Support NeoGAF

[Veezy]

Lives end all of the time. What gives the fetus the right to life over others who need organs?

Indeed. Do these people think the government needs to protect all human life?!

Do anti abortionists push for the sanctity of life for criminals?
Children in Africa?
The diseased?
The impoverished?
Children born in war torn countries?
More accessible health care for all human beings?
Free OB/GYN visits for the mother in all countries?
Sanctions on a country that allows abortion?
Refusing to allow pregnant mothers to go to a country that allows abortion?

etc.

And these are human beings. Conscious. Ability to have reason. Ability to feel pain, to speak. To breath and live without depending on the organs of another.

Let's drop all pretense. This is strictly about women, not life. If you people care about life so much you'd push for a world where everybody is taken care of. That's not even close to what happens in these abortion discussions.

Besides, why anybody cares if an abortion happens just boggles my mind. You know how many children died of disease in Africa? You know the American infantile mortality rate compared to other nations? The amount of civilians our military has killed over the past decade (unintentionally or otherwise)? The amount of people who died due to not being able to afford proper medical treatment? The number of people killed due to gang related violence? Those are all pretty big numbers that effect living people, but lets stop a woman from aborting a fetus because of the "sanctity of life" while avoiding fixing those other problems due to avoiding "government intervention" and because of "freedom." What a fucking crock.

 

[Devolution]

It's also worth noting that many of the extremely small number of women who do use abortion as a birth control method do it because they're in abusive situations where they are actively being prevented from using normal birth control.

I'm currently on birth control but even birth control isn't 100% fool proof even if you take it as responsibly as possible. They tell you as much when you go on it. But I guess if something indeed did happen, I don't deserve a choice in the matter, despite doing my very best to ensure that it doesn't. My choices, my rights, what I want to do with my life? Fuck all that I guess. It's unfair and the reason so many women have been able to have families later or even some of you is the ability to delay children till their good and ready.

 

[NullPointer]

This seems like a terribly morbid thing to say.

This is a morbid subject.

 

[Duffyside]

I'd disagree and argue that the this whole debate gets lost in some kind of theological argument. Regardless of whether "life" begins at conception, exactly 14 days later, or several months later, it comes down to whether a woman has the right over her own body, and the right to put her own life ahead of the life of a potential child that she would have to bring to term.

The fact that you used the word "potential," as if to qualify that it's really not the same as "already living human" shows that it is something we pro-lifers need to keep arguing for.

Except that the same group also wants to reduce or eliminate access to birth control.

It's a nice little hole to stuff people into. Tell women to not have abortions while at the same time demonizing and removing easy access to the very things that would have stopped having to resort to an abortion in the first place.

Nobody is using abortions as their primary birth control method.

Ugh, I'm just going to try and ignore your silly "the GOP wants to 'eliminate' birth control" -- as if saying society as a whole shouldn't have to pay for someone else's birth control is the same as forcibly removing condoms from private businesses -- so I can instead point out that even if the GOP were the most evil organization on the face of the Earth who just want to force women to be pregnant in the kitchen, that doesn't mean that the argument that an abortion is murder is invalid.

And while it may not be the primary method, it is a method. Where it falls on the list of options isn't really relevant to whether or not it's murder.

Even if you acknowledge the entity as a human being, human beings don't have the right to other's organs. What makes a fetus special?

The use of violence.

Do you really believe that a significant number of woman use abortions as their birth control, and not as a last alternative when birth control has failed? Considering how easy birth control is comparatively, can you really think that there are women out there who use abortion instead?

Well, even if they do use it a last form of birth control, it still is birth control, isn't it? In fact, heh, it's really th only form of "birth" control, isn't it? Aren't all others pregnancy controls?

 

[Earthstrike]

You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.

Did you just make this up? This is factually incorrect. And I mean, you even started off your sentence with "You know this one:". I know it's made up bullshit?

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, even if they do use it a last form of birth control, it still is birth control, isn't it? In fact, heh, it's really th only form of "birth" control, isn't it? Aren't all others pregnancy controls?

Not really addressing my point, which is that when you say "its the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant" you seem to be assuming that women who get abortions haven't been trying to take the responsibility not to get pregnant in other ways (that failed)

 

[FyreWulff]

The use of violence.

An abortion is about as "violent" as an organ transplant. Try again.

