGod777

@SkepticalOne

Your arguments fallacy.

Suicide isn't recognized as a right.

It's someone's body.

Rights do not apply to what does not charecteristically define a RIGHT.

Look up the words right.

Jesus is Lord and God.

SkepticalOne

jesusisGod777 said:

@SkepticalOne

A body is defined by the sum of it's parts.

Women have a reproductive system therefore the nature of their body is reproduction, 

Therefore since a women's body is charecteristic of reproduction her rights do not violate the sense and purpouse of her own body.

Her body is subject to it's nature.

Your arguments irrational

Jesus is Lord and God.

Nature does not equate to purpose. This is a non-sequitor.

SkepticalOne

jesusisGod777 said:

@SkepticalOne

Your arguments fallacy.

Suicide isn't recognized as a right.

It's someone's body.

Rights do not apply to what does not charecteristically define a RIGHT.

Look up the words right.

Jesus is Lord and God.

I've not mentioned suicide, JIG. I wonder why you've brought it up?

Also, it is not clear to me what you mean by," Rights do not apply to what does not characteristically define a RIGHT". It is tautological. Perhaps you would re-word this thought? 

Dee

@jesusisGod777

A Fetus is defined as a living baby. Read a science book

This coming from a Troll who denies science is hilarious 

Dee

@EmilyRouse

**And no human will survive on it's own without nutrients. To say, because a fetus needs nutrients to survive, it's not human, doesn't make sense.

Where did I say this? You’ve missed my point as I asked you to justify the killing of a sperm as it cannot survive on its own surely you agree , so how is the use of contraception justified by you? 

**Animals do have rights, actually. That's why we have organizations ensuring ethical treatment of animals. What's really wrong is how we put animals down, peacefully euthanizing them, while we tear our own unborn limb from limb.

I have investigated why people abort, as listed in my very first post.

Animals have limited rights , and how do you justify your belief that animals are treated ethically when the opposite is true you also once again totally ignored the question I asked as in why is the of a fetus which lacks intelligence more important than an animal which has intelligence?

You gave your opinion on why people abort and in one case claimed more should be done for people who cannot afford to care for a child through charity , but yet that’s not done but you then resort to claiming people need proper education on the matter , it’s so easy to make these judgements when it comes to others isn’t it?

 **The reason people save a screaming child is because, in such a situation, people don't think logically. People's instincts are to protect their young; And a child screaming causes people to react on that instinct

No the reason they do is because they think logically and see the difference between them  

**Then again; I never said we should value the unborn over anyone else, I simply said they have value and we shouldn't irrationally kill them

Every living thing has value and some more than others as in why is an animals life of less value than a fetus should consent be allowed to be withdrawn, and then have the child punished because the mother decides she doesn't want it to live?

**A sperm and egg are not living humans like a fetus is. And even if, in some way they were, why would that give you a right to kill a fetus? 

A sperm is living yet you agree that denying its potential is just fine. A woman aborts because she does not want the fetus their , why do you want forced births?

**The sperm and egg will not become living unless they first become an embryo. That embryo will become living, without becoming something else. All it needs to become what you consider alive is time, and the basic nutrients ALL living things need to survive.**

But yet their both living up to the point you deny them life how is this fair using your rationale?

**I use the term child because that's what I see a fetus as; To me it's just another human being. 

Yes that’s your view and does not affect my position in any way 

**Contraception prevents fertilization. Abortion kills the fetus, preventing development and birth.

Contraception kills the sperm and egg preventing pregnancy so again how is this justified using your rationale?

**Another what if. Should murder be justified by a minority? Less then 1% of abortions are a result of rape.

A certain amount of people are murdered in self defense; Does this mean all murder is okay?

That is to say- even if we allow abortion for rape victims- should we not instead put our focus on punishing rapists? Locking them up, rather then killing the offspring?

But the only one calling abortion murder is you , not alone do you ignore the suffering of a rape victim but think she should joyously celebrate the birth of her rapists child and have this life long memory in living form to remind her , no doubt when the rapist leaves jail he would expect to see his offspring just to add to the mental anguish 

**And no, I don't want women to be locked up for abortions. I want them to be consoled. Treated with respect, and dignity, understanding.

So you don’t believe it’s child murder then yet you call abortion murder , I’m confused 

**Which, in all honesty, I haven't expressed very well. I tend to be more angry then empathetic when I talk, but I do understand why people have abortions. 

I think, instead, the people who should be punished are the abortionists. The women are victims of circumstance. Fear, inability to care for a child.

So a woman who pays an abortionist to kill her “child” has paid for a “hit” on the living but yet she should not be punished why’s that?

How is that consistent with your views that abortion is murder?

** They are pressured into abortion, shown it as an escape. I don't think they should be punished. The woman didn't kill the child; The abortionist did.

Who says they are pressured? Some maybe a lot of others that’s not the case.

Also do you realize making abortion illegal insures a dramatic rise in crime rates this has been proven most definitely in the US 

Forcing the unwilling to have the unwanted does not work out well for societies 

EmilyRouse

@Dee
So... you think we shouldn't have contraception then?
Contraception isn't killing what will become a human being. A sperm and egg do not have the complete genetic code of a human, while an embryo does.
My argument isn't that killing life is always wrong, but that killing human life unnecessarily is.
I wasn't saying that we do such things. There's no way we can immediately make abortion illegal, with all the problems we have. I think we should put the focus on better sex ed, possible financial aid for women, a better adoption system, and THEN make it illegal. To make it illegal, no matter how morally wrong, you have to first show people the better options; And make the better options something that can be more freely and easily used. 
As for the comment on intelligence, I don't believe lack of intelligence devalues human life. The fetus has the capability to learn, and become more intelligent as it develops. 
What do you mean, more specifically, when you say intelligence? Consciousness?
And now you ask a question that makes it seem as though you think the woman should be punished?
In all honesty, I'm not an expert in law enforcement, so I wouldn't know the best way to handle such things.
Could you please link this study that proves making abortion illegal causes crime rates to rise?
And even if the people are unwilling, the unwanted deserve that chance at life. What gives us the right to deny them that opportunity?

