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

[steen]

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.

As abortions don't kill individuals, your claim is nonsense.

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.

Well, I don't think it is, But again, it doesn't matter. because no individual has the right to use a person's body against their will.

My comment about individuality is merely for correctness, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. You can claim the fetus to be an individual, a baby, a person, a human being or whatnot 5 times over, and it still doesn't have the right to use a person's body against the will of that person.

SO I am frankly not sure why you are making a deal out of this.

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.)

Yes, I note your disrespect in not taking my points serious, while insisting on your points to be acknowledged. The word for that is "hypocricy."

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".

But it is something that is alive, and once removed, it dies. That's no different than an abortion. And that WAS the arguemnt you made (regardless of how much you tried to ridicule my reply). If you don't like the reply, perhaps you should be more specific and focused in your claims? Not my fault that your argument lends itself to my counter-arguments.

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

Well, your unique "definition" doesn't redefine reality. reality is that intraspecies comparisons per the species concept is invalid.

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.[/quote]Nope. "human lives" don't have the right to use other humans' bodies against their will.

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.

It is a parallel. You just don't like it because it trashes your argument. Well, to bad.

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.

Ah, look. A prolife "because I say so" postulation. Are you going to CONTINUE avoiding my point?

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

Because you say so? Both are to remove the unwanted outcome of a voluntary activity. that makes them very close.

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.

there is no drastic difference. Both are being medically treated to resolve an unwanted medical condition.

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

ROFL, again.

Yeah, back to the ridicule to avoid dealing with the issue. Your avoidance is beginning to be rather pathetic to witness.

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.)

So when you merely said "life," you are now admitting that your claim was imprecise and unspecific, and that you should have clarified the above, so I wouldn't have to go several rounds through posts to clarify> It is not very curteous you you to be so slipshot in your posts as to not say exactly what it is you actually mean. It is rather rude, actually, to on;ly give a half-baked answer. Your disrespect is duly noted.

next time, if you mean "life," that's fine. Bhut if you mean "life of H. sapiens," then ^@$#%^@ say so, eh!!!!


that aside, h. Sapiens die all the time from not obtaining others bodily resources anyway.

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

The weak analogy, continued.

Your continued evasion of the prochoice view is duly noted as disrespectful and in ill faith.

Though I find it rather dishonest to claim to be discussing on a discussion board when you refuse to actually discuss the points. Guess PL positions are to weak to actually handle challenges.

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.

Again, the fetus is not the patient. Are you going to deal with that point or again cop-out?

I get the feeling you are completely ignoring her personhood.

I get the feeling you are completely ignoring the personhood of the fetus.

Because there is no suchj thing. Roe vs Wade, Section IX is clearly deliniating this.

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.

Your fudge terminology designed to avoid dealing with the issue is duly noted. I understand that your argument can not stand on the merit of factual and accurate terminology.

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.

When your arguments specifically deny this personhood of the woman, then yes it needs to be clarified.

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!

Your personal attack aside, "enslavement is indeed the forceful take-over of a person's right to control their own bodily resources. I note that you again don't like factual and accurate descriptors as they clearly trash your emotional, non-factual arguments.

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

When theocratic reasoning uis used to take away her personal civil right to control her own body, then it is indeed a theocratic enslavement, the misuse of God's word for misogynistic control over the woman.

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

The embryo is not an individual.

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!

In a republic, actually. And according to the processes by which such is established, abortion is legal regardless of your personal feelings about how much a woman should be controlled by others.

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.

I disagree.

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.

Yes, what YOU see as right or wrong. I see other things as right or wrong. If your morality can be legislated, so can mine. Are you ready for that?

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

Nope, these are about society functioning without people killing each other off, or

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

Yet, you support "morality" that results in a woman's bodily control being taken over by the state, enslaved, per the desire of religious fundamentalists. Yes, the theocracy, as I earlier pointed out.

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

"Oppress"? What neutral terminology!

As neutral as your claptrap about babies, h. sapiens and what not. Are you going to continue ridiculing me and be rude? I can be so right back, if that is what you desire. If you disrespect my points and my views, see me do the same to you. Yeah, wouldn't THAT be fun and productive?

