Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker

Then what is the birth mother in this case supposed to do... if she doesn't want to abort but doesn't want the child as well, the only option for her would be to essentially give her child up for adoption, especially if she wants the child to grow up healthy...

She can do what she wants, I don't really care. I -am- pro-choice, after all, and I am pro-choice at least partly because I believe women have a right to do what is best for them and have the ability to decide what that is, and if she believes adoption is the best option, then it is for her. I'd never even consider forcing someone to have an abortion. I still don't think it's responsible, and it definitely isn't more responsible than abortion.

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird

Incest- The way I see it is that it was your fault. You knew what you were doing. Its not the child's fault. So why kill a child? I believe its wrong. The child doesn't know what happened.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of pro-lifers who support abortion in the case of incest. The issue is not that it's evil and horrible and the fetus is being aborted as punishment, it's that the fetus has an albeit very slightly higher chance of being born with a health issue of some sort, and also the child would have to live with the social stigma. Also, many incestual pregnancies are the result of rape, whether or not it's legally recognized as such.

Rape victims- It wasn't the mothers fault and nor was it the child's. It was an accident. I know its painful but you could always put it up for adoption. People are looking for a baby to adopt. There is like a 2 year waiting list for one currently.

An "accident"? Bumping into someone is an accident. Rape is not an "accident", it is an intentional violation of someone's right to her body. The way you said it puts the rapist in a passive role. And again, adoption doesn't solve the torment of carrying a monster's spawn inside your body for nine months and then going through more pain to get it out, which is likely the most difficult part of such a pregnancy. Also, abortion is not about punishing the fetus. Considering the fetus can't feel, that would be as effective and sensible as kicking a rock to punish it for tripping you. You're forgetting the only living thing in this equation who can feel, and who matters -- the woman. The woman is, right this minute, not a year down the line like the fetus (provided your god doesn't see fit to terminate it before then), having her body invaded by a lifeform she does not want there and which threatens her health and happiness. That is why she is terminating the pregnancy.

Normal cases- People mainly teenagers have a habit of having sex and most of the time get Pregnate. I don't see why a stupid mistake like that should cause killing the child. Its a human and has a right to live just like everyone. Its not the child's fault you made a mistake. Birth Control, Condoms, orrrr (My favorite) KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED AND CLOTHES ON! XD

Typical pro-lifer. As has been covered multiple times in this thread before, the majority of women who get abortions are not teenagers, and are either in a stable relationship, have kids already, are planning on having kids in the future, or some combination of those. It's not something stupid little girls are using as an alternate form of birth control because they don't want to take a pill (which has some fairly significant health risks associated with it, so I couldn't blame them if they weren't). As for the fetus, it is human, but according to the UN's list of human rights, one human does not have the right to force another to do something with her body she does not want to, even if it were necessary to save the first person's life, even if that person were a thinking, feeling, adult. If an adult doesn't have that right, a mindless clump of cells sure as hell doesn't. When technology allows us to grow and nurture a fetus outside of a womb, then we'll talk about its right to live.

Life Threatening- If a mothers life is in danger I don't see why she would have to kill the child. If the mother has a child and no matter the age and that child is in danger, the mother would throw her own life away for the safety of that child. Soo how does this make it any different?

Because you're FORCING HER TO DO SO. Women are not living incubators. Their existence is not defined by how good a job they do of propagating. They have absolutely no more responsibility to throw down their lives for the sake of their genetic legacy than a man does, which is to say NONE AT ALL. If they choose to, hey, that's their choice, but to expect, nay, command them to is sick and proves the theory that all this nonsense about terminating pregnancy making a woman less than human is based on the need to control their reproduction. Also, if you don't see a difference between a fetus and a child, you do not know enough about pregnancy or human development to even have an opinion about abortion.

Also, proof your god exists and that he is against abortion. On the first, I really don't ask people to do that very often as I understand the subjective nature of experience with deity, but if you're going to be controlling what I do with my uterus in his name, I'd like you to prove someone's actually there. On the second, there are multiple issues for you to consider:

-- "I knew you before you were born" does not in any way address the issue of abortion. He knew the billions of fetuses that died before birth too, but that obviously didn't make them worthy of life.

-- The only thing I know of in the Bible that even addresses the personhood of a fetus is in the OT, when it is listing his suggested punishments for various crimes. Killing an unborn child, or even a born one up to a certain age, is not murder but destruction of property and carries the same penalty, much like killing a slave. So apparently even YHVH doesn't think fetuses are people.

-- Not all Christians are pro-life, so pulling the whole "you wouldn't understand because you're not Christian" ain't going to work.

And after you've proven all that, I'd like you to explain why the rights of we who do not answer to YHVH can be defined by his sadism, when you do not answer to our gods and would likely cry persecution if we asked you to. I would ask why YHVH hates the destruction of clumps of cells so much but apparently not only is okay with but ACTIVELY PLANS miscarriages of wanted pregnancies and rapes resulting in pregnancy, but alas, god does work in mysterious ways.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel

Someone who knows more details about abortion, correct me if I'm wrong, but once the fetus has a heartbeat, I believe it's too far along to be allowed an abortion. I'm not sure when the brain development starts compared to the heartbeat. I'm thinking about it, and I think I'm wrong on this point, but please let me know.

I too am a pro-lifer. Once that fetus is concieved it is a living thing. Just because it's brain isn't functioning or doesn't have a heart beat, does not mean that it is not a living creature. True, in some cases abortion is the only option. If you are raped, or if the pregnancy endangers your life, that is the only reason. If you got pregnant any other way, than you should have to deal with "consequences" as some people call it, but a baby is miracle and should be treated as such. A gift of God, and unless it is absolutely necassary, why would you kill a gift from God??

Originally Posted by Philomel

And again, adoption doesn't solve the torment of carrying a monster's spawn inside your body for nine months and then going through more pain to get it out, which is likely the most difficult part of such a pregnancy

Okay so your saying that the woman involved can't grow to love the child that is growing inside of her even though it was not concieved in mutual consent? I believe that to be utter BS. My mother is a good example. She was raped by her step dad and got pregnant. She carried full term because she didn't want to harm the child growing in her and she even put him up for adoption. He is actually 4 years older than me and he lives with his adoptive parents and we both pass letters to each other through the mail whenever we get the chance.. Even though each month your reminded about being raped you also can begin to love the child in question as well.

*I have permission to bring up these experiences*

Zoey who is a dear friend to me has also been raped and was going to carry full term even though it reminded her of being raped. But unfortunately she miscarried.

