PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Who's Right?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A human has the right to live no matter where it is. If it is at work or in the womb. A persons has rights until they make another's invalidated. In the case of abortion the mothers right to do with her body as she likes, is void when in order to exercise that right, requires the death of a innocent baby whose only crime was to exist.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:41 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 9:41 PM on January 8, 2007 :
A human has the right to live no matter where it is. If it is at work or in the womb. A persons has rights until they make another's invalidated. In the case of abortion the mothers right to do with her body as she likes, is void when in order to exercise that right, requires the death of a innocent baby whose only crime was to exist.



Invalidated? How does someone go about making the right of another invalid?

Existence is a crime?

Couldn't you have said, "I believe a woman doesn't (or shouldn't) have the right to have an abortion!"

(Edited by rockclimber_10 1/17/2007 at 2:49 PM).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 2:49 PM on January 17, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first sentence you pointed out was, indeed, awkward.  The second, however, was obviously stated that way to make a point.  Like saying "you're only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Obviously, you're stating that no crime was committed, but you're being blamed for something anyhow.  (Kind of like being married )


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:27 PM on January 17, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, so I got a little carried away with the sarcasm


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 9:00 PM on January 17, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 9:41 PM on January 8, 2007 :
A human has the right to live no matter where it is. If it is at work or in the womb. A persons has rights until they make another's invalidated. In the case of abortion the mothers right to do with her body as she likes, is void when in order to exercise that right, requires the death of a innocent baby whose only crime was to exist.


Courts have held up time and time again that a person may use lethal force when necessary to protect themselves and their rights. An unwelcome fetus infringes on the rights of the woman and so she may take action to protect herself.

Also, you say that its only crime is to exist. This would be relevant only if the intent of abortion was to punish it. It is not. It is to protect the rights of the woman.

A fetus is as innocent as a rock because it does not have the capability to do 'wrong' or to do 'right'.


-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 07:12 AM on February 9, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about the rights of the child?  How can we say with confidence, well on day 23 he's a lump of cells, but on day 24 he's a person (yes, I know those aren't the real days, but I'm too tired to look it up)?  They can't even get due dates right, so there must be some give or take on development speed.  Also, a three month old baby doesn't have the capability to do right or wrong either, since it obviously can't understand the difference.  Do we get to kill those too, by your definition?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:06 PM on February 9, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2007 :
What about the rights of the child?  How can we say with confidence, well on day 23 he's a lump of cells, but on day 24 he's a person (yes, I know those aren't the real days, but I'm too tired to look it up)?


1 - Whether it is fetus or person, its right to life does not trump another's right to BD.

2 - For clarifications sake, it is not recognized as a person until it has exited the womb and shown signs of life.

They can't even get due dates right, so there must be some give or take on development speed.  Also, a three month old baby doesn't have the capability to do right or wrong either, since it obviously can't understand the difference.  Do we get to kill those too, by your definition?  


If the three month old baby is infringing upon the rights of the person and the only feasible way to end this infringement is in the death of the child? Yes it is justified. I was not saying that because the fetus is innocent only so much as a rock is innocent it was alright to kill it, I was merely objecting to the attempt to tug at heart strings in using the term innocent.




-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 11:24 PM on February 9, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You'd kill a three month old baby because it is inconveniencing you?  Seriously?

And for clarifications sake, in the US one can't have abortion after the first two trimesters (unless the health of the mother is at risk, not to be confused with the health of her social life), as if it just became human on a specific day.  Please.

And how can you not take into account the fact that the child did not infringe upon the rights of its mother of its own accord?  In MOST cases, the woman's own decisions led to the conception of the child.  The child is the direct result of her own CHOICES.

Killing the child because the mother decides AFTER THE FACT that she doesn't want to be pregnant is like me killing you because you have a stereo that I want and your possession of it is infringing upon my desire to take it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:55 PM on February 9, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:55 PM on February 9, 2007 :
You'd kill a three month old baby because it is inconveniencing you?  Seriously?


I'd kill a three month old baby because it was infringing on m rights and causing harm to me, and killing it was the only way to protect myself and my rights.

And for clarifications sake, in the US one can't have abortion after the first two trimesters (unless the health of the mother is at risk, not to be confused with the health of her social life), as if it just became human on a specific day.  Please.


It is still not recognized as a person which was the point being made.

And how can you not take into account the fact that the child did not infringe upon the rights of its mother of its own accord?  In MOST cases, the woman's own decisions led to the conception of the child.  The child is the direct result of her own CHOICES.


The woman chose to have sex [except in cases of rape]. Not to get pregnant. The intent of the fetus to infringe on the woman's rights is irrelevant as the abortion is not intended as a punishment to the fetus. The fact is that when unwelcome, the fetus is infringing on these rights and the only way to remove this, with our current technology, is abortion.

Killing the child because the mother decides AFTER THE FACT that she doesn't want to be pregnant is like me killing you because you have a stereo that I want and your possession of it is infringing upon my desire to take it.


Not at all. In the analogy you present, your desire to possess my object does not (1) trump my inherent right [as a person] to life and (2) is not necessary for you to have the object. I am not, in this scenario, presenting any danger to your person.

Sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy, not to th pregnancy. She may have very well decided before the fact that she did not desire to be pregnant. She may have taken measures to protect herself from such an end, such as birth control pills. She may not have. Whether she did or not is of no consequence. A person may at any time deny the use of one's body to another. Such as, if we were engaging in sex and I said no half-way through, you would be legally obligated to stop.