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,

The fetus is not an "individual." It is very much attached to the woman's body, just liek any organ.

whether this individual is unborn, same-sex attracted, female, black, poor or whatever (reading modern issues back into it, of course).

Rather, reading inbto it what is not there.

Liberals of all people seem to understand this, except when you bring up "unborn".

Because it is not protected under the US Constitution per its resulting enslavement of the woman.

The courts ruled that unborn individuals are not people.

Indeed, as the alternative would be to make the woman a non-person.

They also ruled that Dred Scott was a non-person because he was a slave.

You ought to read your history. Dred Scot was found to not be a CITIZEN.

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.

Heh, because you say so, right?

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.

I have already. You are merely not quite there yet.

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).

Abortion is not murder, and the fetus is not an individual entity, so the terminology "those" doesn't apply.

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.

Your claim is false. Presumably you base this on dred scot? Dred scot didn't rule what you claim it did.

The Dred Scott decision established this, more or less.

Nope, it established that Dred Scot was not a citizen. Ypou ought to read up on this stuff before posting.

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.

I have already presented the objective reality. You just haven't realized it yet.

Hmm, do you see a problem here, as in nobody can fully agree on what is "objective reality"?
....

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.

The non-personhood of the fetus is a fact.

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.

Yes, the parents took the kid home rather than giving it up for adoption. That's contract law.

The responsibility to care for the children is there by default, no contract is needed to establish it.

So adoptions are illegal? Or are you saying that there is a "duty" that can be transferred (thus establishing contract law)?

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.

It enters when the parents claim the kid and takes it home.

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.

Our current legal system allows the neonate to be dropped off at any fire station, hospital etc., no questions asked. So your claim is false.

And even with adoption, the parents are forced to ensure that their children are properly cared for.

Nope, they merely have to transfer their contractaul obligations.
....

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.

Like smoking implies the possibility of getting lung cancer. Again, risk is not the same as consent to the outcome.

Yet, you deny born people that same right.

Oh, I do? Please show me where.

You refuse the born person the option of forcing others to give of their bodily resources. I can't force you to give me your blood.

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".

And how is that relevant, unless you are using pregnancy as punishment. People get treatment regardless of cause. People's right to the resources of others doesn't change if they are more or less guilty or more or less needy. I can be dying from no fault of my own and still not foirce you to give me blood. And that is even the case if you caused my condition, you still can't be forced to give me your blood. So your claim is falt-out wrong.

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

But can you force others to do so?

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?

Yes it is. But now it impacts others, and society may have a duty to insulate the man from her choice by cobering his part of the duty to provide for the kids needs.

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.

So you don;t want him to have a choice, yet insist that this is a valid argument in the debate about choice. Isn't that rather disingenious? That's arguing in ill faith.

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,

LOL. back to the fudge terminology to avoid specific and accurate terminology becayuse your argument can't handle facts. Revisionist linguistics at its worst, such misrepresentation.

with the specific intention of destroying it? This sounds close to the definition of evil.

When you invent and twist the scenario to look that way, no doubt. But then, that's not an honest argument anyway, just as I would have expected from a prolifer; you are indeed not disapponting me in this. It is exactly what I would expect from prolife.

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.

Te he he he. The medical help is exactly the same to the patient. You merely seks to deny one patient the same right the other patient has.

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

Or the medical help that removes thew fetus from its unauthorized use of her body, just like everybody else have that right.

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?

I find it fascinating that you believe c-section births doesn't involve the cutting of the umbilical cord.

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?

What a dishonest statement. The umbilical cord issue merely establishes what an individual is. there has been no word about aloowing torture. I hope not all of your statements will be that dishonest.

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.

Well, by then they ARE babies.

In fact, ultrasound has shown that fetuses in late stages of pregnancy show clear signs of emotional distress during the procedure of abortion.

"late stages"? I find your vagueness amazing.

They are indeed people.

Not per anything you have argued so far.

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

There is individual existence beginning at that time.

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.

Ah, nice attempt at emotional tie-in. Only per your say-so, of course.

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.

Well, I am a bit tired of your revisionist linguistic dishonesty here, but lets just ask you what you think happnes when siamese twins are separated?

Your flagrant disrespect and derisiveness is duly noted.

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

"fire with fire" Yes, your derisiveness continues.

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.

Usual fudge baloney.

