Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[ainwood]

A miscarriage isn't intended.

Murder is illegal, and even accidental homicide carries stiff penalties.

. .

 

[Little Raven]

Hah, you're already wrong on both counts. Murder is illegal, and even accidental homicide carries stiff penalties. Clearly, whether there is a natural law or not, there is definitely a secular right to life.

*chuckle* Calm down, Fearless, we have but scraped the surface. We don't need to murder the child to remove it from the womb. We do currently, but that could be easily changed. The fetus could be removed from the womb intact and alive. It will quickly die, but then so will TLC if I deny him use of my dialysis machine. But I still have the legal right to deny TLC my machine. Why should fetuses be any different? The world is a nasty place. If you can't cut it on your own, well, that's your bad luck. That goes for fetuses too.

Further, parents are bound by law to provide many things for their children, and to assume responsibility for their misdeeds until they reach the age of maturity. Failure to provide these things is one of the ways that they can lose their children to the custody of the state. This clearly implies that children at least have the right to those things they need to continue living.

The law currently does state the parents have an obligation to their born children, but then, the law also says that they can surrender those children to the state. So as long as the mother gives the fetus to the custody of the state, we’re in keeping with legal tradition. Are you happy now?

The law disagrees with you on every point, therefore your conclusions have nothing to draw on.

Are we discussing the law or morality here? The law clearly states that abortion is legal. So if the law is your basis for determining what is right, you lose by definition.

Now, I have demonstrated that abortion legality is inherently hypocritical.

You keep using the word hypocritical. I do not think it means what you think it means. To be a hypocrite means you act in opposition to your supposed beliefs. If I don't believe that humans have a right to life, I'm not being hypocritical by killing them. I may be a monster, but I'm not a hypocrite.

In fact, I'm curious how deeply you really hold your convictions. If I am starving, and you have extra food, must you share it with me? Don't I have a right to life? If you withhold the food from me, I will die. Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?

Assume that the fetus is human from conception. It doesn’t affect the argument if you don’t believe humans have a right to life.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

*chuckle* Calm down, Fearless, we have but scraped the surface. We don't need to murder the child to remove it from the womb. We do currently, but that could be easily changed. The fetus could be removed from the womb intact and alive. It will quickly die, but then so will TLC if I deny him use of my dialysis machine. But I still have the legal right to deny TLC my machine.

Do you? There are Good Samaritan laws in many states that say one who does nothing to assist someone in mortal danger is liable for arrest. Again, the child has rights established by law to safety and support from its legal guardians, nominally the parents. You have said nothing to refute this, and say-hey-and-BTW, when are you going to ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Why should fetuses be any different? The world is a nasty place. If you can't cut it on your own, well, that's your bad luck. That goes for fetuses too.The law currently does state the parents have an obligation to their born children, but then, the law also says that they can surrender those children to the state. So as long as the mother gives the fetus to the custody of the state, we’re in keeping with legal tradition. Are you happy now?

Heh. If the mother signs over custody of the child to the state, then she is currently signing over access to her womb as well. I guess she'll be spending the duration in a nice comfy cell with a couple other mommies waiting for the 39th week.

Are we discussing the law or morality here? The law clearly states that abortion is legal.

And yet children clearly have the rights to life and those things needed to maintain it, and so do those in the care of hospitals and retirement homes, thereby extending those rights to the unborn as stated in my question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE GUTS TO ANSWER. Could the law be...gasp...horrors, hypocritical?

So if the law is your basis for determining what is right, you lose by definition. You keep using the word hypocritical. I do not think it means what you think it means. To be a hypocrite means you act in opposition to your supposed beliefs.

Acceptable, but in applying it to law, one must modify it to mean legislating in opposition to established law without annulling that establsihed law.

If I don't believe that humans have a right to life, I'm not being hypocritical by killing them. I may be a monster, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Both are equal in my eyes, and neither is very good. I set higher standards for myself.

In fact, I'm curious how deeply you really hold your convictions. If I am starving, and you have extra food, must you share it with me? Don't I have a right to life? If you withhold the food from me, I will die. Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?

Only if we assume I will let you starve. I am a Lion, and I give to charity. I guess that means I put my money and time where my mouth is, huh?

Assume that the fetus is human from conception. It doesn’t affect the argument if you don’t believe humans have a right to life.

But if they do...but if they do...

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

 

[Benderino]

Maybe that's why God says it's naughty...

