Abortion

Your analogy is invalid. That kind of behavior is considered abnormality morally. And...



That is just a statement for those who don't want to learn from the environment. To put it bluntly, a selfish statement. It's like you're saying "Who cares about what as long as I'm fine.".

For the OP - The taxes should be paid for: Mother in Danger/Genetic Issues and Rape

If the person falls under "Fancy or Caprice of Women", and if they financially afford it, then the woman should be responsible for paying for the abortion.

That's it for my objective perspective.

Subjectively:

My wife's choice > My choice

However, I personally believe that people should be responsible for their actions, and I will bear that responsibility as a father if I ever find myself in that situation. I won't force her and I will never impose my opinion on her. Still, if I can convince her to keep the baby, then I will. I should at least have a say, right?



I am unsure on the strength of my response, but I believe I have some basis:

I think it isn't "magic" but rather "meaning". Art, literature, poetry, civil rights, law... They are meaningless in a natural world, but we interpret them as something special, something of worth, something with "meaning". Yes you can say that it would also negatively apply for the stupid shit we give our "meaning" to, but I think conception will be a strong gray area. I wouldn't downgrade FPOD's argument to just that, but I cannot deny scientific support.

On a final note:

I think this entire conflict is just a tragedy -



- Planned Parenthood is beneficial to the community because it educates children on sex, and this education is the best preventative measure for sex. Education gives these children knowledge, and knowledge comes responsibility. My father has always told me that prevention is the greatest medicine.

The best support individual can offer is their empathy and their understanding, not their money. I guess I'd be somewhere in the middle leaning for pro-choice. Hope I made a little sense.

Don't worry you didn't misrepresent me, you were spot on.

Great, so you agre that your definition of when 'life' begins is just as ar bitrary as mine. I nreality it doesn't matter one bit when YOU decide to define life beginning, nor even me. I gave my definition be cause I didn't feel there was an adequate justification to call a zygote 'living' simply because it can grow into a person. One's potential doesn't make them that thing. I have the potential to be president, but I'm not. The overall point is that wome have the choice to make the decision of when exactly they feel it's appropriate to abort their babies. It doens't matter if you don't agree with it, they have the right to their bodies, baby or not.

If prevention is the best medicine, why does society teach women how NOT to be raped, instead of instruct men (and women) simply not TO rape?

Our definitions of life are not irrelevant. Unless you have been living under a rock, the biggest problem with abortion is trying to define when 'life' begins.

Who are you to say that a zygote isn't a person? You say it has the potential to be a person, but it's not that it has the potential to become a person but that it is inevitable unless something interferes. Saying that it has the potential to be a person is like saying a child has the potential to become an adult. You keep spouting off about a woman's right to her body and that my opinion is irrelevant in that sense, but the problem is that the child has rights to its body as well. A woman should not be allowed to kill a child because it is an inconvenience. I'm not saying that is why all abortions happen, but most of the exceptional cases I agree should be allowed such as rape.

If you determine that the child within the womb does receive constitutional rights, then you must come to the conclusion that someones rights are being violated. Either the woman in that she cannot abort, or the child in that he/she is being denied life. Too many people want to take the easy route and just say that the child in the womb isn't alive and that the constitution should not apply to them. Being an easy fix doesn't make it right.

I do consider the child to have rights and since that would cause a conflict in protecting someones rights, I look at which would be more severe. The woman's loss in the right to control her body, or the child's loss of life. I say that life is more important than liberty in this sense.



That sounds an awful lot like you are saying that a baby is a woman's property. That in itself is clearly wrong but there is also the fact that the child has rights to his/her life, whether you agree with it or not.

*sigh* So you just ignored my entire point. good to know.




Who are you to tell a mother she has no right over her body because YOU have decided the zygote in her womb is alive?



which can be a great number of natural things. There are poeple who have genuinely wanted babies, and suffered miscarriages. It's not inevitable.



