Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone the same?

Yeah, I thought it was odd that he seemed to repeat an argument. Didn't appear to be a quote, so I thought he was simply making a poor repetitive argument.

I was mocking you for others conflicts you were dry humping the air over our potential military involvement in.

Anyways, Jacob's argument holds true. If you oppose abortion on the grounds of "killing life" and you promote war. It's hypocrisy. Doesn't matter the end result or whatever justifications you can pull out of your ass. You are "protecting life" with one hand and justifying the destruction of life with the other.

Libertarianism concurs with me: I remember an animated video on Libertarianism



Those who violate the premise of Liberty, are eventually punished for it. When North Korea violently threatens the premise of Liberty of Eurasia, America and the world, I as a hypothetical head of state can't simply just sit there and watch.

If we were to enter negotiations, I would be very clear that we can't enter this state of affairs in another decade or so.

A newborn child, doesn't violate the premise of Liberty. Nor is that child necessarily "property" of the parents. No Human Being, at any stage is another's property. This is the essence of Libertarian philosophy.

So I'm not acting in contradictory fashion to Human Goodwill, by saying some oppressive tinfold dictator can suck it, and if worse comes to worse I'll defend the rights and liberties of everyone.

So then it is completely justifiable for us to declare war on the United States of America because as your rightly state, should be punished for violently threatening the premise of liberty of north korea.

There is no denying it, america started that whole thing. They started doing the war scenarios and drills, they moved nuclear weapons to south korea, america started this and should be punished for antagonizing another nation.

There's no greater proof of this than simply looking at the fact that as soon as america left, the entire situation disappeared overnight.

North korea was never hostile to begin with, for god sakes, they let the harlem globe trotters in their country to play basketball with dennis rodman.

And now they are even wanting peace talks with america despite the fact that america started this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/15/north-korea-us-talks-proposal.html

I have to point this out:



I think this speaks for itself when north korea is willing to become nuclear free but america is in the way.

Do forgive us for supporting an ally on the world stage(The South), if we were to leave completely that would open up a vacuum in that part of the region. One could see such drills as a threat to it...if it were meant as such.

What purpose would the U.S. Government have in antagonizing the North? Several U.S. Presidents have longed to fix the situation. And we didn't "leave", the opposite happened. We sent our Secretary of State, John Kerry to North Korea and we made our intentions perfectly clear about the Korean Penisula, about Asia and about the world. Above all, no doubt our American Citizens.

Now, perhaps you believe you can't take the U.S. Military at its face surrounding the South's de-nuclearization, but a non-proliferation policy has been a longstanding U.S. Policy since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps those bombs once existed, at the height of the Cold War tensions but with the fall of the Soviet Union(early 90's), there was no need to establish mini states if you will against Soviet Russia.

I'm sure our foreign leaders would be perfectly willing to withdraw those nuclear submarines and more than willing to accord to peace if North Korea does the same.

If North Korea guarantees the political freedom of South Korea, should North Korea subjugate the South by means of military, it would go against any sense of the word of a peace treaty. A political union can only be had with political talks.

I'll even accord to you(and Fiery) the absurd notion that all of this is our fault and that we should concede to every legitimate North Korean demand, but "feeling" threatened is an entirely different story than being threatened.

Never again will a Nation State prostrate its intentions of using nuclear weapons against our country, against our citizens. For we never threatened the death, starvation or disease of hundreds of thousands of North Koreans! The North, on the other hand does precisely that(and blames the Western economic model, laughable).

What else could it be percieved as other than a threat against the nation of north korean. We only need to start as to the purpose of the military drills. Why even have military drills if political talk is the correct option, why even have military drills if war is not an option. Because america wanted it to be that way. The sole reason that they have military drills there is in the situation that the north koreans actually invade the south. That is a pretty damn obvious sign that america is there for the purpose of antagonizing the north.

If political talks are an option as they are now, and there is an option of having a complete nuclear free korea, both north and south, and the only thing standing in it's way is the american nuclear fleet, then there is nothing to miss. It is clearly stated what is causing the issue. If america pulls out it's nuclear subs, then we have an even greater chance at peace. But instead they hold drills pointing directly at the north.

I don't see how anyone can find that confusing.




