Abortion

[xsparklersx]

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

Being very busy at the time I just read a little of your post and won't attempt to reply fully at the moment.

However there are many faults you have made.

Firstly, ALL arguments are based on opinion because anything someone says IS their opinion. A science textbook is a compilation of the opinions of scientists for instance, but some people would consider it all fact. Not to mention just as much of your argument is opinion as mine.

Second, much of your argument falls apart simply because you do not understand the concept of self-defense. If a woman kills a man who attempts to rape her, this is not self-defense, it is manslaughter. The man did not attempt murder. Second, a woman killing a baby under ANY circumstance would not be self-defense, ever.

And finally you have done a lot of avoiding, dismissing and altogether missing the points I made. I shall return!

Valid arguments are based on facts. Most of your arguments are based on your personal thoughts on the matter, while many of mine are based on factual information such as the statistics for adoption showing that a lot of kids put up for adoption don't get adopted. Or would you say that it's an opinion to argue they aren't getting adopted? Secondly, not everything everyone says is their opinion. That's why people can have successful debates in the first place. Heck, if you look at any high school speech and debate team, they aren't making arguments based on opinion, they're arguing with the evidence that they've spend months researching. They have to be able to support both sides of the same debate, too, because which side they get to argue for is determined by a coin toss. People are capable of saying things that are in total contradiction to their opinion as well, or have you never heard of someone playing devil's advocate?

Also, if carrying the baby is going to kill the woman, she has a right to defend her life. If you deny that right, you're basically saying that it's ok for someone to kill an innocent woman so long as they're a baby.

Everything you say IS your opinion and nothing more. You can gather as much evidence as you want but it is your OPINION what that evidence amounts to. Nearly all evidence is just someone ELSE's opinion. Statistics may be accurate sometimes, but they can also be misleading most of the time. A child not getting adopted is not the end of the line for them; they can, and will, eventually grow up and have the chance to live an adult life on their own. They don't stay in a boarding home for their entire lives performing mundane housework with all the other children until they die. It's not at all as bad as you're making it sound.

If the baby is GOING to kill the woman, it has not yet committed a crime. Firstly, if anyone is LIKELY to kill someone, or even DOES kill someone, without even being aware of what they do and being unable to prevent it from happening, they are not to blame. Second, there is no way to tell if the child's birth is GOING to kill a woman, so that would still be the effective equivalent of manslaughter and a very unfair judgment. Not aborting a baby doesn't show that it's okay for a baby to kill a woman; how did you come to THAT conclusion? Would it not be the same to say that aborting a baby shows that it is okay for a woman to kill a baby as long as she's a woman? Killing a baby in defense of your life is NEVER necessary. Infants do not have the capability to KILL a grown woman other than childbirth, an infant could not kill a woman with a .357 revolver even if he tried. A child can always be restrained by its parent and parents are fully responsible for their childrens' actions until that child is old enough to comprehend themselves and the consequences for what they do. Abortion is in NO WAY comparable to self-defense.

Infants do have the capability to kill a grown woman. They are living within the woman's body and if that woman's body cannot handle carrying the child and she is dying because of it, she should have the right to protect her life.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

Being very busy at the time I just read a little of your post and won't attempt to reply fully at the moment.

However there are many faults you have made.

Firstly, ALL arguments are based on opinion because anything someone says IS their opinion. A science textbook is a compilation of the opinions of scientists for instance, but some people would consider it all fact. Not to mention just as much of your argument is opinion as mine.

Second, much of your argument falls apart simply because you do not understand the concept of self-defense. If a woman kills a man who attempts to rape her, this is not self-defense, it is manslaughter. The man did not attempt murder. Second, a woman killing a baby under ANY circumstance would not be self-defense, ever.

And finally you have done a lot of avoiding, dismissing and altogether missing the points I made. I shall return!

Valid arguments are based on facts. Most of your arguments are based on your personal thoughts on the matter, while many of mine are based on factual information such as the statistics for adoption showing that a lot of kids put up for adoption don't get adopted. Or would you say that it's an opinion to argue they aren't getting adopted? Secondly, not everything everyone says is their opinion. That's why people can have successful debates in the first place. Heck, if you look at any high school speech and debate team, they aren't making arguments based on opinion, they're arguing with the evidence that they've spend months researching. They have to be able to support both sides of the same debate, too, because which side they get to argue for is determined by a coin toss. People are capable of saying things that are in total contradiction to their opinion as well, or have you never heard of someone playing devil's advocate?

Also, if carrying the baby is going to kill the woman, she has a right to defend her life. If you deny that right, you're basically saying that it's ok for someone to kill an innocent woman so long as they're a baby.

Everything you say IS your opinion and nothing more. You can gather as much evidence as you want but it is your OPINION what that evidence amounts to. Nearly all evidence is just someone ELSE's opinion. Statistics may be accurate sometimes, but they can also be misleading most of the time. A child not getting adopted is not the end of the line for them; they can, and will, eventually grow up and have the chance to live an adult life on their own. They don't stay in a boarding home for their entire lives performing mundane housework with all the other children until they die. It's not at all as bad as you're making it sound.

If the baby is GOING to kill the woman, it has not yet committed a crime. Firstly, if anyone is LIKELY to kill someone, or even DOES kill someone, without even being aware of what they do and being unable to prevent it from happening, they are not to blame. Second, there is no way to tell if the child's birth is GOING to kill a woman, so that would still be the effective equivalent of manslaughter and a very unfair judgment. Not aborting a baby doesn't show that it's okay for a baby to kill a woman; how did you come to THAT conclusion? Would it not be the same to say that aborting a baby shows that it is okay for a woman to kill a baby as long as she's a woman? Killing a baby in defense of your life is NEVER necessary. Infants do not have the capability to KILL a grown woman other than childbirth, an infant could not kill a woman with a .357 revolver even if he tried. A child can always be restrained by its parent and parents are fully responsible for their childrens' actions until that child is old enough to comprehend themselves and the consequences for what they do. Abortion is in NO WAY comparable to self-defense.