Originally Posted by Philomel

You're forgetting the only living thing in this equation who can feel, and who matters -- the woman. The woman is, right this minute, not a year down the line like the fetus (provided your god doesn't see fit to terminate it before then), having her body invaded by a lifeform she does not want there and which threatens her health and happiness. That is why she is terminating the pregnancy.

My mother was told that if she carried full term with me she could die while giving birth to me.. I'm glad that my mother didn't listen to the doctors otherwise I wouldn't be here right now.. I believe it is truely up to The-Woman weither or not she does or does not terminate the pregnancy. But she should at least listen to what her mind and heart are telling her before she makes a life chaging event like abortion and giving birth..

Originally Posted by Philomel

As for the fetus, it is human, but according to the UN's list of human rights, one human does not have the right to force another to do something with her body she does not want to, even if it were necessary to save the first person's life, even if that person were a thinking, feeling, adult. If an adult doesn't have that right, a mindless clump of cells sure as hell doesn't.

No ones saying that we should force her to have the child.. everyone has their own opinions on this.

Originally Posted by Philomel

When technology allows us to grow and nurture a fetus outside of a womb, then we'll talk about its right to live.

So basically if the fetus has a heart beat, just because it can't think for itself it useless and shouldn't even be considered for the chance to live.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Because you're FORCING HER TO DO SO. Women are not living incubators. Their existence is not defined by how good a job they do of propagating. They have absolutely no more responsibility to throw down their lives for the sake of their genetic legacy than a man does, which is to say NONE AT ALL. If they choose to, hey, that's their choice, but to expect, nay, command them to is sick and proves the theory that all this nonsense about terminating pregnancy making a woman less than human is based on the need to control their reproduction. Also, if you don't see a difference between a fetus and a child, you do not know enough about pregnancy or human development to even have an opinion about abortion.

Also, proof your god exists and that he is against abortion. On the first, I really don't ask people to do that very often as I understand the subjective nature of experience with deity, but if you're going to be controlling what I do with my uterus in his name, I'd like you to prove someone's actually there. On the second, there are multiple issues for you to consider:

-- "I knew you before you were born" does not in any way address the issue of abortion. He knew the billions of fetuses that died before birth too, but that obviously didn't make them worthy of life.

-- The only thing I know of in the Bible that even addresses the personhood of a fetus is in the OT, when it is listing his suggested punishments for various crimes. Killing an unborn child, or even a born one up to a certain age, is not murder but destruction of property and carries the same penalty, much like killing a slave. So apparently even YHVH doesn't think fetuses are people.

-- Not all Christians are pro-life, so pulling the whole "you wouldn't understand because you're not Christian" ain't going to work.

And after you've proven all that, I'd like you to explain why the rights of we who do not answer to YHVH can be defined by his sadism, when you do not answer to our gods and would likely cry persecution if we asked you to. I would ask why YHVH hates the destruction of clumps of cells so much but apparently not only is okay with but ACTIVELY PLANS miscarriages of wanted pregnancies and rapes resulting in pregnancy, but alas, god does work in mysterious ways.

NOBODY said that women should just be an incubator and populate the earth. And the only reason why I brought god into the picture is try to prove a point that everyone dies at some point. Before they are born, after they are born in all actuallity everyday we live is just another step closer to dying.

Let me ask all you this: Even if that child is a constant remember of what happened, that child is still a part of you. Would you be able to kill something you helped create? Willingly or not? And as for the baby not being alive. It moves, it has fingerprints by the time you know its there. It even has fingerprints. Been Proven. So how is it different from killing me or anyone else in this world. Its still murder.

Plus would you be able to handle living with aborting a child. You never knew what that child was like. What s/he was like. What they hated or what they loved. You will always have that question what if.........

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird

And as for the baby not being alive. It moves, it has fingerprints by the time you know its there. It even has fingerprints.

Hey, you know that cool project in grade school where you went and got leaves and then put them under a sheet of paper and colored over it with a crayon to transfer the vein patterns onto it and called it "art"?

That's basically a fingerprint. Except it's a leaf-print. And no two are the same.

Also, plants move.

I guess you should never eat another vegetable.

Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker

]Okay so your saying that the woman involved can't grow to love the child that is growing inside of her even though it was not concieved in mutual consent? I believe that to be utter BS. My mother is a good example. She was raped by her step dad and got pregnant. She carried full term because she didn't want to harm the child growing in her and she even put him up for adoption. He is actually 4 years older than me and he lives with his adoptive parents and we both pass letters to each other through the mail whenever we get the chance.. Even though each month your reminded about being raped you also can begin to love the child in question as well.

*I have permission to bring up these experiences*

Zoey who is a dear friend to me has also been raped and was going to carry full term even though it reminded her of being raped. But unfortunately she miscarried.

...I did not say anything to do with anything in this paragraph, and as such am going to continue on as though I did not read it. I'm not going to defend a position that is not only not one I hold, but not one I even hinted at holding.

As for the rest of your post, again, your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. I quite clearly stated at the very beginning that all the rest of my post was directed at ZoeyBird (a bit you conveniently edited out), and even quoted her post for each point. But, since you took it upon yourself, I'll bite.

My mother was told that if she carried full term with me she could die while giving birth to me.. I'm glad that my mother didn't listen to the doctors otherwise I wouldn't be here right now.. I believe it is truely up to The-Woman weither or not she does or does not terminate the pregnancy. But she should at least listen to what her mind and heart are telling her before she makes a life chaging event like abortion and giving birth..

And that has what to do with anything I said? I told you, I'm not going to force anyone to have an abortion. Anti-choicers are the only ones trying to make a woman's decisions for her. That is why I am arguing against them.

No ones saying that we should force her to have the child.. everyone has their own opinions on this.

Um, yes, you are. The whole basis of the pro-life position is that abortion should not be allowed in all or most cases. Also, had you actually read my post, you would note that I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird

Normal cases- People mainly teenagers have a habit of having sex and most of the time get Pregnate. I don't see why a stupid mistake like that should cause killing the child. Its a human and has a right to live just like everyone.

She was suggesting that everyone, by virtue of being human, has a right to live no matter the circumstances. This is not the case.

So basically if the fetus has a heart beat, just because it can't think for itself it useless and shouldn't even be considered for the chance to live.

Not over the happiness and life of someone who can think for herself, no.

NOBODY said that women should just be an incubator and populate the earth. And the only reason why I brought god into the picture is try to prove a point that everyone dies at some point. Before they are born, after they are born in all actuallity everyday we live is just another step closer to dying.