Another obvious answer: Publicity. With america pulling out of iraq and afghanistan, there is no upcoming war to occupy the american thoughts and minds, there's nothing to muniplulate, and nothing to keep them in fear. But having north korea threaten nuclear armaggedon, that is a real good one. You can pass all kinds of laws to restrict whatever you want, and take away all the freedoms you want because this is a more direct threat to the american people. But it failed horribly because as soon as the drills were over, it went away.

Not only did it go away, but it was mainstream media until the boston bombing and as soon as that happened, the focus of the american media went from north korea right back to the evils of islam.

That is percisely what america is about, going from one event to the next to keep it's people in constant fear. Just look at the whole thing around the boston bomber, they knew what building he was in, they knew exactly where he was during the hours of stand off, yet they kept the whole city under marshal law for 24 hours. Completely unnecessary.

You misrepresent the Libertarian stance, again. Threats or the possibility of the violation of the premise of Liberty is not actual violations.

The Libertarian stance is, you don't use force/violence except to resist force/violence being used against you.

North Korea rattles their sabre. They are not using force/violence against us.

North Korea uses fiery rhetoric. They are not using force/violence against us.

North Korea parks a ship of our coast and has the crew moon us from the deck. They are no using force/violence against us.

North Korea attacks or sinks an American ship. Declare war, grind them into dust and scatter their ashes to the wind.

North Korea fires a missile at us (doesn't even have to hit, just at us). Shoot it down, declare war, grind them into dust and scatter their ashes to the wind.

North Korea agents kill an American (assassination). Declare war, grind them into dust and scatter their ashes to the wind.

North Koreans attack our armed forces in South Korea. Declare war, grind them into dust and scatter their ashes to the wind.

You see the key point here? It's when force/violence is used, you retaliate with force/violence. You don't force/violence to "prevent" because then it's vulnerable to false flag operations to justify the use of military actions for ulterior motives.

If we got into a heated argument. You can't punch me first and say "I thought you were gonna hit me" and expect it's justified because you were the aggressor and thus I am now morally and legally justified to use force/violence against you to protect myself because you initiated illegal and immoral force/violence against me.

You break into my home. You've initiated force/violence against me. I'm justified to use force/violence (shoot you) to protect my family, my property and myself.

You take a baseball bat to my car. You've initiated force/violence against me (my property) and I am justified in using force/violence against you to protect my property.

If you brandish a weapon at me without provocation. You've initiated force/violence against me and I am not justified in using force/violence against you to protect myself.


I've explained it enough times and in enough detail for you to understand it by now. Either you just ignore what I type or you're incompetent. For the last time, quit misrepresenting the Libertarian ideology.

All fine and dandy but when the discussion surrounds Nuclear Warheads I believe there's a different "red line". Anyone knows of their destructive power and the long term consequences to all of planet Earth. We just can't simply say "Oh, we'll wait for them to launch one and then kick their asses."

By that time, the total number of dead would be significantly greater than if we nipped this in the bud right now. So no, North Korea isn't initiating force against us...yet. But they're far from a peaceful country, and the citizens of either country don't deserve to have their livelihoods threatened.

I know you hate my metaphors, I'll continue to use them. The right of defense is akin to a sword. Only someone who is prepared and capable of using a Sword can thwart attackers. Let's use an example: The War on Terrorism.

We proclaim that we shall win over their "hearts and minds", how has that worked for this 13 year ongoing campaign? Me? It's "we shall win the war." We shall utterly deplete enemy resistance forces to the ground and humiliate them so badly they will never again think their attacks could come of anything but more humiliation.

Wars end in two ways, and two ways only: A: Diplomatic(which seems but impossible at this stage) or B: When an enemy realizes his capitulation and everything he fought for to begin with is at risk.

Their hearts and minds will be won, ironically through a state of fear. Fear of the U.S. Army, fear of our overwhelming strength and fear of our resolve.

This war won't end unless the other side lets up and agrees to come to the table or B: We take the initiative and ante the stakes for the other side.

I understand what you're saying, Libertarianism will only brandish the weapon when it has been attacked. But in matters of life and death, we cannot wait for antagonizing nations or groups to "make a move" as if this were Chess. A "move" could possibly result in many casualties.

