CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Fetuses Don’t Have Rights; Pregnant Women Do; This Distinction is Crucial
A lot of people here on CD do not seem to get this and seem to think they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies , why can't people see this distinction and realise a fetus has zero rights ?
You haven't even written on that website what version of the Bible you use.
Not like it is on a fine design, even.
And that's ignoring the things which show that it was built quick and cheap.
It was probably one of the cheapest plans on GoDaddy. You must have been excited to have your own website 3 years ago, but considering that you renew the domain each year, you seem pretty excited about it even now.
Science defines a flake of skin as human too. I think science is generally on your side being that you believe in the garden of Eden, the tower of Babble and Noah's Ark.
A fair point that is always ignored by the anti abortion people .
As a child growing up in a Catholic country dominated by the church contraception was deemed the gravest mortal sin and women were merely 'baby factories ' thus the large families that mostly lived in a state of constant want , masturbation was also deemed a grave mortal sin .
It's all cool now as the church had to change and move with the times or cease to exist .
Yes, they seem to value potential life too much - much more than actual life (though I don't debate on that front, but many do).
It is just an analysis of whether you value your potential child enough to let it live. I do, but I don't interfere even if someone wants to remove themselves from the gene pool - they can do that as long as they have the consent of all first layer beings involved.
A fetus is human. A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.A fetus is human.
Abortion is legal in Spain in the first 14 weeks of a woman's pregnancy. It was first legalized in 1985. Pregnant women didn't have rights up until 1985 ?
I do not agree with abortion in anyway. With that said it is not murder, because murder is a killing of illegal ways. Currently abortion is legal and therefore not murder.
Also when making a argument you don't point to a website and go look here look this is my argument. You give your debate and site specific info from the site in your agreement and then list your sources [links] below.
Once beyond the legal time limit the fetus has a right to be born.
Before that threshold is reached any reservations which the mother may have had regarding proceeding with the pregnancy should have been aired and dealt with.
The fetus is a living human being, an unborn human being, but a human being nevertheless.
This totally defenceless life must be cherished and thought of just in the same way as one would a newborn baby
It's not that simple. A foetus at a certain point, becomes a human capable of surviving outside the womb. I would argue from a legal standpoint, that makes it a being with rights. It's exactly the reason why abortions have term limits.
If it were up to me those term limits would be a lot shorter than they currently are.
It's fairly simple: I find abortion at a late stage of a pregnancy to be unnecessary, gruesome, and fundamentally opposed to my natural instincts as an altruistic and empathetic being capable of compassion for babies and infants. I think any woman who is without that compassion -- to the degree that she would kill an unborn child when it is in the late stages of development, and perfectly capable of being born healthy and well -- is a monster, and deserves no sympathy: she's the same as any other child killer.
That said, there are times and circumstances when abortion is necessary and even warranted: rape, child abuse, significant danger to mum's life, if the child's quality of life will be so poor that abortion is the compassionate choice, etc.
Well the bottom line is the rights of the woman are what Im talking about because whatever way people state it the fetus has zero rights ; the mother is providing the fetus with sustenance of which it has no right .
What right have I or anyone else to tell another what they may or may not do with their body ?
That's a very cold, mathematical way to look at things.
Every species on this planet does its utmost to reproduce and to protect its young: if you have lost that most basic instinct, then I find it impossible to relate to you in any meaningful way in this conversation.
What I find very cold and mathematical is the way individuals assume they have a right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body , that to me is tyranny .
Whatever you or I may feel on the matter is merely our opinion it is purely the woman's choice and no one else's .
Whether you relate to me or not is your choice but is merely an emotional knee jerk reaction and brings nothing to the debate .
People have been telling each other what to do since the dawn of human civilization. When you drive on the road, laws tell you what you can and can't do. When you get a job, laws tell your employer what they can pay you and what they can't. When you have a kid, laws tell you what you can do to that child and what you can't.
It's the same principle here.
Society functions peacefully upon the rule of law, and laws are most fundamentally rules based off democratic decisions, usually motivated out of shared moral perspectives or a shared human interest. It is, no doubt, in the interest of this species to keep protecting children, along with adults: male and female.
