Abortion

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Texan Christian
Student
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:21 pm
Location: A small house on a big ranch, in a small town in the big state of Texas

Abortion

Post #1

Post by Texan Christian »

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless :)

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #61

Post by bluethread »

Clownboat wrote:
What does it even mean to abort a person?
The termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of a human being.
I was afraid you might be making an emotional argument.
A terminated fetus does not qualify as a human being for not yet having superior mental development, power of articulate speech, or an upright stance. If it survives the 50% abortion rate set up by the gods (as many presume), and it is not removed by the mother, then it would likely reach the human being qualifier.
Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion.
So, are you arguing that all people with inferior mental development, do not have the power of articulate speech and can not stand upright are not human? Well, that would mean that bed ridden mutes with down's syndrome are not human. Is that really your argument?
It is my understanding that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
Then in this context, where you are insisting on calling it the killing of a human being, then no, we do not judge people for such a thing as you should know, abortions (the removal of a fetus, not a human being) are legal.

To clarify, if any of us are to actually kill a human being, we have laws in place for that and people are then judged.
So, you are making the legal argument. Do you believe that all laws are right? What we do all of the time is hold people responsible for what they do with their bodies. It is common to justify the killing of humans by first dehumanizing them, as with the debilitated, mentally inferior and disabled, as you have done with your definition of what is not human.
Does the fact that a deity has established a system that results in 50% of human beings dying justify the killing of human beings by human beings?
First of all, the fact that 50% of pregnancies abort, shows to me at least that no caring deities were involved.
To answer your question, only in rare circumstances is it justified to kill another human being and a 50% natural abortion rate has nothing to do with this.
OK, so let's leave deities out of this. Is it acceptable to kill mute down syndrome cancer patients for convenience, because 50% will die anyway?
Hold it. You just refused to answer the previous question, because you say that deities do not exist.
Let's cut and paste my words:
"Why do the gods get a free pass here for creating a process that is so abysmal?"
"Apparently, if they exist, they are terrible leaders too."

Let's cut and past what you said just before that.
"It doesn't seem fair to ask me unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist."
If it isn't fair to ask you unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist, why is it fair for you to ask me about them? All of the things I have said so far about deities are in response to your statements regarding deities. If you don't wish to discuss deities, stop discussing them.
Which is it, are we to presume that deities exist or that they do not exist?
Presume what you wish. Either natural evolution or the gods (or others if you wish to posit) came up with a biological process that aborts 50% of conceptions.
You're the one that introduce deities into this. So, let's just look at the assertion that it is acceptable to kill a human life form that is mute, non-ambulatory, and of inferior intellect, if 50% die of similar life forms die natural causes. Do you think that it was appropriate for a mother to engage in infanticide in Germany and India in the late 19th century, because only 50% of children survived to the age of 5?
Is this your argument that requires deities to allow people to live, that they must be "good leaders"?
Please stay on topic. We are talking about abortions here. All people die, so please stop asking about deities allowing people to live.
You are the one who is making arguments about deities. I am just attempting to address your justification for killing the unborn. If you are willing to focus on that and not muck this up with discussions about the moral obligations of deities, that is fine with me.
Does that justify humans killing humans?
No, killing humans is rarely justified. Once again though, we are talking about abortions here. You for some reason are unable to stay focused and instead are talking about a different topic, humans killing humans. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate?
No, I am deliberately trying to focus on the issue. If the unborn are not human, what are they?
They legislate my ability to take another human life, regardless of my philosophical views. That is what we are talking about here, the right to terminate a human life.
Only in rare circumstances will you be justified in terminating a human life. You are correct, we have laws against murder. Please try to stay focused as you are making this discussion difficult.
I am sorry you find this discussion difficult, but if we focus on the nature of human life and not dogma regarding what constitutes human life. it might be easier.
However, even if I were to grant that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, that does not mean that they are not responsible for the consequences.
Correct. Any women that chooses to not attempt to try to carry a fetus will be responsible for any consequences, if there are any.
OK, so let's look at what those consequences should be, without just saying there are none, based on the someone should be permitted to do what they want with their own body principle.
No, they are different life forms.
How you can pretend to know this information? What if the gods are nothing other than advanced humans traveling back in time? What if there are no gods? If either of these scenarios are true, your claim above is false.
Your scapegoat also does not address how we could even begin to argue for gods that care about having a relationship with us.
Well, if one believes that deities are human that might be something you could discuss with them. However, I am not one of them.
We expect dogs to emulate some of our behaviors, but we do not think that they should do everything we do. Regarding your conclusions about deities, neither of them are conclusive, there are a lot of factors involved in those judgements. However, one does not have to believe in deities to oppose humans killing other humans for convenience.
Thanks for helping to put this into perspective!
Imagine this dog you bring up. Pretend it wants nothing more than to have some puppies. Would you, if it was in your power, create a system where 50% of puppies abort naturally? Would that seem logical to you?
I don't know, there are a lot of factors involved there. There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?
Well, as I stated, it is not necessary for there to be deities for the argument to apply. We regulate what people can do with their bodies all of the time, especially when it involves the life of another human being.
Yes, we regulate what one human can do to another being that possess superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. In other words, a human being.

