Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker (Post 1767978894)

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.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765684555)

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.

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767982146)

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

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767982146)

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.

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767982146)

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.

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767982146)

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

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767982146)

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 ZoeyBird (Post 1767984008)

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

Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker (Post 1767983938)

]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 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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Trinity Bella (Post 1767996300)

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

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?

Originally Posted by vortic (Post 1767894336)

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

Originally Posted by ZoeyBird (Post 1767984008)

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 (Post 1767990170)

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 kuroshinigami (Post 1768009745)

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.

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1768010782)

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.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami (Post 1768016910)

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

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami (Post 1768016910)

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.

Originally Posted by Keyori (Post 1768017913)

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 Philomel (Post 1768017922)

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..

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami (Post 1768019500)

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.

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1768019665)

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.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami (Post 1768019801)

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.

Originally Posted by kuroshinigami (Post 1768019801)

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!