Legalized abortion is not (or ought not to be) a dichotomy between woman and child (I often wonder where this inimical perspective comes from: since when did human women pit themselves against their own offspring??): rather, the issue ought to be concluded in a reasonable compromise to both woman AND child.
As for "arguments made from emotion have no value here", I disagree: compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration, are fundamentally human traits, and since we aren't talking about a mathematical problem here, the laws of formal logic are alone insufficient for this debate. Logos is just one aspect of philosophical consideration if you're familiar with the theories of rhetoric.
To try to dictate to me that this very human issue ought to be argued only in terms of cold logic is tantamount to declaring yourself void of the emotional reasoning necessary to broach this topic from a necessarily human perspective. Your argument seems to me to be little else but the inflexible hubris that comes in the bipartisanship of your American political landscape. It's not reasonable, it's radical and dogmatic.
Reasonable concessions would be that abortion, yes, while necessary in many cases, ought to be reasonably implemented. It is utterly ludicrous to say that a woman ought to be able to terminate her pregnancy right up until the due date. Utterly ludicrous. It's completely ridiculous: I don't know of any woman that I have ever met, who wishes such a thing to be law, particularly any woman who already has children. In fact, the only women I know who think that abortion up until the due date should be legal, are those extreme left, neofeminist morons who think having a different opinion is "mental rape", and who think that women ought to be allowed to have their male children castrated at birth should they so wish. It shows the mentality of them.
I'm not entirely against abortion, but I certainly won't say I want women to be able to abort up until the birth of the child, because I don't: most people don't. There's a visceral, emotional, instinctual reason for that: it's barbaric and disgusting and shameful and it ought to be, and will be, and should be, and is.
Infants make our hearts thump for good reason: so that we will protect them at all costs. It's evolutionary, and it's normal, and it's right.
Yes , I get that but laws aren't necessarily good and in fact a lot are deeply unfair and immoral , so the principle you refer to surely means only the laws you are happy with .
Children are indeed protected by laws and rightfully so and your point i fail to see ?
Again you are merely expressing your opinion on how things should be which is meaningless to women who make this choice , how do you know the reasons why women may resort to this measure and why put yourself up as moral crusader ?
Actually my position is perfectly rational and humane as it respects the rights of a woman who makes this choice I have no right what so ever to dictate to you or anyone else what they may do with there body , so why are you different what gives you this right ?
Also I'm not American and that's a sweeping generalisation of America and Americans .
When have I ever stated anything about a woman aborting a baby up to it's due date ?
You use the term ' ought ' several times philosophy has a lot to say about the term , your usage doesn't make your argument any more persuasive .
----- ...so the principle you refer to surely means only the laws you are happy with -----
As is the case with your own, don't forget.
----- Again you are merely expressing your opinion on how things should be ----
And are you not?
---- Actually my position is perfectly rational -----
I would disagree.
---- You use the term ' ought ' several times philosophy has a lot to say about the term , your usage doesn't make your argument any more persuasive -----
Alas, "relativity must replace absolutism in the realm of morals as well as in the spheres of physics and biology".
It's all a matter of perspective. I won't say morals are objective because quite clearly, they are not. I will only say that morals are human distinctions upon right and wrong behaviours, born out of a necessity for social restrictions which are intended to benefit the cohesion and survival of the society, and ones place in it. In this light, protecting the young is natural, and beneficial. Again, there is no objectivity in this, but there is something in it: there is an element of base instinct, evolutionary drive, and reason, sense, compassion and intellect derived thus. Not one of us rational beings would be pleased at seeing a woman stab herself in the stomach, and much less so should she be heavily pregnant at the time.
I'm saying reapeatedly that it's a woman's choice so I have not forced my opinion on anyone , in fact quiet the opposite .
Your morality and what society deem right and wrong matter not as you're still attempting to push your ideas of morality and what you claim society deems immoral onto a woman , you have no right to do this whether you want to or not .
It's incredible that people are more concerned about the so called rights of a fetus and yet blindly ignore infants that die by the thousand through starvation worldwide .
