abortion

[concerro]

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

[otseng]

As YOU started the personal attacks, and then insult through ignoring the points raised when I showed the courtesy of dealing with your points, the hypocrite if any, must be you.

OK, that's enough incivility. It doesn't matter who started it. It only matters who commits it. I am giving you all a chance here by not issuing any formal warnings, but if any more personal comments are made by anyone for any reason, I'm laying down the law. Feel free to report a post if someone breaks a rule and let the moderators handle it. Do not retaliate otherwise you will be breaking the rules too.

[jerickson314]

The question was whether merely being a "person" was sufficient to give one the "right to life" to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will.

We have a problem here with the "against a person's will" part. In the majority of cases, the woman chose to have sex. She has made her decision and should be held accountable for the effects of the decision.

As for other points in your post, the embryo or fetus are not persons (Roe vs. Wade, Section IX).

According to Roe vs. Wade, maybe. However, are we debating law or morality? It is possible for a court to make a decision that conflicts with good morality.

And in either case, withholding resources needed for survival will cause the death. Preventing the fetus from using the woman’s bodily resources against her will is no different than preventing you from using others’ bodily resources against their will.

This simply isn't how most abortions work. They kill the baby, and thus the baby ceases to use the resources. Not the other way around.

But you are saying that you can’t, but the fetus can. That must mean that there is something other than the fetus as a “person” needed to allow such unwanted use.

When you take a loan out of a bank, you must make payments even if they are unwanted. Likewise if you have sex.

The arguments we have seen so far all revolve around it being the woman’s “fault” that she is pregnant, and that this somehow forces her to give her bodily resources. This “pregnancy as punishment” idea still revolves around theocratic ideas of the woman as a sinner who didn’t follow the unique moral beliefs of the theocracy/you/whomever believes that their moral beliefs are so superior that they should be legislated.

No, that isn't the idea. It's more about cause and effect, simple physics. People are held accountable for the physical consequences of their actions, not necessarily how their actions hold up to a particular standard.

Well, that IS the rub, isn't it? You want to be able to force her to give of her bodily resources even against her will. And this is because you believe that if the fetus is a person, then it has the right to those resources regardless of the woman's willingness to give them.

A fetus has the right to life. The womb is the only way we have to make this possible, and it was a woman's decision to have sex.

Now, I am waiting to see if you accept that a kidney patient can fore you to safely give up your extra kidney so that he can avoid dying?

As was pointed out, kidneys are a bad example. Dialysis exists. If there was a reliable way for a baby to survive outside of the womb, things would be different.

Eventually, dialysis fails.

Not true.

Plus, eventually, the baby is born and no longer needs the mother's "resources".

Tell me in which case a person is forced to give their bodily resources for another’s “right to life.” You would be forced to die because somebody refuses to provide safely of their bodily resources so you can fulfill your “right to life.”

It wasn't their decision to begin with. However, it is a mother's decision to have sex.

So you do NOT have enough of a “right to life” to force others to keep you alive per their bodily resources.

I would think that in any case where one particular person and no one else is able to provide life, it should be mandatory to give bodily resources, especially in cases where using such resources does NOT deprive the original holder of such resources.

The people who are dying because they are not allowed to take your bodily resources are no doubt not seeing a lot of difference. They know that they will die because you don't want to safely (mortality-wise, it is safer to be a live kidney donor than it is to give birth) give of your bodily resources. You are saying that your right to keep your extra kidney that you don't need, your right to bodily integrity, that right is greater than their lives. Yet, you are saying that the woman's right is less than the fetus' right. So are you saying that the fetus has more rights than the kidney patient?

I haven't seen you give a good reply to kroz yet.

It is actually, as the dialysis will fail at some point. All kidney patients will die unless they can get a transplant. But there aren’t enough, so many **WILL** die because they couldn’t force others to give them a kidney.

Having an MD mother and a late grandfather who was on dialysis (and died when he chose to go off dialysis, not because it failed), I have never heard these claims once. Want to cite a source?

And I would say that there is a moral problem for those who refused to give kidneys if they were the only suitable donor.

Most of the rest of what you have given rehashes the same points over again. If I have missed anything, let me know.

[steen]

The question was whether merely being a "person" was sufficient to give one the "right to life" to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will.

We have a problem here with the "against a person's will" part. In the majority of cases, the woman chose to have sex. She has made her decision and should be held accountable for the effects of the decision.

She consented to sex, not necessarily to pregnancy. Actually, seeking an abortion is clear indication that she no more consented to the unwanted result of sex than smokers consent to the unwanted outcome of lung cancer. She no more is required to "be held accountable" than is the smoker. Do we outlaw lung cancer surgery because the smoker otherwise is not held accountable for smoking?

That very argument seems incredibly hypocritical and biased singling out solely the pregnant woman who apparently dared to have sex when the prolifers' moral view was that she shouldn't have had sex. It seems all about punishing her for having sex when you felt that she shouldn't, all about controlling HER sexuality, keeping her under the theocratic thumb of the patriarchy. Do you think that others who cause their own medical problems should also "be held accountable" by withholding medical treatment for the resulting unwanted medical condition, or does that only apply to women? I have a hard time NOT seeing this as blatant misogyny.

As for other points in your post, the embryo or fetus are not persons (Roe vs. Wade, Section IX).

According to Roe vs. Wade, maybe. However, are we debating law or morality?

Law, of course. "Morality" is merely about personal beliefs, and one is no more valid than the other, and thus certainly cannot be imposed on others. Your moral code is your own.

It is possible for a court to make a decision that conflicts with good morality.

Sure. However, the judgment of whether a law is "good" is whether it is Constitutional. Because "good" is subjective. What is good under one moral view is absolutely horrible under another moral view. Prolife finds an abortion ban to be good. Pro-choice finds it to be a bad enslavement of women. Is it good or bad?

Is there any conceivable way that personal moral views can be uniformly "good" when others find it bad?

And in either case, withholding resources needed for survival will cause the death. Preventing the fetus from using the woman’s bodily resources against her will is no different than preventing you from using others’ bodily resources against their will.

This simply isn't how most abortions work.

Yes it is.

They kill the baby,..

There is no "baby" until birth. "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Applying it at earlier stages is prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole. It is no different than calling you a "corpse." And yes, a "pre-born baby" then would merely be the equivalent to a "pre-dead corpse." But if you want to engage in such emotive hyperbole and games, we certainly can. Just be aware that I will show the silliness of it every step of the way.

That aside, what happens is that the embryo (or at some times the fetus) is removed from the source of use of the woman's body, dying in the process. Trough denial of a person's bodily resources, it dies.

That's no different than the kidney patient dying because of being denied your bodily resource (The extra kidney that persons generally don't need, and which can be extracted to protect the kidney patient’s right to life at a procedure safer than giving birth (mortality is about 50-60% of the mortality from giving birth).

and thus the baby ceases to use the resources. Not the other way around.

Still no baby, and still, is there a right to life that allows anybody or anything to extract bodily resources from an unwilling donor?

But you are saying that you can’t, but the fetus can. That must mean that there is something other than the fetus as a “person” needed to allow such unwanted use.

When you take a loan out of a bank, you must make payments even if they are unwanted. Likewise if you have sex.

Why? Because you say so? Is it the same for the smoker that you want to deny access to lung cancer surgery?

(Eh? You don't want to deny the smoker the cancer surgery, even if the cancer is the consequenses of voluntarily smoking? So you don't want the tumor patient to face the consequenses, but the pregnant woman MUST? That's just pure misogyny.)

The arguments we have seen so far all revolve around it being the woman’s “fault” that she is pregnant, and that this somehow forces her to give her bodily resources. This “pregnancy as punishment” idea still revolves around theocratic ideas of the woman as a sinner who didn’t follow the unique moral beliefs of the theocracy/you/whomever believes that their moral beliefs are so superior that they should be legislated.

No, that isn't the idea. It's more about cause and effect, simple physics.

Then you would also insist that all other medical care for situations that are caused by a person's own voluntary choices likewise should be restricted. Yet you don't, so clearly your denial is false here.

People are held accountable for the physical consequences of their actions, not necessarily how their actions hold up to a particular standard.

But the physical consequence of smoking is a lung tumor. If you want to deny abortions, you should also deny tumor surgery. And you should deny trauma surgery, heart catherization and what not. In fact just about anything you treat in the ER is a consequence of voluntary actions, and your argument should be that all ER departments should be outlawed as well.

Because otherwise, you help those persons avoid the physical consequenses of their own voluntary actions.

Yet, you haven't done that. Could it be because only sex is something you feel she should be limited to do at times when YOU feel it is appropriate? Could it be that only sex is something she should "face the consequenses for" in your personal view?

Again I ask you, how can your argument NOT look like pure misogyny, NOT look like a push mainly for controlling women’s' sexuality?

Well, that IS the rub, isn't it? You want to be able to force her to give of her bodily resources even against her will. And this is because you believe that if the fetus is a person, then it has the right to those resources regardless of the woman's willingness to give them.

A fetus has the right to life.

Nope!

The womb is the only way we have to make this possible,

And the only way to fulfill the kidney patient’s right to life is to force you to give up a kidney. (And it is “uterus,” by the way.)

and it was a woman's decision to have sex.

Yes, back to punishing her for not meeting your idea of what “correct” morals are, while not pushing the same standards on the smoker. Back to misogynistic, patriarchal, controlling theocracy.

Now, I am waiting to see if you accept that a kidney patient can force you to safely give up your extra kidney so that he can avoid dying?

As was pointed out, kidneys are a bad example.

No, that was CLAIMED, because the argument would otherwise sink the “the fetus has a right to use a person’s body against that person’s will” prolife argument.

Dialysis exists.

until it fails. MANY THOUSANDS of people die every year of a preventable cause, namely kidney failure. If they had a kidney replaced, they WOULD live. Yet you say that you can’t be forced to give them one of your kidneys because you don’t want to be forced to give up bodily resources the way you insist the woman can be forced to.

