20 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiriti am against abortions except in some very special circumstances.
so in conclusion. abortions are pro choice. they are also pro-rights of the host.
a human's rights begin after birth.
pro abortion people keep yelling "the right of a woman to choose" but they forget that the unborn child has a right to live as well. a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by the mother because she was stupid enough to get pregnant but now is unwilling to deal with the consequences.
"a human's rights begin after birth"
why? who sets that line? why not after the human can utter his first words? why not after the human can get and hold a job? right after birth the child isn't much more functional than a month before that.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy does the unborn child have a right to live? (I partially agree that it does; I just would like to hear your reasons.)
i am against abortions except in some very special circumstances.
pro abortion people keep yelling "the right of a woman to choose" but they forget that the unborn child has a right to live as well. a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by t ...[text shortened]... d a job? right after birth the child isn't much more functional than a month before that.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziYeah rape victims who get pregnant are just stupid enough to get pregnant. You think that "being stupid" is the only reason for an unwanted pregnancy? Really?
pro abortion people keep yelling "the right of a woman to choose" but they forget that the unborn child has a right to live as well. a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by the mother because she was stupid enough to get pregnant but now is unwilling to deal with the consequences.
I have no problem with certain restrictions on abortions after a given amount of time passed during the pregnancy. I think viability is a primary key to that.
I don't see how an embryo has an automatic right to life.
Also, having an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. It's just dealing with it in a way that you don't like.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitwhy does a born child have a right to live?
Why does the unborn child have a right to live? (I partially agree that it does; I just would like to hear your reasons.)
it is a potential human being.
a newly born child is in no way more human than a 3 month old fetus. they both have the intelligence of a rock, they are both dependent on others to survive. a human life is precious no matter its age. so the question is: when does a human life begin? is the fetus not alive?
20 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnEDIT: as you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument. please treat my posts with the same courtesy.
Yeah rape victims who get pregnant are just stupid enough to get pregnant. You think that "being stupid" is the only reason for an unwanted pregnancy? Really?
I have no problem with certain restrictions on abortions after a given amount of time passed during the pregnancy. I think viability is a primary key to that.
I don't see how an embryo has an ...[text shortened]... n IS dealing with the consequences. It's just dealing with it in a way that you don't like.
that would fall under the special circumstances i mentioned.
"I don't see how an embryo has an automatic right to life. "
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life. how about a person in a coma? how about a very old, senile person who is not even remembering his/her name?
what do you define as a human? what characteristics must a lump of living cells need to possess to be considered illegal to murder it?
"Also, having an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. It's just dealing with it in a way that you don't like."
yes, the easy way. and yes, i don't like it. by your reasoning we can also deal with our elderly in the same fashion.
we imprison irresponsible parents who let their children die. how is letting your unborn child die any different. we also imprison people who force an abortion on a pregnant woman. why should the mother have the right to kill a fetus and not your average serial murderer?
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes, after it's born. prior to that, it is a parasite in a host body and the host body has all the rights, both of itself and the child's.
i am against abortions except in some very special circumstances.
pro abortion people keep yelling "the right of a woman to choose" but they forget that the unborn child has a right to live as well.
[/quote]
a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by the mother because she was stupid enough to get pregnant but now is unwilling to deal with the consequences.
many people are stupid.
"a human's rights begin after birth"
why? who sets that line? why not after the human can utter his first words? why not after the human can get and hold a job? right after birth the child isn't much more functional than a month before that.
once the baby is out of the host organism, it is no longer a parasite and inherits its own rights.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanzithere can be no reasonable argument when it comes to abortions. the most logical solution is to come up with a set of rules that have no ambiguity.
why does a born child have a right to live?
it is a potential human being.
a newly born child is in no way more human than a 3 month old fetus. they both have the intelligence of a rock, they are both dependent on others to survive. a human life is precious no matter its age. so the question is: when does a human life begin? is the fetus not alive?
rule 1. human life begins at conception.
rule 2. human rights begins at birth.
during the stage prior to birth, all the fetus's rights belong to the host organism.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanzias you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument
EDIT: as you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument. please treat my posts with the same courtesy.
that would fall under the special circumstances i mentioned.