Ugh, I'm just going to try and ignore your silly "the GOP wants to 'eliminate' birth control"

You are willfully ignoring the fact that they recently made a big deal about trying to get their organizations exempted from having to cover birth control for women and women only in their insurance plans, while continuing to cover birth control methods and viagra for male employees. Don't pretend that we aren't aware of their long game.

 

[Devolution]

Not really addressing my point, which is that when you say "its the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant" you seem to be assuming that women who get abortions haven't been trying to take the responsibility not to get pregnant in other ways (that failed)

His whole argument is that we should remain chaste which is why you shouldn't even entertain him.

 

[Duffyside]

An abortion is about as "violent" as an organ transplant. Try again.

Well, only if that organ transplant were against a person's will, and involved, like, their heart. Then yup, I agree, they ARE totally the same!

 

[NullPointer]

The fact that you used the word "potential," as if to qualify that it's really not the same as "already living human" shows that it is something we pro-lifers need to keep arguing for.

Potentially capable of being born? Is that a better way of putting it? Because in a world without abortions many of those "already living humans" would still never see the light of day.

I personally fall on the side of thinking of them as living beings, but I also fall on the side of granting the control over life and death of that being to the woman who carries it. For what its worth.

 

[Kusagari]

GOP: Where life begins at conception and ends at birth.

All that really ever needs to be said. They stop caring, and wanting to support these 'precious' lives, the second they actually become tangible.

 

[Duffyside]

His whole argument is that we should remain chaste which is why you shouldn't even entertain him.

Haha, not even once have I said this. I also haven't said anything about God, or a soul, or the death penalty, yet you guys keep putting words into my mouth... It's... it's as if I'm... onto something, and you guys are panicking to find ways to excuse "not entertaining" me.

Which is really fucking rich, Devolution, since you were just fucking calling me out for not answering you when I was in the middle of responding. Succintly, might I add.

Will you now complete the circle when I inevitably leave this thread, and call me out for bailing because I'm too afraid to participate? Keep thumping your chest.

 

[pigeon]

The fact that you used the word "potential," as if to qualify that it's really not the same as "already living human" shows that it is something we pro-lifers need to keep arguing for.

Honestly, I don't see that it makes a difference. We already distinguish in America between lawful and unlawful killing -- that's what "murder" is, after all. Killing somebody in self-defense? Or because they asked you to? Or perhaps you're on government business at the time, as a soldier or a cop or a death row physician? Totally legal in America.* Accidentally doing it? Or in the heat of passion? Or maybe you're just incredibly negligent? Still murder, but not as bad as other murders for some reason. So we've already crossed that particular moral Rubicon -- we've accepted that some killing is more socially acceptable than other killing. The argument must be about whether this particular killing should be socially acceptable -- and how society benefits and suffers from allowing it.

* Okay, euthanasia is only legal in a couple states.

 

[Duffyside]

Potentially capable of being born? Is that a better way of putting it? Because in a world without abortions many of those "already living humans" would still never see the light of day.

I personally fall on the side of thinking of them as living beings, but I also fall on the side of granting the control over life and death of that being to the woman who carries it. For what its worth.

So, you think they're living beings (I'll presume you agree with "human'), but someone else should decide if they can die or not? When does that life become protected from harm, in your view?

 

[ari]

It's up to the women, don't understand why people gets so heated about this shit.

"Hey, we are going to force you to have this baby 8 months from now because you made a mistake. "

Why?

 

[FyreWulff]

GOP: Where life begins at conception and ends at birth.

All that really ever needs to be said. They stop caring, and wanting to support these 'precious' lives, the second they actually become tangible.

I'm going to start using that first line. Expect your royalty checks at the end of the quarter.

 

[Veezy]

Haha, not even once have I said this. I also haven't said anything about God, or a soul, or the death penalty, yet you guys keep putting words into my mouth... It's... it's as if I'm... onto something, and you guys are panicking to find ways to excuse "not entertaining" me.

Which is really fucking rich, Devolution, since you were just fucking calling me out for not answering you when I was in the middle of responding. Succintly might I add.

Will you now complete the circle when I inevitably leave this thread, and call me out for bailing because I'm too afraid to participate? Keep thumping your chest.

Why, as a man, do you care so much that abortions don't happen? Because I know you're against universal healthcare, the expansion of planned parenthood, subsiding healthier foods to increase quality of life, increasing the expenditures in school lunch programs to ensure kids are eating proper quality foods, college education provided at the governments expense to make sure that children get advanced education so they can have an income enough to support themselves, the expansion of art/music/sports/etc programs to give kids something to do in order to have an outlet so they can get away from gang violence, i could go on. I could be wrong on a few things, but given the way you've presented yourself, I don't believe so.