If there was a reliable way for a baby to survive outside of the womb, things would be different.

babies survive outside the uterus all the time. Embryos and fetuses don’t. But again, what right do they have to use the woman’s bodily resources against her will? You want them to have such a right when no person has such a right, insisting that the embryo or fetus has MORE right to life than anybody else, more than any person. And it just so happens that this insistence has NO consequence for you, the duty and suffering under this misogyny to be carried by the pregnant woman only. How convenient for PL arguments.

The hypocrisy of insisting that she be forced to give her bodily resources while refusing that YOU, God for bid it, possibly could be required to endure what you want to force on her, that still comes across as misogynistic hypocrisy. So until PL starts actually acknowledging the woman as a person in her own rights, rather than a uterus with legs, this argument will go round and round. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the prochoice argument, it will be showed in your face time after time with emphasis on the hypocrisy and theocratic misogyny of the PL position.

Eventually, dialysis fails.

Not true.

Tell that to the 10’s of thousands of people who die from kidney failure every year because dialysis fails them and YOU didn’t think that you could be forced to give your kidney to them. Your claim is false.

Plus, eventually, the baby is born and no longer needs the mother's "resources".

Ah, so your enslavement of her is only for 9 months, how noble of you.

Tell me in which case a person is forced to give their bodily resources for another’s “right to life.” You would be forced to die because somebody refuses to provide safely of their bodily resources so you can fulfill your “right to life.”

It wasn't their decision to begin with. However, it is a mother's decision to have sex.

And by golly, you are going to force that slut to suffer for mot meeting your moral standards. You “forgot” to make the same claim about the smoker, showing how hypocritical that claim is.

So you do NOT have enough of a “right to life” to force others to keep you alive per their bodily resources.

I would think that in any case where one particular person and no one else is able to provide life, it should be mandatory to give bodily resources, especially in cases where using such resources does NOT deprive the original holder of such resources.

But it ISN’T like that. Even if you have a very rare blood type, even if you run down the only other person in your state with that blood type and he is bleeding to death, you can STILL not be FORCED to give blood to save his life. Your right to bodily autonomy is above other persons’ right to life. Your speculation is simply not true.

Mandatory blood donation (much less invasive on your body than an unwanted pregnancy) is still not legal, regardless of how much it would save a life.

The people who are dying because they are not allowed to take your bodily resources are no doubt not seeing a lot of difference. They know that they will die because you don't want to safely (mortality-wise, it is safer to be a live kidney donor than it is to give birth) give of your bodily resources. You are saying that your right to keep your extra kidney that you don't need, your right to bodily integrity, that right is greater than their lives. Yet, you are saying that the woman's right is less than the fetus' right. So are you saying that the fetus has more rights than the kidney patient?

I haven't seen you give a good reply to kroz yet.

And why should I care? I didn’t see YOU give a reply to my point either. I stand by my posts. Are you going to play the “avoid the subject” PL card now?

It is actually, as the dialysis will fail at some point. All kidney patients will die unless they can get a transplant. But there aren’t enough, so many **WILL** die because they couldn’t force others to give them a kidney.

Having an MD mother and a late grandfather who was on dialysis (and died when he chose to go off dialysis, not because it failed), I have never heard these claims once. Want to cite a source?

And I am at least as well-connected to the medical field, and the sources are here:

Oniscu GC. Brown H. Forsythe JL. How great is the survival advantage of transplantation over dialysis in elderly patients?. [Journal Article] Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 19(4):945-51, 2004 Apr.
CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplantation offers a significant survival advantage over dialysis in elderly patients with end-stage renal failure who are considered suitable for transplantation.

Rabbat CG. Thorpe KE. Russell JD. Churchill DN. Comparison of mortality risk for dialysis patients and cadaveric first renal transplant recipients in Ontario, Canada. [Journal Article] Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 11(5):917-22, 2000 May.
The average relative risk (RR) of dying was 2.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 6.32) in the first 30 d after transplantation, but was significantly lower 1 yr after transplantation (RR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42), indicating a beneficial long-term effect when compared to wait-listed dialysis patients. This long-term benefit was most evident in subgroups of patients with diabetes (RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.87) and glomerulonephritis (RR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.39) as the cause of ESRD. The survival advantage associated with renal transplantation is evident in this cohort of patients with a lower wait-listed dialysis mortality than that reported previously in the United States. The magnitude of the treatment effect is consistent across studies.”

Wolfe RA. Ashby VB. Milford EL. Ojo AO. Ettenger RE. Agodoa LY. Held PJ. Port FK. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant.[see comment]. [Journal Article] New England Journal of Medicine. 341(23):1725-30, 1999 Dec 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with end-stage renal disease, healthier patients are placed on the waiting list for transplantation, and long-term survival is better among those on the waiting list who eventually undergo transplantation.

And more here:

Gillespie RS. Seidel K. Symons JM. Effect of fluid overload and dose of replacement fluid on survival in hemofiltration. [Journal Article] Pediatric Nephrology. 19(12):1394-9, 2004 Dec.

Chen YC. Tsai MH. Ho YP. Hsu CW. Lin HH. Fang JT. Huang CC. Chen PC. Comparison of the severity of illness scoring systems for critically ill cirrhotic patients with renal failure. [Journal Article. Validation Studies] Clinical Nephrology. 61(2):111-8, 2004 Feb.

Fine JD. Johnson LB. Weiner M. Stein A. Cash S. DeLeoz J. Devries DT. Suchindran C. National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry. Inherited epidermolysis bullosa and the risk of death from renal disease: experience of the National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry. [Journal Article] American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 44(4):651-60, 2004 Oct.

Dumaine R. Collet JP. Tanguy ML. Mansencal N. Dubois-Rande JL. Henry P. Steg PG. Michel PL. Allouch P. Cohen A. Colin P. Durand E. Montalescot G. SYCOMORE Investigators. Prognostic significance of renal insufficiency in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (the Prospective Multicenter SYCOMORE study). [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] American Journal of Cardiology. 94(12):1543-7, 2004 Dec 15.

Shlipak MG. Smith GL. Rathore SS. Massie BM. Krumholz HM. Renal function, digoxin therapy, and heart failure outcomes: evidence from the digoxin intervention group trial. [Clinical Trial. Journal Article. Randomized Controlled Trial] Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 15(8):2195-203, 2004 Aug.

Masoudi FA. Plomondon ME. Magid DJ. Sales A. Rumsfeld JS. Renal insufficiency and mortality from acute coronary syndromes. [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] American Heart Journal. 147(4):623-9, 2004 Apr.

Naidu SS. Selzer F. Jacobs A. Faxon D. Marks DS. Johnston J. Detre K. Wilensky RL. Renal insufficiency is an independent predictor of mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] American Journal of Cardiology. 92(10):1160-4, 2003 Nov 15.

Kennedy DJ. Colyer WR. Brewster PS. Ankenbrandt M. Burket MW. Nemeth AS. Khuder SA. Thomas WJ. Shapiro JI. Cooper CJ. Renal insufficiency as a predictor of adverse events and mortality after renal artery stent placement.[see comment]. [Journal Article] American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 42(5):926-35, 2003 Nov.

chepke M. Roth F. Koch L. Heller J. Rabe C. Brensing KA. Schiedermaier P. Schild HH. Sauerbruch T. Prognostic impact of renal impairment and sodium imbalance in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting for the prevention of variceal rebleeding. [Journal Article] Digestion. 67(3):146-53, 2003.

Prichard S. Risk factors for coronary artery disease in patients with renal failure. [Review] [31 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 325(4):209-13, 2003 Apr.

Vigneau C. Ardiet C. Bret M. Laville M. Fiere D. Tranchand B. Fouque D. Intermediate-dose (25mg/m2) IV melphalan for multiple myeloma with renal failure. [Journal Article] Journal of Nephrology. 15(6):684-9, 2002 Nov-Dec.

Soman SS. Sandberg KR. Borzak S. Hudson MP. Yee J. McCullough PA. The independent association of renal dysfunction and arrhythmias in critically ill patients. [Journal Article] Chest. 122(2):669-77, 2002 Aug.

Nair S. Verma S. Thuluvath PJ. Pretransplant renal function predicts survival in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. [Journal Article] Hepatology. 35(5):1179-85, 2002 May.

Ruilope LM. van Veldhuisen DJ. Ritz E. Luscher TF. Renal function: the Cinderella of cardiovascular risk profile. [Review] [66 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 38(7):1782-7, 2001 Dec.

Kutner NG. Zhang R. Body mass index as a predictor of continued survival in older chronic dialysis patients. [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] International Urology & Nephrology. 32(3):441-8, 2001.

Hamed RM. Shomaf M. Congenital nephrotic syndrome: a clinico-pathologic study of thirty children. [Journal Article] Journal of Nephrology. 14(2):104-9, 2001 Mar-Apr.

Wood EG. Hand M. Briscoe DM. Donaldson LA. Yiu V. Harley FL. Warady BA. Ellis EN. North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Risk factors for mortality in infants and young children on dialysis. [Journal Article] American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 37(3):573-9, 2001 Mar.

Diaz-Buxo JA. Lowrie EG. Lew NL. Zhang SM. Zhu X. Lazarus JM. Associates of mortality among peritoneal dialysis patients with special reference to peritoneal transport rates and solute clearance. [Journal Article] American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 33(3):523-34, 1999 Mar.

Beto JA. Bansal VK. Hart J. McCarthy M. Roberts D. Hemodialysis prognostic nutrition index as a predictor for morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients and its correlation to adequacy of dialysis. Council on Renal Nutrition National Research Question Collaborative Study Group. [Clinical Trial. Journal Article. Randomized Controlled Trial] Journal of Renal Nutrition. 9(1):2-8, 1999 Jan.

