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

Moderator: Moderators
Have you ever noticed which sex/gender gets pregnant? Taking note of that may help you understand my point.2ndRateMind wrote:I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related.However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.
Indeed. And so the final decision should always be for the girl or young woman concerned. But that does not mean no one else has a right to an opinion, and to input to the debate, or that their opinions are rendered irrelevant by their sex or gender.Tcg wrote:Have you ever noticed which sex/gender gets pregnant? Taking note of that may help you understand my point.2ndRateMind wrote:I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related.However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.
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."
You seem to still be mistaken.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.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here nor can I figure out what my opinion on laws have to do with the subject at hand.Current law does not permit all abortion prior to birth. Do you believe that the law is wrong about that?
Thanks for asking. Once it has the same value as a human.When is it that you believe that what you claim to be nonhuman becomes human?
I don't believe I am.Then why are you holding up current law as an absolute standard?
Absolute anything is a tough one to swallow. Exceptions to every rule and such...Do you believe in absolute stare decisis?
I am not. I'm just trying to keep you focused on abortion. You want to discuss murdering human beings for some reason. Therefore I provided a definition of 'human being' online in an attempt to keep you on track. I'm still here herding cats though unfortunately.You are using it as a justification for your argument, are you not?
Neither am I.Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be 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!
I'm pointing out the irony! Abortion is already legal.Are you arguing for abortion or against irony?
Not sure I would as I'm not pro abortion. I don't like abortions.What of those who make the secular argument, as I am doing here? What argument would you make against an atheist who opposed abortion?
It doesn't. Just own it and move on with your judgement of women that choose to abort if that is your thing.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 personally don't find abortions ethical typically.I am discussing the ethics of abortion.
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?
I'll do my best.No, I would prefer you discuss why abortion done by humans is acceptable
Nope, you really need to separate the two. What you theists think about your god concept does not affect my life (generally speaking). Seriously, believe a man lived in the belly of a whale for days or that animals can talk. Doesn't affect me.Are you saying that the apparent irony of some theistic views is a justification for abortion performed by humans?
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.
I believe you have just perceived that I have made this argument. See the bold above please.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?
Nothing. There are literally thousands of god concepts, yet zero actions that we can show to be from any of them. Therefore, the actions (which are zero) have nothing to do with the actions of men.If not, what do the actions of deities have to do with the actions of men, in your opinion?
Yes! These are religious people. Ironic no?So, there are some people who hold ironic views regarding the killing of a zygote, morula, blastocyst, fetus and/or embryo.
That they don't have the same value as a human. Call it a human being for emotional reasons all you like, but that doesn't change the value.However, what makes those things nonhuman
Laws grant this right.and/or grants a human the right to kill them.
Call them Mommy for all I care. Get all up in arms about people murdering mommies with your emotional arguments.You appear to be arguing that embryos of humans are not human. On what do you base this?
Nothing. Do you notice the irony yet though? Perhaps it will not affect your thinking in the slightest, but perhaps it will affect another religious persons thinking. Perhaps I might even prevent the murder of a doctor that performs abortions.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?
No, you just did above: "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?"Are you making this argument or not.
It should be clear that my argument mainly focuses on 'value' and a feeling that we should not legislate what a women can or can't do with her body when it comes to attempting to carry a fetus.Is that your argument or not?
I'm sure as heck not going to hold my breath.Just so I can be sure to use accurate terms,
Once it is born and can survive on its own. Can we go with that?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?
No, finances are not involved.Ah, you are making an economic arguement.
Do you not value any humans? If you do, then ask yourself why.So, what is it that gives a human value
There is not a point that I can place your finger on that I'm aware of. Either way, my position is that a fetus does not have the same value as a human being. You agree with me I'm sure, but subhuman is your word and once again probably being used for emotional reasons.and at what point does that value make one subhuman?
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.[/quote]After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.
Perhaps she should prevail?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?
Texan Christian wrote: 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
If I might play a little Devil’s Advocate here, by this reasoning shouldn’t we also say:myth-one.com wrote:
How many aborted fetuses will ever know they were aborted?
My guess is zero.
How many young girls and women will be shamed by such events for the remainder of their lives -- in many cases for momentary immature behavior?
Definitely not zero!
Who's the real victim here?
Let's hold the victims in our arms and care for them.
The original plan should be to postpone, or never become pregnant.bjs wrote:[Replying to myth-one.com]
While I see your point, I am not sure if the analogy works.
The problem to me is that it treats pregnancy and abortion as a single event. I agree that no one plans to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion, but there seems to be two separate events there. The pregnancy was unplanned, the abortion was planned.
When I wrote:bjs wrote: If we take the murder analogy, . . .
Laws should be made to protect the rights of the citizens of the state.
A fertilized egg has not yet become a citizen of the state. Therefore the laws should be made to protect the woman's right to choose, since she is a citizen of the state.