Cause that worked out so well policy wise while america threatened and followed through with nuclear attacks against the nation of japan. And this was a nation that america was at war with, that didn't have nuclear capabilities. Apparently the red line can be ignored there, especially when we talk about a fair fight and about not killing innocents.



Because fear always works. We're seeing literally dozens of protests and dictators being overthrown in the last 5 years by people who were in fear of their governments. Fear does not work when the people are already distrustful of the government that is causing it. The american people are munipulated by fear through media, these other countries that are fighting civil wars were kept in fear by military might. The exact same tactic that you propose they use. Are you an idiot? Or do you just not read the news.



Except for one crucual fact, america isn't at war with north korea, and north korea isn't at war with any country right now. So get off your high horse.

Actually North Korea has been at war with South Korea for years now.

I believe I've referenced countless times to America's Non-Proliferation policy. Literally no one knew the effects of the bombs at the time, many expected them in fact to be duds(because they were so big at the time). I've also referenced you to the fact that it is highly debated over whether we should or should not have.

I don't think we should have, at the time the Japanese air force was weakened and we encroached Japanese sea space. A campaign of about maybe a few months at worst,
much like Soviet did with Berlin. We would have successfully reached the heart of Tokyo.

The red line was created and adhered to from that day forward to, all Non-proliferation efforts can greatly be credited to the U.S. Whether you'd like to acknowledge that or not.





I read it more than you do, it's widely known that as the case in Libya the Syrian "Civil war" is led by an insurgency of terrorists! We are literally handing political and military power to those who would strike against us. The ultimate diplomacy if I dare say so myself(actually, its more akin to retardation).

Even if Assad(much like Qaddafi) wasn't the best of the bunch, both Libya and Syria were secular nations before we foolishly encouraged these radicals. In Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood consolidated power and showed their military might against those Egyptian citizens who would dare to defy religious sharia law rule.

This is not some "movement" for Freedom, this is the great collusion of extreme religious forces in the Middle East since Bush declared unilateral war against Iraq. If Iraq were to destabilize into a bloody mess, it would be the final nail in the coffin in the arrogance of our "leaders" who encouraged the reawakening of some of the most brutal parts of that part of the world.

We could very well "leave them alone", we could very well beef up security here at home. And if it works, all fine and dandy. But if they recognize themselves to be at war with America then it doesn't matter how forthcoming or how peaceful we are.





For someone who asked if I was an idiot, you sure do know how to misread. I was referencing to the "War on Terrorism". IE: U.S. Involvement in the Middle Eastern territories since the 9/11 attacks. Also, technically we are: We signed an Armistice, not a peace treaty.

And all an Armistice does, is it allowed North Korea to develop nuclear capabilities, to continue to build their military and indoctrinate the people in a state of mass frenzy.

It's unfortunately all to easy to start a war, but to end it requires resolve. Both at the diplomatic table and resolve to commit to the resolution in a manner consistent both with international law and with the strength of the victorious. A political government is an organization with long term interest. The scary thing
about a terrorist organization is that it's a recruitment of men(and sometimes
even women) who have given up on life itself.

To such an organization, robbing them of any hope or chance of a successful attack or victory or even political power. The futility of the resistance will cripple them.

Yet america has never once followed international law while it has waged it's war. It's use of depleted uranium rounds by the military is causes deaths in the hundreds in iraq. Which doesn't corrispond at all with international law, which prohibits the use of nuclear weaponry in war. Any radioactive material falls under nuclear weaponry, but to be technical it is more of a chemical weapon.

That being said, there was nothing internationally legal about the invasion of iraq, or the actions it took against libya in establishing a no fly zone, yet claiming to hold a "neutral" policy.

Yes it is easy to start a war, but it takes a bigger man to prevent one without violence, which you aren't that person.



@NosferatuGuts And yet north korea and south korea for years have had co-operative work factories despite being "at war".


Also something that is very important to note, Kim Jong-Un has the equivilant of a PHD in phsyics, and is promoting science in his country unlike what is happening in america. All first world nations and many third world nations didn't achieve thier modern status without a nuclear program, developing both nuclear power and weapons. America did it, england did it, china did it, russia did it, canada, india, france, germany, etc. Even south africa developed nuclear weapons for a period of time.

