If abortion is done for "convenience," then the only alternative--pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood is inconvenience. There IS no other possible meaning or interpretation of it. A woman's needs are not important once she conceives, then? Not sexist? Because pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience? Have you had an abortion? What makes you so certain that "...the majority of people who abort do it because they consider pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood to be an inconvenience"? Even if pregnancy means she will have to quit work? The physical toll that pregnancy takes on a woman's body is no consideration, for you then? Not even that every pregnancy is a potential risk to a woman's health and even her life? The British tabloid, Daily Mail is not a reliable source. "Teenagers are using repeat abortions as a form of birth control, with some girls having four or more terminations by the age of 18, it has been claimed." It has been claimed? By whom? They made a decision to have sex. That is doesn't extend to a decision to be pregnant. Engaging in risky behavior of any kind doesn't preclude medical intervention for possible undesirable results of it. That abortion "kills an innocent human life," meaning a person or human being with rights, is YOUR opinion. Women who have abortions disagree. Why aren't their opinions as valid as yours? You want women to be held "accountable for their actions." That doesn't sound sexist to you? Why would you ever think such irresponsible women would suddenly become responsible mothers at the birth of a child?
I posted evidence and I'll post some more. Cady attempted to discredit the article based on its source, but unfortunately for her position, that's the ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy. Abortion more prevalent for birth control Stick to the arguments here, let's not make this personal. Unless of course you'd like to concede to having absolutely no social skills or standards of decency in a debate arena such as this. I was referring to young women who have had multiple abortions and continue to go out seeking sexual activity after multiple abortions who will be prone to unwanted pregnancy and future abortions. I was being very specific about exactly who I was referring to, but of course you managed to skew the hell out of that and twist it and mess it up and strawman it into a counter which implies I was referring to all women who choose abortion--even though I clearly was not. You've done this multiple times now, I would think you would have learned that this does nothing but hurt your credibility as a debater. At best, it could be considered intellectually dishonest, at worst, it's just failure to learn from the same stupid mistakes being made over and over again.
Yes, but I'm not the one interpreting it as such. The women who get abortions for what they perceive to be their convenience are. Her needs are important. What she NEEDS is important. Her selfish desires? Not as important. Abortion is not a need. That's like saying denying plastic surgery is denying someone's needs. It's a totally voluntary, totally unnecessary operation, unless the mother's life is in danger, which statistically is not that often in cases of abortion. Is that a declarative statement? Or are you asking me? The fact that statistics show so many women who get abortions have had prior abortions. That's hyperbole. Pregnancy is statistically natural and if monitored by medical professionals--even if not, generally--is unlikely to result in harm coming to the woman. If risk of death from pregnancy is so common a thing and that's your argument, please post evidence supporting this theory. Ad hominem circumstantial. You're attacking the source, rather than attacking the material. Even if you don't like that source, I provided another one, but you're likely to call "foul" on that one as well, because of its conservative bias. Unfortunately, to dismiss evidence based on bias is still a prime example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Causality disagrees with you. Cause and effect, nature and the universe all disagree with you on that one. When medical intervention is not necessary and happens to result in the killing of innocent life? Yes it does. Person or not, it is scientifically and biologically a human life. Human life begins at conception, that's a fact. Denying that is naivety at its prime. It is indeed my opinion that a being in the womb should have rights. And of course women who have abortions disagree. They disagree because they want abortions. Their opinions are valid as opinions go, but they are morally abhorrent, because they favor the destruction of innocent human life via a completely voluntary and unnecessary procedure which is used as an "undo" function for a mistake. No, that doesn't sound sexist at all. If I said "women should be held accountable for their actions, but men should not," that would be sexist. Sexism favors one gender over the other. The way I see it, it is actually unfairly stacked against men right now. The current laws are sexist, because when a man and women engage in consensual sex and a pregnancy results, the woman makes the choice whether or not the man is held accountable for his actions. If she decides to carry to term and care for the child, he is legally burdened with child support, even if he wants the "undo" function. However, if he wants to be a father and the mother wants the undo function, tough crap for him. That's sexism. And the argument that "men can't get pregnant" isn't a valid counter, that's a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy. Just because in nature, the woman gets pregnant, does not imply that she should get to be the deciding factor over whether the offspring of both her AND the man should live or die.