You are attempting to force people of your society to legitimise abortion for any reason at any time as a moral and social necessity, when it is objectively no such thing. It is to say that men have no place in this debate, that we must silently endure the pain and burden of having our children forfeit to the whims of our female companions, whichever way the wind may blow. In a world where women make the majority of welfare claimants and alimony recipients, and where men have virtually no rights in custody courts, we must also concede our Earthly right to our part -- even our part --- in the debate on the most very fundamental of reproductive concerns which is the life of our children, unborn or otherwise? Not a chance. I refuse. If you say that abortion ought to be allowed and women ought to be the sole consideration and the child has no rights, and the men have no say, then my reply is this: if it must be so, then we must also, by law, allow men to sign away all their rights -- financial, legal, social, moral -- to all pregnancies in which they are involved., because it is in effect the same thing: a legal right to abandon ship with no repercussions. But if such a thing were to be allowed -- real equality as it is -- the system of welfare and childcare would utterly collapse. So you see, men have a very real and very valid ransom in this debate, a leverage, if you will. We have a part in reproduction and the upbringing of children -- limited as it may be nowadays -- and a role to play in all this. This is a conversation about our children -- men and women -- and about ourselves, and our roles in their lives and their rights, and I will never, ever give up that right. To do so is to be entirely divorced from any consideration, yet to simultaneously bear the majority of financial and social responsibility. We still, to this day, shame and deride men who walk away from pregnancies (without any killing, I might add), and yet it would be utterly okay for women the world over to kill their children at will?
No.
But perhaps we should, rather than throw stones form towers, create a proper space on the ground for this debate here: because you say in your previous posts that you do not agree with abortion up until the due date. So to what stage do you think it should be allowed? I ask because, like I have said previously, I think legal abortion is necessary in cases of rape, molestation, child abuse, underage pregnancy, and where the child's quality of life will without doubt be so poor as to render abortion as the compassionate choice. The law provides for these circumstances currently. The law at present also provides the right for women to have abortions for pretty much any reason, up until a certain date of their term: in some places this is as far as 26 weeks -- which I think is more than sufficient time to choose whether or not to keep the child or not. Don't you? If so, then we are not in disagreement about the practical implications -- legally speaking -- of abortion, simply in our perspectives regarding its moral implications, which are for the sake of legality in and of itself, largely irrelevant. If we agree on the term dates and circumstances, then what is the point of arguing?
Still, what bothers me is that you keep talking to me like I have no right to an opinion on this debate. I find that offensive, for I have every right as a member of this society. And if my opinions are interested in a desire to protect children (hardly a horrible motivation, by the way), then they are interested so whether those children or my own, or not. If women do not like that opinion -- opinions being part of the democratic process as it is -- they are free to be against it, yet I will opine, just as they will. And the will of the society will prevail as it always does. Just like I have the right to shame and disgrace someone I see abusing their children, so I have the right to vehemently oppose any ideology which proposes that abortion be legal until the due date, and that women are the sole consideration in pregnancies, to the expense of the child.
Fundamentally -- scientifically -- women are in fact NOT the only being in this debate. Embryology has proven beyond all doubt that a human feotus is a distinct and separate entity from its mother, though it may, concededly, rely on her sustenance for a period of time: it is entirely a genetically unique being. Any neofeminist hint that it is a mere growth, a tumor, a wart, is utterly and completely false: it is a distinct human entity (its DNA is unique, the very definition of a distinct life) and thus I believe it deserves the respect warranted by that alone. But do not fall into this trap of thinking that this is the same as saying the woman should have no rights: all along I have been attempting to show you that it is not a dichotomy between woman and child: I need not take a "side" of one or the other. Just because I respect that a child has rights, I also respect that society has unpalatable scenarious and situations where abortion is necessary and sometimes even morally right. My view is not that child is more important than woman, simply that if there is such a thing as a child, then there is most certainly such a thing as an unborn child.
And in this light, I -- and millions upon millions of men and women like me -- do not care to bow to the demands of those morally bankrupt women who wish to be able to irresponsibility and irreverently abort unborn children for ANY reason at ANY time under ANY circumstances.
Abortion, again, in my opinion and the opinions of many men and women across the world, ought not be a matter of emergency contraception, rather a matter of considerable discussion, debate, consideration and compromise. Otherwise, we effectively say "abortion is amoral. It is not bad, it ought to be carried out whenever desired, with no restraint, with no guideline, with no opposition in any way shape or form". I can tell you for certain that this is not what the great suffragists intended when they sought political representation for women and the right of the female vote and the rights of women to own property and the rights of equality of both men and women in reproductive matters and marital affairs.
