My own personal opinion, like I stated before, is you have the right to try and survive, but you do not have an automatic granted right to survive. Therefore, anyone who is killed, was killed because they couldn't survive. Any living organism can fall under this rule. Does it go against what American society teaches? Of course. Do I believe American society is right? Nope. American society is way too inconsistent in it's rules and regulations in order for me to respect it. I personally support anarchy, or lack of government, as I despise being controlled by what most people deem is the correct thing to do.

To answer your question, all humans that live off of others without anything in return are indeed parasites. Whether they are capable of defending themselves from being killed is their own business/perogative.

Oh please. :roll: Trying to make pro-choicers look bad by twisting our logic and ideas to killing children? Bad debate skills.

Fetus: physically attached to the body. The only way to detach it, without forcing the woman to give birth, is it abort it.

If you cannot take care of children, there are different ways to deal with it. That child has rights because it is its own physical entity.

Parasite does not have to physical. Parasite means completely dependent on said host. Most cases are physical. However, we can look at evolution the same way. Human evolved from creatures in a physical manner for a long time. However, the latest evolution we have been doing is expanding our minds. It is a different form of evolution just like looking at a parasite in a different way.

A child is a parasite. A person suffering from mental retardation is a parasite. A person that has no real life skills and lives in their parent's basement is a parasite. Anything that is completely dependent is a parasite. We just happen to give certain values to certain types of parasites. The only right any human/animal/plant has, is the right to try and survive. You are not guaranteed life. You are guaranteed the ability to try and keep your life. If you are incapable, you die. A child's capability to survive is the ability to bond with their mother and/or father in order to make sure they will raise it and take care of it. If there was no bonding, then there would be no desire to take on the hassle of keeping the child and therefore the child would die because it could not fend for itself. Of course, this does not work in this society where death is the most evil vile thing to consider. Heaven forbid if someone gets murdered because they were incapable of defending themselves. Too bad no one looks at the effects we create because we try to keep others alive when they should be dead.

People have rights. Rights are protected by the government. The two rights which are very valuable to the abortion debate are the right to life and the right to one's body.

No rights over power another right. One group of people's freedom of speech can not be taken to save another group of people's lives. One person's right to their life cannot outweigh another person's right to their body. Furthermore, the fetus is not a yet a person, and by law, and has no rights as of yet (for example, even though when a pregnant woman eats badly, it will affect the fetus negatively, it is not against the law for a woman to have a bad diet while pregnant; if the fetus had rights, then this would not be).

However, once a person is born, they do have rights. While a fetus does not have rights, a child does. A child, since it is separate from the mother's body, does not violate any of the woman's rights by simply being alive, unlike the fetus, who violates the mother's rights by using her body against her will. This means that killing the fetus is acceptable to maintain the woman's rights, but to kill a child is not acceptable because the child has done nothing and is not violating anything in the first place.

People have assumed rights made by humans that can be changed by humans. They are not universal rights. The only universal right is to try and survive. That is what all organisms on this world follow.

A government that does unnatural things in order to grant these so-called rights. In fact, a government that is wrong in and of itself since it cannot be consistent in its judgments.

Neither of which truly exist. They are just assumed to be, however they can be changed at any time and therefore are not static rights.

There is only one universal right. The right to try and survive.

So in this American culture with these assumed government backed rights...speech is more important than life? Interesting.

When you can get the American government to legalize both Suicide, and Assisted suicide, then we'll talk about humans having a right to their bodies. Did you create your own body? Why then, should you have the right to it? If I make a wallet, I have every right to that wallet as I made it myself, however if someone is able to overcome my own ownership of the wallet by being able to steal it from me, then that wallet now officially belongs to them as they have proven their superiority over mine in regards to owning the wallet. By all rights, your parents should have rights to you at all times no matter the circumstance as you are their creation. The only reason why I support a human killing a fetus is because they are able to. If the fetus cannot defend itself, it will die. Valid application of the universal right of the right to try and survive.

Assumed rights are just that..assumed. Why should people have more rights than animals and plants? What makes us so much more superior? Do you think we could survive without them? I don't think so. We give ourselves this narcissistic portrait and provide ourselves with all these supposed rights. We ignore everything else in exchange for our own wants and needs. You have no more true rights than that fetus and vice versa. You each share the same right. The right to try and survive and that is all. The fetus will inevitably lose as it is unable to defend itself but that is besides the point. Your "right's" kick is based off the assumed supposition that these rights even exist in the first place.