Yes, Zoey hinted at it by suggesting it was the woman's responsibility to die in order to protect her offspring and thus women who have abortions in order to save their lives are being selfish. I was simply taking that line of thinking to its most basic level. As to the God comment, I was talking to Zoey. I didn't even realize you had mentioned it. This is why you don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong.

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird

Let me ask all you this: Even if that child is a constant remember of what happened, that child is still a part of you. Would you be able to kill something you helped create? Willingly or not?

Tumors fit that exact same description, and yes, I'd be quite happy to be rid of them.

And as for the baby not being alive. It moves, it has fingerprints by the time you know its there.

...Um, if you don't use pregnancy tests, then yeah, maybe. It doesn't even get fingers for quite awhile, so I'm unsure how it would have fingerprints.

It even has fingerprints. Been Proven. So how is it different from killing me or anyone else in this world. Its still murder.

Because you can think, and you know you're alive, and you have feelings, and you're not a parasite invading my body and threatening my life. Seriously, fingerprints? That's the weakest anti-choicer argument I've heard in a long time.

Plus would you be able to handle living with aborting a child. You never knew what that child was like. What s/he was like. What they hated or what they loved. You will always have that question what if.........

Again, typical. Most women do NOT regret having abortions. Abortions are quite costly, so it's not a decision pretty much anyone takes lightly. Personally, no, I wouldn't wonder, because potential means absolutely nothing to me. It could be the next Hitler as easily as it could be the next Gandhi. Most likely, it would be nothing particularly spectacular.

Originally Posted by Trinity Bella

I too am a pro-lifer. Once that fetus is concieved it is a living thing. Just because it's brain isn't functioning or doesn't have a heart beat, does not mean that it is not a living creature.

No one's suggested it's not a living creature. But bacteria are as well, and no one accuses you of animal cruelty for killing those.

True, in some cases abortion is the only option. If you are raped, or if the pregnancy endangers your life, that is the only reason.

Good to know women's mental wellbeing and economic situation mean nothing to you, I'll keep that in mind. And why rape? Forcing someone to keep a fetus inside them is as much a violation of the rights they have to their body as rape, so if you're okay with the former, surely the latter isn't THAT horrible.

If you got pregnant any other way, than you should have to deal with "consequences" as some people call it,

Explain how doing something you don't like but solves the problem even more efficiently and completely than the option you prefer is not dealing with the consequences.

but a baby is miracle and should be treated as such.

Dude, there are over SIX BILLION humans on this planet right now. There are gods know how many non-human mammals. Each one of them was a baby at some point. That's the most pathetic "miracle" I've ever seen.

A gift of God, and unless it is absolutely necassary, why would you kill a gift from God??

Then he needs to stop giving his "gifts" to people who don't want them. I have relatives who do that, and it's fucking annoying. And those are just socks and ugly sweaters my boobs won't fit in, I can't imagine if they did that with a life-altering (and potentially ending) condition followed by a baby I have neither the means nor the desire to care for.

Also, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Zoey: proof your god exists. If you cannot prove this, concede. Otherwise, I get to bring my imaginary friends into the argument as sources, too.

Okay sorry my mistake I was reading to much and got carried away. Sorry if I offended you in any way.

I was not suggesting that the be forced to keep her child. If she cannot afford a child than give it up for adoptions. If I'm not mistaken it is possible to find adoptive parents before the child is born and, in an open adoption, the adoptive parents usually off to pay for all the hospital bills and if not, there are free hospitals that take care of the bills. An abortion can be life altering, not saying that having a baby wont be life altering, but not in the same way. I've known people who have had an abortion and they say that they wish they never would have. That they think about it all the time. It's scars you for life

I've known people who have had children and wish they wouldn't have. Should we ban having children too?

And, you are mistaken; there are (on average) two and a half MORE times the number of children who need adopting, than the number of children who have been adopted. (source). As of 2006, an estimated 5,102 infants (less than one year old) were waiting for adoption. So yeah, you tell those five THOUSAND mothers that infants are adopted "immediately."

Originally Posted by Trinity Bella

I was not suggesting that the be forced to keep her child. If she cannot afford a child than give it up for adoptions. If I'm not mistaken it is possible to find adoptive parents before the child is born and, in an open adoption, the adoptive parents usually off to pay for all the hospital bills and if not, there are free hospitals that take care of the bills. An abortion can be life altering, not saying that having a baby wont be life altering, but not in the same way. I've known people who have had an abortion and they say that they wish they never would have. That they think about it all the time. It's scars you for life

As Keyori pointed out (what is this, the hundredth time in this thread?), the adoption system is in shambles, and the likelihood of a child finding a family at all, let alone a good one, is not that great. Their chances plummet if they don't meet certain criteria (again, race, gender, appearance, and age are all huge factors). So adoption is not a humane alternative to adoption, even if we forget that women are people for a minute and focus only on the fetus.

On that note, another problem with the whole "just give it up for adoption" idea is that, again, women are people. Between conception and baby, there's nine months of pain and discomfort and disruption ending in MORE pain and disruption and discomfort, more than most non-women will ever face. Why does the destruction of a clump of cells matter so much to you, while the issues that come along with pregnancy and labour are apparently not even worth mentioning?

And no offense, but your anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Yes, some women regret having abortions. Most do not. And the only reason any do is because of people like you, who go out of their way to reinforce the idea that abortions are shameful, dirty things instead of basic medical care. I've known women who've had abortions, and because again, women who get abortions are not stupid, do not get them on the spur of the moment, and do not make a choice without thinking everything through, they did not regret them. And as Key touched on, people can regret pretty much any action. That doesn't mean that the action itself is bad, or that everyone is likely to regret that action.

There is no easy way out. Abortion is not a way out and neither is Adoption.
I don't care what anyone says. If I'm raped, I don't have the mental capacity to be able to carry that kid to term, little lone give birth. Kudo's to those that do, but I don't. I have a life I want to live! I'm just starting to live, and people want to tell me that if I get pregnant I have to give up all my dreams?!?! Well screw you. I'm choosing to be selfish and loose the fetus. Why can't pro-lifers just give up and see that abortion has been around as long as there has been pregnancies, and thats not going to change soon.

Trinity Bella don't bring your 'god' into this. I don't believe in your 'god' and my Goddess holds no ill-will to me, if I make the choice to abort. Your 'miracles' are starving because there aren't enough people to take care of them. Thats why I choose to adopt kids instead of having my own.

Originally Posted by Zoeybird

Let me ask all you this: Even if that child is a constant remember of what happened, that child is still a part of you. Would you be able to kill something you helped create? Willingly or not?

