Political Crossfire Forums

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Mycroft147 wrote: Fine, "Pro-women-having-the-right-to-murder-their-children"

Happy?

You asked for pro-choice arguments. Responding with sarcasm is poor form in an open argument-- much less when you are requesting information.

I see no reason to help you. If you want my pro-abortion arguments, look through the forum for them.

TheXCure · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 2 Location: texas

[quote="Mycroft147"][quote="TheXCure"]Pro-Death?
how about pro-women's rights....

As for me, I want to keep my rights. I'm not goverment property.

women have the right to choose what goes on in their bodies and who uses it at what time. To grant the fetus the right to use her body to live against her will would not only be sexist, but it would be unconstitutional as it would be granting special rights to the fetus.

and so on...[/quote]

Fine, "Pro-women-having-the-right-to-murder-their-children"

Happy?

I know some people want the right to murder. You are not government property. And humans at any stage are not anyones property. Embryos are not there mothers property.

Your only argument here is that fetuses should not have special rights. Right now they have no rights. Illegalizing abortion would give them their basic right to life. Letting the fetus live is not granting it special rights, just the same rights that you have. If it is against the mothers will for a fetus to be living inside of her, she should have thought of that before having sex.[/quote]

Murder is a legal term. Abortion does not fit it. Abortion =/= murder.
And what about the mother's right to bodily autonomy? Is that not as important?
"She should have thought of that before having sex."

You should have thought of getting hit by a car before you crossed the street.

And then there's rape...

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

TheXCure wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheXCure wrote: Pro-Death?
how about pro-women's rights....

As for me, I want to keep my rights. I'm not goverment property.

women have the right to choose what goes on in their bodies and who uses it at what time. To grant the fetus the right to use her body to live against her will would not only be sexist, but it would be unconstitutional as it would be granting special rights to the fetus.

and so on...

Fine, "Pro-women-having-the-right-to-murder-their-children"

Happy?

I know some people want the right to murder. You are not government property. And humans at any stage are not anyones property. Embryos are not there mothers property.

Your only argument here is that fetuses should not have special rights. Right now they have no rights. Illegalizing abortion would give them their basic right to life. Letting the fetus live is not granting it special rights, just the same rights that you have. If it is against the mothers will for a fetus to be living inside of her, she should have thought of that before having sex.

Murder is a legal term. Abortion does not fit it. Abortion =/= murder.
And what about the mother's right to bodily autonomy? Is that not as important?
"She should have thought of that before having sex."

You should have thought of getting hit by a car before you crossed the street.

And then there's rape...

Once again, your whole argument revovlves around the fact that you say abortion is not mmurder. Justify this. TEll me why the killing of a live human is not murder. Otherwise you have no argument.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

The XCure, saying that abortion =/= murder is like saying selling people for free labor is not slavery.

Any way you look at it- it still looks, acts, and quacks like a duck. Use whatever terminology you wish, but its still a duck.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

So far nothing posted has been convincing in the least. In the end the pro-choicers seem to have no arguments left. Im assuming that there are no sound arguments in suppprt of abortion.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2259 Location: Edinburgh

Mycroft147 wrote:
Once again, your whole argument revovlves around the fact that you say abortion is not mmurder. Justify this. TEll me why the killing of a live human is not murder. Otherwise you have no argument.
A preborn human is not, until a point, a conscious entity. It is capable of feeling neither pleasure or pain. It has no emotions, or feelings, or any of the things that truly make someone human. Therefore, killing it before consciousness is developed (around the third trimsester, as near as I can tell) is completely amoral. In my view, at least.

If you feel that it is somehow wrong to kill someone because they are biologically human, I would like to know why, and would also like to know why I should adopt your views. Thus far, every justification for one's belief that abortion should be illegal and/or is immoral has some religious grounding, which I feel is not justified for a secular society such as ours, as well as an agnostic such as myself.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Prole wrote: Mycroft147 wrote:
Once again, your whole argument revovlves around the fact that you say abortion is not mmurder. Justify this. TEll me why the killing of a live human is not murder. Otherwise you have no argument.
A preborn human is not, until a point, a conscious entity. It is capable of feeling neither pleasure or pain. It has no emotions, or feelings, or any of the things that truly make someone human. Therefore, killing it before consciousness is developed (around the third trimsester, as near as I can tell) is completely amoral. In my view, at least.

If you feel that it is somehow wrong to kill someone because they are biologically human, I would like to know why, and would also like to know why I should adopt your views. Thus far, every justification for one's belief that abortion should be illegal and/or is immoral has some religious grounding, which I feel is not justified for a secular society such as ours, as well as an agnostic such as myself.