As for starving children, abortion is no answer, any more than genocide is the answer to all the people around the world who are dying of thirst. The answer to starvation is in fact food, and the answer to thirst is, aptly, water.
How am I attempting to force anything ? It's you and others who seem to think they have a right to demand women obey your decisions on this matter , by what authority do you have the right to dictate your wishes onto another ?
I never said men have no part in this debate you seem to think that women abort out of spite or malice the way you talk about ' the whims ' of female companions , also you seem to percieve women as enemies who are out to victimise men .
There's that ought again as you attempt to tell me what I think , a fetus has zero rights you can sing and dance anyway you want but a woman is not morally obliged to carry a pregnancy to term .
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and I respect the fact you feel so strongly about the issues raised , I'm not debating this to be mean or nasty and I know you're a decent guy who debates fairly and well .
Look here it is I was brought up Catholic in an oppressive society where the church held power over everyone , women were seen as second class citizens and working women were rare and shunned as an oddity as they were expected to be ' barefoot and pregnant ' and homemakers ; contraception was a grave mortal sin thus the very large families and suffering most went through as money was always scarce .
Contraception when I was a kid was seen as a great evil much the way abortion is now by some but the times are indeed changing .
Indeed i agree when you say I've said before I don't believe in late stage abortions , but what I agree or disagree with makes no difference as I still would not say I have the right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body is that not a fair statement ?
You ask at what stage which is like asking when does a bald man become bald isn't it ?
If a couple use contraception they are preventing a potential life in the making , using your line of reasoning is that fair and if so why ?
Is the prevention of a potential life not morally equal and if so why ?
I think you miss my point on starving infants round the world I was making a point about our values in societies .
I think at a point society has to have limitations on this idea that the woman is the sole consideration: it is not just about the woman's own body. It is -- and I hate to sound like a Christian fundamentalist nitwit on this point -- about a human life and it's negligent and corrosive to propagate the notion that it's just her body, like a growth or a wart or a cancer: this is a life, distinct from the mother.
And it is also somewhat about the father of that child, and his desires, and responsibilities, and legal rights, and who pays the child support checks if she decides to give birth and who gets absolutely no say if she doesn't. And it's about the doctors who will perform the procedure, and their moral viewpoints, and it's about the desire to protect our innocents, and ensure our children from harm, and teach our children about responsible sex, and so much more than just "a woman's body".
Look. Legally a woman can abort up to 26 weeks. Beyond that, I'm afraid I fundamentally consider the abortion of a heathy infant as murder: so does the law.
I don't think that should ever change.
Contraception is not at all the same thing as abortion. Contraception prevents pregnancy. It doesn't end it. Contraception is great. Sex education is great. Sexual freedom, is great. Being able to screw as many people as often as you like in consensual arrangements as numerous as your sexual organs can contend with, is great. Sex in general, is great.
But never, ever, ever do I want it so that abortion is considered a valid method of birth control. A human life should have more dignity than that.
I get your opinion yes, and I sympathize with it to an extent. I also think it's reactionary to your upbringing. I don't think a woman's "choice" is the only consideration here. There is far more to think about. I know that if I got a woman pregnant and she decided six months into the pregnancy to go and get an abortion, thus destroying OUR healthy child, I would, in all honesty, wish her the same fate.
Abortion is not a very good method of birth control and the reasons women choose to abort are many and varied , also no my views are not reactionary to my upbringing, my views are based on the rights of others and what right I have to dictate to another regards what life choices they make ?
Women have been bullied used and manipulated by male dominated societies they have won their freedoms through long hard struggle , all I'm constantly saying is I support their right to have freedom of choice when it comes to their bodies
I would feel it more important to protect a "life" AFTER it came through the birth canal and took its first "breath of life". I can't really contemplate conservative disregard for those who are breathing over those that have not taken that breath! Take away their health care? Close Planned Parenthood so those with no money can't get health care for themselves ... let alone their "breathing child"! America ranked 173rd out of 193 countries in "infant death after live birth"! You Bible thumpers don't seem to give a DAMN about the LIVE ones!
Joe you should really know something about the country that you claim to be from !
Abortion Is Legal in Italy, But It's Almost Impossible to Get One
The practice of abortion has been legal since 1978, Italy is no country for women seeking abortions.