Dee

@EmilyRouse

**So... you think we shouldn't have contraception then?

No I didn’t say that , I’m asking you to address the flaws in your argument as in sperm is living yet not entitled to life 

**Contraception isn't killing what will become a human being. 

It is , unless you deny sperm is living do you?  You’re depriving sperm of its potential so again how is this rational giving your views?

**A sperm and egg do not have the complete genetic code of a human, while an embryo does.**

But sperm and and an egg are living until you deny them such so again how is this justified giving your position?

**My argument isn't that killing life is always wrong, but that killing human life unnecessarily is.**

But people abort because it is necessary to them , do you wish to bully people into your views on what makes something necessary?

**I wasn't saying that we do such things. There's no way we can immediately make abortion illegal, with all the problems we have. 

Right 

**I think we should put the focus on better sex ed, 

That’s nothing to do with it as most people have pretty good idea sex education except for the grossly ignorant who would be a minority 

**possible financial aid for women, a better adoption system, and THEN make it illegal. 

Right and do you honestly think that’s going to happen especially in a country like the U S which claims to be 85 per cent Christian yet the majority of Christians screech  in rage at people like me who say Universal health care , housing for the homeless and social welfare should be a given in the U S 

**To make it illegal, no matter how morally wrong, you have to first show people the better options; And make the better options something that can be more freely and easily used. **

Women who want to abort will do so you just add to their problems by making such illegal 

**As for the comment on intelligence, I don't believe lack of intelligence devalues human life. The fetus has the capability to learn, and become more intelligent as it develops. **

But I asked about life in general so what makes a Cats life of lesser importance than an unborn fetus?

**What do you mean, more specifically, when you say intelligence? Consciousness?

Use either or both my point still stands 

**And now you ask a question that makes it seem as though you think the woman should be punished?

Yes , you did state abortion is murder so do you want murderers running loose in your country?

**In all honesty, I'm not an expert in law enforcement, so I wouldn't know the best way to handle such things.**

Right , but using your rationale the women are murderers 

**Could you please link this study that proves making abortion illegal causes crime rates to rise?

Sure .....http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

**And even if the people are unwilling, the unwanted deserve that chance at life. What gives us the right to deny them that opportunity?

Right , forced births then? What chance do you think the unwanted have and do you honestly think an unwanted child is going to have some glorious upbringing?

The opposite is true and the crime stats bear it out 

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;

Do you mean to suggest a person's body is not their own property? If a person cannot own their own body then a person can own nothing.  I encourage you to rethink your view on this.

No, all  I am clearly saying is  the idea’s basic principle, woman in control of their body is too complex to make the united state constitutional cut. Agreeing with Jesus isGod777 has said clearly if a woman had control of her body she would not have become pregnant is only a partial truth. The reasons behind this loss of control is not a united state between all woman. The agreement however does not mean woman do not have a united state constitutional right that creates all woman as equal in the issue of abortion…

I agree the death created by the termination of pregnancy by all pregnancy  abortion as united state is equal, the deaths a woman who is celibate, abstains from marriage by lack of consummation, or does not have sex with a male by liberty of choice,  plus all woman as united state who seek suiter, mate, or confident and become pregnant and terminate the immigration they have started into a nation.

Where both women do not share a united state on the reasons of official ending of human life by termination the basic principle of ending immigration on both sides of opinion is the same and does end by controlled termination s united state with all woman equally. The problem never addressed is that a separation of the two has never been made by the investigation of basic principle.

1.      JesusisGod777 has only religious right to ask woman in a united state to confess the sin of abortion by ending pregnancy under religious law not a United State of Constitutional law. The use of self-incrimination in this matter was and forever will be illegal though hardy to prove in a court of constitutional law.

2.      The United state created is international as the issue addresses a state that woman share the effects every nation and not just one. A common defense to the woman held by this united state is Female Specific Amputation. These words do not come from the action of a religious God they come from the basic Principles of GOD.

Measles, HIV, and cancer can kill a human, but so can pregnancy. Can we at least agree a woman shouldn't die due to complications of pregnancy? Sure. I just do not see a constitutional reason to hold woman captive in a united state of self-incrimination. The presumption is of innocence to the woman is her liberty to address a threat of life by allowing immigration into a nation as united state.

 

.@ JesusisGod777

Jesus is Lord and God

No! Jesus is your load and God. The failure to create a United State which defended America from self-incrimination stripped your grounds of united-state in that matter. GOD the axiom is a united State to which Jesus has no authority of lord over.

 

@EmiyRose

So... you think we shouldn't have contraception then?

Have the choice of having sex is a contraception. Religious law is not the same as Constitutional law.

SkepticalOne

@John_C_87

"No, all  I am clearly saying is  the idea’s basic principle, woman in control of their body is too complex to make the united state constitutional cut."

I think you're making this way more complicated than it need be and challenging basics humans rights in the process. 

All people own their body. This is axiomatic. If someone wants to do something to their body, there is no permission required so long as another person is not involved. If another person IS involved, then consent is necessary. Violation is to do anything to another person's body without consent (provided it is not in response to a violation).