I know you don't feel that society should pay take care of everybody. So why do you care if a woman has an abortion? What is the specific reason, because if it's sanctity of life you're inconsistent.

 

[NullPointer]

So, you think they're living beings (I'll presume you agree with "human'), but someone else should decide if they can die or not? When does that life become protected from harm, in your view?

Yes to the first question, and not just 'someone else' but the person carrying them in their womb. 'Upon birth' to the second question.

But I don't expect everyone to see the world in my terms, or to think this is simple math. Its the most just, as I see it, as things stand right now. Maybe technological breakthroughs will change the character of this debate at some point.

 

[Kusagari]

I'm going to start using that first line. Expect your royalty checks at the end of the quarter.

It's actually a Barney Frank line, so give him the credit lol.

 

[Duffyside]

Edit: Derpaderpadee... DNC: Where life begins when we can find a way to tax it. ( <-- Don't bother, I know this is stupid. That's sort of the point, as if the GOP runs around murdering children after they're born. Only one party does that...) ( <-- Again, don't bother)

Yes to the first question, and not just 'someone else' but the person carrying them in their womb. 'Upon birth' to the second question.

But I don't expect everyone to see the world in my terms, or to think this is simple math. Its the most just, as I see it.

Why upon birth?

 

[Seguin]

GOP: Where life begins at conception and ends at birth.

All that really ever needs to be said. They stop caring, and wanting to support these 'precious' lives, the second they actually become tangible.

Fetuses can't do anything to protect themselves. Some 5 year old kid who's mom is a welfare queen should stop being lazy and get a damn job.

 

[NullPointer]

Why upon birth?

Because its no longer attached to the mother to sustain itself, and is legally considered born. That's the simplified way of putting it.

 

[Duffyside]

Because its no longer attached to the mother to sustain itself, and is legally considered born. That's the simplified way of putting it.

Well, what's it's "legally considered" isn't an argument, since that's essentially what I'm arguing against, haha.

But the mother's freedom ends at the cut of the umbilical cord? As soon as that snip happens, she's forced to care and pay for that child under threat of imprisonment if she doesn't?

And you're not concerned with viability? And isn't a newborn just a potential human? It really is being born WAY earlier than it should, due to humans having much larger skulls and not being able to gestate any longer without threatening the mother.

 

[Veezy]

Edit: Derpaderpadee... DNC: Where life begins when we can find a way to tax it. ( <-- Don't bother, I know this is stupid. That's sort of the point, as if the GOP runs around murdering children after they're born. Only one party does that...) ( <-- Again, don't bother)



Why upon birth?

Oh come the fuck on. You damn well know the line is based upon the GOPs feelings towards welfare, medicaid, medicare, and other social programs. And if you're even joking that a woman having an abortion is the equivalent to murdering a child, you've got a serious issue with understand the complexities of a woman who's deciding what to do when she gets pregnant unexpectedly. Even presuming that it's murder and they are committing homicide is sick.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It is bad form to selectively quote others (when the omitted parts are part of the argument), so I pasted in my original post in yours.

It is a human, it'd be silly to say otherwise.

YAY! Please remind people in this thread of this when they say otherwise. It is the first step to drastically reducing (never ending) the number of abortions committed, not legislation or a Supreme Court ruling.

It's not a step towards the reduction of abortions, it's just a fact that people often ignore, which weakens their own argument and open up lines of reasoning that they are inadequately prepared for.

E.g. the tangent above on human and murder.

It's just a question of whether or not that human has a right to life.
Not even having a brain, or a brain that isn't even active, to a brain that has activity not even close to the level of activity of animals we eat daily, so I don't really consider it a loss or tragedy in any way, and do not agree with calling it a person until it is substantially older.

... You lost me. But that's ok! There are still plenty of people in this thread who are for abortion because they don't acknowledge the entity as a human being so, again, please help me remind them of that.

I'd be more than happy to do so, but I highly doubt that they would change their mind from acknowledging the fetus as human being. Besides, we ascribe more than just our genome to what it means to be human, so in a colloquial sense a fetus isn't one.

I can only appeal to your sense of practicality, that it will be pretty much impossible to stop people from having abortions (it has been illegal in the past, and it has never worked) and will only result in people dying from back-alley abortions.