But despite the huge step that allowed women to access abortions in safe medical circumstances, the 194 law created a dangerous legal loophole. By law, Italian women can undergo a termination 12 weeks from the date of conception. But doctors can also decline to perform abortions for personal or religious reasons, declaring themselves conscientious objectors.
Italy has on paper a liberal abortion law. Yet, in practice it is becoming more and more complicated for women to terminate their pregnancy, and the number of illegal abortions is reportedly increasing. Religious beliefs and political weakness when it comes to defending this constitutional right of women are keeping Italy in the Dark Ages of reproductive rights.
It seems to me that a lot of people argue over this topic every day. Here is what I propose. As soon as Neil Gorsuch takes his seat at the supreme court - let's retry abortion. ;)
But daver my point is that it's the woman's right to do the considering I have no place interfering in her choice , my position on the issue matters not as I'm arguing that whether I like it or not it is her body and thus her choice .
Look, it all hinges on when the baby becomes a human, right. You nor I, nor anyone else has an absolute answer. This, being unarguably the case, the only prudent course is to not kill. That's it 😐
Rights are a moral concept. As such you need to present some kind of moral reasoning for your assertion. Otherwise someone can just as easily assert the opposite and ask why you don’t realize that they are right.
The issue simply isn’t this simple. There is a reason that most pro-choice people will not support aborting a child who is on the brink of birth. They understand that there is little difference between a new born baby and a “one day left” fetus. From your statement, one would infer that you support aborting a child after developing to full term and bringing the woman to labor, so long as the child is still a fetus. Even if you support this late of an abortion, you would need to explain what it is about the fetus that causes it to not have the rights that it would have in just one more day.
Regarding rights being a moral concept , people's rights vary from country to country and are not always just , fair or moral , people can and do assert the opposite and the reason they are not right is because they have no right to impose their views on a woman in this matter as it's her choice .
I provided my reasoning as in ...a woman is not morally obliged to carry a pregnancy to term , there is no moral requirement for her to allow a fetus to use her body in order to survive .
If she chooses to abort , she does not violate the right to life , but rather deprives the fetus of sustenance provided by her her over which it has no right .
What people keep missing is the fact whether I support abortion or not is immaterial ; I'm stating that you or I have no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , if this is incorrect please tell me how ?
Regarding rights being a moral concept , people's rights vary from country to country and are not always just
When I say rights are a moral concept, I mean that they are a concept that pertains to morality. I don’t mean that all applications of rights are morally correct.
If a woman drives over you as you are using the crosswalk, because she is trying to get somewhere, you can say it is wrong for her to do this. You can say that she does not have a right to do this. It is not a valid counter argument to say that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her car. Even though she does have property rights, the way she uses her property affects others, and so you have a right to tell her how to drive on the road ways. A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, but does she have a right to use her body to punch you? No. To argue against abortion, you must argue that a fetus does not have rights and protections, and you must say why. Otherwise the same argument for her rights will apply to punching you or running you over.
What people keep missing is the fact whether I support abortion or not is immaterial ; I'm stating that you or I have no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , if this is incorrect please tell me how ?
We regularly tell parents how to act concerning their children. They must take adequate care of them or they will loose them and probably go to jail. We force people in this way to protect children. It is the complete business of the law to protect individuals from other individuals, even when one individual is completely beholden to and dependent on another individual, as with children to parents. The only way in which this should not also apply to individuals in the womb is if they are not individuals. If you can successfully argue that they are not people deserving of legal protection then you have a real argument. But simply saying that a fetus does not qualify for legal protection isn’t sufficient since that means a woman can abort even as she goes into labor, thus killing an infant who isn’t out just yet. Most pro-choice people do not defend abortion at this late of a term, which means they do not hold all fetus’s as being equally devoid of rights.
But again I state a woman is not morally obliged to carry a pregnancy to term , whether I argue for off against abortion is again immaterial as I'm stating it's a woman's choice and I'm totally for a woman having this choice without interference from others .
I have not argued for or against abortion I've argued for a woman's choice in such matters to be the be all and end all .
Again I do not care what others think regards whether I'm right or wrong , a right to life doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body , what about the woman's right not to have somebody else's will imposed upon her ?