I'm in agreeance with Philomel. I'd happily be rid of a tumor.

Originally Posted by vortic

But again, its not YOUR body. It now belongs to you and the child. That's how I see it.

But see, I do not have to share my body if I do not want to. It IS my body, and the fetus is leeching off of it when I do not want it there (in this hypothetical situation). By your reasoning, if a man is raping me, I should not do what I need to protect myself. If I am kidnapped and held against my will, I should not be able to kill to get away, because I would be hurting another person's body.

I HATE the idea of abortion. I think it's gross. But it is not my place to decide for someone else whether or not they should be forced to carry a fetus- a direct harm to their health- if they do not want to.

And in regards to "you can just give it up for adoption"? Adoption is a solution to unwanted parenting, NOT unwanted pregnancy.

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird

It moves, it has fingerprints by the time you know its there. It even has fingerprints. Been Proven. So how is it different from killing me or anyone else in this world. Its still murder.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Hey, you know that cool project in grade school where you went and got leaves and then put them under a sheet of paper and colored over it with a crayon to transfer the vein patterns onto it and called it "art"?

That's basically a fingerprint. Except it's a leaf-print. And no two are the same.

Also, plants move.

I guess you should never eat another vegetable.

Or, you know that hamburger you ate at Mickey D's or that tuna salad you had for lunch the other day? Fully developed animals that were born, raised, fed, and killed to make that for you, and were allowed to be born simply to die? Isn't that a little more creul that killing a bunch of cells that doesn't even know it's a live yet? Or does the cow's live, or chickens live, or fishes life not mean as much to you simply because it is of another species?

Rather than pro-choice or pro-life, I am pro-rights. I believe in supporting the rights of every person, which includes the right of a child or fetus or whatever you want to call it. To me, that child was given unalienable rights since conception, and to deprive any human of its right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is inhumane.
I understand that rape is an indescribably horrible event that I cannot begin to empathize with, but the chances of a pregnancy resulting from a rape is very low due to the necessary timing and proper hormone levels needed to become pregnant, the latter of which rarely happens when one is being raped. According to the stats I found, "The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17." Also, "In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)" (Rape Statistics) So yes, pregnancies can result from rapes, but it does not happen in most cases (thank god for that).
My final point is this: if you make the choice to have sex and get pregnant, it is your own fault. You can blame it on a broken condom or whatever, but in reality you made the choice and you have to face the consequences of your actions. Maybe it is cruel to send a kid off to social services, but at least they'll get a shot at living. It's their right as an American, is it not?
Anyways, here's the end of my venting. Hope I managed to state myself clearly this time :D

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

Rather than pro-choice or pro-life, I am pro-rights. I believe in supporting the rights of every person, which includes the right of a child or fetus or whatever you want to call it. To me, that child was given unalienable rights since conception, and to deprive any human of its right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is inhumane.

And denying the right of a woman to the same thing AND to her body isn't? Once again, pro-lifers accidentally admit the truth: Women do not mean shit to them. They do not think of them as people. An unfeeling clump of cells garners more sympathy from them than a woman does.

I understand that rape is an indescribably horrible event that I cannot begin to empathize with, but the chances of a pregnancy resulting from a rape is very low due to the necessary timing and proper hormone levels needed to become pregnant, the latter of which rarely happens when one is being raped. According to the stats I found, "The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17." Also, "In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)" (Rape Statistics) So yes, pregnancies can result from rapes, but it does not happen in most cases (thank god for that).

Why does how often it results in pregnancy matter?

My final point is this: if you make the choice to have sex and get pregnant, it is your own fault. You can blame it on a broken condom or whatever, but in reality you made the choice

My final point is this: if you make the choice to drive and get hurt in a crash, it is your own fault. You can blame it on reckless drivers or bad roads or whatever, but in reality you made the choice. (And as such the only moral thing to do is to deny you medical treatment for your injuries.)

and you have to face the consequences of your actions. Maybe it is cruel to send a kid off to social services, but at least they'll get a shot at living. It's their right as an American, is it not?

No. First off, they're only American once they're born, but nice try. Second, it's quite clear that that "life" part is bullshit -- we get quite upset when someone mentions getting rid of the death penalty, and last time I checked, murderers were (for the most part, anyway; I can't think of any who aren't) American citizens. If we support revenge killing, we damned-well better support killing in order to give a woman the right to not be a human incubator. Third, again (I'm thinking about making some cards so I can just hand them out to pro-lifers), women have rights, too. And one of those rights is the right to not have their body used in ways they do not want, or their bodily integrity compromised. The common example would be, if you found yourself hooked up to someone and he was relying on you for life support, you have the right to unhook him, knowing full-well that it would kill him. And that's a fully-grown adult, nevermind an unfeeling clump of cells. Women also have the right to defend themselves, and abortion is undeniably self-defense. Yet again, the pro-life position comes down to, women aren't worth as much as their uteruses. And last, as to your "maybe it is cruel...", you do not seem to have looked at the consequences of such a view. If a deer is hit by a car and badly mangled, we should not put it out of its misery because allowing it to live is more important than being humane (and before you say that the two aren't the same because the deer will likely die anyway, keep in mind that the fetus, if allowed to live, will eventually die anyway, too. Unless it's, like, a vampire fetus or something.).

Anyways, here's the end of my venting. Hope I managed to state myself clearly this time :D

More clearly than you probably would have preferred.

Originally Posted by Philomel

And denying the right of a woman to the same thing AND to her body isn't? Once again, pro-lifers accidentally admit the truth: Women do not mean shit to them. They do not think of them as people. An unfeeling clump of cells garners more sympathy from them than a woman does.


Why does how often it results in pregnancy matter?


My final point is this: if you make the choice to drive and get hurt in a crash, it is your own fault. You can blame it on reckless drivers or bad roads or whatever, but in reality you made the choice. (And as such the only moral thing to do is to deny you medical treatment for your injuries.)


No. First off, they're only American once they're born, but nice try. Second, it's quite clear that that "life" part is bullshit -- we get quite upset when someone mentions getting rid of the death penalty, and last time I checked, murderers were (for the most part, anyway; I can't think of any who aren't) American citizens. If we support revenge killing, we damned-well better support killing in order to give a woman the right to not be a human incubator. Third, again (I'm thinking about making some cards so I can just hand them out to pro-lifers), women have rights, too. And one of those rights is the right to not have their body used in ways they do not want, or their bodily integrity compromised. The common example would be, if you found yourself hooked up to someone and he was relying on you for life support, you have the right to unhook him, knowing full-well that it would kill him. And that's a fully-grown adult, nevermind an unfeeling clump of cells. Women also have the right to defend themselves, and abortion is undeniably self-defense. Yet again, the pro-life position comes down to, women aren't worth as much as their uteruses. And last, as to your "maybe it is cruel...", you do not seem to have looked at the consequences of such a view. If a deer is hit by a car and badly mangled, we should not put it out of its misery because allowing it to live is more important than being humane (and before you say that the two aren't the same because the deer will likely die anyway, keep in mind that the fetus, if allowed to live, will eventually die anyway, too. Unless it's, like, a vampire fetus or something.).