What are you gonna do about it? Billions of people on this planet do it, surely they can't all be immoral and un-imaculate human beings.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Rather than going off-topic and talking about touching it too much, why don't you ANSWER THE QUESTION?

 

[Benderino]

Rather than going off-topic and talking about touching it too much, why don't you ANSWER THE QUESTION?

First of all, it pertains to the question at hand. Why stop at the arbitrary point of conception to determine when something becomes a "human"? Why not say wasting sperm, or ovums for that matter?

Which question are you referring to, BTW? The one in the title? Why would I support it? Easy, because I believe that the right of the mother takes precedence over the unborn blob of goo.

 

[Vanadorn]

A person is defined as a human being by a number of different and differeing factors, however, the one that is inarguably the first and foremost accepted conclusion of what defines a human being is when such a creature is born. You can be white, black, asian, european, boy, girl, fat, thin, jaundiced, bald, twins, sick, healthy…whatever. But whatever is the case, the child is born.

The birthing of the child is the celebrated day and time of the new individuals life. No one recognizes the conceived day (neither religion or civic organizations), there is no special marking on the time and date that the parents to be had engaged in coitus. Why? Because it is the act of birth, the miracle of such, that quantifies the beginning of a entity and the recognition of the said entity as a human being and privy to all comforts, credos, and rights attributable to it.

Until the birthing, the fetus is still wholly and undeniably dependant upon the mother. It cannot breathe, eat, or exist without the delicate and tenuous connection via umbilical cord to it’s mother’s womb. It does not exist as a separate creature until it can survive on its own. Only one hundred years ago we had an infant mortality rate of 1 in 4 children. And not in 3rd world countries, but right here in the USA and Western civilizations as well. Of those birthings, how does a 1 in 25 chance to die sound? That’s what you would suffer as a mother. Most people will roulette with worse odds than that and expect to win!

Once a person has been born, rcognized, and accorded the rights due to it as a living creature, then the rest of the responsibilities fall upon it – food, clothing, shelter, comfort, medical care. Even if that child is born effectively brain dead and in a coma (the vegetable like state mentioned), it will be given all strengths and rights to keep it alive until it passes of its own accord or recovers.

You are entitled to your belief that the magic of conception infuses the zygote with the divine spark and fully established traits of humanity. You are welcome to move that time forward to the mystical embryo/fetus stage if you’d like, when the developing child becomes “human”. These are your decisions. But until the child is born, it does not exist as a separate entity. And the decision to abort is a painful one that any parent, male or female, father or mother, has to struggle with making on their own – because it is their decision to do so.

This is a free land we live in, a land where everyday, more liberties are threatened with removal – don’t be a fool and give up the free will and choices that we have to decide what to do with ourselves and our bodies. Even god left us with free will when the doors of Eden slammed behind us. How can you expect to do any less?

My 2 cents.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

First of all, it pertains to the question at hand. Why stop at the arbitrary point of conception to determine when something becomes a "human"? Why not say wasting sperm, or ovums for that matter?

When did I say to stop there?

Which question are you referring to, BTW?

As if there were ever any doubt... But go ahead and try to squirm out of it. Heck, I scared Curt right out of this thread with it, so I can hardly blame anyone else for not wanting to. But don't worry, no matter how many times y'all try to wriggle out of answering this question, I'll always have enough patience to re-post it one more time.

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other? Show how this difference means more when a 'human fetus' displays it than when an aged, injured, or very young 'human being' displays it. Explain why your assertion is not the same as age-based discrimination. Explain why this difference which may be permanent in a 'human being', but which is certain to be temporary for a 'human fetus', can be used to legitimately discriminate against the 'human fetus', but the 'human being', even if permanently afflicted with the difference (say a permenently vegetative coma) still has full human rights.

EDIT, in fact, I'll just make it my signature...

 

[Perfection]

It's simple FL2, as I've previously stated, Fetuses are biologically dependant on a human's body.

 

[Vanadorn]

Heck, I scared Curt right out of this thread with it, so I can hardly blame anyone else for not wanting to.

No - he got banned for some flaming comments in another thread, so he's probably biting his tongue instead of leaping back in, attacking you and your points, and wind up getting banned again. What is happeneing is the fact that many of the arguments that people give to you, you have your own way of looking at them (entitled to of course), but you are closed and close minded about possibly seeing it another way. So many of the experienced posters merely grow tired of this particualr arguement coming up again, and again, and again - you are not the first person to champion the unborn, and you will probably not be the last on these boards - but aruing with someone who has conservative, right wing views and a religious bent to boot is tiring most of the time. No one likes to beat their head against the wall, especially if their argument constantly falls on deaf ears.

