If I get my GF pregnant...Can I or should I tell her to get an Abortion?

Does that include welfare recipients, blacks, gays, and Iranians?

 

Okay its grown up time.

You have choices here that are unrelated to abortion.

a) Don't have sex with her unless you are willing to face the consequences of pregnancy- for whatever reasons.
b) If she does get pregnant be prepared to support your child- it is the grown up thing to do.

 

If you're worried every time you do it, then get a vasectomy. You put all the responsibility on her, but yet you're not sure you trust her? Oh meh.

 

Well of course it does. You act like you think I am a Democrat or something evil like that!

 

How is protecting life and not mind more objective? All value statements (we SHOULD....) are subjective.

 

You know that birth control doesn't work all the time. In order to reduce the risk even further, wear a bloody condom!

No one should be punished for having sex.

If you recognise the fetus as being a 'life' you have to remove rights from the woman in order to let the fetus live.

Why, because Republicans wouldn't have any rights?

 

Obviously life is what is protected by our current body of homicide law. This is why you cannot kill a person with loss of mind. Are Alzheimers patients available to be killed at will?

 

Good!, just checking.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you trying to say Democrats are evil and Republicans are good?

 

Appeal to current legislation. Isnt it you who said that legality/illegality is not a basis for something being right or wrong?

Anyway, since transplantations killing braindead but biologically alive people are legal, and so is abortion, its obvious life in itself is not what is protected by our current body of homicide law.

Alzheimers, mentally handicapped or people in unconsciousness or coma all have mind of course ("loss of mind" is just a saying). Crippled mind or paused mind is still mind.

 

Don't you love your girlfriend enough that you should be asking this question? Wait until she, herself, should decide what to do with her condition.

 

You are veering off course again. We are discussing consistency or inconsistency in the law.

 

That is clearly debatable.

 

The law is inconsistent. To make it consistent, you have two options:
1. ban abortion and transplantations / disconnecting braindead people = law consistent, based on protecting life
2. repeal fetal homicide law = law consistent with protecting mind.

 

You fail to see glaring distinctions most others do see.

 

Such as???

 

Your definition of "person" is completely arbitrary. What don't you get about that? You are arbitrarily determining who deserves to be killed and who deserves to be spared based on a sliding scale that can be moved at whim by anyone. It is you who is playing God and deciding what children deserve to die based on YOUR opinion of what should be considered a "person." You deathers can't even agree on one definition among yourselves. You have all kinds of different opinions about what counts as a "person." That right there is the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing proof of just how arbitrary your argument is.

 

Read back through the thread. A normally developing healthy fetus and a badly injured or sick man are not similar.

 

In what way are they dissimilar? Both are biologically alive, and both are braindead. From your pov (protection of life) both must be protected, from my pov (protection of mind) both need not to be.

The only way of dissimilarity I can see may be their potential to obtain mind in the future. Of course I would not advise you to go through that route (the potential route) to justify human rights. It opens a whole lot cans of worms.. Lets stick to actuality, shall we?

 

One has no hope of recovery and the other is just a normal growing human being! Your narrow, arbitrary, and undefined "protection of mind" is too vague and arbitrary to work.

 

You shouldn't be having sex without protection.

 

If you don't use a condom and she lets this go on, I'm not sure who the biigger idiot is, you or her.

 

Why choose?

 

So now its suddenly not enough to merely be biologically alive for a human being to be protected, now we have to have a potential to become something else (healthy human? human with mind?) in the future to have a right to live? Well, your simple "its alive, its human = has rights" system just got a lot more ugly and complicated!

Sperm cells are alive, sperm cells are human, sperm cells have a potential to become a full healthy human and/or human with mind (or what you value) in the future.

Sperm cells should have rights just like embryos!

 

Nope, human being is enough.

Sperm is not a human being, an ovum is not a human being, a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc..... is.

"its alive, its human = has rights" system just got a lot more ugly and complicated!"

Pathetic strawman argument , I obviously never had such an argument!

 

Sperm is not human? What is it, a dog cell? Sperm cell is alive (its not dead) and human (its not a dog cell), therefore its a human being!

If being alive and human is not enough, what more is required for being protected?