I agree that at conception human life begins. The single cell is both human and alive. My problem with this argument is that every human cell is human life. Clearly there is a difference between a human cell and "a human". I do not see a valid moral argument in your post for for giving a cell human rights. Agreed
agreed, it's like saying a house began when the first nail was nailed, but if that was all the furture it got, no one would of ever called it a house - it would be just two boards with a nail holding them together, may of been a potential house, but never actually became any more then two boards nailed together
That's because we are at a moral disagreement. There's nothing scientific about our disagreement, it is all moral. You have a different set of moral standards then I do and that's fine. I respect your right to have an opinion, even if I don't respect or agree with your opinion.
I do not know whether we have different moral standards or not as no moral argument was given. At least not one that seemed to make sense. All that was stated was "its human life". Is your claim "all human life" should have rights including all human cells ?
It doesn't necessarily show hypocrisy or dishonesty. I think it can be a consistent position to believe a child is a human being from conception, while at the same time opposing taxpayer-funded healthcare or sex education. Consider this: I'd like to reduce the number of fatal traffic accidents in this country. However, I would oppose creating a national speed limit of 10 MPH, even though that would likely result in almost zero fatal accidents. Does that make me a hypocrite? Dishonest?
Right, or from a legal standpoint, "when is a life worthy of State protection"? And what is your answer? And how do you respond to the "nothing added" argument? That is, from the moment of conception, there is nothing added to the fetus, beyond nutrition, that changes it at some point from being 'less than human' to 'human'.
No, my claim is that a fertilized egg, zygote and fetus should all have at least one standard right--the right to continued existence and development.
do you think a women should be forced to give birth to all cells that could become a baby in InVitro fertilization, or just what she can handle and the rest of the cells tossed out?
The problem I have with pro-life arguments is that they try to include the "intent" of the woman when she has an abortion. That's 100% none of their business, it really isn't. Your arguments are based on the idea that society inherently agrees with the pro-life position on conception and life, and that abortion strays from that only through legal means. Your arguing this from a moral position that you assume is a given, and more often than not it's tied in with religion and the concept of a divine soul created by God. None of that matters to the argument. Murder isn't illegal because it's "morally wrong", or because of God, it's illegal because murder destabilizes society and it's ability to function. If everyone was afraid of being murdered at all times because there was no law to stop it, that society goes right out the window. The meaty parts of the ten commandments(the ones that deal with actions, not thoughts) are simply laws that allow a functional society to continue to be that way. That's why most societies incorporate them regardless of their religious beliefs. I'm getting off track. My point is, how anyone chooses to frame abortion is completely up to them, and it's relevance ends at your own skin. The real question is, does a woman have the right to control what happens inside her own body? If you say they don't, and I realize this is a slippery slope here, I can't see how that is not a sexist way of thinking. When do men lose rights about their own body? Should we have forced copulation for men(man farms sort of like horse farms), since populating the Earth is one of the Christian directives too? The only argument, in my opinion, that really matters is simple. Does a woman have control over her body? Does she always? Only sometimes? Why should a woman lose control of her uterus when she becomes pregnant when that is an undeniable part of the inside of her own body, just like the fetus inside it? If women don't have control of their uterus and the ability to make medical choices about it, just like you can make medical choices about every single other part of your body, then they become little more than walking incubators when pregnant, who have LOST rights, and must carry that child to term in her own body against her wishes because society says so. That's absurd. It flies in the face of every libertarian and limited government argument that's ever been made, not to mention the fact that government was not created to make laws about body parts.