There seems to be a tendency to think, first, that a fetus is a person, and secondly, that a woman should have consent to remove it from her body. The former distorts and cheapens what is means to be a person, and the latter discounts the necessity of the woman's consent. If a fetus exists in a persons body without consent, it has no right whatsoever to be there, and removing it is not a violation - it is a response to violation.

"1. JesusisGod777 has only religious right to ask woman in a united state to confess the sin of abortion by ending pregnancy [...]"

Rights extend to the tip of the fingers and no further. JIG's rights certainly do not extend into the wombs of other people regardless of what he thinks (or of what he thinks a god thinks). I don't understand your "2" paragraph.

It seems when a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy that we agree - abortion is NOT wrong. If so, then the proposition of this thread (abortion is wrong), without this qualification, is faulty.

John_C_87

All people own their body. This is axiomatic. If someone wants to do something to their body, there is no permission required so long as another person is not involved. If another person IS involved, then consent is necessary. Violation is to do anything to another person's body without consent (provided it is not in response to a violation). 

I do not own my body, I do not inherit it, or buy it. As united state neither do you. It seems when a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy that we agree - abortion is NOT wrong .No we do not agree  pregnancy abortion is still wrong by its condition of united state. The self-incrimination presented as United State will always be wrong, wrong in any senses by United state of American constitution. The failure to preserve a hypocritic oath is not a united state with United States Constitutional oath. Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion but can be pregnancy termination. There are a number of reason a woman's pregnancy can be terminated as united state not only medical but legal argument. The united state these reasons are held by in legal precedent is the weight to bear by basic principle of 2nd Amendment lethal force. A well established basic principle under American Constitution. Rights extend to the tip of the fingers and no further. JIG's rights certainly do not extend into the wombs of other people regardless of what he thinks (or of what he thinks a god thinks). I don't understand your "2" paragraph. In preserving American United State Constitution there is equal honor in respect to a woman who defense the nation by placing her life at risk to the protection an international border as united state with all woman. This is a self evident united state creating all woman as equal by constitution, including those woman who do not live inside the boundaries of recognized United state. The act of pregnancy abortion is still the admission to a murder, the egg fertile or not by its united state with sperm alone inside a woman's body or with egg outside the woman's body. All  woman by united state have a common defense to say it is the immigration of a nations citizen that puts them a risk not pregnancy. The burden to bear of command falls on those who preserve united state constitution, all those who preserve American united state Constitution, then woman who serve their own proposes. It seems when a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy that we agree - abortion is NOT wrong. If so, then the proposition of this thread (abortion is wrong), without this qualification, is faulty. @John_C_87 lol...….sorry, not really. The issue is all in preserving American united state constitution. Pregnancy abortion is wrong on a level of more then one united state.

SkepticalOne

@John_C_87

"I do not own my body, I do not inherit it, or buy it."

By that reasoning, consent is a meaningless concept since no one has a body of their own. That's problematic thinking, John, because it undercuts the fundamental foundation of "rights". No personal property (in the most intimate sense) means there is nothing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or human rights in general can be applied to.  Also, this lack of bodily property would apply equally to all (woman, fetus, etc.) effectively crippling any argument for or against abortion. In short, this reasoning makes the argument "abortion is wrong" incomprehensible and refutation unnecessary. 

EmilyRouse

@SkepticalOne
But a fetus isn't there of it's own fault, so how can it be present without consent?
It is the result of the woman and man having sex. The fetus did not create itself; It was created by the parents.
Thus, the parents consent to the process of it's creation, but then claim the woman didn't consent to sustain it?
Why can the woman create life and then decide to destroy it? Because, by this standard, a woman can also kill a child, because she didn't consent to it's dependence on her body. A fetus depends on the mother, but so does a child. So if a woman can say that even though she had sex, she didn't consent to the fetus's presence inside her, how can she not also say she didn't consent to a newborns birth, and dependence upon her? Where can the line be drawn? Why should someone need someone else's permission simply to exist?

SkepticalOne

EmilyRouse said:

@SkepticalOne
But a fetus isn't there of it's own fault, so how can it be present without consent?

Allow me to use your reasoning - 'But a STD isn't there of it's own fault, so how can it be present without consent?' Whether the object is a fetus or an STD this reasoning is a non-sequitor. The absence of fault doesn't imply consent. Moreover, consent is provisional and does not apply to unexpected circumstances that might arise from it. For instance, consent to sex may be withdrawn if a lover struggles with fidelity, abuse is an issue, or an STD has been shared! Consent is conditional.

Why can the woman create life and then decide to destroy it? Because, by this standard, a woman can also kill a child, because she didn't consent to it's dependence on her body. 

A child is more than "life".  Algae and bacteria are examples of life, but a child is far more than this. I said above that equating the fetus (or mere "life") with a person is to distort and cheapen what it means to be a person. A person is far beyond algae or bacteria. Bacteria has never come close to consciousness, sentience, reason, emotion, etc, and it will never develop even the potential for these capacities. Let us not reduce personhood (and the attachment of rights) to mere 'life' lest we are willing to accept absurdities such as immunizations being premeditated mass murder!

A pregnant woman cannot not give a fetus to another caretaker if she is not up the task, but a child can be cared for by any number of caretakers - none of them need be it's mother. Dependence is not the issue, but rather bodily autonomy. If we do not own our bodies and can be conscripted into service of non-persons, then "rights" as a concept is on a massively unstable foundation.

John_C_87

SkepticalOne said:

@John_C_87

"I do not own my body, I do not inherit it, or buy it."