We are talking about abortion here. We do not abort human beings. I can only assume you having nothing but an appeal to emotion by your continued obfuscation. This is telling.

No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?
No, I am addressing the issue that you wish to ignore, that is the killing of humans by humans.
I'm with you on this and it does not need to be addressed again.
I am against humans killing other humans, same as you (with exceptions of course).


No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?
I have repeatedly addressed the issue of deities in multiple ways.
What you failed to address was how your justification seems to rule out caring gods that want to have a relationship with us humans, or how they are terrible examples if they do exist.

<Snipped for once again being about killing other humans>
Here we are talking about abortion:
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.

<Snipped again for once again being about killing other humans>
Here we are talking about abortion:
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.

Neither a fetus nor an embryo has the value that a human being has. Therefore, you can stop talking about humans murdering other humans.
I say I have addressed the issue of deities and you say we can stop talking about humans killing other humans. What does one have to do with the other? Regarding the previous things you quoted, you have not established that HUMAN embryos and fetuses are not human, but have merely stated it as so. We are talking about human embryos and fetuses, and not dog, cat or lizard embryos, right?
How would one prove that she was not going to have a change of heart?
A jury would have to decide. Either way, I urge you to not go around committing violent assault on women who may be about to abort a fetus.
How would a jury make such a decision? On what would they base such a decision? After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7902
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Post #62

Post by Clownboat »

jgh7 wrote:
Clownboat wrote: I was afraid you might be making an emotional argument.
A terminated fetus does not qualify as a human being for not yet having superior mental development, power of articulate speech, or an upright stance. If it survives the 50% abortion rate set up by the gods (as many presume), and it is not removed by the mother, then it would likely reach the human being qualifier.
Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion.
I'm sorry but this is one of the worst set of criteria I've heard for defining a human being. Everything you said would mean that babies aren't human beings either. Try again, and maybe look up some or your sides definitions for human beings. They're all sorely lacking, but they're better than yours.
hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #63

Post by bluethread »

Clownboat wrote:
hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Ah, I see the problem. You are taking the distinguishing characteristics of a fully developed member of a species and applying it to underdeveloped members of the same species. This makes DNA irrelevant. Well, this kind of negates all of the objections that you and others have made regarding the grouping of animals in the Scriptures. If, in a matter of life and death, you can discard DNA identification, why can't the Scriptures group animals without regard for DNA, for much lesser reasons?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7902
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Post #64

Post by Clownboat »

So, are you arguing that all people with inferior mental development, do not have the power of articulate speech and can not stand upright are not human? Well, that would mean that bed ridden mutes with down's syndrome are not human. Is that really your argument?
No, that is not what I argued. You responded to what I argued, yet missed it. How did you manage that?
Cut/paste: "Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion."
It is my understanding that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
Then in this context, where you are insisting on calling it the killing of a human being, then no, we do not judge people for such a thing as you should know, abortions (the removal of a fetus, not a human being) are legal.
To clarify, if any of us are to actually kill a human being, we have laws in place for that and people are then judged.
Do you believe that all laws are right?
No. Odd question though.
What we do all of the time is hold people responsible for what they do with their bodies. It is common to justify the killing of humans by first dehumanizing them, as with the debilitated, mentally inferior and disabled, as you have done with your definition of what is not human.
No question to respond to here, so I'll just correct your mistake.
I cut/pasted the definition for human being above. I did not create it.
OK, so let's leave deities out of this. Is it acceptable to kill mute down syndrome cancer patients for convenience, because 50% will die anyway?
I wouldn't think so, but please present your case for why we should do such a thing and I'll see if I find it credible or not.

Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be allowed. They are already allowed.
What I notice is that the people that rail the most against a women being able to choose to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not, generally worship a god concept that would be responsible for the 50% natural abortion rate. The irony!
If it isn't fair to ask you unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist, why is it fair for you to ask me about them?
I don't make claims on behalf of unknowable god concepts. Therefore it is not fair to ask me about any unknowable god concepts as if I should know.
You are in a different bed though. You made this bed, and you need to sleep in it.
All of the things I have said so far about deities are in response to your statements regarding deities. If you don't wish to discuss deities, stop discussing them.
Impossible since I am discussing the 50% natural abortion rate that god believers must be OK with for following such a god concept in the first place. Would you prefer I discuss chess here?
Do you think that it was appropriate for a mother to engage in infanticide in Germany and India in the late 19th century, because only 50% of children survived to the age of 5?
No.
You must think, that I think a women has a choice to carry a fetus to term or not has something to do with a god concept coming up with process that aborts 50% of conception. My Pro Choice views have nothing to do with the gods.
You are the one who is making arguments about deities.
False. I'm not aware of the existence of any deities for me to make arguments about.
I am just attempting to address your justification for killing the unborn.
Please list my justifications for killing the unborn. It certainly has nothing to do with any god concepts creating a process that naturally aborts 50% of conceptions though.
No, I am deliberately trying to focus on the issue. If the unborn are not human, what are they?
zygote
morula
blastocyst
The most accurate semi generic term would be fetus or embryo though.

Some women choose to abort an embryo that they do not want.
Some religious people worship a god that they credit for creating us. This god concept therefore gets credit for aborting 50% of conceptions.
This does not justify abortions IMO, but it sure is ironic.
I am sorry you find this discussion difficult, but if we focus on the nature of human life and not dogma regarding what constitutes human life. it might be easier.
Sounds like you are chastising me for pointing out your usage of terms that are not very accurate.
I have already stated that an embryo and a human don't have the same value. You then went on to use the term human being as if we are not talking about aborting a fetus. I'm then left wondering if you are talking about humans or the less valued embryos. Your chastising is misplaced.
Well, if one believes that deities are human that might be something you could discuss with them. However, I am not one of them.
Let's clarify what you are then how about.
You are a religious person that credits a god for creating everything, including a process that aborts 50% of conceptions.
You're also against a women choosing to not attempt to carry a fetus to term.
I notice some irony.
There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?
No. Again, I do not attempt to argue Pro Choice because some god concepts are claimed to have created a system where 50% of conceptions abort naturally.

Now, if I was responsible for aborting 50% of puppies, would you not find it ironic if I judged any dog for aborting? Keep in mind, I would be responsible for millions/billions of natural dog abortions. This is where the irony comes in.
We are talking about abortion here. We do not abort human beings. I can only assume you having nothing but an appeal to emotion by your continued obfuscation. This is telling.
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?
This is a child of the species Homo sapiens. So yes, they are a human.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens...

I would once again ask you to use accurate terms.
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?
Already answered.
Regarding the previous things you quoted, you have not established that HUMAN embryos and fetuses are not human, but have merely stated it as so.
That's because I argue from their value.
What you call them doesn't affect their value, but it can cause the dialog between us to suffer.
How would a jury make such a decision? On what would they base such a decision?
Please cite the specifics of the case.
After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.
I said we do not abort human beings and I have stated that the value of a fetus is not the same as a human being.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7902
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Post #65

Post by Clownboat »

bluethread wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Ah, I see the problem. You are taking the distinguishing characteristics of a fully developed member of a species and applying it to underdeveloped members of the same species. This makes DNA irrelevant. Well, this kind of negates all of the objections that you and others have made regarding the grouping of animals in the Scriptures. If, in a matter of life and death, you can discard DNA identification, why can't the Scriptures group animals without regard for DNA, for much lesser reasons?
Perhaps you should start a thread on the definition of a human being, or how you now feel that DNA is irrelevant, or to discuss some stories in your holy book.