Mazzuchi N. Gonzalez-Martinez F. Carbonell E. Curi L. Fernandez-Cean J. Orihuela S. Comparison of survival for haemodialysis patients vs renal transplant recipients treated in Uruguay. [Journal Article] Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 14(12):2849-54, 1999 Dec.

Shinzato T. Nakai S. Akiba T. Yamazaki C. Sasaki R. Kitaoka T. Kubo K. Shinoda T. Kurokawa K. Marumo F. Sato T. Maeda K. Survival in long-term haemodialysis patients: results from the annual survey of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy.[republished from Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996 Nov;11(11):2139-42; PMID: 8941569]. [Corrected and Republished Article. News] Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 12(5):884-8, 1997 May.

And I would say that there is a moral problem for those who refused to give kidneys if they were the only suitable donor.

To the point where they should be forced to give their extra kidney? It is certain, per the high mortality of people on the kidney transplant waitlist, that specifically because I didn’t give my kidney, a person DID die. Is that cause enough to force me to give my extra kidney?

On the other hand, if it is a pregnant woman, then it sudeenly becomes more; then it becomes something you have no problem FORCING her to do. Isn't that a hypocritical position?

[keltzkroz]

As for other points in your post, the embryo or fetus are not persons (Roe vs. Wade, Section IX).

In case you forgot where I jumped in, let me refresh everyone's memory:

Maybe it would be more constructive to decide if the fetus is a human being or not. I think anything else is a secondary issue.

So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?

If the fetus is a person, then that person gets the right to live. How do you propose should such a person receive what it needs to live? It is a drain on the woman's resources, so should she get rid of it? We don't send people who drain a society's resources to gas chambers.

So what is this thing about 'the embryo or fetus are not persons'? Do you want to debate if the embryo or fetus is a person? There is another thread for that. Or do you want to debate if a person has the right to live or deprive someone of their life.

For all your lengthy posts, mentioning 'dishonest in debating styles' and 'cop-out route' based solely on your opinion, you still have not answered the question in my previous post. In which case is a person being forced to die?

In a very much related topic, here is another thing to think about: If an emergency medical facility refuses to treat a person in need of emergency care (in other words, the facility refuses to let that person use its resources to save his life), what is going to happen? Is somebody's *** gonna get sued off?

[jerickson314]

She consented to sex, not necessarily to pregnancy.

Having unprotected sex is knowingly risking pregnancy. That's like saying that I consented to a bank loan but not to the interest I would have to pay, and that therefore I don't have to pay any interest.

Actually, seeking an abortion is clear indication that she no more consented to the unwanted result of sex than smokers consent to the unwanted outcome of lung cancer.

In both cases, people knowingly did something that is well known to have a risk associated with it.

She no more is required to "be held accountable" than is the smoker.

Both should be held accountable!

Do we outlaw lung cancer surgery because the smoker otherwise is not held accountable for smoking?

No. Lung cancer surgery saves a life. Abortion ends one. Big difference.

That very argument seems incredibly hypocritical and biased singling out solely the pregnant woman who apparently dared to have sex when the prolifers' moral view was that she shouldn't have had sex.

Even though I would say that in most cases having sex was immoral, this is completely separate from anything I have said. I said that she should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions, just like anyone else should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

It seems all about punishing her for having sex when you felt that she shouldn't, all about controlling HER sexuality, keeping her under the theocratic thumb of the patriarchy.

No, not at all. I said that she should be held accountable for the physical stuff that naturally happens as a result of her actions.

Do you think that others who cause their own medical problems should also "be held accountable" by withholding medical treatment for the resulting unwanted medical condition, or does that only apply to women?

Others who cause their own medical problems should be held accoutable by picking up the bill themselves. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions.

Abortion ends a life. Other medical treatments save one. Again, big difference!

Law, of course.

Then we still have the issue over whether that court decision was a good one.

"Morality" is merely about personal beliefs, and one is no more valid than the other, and thus certainly cannot be imposed on others. Your moral code is your own.

Then if I think that it's moral to, say, brutally torture homosexuals, that's OK? (I most certainly DO NOT; this is just an example.)

Sure. However, the judgment of whether a law is "good" is whether it is Constitutional. Because "good" is subjective. What is good under one moral view is absolutely horrible under another moral view.

In a theistic world view, whatever God wants is objectively good, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. We may still have to do some digging to figure out God's view, though.

Prolife finds an abortion ban to be good. Pro-choice finds it to be a bad enslavement of women. Is it good or bad?

An abortion ban is good.

Is there any conceivable way that personal moral views can be uniformly "good" when others find it bad?

Certainly. Just as pi is an irrational number that is approximately 3.1415926535897932384626 despite the uneducated people who think it is 3.14, 22/7, or even 3.

Only in a non-theistic worldview is morality relative.

Yes it is.

Why not try reading a sentence or two of literature on this issue before you argue?

There is no "baby" until birth. "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Applying it at earlier stages is prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole. It is no different than calling you a "corpse." And yes, a "pre-born baby" then would merely be the equivalent to a "pre-dead corpse." But if you want to engage in such emotive hyperbole and games, we certainly can. Just be aware that I will show the silliness of it every step of the way.

The term "fetus" has connotations that imply non-personhood. That's why I prefer a term like "baby" which has clear connotations of personhood.

That aside, what happens is that the embryo (or at some times the fetus) is removed from the source of use of the woman's body, dying in the process. Trough denial of a person's bodily resources, it dies.

At times, the "fetus" is cut apart - not just removed!

That's no different than the kidney patient dying because of being denied your bodily resource (The extra kidney that persons generally don't need, and which can be extracted to protect the kidney patient’s right to life at a procedure safer than giving birth (mortality is about 50-60% of the mortality from giving birth).

In these cases, it is also no different from the kid who dies because his parents refuse to feed him. It is also no differet from the kid who dies because his father didn't pay his child support bills. (Yes, males do sin as well!)

Still no baby, and still, is there a right to life that allows anybody or anything to extract bodily resources from an unwilling donor?

Yes. Unborn individuals have the right to use resources from their mothers.

And I don't see why bodily resources are really any different from other resources, such as child support money.

When you take a loan out of a bank, you must make payments even if they are unwanted. Likewise if you have sex.

Why? Because you say so?[/quote]

No. Physics (OK, biology technically). Be realistic, if you have sex then pregnancy is a very real possibility.

Is it the same for the smoker that you want to deny access to lung cancer surgery?

I wouldn't want to deny access to lung cancer surgery, even though the smoker should be responsible and pay his own bills.

(Eh? You don't want to deny the smoker the cancer surgery, even if the cancer is the consequenses of voluntarily smoking? So you don't want the tumor patient to face the consequenses, but the pregnant woman MUST? That's just pure misogyny.)

As I said, smokers and everyone else should be responsible. In most cases, this would include things like paying their own bills. This is insufficient in the case of pregnancy only because the "treatment" brings about the death of an individual human being.

Then you would also insist that all other medical care for situations that are caused by a person's own voluntary choices likewise should be restricted. Yet you don't, so clearly your denial is false here.

No, because this medical care results in life rather than death. There is a REASON that abortion is different than other "treatments".

But the physical consequence of smoking is a lung tumor. If you want to deny abortions, you should also deny tumor surgery. And you should deny trauma surgery, heart catherization and what not. In fact just about anything you treat in the ER is a consequence of voluntary actions, and your argument should be that all ER departments should be outlawed as well.

You keep asserting the same illogic, but at least it gives me a chance to spread out my multitude of arguments against it.

There is also the fact that there are alternatives to abortion. It's not as though not having an abortion is going to bring about sure death. Proper medical care will result in a healthy woman 12 months later (who won't even be pregnant any more)! In the other cases, we are talking about medical care that is necessary to save a life or to treat a condition.

Because otherwise, you help those persons avoid the physical consequenses of their own voluntary actions.

No, the treatment is consequence enough in and of itself. Since it saves life rather than ends it, it is fine.

Yet, you haven't done that. Could it be because only sex is something you feel she should be limited to do at times when YOU feel it is appropriate? Could it be that only sex is something she should "face the consequenses for" in your personal view?

No, that isn't my thought at all, at least not for the sake of this argument. Although there are other moral issues with premarital sex, contraception is another way to avoid the issue without abstinence.

We should all be responsible for our own actions. Killing is an irresponsible way to deal with things we don't like. Other medical treatments as you have mentioned are responsible ways to deal with problems.

Again I ask you, how can your argument NOT look like pure misogyny, NOT look like a push mainly for controlling women’s' sexuality?

Not this argument! Contraception exists.

And yes, people should be responsible for all their actions, including sexual ones. This means dealing with them in responsible ways rather than irresponsible ways - not ignoring them as you claim I think!

And the only way to fulfill the kidney patient’s right to life is to force you to give up a kidney.

If you are the only suitable donor of a kidney, you do have a moral obligation to donate a kidney. However, dialysis does work fine for most people even though it can be suboptimal as you later prove.

(And it is “uterus,” by the way.)

Same thing. Does "womb" have some sort of connotation you don't like?

Yes, back to punishing her for not meeting your idea of what “correct” morals are, while not pushing the same standards on the smoker. Back to misogynistic, patriarchal, controlling theocracy.

Back to your silly straw man.

No, that was CLAIMED, because the argument would otherwise sink the “the fetus has a right to use a person’s body against that person’s will” prolife argument.

No, not at all. You just think that finding one morally bad situation justifies another.

And we do have the fact that the mother doesn't lose anything permanently from having a baby that she can't get back. A kidney donor loses one kidney, even if this is a minor loss.

And then there's the "multiple donors" problem. It is hard to identify a single individual who is responsible for donating a kidney. However, it's not so hard to identify whose uterus a fetus needs!

until it fails. MANY THOUSANDS of people die every year of a preventable cause, namely kidney failure. If they had a kidney replaced, they WOULD live. Yet you say that you can’t be forced to give them one of your kidneys because you don’t want to be forced to give up bodily resources the way you insist the woman can be forced to.