By that reasoning, consent is a meaningless concept since no one has a body of their own. That's problematic thinking, John, because it undercuts the fundamental foundation of "rights". No personal property (in the most intimate sense) means there is nothing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or human rights in general can be applied to.  Also, this lack of bodily property would apply equally to all (woman, fetus, etc.) effectively crippling any argument for or against abortion. In short, this reasoning makes the argument "abortion is wrong" incomprehensible and refutation unnecessary. 

By that reasoning, consent is meaningless, why? Consent to what. Simply said agreement is not dependent on ownership. One person uses something it does not stop them from allowing other to use the object with them. Fundamental foundation of right, a group of individual right that from many positions which are not wrong.

Constitution is basic principle and legal precedent the costs of right are set by the amendments to American constitutional  independence. If we do not own our bodies and can be conscripted into service of non-persons, then "rights" as a concept is on a massively unstable foundation. No the idea of self-incrimination can be wrong when work is the reason not fact. This works two ways the admission is harder to prove or is easier to prove.

SkepticalOne

@John_C_87

"By that reasoning, consent is meaningless, why? Consent to what. Simply said agreement is not dependent on ownership."

If this were true, then criminals could avoid charges by agreeing they could use any object or person as they see fit. Legitimate agreement requires ownership.

"No the idea of self-incrimination can be wrong when work is the reason not fact. This works two ways the admission is harder to prove or is easier to prove."

I don't know what you mean by this. "Self incrimination" seems out of place. What is there to incriminate oneself over on this subject? Rights are not a crime...abortion is not a crime. Please clarify.

John_C_87

@skepticalOner 

If this were true, then criminals could avoid charges by agreeing they could use any object or person as they see fit. Legitimate agreement requires ownership.

!. When this, ownership is true by admission or by documentation. The if is resolvable in the statement of if when this is true so should be phrased when this is true.

2. The question of taking life is already admitted and then argued as being a life at all. Basic Principle. We no there is a death no-one is naïve. A woman can kill just as easy in united state in self-defense as a any other woman.

3. We are to be looking at united state in union with Constitution. We are required to do so in America. A woman can selectively kill sperm in advance by assistance with a man or woman using science. This changes the state of which selection of a mate takes place. Effecting how the murders progress. 

Rights are not a crime...abortion is not a crime.

Official stopping life is not a united state enforced crime is not allowing common defense to the general welfare. it is still a crime it is allowed as a complex principle. Pregnancy abortion describes the crime of official stopping life. The choice made was not address whole truth a woman by united state with all woman including without limitation religious virgins who murder without attempting to save the life held by egg.

By the way right can be a crime until proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt to truth. We only presume it is innocent. Law can be broken they are not made under the principle they are unbreakable, in order for something to be said to go past reasonable doubt its basic principle must be admitted to a court of law in such a way that both sides can create the basic principle as a creator.

United State Constitution will not ask woman to be naïve. A woman as Presadera, a witnesses in possible felony, is under the impression it is murder by how it is told to her. Female Specific Amputation though clearly may, might, and can be other operations includes the removal of a life by refusal to allow that life to cross an international border as a threat to many lives. No longer the few set by pregnancy abortion. That life by united state was terminally ill. Until proven otherwise and placed a threat upon the persons only sponsor. To form a united state the Nation of America must include issue that provide a common defense for a nation such as China, Japan, and India where population has a direct independent impact on human safety. 

If a woman wishes to continue her filed grievance and the person effected by the grievance is a sponsor of immigration, and by result that accused suffers injury or death as a direct result grievance. The litigation process that takes place will not be influenced by a self-incrimination surrounded by half truth.

Basic principle of life's start, beginning is shared by a united state through out the public, human egg for woman and human sperm for men. Keep in mind by basic principle Science only changes the state of what they take as human egg and human sperm.

MichaelElpers

\

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne ; The Link provided doesn't show that abortions occur more often in restrictive countries.  NBC states this but the guttmacher study doesn't.  It states 0.34% for countries with no restrictions and 0.37% for those only restricting for the life of the mother; stating "statistically insignificant."  It doesn't draw a conclusion for why these numbers are this way either; it could be influenced by factors of wealth, religion, ect.  Also it doesn't not compare numbers for the majority of countries that lie in between or numbers for when restrictions change.

Laws are created to lower rates.  It isn't logical that put in the same scenario more women would turn to abortion if it is illegal and less safe.

Can you provide me with reasons they may be more incentivized to do so?

Also with regards to, "A doctor is often required to kill something alive in a person's body but this in no way means the patient is necessarily irresponsible."  People who need tumors, tapeworms, ect. removed don't acquire these things through purposeful, knowledgeable actions. People who become pregnant know ways to prevent it from happening which makes them irresponsible; it's similar to saying that a smoker who gets cancer is being irresponsible with their health.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

People who become pregnant know ways to prevent it from happening which makes them irresponsible

These ways are not 100% proof... Condoms break, IUD is 99% effective (arguably the best method) and pills are not full-proof either... Any woman using those contraceptive methods cannot be said to be irresponsible.

 it's similar to saying that a smoker who gets cancer is being irresponsible with their health.

Would you deny them medical care? That is what banning abortion would be, a denial of medical care...

SkepticalOne

@John_C_87

This seems to be a lot repetition best as I can understand it.

This is probably a good place to take a step back, re-read the thread, and consider the strengths AND weaknesses of our arguments. It won't do either of us any good to repeat ourselves. 

Thank you for the conversation, sir.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;
Your welcome it was a pleasure.