Unles of course they decide not to grow up, or if I decide not to view them as an adult unti lthey reach a level of maturity they might never reach. Again, this point is wrong, and irrelevant. Fractally wrong I might even say.



According to you. Because you've arbitrarily decided to say so. Again, your opinion is irrelevant, because you can't say for a fact that the baby is a person, it's not objectively true.



Ok, but you're the one deciding they're killing a child. You can't prove that they are killing a child, you can just say, "I define that thing to be a child, so you're killing a child." and...well, if you've ever heard of the ontological argument, you should understand that's simply silly.



Sure, and that would be YOUR reason you PERSONALLY wouldn't abort your baby, or would try and tell your wife not to abort a baby. But it's still her choice.



It makes it objectively the best decision when one cannot do anything more than arbitrarily decide that the zygote is a living person. since you cannot scientifically or secularly argue that the zygote is a living person soundly, then the law is women have the right to make the decision for themself. You prove my point over and over with your argument.



Anmd that is purely your opinion, and nothing more. so good luck arguing against abortion with nothing more than, "I think they're alive, so they don't get to have that right." It will never work, rightly.




Own the baby? No, own the part of her body that the baby is feeidng off of to live? Yes. If I have a leech on my body, then I can tear it off and throw it away. Yes, I compared an unborn fetus to a leech. The problem is, even leeches are sentient, so it's unfair to the leech even in that comparison. Sorry, but the woman has the right to decide not to let an unborn nonliving thing inside her body develop.

I propose a compromise. We'll put your arguments, and the arguments of all pro lifers in pamphlets, to be given to mothers seeking to abort their babies. If they, after a two week grace period, decide to abort the baby anyway, then that is their decision, and their right. That's what we do ANYWAY, you're aware of that right? In some states abortion doctors are required to read off made up research that regardless of the trimester, the baby feels pain al throughout the abortion procedure. Some mothers decide to abort anyway.

Wow you are dense. You say that I am the one that is deciding that the zygote is a child but that it is not objectively true. IT ISN'T OBJECTIVELY FALSE EITHER!!!!!! It is amusing how you keep claiming that I am not being objective all the while saying that the zygote is nonliving. The whole reason this topic is controversial is because it cannot be looked at 100% objectively! It boils down to opinion, be it your opinion in that the zygote is non-living and doesn't get constitutional rights or my opinion in that it does. Stop trying to pretend that you are being objective.

Oh good lord. And you're calling ME dense.

"It's not objectively false either!!!!!!!" Guess what? Never said it was.

It doesn't matter if I don't believe the zygote is living, just as much as it doesn't matter if YOU think the zygote is living, because neither one of us can objectively show that such is true, because it simply comes down to how you or I arbitrarily decide where life and someone being a 'person' begins. Since neither one of us can do that, the conclusion is that the woman's choice is still preferred, since there can be no way to show that the child is alive, a person, and in any way has any inherent rights.

I am being objective, the fact that the objective decision goes against you needs to stop making you angry.

You have already basically admitted that your opinion on life beginning at the zygote is just your personal arbitrary opinion, so honestly I think it's amusing you're still arguing. you don't have a leg left to stand on. :)

False. Sorry but that really is just plain incorrect. It cannot be proven either way, but that doesn't mean that your view is automatically chosen as correct just because you say so. It's like the argument that since god isn't proven, he doesn't exist. Those arguments don't work, they never have.

Yes??? When taxing became a way of approval for what the government decides to spend on or not anyways?
And to those above arguing about the abortion,while it wasn't topic subject, let me clear it this way...
A fetus has A LOT less cells than a fly, and you want that ball of cells to have rights over it's host?
Letouce be cereal.

False. Sorry but you're wrong. you're funamentally wrong on what the default position of rights are.

The default position of God's existence, for instance, is disbelief until enough reason is given to believe, since you want to make that comparison.