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.

Irrelevant to the FACT that you suggest that the woman can be forced to give of her bodily resources when nobody else can. Only by completely ignoring her ad her humanity can you make your argument.

Well, enough for now. More to follow.

[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).

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?

It just shows that its not clear to you why I jumped in to this thread. No one has the right to force any person to die. You can't squirm out of this one by not answering the question.

[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?

It just shows that its not clear to you why I jumped in to this thread.

It is clear that you didn't make it clear, then.

No one has the right to force any person to die.

No one has the right to force another person to keep them alive. So that sure is an impass. Which right trumps the other, then?

You can't squirm out of this one by not answering the question.

Huh? Why would I want to squirm out of it? I am not a prolife emotional emptyhead with all selfrighteousness and no knowledge. SO there is no need for me to "squirm out" of anything.

(OH, I am sorry. Did I spoil some kind of attempt at being snide?)

[jerickson314]

Well, I don't think it is, But again, it doesn't matter. because no individual has the right to use a person's body against their will.

They should have this right whenever that person created the need for his or her own body. This is simply because only in these situations would "murder" be a true claim. In these situations, it would be this person's fault that the person died. Not so in other situations.

My comment about individuality is merely for correctness, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

What? "Correctness"? It is merely a pro-choice assertion! And it has everything to do with abortion, because it is what decides whether abortion is murder.

You can claim the fetus to be an individual, a baby, a person, a human being or whatnot 5 times over, and it still doesn't have the right to use a person's body against the will of that person.

Why do you evade my counterargument, and then accuse me of evading your original argument? I said that people should have the right to use another person's body whenever that person created the need for his or her own body.

SO I am frankly not sure why you are making a deal out of this.

I just explained. If you still don't get it, feel free to ask.

Yes, I note your disrespect in not taking my points serious, while insisting on your points to be acknowledged. The word for that is "hypocricy."

If I make a point that is this ridiculous, feel free to respond in the same way.

But it is something that is alive, and once removed, it dies.

Yes, but as I said it is not even an organism, let alone a homo sapien. You are over-generalizing things.

Suppose you see a random guy on oxygen in the hospital. You then remove the oxygen, and he dies. By your logic, this would be perfectly ethical. You see, it is "something that is alive, and once removed, it dies." (Although "someone" would be a better word both in this case and in the case of abortion.)

That's no different than an abortion.

It actually is different. I just repeated my demonstration of this point. I hope you read it this time.

And that WAS the arguemnt you made (regardless of how much you tried to ridicule my reply). If you don't like the reply, perhaps you should be more specific and focused in your claims?

The ridiculing wasn't to get you to see your point as bad. It just hit my funny bone.

However, I did address the point, both in that post and in this one. How is talking about the distinction about homo sapiens not being specific?

Not my fault that your argument lends itself to my counter-arguments.

I guess I'll need to be a bit more wordy, then.

Well, your unique "definition" doesn't redefine reality.

Neither does yours.

reality is that intraspecies comparisons per the species concept is invalid.

English, please?

Nope. "human lives" don't have the right to use other humans' bodies against their will.

I already explained this.

They should have this right whenever that person created the need for his or her own body. This is simply because only in these situations would "murder" be a true claim. In these situations, it would be this person's fault that the person died. Not so in other situations.

It is a parallel.

I already demonstrated that it is not, you'll have to do better than just assert that it is not.

You just don't like it because it trashes your argument. Well, to bad.

I could say the same to you (except that I'd correct the spelling of "too").

Ah, look. A prolife "because I say so" postulation.

No, I actually did support my point, whether you read my support or not.

Are you going to CONTINUE avoiding my point?

And are you going to CONTINUE avoiding mine?

To address yours, I will say that it is based on two pro-choice "because I say so" postulations.

1.) Fetuses are not people.
and
2.) People never ever have the right to use the bodily resources of others without continual consent.

Because you say so? Both are to remove the unwanted outcome of a voluntary activity. that makes them very close.

Time for another counterexample. Suppose I take out a loan to buy a new car, but I don't like the payments. I then go rob a different bank, but only the amount I need to make my payments. Thus, I have "removed the unwanted outcome of a voluntary activity". By your logic, this would morally be on the same plane as abortion and lung cancer surgery.

