Originally Posted by Koga

Sure, okay... so the prochoice don't see a fetus as a viable life.

Originally Posted by Koga

By viable, I mean "it has rights, cause it thinks and feels" viable.

Originally Posted by Koga

They see a fetus as a plant, a plant doesn't feel or think, it just is. That's bassicaly how a choicer sees a fetus.

Originally Posted by Koga

Now, whether or not that is correct is irrelevant, sense unlike a plant, a fetus will become viable, even if it isn't viable right now.

Originally Posted by Koga

By the same token, if choicers think people only have rights in the now, then an intoxciated woman should be able to be raped. Because she's at a less viable state, thus her basic rights are lowerd to a more suitable standard correct?

Originally Posted by Koga

When she awakens, then she has a right not to be raped. But untill then, she is more like a doll. Completely unaware of her sorroundings. You would then have to argue if we had a right to put people into that state. (Such as roofies)

Originally Posted by Koga

The question should be not when life begins, but when do rights begin, what kind of rights, and to what extent they have to practice these rights.

Do people have a right to create life?
Do people have right to destroy life?

Originally Posted by Koga

What gives them these rights? How did they earn them? And if they are inherited, shouldn't a child, regardless of it's stage of development earn that most basic right which is life too?

Originally Posted by Koga

Life is the first right, period. You cannot have rights unless you're alive to have them.

Originally Posted by Koga

So we can pretty much say if a fetus can die, then a fetus has no rights.

Originally Posted by Koga

What grants women such a right to have an abortion? And when you can define where that right is, shouldn't then her right be based on circumstance?

Originally Posted by Koga

I'm told all the time about how I think in absolutes, and yet all I ever hear is "my body; my choice". How immature and reactionary...

Originally Posted by Koga

Because if it wasn't your choice to have sex, then what makes it your choice to have an abortion? (Thus the rape case is debunked)

Originally Posted by Koga

If it is your choice to have an abortion, then why don't we get to abort other non-viable people? Why stop at fetuses? Why not disabled people or the elderly?

Originally Posted by Koga

Most importantly, what do you think is the worst that could happen if abortion was banned?

Originally Posted by Koga

All I ever hear is clothshanger deaths. How many deaths? Considering if abortion remains legal the death ratio is 1:1+X IE: the tradeoff is the mother vs whatever offspring she feels like aborting.

Originally Posted by Koga

I couldn't tell you how large the sum of X is, but I can tell you this: More people die from legal abortions then illegal abortions. Your only argument is that more viable people die from illegal abortions.

Originally Posted by Koga

But by that time all those inviables are now viable. Making the argument null and void. A fetus is not a thing, it's a person, and a person has a right to grow and develop inside the mother's womb. The mother made a binding contract with her child the moment she had sex, that she would take on the natural responsibilities asscosiated with motherhood.

Originally Posted by Koga

If she cannot take on these responsibilities, then she's apparently not a human being. Dogs are the ones we spaye and neuder because we cannot rely on them to control themselves. Are the prochoice telling me they have no control over their actions and need to be treated like pets?

Originally Posted by superdude17*

f0ca1 refuses to erase my name from his signature....I believe that b/c I am a member, if I ask for him to remove it, he should. Of course, most normal and sympathetic individuals would have enough common courtesy to respect what other members have asked, but f0ca1 has again and again denied my attempts.

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

I haven't had access to working internet for the last day or so, so I didn't really get a chance to follow up on any of this. I'd like to clarify the point I was originally trying to make, since I'm not sure it really got picked up. I was trying to say that if you define a single definite point at which life begins, which makes it fundamentally different than a sperm and an egg, then if you really look closely, the difference between a life and a thing is a couple nanometers between a few molecules. When you look at it in those terms, the distinction starts to seem terribly arbitrary and inane.

Originally Posted by superdude17*

f0ca1 refuses to erase my name from his signature....I believe that b/c I am a member, if I ask for him to remove it, he should. Of course, most normal and sympathetic individuals would have enough common courtesy to respect what other members have asked, but f0ca1 has again and again denied my attempts.

Originally Posted by superdude17*

f0ca1 refuses to erase my name from his signature....I believe that b/c I am a member, if I ask for him to remove it, he should. Of course, most normal and sympathetic individuals would have enough common courtesy to respect what other members have asked, but f0ca1 has again and again denied my attempts.

Originally Posted by Koga

So what gives you rights?


If rights are bestowed on priciple, then where does that principle fit in to make an exception for unborn?


Sounds like a vague attempt to excuse murder. No different then "the devil made me do it" or "I was intoxicated".


You know who else killed on the basis his victims were not persons?


Chales Manson. Infact, he said so himself. "I did not murder anyone, what I did was no different then when a woman goes to have an abortion..."


Great company you guys keep.

Originally Posted by Koga

Chales Manson. Infact, he said so himself. "I did not murder anyone, what I did was no different then when a woman goes to have an abortion..."

Originally Posted by TheChief

Holy crap that a big ass post!