Is abortion really pro-choice?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
more than a tape worm. the rights belong to the host. in this case, if the host wants to keep the child and someone causes harm to the child while it is still in the womb, the host has legal options on behalf of the child.

human rights begin at birth because at that time, society can intervene and take responsibility for the child.

if you want to ...[text shortened]... rted fetuses and put them on life support, you're welcome to make a case with your congressman.

human rights begin at birth because at that time, society can intervene and take responsibility for the child.

yes, until then, it is the responsibility of the mother, not the right, to care for the child.


"if you want to collect aborted fetuses and put them on life support, you're welcome to make a case with your congressman."
we already do that with neglected children. but we also prosecute whomever was responsible for the child. people simply have decided arbitrarily that being a pooping, screaming stupid bundle of joy is more deserving to live than a younger version of that pooping screaming stupid bundle of joy.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
The newborn is not a part of the woman.

you mentioned that before. a child in its 7th month of gestation is a part of a woman as well. would you allow the woman to simply have it remove as well? how about the 5th month?


"It does.. but what I'm saying is that there is a good window where the fetus has not developed and that the woman has had a chanc r to "do anything to endanger the child and be prosecuted for neglect" as i can.

would you allow the woman to simply have it remove as well? how about the 5th month?

In the fifth month I tend to say yes. As I have said in my prior post, I don't have a line that I have drawn where one specific week/month is ok and then the next is not. It is a balance based on a number of factors.

no amount of alcohol is acceptable, no cigarette is acceptable. also, i would charge her with neglect if she enters an establishment for smokers.

You say you are not fond of my "arbitrary line" (even though I don't really even have one) but you draw this ridiculous one? Interesting. I guess a woman should just make sure to stay at home and not do anything. After all, working could be stressful and if even a little stress might risk a miscarriage and hence in your world a charge of neglect.

You never answered my question from my second post.

You said you have certain exceptions as to when abortion would be allowed. Is the case of rape one of them? If so, then if you view any abortion as murder then why would you even allow a rape victim commit murder?

Why in the case of incest? (assuming that you would allow it in that case too).

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]would you allow the woman to simply have it remove as well? how about the 5th month?

In the fifth month I tend to say yes. As I have said in my prior post, I don't have a line that I have drawn where one specific week/month is ok and then the next is not. It is a balance based on a number of factors.

no amount of alcohol is acceptable, no ...[text shortened]... murder?

Why in the case of incest? (assuming that you would allow it in that case too).

if the woman is forced into sex, she didn't agree to the binding contract i mentioned. therefore she shouldn't be forced to carry a monster's child to term(even if the child has no fault). incest has a potential to cause the child to have a genetic fault or illness. abortion should be allowed in this case too. if a crippling genetic disease is discovered, abortion may be allowed again.


"I guess a woman should just make sure to stay at home and not do anything."
a woman must also provide for her child. there is a difference between earning money for your kid's food, clothes and future education and willfully and knowingly ingest a substance proven to be harmful to both the child and the mother and with no or insignificant benefits

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if the woman is forced into sex, she didn't agree to the binding contract i mentioned. therefore she shouldn't be forced to carry a monster's child to term(even if the child has no fault).

So its not just about the rights of the child? If there is significant disadvantage to the mother, or the mother doesn't enter the contract, then its OK to kill the foetus?

incest has a potential to cause the child to have a genetic fault or illness.
How significant a risk? I don't believe it is nearly as significant as generally claimed.
Does this mean that those of us with known genetic diseases can also have abortions if we want?

if a crippling genetic disease is discovered, abortion may be allowed again.
What if its just a high risk?

And what happened to 'every human has potential'? Do you have something against people with disabilities? Do they have no potential?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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.

when a woman says its her body so her child so its her right to abort.. why is the father never allowed a say its as much his child as hers..

Originally posted by twhitehead
So its not just about the rights of the child? If there is significant disadvantage to the mother, or the mother doesn't enter the contract, then its OK to kill the foetus?

[b] incest has a potential to cause the child to have a genetic fault or illness.
How significant a risk? I don't believe it is nearly as significant as generally claimed.
Do ...[text shortened]... tential'? Do you have something against people with disabilities? Do they have no potential?[/b]

yes the mother must choose to have the sex. if she is raped, the fetus is brought into existence "fraudulently" and the mother should be allowed to have the abortion.

about children with genetic diseases: i am not talking about a child with high risk of hearing loss. i am talking about children with severe genetic diseases, like down syndrome. if such a disease is proven, one may choose not to bring into the world a being who would suffer, whose quality of life would be very low.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is not a human being, it will not grow into a human being under any circumstances.

i am not claiming my kidney is a human being or the hair i "murder" each time i shave.