That clearly isn't the meaning conveyed by your original question, "...how about some consistency in explaining how being opposed to killing unborn offspring for convenience is synonymous with "sexism?" A woman isn't capable of deciding for herself what she needs? You must decide that for her? According to you, a woman NEEDS only to preserve her life. A question mark indicates asking. But about 60% of women getting abortions have previously given birth to at least one child, so they obviously know that pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are not merely an "inconvenience." I didn't say death from pregnancy is "so common," but it is always possible in any pregnancy, as well as lifelong disability. Maternal mortality is so high in the developing world (1 in 48 ) that it is customary for Tanzanian women about to give birth to bid farewell to their older children. Who should decide what is an acceptable risk for another person? You? Tabloids and obviously biased sources are the best you can do? Here's why. Statistics show the majority of women (52%) having abortions have only one. Only 26% have had one previous abortion. If women were using abortion exclusively as birth control, there would be many more unintended pregnancies and abortions. The chances of pregnancy from a single sex act are 3-5% Why can't women make their own decisions regarding the necessity of medical intervention? It is only your theory that abortion "results in the killing of innocent life (with rights)." Women who want abortions are no more biased than men who don't want them to have them. You're now on record as saying aborting women's opinions are morally abhorrent because they disagree with you. It is not a fact that "Human life begins at conception." That is strictly a theory which is disputed by many experts including Dr. David Magnus: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8865-abortion-science-politics-and-morality-collide.html But for exactly what "actions" should a woman be held accountable? Oh right, she had sex. We can't let her escape the consequences of that.
Again, you're pathetically attempting to skew the meaning of my words. I'm not going to be bothered with this anymore. I've dealt with plenty of that from other posters, I don't need it from anyone else. I've explained my meaning multiple times, you're just in a stage of denial as to my explanations and what I actually meant. That's the same for men, women, children, etc. The bare essentials are necessities. Things we need in order to survive. Everything else falls under the category of "want." That includes elective and unnecessary surgeries which some people want because they think it will either make them look better or because they don't want to deal with pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. It's very hard to tell with you. I'd love to take your word for it regarding that statistic, but this is a debate, so go ahead and post a link of some sort evidencing that. Then we'll talk more about it. That's a ridiculous argument. "Abortion should be legal because there's a possibility of death and/or 'lifelong disability.'" Lots of things could possibly lead to death and/or lifelong disability. Another unsupported statistic. Typical. When their decision is to ultimately kill off an innocent human life just because there's a slight possibility of complication? My position does hold the high ground in that regard, yes. Ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacies are the best you can use to rebut the information provided in those sources? You complain about my sources and attack the sources rather than the information within them, yet you have utterly failed to provide a source of support for all the statistics you've pulled seemingly out of thin air thus far. How droll. Another unsupported statistic. How surprising! And another unsupported statistic. This is beginning to get tiresome. It results in the killing of innocent life, that much is fact. Anything that does that purely because women don't want to deal with pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood after they've caused the pregnancy to begin with is absolutely ludicrous. The only "theory" in there is that I believe the unborn should have the rights of a person. When Life Begins http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/ http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html Consider your one article thoroughly refuted by science itself Well as it stands right now, men sure as hell can't escape the consequences of that. Why should women be able to? That's sexist. Your position is sexist. If the woman chooses to carry to term and have the child and care for it, the man is held accountable with child support. If the man wishes to be a father to the child, and the woman doesn't wish to go through pregnancy, the man's out of luck. That's incredibly sexist. One person--always the woman--having the power over the decision that was made by TWO people. Absurd.
There are many fundamental changes in the fetus from conception to birth, ones that could be regarded as the point when it deserves rights. Implantation, appearance of brain waves (or mind), or gaining of the ability to survive outside the womb, to name a few most common ones.
Definately not referring to Legal Standpoint. Humans make dumb laws all the time and there are different laws everywhere one goes. I would argue that "living human" is worthy of state protection. I do not see this as an argument at all. I fully conceed that the zyogte is human. So is every other human cell. Whenever you see the term "human" used as a descriptive adjective rather than the noun "a human", there usually a problem in the logic of the argument. Being "human" is not sufficient for the state to grant that entity rights. Being "a human" is.