Infants do have the capability to kill a grown woman. They are living within the woman's body and if that woman's body cannot handle carrying the child and she is dying because of it, she should have the right to protect her life.

I said outside of childbirth. You were comparing abortion to self-defense. Yes, a child can kill its mother during childbirth, but a) there is no way to determine whether or not the child absolutely WILL kill its mother while being born, and b) even if it was going to definitely kill its mother, how is abortion a solution to that problem? Then you're just killing a baby instead of a woman. And I mean killing the baby is killing someone who is completely innocent in every meaning of the word; while its mother is by no means innocent and obviously already made the mistake of CONCEIVING the child by whatever means that did happen. No matter the situation, it could have been prevented. Killing a baby because of his mother's mistakes is injust no matter what the circumstance.  

[xsparklersx]

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

Being very busy at the time I just read a little of your post and won't attempt to reply fully at the moment.

However there are many faults you have made.

Firstly, ALL arguments are based on opinion because anything someone says IS their opinion. A science textbook is a compilation of the opinions of scientists for instance, but some people would consider it all fact. Not to mention just as much of your argument is opinion as mine.

Second, much of your argument falls apart simply because you do not understand the concept of self-defense. If a woman kills a man who attempts to rape her, this is not self-defense, it is manslaughter. The man did not attempt murder. Second, a woman killing a baby under ANY circumstance would not be self-defense, ever.

And finally you have done a lot of avoiding, dismissing and altogether missing the points I made. I shall return!

Valid arguments are based on facts. Most of your arguments are based on your personal thoughts on the matter, while many of mine are based on factual information such as the statistics for adoption showing that a lot of kids put up for adoption don't get adopted. Or would you say that it's an opinion to argue they aren't getting adopted? Secondly, not everything everyone says is their opinion. That's why people can have successful debates in the first place. Heck, if you look at any high school speech and debate team, they aren't making arguments based on opinion, they're arguing with the evidence that they've spend months researching. They have to be able to support both sides of the same debate, too, because which side they get to argue for is determined by a coin toss. People are capable of saying things that are in total contradiction to their opinion as well, or have you never heard of someone playing devil's advocate?

Also, if carrying the baby is going to kill the woman, she has a right to defend her life. If you deny that right, you're basically saying that it's ok for someone to kill an innocent woman so long as they're a baby.

Everything you say IS your opinion and nothing more. You can gather as much evidence as you want but it is your OPINION what that evidence amounts to. Nearly all evidence is just someone ELSE's opinion. Statistics may be accurate sometimes, but they can also be misleading most of the time. A child not getting adopted is not the end of the line for them; they can, and will, eventually grow up and have the chance to live an adult life on their own. They don't stay in a boarding home for their entire lives performing mundane housework with all the other children until they die. It's not at all as bad as you're making it sound.

If the baby is GOING to kill the woman, it has not yet committed a crime. Firstly, if anyone is LIKELY to kill someone, or even DOES kill someone, without even being aware of what they do and being unable to prevent it from happening, they are not to blame. Second, there is no way to tell if the child's birth is GOING to kill a woman, so that would still be the effective equivalent of manslaughter and a very unfair judgment. Not aborting a baby doesn't show that it's okay for a baby to kill a woman; how did you come to THAT conclusion? Would it not be the same to say that aborting a baby shows that it is okay for a woman to kill a baby as long as she's a woman? Killing a baby in defense of your life is NEVER necessary. Infants do not have the capability to KILL a grown woman other than childbirth, an infant could not kill a woman with a .357 revolver even if he tried. A child can always be restrained by its parent and parents are fully responsible for their childrens' actions until that child is old enough to comprehend themselves and the consequences for what they do. Abortion is in NO WAY comparable to self-defense.

Infants do have the capability to kill a grown woman. They are living within the woman's body and if that woman's body cannot handle carrying the child and she is dying because of it, she should have the right to protect her life.

I said outside of childbirth. You were comparing abortion to self-defense. Yes, a child can kill its mother during childbirth, but a) there is no way to determine whether or not the child absolutely WILL kill its mother while being born, and b) even if it was going to definitely kill its mother, how is abortion a solution to that problem? Then you're just killing a baby instead of a woman. And I mean killing the baby is killing someone who is completely innocent in every meaning of the word; while its mother is by no means innocent and obviously already made the mistake of CONCEIVING the child by whatever means that did happen. No matter the situation, it could have been prevented. Killing a baby because of his mother's mistakes is injust no matter what the circumstance.

Ok, for one, if the woman was raped, she didn't "make the mistake of conceiving the child." It's not "because of his mother's mistakes" because if she was raped, she was just an innocent woman and didn't have a choice. Two, a child can kill it's mother OUTSIDE of childbirth. Childbirth is not the only way a woman can die by carrying a child. If she has a health problem and her doctor determines that (unless some sort of miracle happens) she'll die if she carries the child past, say, first trimester, she should have the right to protect her life. Third, just because it's a baby doesn't mean it's any better than any other human being, even though you keep implying that. And, in addition, if someone stabs you and is about to stab you again, are you really going to risk the overwhelming odds of them killing you just because protecting yourself may result in their death? Most people would answer "no." Just because you cannot absolutely determine whether they will succeed in killing you or not doesn't mean you aren't going to protect yourself. When someone's looking at a high probability of their death, they aren't going to depend on a miracle to pull them through. You can't expect people to do that...or rather, you can expect it of people, but they more often than not will end up acting against your expectations. To put it bluntly, in the legal system, if not in your own opinion, a baby's life is no more valuable than any other human being's. You say that it's ridiculous to say it's ok to kill a baby instead of a woman, which implies that it's ok to kill a woman instead of a baby. Babies are humans and their lives are no more valuable than those of any other human being. All men are created equal. She has the right to her own body and her own life. She has the right to protect that right. If a baby is violating her rights, it is no less accountable than a rapist. You cannot place a higher value on one life than another just because you feel that babies should be made exception to the law.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

xsparklersx

NOCTVRNVS

Being very busy at the time I just read a little of your post and won't attempt to reply fully at the moment.