"The pig is lower on the food chain. Sorry, no right to life for them."
so is the child. we care and nurture for it because we choose to. a newborn is not a mighty hunter and ca ...[text shortened]... rms and legs? eyes? brains? what organ does a human need to be classified as a human?

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Here's one last try to get back on track.

"it is not a human being" - what is not a human being? The sperm cell? I hope you are not claiming that it will not grow into a human being under any circumstances, because that's obviously false.

No, the human child is not lower on the food chain. This is just a misunderstanding of the concept of a food chain. A food chain refers to which forms of life typically eat other forms of life. It is understood that we're not supposed to eat members of our own kind. 😛

A child before birth starts out as small collection of human cells, then becomes a human embryo, then a human person. My proposal is to recognize the right to life of the human in the womb once it acquires personhood.

I already gave my argument why I don't think early fetuses deserve protection from abortion. They don't have the requisite [for personhood] rudimentary consciousness or ability to feel pain. I really do argue, but you may have to broaden your attention span to notice it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if the woman is forced into sex, she didn't agree to the binding contract i mentioned. therefore she shouldn't be forced to carry a monster's child to term(even if the child has no fault). incest has a potential to cause the child to have a genetic fault or illness. abortion should be allowed in this case too. if a crippling genetic disease is discovered, a roven to be harmful to both the child and the mother and with no or insignificant benefits

if the woman is forced into sex, she didn't agree to the binding contract i mentioned.

In ALL unwanted pregnancies the woman didn't agree to this fictional "binding contract" that you mention.

If a woman's birth control failed then she also didn't agree to this contract.
If a condom broke then she also didn't agree to the contract.

So I assume since agreement to this contract appears to be your reasoning as to why a woman can or can't have an abortion then in these cases too you would have to agree that an abortion is acceptable, no?

Unless you think that any consensual sex even when precautions are taken is somehow an assent to pregnancy??

willfully and knowingly ingest a substance proven to be harmful to both the child and the mother and with no or insignificant benefits

There are a lot of things that raise the risk of miscarriage. To suggest that willfully participating in any of those things to any degree is negligence would be tantamount to an unreasonable restriction on a person's freedom.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
human rights begin at birth because at that time, society can intervene and take responsibility for the child.

yes, until then, it is the responsibility of the mother, not the right, to care for the child.

and if she is unable or unwilling to take that responsibility, you have no right to force her to carry it to term. as i mentioned before, you can collect the aborted fetuses and put them on life support.

we already do that with neglected children. but we also prosecute whomever was responsible for the child. people simply have decided arbitrarily that being a pooping, screaming stupid bundle of joy is more deserving to live than a younger version of that pooping screaming stupid bundle of joy.

no, we only prosecute in the event of abuse. the majority of times a society takes over responsibility for a child, it is done without any prosecutions taking place.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Here's one last try to get back on track.

"it is not a human being" - what is not a human being? The sperm cell? I hope you are not claiming that it will not grow into a human being under any circumstances, because that's obviously false.

No, the human child is not lower on the food chain. This is just a misunderst ...[text shortened]... el pain. I really do argue, but you may have to broaden your attention span to notice it.

But do we really know how many days into the prgnancy that the fetus gains the rudimentary consciousness or ability to feel pain?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But do we really know how many days into the prgnancy that the fetus gains the rudimentary consciousness or ability to feel pain?

There are always going to be some biased numbers, but the general consensus after these outliers are omitted is that this happens roughly at the start of the 3rd trimester.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes the mother must choose to have the sex. if she is raped, the fetus is brought into existence "fraudulently" and the mother should be allowed to have the abortion.

So if the mother did not choose to have sex, then the potential of the child is no longer an issue? You are not making any sense.
And do you seriously believe that all women who have sex are essentially signing a contract to bring to term all children they conceive as a result? Are the fathers also agreeing to some unwritten contract?

about children with genetic diseases: i am not talking about a child with high risk of hearing loss. i am talking about children with severe genetic diseases, like down syndrome. if such a disease is proven, one may choose not to bring into the world a being who would suffer, whose quality of life would be very low.
So Oliver twist like conditions are OK, but Downs Syndrome is not? I am starting to think you have something against mentally disadvantaged folk.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There are always going to be some biased numbers, but the general consensus after these outliers are omitted is that this happens roughly at the start of the 3rd trimester.

What if it is really the beginning of the 2nd trimester?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What if it is really the beginning of the 2nd trimester?

If we discover that, then adjust the laws accordingly.