More clearly than you probably would have preferred.

To say that I don't give a shit about women is way off base. I do care about women, and I care about what you call "an unfeeling clump of cells." To me, that is the start of new life.
The reason I brought up the pregnancy stats was because generally that is a point often stated when defending abortion.
And I know that when you make a choice of any sort, it will have consequences, good or bad. For example, when you have sex, you might get pregnant. However, I do not see how destroying life is a justifiable solution to an accident (or however you want to phrase it).
And, to clarify things, I never said I was for the death penalty. Also, there are plenty of murderers who aren't American citizens. Other countries have crimes too, including murder.
I understand women have rights. Every human does, including a child. The only difference here is, in your example, the dependent person has the chance to make a choice and gave that women the right to pull the plug - the women doesn't just decide that on her own because she believes caring for the man would be too much trouble.
What if the child isn't crippled? What if, had the child been given a chance to live, it would have been perfectly healthy? And of course, all things die (except me. I'll live forever or die trying!) What I do find inhumane is depriving someone that chance to live.
On a side note, there is a similarity to shooting a deer after it's been hit by a car and badly hurt - isn't it a practice to pull the plug on badly injured people who don't have a chance of survival?
I might point out that not all pro-life people think a woman's uterus is more important than the woman. I assume they value the life of a baby for their own reasons. Then again, this could be true of some people, but I can really only tell you my own thoughts.
No, I'm glad that my words are clear enough to start this conversation. I enjoy debating as it helps solidify my views and keeps me thinking.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

What if the child isn't crippled? What if, had the child been given a chance to live, it would have been perfectly healthy?

What if, had the mother been given the chance to live her life freely, she would have been a perfectly productive member of society who not only does not become a drain on welfare and other programs, and does not contribute to the numerous problems of our adoption and foster care systems, she goes and has several children later in life?

Or what if she already HAS children, and doesn't want to face scrutiny from her already-existing family (children especially) about why she just wants to "give her baby away?"

OR! What if she just doesn't want to continue her pregnancy? You shouldn't even need to justify the choice to anyone else when you're in the first trimester.

Everyone is talking about 'THINK OF THE CHILD'S POTENTIAL!' What about the mother's potential? Her life doesn't end when she gets pregnant, but her life dynamics can certainly turn for the worse when she's stripped of the choice to do what she will with her own body.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

To say that I don't give a shit about women is way off base. I do care about women, and I care about what you call "an unfeeling clump of cells." To me, that is the start of new life.

Saying it isn't so doesn't make it less true. You have not, in your entire post, even mentioned the struggles pregnant women go through. Your statement that fetuses have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", even though they don't, showed that you were not thinking of women, because if you're forcing a woman to carry a parasite because you have moral qualms about getting rid of it, you're not honouring her rights, those very rights you just mentioned.

The reason I brought up the pregnancy stats was because generally that is a point often stated when defending abortion.

And it not happening very often doesn't make it less of a point. Even if it's just a single woman in the history of rapes who has gotten pregnant from it (speaking of which, did that even include statutory rape? I know most pro-lifers don't think of it as "rape-rape", but it's still rape from a legal standpoint), that's one woman who will be forced to carry her rapist's offspring. So you didn't even address the issue, you just wanted a convenient way out of telling rape victims to suck it up. Don't feel bad, plenty of pro-lifers do that; it's better than the ones who say it's all about the fetus, but then show their humanity by inexplicably supporting abortion in the case of rape.

And I know that when you make a choice of any sort, it will have consequences, good or bad. For example, when you have sex, you might get pregnant. However, I do not see how destroying life is a justifiable solution to an accident (or however you want to phrase it).

Why? Why is it not? Here's a revelation for you: life isn't really sacred to you. Do you take steps to weaken your immune system so infecting lifeforms aren't killed off? Do you survive on supplements so things aren't killed for your food? If you were to find out you had cancer, would you refuse treatment because the same things that make a fetus count as "life" make a tumor count as "life"? And since the pro-life position is nearly always accompanied by "I don't think anyone else should get abortions", do you fight to at the very least make meat-eating illegal? No, of course not, because meat-eaters include men, and men are, you know, people, rather than women who are public property. Furthermore, why is life (even when it is unaware, unfeeling, unthinking life) more important to you than what happens in said life? And don't say it isn't -- not only have I never met a single pro-lifer who was an adoptive parent nor heard of any pro-life fund going toward children who would have otherwise been aborted, but you even admit it isn't, because never once have you addressed the woman's quality of life or mental well-being or any of that. Not that I blame you; it's hard to argue that forcing a woman to carry a parasite that completely re-shapes her life (and no, not always for the better, rarely in fact) and causes her pain and very serious health risks *doesn't* have a negative effect on her happiness.

And, to clarify things, I never said I was for the death penalty. Also, there are plenty of murderers who aren't American citizens. Other countries have crimes too, including murder.

I meant in this country. Furthermore, whether you're for or against the death penalty doesn't matter -- I was using it to show that we do not truly honour those inalienable rights you mentioned and so even bringing them up in an abortion debate is pointless.

I understand women have rights. Every human does, including a child. The only difference here is, in your example, the dependent person has the chance to make a choice and gave that women the right to pull the plug - the women doesn't just decide that on her own because she believes caring for the man would be too much trouble.

Yes, she does. That is the whole point -- even if the man never chose to be hooked up to her, even if he weren't conscious (actually, those are the parameters of the original example I'm taking it from), she has a right to her body and what it is used for and she has a right to defend it. Again, self-defense.

What if the child isn't crippled? What if, had the child been given a chance to live, it would have been perfectly healthy? And of course, all things die (except me. I'll live forever or die trying!)

Re-read my post. I said nothing about a child being crippled. I'm not really even sure how you got that from what I said.

What I do find inhumane is depriving someone that chance to live.

According to you, it's already alive. The woman is depriving it of nothing. So which is it? Also, how can you be inhumane to something that can't feel or think? After all, actions aren't inhumane, their affects are. You can't miss something you never knew about to begin with.