However there are many faults you have made.

Firstly, ALL arguments are based on opinion because anything someone says IS their opinion. A science textbook is a compilation of the opinions of scientists for instance, but some people would consider it all fact. Not to mention just as much of your argument is opinion as mine.

Second, much of your argument falls apart simply because you do not understand the concept of self-defense. If a woman kills a man who attempts to rape her, this is not self-defense, it is manslaughter. The man did not attempt murder. Second, a woman killing a baby under ANY circumstance would not be self-defense, ever.

And finally you have done a lot of avoiding, dismissing and altogether missing the points I made. I shall return!

Valid arguments are based on facts. Most of your arguments are based on your personal thoughts on the matter, while many of mine are based on factual information such as the statistics for adoption showing that a lot of kids put up for adoption don't get adopted. Or would you say that it's an opinion to argue they aren't getting adopted? Secondly, not everything everyone says is their opinion. That's why people can have successful debates in the first place. Heck, if you look at any high school speech and debate team, they aren't making arguments based on opinion, they're arguing with the evidence that they've spend months researching. They have to be able to support both sides of the same debate, too, because which side they get to argue for is determined by a coin toss. People are capable of saying things that are in total contradiction to their opinion as well, or have you never heard of someone playing devil's advocate?

Also, if carrying the baby is going to kill the woman, she has a right to defend her life. If you deny that right, you're basically saying that it's ok for someone to kill an innocent woman so long as they're a baby.

Everything you say IS your opinion and nothing more. You can gather as much evidence as you want but it is your OPINION what that evidence amounts to. Nearly all evidence is just someone ELSE's opinion. Statistics may be accurate sometimes, but they can also be misleading most of the time. A child not getting adopted is not the end of the line for them; they can, and will, eventually grow up and have the chance to live an adult life on their own. They don't stay in a boarding home for their entire lives performing mundane housework with all the other children until they die. It's not at all as bad as you're making it sound.

If the baby is GOING to kill the woman, it has not yet committed a crime. Firstly, if anyone is LIKELY to kill someone, or even DOES kill someone, without even being aware of what they do and being unable to prevent it from happening, they are not to blame. Second, there is no way to tell if the child's birth is GOING to kill a woman, so that would still be the effective equivalent of manslaughter and a very unfair judgment. Not aborting a baby doesn't show that it's okay for a baby to kill a woman; how did you come to THAT conclusion? Would it not be the same to say that aborting a baby shows that it is okay for a woman to kill a baby as long as she's a woman? Killing a baby in defense of your life is NEVER necessary. Infants do not have the capability to KILL a grown woman other than childbirth, an infant could not kill a woman with a .357 revolver even if he tried. A child can always be restrained by its parent and parents are fully responsible for their childrens' actions until that child is old enough to comprehend themselves and the consequences for what they do. Abortion is in NO WAY comparable to self-defense.

Infants do have the capability to kill a grown woman. They are living within the woman's body and if that woman's body cannot handle carrying the child and she is dying because of it, she should have the right to protect her life.

I said outside of childbirth. You were comparing abortion to self-defense. Yes, a child can kill its mother during childbirth, but a) there is no way to determine whether or not the child absolutely WILL kill its mother while being born, and b) even if it was going to definitely kill its mother, how is abortion a solution to that problem? Then you're just killing a baby instead of a woman. And I mean killing the baby is killing someone who is completely innocent in every meaning of the word; while its mother is by no means innocent and obviously already made the mistake of CONCEIVING the child by whatever means that did happen. No matter the situation, it could have been prevented. Killing a baby because of his mother's mistakes is injust no matter what the circumstance.

Ok, for one, if the woman was raped, she didn't "make the mistake of conceiving the child." It's not "because of his mother's mistakes" because if she was raped, she was just an innocent woman and didn't have a choice. Two, a child can kill it's mother OUTSIDE of childbirth. Childbirth is not the only way a woman can die by carrying a child. If she has a health problem and her doctor determines that (unless some sort of miracle happens) she'll die if she carries the child past, say, first trimester, she should have the right to protect her life. Third, just because it's a baby doesn't mean it's any better than any other human being, even though you keep implying that. And, in addition, if someone stabs you and is about to stab you again, are you really going to risk the overwhelming odds of them killing you just because protecting yourself may result in their death? Most people would answer "no." Just because you cannot absolutely determine whether they will succeed in killing you or not doesn't mean you aren't going to protect yourself. When someone's looking at a high probability of their death, they aren't going to depend on a miracle to pull them through. You can't expect people to do that...or rather, you can expect it of people, but they more often than not will end up acting against your expectations. To put it bluntly, in the legal system, if not in your own opinion, a baby's life is no more valuable than any other human being's. You say that it's ridiculous to say it's ok to kill a baby instead of a woman, which implies that it's ok to kill a woman instead of a baby. Babies are humans and their lives are no more valuable than those of any other human being. All men are created equal. She has the right to her own body and her own life. She has the right to protect that right. If a baby is violating her rights, it is no less accountable than a rapist. You cannot place a higher value on one life than another just because you feel that babies should be made exception to the law.