You are over-generalizing things.

there is no drastic difference. Both are being medically treated to resolve an unwanted medical condition.

All right, I am getting tired of having this point evaded as well.

In one situation, a homo sapien life ends. Not so in the other.

Yeah, back to the ridicule to avoid dealing with the issue.

No, I ridicule first, and then immediately deal with the issue. Not just ridicule.

So when you merely said "life," you are now admitting that your claim was imprecise and unspecific, and that you should have clarified the above, so I wouldn't have to go several rounds through posts to clarify>

If you want a completely honest answer, I really thought you had more common sense than that. "Human" was intended to be implied. I didn't really think twice about it.

It is not very curteous you you to be so slipshot in your posts as to not say exactly what it is you actually mean. It is rather rude, actually, to on;ly give a half-baked answer. Your disrespect is duly noted.

I wasn't intending to be disrespectful. I thought you would read into my posts a bit more than you did.

next time, if you mean "life," that's fine. Bhut if you mean "life of H. sapiens," then ^@$#%^@ say so, eh!!!!

When I figured out that you were going to take me so incredibly literally, I went ahead and started putting "homo sapiens" in nearly every line, OK?

That aside, h. Sapiens die all the time from not obtaining others bodily resources anyway.

You are again confusing the "do" with the "ought". This is part of what I meant when I used the colliquial expression, "two wrongs don't make a right." And also see the first point that I put in huge bold red.

Your continued evasion of the prochoice view is duly noted as disrespectful and in ill faith.

Please identify at least one statement I have actually evaded before making this claim. And please, don't just assume I'm being disrespectful in every case. This accusation itself might be taken as disrespectful!

Though I find it rather dishonest to claim to be discussing on a discussion board when you refuse to actually discuss the points.

Except that I actually DO discuss the points...

Guess PL positions are to weak to actually handle challenges.

Even if you did have any base at all for this claim, it would still be a form of straw man fallacy - assuming that one defender of a position must be the best.

Again, the fetus is not the patient.

Neither is the doctor, for that matter. Or the person in the next room. Your point? The fetus is still a homo sapien and thus, I would argue, deserves the same rights as the patient.

Are you going to deal with that point or again cop-out?

I dealt with that point. Now I just dealt with it in a different way. Happy yet?

Because there is no suchj thing. Roe vs Wade, Section IX is clearly deliniating this.

You are again making the fallacy of "appeal to authority". Dred Scott v. Sandford clearly delineates that slaves do not have the same rights as other people. Would you argue that slaves have limited personhood at best, as well? Dred Scott v. Sanford was overruled, why can't Roe vs Wade? Again, you are confusing reality with current government persuasion.

Your fudge terminology designed to avoid dealing with
the issue is duly noted.

Your fudgy terminology of "enslavement" earlier designed to avoid dealing with the issue is also duly noted. And please do show me how my terminology is "fudgy".

I understand that your argument can not stand on the merit of factual and accurate terminology.

Not if the pro-choicers get to determine what "factual" and "accurate" mean, no! You are actually begging the question (that's another logical fallacy).

When your arguments specifically deny this personhood of the woman, then yes it needs to be clarified.

I do not see where they ever do. If you could show me an actual example, I would be glad to explain.

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!

Your personal attack aside, "enslavement is indeed the forceful take-over of a person's right to control their own bodily resources.[/quote]

Your many other personal attacks aside, you are still ignoring the dictionary definitions of "enslavement". Your use of the word was invented quite recently by pro-choicers and is not endorsed by the dictionary. I already provided the listing earlier.

I note that you again don't like factual and accurate descriptors as they clearly trash your emotional, non-factual arguments.

I note that you again DO like emotional, non-factual descriptors whenever they support pro-choice over pro-life. And I don't see where they ever trash my arguments, for that matter...

When theocratic reasoning uis used to take away her personal civil right to control her own body, then it is indeed a theocratic enslavement, the misuse of God's word for misogynistic control over the woman.

If we are talking the Bible here, the right to life clearly takes precedence over the right to control one's own body, nearly everywhere in the Bible.

You really do have to admit that your argument here is pure emotional rhetoric. Not logical reasoning.

In a republic, actually.