Junkieturtle said, We have laws in our society that restrict what we do ..seat belt laws, sex laws that prohibit selling your body for sex, selling YOUR OWN BODY PARTS. Abortion is different because to allow it mean for every woman walking into an abortion clinic pregnant, one person comes out. Two lives are in the balance. Banning abortion saves lives. If you stand for allowing women the right to their body then you also must be for allowing abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. You must want all drugs legalized and anything someone wants to do with their own body should be legalized. You poor soul .can't stand up for what might be right you might get a wittle headache. I don't know about other issues you are talking about but I will say this abortion kills like no other issue. And no human being has the right to kill just because they want too. It is only true for those whose hearts are so hardened that they can't recognize right from wrong. Killing for them is ok like smashing a worm or ant killing the unborn is exactly the same. And you don't recognize personal responsibility because your side plays the blame game. The pregnant woman didn't get the right education on birth control, she was pressured, it was the mans fault .your side only wants to kill. And that for you is being responsible. Excuses are what you rely on she does not want children, is poor, doesn't know who the father is, going to school, you name it it all sounds reasonable to you. You do not recognize any life other than the woman's. NONE. She is really aborting a rock some inanimate object certainly nothing human that was created because THE WOMAN SAID OK TO SEX. The child should not be blamed their lives should be protected. Why is it my responsibility that you get pregnant? Why should the government do anything to help you out of the situation THAT YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO? If I can't pay my mortgage should you be held responsible? How about the car or boat payment? Should you pay what I owe? Should I raise your children if you run out of money and you chose to have six children? What about YOU TAKING RESPONSIBLITIES FOR YOUR YOUR YOUR ACTIONS. Are you people just inept and can't figure out what to do? It is not hard to be responsible. You make it seem like it is impossible. For people like you it might be but for people with character and consciences it is not. They work hard trying to resolve their own problems. It is not impossible .for those who are not lazy who want the government to support them. Blame hands out for money .blame ..hands out for money. The LEFT WANTS A QUICK FIX. Right and wrong does not matter .only what solves the problem and abortion does it for them. Killing... that is the solution. WEll your right there are two sides to this issue. The LEFT who has no regard for human life, who believes that socialism is the way to go..that everyone should live the same way and that the government should support them because the government owes them. They are lazy and have no consciences. I would say if there were atheists in America they would be on the LEFT. They are moochers. I would also bet that you would be against vouchers aren't you? LOL The RIGHT is Right or they would not have that label. The Right thing to do might be the hard one but killing is not the answer. They want to preserve what made America great. The LEFT does not care. They want to protect life especially in the womb. Most are God believers. They have deep faith in God that the LEFT just can't identify with. You are pro-death and a pro-abort. Wow .you believe in killing people? What if they are innocent? Wow how horrible you are. Guilt and sympathy you probably do not feel very often. Nuff said. Chaps my hiney? I could care less what your all about. I am responding to your emotionless ramble on this site. I feel sorry for you .thats what I feel.
None of those laws restrict what you can do with your own body. Seat belt laws aren't a law regarding your body, they are a law regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. You cannot sell your body for money. You could masturbate yourself for money. You can have as much sex as you want. This is not a law regarding the internal workings of your own body. Selling your own body parts, also dependent on the money. People are allowed to donate body parts all they want. And as a matter of fact, I'm not for unfettered abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. I'm generally okay with bans on partial birth abortion, and would be okay with limiting it to, say, the first half of the pregnancy. I say this only because it's a compromise on the issue, and everyone needs to compromise or nothing gets accomplished. I'm not sure how drug laws play into this. It's not illegal to take drugs by yourself on private property. It's only illegal when there are external factors, for example, when there are children around, or when you're operating a motor vehicle. It's illegal to possess them, transport them, manufacture them, and sell them. But, if a police officer comes to your house, finds you under the influence of something but cannot determine what, and does not see anything in plain view that would give them probably cause, you're not going to get in trouble. Go outside your house in public and that changes. Get caught possessing drugs and that changes. It's also worth noting that drugs are not illegal because they are bad for you, they are illegal because