Traditionally women have been told what they can and cannot do with their bodies by men , the moral landscape is forever shifting as regards these matters , as a child growing up as a Catholic contraception was deemed a mortal sin and women were merely baby factories churning out baby after baby and now contraception is the norm , I applaud the fact that a modern woman can freely make this choice regardless of what others think
What people keep missing is the fact whether I support abortion or not is immaterial ; I'm stating that you or I have no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , if this is incorrect please tell me how ?
You have a perfect right to an opinion but do you have a right to dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do ?
Why are you so concerned in whether I support a choice made by a woman ?
I support her right to be allowed to make her own choices without me dictating what she can or cannot do .
Regardless of the fact of morals, a woman has the right to privacy and her choice to abort. Only the woman has the control over her body and reproductive system. A woman has the right to decide what is right or wrong for her, her body, and her life.
Ok, you assert that women can do whatever they want with their body. I assert that this is not always true. Now that we have both made assertions, will you answer the two questions I posed?
No , I did not say that ; I'm stating that you or I have no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , if this is incorrect please tell me how ?
Now you can go off and find examples where you claim this may not be true in all cases ,but that is merely avoiding what we are talking about here .
So are you stating then that you do have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies in the issue we are talking about ?
Answer this as it was my initial question at the start of our exchange which you have yet to answer , and I will then answer your two questions as posed
No , I did not say that ; I'm stating that you or I have no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , if this is incorrect please tell me how ?
I am saying that it depends entirely on what she is doing. We, as members of society, regularly and necessarily tell men and women what they can, or more often cannot, do with their bodies. To make my point, I have presented some relevant questions which you have thus far avoided. Why?
Now you can go off and find examples where you claim this may not be true in all cases ,but that is merely avoiding what we are talking about here .
The other examples are relevant to this situation. The same principles apply. Why won’t you answer my very relevant question?
So are you stating then that you do have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies in the issue we are talking about ?
There is certainly a case to be made for it. If you would answer the relevant questions that you have so far avoided, you may understand where I am coming from.
Answer … and I will then answer your two questions as posed
I shall answer your questions , the reason I haven't done so up to now is because I wanted you to at least admit that you think it fair that you should dictate what a woman may or may not do with her body in certain cases .
Your two questions were .....
If the woman’s choice is the end-all be-all of the matter, then do you support her choice to kill the child the day after it is born? Why/Why not?
If the fetus is not to be considered, do you support the woman’s right to kill the child the day before it is born? Why/Why not?
Most everyone on here know I'm not in favour of late term abortions so that answers both questions , why do you use the word ' support ' ? Its incorrect in usage , from the start I have said that it's a woman's choice to make not mine regardless of how I feel about it .
,
Look at it this way I'm totally anti gun and never understand how Americans have such an ongoing love affair with the gun if an American carries a gun I respect his RIGHT to do so but it doesn't mean I support him far from it .
A fetus has zero rights whether you call that arrogance on my part matters not to me , my position is perfectly fair and honest as in I've no right to tell a woman what to do with her body .
I disagree; your position is based on the assumption that "Fetuses don't have rights", which is presumably based on the further assumption that a fetus is not a human being, which is nothing more than a subjective position. In what way is stating said opinion as fact "fair and honest"?
Incorrect ,I stated before if a fetus ( for arguments sake ) has a right to life she does not violate the right to life but deprives it of sustenance provided by her body , over which it does not have a right .
Again I'm making no assumptions I'm saying constantly that I've no business interfering in what is a woman's choice which is fair and honest .
Your position is dictating to a woman what she can and cannot do with her body over which you have no rights do you ?
Regardless of the fact of morals, a woman has the right to privacy and her choice to abort. Only the woman has the control over her body and reproductive system. I believe abortion is a woman's choice because I feel that a woman has the right to decide what is right or wrong for her, her body, and her life.
Women don't have rights. No one has rights. "Human rights" are simply arbitrary social constructs that people use at their own convenience. They differ based upon personal interpretation and don't represent any objective standard.
A well constructed sentence lacking in all substance. Travel around the world and see how consistent human rights are; you'll be quite disappointed.
Thank you. An assertion lacking substance merits a rebuttal equally lacking.
You assume I have not travelled the world. This is a somewhat irrelevant assumption given my perspective would not necessarily be otherwise given world travel.