Once again you're totally missing the point. I'm including all risks of death that an infant can pose to its mother BEFORE birth; this was to retort your attitude that abortion equals self-defense. Self-defense would be if a baby had the means, and intention, to kill its mother deliberately, which has nothing to do with abortion.

Second, if a woman is raped, yes, she made a mistake. Perhaps she should not have been alone. It has nothing to do with blaming the woman, but, let's face it, if it's split straight down the middle, who really deserves a chance at life? The woman who made SOME degree of mistake, and had previously, or the child that has not?

You can easily say that I am implying a baby is more important than a woman, but I guess you forgot that you're arguing a woman is more important than a baby. Bear in mind what you were telling me about arguments based on fact and not opinion... and hey, the importance of children over adults in the legal system is not necessarily the same. Special considerations are made in the case of children in almost any situation. Yes, we are all CREATED equal, exactly. But we decide who we become and whether we REMAIN equal. If we're all created equal then how is it anyone's right to decide which fetuses to abort?

Once again, you have the right to protect yourself, but under no circumstances would it be okay to kill someone because you think there's a POSSIBILITY of them killing you. We can't be just walking down the sidewalk and shooting everyone who looks at us simply because there is some degree of risk they will kill us otherwise, and then using the excuse that it was just insurance, and citing statistics about the likelihood of random killings. It sounds to me like you are not considering unborn children as people, which they are, and which is a denial of THEIR human rights.

Which brings me back to the fundamental issue, which I believe you just concluded yourself. A woman, just like any other human, reserves the right to protect her rights and her life. So then you must agree that infants, however old, also reserve this right. Thus, since it is essentially split down the middle, neither human deserving rights OVER the other, then letting the child live is the only logical solution; as there is never a way to tell with 100% certainty that a child will cause the death of its mother. The chance of the mother's survival is the ONLY deciding factor here, and however small, it does always exist, even in the case of a twelve-year-old girl. There simply is no other logical way to consider the situation. You yourself say that ALL women deserve the basic right to live, presumably including men as well (and if not, then in the case of female children). How then can you possibly dictate whose rights will be violated? You can't. Even a coin-flip with both lives on the line would be more fair a method than abortion. You must allow NATURE to decide, or God if you believe in the concept. It is simply not our place to violate the rights of other humans, which I'm sure you agree judging by what you've said here. I don't see how you can even argue with that.  

[xsparklersx]

NOCTVRNVS

Second, if a woman is raped, yes, she made a mistake. Perhaps she should not have been alone.

Oh, so if a 15-year-old girl's parents send her to visit her relatives and her 20-year-old cousin Fred decides to rape her, it's her fault for being alone? By your logic, that's what you're saying. You're basically saying that, because she existed and someone decided to violate her rights to her body, it's her "mistake."

NOCTVRNVS

It has nothing to do with blaming the woman, but, let's face it, if it's split straight down the middle, who really deserves a chance at life?

Who are you to determine that a baby is more DESERVING of life just because it hasn't done anything yet?

NOCTVRNVS

You can easily say that I am implying a baby is more important than a woman, but I guess you forgot that you're arguing a woman is more important than a baby.

No, I'm saying that both lives are important. The baby has just as much of a right to it's own life. It does not have rights, however, to take the life of or even cause health problems for a woman just because it cannot survive on its own. If it cannot survive on its own, that's the baby's problem, not the mother's.

NOCTVRNVS

If we're all created equal then how is it anyone's right to decide which fetuses to abort?

It's a simple matter really. If the woman is fine with having a baby use her body for 9 months or however long it takes her to give birth to it, then the baby is within its rights and can remain where it is. If, however, the woman decides not to consent to carrying the baby, it is within her rights to decide the use of her own body and it is therefore within her rights to have the baby removed from her body. The baby has a right to its own life and its own body and does not have a right to the body and life of its mother. If it cannot survive without using the mother's body, that's the baby's problem, not the mother's. If a rapist cannot survive without violating a woman, that's the rapist's problem. The woman still has the right to her own body and its use, and it should not be illegal for her to protect that right.

NOCTVRNVS

Once again, you have the right to protect yourself, but under no circumstances would it be okay to kill someone because you think there's a POSSIBILITY of them killing you.

I'm just giving the life-threatening situation as a possible reason for a woman wanting an abortion. The reasons for her not wanting the baby in her body are really not relevant, so long as she makes the decisive conclusion that her body is no longer available for use by the infant in her uterus. She's not actively killing the baby by having it removed. She's simply preventing it from using her body. The baby has the right to its life, and is only being denied the option of using the woman's body. It is fully within its rights to live outside the body of the woman. Whether it can or cannot do so is not the woman's problem. In addition, you cannot argue that this is parental neglect because the woman has given up her rights to mother the child just as anyone who puts a child up for adoption. She is no longer responsible for it's well-being.

NOCTVRNVS

It sounds to me like you are not considering unborn children as people, which they are, and which is a denial of THEIR human rights.

They are people. They have the rights to their lives. The fact that they are babies, however, does not give them rights over the bodies and lives of others, including the women carrying them.

NOCTVRNVS

Which brings me back to the fundamental issue, which I believe you just concluded yourself. A woman, just like any other human, reserves the right to protect her rights and her life. So then you must agree that infants, however old, also reserve this right.

Yes, we are in agreement here.

NOCTVRNVS

Thus, since it is essentially split down the middle, neither human deserving rights OVER the other, then letting the child live is the only logical solution; as there is never a way to tell with 100% certainty that a child will cause the death of its mother.

Yes, neither has rights OVER the other. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a 100% certainty that it will cause the death of its mother, the fact that the mother is not consenting to the use of her body is enough. The baby does not have rights OVER her right to her own body. It only has rights over itself. The woman isn't taking away the baby's right to life, she's simply taking herself out of the equation. She has the right to do so. She has a right to detach her uterus from the baby. That's not denying its rights to live. It's not her fault if the baby dies just because it can't handle not using her body.