There is no denying that the advent discouvery in being able to develope nuclear powers is what made all of the above countries wealthy and industrious.

Yet we're signatory to quite a number of treaties and we've renounced the use of Chemical Weapons in 1997

Oh, and it's not "more of" a Chemical Weapon, it IS a Chemical Weapon. The U.S has never, at any point violated its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.



Hey, won't hear me opposing you. In fact, I stated as much on the very last post! Even Congressional Republicans were upset at a President that took action without the consent, approval or even discussion with Capital Hill. I also believe it to be a geopolitical mistake, in which America's enemies have only gotten stronger. They've acquired a base for geopolitical operations, they've acquired weapons of untold measures. And we? Nothing, perhaps a few corporations hope to settle in and "Westernize" these countries(to which they'll fail)



There's only so long I can preach "diplomacy" if I were a Head of State. I'd be more than willing to discard any kind of weaponry as long as others did the same. I'm a big supporter of the Start Treaty(a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia that would increase ties). The problem currently with the Treaty is that Russia would have higher nuclear capabilities than America, which would be a leap of faith to allow that to take place.

If Russia currently insists on her present arsenal, then the Treaty will have to start from that point(IE: America's arsenal will match it). And then de-escalating further.

Or, if Russia insists that America has a weaker tactical weaponry, then Russia must guarantee the safety of America, of course my America would extend the guarantee to Russia. In short, it would be a Non-Aggression Pact between the two nations.

And on the issue of the Joint Factories: During a period of heightened tension, North Korea didn't hesitate to close the factories, dislocating hundreds of South Korean workers.

So, about those fetuses...

No. You can go to prison for murder, you can't for a standard abortion.

That's more on the hypocritical standards of government, then whether or not is the measure biologically or scientifically murder. Is it not taking away a life?

If it isn't, then at the very least it is preventing life from living. At any rate, I find this "suffocation" to be against the moral compass of Humanity. Nor do I acknowledge the fetus, zygote, etc as a part of a woman's body. She is the caretaker of her biological child, no more or no less.

To abuse that right is catastrophic, the fact that it's legal is disappointing :(

How is it not part of her body? This mass of cells at any given point before the birth of the child relies solely on the female body for it's survival. It can not survive outside of the womb (with techology exception). It is unable to breath, feed, or even think as it develops. It is increasingly at risk from all forms of virus and deseases only protected by the female body. This set of cells isn't even able to digest it's own food and requires food to be pre-digested.

Anything that is unable to survive without a host is part of that host by definition.

I only need to point to Roe v. Wade for this argument.

If the fetus is not a part of the womans body, than it is sufficient to say that the fetus should be unable to harm the female body since it is not a part of the female body but this is not the case and many women have died from pregnancy.

Case in point, Doe v. Bolton.

To even put it out there for how it works in canada, I only need to point to R. v. Morgentaler which determined that restricting abortion was a violation of the canadain charter of rights and freedoms.



You can't give a fetus it's own rights because that infringes on a womans right to autonomy, which if given that status goes against the fundemental principles of biomedical ethics.

To force a women into pregnancy and force her to keep it against her will, is to force her into slavery for the duration of 9 months, in which the child is taken away from the parent. All of which violate the UN charter of rights and freedoms.

This would also be a direct violation of the american bill of rights, enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers in the form of: freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail.

Madison himself when he made amendments to the constitution said


This can only mean one thing, you can not, for any reason, deminish the rights of any individual enshrined in the constitution. This would be exactly one of those cases.

Even the second bill of rights as proposed by presedent roosevelt states that the people should



If the fetus threatens the life of a woman it would immediately violate this, denying her the right to enjoy good health, and we all know that pregnant women already do not maintain and enjoy good health. They become chemically imbalanced due to the fetus, and often become nausiated, etc. They would then have the right to adequate medical care for this, that would include abortion.

So I have to turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 3: †¢Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Security of person is important here, as well as liberty. This gives the person a choice of pregnancy if they so choose. Failing to allow them a choice would deny them of secuity of person and liberty.

Article 4: †¢No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Forcing a woman into pregnancy is slavery, even if for a period of time. You are subjegating that women to your own will. Again violating the declaration of human rights.