Close enough. In popular terminology, "democracy" is used. My, I didn't know that you applied the same standards to forum posts that you think creationists do to the Bible!

And according to the processes by which such is established, abortion is legal regardless

DUH, as of right now! May I remind you that slave beating also used to be legal?

of your personal feelings about how much a woman should be controlled by others.

Now, you are creating an emotionally charged assertion that will make me look bad no matter how I answer it. It's like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

May I remind you that women also have the choice to use contraception, or to not have sex?

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

I disagree.

It's a bit off topic, but what religion do you follow? Or are you an atheist?

Yes, what YOU see as right or wrong. I see other things as right or wrong. If your morality can be legislated, so can mine. Are you ready for that?

That's how it is, living in a republic. Whoever has morals that can win in a fair debate should get the legislation.

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

Nope, these are about society functioning without people killing each other off,

Right, which is in part the basis for morality. And then there are laws about not bribing the police and such...

Yet, you support "morality" that results in a woman's bodily control being taken over by the state,

Not at all. Women can still choose not to have sex, or to use contraception, or whatever. They still have free choice. They just can't choose certain options, just as people who take out loans can't choose not to pay the interest.

enslaved,

As I have said before, using this word is no better than me using "individual" to describe a fetus, at best.

per the desire of religious fundamentalists.

No, per basic principles. What about the desires of these people, these people, and these people? Hardly "religious fundamentalists".

Yes, the theocracy, as I earlier pointed out.

No, your straw man, as I previously refuted.

As neutral as your claptrap about babies, h. sapiens and what not.

Neither view is neutral. But at most, only one can be right. Don't assert that you are neutral and I am not.

Except that "homo sapiens" seems pretty neutral to me. The question is whether all homo sapiens are people or only some.

Are you going to continue ridiculing me and be rude? I can be so right back, if that is what you desire. If you disrespect my points and my views, see me do the same to you. Yeah, wouldn't THAT be fun and productive?

It's already happening, unfortunately.

The fetus is not an "individual." It is very much attached to the woman's body, just liek any organ.

Attachment or detachment from the body does not determine whether the fetus is an "individual", and especially not whether the fetus is a "person". Are siamese twins not individuals?

whether this individual is unborn, same-sex attracted, female, black, poor or whatever (reading modern issues back into it, of course).

Rather, reading inbto it what is not there.

Time to go burn those black people and homosexuals, I guess. Neither of those two groups were really mentioned in the Constitution (except the 3/5 compromise, if I recall correctly. And that certainly DIDN'T support black rights.)

The courts ruled that unborn individuals are not people.

Indeed, as the alternative would be to make the woman a non-person.

Want to offer some support for this assertion? They are BOTH people, I would say. I do not see a logical inconsistency anywhere!

They also ruled that Dred Scott was a non-person because he was a slave.

You ought to read your history. Dred Scot was found to not be a CITIZEN.[/quote]

OK, but it doesn't really matter. In any case, we have the courts making a bad decision. The courts are not infallible.

The Court ruled that:
No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

Would you agree with this part of the decision? It does look pretty darn close to "no personhood".

Heh, because you say so, right?

No, because of the support I offered elsewhere. Do I really need to repeat my entire case every time I mention that abortion is wrong?

I have already. You are merely not quite there yet.

If you are trying to say that you have a perfect understanding of morality, this is where the old Greek term hubris applies.

However, it is not hubris to assert that you are right and I am wrong in one particular case (like abortion), as long as you can offer some support. However, you really haven't offered any convincing support yet.

Abortion is not murder, and the fetus is not an individual entity, so the terminology "those" doesn't apply.

Not under current case law, no. this doesn't mean that this shouldn't be changed to fit reality.

Your claim is false. Presumably you base this on dred scot? Dred scot didn't rule what you claim it did.

I stand corrected. However, the Dred Scott case did rule that he had almost no rights and that he was less than fully human. Looks like my analogy still fits.

Nope, it established that Dred Scot was not a citizen.

It did actually establish more than that, just not that he was a non-person.

You ought to read up on this stuff before posting.

We both ought to.

I have already presented the objective reality. You just haven't realized it yet. Hmm, do you see a problem here, as in nobody can fully agree on what is "objective reality"?