What is with this argument? We haven't ended murder of adults, either. It's still illegal. And... should be?

The argument is that you cannot deter people from having abortions (unlike murder, which various methods have shown to be effective at curbing). What you can do to reduce abortions is to provide free birth-control and high-quality sex-ed.

We've already had this discussion in the past, and civilization at the time reasoned that regardless of whether you stand on abortion on a moral basis, it need to be legal for numerous, practical, reasons.

We had come to other conclusions in the past that we found wrong, and continued to argue and fight against, and I doubt I even need to list any of them. You're better than this, Squiddy.

And nothing has changed unlike those things that did turn out to be wrong.
The arguments remain the same, and are even more strongly supporting the pro-choice philosophy of abortion up to a certain age being okay based on what we know of the fetus physiology and cognitive abilities.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's actually a Barney Frank line, so give him the credit lol.

YOU THREW THE MONEY AWAY

 

[Jenov]

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place.

Interesting. So what's your view on pregnancy from rape? Is an abortion okay with you then?

 

[Duffyside]

Honestly, I don't see that it makes a difference. We already distinguish in America between lawful and unlawful killing -- that's what "murder" is, after all. Killing somebody in self-defense? Or because they asked you to? Or perhaps you're on government business at the time, as a soldier or a cop or a death row physician? Totally legal in America.* Accidentally doing it? Or in the heat of passion? Or maybe you're just incredibly negligent? Still murder, but not as bad as other murders for some reason. So we've already crossed that particular moral Rubicon -- we've accepted that some killing is more socially acceptable than other killing. The argument must be about whether this particular killing should be socially acceptable -- and how society benefits and suffers from allowing it.

* Okay, euthanasia is only legal in a couple states.

I do always appreciate your participation, pigeon. Sorry if I ignored you for a sec.

I thought it was implied (and often said) that the child is innocent, so that really covers it for me. But moreover, the child usually only exists in the first place because of the actions of the mother and father, so for them to create this person in the first place, only then to argue for it to be killed, strike me as... awful.

These arguments like yours really only raise concerns for me about pregnancy as a result of rape.

 

[NullPointer]

But the mother's freedom ends at the cut of the umbilical cord? As soon as that snip happens, she's forced to care and pay for that child under threat of imprisonment if she doesn't?

Hopefully we as a society can do our best to justify what may seem at times to be arbitrary, like at what age we are considered adults. Its a moving target, and I provided a simplified rationale. At this point in time, I don't hesitate to see the choice here being one for the woman to decide while she bears it.

And your view, which seems to be focused on prioritizing the life of the child, and seemingly noble on its face, is one that will necessarily involve using force against a woman to try and coerce the outcome of a process occurring within her very body. I don't understand what it is that supposedly grants anybody else that right.

 

[Kusagari]

YOU THREW THE MONEY AWAY

I'm not worried.

It will trickle down.

 

[Psychotext]

But moreover, the child usually only exists in the first place because of the actions of the mother and father, so for them to create this person in the first place, only then to argue for it to be killed, strike me as... awful.

So what about users of contraceptives then? Friend of mine ended up getting pregnant while she was on Implanon (implanted contraceptives, no forgetting to take it) and he was wearing a condom.

There's clearly no intent to create a child there, and they're doing pretty much everything short of cutting his testicles off to avoid it... so still awful if they argue for "it" to be "killed"?

How about if there's no penetration of the vagina and it happens (rare, but it does happen). Does it still count as any sort of intent?

 

[pigeon]

I do always appreciate your participation, pigeon. Sorry if I ignored you for a sec.

I thought it was implied (and often said) that the child is innocent, so that really covers it for me. But moreover, the child usually only exists in the first place because of the actions of the mother and father, so for them to create this person in the first place, only then to argue for it to be killed, strike me as... awful.

These arguments like yours really only raise concerns for me about pregnancy as a result of rape.

No worries -- there are a lot of people responding to you.

I question both your points, but I am also not sure they matter from my perspective. The problem with innocence, again, is that we cut people slack all the time for killing innocent people, as long as they did it driving a car, wearing a badge, being overcome by rage, or looking for insurgents in Vietnam. They don't always get off scot-free, but they do sometimes. I also think it becomes complex to blame the mother and father when (and if) they're already making strenuous efforts to prevent the child in the first place. If we're not going to blame somebody for having a car accident if they were doing their best to keep the car in control, why should we blame people for having a kid accident when they're doing their best to keep that in control? If anything, pro-life advocates should be aggressively advocating for birth control research -- and for things like RISUG to be fast-tracked into the United States. The easier, more convenient and more effective we make birth control, the less abortions we'll see.