John_C_87

@EmilyRouse ;

We know pregnancy abortion is a description of murder as fact. The reason is the self-incrimination of authority described by the word abort. There is no doubt that a baby will die, many die, baby’s death is a united states with all woman who create a human egg. A select group of woman only have two choices, only the woman who have bodies which are capable of creating an egg share that united state the weight reproduction places upon them. The weight dictates save the baby or let the baby die. Jesus give no other choices to any woman in basic principle. GOD gives the same woman no other choice.

 All woman including a virgin murder a baby by not fertilizing an egg. It is murder to knowingly not save a child from death. It is unreasonable to pursue this murder for it is not reasonable to have a woman pregnant constantly, it will kill her we need not interpret this fact. In self-defense a common reason to allow a baby’s death takes place.

Keep in mind a woman doctor, a woman scientist, a woman presadera, a woman who works part time as a mechanic on cars all share this united state if their body can produce a human egg.

A male murders babies as the are called sperm and woman murders babies as they are called egg, or even eggs. It is that simple because the principle can be explained that simple to everyone. This alibi means there can be a second alibi which can be assembled as a untied state with all woman. One that does not expect the world to believe woman are so dumb they do not know when life can be proven in front of everyone to start. Start is at the creation of egg. With a male counterpart life starts at the creation of sperm. The ten-thousand sperm deaths are identical to the one or so egg deaths taking place per month.  

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Abstinence is a sure thing, and vasectomies are pretty close.  Condoms if used correctly work 98% (85% is general) and birth control is 99.7% (according to CDC) use both and you've won the lottery.  People don't use them both because they're irresponsible, uneducated, or my favorite don't like the feel.  All of those seem like poor excuses to kill a human life.

People who use these methods may not be considered irresponsible, but they're knowledgeably still taking the risk.  Hypothetically its like riding a roller coaster stating you have a 1%  chance of getting pregnant <0.01% if using precautions.  The choice and consequence is still yours.  What if I proposed that in order to receive an abortion you must provide evidence that you used both forms of contraception? (Disregarding how we prove that).  People would still say no, because in the end they know most people become pregnant being irresponsible.


I wouldn't ban treatment to smokers because it doesn't kill another human life.  Different actions have different consequences.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

All of those seem like poor excuses to kill a human life.

1: Humans die, that is what they do... It could be argued that giving birth is factually a death sentence and therefore wrong/immoral... 

2: Death of the fetus is not the intent of abortion, the intent is to stop a crime (the unlawful use of someone body without their consent). Death of the fetus is an unfortunate but necessary consequence at the moment, but it's not improbable that science will find a way to transplant the fetus into an artificial womb in the next few decades... When we get there, death will not be a necessary consequence of abortion...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen
Humans die that's what they do...  Are you serious?  That would give an excuse for murder and almost any other immoral action on Earth; maybe that's why you have to use it as an excuse because abortion is immoral. Not creating the life in the first place would prevent one from experiencing death, birth isn't the start of life and abortion commits the death sentence.

The intent is make one's life more convenient whether it be for not wanting to carry the baby or killing it to relieve responsibility, but death of the fetus is main outcome.  Intent is just a difference between 2nd and 1st degree manslaughter, relating to murder it's closer to 1st degree because it is pre-meditated.  The consent is given when you have sex, because that is not only a knowledgeable outcome but one of the main reasons for it.  The fetus didn't create itself, it has made no decision to commit a so called "crime."  It would be like overdosing on drugs, than blaming the drugs if you died. When you perform actions you don't only consent to the good possible outcomes.

Also why do click the fallacy button for everyone you disagree with?  You didn't really refute the arguments, nor show any sort of fallacy in it. 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

@Plaffelvohfen

You are both making an argument on absolution for Virgin woman who remain celibate. A woman knows she is killing the egg after it is created in her body by not getting pregnant. The united state by principle is to translate this basic principle to woman as a united state creating them all equal.

Any control over body use is not a common defense addressing an official stop, the murder is taking place in order for the woman to be in position to prove the claim control. A Nation has Constitutional Right to Impose female specific amputation because a woman murders a child to prevent it from entering a Nation at her expense and risk to health. The basic difference is a Constitutional nation needs a united state beyond reasonable doubt the number of citizens she is creating is beyond her ability to care.

A pregnancy can be proven to be as big a threat to a women’s health as it is a threat the common welfare of a nation. The United State Constitutional issue is publicly defining the amount of independence for woman as a united state, by woman, for woman. All woman are created equal by their creator in this case pregnancy as this issue has obviously been a unsolvable problem for many blaming United State Constitution.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

"The Link provided doesn't show that abortions occur more often in restrictive countries."

Actually, the the study does show abortion occurs more frequently in countries with more restrictive abortion laws. However, even if we dismiss this increased frequency as statistically insignificant we're left with abortions occurring at roughly the same rate regardless of laws against it. In short, banning abortion to reduce its frequency is pointless. If reducing the need for abortion is the goal, then something other than laws against it is needed. I would suggest low cost (effective) birth control and education as a start.

"People who need tumors, tapeworms, ect. removed don't acquire these things through purposeful, knowledgeable actions. People who become pregnant know ways to prevent it from happening which makes them irresponsible;"

Some women who get pregnant don't know how to prevent pregnancy. Some women who use birth control still get pregnant. Some women are unable to carry a pregnancy to term due to medical issues. Some pregnancies cannot produce a viable infant. Dismissing all women with unwanted pregnancies as 'irresponsible' is a demonstration of ignorance.