of the effects they have on society as a whole. Abortion affects nobody but the mother, and potentially the father if he's not on board with it. Yes, the fetus with no thought process is not affected as it's just a fetus. It does not care. It does not know. It does not anything except..well...exist. It's there, you're right about that. But like I said before, you can say murderer all you want, you can pretend to know that I'm some kind of horrible monster that wants more killing. LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR, right? I am standing up for what is right, which is the right of women to control what's happening inside their body....at all times. Frame it how you wish in your own mind. That's funny, my doctor actually told me that my heart is literally too hard. He gave me some sort of blood laxative, and it's all better now. I kill ants all the time, but not worms. Too icky. But if you think that my supporting abortion means that it has no emotional consequence to me or to anyone, well, you're wrong. I have to admit, it's very peculiar watching you tell me how I'm feeling. How am I feeling right now? How about now? (Answers: Hungry. And Hungry.) I'm not blaming that abortion on anyone. It's ultimately the man and the woman having sex who need to be responsible for birth control. What does that have to do with a woman regulating her own body? The intent of the woman having the abortion is none of your business, just like your intent for any personal choices you make in your life aren't mine. It's not your responsibility that someone got pregnant. Why would it be? Tell me, when a woman has an abortion, how does that actually affect you at all? I'm sure you get sad face, but other than that, how does that actually affect your life? Not taking responsibility for actions would mean forcing that responsibility onto someone else. That's not what happens in an abortion, it's what happens in an adoption(albeit generally to the interest of both parties). Adoption is just morally friendly to you based on your worldview and personal morals. That's fine. But I don't see how that affects me or anyone else? Pro-abort extraordinaire, signing off Left wants to destroy America, yada yada. This old line again? If it makes you feel better, at no point in my life, not even for a single second, has destroying America been anywhere on my list of things to do. I'm not even a huge liberal, I'm more of a moderate. Yes that's correct. I am not for the killing of innocent people. I am pro-choice. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive because here again, it's based entirely on how you personally choose to perceive a fetus. But if you'd like to continue pigeon-holing me, if you're certain you have me all figured out here, by all means keep at it. I'm sure by now it's something you're used to doing to those who disagree with you, at least on this issue.
I think you've misunderstood my question. I don't think anyone would disagree that significant changes take place during gestation. I was referring to the fact that nothing is added, beyond nutrition.
It depends on how badly you want to reduce the number of fatal traffic accidents. Apparently you don't want to reduce them badly enough that you would be willing to give up something else. There are, however, a number of possible options that would reduce fatal traffic accidents. The only policies found to consistently reduce the number of abortions are comprehensive sex education and access to affordable contraception. Conservatives don't want to reduce the number of abortions badly enough to give up their puritanical views about sex, so it isn't as important to them as they would have you believe.
OK, well I'm not trying to play word games, just trying to understand your position. Please allow me to rephrase. At what point does one become "a living human" worthy of State protection? What occurs at that particular time during pregnancy that makes it a human?
You're suggesting that if a pro-life advocate doesn't support certain measures that may be effective in reducing abortions, for whatever reason, that, in and of itself makes them a hypocrite and dishonest. Rather silly. I suppose that makes those who would kill abortion providers the only pro-lifers who aren't hypocrites. After all, if someone really cared about reducing abortions, they'd just kill all the doctors, because it's been proven effective.
Absolutely not. They don't support the ONLY measures PROVEN to reduce abortions. In fact, they attack and attempt to destroy Planned Parenthood which, by providing affordable birth control and sex education, reduces the number of abortions far more effectively than all pro-life do-gooders put together, because vengeance is more important to them than actually reducing the number of abortions. And since you mention it, they ARE more willing to kill doctors and terrorize clinics even though that does NOT reduce abortions. Desperate women go elsewhere or attempt to self-abort.
Do you think slapping up articles from pro-life activists constitutes scientific proof? Many of Alcorn's quotes are non-committal: " life is present from the moment of conception" Actually life is present before conception, which is not a moment, but an hours-long process. ALL of his quotes are old, the newest being 1988. Ultimately, there is no consensus about the point at which one becomes a human being with rights. You have only your opinion which you feel entitled to force on all women.