You are no accepting anyone's answers (and there have been many in this thread and others before it), instead you dismiss what parts of it you do not agree with or have some question to them and trumpet the statement you so want answered again. Who wants to continue that after any period of time?

My advice, go talk to a young mother or young couple and really ask them, without getting on their case, to talk to you about what went into them having an abortion. Remember, this is their life and before you judge them to your own standards, besure to take their life experiences into account first (doesn't the bible say something about judging and 1st stone?). Try to understand the deeply personal and gut wrneching, mind blowing decisions that had to go into them making this most personal of choices. You might be surprised.

If you do that , and can still come back here, unmoved and adamant in your position, then fine. But I doubt it, unless your heart is made of ice, or you're not human.

My 2 cents.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

So do the injured, elderly, and very young. Without an adult working their human body to generate revenue to obtain sustenance for the other party, they will perish. You have not answered the question. Read it again. It's right there. vvv

 

[Perfection]

So do the injured, elderly, and very young. Without an adult working their human body to generate revenue to obtain sustenance for the other party, they will perish.

Fetuses are directly biologically dependant on a human's body.

Better?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Vanadorn,
Very touching and moving, I am sure. Single tear rolling down the cheek and all that, really. I am quite sure Curt will speak for himself when he has an answer that addresses all of the points in my Question of DOOM.

Always, always, always, y'all speak poignantly of the rights of the 'poor oppressed mother', as if I and other pro-life advocates were snarling Nazi dogs chaining women to stirrups and focing them to crank out our rape-babies against their will when if we'd only give them a chance, they would join a convent and commit to a life of celibacy forever.

98.5% of all abortions are after-the-fact contraception for no other reason than the social convienience of the mother or mother and father. That's an ugly statistic that no one here likes talking about, and it is the crux of the issue in my eyes.

I have no issue with the other 1.5%. Those are medical neccessities and painful decisions made by women who have been subjected to degradation I don't even want to think about. Bringing them up as if they are the issue here is disingenuous and deceitful.

I'd feel a lot more sympathy for that single mom, for that young couple, if someone else had forced them to have sex. There is no other situation in which one can commit murder to sweep a problem under the rug without penalty, and as of yet, no one, including you, has managed to answer my question in a way that disproves the assertion that it is murder.

THAT is the issue. Not whether it is convienent to a young couple to terminate a pregnancy they can't support without hardships they should have though of before he asked and she said yes. We know it helps THEM out. We know that their lives are going to be drastically altered if we make them take responsibility for their actions. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not their rights to a slightly freer and higher social life supercede the right of the child to have a life period.

Is it right for one person to benefit from the deliberate death of another? Until you can answer my question in the negative successfully, you can't answer this one in the affirmative successfully.

So answer the question already.

 

[Benderino]

FL2, do you support the death penalty?

 

[Vanadorn]

I did. Look up to post #347.

Who said nazis? Who said poor oppressed mothers? Who said rape babies? Who said it's your decision?

And as to the majority of them being after the fact - then deal with it. It's not your decision. The law doesn't recognize it as murder, the definition in the dictionary doesn't recognize it as murder, most open minded individuals can see the difference between potential life and actual life. The long and short of it is: the relgion or doctrine you believe in had a problem with it, hence the people of that religion have the same problem with it.

News flash - freedom of religion. Freedom of choice. It's not a human being. If it was, even you wouldn't refer to it as a human fetus. Becasue it is not a human being yet. One day, we will not need mother's wombs to procreate, and on those days, we'll have a whole new series of problems to worry about - but if we a biologically built this way to be dependant upon any type of existance and birth by the mother, then it is not your or your relgion's job to crawl around what is surely the very cramped mother's womb.

And if you could control your sex drive, then good for you. Because, another news flash - most people (especially the demoraphic that gets abortions!) cannot. That's why it's called a mistake. And guess what - over 80% of the people who get an abortion - only get 1. Hey! They learned from their mistake and made sure it didn't happen again.

How about that? People can learn from their mistake.

My 2 cents

 

[ainwood]

Not only is it not intended, it is not normally caused by negligence or deliberate act (except that sometimes it is, and a legal penalty is applied when such is the case.)

Pregnant women have all kinds of limitations placed on their activities, from smoking to skydiving.

Honestly, are any of you going to ANSWER THE QUESTION?