If you don't like the definition for Human Being that I copied for you from online, then perhaps you would prefer to supply your own and argue for why it is superior. Maybe you can even successfully distract from the actual debate and turn this into a discussion on the definition of words.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #66

Post by bluethread »

Clownboat wrote:
If you don't like the definition for Human Being that I copied for you from online, then perhaps you would prefer to supply your own and argue for why it is superior. Maybe you can even successfully distract from the actual debate and turn this into a discussion on the definition of words.
This being the shorter of the posts, I will address it first.

You're the one who provided the definition in support of your viewpoint. If the definitions of words are not relevant, why did you do that? If they are relevevant then it behooves you to justify your use of that definition as a support for your argument. So, are we to proceed with that definition as the sole determinant for what is and what is not human?
Last edited by bluethread on Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #67

Post by bluethread »

Clownboat wrote:
So, are you arguing that all people with inferior mental development, do not have the power of articulate speech and can not stand upright are not human? Well, that would mean that bed ridden mutes with down's syndrome are not human. Is that really your argument?
No, that is not what I argued. You responded to what I argued, yet missed it. How did you manage that?
Cut/paste: "Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion."
That is not what I was responding to. I was using the definition, which you provided, to try and determine at what stage it is acceptable to kill an organism made up of human DNA. The definition you provided excludes many that current law consider to be human beings.
It is my understanding that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
Then in this context, where you are insisting on calling it the killing of a human being, then no, we do not judge people for such a thing as you should know, abortions (the removal of a fetus, not a human being) are legal.
Oh, you are speaking of legal judgement. Well, there are legal judgements being made all of the time regarding the removal of a human life form from the womb. Current law does not permit all abortion prior to birth. Do you believe that the law is wrong about that? When is it that you believe that what you claim to be nonhuman becomes human?
To clarify, if any of us are to actually kill a human being, we have laws in place for that and people are then judged.
Do you believe that all laws are right?
No. Odd question though.


Then why are you holding up current law as an absolute standard? Do you believe in absolute stare decisis?
What we do all of the time is hold people responsible for what they do with their bodies. It is common to justify the killing of humans by first dehumanizing them, as with the debilitated, mentally inferior and disabled, as you have done with your definition of what is not human.
No question to respond to here, so I'll just correct your mistake.
I cut/pasted the definition for human being above. I did not create it.


You are using it as a justification for your argument, are you not? If so, then it behooves you to show how it supports that argument.
OK, so let's leave deities out of this. Is it acceptable to kill mute down syndrome cancer patients for convenience, because 50% will die anyway?
I wouldn't think so, but please present your case for why we should do such a thing and I'll see if I find it credible or not.

Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be allowed. They are already allowed.
What I notice is that the people that rail the most against a women being able to choose to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not, generally worship a god concept that would be responsible for the 50% natural abortion rate. The irony!
Are you arguing for abortion or against irony? What of those who make the secular argument, as I am doing here? What argument would you make against an atheist who opposed abortion?
If it isn't fair to ask you unknowable questions about unknown entities that may not even exist, why is it fair for you to ask me about them?
I don't make claims on behalf of unknowable god concepts. Therefore it is not fair to ask me about any unknowable god concepts as if I should know.
You are in a different bed though. You made this bed, and you need to sleep in it.


I have made no such argument here. You have presented that straw man argument in support of your view. If you wish to argue about theistic irony, then why does that obligate me to do so? I am discussing the ethics of abortion.
All of the things I have said so far about deities are in response to your statements regarding deities. If you don't wish to discuss deities, stop discussing them.
Impossible since I am discussing the 50% natural abortion rate that god believers must be OK with for following such a god concept in the first place. Would you prefer I discuss chess here?
No, I would prefer you discuss why abortion done by humans is acceptable? Are you saying that the apparent irony of some theistic views is a justification for abortion performed by humans?
Do you think that it was appropriate for a mother to engage in infanticide in Germany and India in the late 19th century, because only 50% of children survived to the age of 5?
No.
You must think, that I think a women has a choice to carry a fetus to term or not has something to do with a god concept coming up with process that aborts 50% of conception. My Pro Choice views have nothing to do with the gods.
Well, you are the one who made the argument. Do you wish to withdraw it now and discuss the justifications for abortions performed by humans? If not, what do the actions of deities have to do with the actions of men, in your opinion?
You are the one who is making arguments about deities.
False. I'm not aware of the existence of any deities for me to make arguments about.
I am just attempting to address your justification for killing the unborn.
Please list my justifications for killing the unborn. It certainly has nothing to do with any god concepts creating a process that naturally aborts 50% of conceptions though.
Well, that is a bit of a mystery, since you have done little more than make points regarding deities as a justification for whatever those views are.
No, I am deliberately trying to focus on the issue. If the unborn are not human, what are they?
zygote
morula
blastocyst
The most accurate semi generic term would be fetus or embryo though.