To give yet another reason, I didn't do anything to risk having another person's kidneys fail. Women DO something to risk having a pregnancy.

And dialysis does continue to work for most people, until they are otherwise so frail that they would die from something else if it wasn't their kidneys.

babies survive outside the uterus all the time. Embryos and fetuses don’t.

OK, I'll use "fetus". I don't want to get into silly terminology arguments that are beside the point.

But again, what right do they have to use the woman’s bodily resources against her will?

Her sexual gesture of assent.

You want them to have such a right when no person has such a right, insisting that the embryo or fetus has MORE right to life than anybody else, more than any person.

Not really. People do have special legal rights to survival needs from their parents, though not from random strangers. Child support, for example. And if a family refuses to feed their children, they WILL get into HUGE legal trouble.

Whether the resources are bodily or financial is a moot point.

And it just so happens that this insistence has NO consequence for you,

That's right! That is EXACTLY why I would never make this argument without good reasons.

the duty and suffering under this misogyny to be carried by the pregnant woman only. How convenient for PL arguments.

So you're saying that males cannot have any say on this issue? What a convenient and dishonest way to discredit my arguments!

The hypocrisy of insisting that she be forced to give her bodily resources while refusing that YOU, God for bid it, possibly could be required to endure what you want to force on her, that still comes across as misogynistic hypocrisy.

I wouldn't mind if someone wanted my kidney. Really.

Plus, there is the issue that a woman did something that had the physical consequences of a new life. I haven't done anything to give anyone else kidney disease.

And claiming that hypocrisy discredits an argument, even where hypocrisy is present, is a logical fallacy. It is an ad hominem argument, plain and simple.

So until PL starts actually acknowledging the woman as a person in her own rights, rather than a uterus with legs, this argument will go round and round.

This is most certainly true, that a woman is a person to the same extent that the fetus is! And to the same extent that you and I are people!

Some Pro-Lifers are hypocrites. Others are not. You cannot discredit pro-life on the basis of some of its more hypocritical proponents.

As long as you refuse to acknowledge the prochoice argument, it will be showed in your face time after time with emphasis on the hypocrisy and theocratic misogyny of the PL position.

I'll just paraphrase that:

"As long as you refuse to listen to illogic, it will be shown in your face time after time with emphasis on arguments against pro-life which commit ad hominem and genetic fallacies."

Tell that to the 10’s of thousands of people who die from kidney failure every year because dialysis fails them and YOU didn’t think that you could be forced to give your kidney to them. Your claim is false.

Refuted multiple times.

Ah, so your enslavement of her is only for 9 months, how noble of you.

Ah, you only want to kill really young individuals. How noble of you.

Don't use "enslavement". It is much less accurate than the term "womb" I used earlier (referring to something else of course), and is at least as emotionally charged.

And by golly, you are going to force that slut to suffer for mot meeting your moral standards.

No, for engaging in irresponsible behaviors.

Just as it wouldn't be slavery to take away a drunk driver's license for nine months.

You “forgot” to make the same claim about the smoker, showing how hypocritical that claim is.

No, I was just trying to stay on topic as usual.

But OK, here goes:

Smokers, drunk drivers, drug addicts, people who cut themselves, those who jump off of tall buildings, people who play in the traffic...

Who else do I need to include on the list to not be "hypocritical"?

BTW, I don't smoke.

But it ISN’T like that. Even if you have a very rare blood type, even if you run down the only other person in your state with that blood type and he is bleeding to death, you can STILL not be FORCED to give blood to save his life. Your right to bodily autonomy is above other persons’ right to life. Your speculation is simply not true.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And the right to "bodily autonomy" really shouldn't be any higher than the right to life, if it should even exist. Responsibility and duty are more important than freedom and autonomy.

Mandatory blood donation (much less invasive on your body than an unwanted pregnancy) is still not legal, regardless of how much it would save a life.

Again, there is the fact that I didn't do anything to give anyone else conditions for which they would need donated blood.

And again, two wrongs don't make a right.

And why should I care? I didn’t see YOU give a reply to my point either. I stand by my posts. Are you going to play the “avoid the subject” PL card now?

Which point? Please let me know, so I can respond to it.

It is actually, as the dialysis will fail at some point. All kidney patients will die unless they can get a transplant.

All human beings will die at some point no matter what!

There is still the issue of what is actually killing. The process of abortion is probably more like putting someone in a room with no air than refusing to give them a kidney.

But there aren’t enough, so many **WILL** die because they couldn’t force others to give them a kidney.

This is sad, just like all the people who are aborted.

And I am at least as well-connected to the medical field, and the sources are here:

Thank you for the references. You did provide some good evidence for your point. However, we are still left with the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.

To the point where they should be forced to give their extra kidney?

Yeah, now that I think about it.

It is certain, per the high mortality of people on the kidney transplant waitlist, that specifically because I didn’t give my kidney, a person DID die. Is that cause enough to force me to give my extra kidney?

Not true. The problem is that too few people gave, not that certain people didn't give.

And we still have a weak analogy, since you didn't do anything to give anyone kidney disease.

On the other hand, if it is a pregnant woman, then it sudeenly becomes more; then it becomes something you have no problem FORCING her to do. Isn't that a hypocritical position?

It was her choice to have unprotected sex. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy.

And it is more "forcing" her NOT to do something, rather than to do something.

You might be surprised how frequently abortions actually happen when the boyfriend FORCES his girlfriend to have an abortion.

This was told to me by a woman who works with people who have unwanted pregnancies, and who criticizes the hypocrisy and lack of compassion shown by many pro-lifers. She was a speaker at our church from the local "Women's Pregnancy Center" ministry. She also told many stories of women who agonized over their decision to have an abortion, and others who were later very happy that they did not.

[steen]

She consented to sex, not necessarily to pregnancy.

Having unprotected sex is knowingly risking pregnancy. That's like saying that I consented to a bank loan but not to the interest I would have to pay, and that therefore I don't have to pay any interest.

Smoking is knowingly risking lung cancer.

Actually, seeking an abortion is clear indication that she no more consented to the unwanted result of sex than smokers consent to the unwanted outcome of lung cancer.

In both cases, people knowingly did something that is well known to have a risk associated with it.

And in both cases, the person has access to medical help to rectify the unwanted outcome.

She no more is required to "be held accountable" than is the smoker.

Both should be held accountable!

And both are treated with medical help to fix the unwanted result.

Do we outlaw lung cancer surgery because the smoker otherwise is not held accountable for smoking?

No. Lung cancer surgery saves a life. Abortion ends one. Big difference.

Lung cancer surgery certainly ends the life of the tumor. And the point still stands regardless of your avoidance. Does the cancer patient have more rights than the pregnant women for a situation that both ended up with per voluntary actions?

That very argument seems incredibly hypocritical and biased singling out solely the pregnant woman who apparently dared to have sex when the prolifers' moral view was that she shouldn't have had sex.

Even though I would say that in most cases having sex was immoral, this is completely separate from anything I have said. I said that she should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions, just like anyone else should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Yet, you will allow the cancer patient "A way out," while denying this for the pregnant woman.

It seems all about punishing her for having sex when you felt that she shouldn't, all about controlling HER sexuality, keeping her under the theocratic thumb of the patriarchy.

No, not at all. I said that she should be held accountable for the physical stuff that naturally happens as a result of her actions.

But you say that the lung cancer patient in similar condition should NOT be denied the medical treatment you deny the woman. So your claim is false.

Do you think that others who cause their own medical problems should also "be held accountable" by withholding medical treatment for the resulting unwanted medical condition, or does that only apply to women?

Others who cause their own medical problems should be held accoutable by picking up the bill themselves. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions.

Like the woman. OH, wait, you want to even deny her the treatment in the first place. That's a double-standard.

Abortion ends a life. Other medical treatments save one. Again, big difference!

All surgeries ends a life. Every antibiotic treatment ends a lot of lives. But the patient themselves are treated for the unwanted medical situation. The woman is the patient. I get the feeling you are completely ignoring her personhood.

Law, of course.

Then we still have the issue over whether that court decision was a good one.

As it prevents women from being enslaved to theocratic patriarchy, then I feel it is a good one. And then we can argue forth and back about whether one's feelings about the law are good or bad. So?

"Morality" is merely about personal beliefs, and one is no more valid than the other, and thus certainly cannot be imposed on others. Your moral code is your own.

Then if I think that it's moral to, say, brutally torture homosexuals, that's OK? (I most certainly DO NOT; this is just an example.)

No, they you would merely feel that it is OK. Again, morality is not legislated per its inherent subjectivity. Morality is about how you see the world. It is not what you subdue and oppress the world with.

Sure. However, the judgment of whether a law is "good" is whether it is Constitutional. Because "good" is subjective. What is good under one moral view is absolutely horrible under another moral view.

In a theistic world view, whatever God wants is objectively good, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. We may still have to do some digging to figure out God's view, though.

But under the US Constitution, the theistic worldview aside, it still is only the US Constitution that matters as a measure of whether the law is "good."

Prolife finds an abortion ban to be good. Pro-choice finds it to be a bad enslavement of women. Is it good or bad?

An abortion ban is good.

Enshrining abortion rights is good.

Is there any conceivable way that personal moral views can be uniformly "good" when others find it bad?

Certainly. Just as pi is an irrational number that is approximately 3.1415926535897932384626 despite the uneducated people who think it is 3.14, 22/7, or even 3.

Really? So MY moral view is good even when you disagree?

Only in a non-theistic worldview is morality relative.

So you are saying that my moral view is absolute and not just relative to me? My morals should be law?