On a side note, there is a similarity to shooting a deer after it's been hit by a car and badly hurt - isn't it a practice to pull the plug on badly injured people who don't have a chance of survival?

If their families agree to it, yes. What is your point?

I might point out that not all pro-life people think a woman's uterus is more important than the woman. I assume they value the life of a baby for their own reasons. Then again, this could be true of some people, but I can really only tell you my own thoughts.

No, they do, all of them. They talk about the rights the fetus supposedly has, but never talk about the woman's rights. They talk about what's humane or inhumane for the fetus, but never consider how inhumane they're being to women (and I'm just talking about forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to, nevermind the treatment women who abort get from some groups such as Operation Rescue or all this passive-aggressive badmouthing that's gone on in most of the posts in this thread, suggesting they're ignorant and selfish and just did it on a whim, rather than giving them credit for the thought process that almost certainly went on before they chose to abort). And if you listen to them describe pregnancy, they skip right from conception to the baby being here, never mentioning the nine months and labour in-between. That's because it doesn't directly involve the fetus, it involves the woman, and she is not worth thinking about.

And the modern pro-life movement aside, the whole position is based on that very idea: women are not people, they are resource producers. Controlling their reproduction was very important to our ancestors, and the earliest opposition to abortion was not a moral qualm, but an issue with the woman "stealing" the right to her body away from her husband, its legal owner (just like adultery). As time wore on, people forgot the reason for the objection and only remembered the objection itself, so they went to some lengths to justify their belief. I actually have a very interesting essay on the subject saved on my computer right now, wish I could send it to you.

No, I'm glad that my words are clear enough to start this conversation. I enjoy debating as it helps solidify my views and keeps me thinking.

I can respect that, so long as you leave open the possibility of changing an opinion you find you can't support, rather than just ignoring that you can't support it and believing it anyway. I've told this story many times, but I used to be pro-life. I tried debating with pro-choicers, but it was difficult because I was not Christian and did not have religion to use as a reason for my beliefs, so I stopped. In 11th grade, I had to write a persuasive essay on something, and naturally chose an argument against abortion. But I ended up really disappointed in myself, because trying to put it into that form, where I *had* to back up my opinions, turned out to be really difficult and the whole essay was probably the worst thing I've written since first grade, spelling and grammatical errors aside. Of course, my pro-life teacher absolutely loved it. Long story short, I did a bit of self-discovery, found there was no way I could justify being pro-life even to myself, realized I was only pro-life because I'd been raised that way and given an unfavourable view of pro-choicers, and stopped calling myself such. Of course, that was also around the time that I started being more empathetic, so I'm not sure whether A influenced B or B influenced A or what. I've found the pro-choice position easier to defend, because it has science and humanity on its side, and my arguments actually ring true to myself. I will admit, I get very angry at pro-lifers, because I find what they do to be completely despicable and cruel and willfully ignorant (particularly those worthless sons of bitches who protest at women's health clinics and commit physical assault because they know they can get away with it), but that's good, because it means to me that I actually believe what I'm saying, rather than just getting frustrated because I can't defend it as I did when I was pro-life..

Originally Posted by Keyori

What if, had the mother been given the chance to live her life freely, she would have been a perfectly productive member of society who not only does not become a drain on welfare and other programs, and does not contribute to the numerous problems of our adoption and foster care systems, she goes and has several children later in life?

Or what if she already HAS children, and doesn't want to face scrutiny from her already-existing family (children especially) about why she just wants to "give her baby away?"

OR! What if she just doesn't want to continue her pregnancy? You shouldn't even need to justify the choice to anyone else when you're in the first trimester.

Everyone is talking about 'THINK OF THE CHILD'S POTENTIAL!' What about the mother's potential? Her life doesn't end when she gets pregnant, but her life dynamics can certainly turn for the worse when she's stripped of the choice to do what she will with her own body.

It's not just about the mother's body, it's also about the child's body. Then again, you probably don't consider the bundle of cells a body, whereas I believe in life at conception. Which is probably why this debate generally ends at a standstill. :P

Life =/= body, and vice versa.

No one denies that a zygote, or "little clump of cells" as you put it, is alive. It is alive, in the same way that your muscles and your bones and your immune system and your blood and your eyes and your skin are alive. But, each one of those things, on its own, does not constitute a whole person with a conscience or feelings (emotional or physical or otherwise).

So, your argument that it is life is invalid due to its utter irrelevance. People destroy life every single day without a thought--including human life (even if it's not a human's entire life or an entire human's life... you've destroyed human life just by getting a paper cut).

What you are arguing is entirely moot. The fact that it's living is irrelevant, or it would be illegal to even attempt to treat, cure, or remove cancer (among other things, like having a period).

What we are arguing is that a zygote (and an embryo) is NOT a complete conscious, independent human being, and therefore the mother's rights to her own body trump the "potential" for it to be a human.

A fetus, however, is viable, and nearly independent; close enough so that existing law forbids its abortion unless the circumstances threaten the mother's life, or if it is discovered that the fetus is not viable and would not survive birth. As someone who is in favor of reproductive rights, I feel that this is an appropriate cutoff with reasonable exceptions; if a mother wants to terminate her pregnancy because she feels she cannot afford to give her child the life it deserves, then she should be able to consult her physician and be able to weigh her options, including abortion. If, however, she waits too long, and the fetal stage has been met, then I do not have qualms with her having lost that option unless there are serious risks to health or life to either the fetus or mother.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Saying it isn't so doesn't make it less true. You have not, in your entire post, even mentioned the struggles pregnant women go through. Your statement that fetuses have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", even though they don't, showed that you were not thinking of women, because if you're forcing a woman to carry a parasite because you have moral qualms about getting rid of it, you're not honouring her rights, those very rights you just mentioned.


And it not happening very often doesn't make it less of a point. Even if it's just a single woman in the history of rapes who has gotten pregnant from it (speaking of which, did that even include statutory rape? I know most pro-lifers don't think of it as "rape-rape", but it's still rape from a legal standpoint), that's one woman who will be forced to carry her rapist's offspring. So you didn't even address the issue, you just wanted a convenient way out of telling rape victims to suck it up. Don't feel bad, plenty of pro-lifers do that; it's better than the ones who say it's all about the fetus, but then show their humanity by inexplicably supporting abortion in the case of rape.