But I would also suggest you're raising moral questions rather than societal ones. I can agree that abortion is morally wrong (I don't think I do, but one could) and still believe it should be legal. If our laws existed to mandate morality rather than society, we'd already have a welfare state, because charity would be mandatory -- but in America, we let people sin their own sins, and only make the laws necessary to keep society functioning at a reasonable level. I think there are plenty of other examples of moral questions that we have steadfastly refused to legislate. So it's not sufficient, from my perspective, to say that abortion is morally wrong -- it must be damaging to society to allow it. Because I think the evidence already shows that's it's beneficial to society to do so.

 

[Duffyside]

No worries -- there are a lot of people responding to you.

I question both your points, but I am also not sure they matter from my perspective. The problem with innocence, again, is that we cut people slack all the time for killing innocent people, as long as they did it driving a car, wearing a badge, being overcome by rage, or looking for insurgents in Vietnam. They don't always get off scot-free, but they do sometimes. I also think it becomes complex to blame the mother and father when (and if) they're already making strenuous efforts to prevent the child in the first place. If we're not going to blame somebody for having a car accident if they were doing their best to keep the car in control, why should we blame people for having a kid accident when they're doing their best to keep that in control? If anything, pro-life advocates should be aggressively advocating for birth control research -- and for things like RISUG to be fast-tracked into the United States. The easier, more convenient and more effective we make birth control, the less abortions we'll see.

But I would also suggest you're raising moral questions rather than societal ones. I can agree that abortion is morally wrong (I don't think I do, but one could) and still believe it should be legal. If our laws existed to mandate morality rather than society, we'd already have a welfare state, because charity would be mandatory -- but in America, we let people sin their own sins, and only make the laws necessary to keep society functioning at a reasonable level. I think there are plenty of other examples of moral questions that we have steadfastly refused to legislate. So it's not sufficient, from my perspective, to say that abortion is morally wrong -- it must be damaging to society to allow it. Because I think the evidence already shows that's it's beneficial to society to do so.

Your point that the innocence of the child doesn't mean its death should be prevented by law would apply to, say, a mother driving while distracted and the baby dying in the crash as a result, or tripping, or what-have-you. It would not cover going to the doctor with the intent to terminate the life of the child.

And I have to call you out on the terms "strenuous efforts" and "doing their best." That strikes me as undeservingly apologetic, but I know you have a bleeding-heart.

Spoiler

It's like saying "oh, you did your best" when you left the oven on with a towel on it and your house burned down. I do scratch my head when people say it's so hard to not get pregnant -- are we really so lazy and apathetic as a society that we can't point out this really isn't that hard to accomplish? Or am I just jaded because I'm so grotesque and no woman would ever touch me? (Been wanting to make that joke for pages and pages. It is only with you, pigeon, that I felt secure enough to say it. You're welcome.)

The way our country's "morality" is (rightly) dictated is that one is guaranteed certain rights due to the fact that they are simply human, but that these liberties can not be used to violate another person's. It is not a violation of a person's rights if I decide to not voluntarily give to charity. It is a violation of someone's rights to intentionally end their life against their will.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Clearly that's not the case though Duffyside.
One is not given rights simply because one is human, humans iare given rights upon reaching the stage of "child". Fetuses thus lack rights, and it's not a violation of someone's rights if you terminate the fetus up to a certain point.

There is no compromise to be had when one side thinks that abortion should be legal, and the other side thinks that it shouldn't be legal.
The only possible compromise lies with pro-lifers, who might be convinced to agree with abortion for practical reasons (how would one enforce an abortion ban?) or agree to exceptions and attempt to make them extend their okay.

 

[CLEEK]

You have that backwards, though. The woman is alive already. Her prior state of health is already known. A significant amount of conceptions end up miscarried, mostly very early on. The rate of complications isn't trivial either.

I mean, for all the talk about being human, part of that is recognizing how much we suck at this. Skull size is partly to blame here.

The logical conclusion to the view that a foetus is a life, and should be protected with the same rights as a living person, would lead to miscarriage being seen as a potential crime. In fact, haven't there already been a case in the US where a mother who miscarriage was changed with manslaughter?