No, I don't see a problem at all. I see a potential distinction between knowability and objectivity, yes. However, not a lack of "objective reality". And the differences can also be accounted for through the explanation that some have not truly studied the issue fully enough.

The non-personhood of the fetus is a fact.

Because you say so, right? Or because the government says so, just like it denied Dred Scott some basic rights? Neither is convincing. Or maybe it's because pro-choicers in general say so...

Should I also remind you that scientists say that it is a fact that fetuses are homo sapiens? The real claim you are making is that only some homo sapiens are people, and the government gets to decide which ones.

Yes, the parents took the kid home rather than giving it up for adoption. That's contract law.

No, actually not. The act of giving "it" up for adoption would be contract law. The lack of such an action would indicate a lack of contract law.

So adoptions are illegal? Or are you saying that there is a "duty" that can be transferred (thus establishing contract law)?

Contract law has the ability to transfer this obligation, yes. However, contract law does not enter the picture until an adoption happens.

It enters when the parents claim the kid and takes it home.

Oh, really? Want to support this? It would seem to me that this would indicate a lack of assent, which is incapable of creating a contract. Unless the hospital makes you sign paperwork stating the contractual obligations, of course. Is this the case?

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.

Our current legal system allows the neonate to be dropped off at any fire station, hospital etc., no questions asked. So your claim is false.

I didn't know that. I stand corrected.

And even with adoption, the parents are forced to ensure that their children are properly cared for.

Nope, they merely have to transfer their contractaul obligations.

No, they have those obligations "by default", and they must transfer them through contract law if they don't like them. However, contract law doesn't establish them; it is only capable of transferring them.

She has chosen to have sex, which implies the possibility of having a child.

Like smoking implies the possibility of getting lung cancer. Again, risk is not the same as consent to the outcome.

Except when the outcome is a homo sapien!

You refuse the born person the option of forcing others to give of their bodily resources. I can't force you to give me your blood.

That's because I am not responsible for your need for my blood.

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".

And how is that relevant, unless you are using pregnancy as punishment.

Because otherwise I would have no obligation to provide the resources. If I provoke the need, I then have an obligation.

People get treatment regardless of cause. People's right to the resources of others doesn't change if they are more or less guilty or more or less needy. I can be dying from no fault of my own and still not foirce you to give me blood. And that is even the case if you caused my condition, you still can't be forced to give me your blood. So your claim is falt-out wrong.

Actually not. If I created a condition in which someone else needed my blood to survive, I would almost no doubt be convicted of murder.

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

But can you force others to do so?

I would have nothing against such a law.

Yes it is. But now it impacts others, and society may have a duty to insulate the man from her choice by cobering his part of the duty to provide for the kids needs.

Encouraging society to cover up bad choices by individuals is bad government policy. It can only lead to irresponsibility.

So you don;t want him to have a choice, yet insist that this is a valid argument in the debate about choice.

Actually it is quite consistent with my position. Both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions.

Isn't that rather disingenious? That's arguing in ill faith.

I really don't see how.

So you're saying that people can choose to create homo sapien life,

LOL. back to the fudge terminology to avoid specific and accurate terminology becayuse your argument can't handle facts. Revisionist linguistics at its worst, such misrepresentation.

What on earth? I was using homo sapien. That happens to be pure scientific terminology. Revisionist linguistics is more like "enslavement".

with the specific intention of destroying it? This sounds close to the definition of evil.

When you invent and twist the scenario to look that way, no doubt.

I guess that was a bit extreme. However, it is nonetheless invalid and irresponsible to risk creating human life, with the intention of destroying any human life that may come into being.

But then, that's not an honest argument anyway, just as I would have expected from a prolifer; you are indeed not disapponting me in this. It is exactly what I would expect from prolife.

Would you quit the ad hominem attacks, please!

Te he he he. The medical help is exactly the same to the patient.

Just like September 11, 2001 and September 10, 2001 were pretty much the same to people living in remote regions of Africa. Your point?

I have already demonstrated that the medical help is not exactly the same, in any case.

You merely seks to deny one patient the same right the other patient has.

No, because as I have shown, we are not talking about the same thing.

Or the medical help that removes thew fetus from its unauthorized use of her body, just like everybody else have that right.

As I have said, abortion is pretty much unique in that the holder of the bodily resources created the need for them.