-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:12 PM on February 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

May I suggest that one wouldn't engage in acts that would cause the development of a child, and that if one did that they would have to live with the consequences of those actions.

In the case of rape, than there is te option of adoption.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:33 PM on February 15, 2007 | IP
handsomeman

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Adoption is a lot easier said than done, in certain neighborhoods, the ones where things like rape usually take place, are not full of caring, loving people who you want to give a child to.  Plus, your forgetting the 9 months of hell a woman has to go through, and I am not sure a 12 year old rape victim can go through with it.  It might kill her.  Plus just because you gave it away, it doesnt mean its out of your life.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 1:12 PM on February 16, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So a child must die?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:30 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
masterx

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Women should be able to have the option of abortion.  That is a basic right!  Why should younger women have to go trough with labor?  They SHOULDN'T!!  Think about it.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:47 PM on May 4, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To put it bluntly, maybe the shouldn't have sex untill they want one. Not have sex and not suffer the conciquences. Also after 20 weeks the "fetus" have a nurvos system.

Question, how would a three week old baby theten a persion to the point that its existance must be turminated?

And for the inconveniant pregnancies there is always adoption. Which is preferable to capital punnishment.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:03 PM on May 4, 2007 | IP
choice

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are NOT required to allow someone to use your body, even if failure to let them results in their death as per {McFall v. Shrimp.} You are not required to donate blood, bone marrow, or extra organs even if people will die without them. And a woman is not required to let a fetus use her uterus and her nutrients against her will, even though failure to do so results in the death of the fetus.  

If a fetus is a person, it must be subject to all the rights and restrictions of personhood, and cannot use the woman's body without her consent. As there is no viable alternative to abortion, abortion is justified to end the violation.

To make abortion illegal if a fetus is considered a person is to give it rights NO born person has over another person.

If a fetus is not a person, it has no rights and is soley the property of the woman it resides in, and she may abort it at will.

And @ SilverStar - Of the abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.  At 20 weeks the CNS is starting to function but is still not fully developed.

(Edited by choice 6/7/2007 at 11:42 AM).


-------
The RIGHT to Choose.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 11:26 AM on June 7, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What violation?  She put it there.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:26 AM on June 8, 2007 | IP
choice

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But if she does not give it express, continuing consent then what right does it have to continue to violate her body if she does not wish it to be there? Consent to sex=/=Consent to pregnancy.
You wish the fetus to be treated equal to a person? Fine. But last time I checked if a born human tried to enter my vagina without my express, continuing consent then I could use whatever means and force necessary from stopping them, why should a fetus be allowed to live in it and cause havoc with my body if you wish for a fetus to be considered on equal terms with every born, thinking, concious human being?

(Edited by choice 6/9/2007 at 06:28 AM).


-------
The RIGHT to Choose.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 6:09 PM on June 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your mother gave you life.  If she revokes that consent does that mean she has the right to kill you?  Seriously people.  Think about what you are saying.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:40 AM on June 9, 2007 | IP
choice

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, she had the CHOICE to give me life. No one forced her to keep me, no one forced her to remain pregnant which is basically what you are suggesting we do to every single woman who ever has the misfortune to fall pregnant.

The difference being that my mother would be breaking the law if she killed me because I am a born human being. I am alive. A person. The fetus is not a person. Last time I checked we were all given a BIRTH certificate, not a conception certificate.

Unless the woman did something beforehand to warrant the violation of the woman's rights, the fetus is the aggressor and the woman aborting is acting in defense of her rights by removing the intruding fetus.  So unless I physically attack (making myself the aggressor) my mother and she kills me in self-defense, she would be murdering me, whereas abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a person.


-------
The RIGHT to Choose.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 10:58 AM on June 9, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can the fetus be the agressor if the woman willing committed the act that put it there (knowing it would be put there)?  That's like having a baby, then realizing you no longer want it in your house so you throw it out in the street.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:06 PM on June 9, 2007 | IP
choice

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Knowing it would be put there? So you are telling me that every time a woman gets pregnant she instantly knows there and then that she has been impregnated? No.

Because that simply isn't true.

I cannot believe that I am having to type this again but still: consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

The woman willingly had sex. She did not willingly get pregnant. You cannot, by the nature of conception willingly get pregnant. It just happens, by chance.
Whether you want the fetus or not is a different matter.

The fetus is the aggressor because the woman has not given it express consent to reside in her womb. Therefore it is violating her body and her bodily integrity by remaining where it is without her express permission.


-------
The RIGHT to Choose.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 12:44 PM on June 9, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you understand how a woman becomes pregnant?

Do you understand that by having sex you are engaging in the act that can put a fetus in your body?

Are you voluntarily engaging in this act?

If you said yes to all of the above then you did know.  Claiming ignorance doesn't become you.

Consent to sex = consent to all possible known consequences of sex unless you are trying to say that you have never been educated on the known consequences of sexual activity.  If you do know, and consent to the act anyhow, then you are consenting to any consequence of your actions.  I'm tired of all the "I'm a victim" garbage that goes on in society today.  You aren't a victim.  The baby isn't "violating" you.  You knowingly engaged in activities and ended up with consequences you knew could happen.  If you can't accept the consequences don't do the act.  Sheesh.  Grow up already.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:34 PM on June 9, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.