Miscarriages are incredibly common. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy, to the point that the mother can conceive, then miscarriage, even before they realise they're pregnant. The only sign would be a heavier than normal period. Miscarriages are the normal way a body rejects a foetus that isn't viable.

 

[CLEEK]

to not get pregnant in the first place.

This comment has been challenged a few times, but it needs reiterating.

The same political movement that seeks to outlaw abortion for all reasons, also look to prevent access to birth control, and restrict / remove sex education.

You can't sit there and state that all pregnancies come from informed decisions, when the state of sex education in the US is so dire. When the Christian right wither their puritanical views on sex push for abstinence programs over sex education, and you have teens caught up with their natural, overflowing sexuality, you will get unplanned pregnancies. Because the would-be parents didn't know any better, or have the education to know about contraceptives.

My sister is a high school teacher in the UK, a country where sex education and contraceptions are not taboo subjects. But when she has sex related talks with her students, so many of them are oblivious to the risks, or have their head full of old wives tales. She's had a student become pregnant who was on the pill, but didn't realise you had to take it daily, rather than just the days you have sex.

 

[Duffyside]

Clearly that's not the case though Duffyside.
One is not given rights simply because one is human, humans iare given rights upon reaching the stage of "child". Fetuses thus lack rights, and it's not a violation of someone's rights if you terminate the fetus up to a certain point.

There is no compromise to be had when one side thinks that abortion should be legal, and the other side thinks that it shouldn't be legal.
The only possible compromise lies with pro-lifers, who might be convinced to agree with abortion for practical reasons (how would one enforce an abortion ban?) or agree to exceptions and attempt to make them extend their okay.

I've tried to avoid making this comparison before, because I know it will just piss people off, but I can't avoid it any longer, Squiddy -- it was the law that only white men had these rights. That never made it right, and it only made it something we should fight harder to change.

Yes, the law says it doesn't have rights at conception (though I think it does say it has the right to life before it's born, at this point, so neener-neener on that one). Are we really arguing that there should be an arbitrary line determining when a human being has a right to its life that is agreed upon due to convenience? Is that the argument I'm facing now?

I'm not saying this human should be driving a car, or dying in our military, or having a beer three years after being allowed to die for us all -- I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to kill people, intentionally, for the sake of convenience.

I'm honestly stunned I had to explain these things.

This comment has been challenged a few times, but it needs reiterating.

The same political movement that seeks to outlaw abortion for all reasons, also look to prevent access to birth control, and restrict / remove sex education.

And this retort has been echoed too many times for me to not scream the rebuttal:

FINE. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR MORE SEX-ED, BIRTH CONTROL, WHATEVER. IT IN NO WAY REFUTES THE FACT THAT ABORTION IS THE MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING.

 

[NullPointer]

FINE. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR MORE SEX-ED, BIRTH CONTROL, WHATEVER. IT IN NO WAY REFUTES THE FACT THAT ABORTION IS THE MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING.

At worst its the lawful killing of a potential human being. A potential life that has no independent viability or options.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I've tried to avoid making this comparison before, because I know it will just piss people off, but I can't avoid it any longer, Squiddy -- it was the law that only white men had these rights. That never made it right, and it only made it something we should fight harder to change.

Yes, the law says it doesn't have rights at conception (though I think it does say it has the right to life before it's born, at this point, so neener-neener on that one). Are we really arguing that there should be an arbitrary line determining when a human being has a right to its life that is agreed upon due to convenience? Is that the argument I'm facing now?

The difference between a white and a non-white man are skin-deep, the differences between a child or adult, and a developing fetus are quite noticeable.
You've been facing that argument from the very start, I have tried to make it as clear as possible from the very start as you can tell from my initial responses to you:

It's just a question of whether or not that human has a right to life.
Not even having a brain, or a brain that isn't even active, to a brain that has activity not even close to the level of activity of animals we eat daily, so I don't really consider it a loss or tragedy in any way, and do not agree with calling it a person until it is substantially older.

You either agree with this premise or you don't.

I'm not saying this human should be driving a car, or dying in our military, or having a beer three years after being allowed to die for us all -- I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to kill people, intentionally, for the sake of convenience.

I'm honestly stunned I had to explain these things.

I'm in agreement with you, people shouldn't be allowed to kill people intentionally.
Again, you will never be able to reach a compromise if they do not consider a fetus to a person.