There is no "baby" until birth. "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Applying it at earlier stages is prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole. It is no different than calling you a "corpse." And yes, a "pre-born baby" then would merely be the equivalent to a "pre-dead corpse." But if you want to engage in such emotive hyperbole and games, we certainly can. Just be aware that I will show the silliness of it every step of the way.

The term "fetus" has connotations that imply non-personhood.

As it also is specified in the law. The REALITY is that the fetus is not a person, that it has no personhood. So why do you object to factual terms that connotate reality?

That's why I prefer a term like "baby" which has clear connotations of personhood.

As a deceptive way of trying to paint an emotional picture that is false. Yes, I see why prolife likes such terms so much.

That aside, what happens is that the embryo (or at some times the fetus) is removed from the source of use of the woman's body, dying in the process. Trough denial of a person's bodily resources, it dies.

At times, the "fetus" is cut apart - not just removed!

In more rare cases. So? When a tumor or other unwanted changes in a body are removed, they may be cut apart!

That's no different than the kidney patient dying because of being denied your bodily resource (The extra kidney that persons generally don't need, and which can be extracted to protect the kidney patient’s right to life at a procedure safer than giving birth (mortality is about 50-60% of the mortality from giving birth).

In these cases, it is also no different from the kid who dies because his parents refuse to feed him. It is also no different from the kid who dies because his father didn't pay his child support bills. (Yes, males do sin as well!)

ah, but parents accept a contract to care for their children. They **CHOOSE** to take on the responsibility by not choosing to have the child raised by others.
We are entering contract law here. A pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy has not chosen to have a child.

Still no baby, and still, is there a right to life that allows anybody or anything to extract bodily resources from an unwilling donor?

Yes. Unborn individuals have the right to use resources from their mothers.

Yet, you deny born people that same right.

That makes your argument rather suspect, rather biased and hypocritical, don't you think? You are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resource against her will, but you sure as heck won't want to be forced to do the same.

And I don't see why bodily resources are really any different from other resources, such as child support money.

Because the latter were agreed to. Yes, in the case of the woman giving birth against the will of the man instead of having an abortion, there is a problem. Because while she agreed to the duties associated with parenthood, he didn't necessarily do so. That is one issue that needs to be worked on, perhaps by the state agreeing to step in and cover his obligation to the child. But that's probably for another tread (C4m, choice for men, has been debated before in any forums. Possibly also in this one. Of course, it only works when abortion is legal and available).

When you take a loan out of a bank, you must make payments even if they are unwanted. Likewise if you have sex.

Why? Because you say so?

No. Physics (OK, biology technically). Be realistic, if you have sex then pregnancy is a very real possibility.

And if that pregnancy is unwanted, an abortion also is a very real possibility.

Is it the same for the smoker that you want to deny access to lung cancer surgery?

I wouldn't want to deny access to lung cancer surgery, even though the smoker should be responsible and pay his own bills.

So you agree to let the smoker with the unwanted tumor have access to medical help, but deny the medical help to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy. That agains seems hypocritical.

(Eh? You don't want to deny the smoker the cancer surgery, even if the cancer is the consequenses of voluntarily smoking? So you don't want the tumor patient to face the consequenses, but the pregnant woman MUST? That's just pure misogyny.)

As I said, smokers and everyone else should be responsible. In most cases, this would include things like paying their own bills. This is insufficient in the case of pregnancy only because the "treatment" brings about the death of an individual human being.

I disagree. There is no "individual human being" until birth, until the umbilical cord is cut. I can not accept your claim as valid.

Then you would also insist that all other medical care for situations that are caused by a person's own voluntary choices likewise should be restricted. Yet you don't, so clearly your denial is false here.

No, because this medical care results in life rather than death.

Not always. Some surgeries are not life-saving but merely restoring. Like an abortion.

There is a REASON that abortion is different than other "treatments".

I disagree with your "reason." I can not accept its premise.

But the physical consequence of smoking is a lung tumor. If you want to deny abortions, you should also deny tumor surgery. And you should deny trauma surgery, heart catherization and what not. In fact just about anything you treat in the ER is a consequence of voluntary actions, and your argument should be that all ER departments should be outlawed as well.

You keep asserting the same illogic, but at least it gives me a chance to spread out my multitude of arguments against it.

Your flagrant disrespect and derisiveness is duly noted.

There is also the fact that there are alternatives to abortion.

Irrelevant. There are alternatives to most things we do, and that doesn't mean that they are prohibited.

It's not as though not having an abortion is going to bring about sure death. Proper medical care will result in a healthy woman 12 months later (who won't even be pregnant any more)!

Maybe, maybe not. That still doesn't allow her enslavement any more than you being fine in a few hours allows me to forcibly extract a pint of blood from your arm. Until you mandate blood donations, your argument is specious, invalid.

In the other cases, we are talking about medical care that is necessary to save a life or to treat a condition.

Abortion medical care that is necessary to treat an unwanted pregnancy. Your argument is invalid.

Because otherwise, you help those persons avoid the physical consequenses of their own voluntary actions.

No, the treatment is consequence enough in and of itself.

So is an abortion.

Since it saves life rather than ends it, it is fine.

And thus you are saying that non-lifesaving surgeries are not fine. Hmm....

Yet, you haven't done that. Could it be because only sex is something you feel she should be limited to do at times when YOU feel it is appropriate? Could it be that only sex is something she should "face the consequenses for" in your personal view?

No, that isn't my thought at all, at least not for the sake of this argument. Although there are other moral issues with premarital sex, contraception is another way to avoid the issue without abstinence.

So when contraception fails, abortions are fine!

We should all be responsible for our own actions.

A responsibility carried out through dealing with one's own situation, such as a woman seeking an abortion.

Killing is an irresponsible way to deal with things we don't like. Other medical treatments as you have mentioned are responsible ways to deal with problems.

Yet, we kill lung tumors.

Again I ask you, how can your argument NOT look like pure misogyny, NOT look like a push mainly for controlling women’s' sexuality?

Not this argument! Contraception exists.

And so, you are saying that all abortions after failed contraception are ok!

And yes, people should be responsible for all their actions, including sexual ones. This means dealing with them in responsible ways rather than irresponsible ways - not ignoring them as you claim I think!

And as abortion is as "responsible" as any other medical procedure, we have no problem.

And the only way to fulfill the kidney patient’s right to life is to force you to give up a kidney.

If you are the only suitable donor of a kidney, you do have a moral obligation to donate a kidney.

But yet you refuse FORCING that donation, allowing that kidney patient to die. I sure haven't seen you make any statement to the contrary. You can feel that it is "moral" to give the kidney or continue the pregnancy. However, it is only when dealing with a pregnant woman that you find it valid to FORCE your morals onto another person.

However, dialysis does work fine for most people even though it can be suboptimal as you later prove.

yeah, "suboptimal" as in the patient dying because they actually needed a kidney.

(And it is “uterus,” by the way.)

Same thing. Does "womb" have some sort of connotation you don't like?

It is undefined per specific scientific terminology.

Yes, back to punishing her for not meeting your idea of what “correct” morals are, while not pushing the same standards on the smoker. Back to misogynistic, patriarchal, controlling theocracy.

Back to your silly straw man.

Back to your silly evasion of the issue.

No, that was CLAIMED, because the argument would otherwise sink the “the fetus has a right to use a person’s body against that person’s will” prolife argument.

No, not at all.

Yes, very much.

You just think that finding one morally bad situation justifies another.

Nope.

And we do have the fact that the mother doesn't lose anything permanently from having a baby that she can't get back. A kidney donor loses one kidney, even if this is a minor loss.

And a blood donor loses nothing that a pregnant woman doesn't lose. Yet, you are not speaking for forced blood donations. So again, your argument is biased and illogical.

And then there's the "multiple donors" problem. It is hard to identify a single individual who is responsible for donating a kidney. However, it's not so hard to identify whose uterus a fetus needs!

Ah, so therefore NOBODY should be forced to donate a kidney or blood? Because there are many, they should not be enslaved? Only if it is one woman, should slavery be imposed?

until it fails. MANY THOUSANDS of people die every year of a preventable cause, namely kidney failure. If they had a kidney replaced, they WOULD live. Yet you say that you can’t be forced to give them one of your kidneys because you don’t want to be forced to give up bodily resources the way you insist the woman can be forced to.

To give yet another reason, I didn't do anything to risk having another person's kidneys fail. Women DO something to risk having a pregnancy.

Yeah, back to "pregnancy as punishment for not satisfying your morals view regarding how she should be action. Back to legislate personal morality onto other people.

And dialysis does continue to work for most people, until they are otherwise so frail that they would die from something else if it wasn't their kidneys.

Except for those for whom it fails, yes.

babies survive outside the uterus all the time. Embryos and fetuses don’t.

OK, I'll use "fetus". I don't want to get into silly terminology arguments that are beside the point.

Well, then we are both sure of exactly what we are talking about. That's good.

But again, what right do they have to use the woman’s bodily resources against her will?

Her sexual gesture of assent.

So sex is consent to pregnancy as much as smoking is consent to lung cancer?

You want them to have such a right when no person has such a right, insisting that the embryo or fetus has MORE right to life than anybody else, more than any person.

Not really. People do have special legal rights to survival needs from their parents, though not from random strangers. Child support, for example. And if a family refuses to feed their children, they WILL get into HUGE legal trouble. Whether the resources are bodily or financial is a moot point.

Again from contractual agreement to cover the needs of their children. A right that can be given up through such things as adoption. The pregnant woman doesn't have such an option.

And it just so happens that this insistence has NO consequence for you,

That's right! That is EXACTLY why I would never make this argument without good reasons.

And your reason is "good" for enslaving her but not you? I haven't seen that yet.

the duty and suffering under this misogyny to be carried by the pregnant woman only. How convenient for PL arguments.

So you're saying that males cannot have any say on this issue?

Not at all. I am saying that nobody but the woman are able to make a decision on this. It is HER choice. That's what pro-choice is about.

What a convenient and dishonest way to discredit my arguments!