You still haven't said anything. No assumptions were made; merely making a suggestion to travel (perhaps the Middle East) and you'll see what they consider to be human rights to be quite different. Every culture has their own.
He made a baseless assertion. I said it was baseless.
No assumptions were made; merely making a suggestion to travel (perhaps the Middle East)
Suggesting I travel assumes that I have not traveled (perhaps to the Middle East). An irrelevant assumption as it would not necessitate my opinion being other than it is.
I believe this stems from your own desire to imply your own worldliness and wisdom. You hint that your own opinion is formed by travels and experience. You fail to realize that your travels do not necessitate your opinion. Thus, a different opinion does not eliminate the possibility of said travels.
you'll see what they consider to be human rights to be quite different. Every culture has their own.
From this it does not follow that rights do not exist. This is similar to claiming that if you went to McDonalds, you would see that people have all different opinions on nutrition, thus good nutritional decisions do not exist.
Suggesting I travel assumes that I have not traveled
No, a suggestion needs no assumptions. If a friend of mine said there were no good steakhouses in our area, and I make a suggestion, I am not assuming he has or has not been there, but merely offering a suggestion.
From this it does not follow that rights do not exist.
I never suggested rights do not exist. I do understand TheArbiter made this statement but I am not necessarily supporting that exact idea. My original statement is simply to point out your argument contained nothing of value.
Yes, of course it does. To "suggest" is to present something that is perceived to be lacking. One must infer from information presented that some element is lacking, or else there would be nothing to suggest. If you make a statement based on given information, one would not reasonably suggest to you that which you already understand in order that your statement may be altered. One would suggest to you that which they assume you do not understand.
To suggest that if I travel around the world my opinion will change, assumes I have not travelled around the world, or else my opinion would already be changed.
If a friend of mine said there were no good steakhouses in our area, and I make a suggestion, I am not assuming he has or has not been there
You are either suggesting a steakhouse that you know he knows is not good, or you are assuming he hasn't been there, since if he had, he would not conclude that there are no good steakhouses. The former is unreasonable and the latter makes an assumption.
I never suggested rights do not exist. I do understand TheArbiter made this statement but I am not necessarily supporting that exact idea. My original statement is simply to point out your argument contained nothing of value.
A baseless claim, providing no foundation from which it is formed, requires no foundation to be disputed or dismissed. If he says there are no such thing as rights, I merely need to say that there are. We are on equal, baseless ground unless or until he wishes to support his claim. A disagreement has been established.
I suggest you read his later post (I assume you haven’t). You’ll see that he recognized the need for a basis and proceeded to support his claim. I was then able to counter reason with reason rather than assertion with assertion.
What about it is baseless? The only thing that's baseless is an assertion that there exists an objective standard regarding something as subjective and arbitrary as human rights.
arising from a lack of careful consideration of the matter .
And upon more careful consideration, to what conclusion would I arrive? A different, yet equally arbitrary one. But if it is more in line with your personal beliefs, then is that the one that is closer to the truth? No. But is it the one you are more likely to accept? Yes. The beliefs that are more widely agreed upon within a given society at a specific point in time are the ones that will be accepted. Though they are accepted, that doesn't mean they are true; they are all subjective and only exist as long as they are beneficial to the general populace.
What about it is baseless? The only thing that's baseless is an assertion that there exists an objective standard regarding something as subjective and arbitrary as human rights.
What’s baseless is the notion that if something is a social construct, it is therefore arbitrary and somehow doesn’t exist. It is as baseless as saying that language, being a social construct, is completely arbitrary and thus sentences don’t actually exist. Absurd.
Rights are an articulated aspect of morality, which is a trait acquired through the evolutionary process. Language arose through evolution and is express differently across time and geography. Some languages are more effective at general communication than other languages. Some are better at specific forms of communication. Thus language, which is experienced subjectively and varies culturally, has an objective standard for its quality. Some languages are better than others.
To carry the analogy over; morality evolved necessarily as animals developed more complex cognitive abilities. Instinct becomes insufficient as more alternatives can be accounted for and considered. A simplifying cognitive tool for decision making, absent instinct, is morality. Morality developed to help decision making animals survive (and thrive in our case). Some forms of morality accomplish this purpose better than other forms. Thus, despite the social manner in which morality is often expressed (social construct), and despite it’s cultural fluidity, there is an appropriate standard on which to measure its quality. A standard which is outside my personal preference.