I have no reason to try to make you accept my basic premise, as the pro-choice ideology is accommodating of a pro-life lifestyle, and you will fail to make me accept your basic premise, as the pro-life ideology does not accommodate a choice when it comes to abortion.

 

[Chumly]

And this retort has been echoed too many times for me to not scream the rebuttal:

FINE. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR MORE SEX-ED, BIRTH CONTROL, WHATEVER. IT IN NO WAY REFUTES THE FACT THAT ABORTION IS THE MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING.

Nope, Its a fetus not a human being.


I think its a fair argument because you have one party that is vehemently against abortion and yet once the person has been born all they say is "GOOD LUCK!".

 

[Emitan]

In the transvagina, duh.

Not in my transvagina

 

[Big-E]

Nope, Its a fetus not a human being.


I think its a fair argument because you have one party that is vehemently against abortion and yet once the person has been born all they say is "GOOD LUCK!".

I don't know why this whole debate gets heated in determining if it a human being or not. Doesn't really matter. I am pro choice and think that a foetus is human but that fact means nothing to me in terms of takig away rights from the mother.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Nope, Its a fetus not a human being.


I think its a fair argument because you have one party that is vehemently against abortion and yet once the person has been born all they say is "GOOD LUCK!".

Before this is turned against you, a fetus is a human being.
That doesn't mean anything though.

 

[CLEEK]

Yes, the law says it doesn't have rights at conception (though I think it does say it has the right to life before it's born, at this point, so neener-neener on that one). Are we really arguing that there should be an arbitrary line determining when a human being has a right to its life that is agreed upon due to convenience? Is that the argument I'm facing now?

That's how the legal process works. You can't have arbitrary or ill defined legal concepts - well, you can, but that leads to all manor of injustices.

Lots of legal rights have age limits, or other metrics to check for viability. Voting age, imprisonment age, driving age etc. Your rights as an employee depend on your age. Your rights to other services and obligations have an age limit.

Your argument boils down to the idea that a person, in a legal concept, happens at hour zero. the absolute moment when a sperm fertilised an egg. This is just as arbitrary point to set as saying a person starts on their 2nd birthday.

The only difference is the religious one, that it's not just a biological act, but the human soul starts (therefore, so does a 'person' as soon as an egg is fertilised. As I posted a while back, religions all differ in how far along a pregnancy that a human souls starts. Even within Christianity, this has changed over time. Not surprising, as conception wasn't understood 2,000 years ago when some dude wrote the bible, so various religious leaders and theologists have come to their own interpretations. The current view amongst the vocal Christian movements in the US is that ensoulment starts at the point of conception.

 

[Duffyside]

A fetus is a human being.
That doesn't mean anything though.

Hahaha. Good night, folks!

 

[Veezy]

Not in my transvagina

Hehehe, i get it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Hahaha. Good night, folks!

Thanks for the pleasant discussion, come back any time!

 

[Delusibeta]

Before this is turned against you, a fetus is a human being.
That doesn't mean anything though.

Did you just shoot your own argument? Because it looks like you've just shot your own argument.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Did you just shoot your own argument? Because it looks like you've just shot your own argument.

Arguing that a fetus isn't a human being is just plain incorrect, so I'm just trying to make people avoid using that argument as it might make your other arguments look weak.

A fetus being a human being doesn't mean anything though, there is no such thing as an intrinsic right (as in, a right that has not been determined by people). We determine what rights, and when, human beings get them.

Duffyside is attempting to catch people in a "Gotcha!" moment as he correctly points out that a fetus is a human being just like you and me, and should thus be entitled the same rights.

 

[Laughing Banana]

It seems like on debates such as these the only acceptable opinions are either extreme A or extreme B. None is allowed to have a C that is mixed from A or B, for example.

In my opinion, if the baby--or "fetus" or "potential human" for some of you--is conceived due to deliberate actions of two capable adults, then I always in the line of thought that those two adults should take responsibility about the result of their action. To deliberately terminate something that was born due to their action out of fear of responsibility is a terribly selfish thing to commit. And yes, there are a lot of people who do this just for the pleasure of intercourse but then doesn't want to commit to the responsibility that may ensue due to the enjoying those pleasure of intercourse when it happens. "Accidents" are part of those responsibility: if you are not ready to take responsibility for the possibility of "accidents", then refrain yourself from doing something that may result in that "accidents."

However, in the case of rape/forced intercourse or the mother being endangered, I see no reason to refuse abortion as an alternative to be taken.

That's my opinion anyways.