NOCTVRNVS

The chance of the mother's survival is the ONLY deciding factor here, and however small, it does always exist, even in the case of a twelve-year-old girl.

No, the woman's rights to deny the baby the use of her body are the deciding factor here.

NOCTVRNVS

You yourself say that ALL women deserve the basic right to live, presumably including men as well (and if not, then in the case of female children). How then can you possibly dictate whose rights will be violated? You can't. Even a coin-flip with both lives on the line would be more fair a method than abortion.

Abortion is fair. The baby isn't being denied its right to live as an individual human being. Abortion is simply a woman exercising her right to the use of her body. The baby does not have the right to use her body unless she allows it. The baby's rights are not being violated if the mother decides to have an abortion.

NOCTVRNVS

You must allow NATURE to decide, or God if you believe in the concept. It is simply not our place to violate the rights of other humans, which I'm sure you agree judging by what you've said here. I don't see how you can even argue with that.

Nature is deciding. Abortion does not deny a baby rights. The only result of abortion is that a woman maintains her right to her body. When you make it so that neither's rights are being violated, nature decides who lives. Nature decides that the baby cannot live within its own rights. It is not the mother's fault that the baby cannot live within its rights as a human being in this nation.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

ROFL!!! That is an even worse argument than your last one.

Now you're saying that abortion is not actually KILLING the baby, it is just isolating the baby and it dies on its own. Wow, where to begin?

First of all, that isn't the case. The baby is KILLED, not just removed from its mother's body where it struggles to survive on its own and then die. This fact alone defeats your argument, but that still leaves your very questionable understanding of parental responsibility and death.

Even if incidentally it was that the baby is simply removed from its mother's womb and failed to live on its own, how is that not the same as directly killing it by any other means (other than that it is even crueller)? That's like saying, I could remove you from wherever you are and seal you into a concrete box with a little hole for air, and I would be committing no crime since I'm not directly killing you. Technically you're killing YOURSELF since it's YOU who is unable to cope inside a concrete box by yourself. O well I guess you don't deserve to live in the first place then, isn't that right?

Who am I to determine that a baby is more deserving of life just because it hasn't done anything yet? Please tell me one reason its mother deserves to live more than the infant, since both are humans and thus have equal rights to life. My argument is not that the woman DESERVES to die; it's that if ANYONE is qualified for termination over the other, it would NOT be an innocent child. I believe in consequence based on the actions of the individual, I don't know about you. And just like when I said when a woman is raped it is because she made some manner of mistake to get impregnated in the first place -- if something happens to someone that they do not desire, it is an ERROR, so getting raped is an error whatever way you look at it. Is the woman completely to blame, no, but it is a mistake. Something that the unborn child has never made. Once again the argument is not that she is DESERVING of death, but that the child has done even LESS to deserve consequence.

Other than these aspects you have just resorted back to your last argument; that the child does not have rights to cause problems or death for its mother if she does not want to accept them. This makes no logical sense, because in the case of abortion it is just the mother causing problems and death for her child that the child does not desire -- except remember, the child did nothing to even BE there, he was PUT there by the mother, and then promptly destroyed against his will. Just like waiting for someone to wake up from a coma after they were hit by a drunk driver and then cracking their skull open with a crowbar so you don't have to take care of them. It is NOT your choice what you do with someone ELSE'S body, and your argument is backwards because the CHILD was PUT there against its will, remember? When the mother got knocked up? He is not choosing to DO anything to his mother's body, but as soon as he is conceived he relies on it to live. Just like you rely on food to live. If you were put into a concrete box you would rely only on food, so would it be within my right to seal you into such a box and leave you without food? Saying that it is your own problem if you can't make it on your own? Gee, if I have a quadruplegic brother who relies on me, and lives with me in my home, is it outside of my responsibility to help him eat food and drink? He does rely on it to live, after all, but yet I am held to my human duty despite problems and inconveniencies that it causes me. So why would you feel different about any of these scenarios? Because they are human adults in question, and you are simply not treating infants as humans in your mind when you consider the issue of abortion. When you don't associate things with humanity it is easy to advocate their annihilation, that's the way my good ol' buddy Hitler did things, but at least he had the humanity to consider infants as the most pure life forms of all creation, something that is a foundation of all civilization.

And don't speak too soon. I can easily argue that abortion is parental neglect. Since the child is still in the mother's womb when the abortion process begins, she has no choice but to accept that she is its mother. She is allowing the doctor to reach into her body and violate, and destroy, her child's life. That is in every way the effective equal of saying, "I no longer accept responsibility as the parent of my child, so I am going to put him in a locked car and gas him to death". Just because you don't WANT the inconvenience of parental responsibility does not mean you can just say the magic word and then do whatever you want regardless of your child's well-being. And you compare that to adoption? I guess you never considered with adoption the child is not being denied its basic RIGHT TO LIVE, and will most likely have access to his original parents later in life. They are in no way morally related.

Abortion IS a denial of rights.  

[xsparklersx]

Your argument makes no sense because no one is denying the child's rights.

If a rapist puts his sperm into a woman and it results in her pregnancy, it's not HER FAULT for "putting" the child there. Also, the baby isn't in a concrete box. Nothing is inhibiting it from living. It is just not being allowed to live within the body of another human being because that human has a right to her body and its use.

I'll tell you that there is NO reason a mother deserves to live more than an infant. I'll also tell you that there is NO REASON an infant deserves to live more than it's mother. Your point is moot. Oh, and you're not saying the woman DESERVES to die, you're just saying she doesn't deserve her rights to her life and her body and its use.

