Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[zjl56]

No it isn't.

So it is a whole species in its own?

 

[Perfection]

So it is a whole species in its own?

It's human, but it's not a human!

Wrap your mind around that!

 

[zjl56]

How about you first. Since you should known what you are talking about or otherwise you are just ranting.

 

[Perfection]

Simple, it's human as it's made of human cells but it isn't a full human as it doesn't independantly live!

 

[hawai_74]

How about you first. Since you should known what you are talking about or otherwise you are just ranting.

AHHHH :suicide: he's back, i have to leave or jesus will punish me for my sins . hmmmph, sorry...
If a woman or couple want to abort because they can't assume their "becoming" child, they have the right to do so

 

[Stapel]

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.

It supercedes the right of a foetus to have a life period. Your question leaves no room for that point of view. As long as you keep refering to a bunch of cells as a person, a human being, a baby, or a child, you cannot possibly find an answer to your question.

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.

Same here. That would not be right.
But it is not what we discuss imho.

 

[Stapel]

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?

Nothing. Your way of analysing this issue is way too easy. It is too black&white. Ethical discussions cannot be solved without entering the grey area in between.

Both the foetus and the person have a right to live. But the right of the foetus does not supercede the right of a woman to control her own body. Once we think the foetus actually is a person, this might change, but I don't agree with that.

I also dear not say when the foetus actually becomes a person.

 

[Mise]

A "human fetus" and a "human being" are analogous, in that both the "fetus" and the "being" belong to the "human". Thus, the "human" has a right to do what she wants with both the "being", and the "fetus".

 

[IglooDame]

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.

A human fetus requires (under normal circumstances) either the consent of the mother or a crime to be committed against the mother to be harmed. An aged, injured, or very young human being does not.

A human fetus cannot be transferred to the care of someone else without either the consent of the mother or a criminal assault upon the mother. An aged, injured, or very young human being can.

As such, I believe a human fetus can reasonably under existing law be treated as a part of the woman's body until it exits said body.

(Normal circumstances refer to a pregnant mother who has medical assistance reasonably available to her, adequate living standards, and is intelligent enough to understand that her actions affect the fetus she carries.)

 

[zjl56]

Actually to kill a fetus is unconstitutional. It is wrong to kill any human and the constituition grants the right to life.

 

[IglooDame]

Actually to kill a fetus is unconstitutional. It is wrong to kill any human and the constituition grants the right to life.

Sorry, no. Since the legal status of a fetus as a human being has not been established by any court (feel free to correct me here), it is not entitled to constitutional protections at this point.

 

[Akka]

But an embryo isn't a human.

 

[Vanadorn]

Actually to kill a fetus is unconstitutional. It is wrong to kill any human and the constituition grants the right to life.

Don't hide behind the law - because according to the law, abortion is legal. So if you are going to trumpet the law and the constitution and whatnot, be prepared to be trumped and silenced. If not, then do not use only partial support and arguments to make your points.

Plus, as the years go on, more and more civilized countries are making abortion legal. The bootcrushing power of the church is fading from the world, along with their ability to control governments, choices, and people.

Read my post #347 that gives a definitive beginning of when a fetus becomes a human being with rights. And make the attempt to listen to the other posters here and give thought to what is being said before responding with half considered, gut feeling, emotional responses.

No cents given

 

[Stapel]

But an embryo isn't a human.

That is just a matter of language, I guess. I do agree with you on this matter, but would use other words

Embryo-Foetus-Baby-Child-Adult. Wecould all call those humans. I think the word person is easier to understand.

The word human can be used to easy. A human blood cell is human, but not A human.

 

[Stapel]

Actually to kill a fetus is unconstitutional. It is wrong to kill any human and the constituition grants the right to life.

A. You are wrong
B. This constitution of yours is far from universal.

 

[Akka]

Well, Stapel, I was precisely making the difference between "an embryo is human" and "an embryo is a human" ^^

 

[Detlef Richter]

I don't know when 'life' begins, but I don't want to be the one to say, 'sorry kid, you could have had a great life but your dad ran off and your 'almost' mom can't afford you, have a nice trip to the dumpster.'

What about this, here is your life show me how you can survive at social limits or at one of the slums all over the whole world.

The right to decide goeas only to the 'mom' and no one else.

 

[Little Raven]

It occurs to me that I have neglected poor betazed for a while here. I will attempt to rectify that now.

Does every agreement between two individuals have to be a written contract? Have we stooped so low or become so pedantic/unreliable that we cannot be taken for our words and actions? Why should not a night of consensual sex (and yes drunken sex too, so long as the drink was not forced down the gullet using mechanical contraptions) lead to responsibilites? And failed birth control too. Every sex act using birth control means that the chances of conception are small and not zero.

We're really reaching now, aren't we?

Imagine that I decide to visit the big apple and convince you to show me the local night life. I ply you with liquor, pick up the tab, and at the end of the evening convince you to agree to an oral contract whereby you pay me 160,000 dollars over the next 18 years. Hell, maybe I even get you to sign a bit of paper to that effect. (without witnesses, of course)

What do you do the next morning?

If your smart, you don't worry about paying me a dime, because no judge in the nation is going to rule that a valid contract. Contract law is clear: when dealing with a sum of that nature, significant proof of both commitment and a rational state of mind is required. A signature on a bit of a paper written after a drunken night on the town does not come close to meeting that standard. Neither does a night of consensual sex. Why should a potential mother be held to a higher standard than a businessman?

Yes, they do somewhat; and that does not happen just when you are married. That happens always. Can you kill your body? Suicide is illegal. Can you walk around nude? Can you always sell your sexual favors to anybody or everybody? These are rights on your body that you hold so dear and are already taken somewhat. So why are you so shocked when I say that someone else may have rights on a woman's womb.

For the same reason that you are shocked when I suggest that such logic gives Lorenna Bobbit the right to chop off her husband's penis. It is the scale of the intrusion that you are willing to justify that baffles me.

Pregnancy and child-birthing are not something that a woman 'gets over.' They produce permanent changes in the woman's body. A woman's figure and breasts will never be the same. Many women tear during delivery, forever affecting sex and urination. Not to mention the lasting psychological affects of being forced to carry an unwanted child.

Similarly, having your penis cut off is a traumatic experience. And one that you seem to feel that no husband should have to suffer. But if you're perfectly fine with forcing a woman to sit back while her body is destroyed from within, why object to allowing the wife to exercise her rights to husband's anatomy? John had his penis re-attached, after all. What's the big fuss about?

If you're going to say "Well, people don't always have the right to control how their body is used," then you need to explain where you draw the line, and why forcing a woman to submit to having her internal organs rearranged is fine but forcing a man to have his penis reattached isn't.

yeah, makes me wonder too. Maybe we do not have much left. Maybe most of it is an illusion of control and posession that we have. Sometime ago I started a thread briefly stating my hypotheses how all the control that we think we have on life maybe just illusory. The thread died owing to lack of interest so I did not feel like expanding on my ideas.

Huh. Must have missed that one.

Are you sure all the rights and control that you think you have are real and not just illusions?

Water's getting a little deep, here, my friend. But for the purposes of this thread, we're discussing what rights society should give the individual in regards to the control of their body. I believe that it is in societies best interest to give the maximum level of freedom possible; a conviction that inevitably leads me to reject outlawing abortion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Maximum level of freedom possible" sounds awfully slippery.

 

[shadowdude]

A miscarriage isn't intended.

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

FL2 isn't saying that he advocates those penalties...