What a weird strawman and red herring.

The hypocrisy of insisting that she be forced to give her bodily resources while refusing that YOU, God for bid it, possibly could be required to endure what you want to force on her, that still comes across as misogynistic hypocrisy.

I wouldn't mind if someone wanted my kidney. Really.

But would you want to have a law saying that you MUST give up your kidney? You keep on trying to trivialize this by talking about voluntary donation of bodily resources, which is irrelevant here.

Plus, there is the issue that a woman did something that had the physical consequences of a new life. I haven't done anything to give anyone else kidney disease.

And again, pregnancy as punishment for her not meeting your moral code.

And claiming that hypocrisy discredits an argument, even where hypocrisy is present, is a logical fallacy. It is an ad hominem argument, plain and simple.

It is a factual observation.

So until PL starts actually acknowledging the woman as a person in her own rights, rather than a uterus with legs, this argument will go round and round.

This is most certainly true, that a woman is a person to the same extent that the fetus is!

And no, that is not true, your claim none withstanding. The fetus specifically is NOT a person.

And to the same extent that you and I are people!

Your "because I say so"postulation is without foundation in reality. Prolife wishful thinking is not the same as facts.

Some Pro-Lifers are hypocrites. Others are not. You cannot discredit pro-life on the basis of some of its more hypocritical proponents.

But I can point out where specific arguments are hypocritical.

As long as you refuse to acknowledge the prochoice argument, it will be showed in your face time after time with emphasis on the hypocrisy and theocratic misogyny of the PL position.

I'll just paraphrase that:

"As long as you refuse to listen to illogic, it will be shown in your face time after time with emphasis on arguments against pro-life which commit ad hominem and genetic fallacies."

So we can merely copy each post and tag at the end of the next one. Well, I guess it is a way to bring up the hit number on the site if nothing else.

Tell that to the 10’s of thousands of people who die from kidney failure every year because dialysis fails them and YOU didn’t think that you could be forced to give your kidney to them. Your claim is false.

Refuted multiple times.

Nope. Merely so asserted multiple times.

Ah, so your enslavement of her is only for 9 months, how noble of you.

Ah, you only want to kill really young individuals. How noble of you.

An embryo or fetus are not individuals.

Don't use "enslavement". It is much less accurate than the term "womb" I used earlier (referring to something else of course), and is at least as emotionally charged.

Taking over the right of a person to control what happens to their bodily resources is very much enslavement.

And by golly, you are going to force that slut to suffer for mot meeting your moral standards.

No, for engaging in irresponsible behaviors.

Which YOU are the moral arbitrator of. Yes, it is clear that you see your moral schema as the only valid one and the one that should be written into law.

Just as it wouldn't be slavery to take away a drunk driver's license for nine months.

Per the impact on other persons, of which the fetus is not.

You “forgot” to make the same claim about the smoker, showing how hypocritical that claim is.

No, I was just trying to stay on topic as usual.

No, you were just trying to avoid the topic as usual.

But OK, here goes:

Smokers, drunk drivers, drug addicts, people who cut themselves, those who jump off of tall buildings, people who play in the traffic...

Who else do I need to include on the list to not be "hypocritical"?

Well, what about them? Do they have the right to seek medical care to rectify the unwanted outcomes of their actions?

But it ISN’T like that. Even if you have a very rare blood type, even if you run down the only other person in your state with that blood type and he is bleeding to death, you can STILL not be FORCED to give blood to save his life. Your right to bodily autonomy is above other persons’ right to life. Your speculation is simply not true.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nice copout. You specifically claimed that this person *CAN* be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will. The law is clear that they can not. So your argument was false. Are you objecting to acknowledging when your claims specifically and demonstrably are wrong?

And the right to "bodily autonomy" really shouldn't be any higher than the right to life, if it should even exist. Responsibility and duty are more important than freedom and autonomy.

The US Constitution disagrees.

Mandatory blood donation (much less invasive on your body than an unwanted pregnancy) is still not legal, regardless of how much it would save a life.

Again, there is the fact that I didn't do anything to give anyone else conditions for which they would need donated blood.

But the slut did by not living up to your moral code, so she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term against her will, right?

And again, two wrongs don't make a right.

And an abortion is not a "wrong" but in fact is a legals right.

It is actually, as the dialysis will fail at some point. All kidney patients will die unless they can get a transplant.

All human beings will die at some point no matter what!

And so may an embryo or a fetus. Nice point.

There is still the issue of what is actually killing. The process of abortion is probably more like putting someone in a room with no air than refusing to give them a kidney.

Nope, it is removing them from the use of a woman's body, even if they need that use to survive.

But there aren’t enough, so many **WILL** die because they couldn’t force others to give them a kidney.

This is sad, just like all the people who are aborted.

No "people" are aborted.

And I am at least as well-connected to the medical field, and the sources are here:

Thank you for the references. You did provide some good evidence for your point. However, we are still left with the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.

But then, an abortion is not a "wrong," so your "fact" once agains shows itself as merely being your wishful thinking.

To the point where they should be forced to give their extra kidney?

Yeah, now that I think about it.

So you agree with forced organ donation and forced blood transfusion. Well, at least your position now is consistent.

It is certain, per the high mortality of people on the kidney transplant waitlist, that specifically because I didn’t give my kidney, a person DID die. Is that cause enough to force me to give my extra kidney?

Not true. The problem is that too few people gave, not that certain people didn't give.

But because YOU weren't forced to do so, a person died.

And we still have a weak analogy, since you didn't do anything to give anyone kidney disease.

Back to the "fault" thing, eh? pregnancy is forced so the woman can be punished for not following your morals.

On the other hand, if it is a pregnant woman, then it sudeenly becomes more; then it becomes something you have no problem FORCING her to do. Isn't that a hypocritical position?

It was her choice to have unprotected sex. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy.

Yes, as sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than smoking is consent to lung cancer.

And it is more "forcing" her NOT to do something, rather than to do something.

It is forcing her to give of her bodily resources against her will.

You might be surprised how frequently abortions actually happen when the boyfriend FORCES his girlfriend to have an abortion.

I am aware that it happens, and I blame society for not providing enough resources for her to ignore the boyfriend's coercion. Unfortunately, most of the programs that could have helped her to stand on her own two feet have been voted down by prolife conservatives who have no problem forcing women to remain pregnant, while certainly not wanting to pay any taxes to support the consequence of their enslaving, namely more children in poverty. Slashing support for kids and women while coercing pregnancy is very incredibly hypocritical.

This was told to me by a woman who works with people who have unwanted pregnancies, and who criticizes the hypocrisy and lack of compassion shown by many pro-lifers. She was a speaker at our church from the local "Women's Pregnancy Center" ministry.

And I agree fully with her. If PL wants fewer abortions, they should make it worth her while to not abort, helping her out instead of restricting and enslaving her. Providing appropriate support for these women and their resulting children is something we can all get behind, unless we are conservative tax-phobes.

She also told many stories of women who agonized over their decision to have an abortion, and others who were later very happy that they did not.

Yes, they should have had much better support.

[steen]

If the fetus is a person, then that person gets the right to live. How do you propose should such a person receive what it needs to live? It is a drain on the woman's resources, so should she get rid of it? We don't send people who drain a society's resources to gas chambers.

But we don't keep them alive by forcibly extracting others bodily resources either. Blood is still being fdonated rather than forcibly extracted. Kidneys likewise.

Yet prolife agues that unique among all uses of bodily resources, only the woman can be fored to actually give of her bodily resources against her will. It simply doesn't matter whether the embryo or fetus are persons or not. Because no person can't be forced against their will to give the bodily resources against their will anyway.

regardless of the status that the PL tries to elevate the embryo or fetus to through sophistry and whatnot, this fact still stares them in the face. hence all the verbal gymnastics that tries to avoid personhood issues once it is raised.

But the question is simple.

Does a person have the right to force other persons to give of their bodily resources for his/her/its own survival?

The answer of course, is No. Therefore, the issue of the fetus' personhood remains irrelevant.

[keltzkroz]

You still have not answered my question, which I stated clearly in my previous post (my post before this post, which you might wanna read). Don't try, how did you put it, the 'cop-out route'.

[jerickson314]

Smoking is knowingly risking lung cancer.

Your point being?

And in both cases, the person has access to medical help to rectify the unwanted outcome.

This is as far as the similarity goes! The "medical help" in one case kills an individual, in the other it just "kills" some cells that have gone out of control.

Don't think fetuses are individuals? Then we should be debating the personhood of the fetus. All my arguments are based on the premise that the fetus is an individual human being.

And both are treated with medical help to fix the unwanted result.

Weak analogy. See above.

Lung cancer surgery certainly ends the life of the tumor.

ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL!



(Sorry, I just couldn't help it.)

A tumor is a group of cells which are out of control in their dividing. It does not fit the standard biological definition of "organism", let alone "person".

A fetus is an organism which is a member of species homo sapien. In my definition, a "person".

Huge difference. My objection still stands.

And the point still stands regardless of your avoidance.

What avoidance? I simply addressed it.

Does the cancer patient have more rights than the pregnant women for a situation that both ended up with per voluntary actions?

Only in the sense that the pregnant woman is dealing with a human life, and thus you are using a weak analogy. The cancer patient is not dealing with a human life, only some cell division which has gone out of control.

Yet, you will allow the cancer patient "A way out," while denying this for the pregnant woman.

No, I just don't allow the way out that you see as parallel. This is because it is NOT parallel.

Pregnant women can give up their children for adoption, get proper medical care during pregnancy, etc.

But you say that the lung cancer patient in similar condition should NOT be denied the medical treatment you deny the woman. So your claim is false.

Your whole comparison between the lung cancer surgery and the abortion was a weak analogy. So YOUR claim is false.

The "medical treatments" for lung cancer and for pregnancy are not nearly as parallel as you seem to think.