Article 5: †¢No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Pregnancy causes sickness, bodily imbalances and in some cases risks of death.

And of course Article 30: †¢ Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Which basicly says what the constitution says, you can not deny anyone of thier right for any reason whatsoever. Doing so would class you as a human rights violator, in which you then have a right to adiquate trial before persecussion.

That was the worst loop argument I have seen in a while.

We are debating if it should be considered murder and therefor punished. The actual law is made out of these debates, these debates are not solved by looking at the law.

Yes, and I fundamentally disagree with Roe V Wade as a premise. Indeed, you have the right to your own body but the body of the fetus belongs to that fetus specifically. If we take this logic to it's logical conclusion, then a minor's life is subject to its caretakers up until the age of 21.

In other words, I contend that a parent could murder a pre-teen, a teenager or even a toddler. After all, without the parent that child cannot feed, cannot cloth him/herself, cannot schedule his or her own doctoral appointments. Quite literally, the only thing an adolescent can do without a parent is wake and sleep.

Perhaps, at best, the adolescent learns how to cook. But as far as getting a job? Part-time jobs aren't very lucrative and as I said regarding Economics: The minimum wage is legal slavery to U.S. workers. How a Democrat can even support this, is honestly beyond me.

Employment does NOT equal opportunity, only meaningful employment with good wages,
benefits, etc is the sort of opportunity that should be afforded to a law abiding
American Citizen. For that matter, to all citizens of the world.

So even at best, the 16-18 year old can't get the proper food or nutrition or
a home, or anything.

If Roe V Wade says a woman has a right to decide the well being of her dependent,
then that should carry through all the way to adulthood. The only difference between the fetus and the developing human life is that the human who happened to escape this 21st century death trap is now walking on his/her own two legs.





This is another utterly intellectual incorrect interpretation. The fetus itself
did not harm the mother, we acknowledge that the fetus itself isn't even conscious and therefore isn't even capable of bodily harm! In medical terms, we call this
"complications due to pregnancy". In other words, it's an indirect result of the fetus's actions but by no means is the fetus responsible nor does it have any intent on doing so.

We cannot and should not punish a fetus for pregnancy complications, except where its dangerous to both the health of the baby and the mother. In other words, where I've stated countless times: I support these so-called Medical Abortions(5-10-15% at best the statistics are consistent that this is the rate of such incidences) rape, incest, etc.

Of course, there's some generally Liberal groups that cry out that there may yet "be some group of women whose hiding and doesn't want to come out" to which its utterly laughable and not even scientifically possible. For after all, a high percentage of women who did answer, answered that they aborted due to financial reasons.

So, where are these hidden women going to come from? Precisely. No where.


Abortion shouldn't be viewed as a get out of jail free card, and mothers do not have the right to predetermine whether an independent life(which just so happens to need codependence) should live or die or not. The fact that these justices have ruled the opposite of an intellectual standpoint, shows how little value I have in these clowns and their meaningless profession.

Literally, this brings up what Fiery said among other things of "The right to a jury of your peers". At first I thought this was a right, then I looked at how the jury panel decided life and death(example: The Jodi Arias case) and I'm purely convinced that:

To make our "Justice System" better, we need people in jury who actually A: Know the Law or B: Have experience in the relative fields necessary. Psychology, autopsy, etc. Doctors, etc. We need a jury that can deliberate properly on the arguments of the prosecution and the defense and at least more times than not can actually make the truly correct call.

A jury of one's peers is a laughable joke, in which unqualified people make important and crucial decisions.




Here I disagree with the Court: A: If the case in question was through consensual
sex, then at no point was she ever forced much less by criminal sanction to carry
the fetus to term. B: Her "priorities and aspirations" are a mute point to the responsibility she now carries as the caretaker of this child. And that fundamental fact remains so especially if she carries the child to term. For the next 18 years, she is obliged to be the best mother she can possibly be.


She doesn't have a sanctified right over the Fetus in anyway whatsoever, whether
she argues for her rights or in any other way, she cannot proclaim herself God. If she had consensual sex, and unless complications arise she MUST carry it to term.