In another point, rape is NEVER the victim's FAULT in ANY DEGREE. She has a right to exist without being violated by someone else. It is never her fault, EVER. It is not a "mistake" either. She is just an innocent human being who had her rights violated. The only mistake she possibly could have made was EXISTING. The child is no more deserving of life than the woman is. You can't say someone's more worthy of life just because they haven't had a chance to make a mistake yet...especially considering the fact that you don't know that they won't make mistakes if they're given the chance.

Also, in the case of abortion, it isn't the mother "causing problems and death for her child" just because she's exercising her rights. The life of the child is not the mother's responsibility and she's just having it removed from her body. Whether it can live on its own or not is its own problem and the child has NO RIGHT to the use of its mother's body. The child was not PUT there by its mother if she's been raped. It's not choosing to do anything to the mother's body, but just because it's not making an active choice doesn't mean it has the RIGHT to keep using her body.
No one is hindering the baby from surviving outside its mother's body. And legally, no, it's not your duty to look after a quadruplegic unless you have consented to. No one has a right to force you to look after him. You might do it because you feel it's what you should do, but no one has the right to force you to if you don't want to.

I associate humans with humanity, babies included. I don't think a quadruplegic adult human has any more right to force someone who is not consenting to look after him than a baby does. You can't discriminate between the rights of two human beings just because YOU feel that BABIES are more "PURE." Well, they aren't any more pure than the rest of us. All they are is younger.

Abortion is not parental neglect. If a woman is getting an abortion, she has already given up any parental rights that would bind her to the child and make her responsible for it. Just as a birth-mother who gives her child up for adoption is no longer responsible for the child's well being, the woman getting an abortion is giving up her responsibility for the child. No one is violating the child. It's not being denied it's right to live. It's just being denied the right to stay in its current location because the woman has a right to remove it from her body. Also, original parents have the option of not allowing adopted children to access them, so it's basically the same thing. The only difference is that the woman was willing to allow the child her body until it came to term. Well, some women aren't willing to allow that, and they have the right not to.

If someone has their rights violated by another person, it is not AN ERROR on their part. A rapist would be in error for violating a woman's rights. The woman is NOT in error in any way whatsoever.

A baby is not better than any other human just because it's younger. That's like saying a 40-year-old is better and should have more rights than a 70-year-old. It's ridiculous.

And finally, an abortion is not a denial of rights. It is a woman exercising her rights.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Okay, this is going nowhere because you insist on using circular arguments that I've already discussed.

First let's get one thing straight -- ABORTION MEANS THAT THE BABY IS GOING TO DIE. It is not pulled out of its mother and sat on a table and told, "let's see if you can live on your own little guy". It is TERMINATED. Abortion means the baby is GOING to die. It is a death sentence.

What you maintain as human rights is also a little flawed. You are expressing that a human is allowed his or her rights even if they inflict on others, yet you are only applying them to SOME humans; incidentally, women. A human's rights can only be extended so far that they do not infringe on the rights of OTHERS. Yes, a woman has every right to HER body, but NOT what she does with it. She does NOT have the right to use her body to steal money from someone. She does NOT have the right to use her body to terminate itself (yes, suicide is illegal). And she does NOT have the right to control anyone ELSE's body against their will. If you can not agree to these three basic statements then I'm afraid the discussion can go no further here.

There are very few instances in which a regular person CAN legally use their body to hurt or kill another person's body; either in the case that someone has the intention of hurting them against their will, in the case that it was in an accident, or in the case that they are under military authorization and officially engaged in combat as sanctioned by their ranking superiors. The reason these three normal cases are protected by either the Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms is because they are for the common good of the people and do not infringe on the rights of others. None of these instances overlaps the human right to life and all provide perfect equality. Please tell me which of these instances is related to abortion. Is the baby planning to murder its mother? Is the baby going to be aborted by accident? Or is the baby an armed warrior declaring war on its mother or another party?

In some rare cases it may be the latter, but if none of these exceptions to the human right to life apply, then hurting or killing another person is simply a violation of the Constitution (or Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and a crime against humanity. Abortion is NOT protected under the rights of an individual as long as another human is having THEIR rights violated, which they are. You have the right to YOUR body but you do NOT have the right to ANOTHER's body in any way. Any exception to this rule exists because it is just in the case that another human deliberately acts with an intention to infringe on your rights. An unborn child does NOT intend to infringe on your rights and so preserves his own.

Anyway, of course it's not my LEGAL duty to take care of a family member whose ability to live independantly is obstructed in part or in full. Using legal issues to argue ABOUT legal issues is hardly sound protocol and is similar to me arguing the existence of spiritual beings with spiritual evidence. It is not my legal duty to take care of a disabled family member, it is my HUMAN duty. It is for the sake of equality and the good of man, and that's really what the issue of abortion is about.

Please provide evidence that babies are not generally more pure than adult humans, considering chronic intoxication, inhalation of intoxicants, exposure to chemical properties, natural degradation of internal organs, etc.

You have restated that abortion is not an incident of parental neglect but you have not even considered my argument against it. If a parent can, at any time, choose to give up the rights to their children then why can a parent not choose to give up the responsibility over their children every time they go to the mall, leaving their child in the car in freezing temperature, and then reclaim those rights when they return to the car six hours later? Are they then not liable for what happened to their... non-child... during those hours? If the child had died, would it not be an issue of parental neglect? If you ask me, I think the parent renouncing their title as parent in the first place would be parental neglect at its WORST, and certainly a horrendous omission of responsibility. The reason a parent's rights over her child are sacrificed in the case of adoption is because the child is under guardianship of whomever he is being transferred to. A child is ALWAYS entitled to a guardian, do you not agree? It is a basic human right. Yet who is the child's legal guardian after the parent gives up the title? Is the child considered the doctor's? Wow, that would open up a whole new WORLD of legal loopholes.