The default when it comes to rights is that everyone has every right to do whatever they want, until we can secularly define why some rights ought be limited, like some types of murder, thievery, and rape. Women have the right to choose whether or not to abort their babies until you can explain, secularly and rationally why they don't have that right. Since you haven't, they still have the right.

That may be but when the potential rights of another person come into play, it isn't so black and white as you put it. There is a reason this topic is controversial and I can assure you that it isn't due to a lack of reasoning as to why they shouldn't have that right. To put it bluntly, the secular reason as to why they shouldn't have that right is because it infringes upon the rights of another. I say that the unborn child is indeed alive and has rights. You do not agree. You say that since it cannot be objectively determined, it defaults to your side, but that too is flawed logic. For example, how can you determine that a born child is alive and should have rights? Because it is sentient? Sorry, but that is not an idea recognized by the law. What happens during birth that gives the child rights? Sorry but again, you are wrong.

Edit: Sorry, but I'm going to have to refute whatever crap BigLundi spews out next tomorrow. I got to go to sleep now.

So you agree.



Oh dear...alright, go on.



And, yet again, the reason this is controversial, is because you can't show that that secular reason is in any was TRUE. THAT'S the entire problem! You can't say that's the secular reason, even though it's completely undemonstrated. Jeez you're dense.



No it's not, it's basic default position logic and philosophy. You're making a claim, that an unborn fetus is alive and has rights at conception. I ask you to demonstrate this. You haven't, so this claim is to be disbelieved until you do.



Alright, how about the fact that it's a sentient human person? That IS recognized by the law. Yes, sentience alone isn't to be left untouched, because we kill sentient animals all the time, but sentient human life indeed is to be protected, and is, by the law.



Take your pick! They begin breathing on their own, feeding from other outside sources, are able to percieve the outside world, are able to perform actions like crying, there's a lot of different things you can choose from.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow...we think highly of ourselves don't we? Not only have you made the assumption that anyone is hanging on your supposed 'refutations' but that you've even successfully refuted anything. Sorry, but you haven't, you've just made a bunch of unbacked claims, and told me my logic is wrong, without demonstrating why. You argue like a child.

Society teaches people not to murder and not to be murdered(I might be wrong on that :P). Yet, people are still murdered.

Rape is wrong. I thought people were raised to remember that moral fact(I guess I'm wrong). I have no idea what incentive, advantage, or justification a person has to rape. I don't understand why people do it. However, it still happens.

I believe that is why people are forced to protect themselves and teach their children to protect themselves. No, I'm not saying it's a woman's fault if she gets raped. Telling men not to rape is like telling anyone not to murder. We try and try, but it will still happen.

Skin cells we shed during the day from the epidermis are dead. Same goes for hair, and finger/toe nails. That argument is inane by playing upon the ignorance of those unfamiliar with biology and I request that you cease to use it.



It is a requirement that something must be alive before it can be die. Viruses are indeed a form of life. Just because animals are slaughtered doesn't mean that it is justifying about kill another living creature for arbitrary reasons. If you really wish to use that logic, I could use it to justify killing another human being since we all generally agree that humans are just evolved animals.

I have no comment on the rest of the post. I've already had my fun arguing from the pro-life side and I am certainly not needed for the pro-choice side.

Sorry, but you are the one who is dense. You say that it is undemonstrated except that it is scientifically PROVEN that the unborn child is alive. The problem lies with when a child should get rights. You keep saying that the unborn child doesn't deserve rights based on YOUR assumptions and beliefs as to when a child can be considered alive.



You are making a claim that an unborn fetus is not alive and does not have rights at conception. I ask you to demonstrate this. You haven't, so this claim is to be disbelieved until you do.



Again, wrong. People are recognized by the law but again, sentience is not. A human being with a mental disorder so severe as to consider them to be without sentience is a person still protected by the law. Human life is protected by the law, not just sentient human life.




Look who's talking. You have also made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims while under the mindset that you are being objective without any support to said claims.