Some women choose to abort an embryo that they do not want.
Some religious people worship a god that they credit for creating us. This god concept therefore gets credit for aborting 50% of conceptions.
This does not justify abortions IMO, but it sure is ironic.
So, there are some people who hold ironic views regarding the killing of a zygote, morula, blastocyst, fetus and/or embryo. However, what makes those things nonhuman and/or grants a human the right to kill them.
I am sorry you find this discussion difficult, but if we focus on the nature of human life and not dogma regarding what constitutes human life. it might be easier.
Sounds like you are chastising me for pointing out your usage of terms that are not very accurate.
I have already stated that an embryo and a human don't have the same value. You then went on to use the term human being as if we are not talking about aborting a fetus. I'm then left wondering if you are talking about humans or the less valued embryos. Your chastising is misplaced.
You appear to be arguing that embryos of humans are not human. On what do you base this?
Well, if one believes that deities are human that might be something you could discuss with them. However, I am not one of them.
Let's clarify what you are then how about.
You are a religious person that credits a god for creating everything, including a process that aborts 50% of conceptions.
You're also against a women choosing to not attempt to carry a fetus to term.
I notice some irony.
What does what I may believe about a deity, ironic or otherwise, have to do with the nature of a fetus and the ethics of killing one?
There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?
No. Again, I do not attempt to argue Pro Choice because some god concepts are claimed to have created a system where 50% of conceptions abort naturally.

Now, if I was responsible for aborting 50% of puppies, would you not find it ironic if I judged any dog for aborting? Keep in mind, I would be responsible for millions/billions of natural dog abortions. This is where the irony comes in.
Are you making this argument or not. First you present the argument, then you object to my engaging your argument, then you present a response to my engagement of your argument. I think you really need to make up your mind. Is that your argument or not?
We are talking about abortion here. We do not abort human beings. I can only assume you having nothing but an appeal to emotion by your continued obfuscation. This is telling.
No, it is an appeal to biological consistency. Is the bed ridden, mute, down syndrome child not human?
This is a child of the species Homo sapiens. So yes, they are a human.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens…

I would once again ask you to use accurate terms.
Just so I can be sure to use accurate terms, when does one become a child of the species Homo sapiens and on what is that designation based? Does one need to have "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" to be considered a child?
Regarding the previous things you quoted, you have not established that HUMAN embryos and fetuses are not human, but have merely stated it as so.
That's because I argue from their value.
What you call them doesn't affect their value, but it can cause the dialog between us to suffer.
Ah, you are making an economic arguement. You should have said so. So, what is it that gives a human value and at what point does that value make one subhuman?
How would a jury make such a decision? On what would they base such a decision?
Please cite the specifics of the case.
After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.
I said we do not abort human beings and I have stated that the value of a fetus is not the same as a human being.
I have stated the relevant facts, a woman is heading to an abortion clinic having stated her intent to have the abortion. She is then harmed such that the child aborts naturally. Of course, she can sue for damages and pain and suffering. However, do you believe that she should prevail in a suit for compensation for a lost child?

User avatar
Tcg
Prodigy
Posts: 4477
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Abortion

Post #68

Post by Tcg »

Texan Christian wrote:
Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?
Of course it is.

Is it preferable? No, it isn't.

However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing. This is true of all men stating their opinion on this thread.

It is a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Abortion

Post #69

Post by bluethread »

Tcg wrote:
Texan Christian wrote:
Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?
Of course it is.

Is it preferable? No, it isn't.

However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing. This is true of all men stating their opinion on this thread.

It is a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice.

Until it comes time to pay. If she decides to deliver the child and rejects the father, he becomes an indentured servant for 18+ years. This is enforced by the government, because she is granted the title of "single mother", which is deemed a protected class.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post #70

Post by 2ndRateMind »

However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.
I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related. ie, what is right and what is wrong does not depend on whether I am male or female or something inter-sex between. There seems to be a higher determination than that.

Best wishes, 2RM

Post Reply