Like the woman. OH, wait, you want to even deny her the treatment in the first place. That's a double-standard.

No, I want to deny her a "treatment" that is drastically different from the one I would allow the lung cancer patient. It's not really a double standard.

All surgeries ends a life. Every antibiotic treatment ends a lot of lives.

ROFL, again.

Not the lives of homo sapiens, they don't. Not even organisms in many cases. (Although in the case of antibiotic treatments they are organisms that are not homo sapiens.)

But the patient themselves are treated for the unwanted medical situation.

The weak analogy, continued.

The woman is the patient.

Your point? In most surgeries there is one homo sapien involved. In abortion there are two homo sapiens involved. This is the critical difference.

I get the feeling you are completely ignoring her personhood.

I get the feeling you are completely ignoring the personhood of the fetus. Oh, I forgot, your political party thinks that only some homo sapiens are people. I personally find that view to be much to "bigoted", if you will.

And I did acknowledge the personhood of the mother in other places! It simply isn't something that has to be stated every other sentence, especially when I am speaking to a person who already recognizes it.

As it prevents women from being enslaved to theocratic patriarchy, then I feel it is a good one.

You don't like "individual", "baby", and "womb", but you do like "enslaved"? Talk about a double standard!

THIS ISN'T ABOUT "ENSLAVEMENT" TO ANY SORT OF "THEOCRATIC" ENTITY!!!!

Try to offer some support for your statement if you still insist on using it.

As I see it, the decision allows individuals to be murdered by uncaring or confused people.

And then we can argue forth and back about whether one's feelings about the law are good or bad. So?

We live in a DEMOCRACY, hello!

No, they you would merely feel that it is OK.

Right. You must admit, we did identify at least one moral standard that all people should be held accountable to. Why can't there be others?

I would say that some morals are objectively true and some are objectively false. However, they are not subjective.

Again, morality is not legislated per its inherent subjectivity. Morality is about how you see the world.

Morality as I see it is about what all people ought to do, what is right and what is wrong.

Lots of laws are based on objective moral standards, like those regarding theft, murder, and rape.

However, as I note later, not all morality should be legislated.

It is not what you subdue and oppress the world with.

"Oppress"? What neutral terminology!

But under the US Constitution, the theistic worldview aside, it still is only the US Constitution that matters as a measure of whether the law is "good."

Right, under the Constitution. But even there, it is a principle of the Constitution that the government should protect any individual who is otherwise unprotected, whether this individual is unborn, same-sex attracted, female, black, poor or whatever (reading modern issues back into it, of course). Liberals of all people seem to understand this, except when you bring up "unborn".

The courts ruled that unborn individuals are not people. They also ruled that Dred Scott was a non-person because he was a slave.

Really? So MY moral view is good even when you disagree?

In any areas where you are right and I am wrong. However, abortion does not seem to be one of these areas.

So you are saying that my moral view is absolute and not just relative to me? My morals should be law?

I am saying that you should seek to discover and hold to the absolute moral standards that exist.

In terms of law, we probably should only legislate those moral issues that directly affect those not commiting the actions. Such as murder, theft, perjury, and abortion (a subset of murder).

As it also is specified in the law. The REALITY is that the fetus is not a person, that it has no personhood. So why do you object to factual terms that connotate reality?

If you use that logic, the REALITY is that slaves were not people, that they had no personhood. The Dred Scott decision established this, more or less.

And you are confusing "reality" as in what the government has decided for now with "reality" as in actual objective reality that we must work to discover.

As a deceptive way of trying to paint an emotional picture that is false. Yes, I see why prolife likes such terms so much.

Provide some evidence that it is false. Why do you insist on calling a homo sapien a non-person?

In more rare cases. So? When a tumor or other unwanted changes in a body are removed, they may be cut apart!

ROFL, yet again. You are assuming the non-personhood of the fetus here.

ah, but parents accept a contract to care for their children. They **CHOOSE** to take on the responsibility by not choosing to have the child raised by others.
We are entering contract law here.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know enough about contract law to know that this is NOT contract law.

Contract law is based on a "gesture of assent" - something that you DO do, not something that you DON'T do.

The responsibility to care for the children is there by default, no contract is needed to establish it. It is simply possible to use contract law to pass the responsibility on to someone else. However, contract law does not enter the picture until this option is taken.

If there were no parents willing to adopt a child, the original parents would still be required to care for the child under our current legal system. And even with adoption, the parents are forced to ensure that their children are properly cared for.

And child support money is in NO WAY a choice on the part of the person making the payments.

A pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy has not chosen to have a child.

She has chosen to have sex, which implies the possibility of having a child. However, contract law is irrelevant here.

Yet, you deny born people that same right.

Oh, I do? Please show me where.

That makes your argument rather suspect, rather biased and hypocritical, don't you think?

I cannot comment on these statements until you clarify what you are accusing me of.

You are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resource against her will, but you sure as heck won't want to be forced to do the same.

The reasoning is rather simple: she chose to risk creating a human life which would need her "resources", whereas I haven't created anyone else's need for my "resources".

However, as I later pointed out, I wouldn't so much mind being forced to do "the same".

Because the latter were agreed to.

Child support? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Yes, in the case of the woman giving birth against the will of the man instead of having an abortion, there is a problem.

So now it's not the will of the woman that matters any more?

Because while she agreed to the duties associated with parenthood, he didn't necessarily do so. That is one issue that needs to be worked on, perhaps by the state agreeing to step in and cover his obligation to the child.

No. Men have just as much responsibility as women do. That's why child support exists in the first place.

Be realistic, if you have sex then pregnancy is a very real possibility.

And if that pregnancy is unwanted, an abortion also is a very real possibility.

So you're saying that people can choose to create homo sapien life, with the specific intention of destroying it? This sounds close to the definition of evil.

So you agree to let the smoker with the unwanted tumor have access to medical help, but deny the medical help to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy. That agains seems hypocritical.

No, because as I said before, the medical "help" is quite different in these two cases. One kills a homo sapien, the other does not.

Plus, the woman with an unwanted pregnancy can still seek medical attention that does not harm the fetus.

I disagree. There is no "individual human being" until birth, until the umbilical cord is cut.

What?!?! So people who were born with C-Sections are not individuals?

Oh, and if you want to use the "umbilical cord" definition, can I torture a baby that has been born but hasn't had its umbilical cord cut?

It has been shown that people can be taken out of the uterus several months early, and they can still survive and act almost like normal babies. In fact, ultrasound has shown that fetuses in late stages of pregnancy show clear signs of emotional distress during the procedure of abortion. They are indeed people.

There is really very little development of "humanity" that takes place at birth.

If you have read history, you know where using weak definitions of "individual human being" leads. It has led to conclusions that women were not people but rather the property of men. It has led to the conclusions that slaves were not people and could be beaten senselessly. And it has led to the conclusion that fetuses were not people and could be ethically killed.

Not always. Some surgeries are not life-saving but merely restoring. Like an abortion.

Using abortion as your example is begging the question. Nonetheless, I admit that there are some other surgeries that are not lifesaving. However, abortion is unique in that it causes the death of a homo sapien.

Your flagrant disrespect and derisiveness is duly noted.

Sorry. It is tempting to fight fire with fire, but I'll try harder not to.

Irrelevant. There are alternatives to most things we do, and that doesn't mean that they are prohibited.

It is actually relevant, it just isn't the reason that abortion should be prohibited. Abortion should be prohibited because it brings about death and in some cases extreme pain for homo sapiens.

Maybe, maybe not. That still doesn't allow her enslavement any more than you being fine in a few hours allows me to forcibly extract a pint of blood from your arm. Until you mandate blood donations, your argument is specious, invalid.

I have already pointed out multiple times that I am not the cause of any person's need for blood or a kidney. Plus, your use of "enslavement" is rather biased.

Abortion medical care that is necessary to treat an unwanted pregnancy. Your argument is invalid.

Nine months also do the trick. Plus, the "disease" is a living homo sapien and is thus different from any other medical condition.

So is an abortion.

I explained elsewhere why this is not the case.

And thus you are saying that non-lifesaving surgeries are not fine. Hmm....

No, just those that end life.

So when contraception fails, abortions are fine!

No. People are still responsible for their actions.

A responsibility carried out through dealing with one's own situation, such as a woman seeking an abortion.

Killing a homo sapien which you caused to exist is NOT responsible.

Yet, we kill lung tumors.

ROFL, yet again.

Lung tumors are NOT homo sapiens.

And so, you are saying that all abortions after failed contraception are ok!

No. They still result in the death of a homo sapien.

And as abortion is as "responsible" as any other medical procedure, we have no problem.

What you say about the unborn, Hitler said about Jews. KILLING HOMO SAPIENS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOMO SAPIEN.

But yet you refuse FORCING that donation, allowing that kidney patient to die. I sure haven't seen you make any statement to the contrary. You can feel that it is "moral" to give the kidney or continue the pregnancy. However, it is only when dealing with a pregnant woman that you find it valid to FORCE your morals onto another person.

I find it valid to FORCE my morals onto other people all the time, in regards to things like murder (including abortion) and theft.

The reason someone can't be forced to give a kidney is that that person didn't physically do anything to cause the kidney problem to exist.

yeah, "suboptimal" as in the patient dying because they actually needed a kidney.

Again, two injustices don't create a just situation.

However, it is still valid that potential kidney donors didn't create the kidney problems.

Same thing. Does "womb" have some sort of connotation you don't like?

It is undefined per specific scientific terminology.

womb
n : a hollow muscular organ in the pelvic cavity of females;
contains the developing fetus [syn: uterus]

Yes, back to punishing her for not meeting your idea of what “correct” morals are, while not pushing the same standards on the smoker. Back to misogynistic, patriarchal, controlling theocracy.

Back to your silly straw man.