The argument(and reasoning as I highlighted above) is economic concerns. It's
kind of interesting: The Obama Administration has recently decided to allow a
new type of morning-after-pill to be sold over the counter without a prescription
(for those 15 or younger in particiular). Nevermind the fact that this'll get our
youth addicted to drugs(and leave the way for such restrictions in all areas of life to be argued on a 'constitutional basis'.)

If women have unprecedented access to birth control like never before, they are obliged to use it(after all, they proclaim they can control life for economic reasons). If women have this unprecedented access, and yet have advanced to the point where the fetus has developed, they cannot morally justify abortion.

In other words, there are some laws in Western states that say that after the
First Trimester, it's illegal to have an abortion. I'd make that a National Law.

When she consented to sex, she consented to her responsibilities as a parent.
And she has all of the opportunity in the world within 60-90 days to have an abortion, if she doesn't take that opportunity within its present window, she will now acknowledge her responsibility to the Human Being living inside of her.






And a woman's "rights" infringes on the autonomy of the Fetus. I'm not Joseph Stalin, I will never make an argument to butchering children on the account of an adult who happens to live today, precisely BECAUSE her mother didn't infringe on her rights. Ironic, isn't it?

A woman and a Fetus share the same body, therefore the same rights and obligations. If a woman were to take actions that would endanger(or outright eliminate the fetus) in non-harmful situations, she is abusing her right as caretaker and acting as a Demi-God for her own personal interests.

It's no different from murder between two standing, conscious humans. It's actually worse: The victim, in this case has absolutely no cause for recourse or defense, it can only be helplessly slaughtered.





Slavery, to whom? To the Father, whom in most cases is isolated by the state and charged with child ailmony? Nah, probably not. Slavery to the Government? Not necessarily, the only reason for there to be a law to uphold the sanctity of the fetus's life, is precisely BECAUSE the fetus is being violated.

If there's consensual sex, then the woman also consented to being a mother(if it makes you feel any better, the man also consented to being a father). Also, I love
how malicious the pro-choice side can be to butcher a child and then to say that
by taking away the 'right' to murdering a fetus, I'm taking away the child?

Seriously? Your the one advocating for it's death! In what way is the child being
taken away from the mother? The only one denying the mother the right to her children is herself by form of abortion.




You cannot stretch the constitution to fit your flimsy and intellectual and lawful deficiencies. Firstly, pregnancy is not a cruel or an unusual punishment in any way shape or form. If anything is a cruel punishment, it's robbing a man's rights to see his children and then taking away money, no more like coercing him to pay money.

If there's a form of cruel or unusual punishment, it is that the father doesn't
have a right to say whatsoever in the abortion practice, either for or against the baby.

In violating her own womb, and violating her own child's life, the cruel and unusual punishment is being inflicted by the mother(and by the third party) onto the baby's life.

Ironically enough, I cannot see anything in our current state of affairs that
would constitute as cruel or unfair against women.





Actually, no. This can be far better construed to my argument. Since you cannot diminish the rights of any individual enshrined in the constitution, you cannot legislate that because a fetus "is not yet a human"(even though it obviously is), the woman has the right to play god or not.

In other words: Woman> Child=No. Woman=Child=Yes.


All life is enshrined in the consitution, to make this fit your definition you would have to literally say a fetus is not a life. And if that's true, then all humans at one point weren't alive.

If this were Umineko, this would qualify as a Logic Error.

We all were unconscious at our starting point of development, but even in our
unconscious state we were still very much alive.









Yes, and no. It would only include abortion when and only when the complications of pregnancy threaten the life of the mother and the fetus. The right to abortion doesn't violate her "right to enjoy good health". While there are natural non-lethal complications of pregnancy, there's plenty of non-lethal medications to address those conditions.

TLDR for you: Abortion isn't a necessity in safe medical care for healthy pregnancies. It's but an alternative option when all else fails and when there is clearly lethal and life threatening danger.




I took the liberty(pun intended) of highlighting everyone for you. I'm sure by now(having read my response above) as to why. The Fetus is not excluded from society, it is not excluded nor is it individual from the woman's body.

A woman's "security" cannot come at consequence of the fetus's security. Failing to "allow them a choice" in this case, is due to the fact that there isn't a choice. Just as there isn't a lawful choice of murder between two conscious beings.