I don’t expect that more consideration would have brought you necessarily to this particular conclusion. But rather that some consideration would cause you to understand that social construction is not the same as arbitrary (or language would be unintelligible), and perhaps that there is something more to morality than mere preference, such as a reason for the preference.
It's not true in most places, at least not entirely true. Most states have a developmental stage past which a fetus cannot be aborted. Not all fetuses are equally lacking in legal rights.
Also, morality defines law, not the other way around.
Interesting the murder of a fetus through abortion is considered okay, yet if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered double homicide.
Abortion is not simply a matter of allowing a woman to do as they please with their bodies, but rather allowing a woman the choice to murder a baby. It seems when looking at this issue the right calls for absolutely no abortion because life begins at conception, and the left wants to restrictions. There is a lot of gray area that seems to be ignored. I would argue once a heartbeat develops, that's it, abortion is off the table. Extreme? Maybe, but you should be able to decide by then if you want to keep it. At the very latest I would say week 22 (though I am completely against it) because at that point a fetus could survive outside the womb.
Always fascinates me how obsessed people can be about a woman's right to abort, yet no one complains that it's illegal to sell our own organs; an act that truly has no other impact on anyone else but you.
Can you even imagine the lack of sincerity it takes to keep spewing such deceptive garbage? if the woman has trouble with her uterous, by all means do whatever you can to heal it. It's your body!
If there is another living growing human life inside a woman's body, the mother has NO RIGHT to interfere with that baby's uterous by killing the Baby. Talk about hypocriticl liars! They are the ones interfering with a Girl's uterous when they support killing her.
There is no debating this type of clinical denial. These people who defend abortion (other than extreme cases) are either living in the shame and guilt of an abortion, and spend their lives attacking pro life people for making them feel bad, or simply want to be ble to eliminate the consequences of their choices.
They hate a pro life person for merely trying to protect an innocent life. No matter if you agree or not, why on earth would you be so insulting towards someone with the compassion to respect all innocent life?
There can be only a couple reasons.... guilt or the desire to prevent the consequences of your choices.
Now start talking again about life of mother or extreme cases to excuse the inhumanity.... LOL (NO ONE PREVENTS THOSE EXCEPTIONS) If you have a problem in your uterous where the Baby could cause your death, then no one is preventing your choice!
It was your choice to have sex and through sex you get pregnat. Killing something for your wrong doing is just crual and stupid!! But rape is a whole new thing i feel like thre should be an exception, because they didn't want to be pregnat so it was never meant to be!
If you believe that abortion should be allowed if the pregnancy was not intended, then what about when birth control doesn't work? Or is improperly used? Or what if none was used but the pregnancy still wasn't intended?
After all, you said "they did not want to be pregnant so it was never meant to be".
When a man and women have sex and plan on having a child or are unprotected and still have sex they know the possibility of life is there, if a women does not want to kill a life do not have sex in the first place then. Just because the fetus in not able to [whatever your definition to justify its not living human etc] does not mean it will not be a life in the future.
And because it will be a life in the future should mean it will have rights to life just as we do.
Wait, if something has the potential to be life then it deserves rights? That reasoning would apply to sperm and eggs, though, as they have the potential to become life.
That would make women monthly murderers and men genocidal monsters :P
I do see your point haha, however I mean this more as in the circumstances it can be a life I do not know how to exactly define it. More like inside a women attached to an egg. In the case that abortion is needed o.o
The use of abortion is when a life is possible. you do not get an abortion when there is not possible life. So in getting abortion you are planning to stop the continuation of life. I believe in the circumstance a sperm can become a life you cannot kill it. If you do not want to have kids there are ways to stop that for guys and girls. Or don't have sex. If your raped it is not the fault of the kid for its rape-e fault. A life is a life and should be treated as so.
What about instances where birth control fails? And as for Plan B, if used after the egg is fertilized the it is essentially a very early abortion. Does that mean you are okay with abortion so long as it happens sufficiently early?
You're American so proper English may be alien to you , also it's rather amusing you wish I'd use proper English when your argument is based on ...... proper Latin ..... checkmate 🙀