Back to your silly evasion of the issue.[/quote]

All right then, I will clear things up right now. There are cases when someone wouldn't meet "my" moral standards but wouldn't be "punished" with a pregnancy. For instance, someone who uses contraception.

There are also cases when someone would meet "my" moral standards but would be "punushed" with a pregnancy. For instance, a married couple that isn't ready to raise children.

In any case, my argument is more about responsibility than morality. Creating human life creates unique responsibilities.

Yet, you are not speaking for forced blood donations. So again, your argument is biased and illogical.

No. Your argument was a weak analogy to begin with. Potential blood donors don't create the need for a blood transfusion.

Ah, so therefore NOBODY should be forced to donate a kidney or blood? Because there are many, they should not be enslaved? Only if it is one woman, should slavery be imposed?

In no case is it "slavery", whether we are talking about kidneys, blood, or pregnancy.

And the problem with the multiple donors was the problem of specificity. Which ones should be forced to donate? With pregnancy it is obvious, not so with blood or kidneys.

To give yet another reason, I didn't do anything to risk having another person's kidneys fail. Women DO something to risk having a pregnancy.

Yeah, back to "pregnancy as punishment for not satisfying your morals view regarding how she should be action. Back to legislate personal morality onto other people.

No, back to responsibility for the physical consequences of your own physical actions.

In the case of abortion, the life of a homo sapien rests only on the mother. No parallel exists for kidney donation or blood transfusions.

And dialysis does continue to work for most people, until they are otherwise so frail that they would die from something else if it wasn't their kidneys.

Except for those for whom it fails, yes.

I think this is starting to get off the point. Agree?

Well, then we are both sure of exactly what we are talking about. That's good.

Now do your part and don't use "enslaved".

So sex is consent to pregnancy as much as smoking is consent to lung cancer?

Yes. However, ending lung cancer doesn't kill anybody.

Again from contractual agreement to cover the needs of their children. A right that can be given up through such things as adoption.

Contract doesn't come into the picture until the adoption situation comes into view. Otherwise, the responsibility is there by default.

The pregnant woman doesn't have such an option.

Right. Thus the responsibility which is there by default cannot be contracted away. Therefore, the responsibility remains until at least birth.

And your reason is "good" for enslaving her but not you? I haven't seen that yet.

Would you please quit it with these personal attacks? Plus, "enslaving" has nothing to do with it.

Not at all. I am saying that nobody but the woman are able to make a decision on this. It is HER choice. That's what pro-choice is about.

Despite refuting your own comments on child support, I guess this could be what you meant.

However, is it my choice if I want to murder my next door neighbor?

What a weird strawman and red herring.

OK. I misunderstood what you were saying.

But would you want to have a law saying that you MUST give up your kidney? You keep on trying to trivialize this by talking about voluntary donation of bodily resources, which is irrelevant here.

Again, the potential donors did not create the need for their donations.

And again, pregnancy as punishment for her not meeting your moral code.

Refuted elsewhere.

And claiming that hypocrisy discredits an argument, even where hypocrisy is present, is a logical fallacy. It is an ad hominem argument, plain and simple.

It is a factual observation.

Factual or not, it is still an ad hominem attack.

And it is not true that all pro-lifers are hypocrites.

This is most certainly true, that a woman is a person to the same extent that the fetus is!

And no, that is not true, your claim none withstanding. The fetus specifically is NOT a person.

Only under a decision made by the same court that decided slaves weren't people. Scientifically, it is a homo sapien.

But this is the issue we should be debating, since it seems to be at the core of both our arguments.

And to the same extent that you and I are people!

Your "because I say so"postulation is without foundation in reality. Prolife wishful thinking is not the same as facts.

If it is a fact that fetuses aren't people, why not support it with some actual evidence?

But I can point out where specific arguments are hypocritical.

Naturally. However, hypocritical still doesn't mean "false". The person making the argument and the argument itself should not be confused. "Hypocritical" by definition refers to the person.

Tell that to the 10’s of thousands of people who die from kidney failure every year because dialysis fails them and YOU didn’t think that you could be forced to give your kidney to them. Your claim is false.

Refuted multiple times.[/quote]Nope. Merely so asserted multiple times.[/quote]

My key evidence is that no one forces someone else to have kidney problems. I may not have refuted that dialysis sometimes fails, no.

An embryo or fetus are not individuals.

This is what we are really arguing about.

Don't use "enslavement". It is much less accurate than the term "womb" I used earlier (referring to something else of course), and is at least as emotionally charged.

Taking over the right of a person to control what happens to their bodily resources is very much enslavement.

"Enslavement" has too many negative connotations to be useful in a debate. But let's look at the dictionary, anyway.

enslavement
n 1: the state of being a slave; "So every bondman in his own
hand bears the power to cancel his
captivity"--Shakespeare [syn: captivity]
2: the act of making slaves of your captives

slave
adj : held in servitude; "he was born of slave parents" [syn: slave(a)]
[ant: free]
n 1: a person who is owned by someone
2: someone who works as hard as a slave [syn: striver, hard
worker]
3: someone entirely dominated by some influence or person; "a
slave to fashion"; "a slave to cocaine"; "his mother was
his abject slave"
v : work very hard, like a slave [syn: break one's back, buckle
down, knuckle down]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything about "bodily resources" in there.

No, for engaging in irresponsible behaviors.

Which YOU are the moral arbitrator of. Yes, it is clear that you see your moral schema as the only valid one and the one that should be written into law.

We must write SOME moral schema into law, otherwise we would have anarchy. Parts of my moral code that affect other people and that are well-reasoned should be part of the law. However, this should not be done without open discussion in case I am wrong.

And "responsible" is pretty obvious. Drunk driving and playing in the traffic aren't responsible. Neither is creating human life with the intention of destroying it.

Per the impact on other persons, of which the fetus is not.

This is the central issue of our debate.

No, you were just trying to avoid the topic as usual.

Seriously, let's both try to put an end to the ad hominem attacks.

Well, what about them? Do they have the right to seek medical care to rectify the unwanted outcomes of their actions?

Naturally, but of course only in ways that don't hurt other people. This usually isn't an issue with what I listed.

Nice copout. You specifically claimed that this person *CAN* be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will. The law is clear that they can not. So your argument was false. Are you objecting to acknowledging when your claims specifically and demonstrably are wrong?

And the law is clear that abortion is currently legal, so your point is...?

I guess this didn't show a legal precedent against abortion. However, there is still the issue that the person with the rare blood type didn't cause the other person to need the blood.

I don't see where I claimed that they can be forced to give blood under the current legal system, though.

The US Constitution disagrees.

The Constitution stresses freedom more, yes. This is because there was a general lack of freedom at the time it was written. Duty and responsibility were too obvious to need inclusion in the constitution.

However, the constitution stresses equality for all. This should really be all - even females, unborn people, same-sex attracted people, black people, etc. At least from a Constitution perspective, if nothing else.

But the slut did by not living up to your moral code, so she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term against her will, right?

Not what I was saying. She physically did some things that caused the right chemical reactions to occur, such that a human life was created. She is now responsible fot the well being of this human life.

And an abortion is not a "wrong" but in fact is a legals right.

At the moment, from a legal perspective. However, the idea of democracy is NOT keeping the norm but rather continuous improvement.

And so may an embryo or a fetus. Nice point.

This doesn't eliminate one's responsibility for a life one has created.

Nope, it is removing them from the use of a woman's body, even if they need that use to survive.

Yeah, they need that use to survive. Therefore, abortion is as active a method of killing as oxygen deprivation.

But then, an abortion is not a "wrong," so your "fact" once agains shows itself as merely being your wishful thinking.

You are commiting equivocation. I meant "wrong" as in ethics.

But because YOU weren't forced to do so, a person died.

I already showed this to be illogical, and you haven't really addressed my explanation.

And we still have a weak analogy, since you didn't do anything to give anyone kidney disease.

Back to the "fault" thing, eh? pregnancy is forced so the woman can be punished for not following your morals.

No, she is just responsible for her actions.

Yes, as sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than smoking is consent to lung cancer.

Smoking IS consent to lung cancer.

It is forcing her to give of her bodily resources against her will.

You might be surprised how frequently abortions actually happen when the boyfriend FORCES his girlfriend to have an abortion.

I am aware that it happens, and I blame society for not providing enough resources for her to ignore the boyfriend's coercion.

Are the days of personal responsibility over? But it is probably more the boyfriend here than anyone else.

Unfortunately, most of the programs that could have helped her to stand on her own two feet have been voted down by prolife conservatives who have no problem forcing women to remain pregnant, while certainly not wanting to pay any taxes to support the consequence of their enslaving, namely more children in poverty. Slashing support for kids and women while coercing pregnancy is very incredibly hypocritical.

And not all pro-lifers are like that. Like this very woman I was talking about here, she wasn't like that.

You are still providing emotionally charged rhetoric here, rather than rational arguments.

And I agree fully with her. If PL wants fewer abortions, they should make it worth her while to not abort, helping her out instead of restricting and enslaving her. Providing appropriate support for these women and their resulting children is something we can all get behind, unless we are conservative tax-phobes.

They certainly DO need to support these women. I agree 100%. However, they should not allow women to make the unethical choice of aborting. They should be there to help her through every step of the way through pregnancy, nonetheless.

(However, not all conservatives are "tax-phobes".)

She also told many stories of women who agonized over their decision to have an abortion, and others who were later very happy that they did not.

Yes, they should have had much better support.

They certainly should have. However, this doesn't mean support in the decision to abort. I'm not sure if you were claiming this or not.

[steen]

You still have not answered my question, which I stated clearly in my previous post (my post before this post, which you might wanna read).

Yeah, about the personhood fo the fetus. I already answered that one, that it doesn't matter as not even persons have the right to use others bodies against their will.

Don't try, how did you put it, the 'cop-out route'.

Hmm, refresh my memory. Did I accuse you of that? In that case, did you subsequently actually deal with my point?