She is in fact, primarily responsible for the fetus's security. If she cites economic security, then she should have gotten the abortion at a time period before the fetus developed. IE: Within the First Trimester.

And if she can't make a decision within 1-3 months that's just unfortunate for her. With a fetus fully engaged in it's development, it has that same right to its own security.






I already debunked this false argument of yours a few paragraphs earlier, it's very unfortunate to take the same argument twice. But I'll deal it some more crushing blows if I have to, Erika Furudo style :D

As I stated earlier, as long as the woman consented to sex, she consented to her responsibilities in parenthood. The Government upholding the sanctity of the fetus's life is only filling in the role of the "parent" who has chosen to abandon her responsibilities for her own selfish desires.

As you yourself acknowledge, the fetus has no voice for itself for its own rights and security, which is cruel. And as I define earlier: We were all fetuses, we weren't "dead", we were alive but we weren't conscious.

However, here's two new angles to attack this false theory, I'm so going to enjoy
making them.

If a woman has the right to slaughter a developing life in the name of her own
"choice", it's no different then subjugating the child to slavery.

In other words, what choice does the fetus have? How can the developing child
argue for the right to its own life, to develop on the planet earth? It can't. This is most certainly cruel and inhumane slavery.

As I mentioned earlier and I've verified that a child up to his adult's years
are entirely dependent. A child is also restricted in many ways by age laws.
If restriction is a form of slavery, then a child's living with its parents is in of itself slavery.

The evolutionary link between child-adolescent-adult cannot be broken, nor can the link between child and parent be broken. To defeat my argument for Humanism, you'd have to break one or both of these absolutes.

You'd have to disprove that children grow into adults, and that there's a connection between a parent and a child.

Not even adoption families can qualify as truly breaking the absolute. In that
case, the "caretaker" takes the same responsibilities and fills the same role








And we've already implied that if a woman engages in consensual sex, she conceded to her pregnancy. We've also confirmed that abortion isn't a necessity but an
option in the case that a pregnancy deteriorates and threatens the life of both
the woman and the child.

Can you please stop making the same arguments? It gets tiring to debunk them with logic. A woman who has engaged in consensual sex, is not being subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and especially not punishment obviously.





Good, because we've confirmed that a Fetus is a Human Being, it's just a developing and non conscious one but Human nevertheless. So this ruling, like all of the others you've presented goes far more in my favor than yours.

In addition, if you were to cite this clause for the rights of a female's abortion. What if a male wants to be the father of the child? If a female were to
abort without his consent, she's violating his human rights to be the caretaker of the child.


Weed your way out of my intellectual web, I'd like to see you try ;)

@LustfulAngel


Well seeing as you are one of those preventative measures people as you've so stated so many times in wanting to go to war with north korea. I will again link this lovely video from freakonomics which given the research shows a decrease in crime in areas where abortion is easily available. So if there is a statistical possibility that these unwanted children will become criminals, just like the possibility of korea attacking america, it only seems logical using your idiology that abortion should be legal. These unborn children are potential threats to society.

This is a more legitimate view in my mind for Abortion rights, then the flimsy and false intellectual claim by the pro-choice group that somehow a fetus is not a living thing. While I'm not ready to completely concede the correlation between crime reduction and abortion, it is certainly a plausibility.

It also highlights the number one reason women get abortions: Economic concerns, etc. Which also highlights a far more humane solution IMO: Equal opportunities for Women. That doesn't only include higher pay, but making it easier for women and male to tend to their needs at home.

All fabrics of society have their importance, but none greater than the family. It's not so much "unwanted children", as it is the stability of the household leading to a much more mentally healthy child. This actually lends credence to the necessity of being pro-life, to be pro-family and to be pro-"choice" in a different sense: How to make the right choices in life.

I'd much rather approach the problem directly, then indirectly punish a potential newborn because of parental situations. Also, I don't view a newborn child or a fetus, etc as a "statistic" if you will. That's not a very idealistic way to look at life. The situation with North Korea was a definite threat, that had we not responded to it would only have grown more out of control.

Social Inequality and the crime that results from it however can be changed. We can make a difference in our communities. Hence, lowering the need for non-medical abortions.