Why? Why is it not? Here's a revelation for you: life isn't really sacred to you. Do you take steps to weaken your immune system so infecting lifeforms aren't killed off? Do you survive on supplements so things aren't killed for your food? If you were to find out you had cancer, would you refuse treatment because the same things that make a fetus count as "life" make a tumor count as "life"? And since the pro-life position is nearly always accompanied by "I don't think anyone else should get abortions", do you fight to at the very least make meat-eating illegal? No, of course not, because meat-eaters include men, and men are, you know, people, rather than women who are public property. Furthermore, why is life (even when it is unaware, unfeeling, unthinking life) more important to you than what happens in said life? And don't say it isn't -- not only have I never met a single pro-lifer who was an adoptive parent nor heard of any pro-life fund going toward children who would have otherwise been aborted, but you even admit it isn't, because never once have you addressed the woman's quality of life or mental well-being or any of that. Not that I blame you; it's hard to argue that forcing a woman to carry a parasite that completely re-shapes her life (and no, not always for the better, rarely in fact) and causes her pain and very serious health risks *doesn't* have a negative effect on her happiness.


I meant in this country. Furthermore, whether you're for or against the death penalty doesn't matter -- I was using it to show that we do not truly honour those inalienable rights you mentioned and so even bringing them up in an abortion debate is pointless.


Yes, she does. That is the whole point -- even if the man never chose to be hooked up to her, even if he weren't conscious (actually, those are the parameters of the original example I'm taking it from), she has a right to her body and what it is used for and she has a right to defend it. Again, self-defense.


Re-read my post. I said nothing about a child being crippled. I'm not really even sure how you got that from what I said.


According to you, it's already alive. The woman is depriving it of nothing. So which is it? Also, how can you be inhumane to something that can't feel or think? After all, actions aren't inhumane, their affects are. You can't miss something you never knew about to begin with.


If their families agree to it, yes. What is your point?


No, they do, all of them. They talk about the rights the fetus supposedly has, but never talk about the woman's rights. They talk about what's humane or inhumane for the fetus, but never consider how inhumane they're being to women (and I'm just talking about forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to, nevermind the treatment women who abort get from some groups such as Operation Rescue or all this passive-aggressive badmouthing that's gone on in most of the posts in this thread, suggesting they're ignorant and selfish and just did it on a whim, rather than giving them credit for the thought process that almost certainly went on before they chose to abort). And if you listen to them describe pregnancy, they skip right from conception to the baby being here, never mentioning the nine months and labour in-between. That's because it doesn't directly involve the fetus, it involves the woman, and she is not worth thinking about.

And the modern pro-life movement aside, the whole position is based on that very idea: women are not people, they are resource producers. Controlling their reproduction was very important to our ancestors, and the earliest opposition to abortion was not a moral qualm, but an issue with the woman "stealing" the right to her body away from her husband, its legal owner (just like adultery). As time wore on, people forgot the reason for the objection and only remembered the objection itself, so they went to some lengths to justify their belief. I actually have a very interesting essay on the subject saved on my computer right now, wish I could send it to you.


I can respect that, so long as you leave open the possibility of changing an opinion you find you can't support, rather than just ignoring that you can't support it and believing it anyway. I've told this story many times, but I used to be pro-life. I tried debating with pro-choicers, but it was difficult because I was not Christian and did not have religion to use as a reason for my beliefs, so I stopped. In 11th grade, I had to write a persuasive essay on something, and naturally chose an argument against abortion. But I ended up really disappointed in myself, because trying to put it into that form, where I *had* to back up my opinions, turned out to be really difficult and the whole essay was probably the worst thing I've written since first grade, spelling and grammatical errors aside. Of course, my pro-life teacher absolutely loved it. Long story short, I did a bit of self-discovery, found there was no way I could justify being pro-life even to myself, realized I was only pro-life because I'd been raised that way and given an unfavourable view of pro-choicers, and stopped calling myself such. Of course, that was also around the time that I started being more empathetic, so I'm not sure whether A influenced B or B influenced A or what. I've found the pro-choice position easier to defend, because it has science and humanity on its side, and my arguments actually ring true to myself. I will admit, I get very angry at pro-lifers, because I find what they do to be completely despicable and cruel and willfully ignorant (particularly those worthless sons of bitches who protest at women's health clinics and commit physical assault because they know they can get away with it), but that's good, because it means to me that I actually believe what I'm saying, rather than just getting frustrated because I can't defend it as I did when I was pro-life..

My, my, you make out pro-lifers to be very sexist. However, your generalized statement in this case is not true. I don't think of women as anything but people. I am well aware that they are not commodities. I believe they have rights, but I also believe the child has rights too, unalienable rights. Even if you claim that those rights are not honored and can't be used here, it doesn't mean that the child lacks them. If all humans have them, then why does this not extend to a child, even if is not yet born?
You got me, I don't value all life. I value human life. I'm sorry I didn't specify that earlier. Maybe that's arrogant to disregard everything else in such a way, but I never claimed to be perfect.
On the topic of the crippled child, I was responding to your example of the deer. I might have misinterpreted it, but I thought you were making a parallel between abortion and the deer.
Concerning your, "According to you, it's already alive. The woman is depriving it of nothing. So which is it?" statement, what I meant was this: I didn't think I was allowed to use the word "murder" or "killing" here, so I chose depriving. I believe that, by aborting the child, the woman is ending the life and depriving it of furthering life.
I can support my beliefs, maybe not in a way you find acceptable, but it works for me. I am not religious. My reasoning comes from my belief in equality among men and their rights to life. So, I don't find a reason to change my opinions. In my mind, my opinion is still valid.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

My, my, you make out pro-lifers to be very sexist. However, your generalized statement in this case is not true. I don't think of women as anything but people. I am well aware that they are not commodities.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think your reasons are. Your actions speak louder than your words, and you have not shown once any reason for me to change my opinion of you. You are still saying that the assumed rights of a fleshy lump of tissue override those of a feeling, thinking woman and not seeing a single thing wrong with that.

I believe they have rights, but I also believe the child has rights too, unalienable rights.

And those rights overrule the rights of the woman, according to you.

Even if you claim that those rights are not honored and can't be used here, it doesn't mean that the child lacks them. If all humans have them, then why does this not extend to a child, even if is not yet born?

A) I showed you that not all humans have them, either in theory or in practice. You're just ignoring it.
B) There is absolutely no reason to think that they apply to the unborn. In fact, since the original phrase included property, which would of course not apply to fetuses, I can't imagine they had the unborn in mind.
C) Yet again, you ignore women. If they are inalienable, why are you saying that a fetus's pursuit of life (not really "pursuit", and as I mentioned, it's highly debatable as to whether or not that can really even apply to them) is more important than a woman's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

You got me, I don't value all life. I value human life. I'm sorry I didn't specify that earlier. Maybe that's arrogant to disregard everything else in such a way, but I never claimed to be perfect.