"I don't see how an embryo has an automatic right to life. "
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life. how about a p ...[text shortened]... should the mother have the right to kill a fetus and not your average serial murderer?
My mistake, I'm sorry. However, it's odd that you would be in favor of allowing a rape victim to murder something you consider to be a child?
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life.
The newborn child isn't part of another human being.
how about a person in a coma?
We make these decisions all the time. The family usually decides whether to keep life saving measures on or pull the plug.
how about a very old, senile person who is not even remembering his/her name?
How are they even analogous? Is the senile person in someone else's womb?
what characteristics must a lump of living cells need to possess to be considered illegal to murder it?
How about independence (i.e. not a part of another being) for a start? I am aware that an infant child is dependent on their parents or care taker - I am talking about being a part of another human being here though.
by your reasoning we can also deal with our elderly in the same fashion
No, we can't do that by any stretch of imagination by my reasoning. There is a big difference between a fetus that is part of another human being and an actual fully separate human being.
how is letting your unborn child die any different.
It's different because your unborn child is unborn. It is a part of your body.
How about miscarriages? Should we investigate those to make sure women drink too much and raised the risk of a miscarriage too much?
At what point do you think that fetus gains those human rights? At conception? If at conception then you would have to outlaw in-vitro fertilization since fertilized embryos get discarded during that process. It would also ban a number of forms of birth control - including the pill since they work by making sure fertilized embryos don't implant.
why should the mother have the right to kill a fetus and not your average serial murderer?
The fetus isn't a part of the average serial murderer. The average serial murderer isn't a host to that fetus - it's not the murderer's body hence it's not his choice.
As I mentioned, I am in favor of some restrictions. There is a period before the baby is due that I think it's reasonable to restrict abortions. I'm not 100% sure where that point is - I couldn't tell you a week number or anything. That being said, I think there is another point where up to then it is simply the decision of the woman.
I did take sentences out of your post, but I don't think I did so in a way that misrepresented your post. If you think it did, I'm sorry.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziA sperm is a potential human being. That is not sufficient for it to have the right to life.
why does a born child have a right to live?
it is a potential human being.
a newly born child is in no way more human than a 3 month old fetus. they both have the intelligence of a rock, they are both dependent on others to survive. a human life is precious no matter its age. so the question is: when does a human life begin? is the fetus not alive?
A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain. A 3-month old fetus has neither (to the best of our knowledge). I generally support the right to have an abortion until these things emerge in the fetus. That is roughly around the start of the 3rd trimester. After that, abortion should only be allowed under certain circumstances [like rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life].
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpirita) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
yes, after it's born. prior to that, it is a parasite in a host body and the host body has all the rights, both of itself and the child's.
[quote]
a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by the mother because she was stupid enough to get p ...[text shortened]... baby is out of the host organism, it is no longer a parasite and inherits its own rights.
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnyes, all pro-abortion people mention independence as defining of a human being. the problem is, a newborn child would die if nobody would care for it just as surely as a fetus would. a two year old would meet the same fate. so again, why is a newborn more deserving to live? if you have only the "part of the woman body" that also applies to babies in the 5th, 6th, 7th and so on month of pregnancy. yet nobody would allow a woman to simply remove her baby in the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy.
[b]as you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument
My mistake, I'm sorry. However, it's odd that you would be in favor of allowing a rape victim to murder something you consider to be a child?
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life.
The newborn child isn't part of ...[text shortened]... id so in a way that misrepresented your post. If you think it did, I'm sorry.[/b]
" Is the senile person in someone else's womb? "
no, he is in someone's home, or hospital, unable to survive on their own.
"There is a big difference between a fetus that is part of another human being and an actual fully separate human being. "
like what? location? why is a senile old man who craps his pants and doesn't remember his name more deserving of life than a child that didn't get to see the light yet?
"Should we investigate those to make sure women drink too much and raised the risk of a miscarriage too much? "
yes, in my opinion, pregnant women who drink should be prosecuted just as harshly as parents who neglect and/or abuse their children.