So you justify abortion up to the point "around the third trimester, as near as i can tell"? Do you expect everyone to abide by your arbitrary judgement on this? No one knows when a baby becomes fully conscious, so your statement doesnt stand up at all, unless everyone randomly decided that point on their own, which is obviously wrong.

Besides that, why should "consciousness" decide whether or not someone deserves to live? Are you saying that everyone in a coma can be killed? According to this reasoning embryos would have more of a riht to life than them, because the chance of the embryo becoming conscious if allowed to develop is extremely high. Obviously this is a poor point to base your arguments upon.

The embryo is a living(obviously, or there would be nothing to kill) developing, Genetically different from the mother, member of the species homo sapiens. How is this different from you or me? What justifies the killing of this being?

You are the one who needs to justify your arguments.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

by the way, even though im religious, none of those arguments had anything to do with religion. They are all scientific and logical conclusions.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Yeah totally.. and really, up till recently, and despite the broad definitions as to when fetuses can feel, and think, whatever- there is always new information about even born babies haivng alot more abilities than was known just a short time ago...

Question:

Do newborns "suddenly" have more abilities, now that they are discovered, or did they always? They always did.

Also, the time of viability is constantly moving closer to conception. The numerous abilities of embryos and fetuses are being learned at an astounding rate, thanks to digital technology..

Does that mean that all we know about preborn humans is all there is to learn? Of course not! And if we keep putting viability back, and learning more and more about how fetuses and embryos live, while in the womb, what they know, and what they feel--- then it is safe to assume that we need to stop performing in utero euthenasias, and it is safe to assume that NO we DONT know all there is to know... and NO we dont have all the technology we ever will, to find these things out, either!

We DO know one fundamental thing-

Human life forms begin the process of life at conception.

Therefore, if life ends any time after conception, due to a forceful death- it is a kill. To kill is to murder.

"Thou Shalt not Kill."
-Jehovah, Creator of all things.

Many blessings!

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Viability is an idiotic idea. As you said, the point of viability relies only on technology. Is the actual ethicality of the act changed by technology? no. Is the fetus more of a human as technology increases? no. Should the fetus have more rights just because technology is advancing? NO

so why do people still justify abortion with viability?

galba · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 675 Location: Texas

TheXCure wrote: Pro-Death?
how about pro-women's rights....

Lets start with the right to life

TheXCure wrote:
As for me, I want to keep my rights. I'm not goverment property.

So do the fetuses. Right now that can instantly be turned into Planned Parenthood property.

TheXCure wrote:
women have the right to choose what goes on in their bodies and who uses it at what time.

Is she allowed to kill?

TheXCure wrote:
To grant the fetus the right to use her body to live against her will would not only be sexist, but it would be unconstitutional as it would be granting special rights to the fetus.

Special rights? You mean like the right to life?

galba · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 675 Location: Texas

TheXCure wrote:
And then there's rape...
Rape infringes on a mothers right to choose. Let her sue.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

It is about freedom of choice. To dictate to women that they are no longer free to make decisions regarding their own bodies is to strip away one of the most basic of rights we have. You can morally disagree with abortion all you like, just as I do, but I know that each woman out there has a right to decide what happens to her body.

And, before you go in to the "but it's murder" mantra, let me point out that murder depends on two things. 1) a live victim, and 2) intent to kill said victim.

Beings that the medical community can not come to a mutally agreeable definition of when the fetus is alive, the first requirement is not meant. Therefore the second requirement becomes null and void.

Now, if you can provide for me any evidence to show where the medical community as a whole has agreed upon when a fetus is alive, I will gladly campaign for abortions to be made illegal after that point in the pregnancy is reached. But, it would still violate a woman's right to make it completely illegal.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Viability is an idiotic idea. As you said, the point of viability relies only on technology. Is the actual ethicality of the act changed by technology? no. Is the fetus more of a human as technology increases? no. Should the fetus have more rights just because technology is advancing? NO

so why do people still justify abortion with viability?

My,

I don't think anyone promotes abortion. Pro-choice supports choice. It supports not living under draconian rules. The fundamental argument comes down to who has rights. If a fetus has rights, the real deal human rights that override the woman's rights, the consequence is slavery for her. That might sound overstated but think long and hard of the legal issues. Most of the pro-lifers here support taking away a woman's choice when an embryo is this big -> . <-. The 4 pixel sized embryo is enough for them to charge women with murder, place them in forced birth facilities etc. The people wanting that right taken away expect society to live as per the "male birth control" thread. I prefer society stay free of government social engineering.