Then I do hope you will not, if you are attacked, attempt to fight off your attacker, as you risk injuring or killing him. In fact, why aren't you fighting to have self-defense made illegal?

On the topic of the crippled child, I was responding to your example of the deer. I might have misinterpreted it, but I thought you were making a parallel between abortion and the deer.

I was, but it had nothing to do with crippled children, and everything to do with your statement that a miserable life is better than none at all.

Concerning your, "According to you, it's already alive. The woman is depriving it of nothing. So which is it?" statement, what I meant was this: I didn't think I was allowed to use the word "murder" or "killing" here, so I chose depriving. I believe that, by aborting the child, the woman is ending the life and depriving it of furthering life.

So is killing someone in self-defense or an accident. Again, are you against that? And I would hope you're not allowed to use the word "murder", as it applies strictly to illegal killing.

I can support my beliefs, maybe not in a way you find acceptable, but it works for me. I am not religious. My reasoning comes from my belief in equality among men and their rights to life. So, I don't find a reason to change my opinions. In my mind, my opinion is still valid.

No, not equality, because if it were about "equality", then at the very least women would be guaranteed the same rights the fetus is. As it stands, you're giving them none of the rights you offer fetuses*, none of the protection, none of the sympathy. It has not a goddamned thing to do with equality.

*In order to show you exactly how little you are valuing women vs. fetuses, I will list here the rights you've given fetuses compared to those you've given women.

Fetus: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, right to violate a woman's fundamental human, rather than federal, right to bodily integrity and really any other right that stands in its way including any or all of the ones mentioned above.
Woman: Life. Maybe, and so long as you strictly mean literally being alive, and do not include lethal complications from pregnancy that even a late-term abortion can't stop.

And you really believe you're promoting "equality"? Really? If you or any of the other pro-lifers lurking about find issue with my list, I'd be happy to hear it.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Again, it doesn't matter what you think your reasons are. Your actions speak louder than your words, and you have not shown once any reason for me to change my opinion of you. You are still saying that the assumed rights of a fleshy lump of tissue override those of a feeling, thinking woman and not seeing a single thing wrong with that.


And those rights overrule the rights of the woman, according to you.


A) I showed you that not all humans have them, either in theory or in practice. You're just ignoring it.
B) There is absolutely no reason to think that they apply to the unborn. In fact, since the original phrase included property, which would of course not apply to fetuses, I can't imagine they had the unborn in mind.
C) Yet again, you ignore women. If they are inalienable, why are you saying that a fetus's pursuit of life (not really "pursuit", and as I mentioned, it's highly debatable as to whether or not that can really even apply to them) is more important than a woman's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


Then I do hope you will not, if you are attacked, attempt to fight off your attacker, as you risk injuring or killing him. In fact, why aren't you


I was, but it had nothing to do with crippled children, and everything to do with your statement that a miserable life is better than none at all.


So is killing someone in self-defense or an accident. Again, are you against that? And I would hope you're not allowed to use the word "murder", as it applies strictly to illegal killing.


No, not equality, because if it were about "equality", then at the very least women would be guaranteed the same rights the fetus is. As it stands, you're giving them none of the rights you offer fetuses*, none of the protection, none of the sympathy. It has not a goddamned thing to do with equality.

*In order to show you exactly how little you are valuing women vs. fetuses, I will list here the rights you've given fetuses compared to those you've given women.

Fetus: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, right to violate a woman's fundamental human, rather than federal, right to bodily integrity and really any other right that stands in its way including any or all of the ones mentioned above.
Woman: Life. Maybe, and so long as you strictly mean literally being alive, and do not include lethal complications from pregnancy that even a late-term abortion can't stop.

And you really believe you're promoting "equality"? Really? If you or any of the other pro-lifers lurking about find issue with my list, I'd be happy to hear it.

I see nothing wrong with protecting a life. My reasons for this have already been stated, so repeating myself at this point would lead to nothing.
As for self-defense or accidental death, why would I be against that? I don't want to see anyone deprived of their right to live, but shit happens. If someone's trying to hurt you and you defend yourself, you have the right to fight to survive. If the attacker is hurt or killed in the process, it was his own fault for deciding to attack someone in the first place.
And if we're talking about equality, the child should also have the same rights as the woman does - the right to life. It goes both ways.
You give the baby no rights whatsoever, yet you give the woman the right to destroy another soul's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as their bodily integrity.
As expected, I believe we're at a standstill. Enjoy the rest of your debate!

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

I see nothing wrong with protecting a life. My reasons for this have already been stated, so repeating myself at this point would lead to nothing.

No, you do need to state it, because you're not explaining why protecting an unfeeling life while sacrificing the wellbeing of another is acceptable.

As for self-defense or accidental death, why would I be against that? I don't want to see anyone deprived of their right to live, but shit happens. If someone's trying to hurt you and you defend yourself, you have the right to fight to survive. If the attacker is hurt or killed in the process, it was his own fault for deciding to attack someone in the first place.

Then you should support abortion, as it is simply self-defense. I thought human life was sacred to you?

And if we're talking about equality, the child should also have the same rights as the woman does - the right to life. It goes both ways.

But the woman does not have the right to invade another person's body, she doesn't have the right to force someone else to carry her child, she doesn't have the right to do something which causes harm to another person without their permission. That is not equality.

You give the baby no rights whatsoever, yet you give the woman the right to destroy another soul's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as their bodily integrity.

I give the baby every right in the world. I give the unborn fetus no rights, because you have yet to explain why rights reserved for people should be extended to the unborn. Also, prove there are souls.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami

I see nothing wrong with protecting a life. My reasons for this have already been stated, so repeating myself at this point would lead to nothing.
As for self-defense or accidental death, why would I be against that? I don't want to see anyone deprived of their right to live, but shit happens. If someone's trying to hurt you and you defend yourself, you have the right to fight to survive. If the attacker is hurt or killed in the process, it was his own fault for deciding to attack someone in the first place.
And if we're talking about equality, the child should also have the same rights as the woman does - the right to life. It goes both ways.
You give the baby no rights whatsoever, yet you give the woman the right to destroy another soul's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as their bodily integrity.
As expected, I believe we're at a standstill. Enjoy the rest of your debate!

Equal rights is not someone being able to use another person's body against their will. Am I allowed to take over your body against your will to save my life? Nope. Why should a fetus have that right?