A mistake is to "understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly". If a woman is raped, it is due in some SMALL part to her mistake. Perhaps the mistake was what created the opportunity for the rapist to act; perhaps it was to such small degree as travelling to the place where the rape would occur. In any case, the woman DOES make a misevaluation. She knew that there always exists the possibility of being raped; she knew that she could take the precautions to protect herself against rape; but she MADE a mistake in some direct or indirect way. It was not the baby's fault that the rape occurred; in fact he did not even exist yet. I will agree that rape is often not the woman's fault, but that is because making mistakes is natural and everyone inevitably does err.

But a 40-year-old often DOES have more rights than a 70-year-old. Naturally organs depreciate over a human's life-cycle and this can directly or indirectly cause malfunctions and inaccuracy of non-vital systems (and eventually the failure of vital systems, which is called "death"). Due to these natural depreciations people eventually may lose their right to command certain vehicles, live independently, fill labour-oriented job positions, be a part of some institutions such as those of a military nature, and some means of transportation or living situations. Once again this is obviously for well-being and the general good of man.

Abortion is not simply the excercising of a woman's rights. This excercising of rights conflicts with the rights of another human. It is comparable to an act of necrophilia. Technically we all as adults have the right to sexual satisfaction as long as the parties involved do not disagree; so if we feel we can only find this satisfaction by keeping a corpse in our bed for that purpose, it is an extension of our right. I mean it's not like the corpse cares. But it ISN'T an extension of our right, it is the desecration of a human body and a perverse excercise. For now, it is illegal, but much like abortion it will become legalized as soon as enough human dignity is lost to even consider such inhumane matters.  

[xsparklersx]

"You have the right to YOUR body but you do NOT have the right to ANOTHER's body in any way."

So, we are in agreement. The thing is, you are saying the woman has no right over the child's body. What you're really not admitting to is that the CHILD has NO right over the MOTHER's body. So in reality it is the child who is imposing upon the rights of the woman by remaining in her body without her consent. This is in opposition to her rights, regardless of whether the child is conscious of the fact that it is violating the right or not. She should be able to stop the child from violating her right to her body's use. Abortion is doing just that. It's stopping the violation of the mother's rights. The baby does "NOT have the right to control anyone ELSE's body against their will." Therefore, if it is infringing, that infringement should not be allowed to continue. Whether intention is there or not doesn't matter. The fact is that the baby is violating her rights and should be prevented from doing so. The baby has no RIGHT to live inside its mother without her consent. Therefore, if that is taken away, it cannot be said to be a denial of a right that the baby never had in the first place.

Babies are no more pure than any other human because all humans have a capacity for failure and mistakes. Babies are no more pure just because they haven't done as much as others. The reason for this is because they haven't had as much time to fail and make mistakes. So, if they were given the same amount of time, you cannot say that you know for certain that they would not have made comparable numbers of mistakes. Just because they're younger doesn't mean they're better or more "pure" as human beings.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Yes, in the case that the child DOES kill the mother, it is an infringement of her right, and no, the mother does not have the right to kill the baby or anyone else just because they are infringing on her rights. Do you feel that it is just to remove someone's human rights, including the right to live, because your right is being infringed upon? How does that make you any less deserving of the same fate? You are, in turn, removing the rights of another individual. If the punishment for this type of infringement is death, then let that apply to all who remove the basic right to life.

In one particular case, it IS just to remove someone's right to life. That is when they deliberately remove someone else's. The reason behind this -- known as Capital Punishment -- is to punish (obviously) a murderer and show others that what the murderer has done is the most severe form of crime agaisnt humanity. His crime is so severe that he no longer deserves even the most basic right, that of life. That is the reasoning behind Capital Punishment.

So why is Capital Punishment also being implemented in the case of abortion? Why is the child being punished, and what is the benefit of the child's punishment to society? The child has no knowledge of its infringement, nor will killing the child teach him or any OTHER children to do right. Someone who accidentally kills another using a firearm is not guilty of murder and thus does not receive the death penalty; yet he HAS removed someone's right to live. To require punishment a degree of understanding and deliberation is requisite. No-one can be blamed for things such as accidental deaths. A car's brakeline snaps and to avoid hitting someone the driver steers his car into a storefront. It kills two people, the driver has removed these peoples' right to live. Is he guilty of a crime? Would it have been justified for someone to shoot the driver, if possible, to prevent further deaths? I'm sure you'll agree it would not.

Death is not the answer to infringement of rights.  

[bluecherry]

In the case of violation of a person's rights, you have the right to violate another person's if they already did or are going to. Thus people are aloud to act and infringe upon any other person's rights as soon as that other person proves a threat to rights violation first. This is why we have things like self defense and a justice system. The general rule is if you know there is another way to set the violation of your rights correct or prevent it from happening, go with that lesser thing first. However, if it can't be helped or won't be effective enough, then you have the "OK" to go ahead. This translating to the abortion issue means of course that a pregnant person who does not want to be pregnant can have the pregnancy terminated as she has the right of bodily integrity. If that does necessarily result in the inability of the fetus to survive, then so be it. If there is a way for the pregnancy to be ended as soon as the pregnant person wants to and is able to end it and the fetus CAN survive it is then after removal then that's all fine and dandy, it's now a separate person and no longer part of the other person in any way and also no-longer violating another's bodily integrity so the formerly pregnant person now can not do things to kill it, the prior conditions of what would allow give them the right to take away another's rights is now gone (unless something happens and the thing now is somehow violating rights of the person AGAIN, but then that would be another entirely separate incident of course.) ninja

 

[NOCTVRNVS]

Well you're wrong for two simple reasons.