In my opinion the right for a woman not to be enslaved trumps any other argument this topic has to offer. The rest aren't even close.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

It is about freedom of choice. To dictate to women that they are no longer free to make decisions regarding their own bodies is to strip away one of the most basic of rights we have. You can morally disagree with abortion all you like, just as I do, but I know that each woman out there has a right to decide what happens to her body.

And, before you go in to the "but it's murder" mantra, let me point out that murder depends on two things. 1) a live victim, and 2) intent to kill said victim.

Beings that the medical community can not come to a mutally agreeable definition of when the fetus is alive, the first requirement is not meant. Therefore the second requirement becomes null and void.

Now, if you can provide for me any evidence to show where the medical community as a whole has agreed upon when a fetus is alive, I will gladly campaign for abortions to be made illegal after that point in the pregnancy is reached. But, it would still violate a woman's right to make it completely illegal.

I agree with your criteria for murder.
The medical community as a whole agrees on very little and wil lprobably never agree wholly on abortion. And since the medical community cannot come up with better criteria for a live human than viabilty, it is obvious that abortion should not be allowed. If we are not sure when an embryo becomes human other than at conception, it would be unethical to allow the killing of it. The only logical and discernable point of becoming a human is at conception. Prove otherwise.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Viability is an idiotic idea. As you said, the point of viability relies only on technology. Is the actual ethicality of the act changed by technology? no. Is the fetus more of a human as technology increases? no. Should the fetus have more rights just because technology is advancing? NO

so why do people still justify abortion with viability?

My,

I don't think anyone promotes abortion. Pro-choice supports choice. It supports not living under draconian rules. The fundamental argument comes down to who has rights. If a fetus has rights, the real deal human rights that override the woman's rights, the consequence is slavery for her. That might sound overstated but think long and hard of the legal issues. Most of the pro-lifers here support taking away a woman's choice when an embryo is this big -> . <-. The 4 pixel sized embryo is enough for them to charge women with murder, place them in forced birth facilities etc. The people wanting that right taken away expect society to live as per the "male birth control" thread. I prefer society stay free of government social engineering.

In my opinion the right for a woman not to be enslaved trumps any other argument this topic has to offer. The rest aren't even close.

If you consider not allowing someone to murder slavery, then so be it. The right to life overrides the right to freedom. Its also strange and sad that you would define a human life by size. Does a child have less of a right to life than an adult? No. You ignore the bottom line that the embryo is human and that killing it is murder. If you realize this then you will realize abortion is wrong no matter how "enslaved" the mother becomes by being pregnant.

I prefer society be free of legalized murder.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

It is about freedom of choice. To dictate to women that they are no longer free to make decisions regarding their own bodies is to strip away one of the most basic of rights we have. You can morally disagree with abortion all you like, just as I do, but I know that each woman out there has a right to decide what happens to her body.

And, before you go in to the "but it's murder" mantra, let me point out that murder depends on two things. 1) a live victim, and 2) intent to kill said victim.

Beings that the medical community can not come to a mutally agreeable definition of when the fetus is alive, the first requirement is not meant. Therefore the second requirement becomes null and void.

Now, if you can provide for me any evidence to show where the medical community as a whole has agreed upon when a fetus is alive, I will gladly campaign for abortions to be made illegal after that point in the pregnancy is reached. But, it would still violate a woman's right to make it completely illegal.

I agree with your criteria for murder.
The medical community as a whole agrees on very little and wil lprobably never agree wholly on abortion. And since the medical community cannot come up with better criteria for a live human than viabilty, it is obvious that abortion should not be allowed. If we are not sure when an embryo becomes human other than at conception, it would be unethical to allow the killing of it. The only logical and discernable point of becoming a human is at conception. Prove otherwise.

If you agree with my criteria for murder, and that the medical community can not agree on when a fetus is alive, how does it stand that it, therefore, must be alive at conception? It is faulty reasoning.

I can not prove that a fetus ISN'T alive at conception any more than you can prove they are.

Oh, and your contention that it is unethical is merely subjective.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Coral used IVF, remember, so he knows more than any of us that size does not matter, only potential life does.

Which is the one thing that really surprises me about him....

Using IVF opened my eyes to how rediculous it would be to have reproductive police meddling into every decision. We had more choices to make in our IVF journey that you could ever imagine Sailor. We spent two years making decisions on one thing or another. If anyone has put more thought than me into reproductive rights and decision-making I'd like to meet them.

No-one said anything about reproductive police. the issue at stake is the basic human right to life and the illegalization of murder.