Again, the child has just as much right as the fetus and as you. If it cannot survive, it won't. If you choose to help it survive, then by it's ability to bond with you it is keeping itself surviving through its right to try and survive. All other rights are assumed and put in place to assign positions of power within a society. All assumed rights are is a tool to brainwash the masses into believing certain things that are not the case and to create a false sense of both security and order.

I have no idea what side you people are supporting, at first Kris sounded like a pro-choice but then Tutela who is another pro-choice person started argueing against her. T_T so confused

Issues aren't quite so black and white that way.

We are both pro-choice, just for different reasons. She believes women have a right to their body and it triumphs the fetuses right to live since it isn't human and doesn't have "human rights."

I am claiming "human rights" are just a manipulative tactic implemented by governments to illusify a false sense of security when the one and only right is actually "the right to try and survive." Humans, in their superiority think they deserve so much more than everything else. We fool ourselves with illusions of our supposed altruism which only benefits ourselves when we are actually being completely and utterly selfish and abhorrent with our actions. We give ourselves these supposed rights, to control a mass of people rather than letting people be people. However I argue "pro-choice" per se, due to the fact that because of our only granted right of trying to survive, the fetus loses this battle and by that right the human women reigns supreme.

I never said it's not human. I said it isn't a person. There is a large difference. Take, for instance, the hair on my head. It is human hair, but it certainly isn't a person.

Also, remember, that this a debate about the legality of abortion. Legally, we do have many rights.

And, dude, you gotta get off your Ayn Rand kick. :P

Touche

I was not really aware of Ayn Rand's teachings until you first mentioned them. I will admit, hers and my view of life are quite similar in comparison. :P

:) Thanks to you guys, I'm now pro-choice...Reason? Go do whatever you want with your child, it's not my problem

Hey Kris, we should debate more :P

Except it IS our problem when your child has to use tax money to live because the mother goes on welfare and refuses to give up the child, or the child goes into state care because the mother failed to take care of it... etc. etc.

Are you advocating mandated abortion? Rather than mandated birth? Interesting point of view in either case.
Instead of just having the choice to abort, you are wanting everyone to abort that can't afford to keep the child whether or not they want the child or not?

No, I'm just saying that it's your problem when your money is involved, even though it's not your child.

But that means you are insinuating that you don't want certain children born in the first place due to the fact that you are negatively implying the consequences taxpayers will have to face because of these children being born. To have abortion as a legal choice, would be to allow the mother to choose to either keep the baby or not keep it. What you are saying from your quote is that the people that can't afford the baby and thus the taxpayers are affected, should abort the baby, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for a baby the mother cannot support. There are lots of wealthy families that would like abortions, and there are lots of poor mothers that would like to have a baby even if they cannot take care of it themselves. You would promote mandatory abortion for any poor mother so that taxpayers do not have to use their money to pay for that child?

Tut, I think you're reading too far into this :lol:

I'm just arguing that apathy is not an acceptable stance. It's "your money" so you should have every motivation to have some sort of opinion on the matter, and to shrug it off as "not my problem" simply doesn't make sense to me simply because I have a stake in the system, as a taxpayer and especially as a woman.

I've seen plenty of arguments along the lines of, "I don't want abortion to be paid for with my tax/insurance money," which would be just as valid as, "I don't want child welfare to be paid for with my tax money."

That's all I'm really arguing.

Personally, I don't want to mandate anything. I'd like for mothers to have as many options as possible, and I'm okay with tax money going to abortion, state adoption agencies, or WIC and child welfare. Of course I have preferences for which I would choose on my own, but I don't want to exclude options for anyone.

Just checking ;)

I kind of agree that one shouldn't be pro-choice out of apathy, since it isn't an apathetic stance. I suppose that we all reach our views in different ways, but...I'm not sure. I suppose we agree that abortion should be legal and open for everyone, but I disagree that it should be just because you can do whatever you want with your children.

I have a lot of respect for this stance. Thank you for sharing.

Well I agree in abortion in some cases: rape, if the age could cause potential health problems in the mother and kill her, or if the mother is sick and the pregnancy will kill her.

Why in those cases but not in others?
Is the fetus worth less in these cases?

O.O Kris is arguing against abortion?! Or am I misinterpreting ;) *takes screenshot just in case* :P