MichaelElpers

@John_C_87

I don't consider an individual egg and sperm an ending of human life.  On a individual basis the natural development of either won't produce a living human being and only contain 1/2 of the 46 chromosomes.  Sperm are generated at a much larger rate than eggs meaning naturally there is no way to convert all sperm into humans.  Ind. they are not the same as conceived zygote.

All women are created equal, but that is only to a point.  We can't equalize all the physical and psychological differences between men and women.  We are all CREATED equal, one is created at conception and abortion ends disregards those rights.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Humans die that's what they do...  Are you serious?

I'm very serious, do you deny it?

And no, it is not an excuse for murder... Abortion is not murder, as murder is typically defined as involving the intentional death of another human person. Even if one were to assume that every embryo or fetus is as sentient as a grown human being, the lack of intent would still be enough to classify abortion as something other than murder.

Let's imagine a scenario in which two men go deer hunting. One man mistakes his friend for a deer, shoots him, and accidentally kills him. It's hard to imagine that any reasonable person would describe this as murder, even though we would all know for certain that a real, sentient human person was killed. Why? Because the shooter thought he was killing a deer, something other than a real, sentient human person.

Now consider the example of abortion. If a woman and her physician think they're killing a non-sentient organism, then they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is a sentient human person when we don't actually know this to be the case.

The fallacy I was referring to is asserting that having casual sex equate to a consent to pregnancy... It is not. You cannot force people to believe that the embryo or fetus is a person just like I cannot force you to believe it is not. Morality being subjective in nature, it's a personal decision to abort or not and no one else should have a say in the matter other than the pregnant woman.

There are a great many facts that pro-lifers feel comfortable ignoring when it comes to the abortion debate. They can pretend fetuses are indistinguishable from babies, despite the fact that medical evidence tells us fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks. They can pretend they feel pain, even though scientific consensus tells us that until at least 24 weeks, a fetus cannot feel anything like pain because they do not yet have the brain connections to do so.

They can pretend that every fertilized egg is a human, ignoring the fact that the majority do not actually make it to birth and this does not seem to upset people overmuch. (Jill Filipovic, lawyer and author of The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness, has quite reasonably pointed out that, “There has been no concerted anti-abortion effort to demand research funding into why all of these fertilized eggs die, or to find a cure. Perhaps that’s because even the most active anti-abortion advocates know the truth is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a three-year-old, and they do not genuinely believe that it has the same right to life.”)

They can pretend that abortions cause women horrible psychological damage, although they do not. Or that women who have them are plagued by regret (results of a 2015 study showed that approximately 95 percent of women who had abortions claimed it was the right decision for them). They can say that women who have abortions are somehow unusually promiscuous (pre-marital sex is "nearly universal" in America, according to a 2007 study, and has been for decades), or that women could easily avoid having them by being on birth control (more than half of women who get abortions are also using contraception).

As they do so, they continue to set up “crisis pregnancy centers” with the aim of lying to women and distributing scientifically discredited information about abortion.

But they do not get to pretend that women who have had abortions are murderers who should be hanged.

Abortion is not murder.

Even if we granted the most generous possible terms to the anti-abortion camp, even if we pretended the fetus was fully rational and contemplating Shakespeare in the womb, like an Ian McEwan character, abortion would still not be murder. In large part, that’s because anti-abortionist’s argument hinges upon the notion that life is always sacred and ought never be taken. That is not the way the world operates.

Some pro-lifers are fond of exclaiming that we should treat fertilized ovum with reverence since “A single cell discovered on Mars [would] be considered life!”.  Yes. And if that life posed any threat to us, we’d kill it immediately.

One has a strong sense that people who invoke that argument have never seen a movie about what happens when humans encounter life in outer space. But even in the case of human life, there are a great many situations where, when one life poses a threat to another, that life can reasonably be taken.

As for the notion that the fetus is non-threatening—it’s impossible to deny that a fetus poses a risk to a woman, purely because she has to use her body to incubate it. And in America, she has to do so in a country with the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world.

If you think “okay, but that only happens to poor women” well, no, but low income women do face greater risks. That is one reason that denying women the right to abortion is a kind of class warfare. Seventy-three percent of women seeking abortions do so because they’re financially unready to have a child. Legal abortions are considerably safer than childbirth. So, if you believe in abortion only in cases where it endangers the life of the mother, well, welcome to America, one of the few countries where the maternal death rate is on the rise. Pregnancy always endangers the life of a mother.

Even if a pregnancy is healthy and relatively free of complications, it’s a grueling process.

We rarely talk about how difficult pregnancy can be. Socially, we often opt to talk about how “pregnancy is a beautiful experience”. But the notion that pregnancy is just this carefree experience doesn’t take into account the vomiting, the gestational diabetes, hemorrhoids, bowel problems, incontinence, or any of the common complications that follow pregnancy and birth. Even if you are blessed with an easy pregnancy, some reports say as many as 95 percent of first-time mothers experience vaginal tearing. You’d think that the likelihood of lacerations that require stitches around your genitals alone would discount the rhetoric that a woman can easily just have a baby and put it up for adoption.

There is a reason those pro-birth ads show a fetus magically suspended in darkness, as though it just appears painlessly and does not necessitate the bodily sacrifice of another human.

Because that’s not true.

Happily carrying a fetus to term is an act of the most profound, generous love precisely because it does entail pain and sacrifice. That should never be forced on anyone.

People do have a right to life, but they do not have a right to live inside someone else’s body especially when doing so poses a threat to that person’s body. Hell, to paraphrase famous penis exposer and former comedian, Louis C.K., people aren’t even allowed to live inside your house without your consent. That’s based on the Castle Doctrine, which allows individuals to use force—up to and including deadly force—to remove individuals trespassing in their homes who they have reason to think pose a threat to them. In the case of pregnancy, keep in mind there’s a 95 percent chance that intruder will be tearing up your genitals.