COWARDS!!

Well, flaming people into responding is a

So you are advocating that women who smoke then have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? What about women who (say) do something strenuous like an aerobics session before they actually know they're pregnant? Involuntary manslaughter perhaps?

 

[zjl56]

There maybe a freedom of choice now but I must try to outlaw this act the fetus is a human and human life is sacred.

 

[Benderino]

the fetus is a human

No it isn't.

 

[Benderino]

why don't you ANSWER THE QUESTION?

It's really a series of questions. Which one do you want answered, and I'd gladly help you find the light.

 

[Little Raven]

Do you? There are Good Samaritan laws in many states that say one who does nothing to assist someone in mortal danger is liable for arrest.

No, you’re confused. Good Samaritan laws exist to protect someone who tries to help but inflicts accidental harm in the process.

Now, there are laws which govern negligent homicide, but none of those laws say that I am obliged to feed you if you are starving. Show me any state where the law dictates that I must allow you to live in my house if you don’t have anywhere else to live and will die from the cold. I’m sorry that you’ll die, but that doesn’t mean I have to let you in.

Again, the child has rights established by law to safety and support from its legal guardians, nominally the parents. You have said nothing to refute this, and say-hey-and-BTW, when are you going to ANSWER THE QUESTION?

*sigh* Fearless, chill for a second. You’re forgetting who you’re arguing with and why. There’s no need for me to answer the question, because I’m taking a different tack than your normal pro-lifer. I’m not arguing that the fetus isn’t human. I’m accepting that it is. Instead, I’m arguing that humans have no intrinsic ‘right to life,’ and that a fetus is no different from any other human in that regard.

Heh. If the mother signs over custody of the child to the state, then she is currently signing over access to her womb as well. I guess she'll be spending the duration in a nice comfy cell with a couple other mommies waiting for the 39th week.

Why? Why are the womb and the fetus a package deal? The womb clearly belongs to the mother, and the fetus, as a human being, belongs to no one. What legal or moral precedent are you citing here when you declare them to be one and the same? If the fetus is a human, which both of us seem to agree on, then it has to be prepared to take its chances in the world, even if that means taking on the world without a womb.

If you are declaring the womb and the fetus to be a package deal just because the fetus happens to need to womb, then I suggest you look around. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who die every year from lack of health care. They need that health care to live, but they can’t afford it. So they die. We have determined that just because a person needs something, they can’t expect someone else to give it to them. Why should fetuses be any different?

And yet children clearly have the rights to life and those things needed to maintain it,

I’m sorry, this isn’t clear to me at all. Help clear it up for me. You’re stating it as a fact, but I don’t see it. In my state, we just cut over a million children from CHIP. (Children’s Health Insurance Program.) They’re poor and our state is strapped for cash, so out they go. Some will no doubt die for lack of care. Oh well. That’s life. Aren’t those children human? Don’t they have just as many rights as a fetus? Why then should we cast them out in the cold while requiring special protection for a fetus?

and so do those in the care of hospitals and retirement homes, thereby extending those rights to the unborn as stated in my question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE GUTS TO ANSWER. Could the law be...gasp...horrors, hypocritical?

No, the law can’t be hypocritical. The law can be contradictory, but not hypocritical. The law cannot act, so it can’t ever be a hypocrite. But the law can be wrong, if it makes you feel better.

Both are equal in my eyes, and neither is very good. I set higher standards for myself.

Being a hypocrite and being a murderer are equal in your eyes? Whoa…

Only if we assume I will let you starve. I am a Lion, and I give to charity. I guess that means I put my money and time where my mouth is, huh?

That’s great. I applaud you for it. But do you want to make giving to charity mandatory? And to what extent? Should we raise taxes until we can feed every child in the world? Should we insure that no child dies from lack of healthcare, that no sick person goes untended, no unfortunate falls through the cracks? Should we not execute those humans we deem guilty of crimes, if all humans have a ‘right to life?’ Should we not drop bombs on insurgents in Iraq?

Our society kills people all the time. Sometimes out of spite, sometimes out of neglect, most often because it would be too damn hard to keep them alive. That’s simply the way the game is played. Why should fetuses play by different rules than the rest of us?

But if they do...but if they do...

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

Calm down. For the point of this exercise, we’re assuming the fetus is human at conception. That question has been answered. I admit that if humans do have a ‘right to life,’ then we have a problem. Now you need to convince me that allowing humans to die is unacceptable.