I find it fascinating that you believe c-section births doesn't involve the cutting of the umbilical cord.

That's why my next sentence was there! You said "until birth, until the umbilical cord is cut". I was examining both parts of your statement.

What a dishonest statement. The umbilical cord issue merely establishes what an individual is. there has been no word about aloowing torture.

So in other words, we can kill them but not torture them?

I hope not all of your statements will be that dishonest.

I fail to see how my statement was "dishonest".

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.

Well, by then they ARE babies.

So would you only approve of abortion during early pregnancy? The brain and emotional development is pretty much the same inside the uterus or out, AFAIK.

In fact, ultrasound has shown that fetuses in late stages of pregnancy show clear signs of emotional distress during the procedure of abortion.

"late stages"? I find your vagueness amazing.

I don't remember the exact information. However, if you want something that is very NOT VAGUE you can see here.

Not per anything you have argued so far.

They are homo sapien. I define any homo sapien as a human. To say otherwise is to promote oppression, in my book. The unborn seem to be about the only category where this is not a consensus.

There is individual existence beginning at that time.

Says who? Don't just make mindless appeals to authority.

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.

Ah, nice attempt at emotional tie-in.

Only trying to balance it out a bit.

Only per your say-so, of course.

No, per history.

Well, I am a bit tired of your revisionist linguistic dishonesty here,

As I am of YOUR revisionist lingustic dishonesty, like "enslavement"...

but lets just ask you what you think happnes when siamese twins are separated?

In some cases, both survive. In other cases, both would otherwise die and the surgery merely saves the life of one. In any other case, to perform surgery would be murder, unless the death was unexpected.

Usual fudge baloney.

Same to you.

Irrelevant to the FACT that you suggest that the woman can be forced to give of her bodily resources when nobody else can.

No, I suggest that this should be the case any time anyone creates the need for the bodily resources.

Only by completely ignoring her ad her humanity can you make your argument.

Why? Because you say so?

[Corvus]

Yeah, back to the ridicule to avoid dealing with the issue.

No, I ridicule first, and then immediately deal with the issue. Not just ridicule.

Let's not ridicule at all. There appears to be a lot of tension in the room.

Also, it appears that the discussion has moved away from the topic, which is about the parental fairness of abortion and not about whether abortion is right or wrong in itself. There is another topic for the latter.

[keltzkroz]

No one has the right to force another person to keep them alive. So that sure is an impass. Which right trumps the other, then?

Ah! Finally, were getting somewhere.
I got smuggled onto an airplane or a ship by some lunatic. The crew discover that they have stowaways. Should they throw us out of the vehicle to our certain doom? Or should they let us use their resources until they can safely put us back on the ground?
I'm a bum and I got shot. I needed emergency medical care so some nice folks bring me to a hospital. Should they deny me the emergency medical care I need? Or should they let me use their resources so I can live?

Huh? Why would I want to squirm out of it? I am not a prolife emotional emptyhead with all selfrighteousness and no knowledge. SO there is no need for me to "squirm out" of anything.

(OH, I am sorry. Did I spoil some kind of attempt at being snide?)

Thank you! Calling me an emptyhead and self righteous and no knowledge made my day.
Let me clarify even further why I jumped into this thread. I responded to your post which went something like this:

So if the fetus is a person, ..........

Are you telling me that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is ok?

If you want to insist in this line of thinking, by all means please do so. But If you are pro choice, at least have good reasons, and trust me, the one that I just pointed out (the reason why I jumped into this thread) is not one of them.

If you guys want to continue this, someone start a new thread. Corvus pointed out that we have gone way off topic.

[steen]

Are you telling me that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is ok?

Yes. No person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will, even if their life depends on it.

[keltzkroz]

That is our main difference then. It is not cut and dried as you might think. Read my previous post, particularly the examples I cited.

[keltzkroz]

I forgot to mention something. Since no one seems to be starting a new thread on this topic that this thread has wandered into, I'll start a new one. Look for it under Right and Wrong.

[steen]

That is our main difference then. It is not cut and dried as you might think. Read my previous post, particularly the examples I cited.

None of your examples are about persons being forced to give of their bodily resources to other persons. No forced blood draw, kidney transplant or anything.