This notion that a man’s home is his castle and a woman’s body is somehow a vacant space to be used by men as they wish—whether they wish to grab it by the or use it as a “host” for a fetus—is one area where Trump’s more licentious followers can find common ground with Mike Pence’s devoutly religious ones.

Most people’s bodies are, correctly, assumed to belong to the counsciousness inhabiting them. They—and all their parts—belong to them in perpetuity, even after they have ceased to live. Doctors in the U.S. can’t even use a deceased person’s organs to save other lives unless the prior inhabitant of that body has agreed in writing, despite the fact that an estimated 20 people a day die in the U.S. waiting for transplants. (And presumably, the removal of those organs would not endanger the wellbeing of the person, who is already brain dead.)

The government using pregnant women’s bodies would require no such consent from the women.

“Consent” of course, is a word that seems to carry greater weight when applied to men than women. It is not mysterious that the same party who cannot understand why women might feel great tenderness and love towards a deeply desired fetus, yet none towards an unwanted fetus, can’t seem to figure out why women might consider sex joyful in circumstances when it is desired, and violating when it is not.

But then, a “good” woman is basically supposed to be a giving tree who consents to whatever men ask. A woman who doesn’t consent to just about anything asked of her, whether it’s entering a “caring career” or carrying a baby to term, is very quickly labeled selfish.

We might do better to consider whether what is being asked of women is grossly unreasonable.

And frankly, if, rather than the government, any individual were to force a woman to have a baby against her will, it would be clear how unreasonable that request was.

My sister and her husband are trying to have a child. If they can’t conceive naturally, would they be happy to adopt? Of course. That would be a wonderful blessing. Would they threaten a pregnant woman who didn’t want to give birth with terrible consequences (up to and including death) if she refused to bear a child for them, simply because they wanted one? No, because they are not sociopaths who think other people exist solely for their benefit. If that’s obvious to them (people who would really love to have a child), it should be very obvious to a party that has absolutely no interest in providing happy, healthy life for that child once they’re born. As The Daily Intelligencer reports, "the GOP believes that it’s more urgent to deliver tax cuts to corporate America than to guarantee health care to working-class children."

But this was never really about babies.

Criminalization of abortion doesn’t lead to fewer abortions. It leads to more women dying in unsafe procedures. I’m going to say that again, because a lot—a lot—of people will tell you that their objection to abortion is all about saving babies.

Criminalization of abortion doesn’t lead to fewer abortions. It leads to more women dying in unsafe procedures.

Studies from The Lancet have shown that the abortion rate is higher in countries where the procedure is banned than in countries where it’s allowed.

That may be because women in those countries also have less access to birth control. But then, Planned Parenthood is a place that also helps women get birth control. So shutting those clinics down, as anti-abortion advocates claim to wish to do, puts us in a position closer to those countries.

A representative from the World Health Organization put it like this: “The law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal…. Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner.... And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

When conservatives are bewildered that liberals can think gun control will work while criminalizing abortion will just drive the procedure underground—

—well, that is because in other countries, gun control has been proven to work. And other countries offer us consistent proof that criminalizing abortion just kills women, and doesn’t stop the procedure. Or, I suppose, we think this because facts don’t care about your feelings.

But, alas, conservative feelings seem to be influencing more and more policy.

We are already going back to the bad old days of the back alley abortions that killed women like Gerri Santoro. As much as conservatives try to dismiss grotesque acts like coat-hanger abortions as mythological, they’re happening right now. We’re seeing multiple cases in the U.S. of women trying to induce abortions with coat hangers in the past decade. Secret networks are already forming of women who provide at-home abortions for women who can’t access legal ones. They shouldn’t have to form. As they do, it’s only a matter of time until we see more back-alley abortionists like Pennsylvania doctor Kermit Gosnell, who provided illegal abortions to low-income women, killing a woman in the process, spring up. If we valued women’s lives even a little, if we did not think that endorsing killing women was merely a “controversial view”, as in the case of Kevin Williamson, they wouldn’t need to spring up.

A fetus’s right to life is debatable. A woman’s is not.

Legislators who could criminalize abortion can find information about this with tremendous ease. If they don’t, they are either too poorly informed to be legislating on this issue, or they are aware women will end up dead and they don’t care. They know it won’t save babies, because, again, comparable numbers of women have sought the procedure whether it is legal or illegal. They don’t care about that either.

If they don’t care about that, what do they care about? All that seems left is punishing women who don’t desire motherhood.

But then, abortion panic was borne out of hatred of women taking on new roles in the world. In the mid 19th century, when one estimate reportedly suggested there was one abortion for every five or six live births, the politician Augustus Gardner claimed, “We can forgive the poor, deluded girl… But for the married shirk, who disregards her divinely ordained duty, we have nothing but contempt.” This rhetoric and the criminalization of abortion occurred just as women were beginning to campaign for the vote. Women, if Gardner’s view is something to go by, were becoming unruly shirkers, and they needed to be put back in their place.

That rhetoric doesn’t sound so different than the men who claim that women getting abortions are “selfish” today. There are people who think: “I believed that it was women’s role, as laid down by God, to have children….child bearing was what women were made for, after all." And if they don’t want to bear children, there are people, sometimes in their own family, who think they should be punished. Statistically, it’s likely that being forced to give birth will have some punishing impact on women’s lives.