FPOD is correct, cells shed are dead, my comparison was faulty. I'm at a loss here to say a process where we loose living cells, but I'm pretty sure there's one. However since I can't name one at the moment consider my argument void.



I specifically mentioned virii, since until they inject their genetic package into a cell they lack any metabolism of their own, so some biologists don't consider them living organisms.

However your argument that things should be killed for any arbitrary reason is at odd angles with what I was trying to get across: that possessing life on its own is not a sufficient reason as why humans shouldn't kill it.

We have various reasons why we kill animals and we even have reasons - that society as a whole accepts as moral - why we kill humans.

The point being, that for a beings life to be considered inviolate you need to ascribe more attributes to it. We normally don't agonize over worms, insects or bacteria that are killed as a result of our actions. We reserve our empathy to only a select cadre of animals... and our empathy seems to focus in-on the beings ability to feel pain.

So as long as the zygote is incapable of feeling pain - or feeling anything et all - than I don't believe a similar reason could be used to justify its welfare against the wishes of the woman bearing it.

You *could* ascribe a special potential to it, and this is a valid argument as it doesn't hinge upon either religious belief or non-religious "meaning" (once again belief) as the zygote's potential is something that has been objectively demonstrated.

However my counter argument to this is that said potential of zygotes is overstated: 2/3 of natural pregnancies end in miscarriage as the zygote fails to embed in the womb. Lots of zygotes are routinely destroyed in the process of in-vitro fertilization.

If we ascribe absolute significance to this potential, then its being routinely violated both by nature and a human practice that's widely accepted as good and honorable.

I'm *NOT* arguing that a zygote or more precisely a *fetus* shouldn't have any rights of its own. What I *AM* arguing against is the categorical, absolute deference of the zygotes rights over that of the bearer.

At some point during the pregnancy, you can no longer handle the fetus as just a bunch of cells. It has a nervous system of its own and is so developed that - given the medical state of our age - its healthy delivery is almost a given thing.

*Where* that point is, is debatable.

What I find *unjustifiable* though, is that you'd ascribe the same right to zygote, when in reality zygotes are routinely lost due natural causes (and a lot more frequently than people think, the zygote gets expelled during menstruation and even the woman won't know about it) or in processes already approved.

Until the pro-life camp comes up with reasons why a first trimester zygote can be morally destroyed in some cases - rape, natural causes, in-vitro processing, intra uteral devices - but can't be morally destroyed in others - namely abortus - your arguments will lack the necessary coherence to pass musters of objectivity.

Referring to the potential of the zygotes, simply won't do, as I've amply demonstrated the same potential in cases where it exists and is still ignored.

The only avenue I see open for you is the distinction of preventive and reactive action.... however for the life of me I can't see why you'd see the later as immoral and the formal as moral when the practical results are the same.

*facepalm*

Alright, how about this? Firstly, it is not 'scientifically proven that a zygote is a liginv being. If it is, please cite your source for such a thing. Secondly, yes, it is my opinion that a zygote doesn't have any inherent rights. And it is your opinion that it is. Since neither one of us can objectively and scientifically show why we are right, then the default position is that we cannot say that it does.



Yes I did make the claim, but my claim is also irrelevant until I demonstrate it. However, you've also made a claim, and YOUR claim is to be disbelieved until you show why it is to be believed. so you see, both of our claims are to be disbelieved. Get it? Got it? Good. You're still wrong.



Thank you for proving my point.



Doesn't matter. people are, and you can't show why a zygote is a person. The major difference, or at least one of the major differences between an unborn zygote is that recognized protected y the law humans are indeed sentient. Give me an example of a human being not considered to be sentient, that is still protected by the law. Please. And cite your source.



Again, cite your source of any human being that is protected under the law that is not sentient.




The position I have is the objectively correct position, and that's that you haven't shown why a zygote has any rights, objectively, therefore we have no reason to believe they do, which in turn means the woman has full rights to abort sid zygote if they wish.