First, your skewed perspective on what "self-defense" encompasses. Killing someone to save your life is not the bottom line of self defense and there are MANY other variables tied to the law. In Canada this law is even MORE strict and it is ruled that under NO circumstances may a civilian end another human life, not even in the protection of your own. Yet abortion has been legalized. Some judges in the US would also agree, and would certainly charge someone who has killed another REGARDLESS of whether or not it was in defense. Additionally, a self-defense case must be ruled in a Court of Law before a sentence is determined, so if you're arguing self-defense then according to the child's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS he or the mother must be allowed to bring the case into a Court of Law to be decided by an appointed Judge.

Second, even IN the case of self-defense, it would technically be the CHILD being attacked by the mother and doctor! Who poses a greater threat to the other? The abortion doctor certainly does. In almost ALL cases, self-defense can only apply if you do not pose a greater risk to your attacker than vice-versa (you then become the attacker). A thief who breaks into a house with a rock in hand and is met with a loaded shotgun, begins as an attacker but as soon as that shotgun is fired he is BEING attacked. He could then, according to his rights, bludgeon the owner of the house and call it self-defense. This and many scenarios like it can, and have, happened.

Since in ALL cases of abortion, the child has yet to pose even a SLIGHT threat to the mother or doctor, and is completely UNABLE to harm either at that point, who is infringing on rights first? Certainly NOT the child, who is being destroyed at the hands of an adult who could and SHOULD be considered armed with a deadly weapon.

And finally, returning to the point I had already mentioned. An ATTACKER is only ATTACKING if he is aware of his actions and performs them with deliberation. Otherwise it is completely unfair and unreasonable to administrate consequences; a more appropriate solution is to discover and treat the problem which was truly responsible for the occurrance.  

[xsparklersx]

"Since in ALL cases of abortion, the child has yet to pose even a SLIGHT threat to the mother or doctor, and is completely UNABLE to harm either at that point, who is infringing on rights first?"

This is false, and makes your entire argument invalid.

The child is able to harm the mother and in cases IS doing just that. Whether it is intentional or not is not the issue because the fact of the matter is that the child is causing harm. The woman has a right to protect herself from these harms.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

It makes the argument invalid, yet you do nothing to actually evidence your point?

Please tell me how a child is harming its mother at the time it is aborted -- keeping in mind the stage at which the child IS aborted.

Even an 8-month unborn child needs no less than 300 calories per day to survive, and nothing else. Are you arguing that a child is threatening his mother's life by consuming under 300 calories per day (a handful of potato chips)?

The child does not pose the first lethal threat. The doctor poses a lethal threat to the child before the child CAN even threaten his mother's life; additionally, never in the child's unborn life does he pose a risk, however minor, to the doctor who initializes the abortion. The child can thus not be considered the attacker.  

[bluecherry]

First, birthing a fully developed 9-month fetus can and does kill people even today, even if it is FAR less common then it used to be and even before that pregnancy can cause complications that are life threatening on it's own. Even aside from death there are PLENTY of things about pregnancy that could be undesirable for a person. Here's a list, you can read it or skip it if you want.

Pregnancy

normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

-- exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
-- altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
-- nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
-- heartburn and indigestion
-- constipation
-- weight gain
-- dizziness and light-headedness
-- bloating, swelling, fluid retention
-- hemmorhoids
-- abdominal cramps
-- yeast infections
-- congested, bloody nose
-- acne and mild skin disorders
-- skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
-- mild to severe backache and strain
-- increased headaches
-- difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
-- increased urination and incontinence
-- bleeding gums
-- pica
-- breast pain and discharge
-- swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
-- difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
-- inability to take regular medications
-- shortness of breath
-- higher blood pressure
-- hair loss
-- tendency to anemia
-- curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
-- infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
-- extreme pain on delivery
-- hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
-- continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

These are the normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

-- stretch marks (worse in younger women)
-- loose skin
-- permanent weight gain or redistribution
-- abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
-- pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
-- changes to breasts
-- varicose veins
-- scarring from episiotomy or c-section
-- other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
-- increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
-- loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

These are the occasional complications and side effects:

-- hyperemesis gravidarum
-- temporary and permanent injury to back
-- severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
-- dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
-- pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
-- eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
-- gestational diabetes
-- placenta previa
-- anemia (which can be life-threatening)
-- thrombocytopenic purpura
-- severe cramping
-- embolism (blood clots)
-- medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
-- diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
-- mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
-- serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
-- hormonal imbalance
-- ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
-- broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
-- hemorrhage and
-- numerous other complications of delivery
-- refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
-- aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
-- severe post-partum depression and psychosis
-- research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
-- research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
-- research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

These are some less common (but serious) complications:

-- peripartum cardiomyopathy
-- cardiopulmonary arrest
-- magnesium toxicity
-- severe hypoxemia/acidosis
-- massive embolism
-- increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
-- molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
-- malignant arrhythmia
-- circulatory collapse
-- placental abruption
-- obstetric fistula

And a few more permanent side effects:

-- future infertility
-- permanent disability
-- death.

SOURCE: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

There's plenty of reason to not want to remain pregnant for any length of time even, whether medical or personal and it doesn't have to be killing you to still be seriously infringing upon your rights and whether or not it was intentional is moot. People have free will which they hold near and dear and part of that includes that they have the right to decide who/what can or can not use their body, when, and how ( - or do you wish to contest this?) Taking this away from a person who has not violated anybody else's rights first is tantamount to reducing the person to a state of slavery to who or whatever it is that they do not have the right to deny the use and/or control of their body at any time. And in the case of abortion the pregnant person HAS NOT given the fetus permission to anything to do with their body, but they HAVE given the doctor permission to perform the procedure on them that will remove and separate the fetus from their body. And not all violations of rights are a real violent attack. You can unintentionally violate somebody's rights by way of accident or ignorance.