Restricting rights to abortion does limit women. A 2017 study found that women who are denied abortions are significantly more likely to experience extreme poverty. While studies indicate that women who have had abortions experience little psychological distress afterwards (well, except when people are calling for them to be hanged) women who are denied abortions do have worse psychological outcomes.

It is a popular argument that an aborted fetus might have grown up to be the doctor who cured cancer, or the President of the United States. Well, so too might those women who were forced against their will to function as breeding chattel. But pursuing those dreams, which might have necessitated an abortion, well, that would have been selfish.

Margaret Atwood remarked in a recent interview: "Of those promoting enforced childbirth, it should be asked: Cui bono? Who profits by it? Sometimes this sector, sometimes that. Never no one.”

Today, it’s beneficial to the legislators who want to appeal to certain factions of the right. Being anti-abortion is a stance that appeals to the Breitbart-reading right who believe, “We need the kids if we’re to breed enough to keep the Muslim invaders at bay.” Or the evangelicals who seem generally upset about the outcomes of the sexual revolution. Or those who believe that, “Motherhood is the most sacred duty of White woman, duty towards our ancestors and descendants alike." Or, of course, the poorly informed, of whom there are many.

Ask yourself if those are the people you want determining the legal policies surrounding your body. They might be.

But if they’re not, in general, the answer to Atwood’s “cui bono” is not "women." It’s not even "babies."

If you are a woman, never forget that your body is yours. No one has any right to any part of it without your consent. Your breasts are yours, your vagina is yours, your womb is yours. The body that houses your soul is already occupied. It is occupied by you. You live there. And you do not have to let anyone use it without your permission.

All anti-abortion arguments are based on religious beliefs and as such are a personal matter, you cannot force your beliefs onto me as I cannot force mine onto you...

You don't want an abortion, fine, then don't... It's that simple...

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

The study doesn't support that claim, I posted the numbers and what it said.  Said the results were statically insignificant, they only compared the far ends of the spectrum, and it didn't conclude that the restrictions were the only/main factors is determining those numbers.  They didn't provide any analyses on the stat.  I would say that the numbers must be altered by different factors, as it makes no logical sense that laws reducing the legality and safety of an abortion would produce more/ similar numbers.  You can't determine from their data that more restrictions wouldn't decrease the numbers, nothing supports this.

"Some women who get pregnant don't know how to avoid it."  That has to be a very, very small margin, I find it hard to believe that those having sex have never heard of a condom or birth control.  Regarding the pregnancies where the fetus is nonviable or the life of the mother is in question, pro-life position agrees with abortion. 

I do agree there needs to be more education.  It should be a requirement of every elementary health class and should include: abstinence, natural family planning, condoms, birth control, and surgical operations.  On providing free contraceptives I agree as far as it limiting abortions, but disagree as a libertarian point of view.  Sex is not a requirement to live, and therefore shouldn't be subsidized by the government.  That is like saying someone should pay for my Netflix subscription.  I realize some women need birth control for health reasons, so I propose that it be included on their insurance if cited as such. 

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Excellent piece and very well put 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

Lengthy but worth it...  

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Stating "humans die that's what they do" definitely does provide an excuse for murder.  In fact it makes it sound like there's nothing wrong with it at all.

Drawing the line human life at ind. viability is not supported by logic.  If you were a baby at 22 weeks in the U.S. would be considered a person, while not in Africa.  We are saddened by the death of a fertilized egg, the difference is we aren't purposefully ending the life.

"There is a reason prolife people show fetuses magically suspended in darkness", its called an ultrasound and that's the only way we can view them.  There is a reason why planned parenthood won't show an ultrasound however.

"A fetuses life is debatable, a woman's life is not"  Majorly the womans life is not in danger, in that event pro-life people support abortion.

In the end, I'm not going to debate every word of your essay.  You could have made it shorter by just stating when you believe a fetus is deserving of the right to life over the convenience of the mother and why.  You offered conclusions on when you don't believe it is a life, but not when you actually belief its life begins being valuable.  So when?

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

At birth...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

So you use a super illogical definition.  A baby a 23 weeks outside the womb is somehow a person, but a 38 week old in the womb is not even though it is more developed...that makes sense.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Our Constitutional rights as citizens apply only once we are born as separate entities. To quote Ayn Rand, “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).” 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen ;

You posted a quote stating "Rights do not pertain to a potential, only an actual being".  This makes no argument for why a 22 week old outside the womb should be considered a "actual being" and a 38 week old inside " a potential".  It's illogical.

Where does the constitution state rights apply when we are separate entities?  The declaration although not a governing document, but written by many of the same founders claims "we are created equal"

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

The first sentence of the 14th amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Birth is the moment when a new citizen is made, not before. It's all summed up in the word "birthright", you get them, at birth...

Also, if the zygote is a person, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research combined.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

They are naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of, doesn't say that's when their rights are given...Human rights are not given by the government.  

You still haven't offered up any logical argument to why a more developed baby in the womb not a person.  We are trying to alleviate natural embryo loss, but that takes serious scientific discoveries, why do you think we've made so many developments keeping premature babies alive?  We focus on abortion, because that is something we can help control through law. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Stating "humans die that's what they do" definitely does provide an excuse for murder.

Still, are you denying that it is true?? That it is not a matter of fact? We'll get into the murder thing afterward...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Humans dying is a fact of life, I agree.  But saying that's what they do is a very poor choice of words.  It makes it sound like that's our purpose.

Just because death is a reality of life doesn't mean purposefully causing preemptive is ok.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

We don't have any intrinsic purpose or value... We subjectively ascribe those according to our very own beliefs...

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Human rights are not given by the government. 

Oh? By who then?