Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[Mudda]

Abortion is like gay marriage, if you're against it, then don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

 

[PK1]

Abortion is like gay marriage, if you're against it, then don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

---
Yes, i agree, and it's a simple issue for Libertarians.
However, the Authoritarians like to stick their selfish noses in other people's business.
.

 

[jillian]

Abortion is like gay marriage, if you're against it, then don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

---
Yes, i agree, and it's a simple issue for Libertarians.
However, the Authoritarians like to stick their selfish noses in other people's business.
.

that's funny given that the pretend libertarians are anti-choice and anti-marriage equality.

try again.

 

[PK1]

Abortion is like gay marriage, if you're against it, then don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

---
Yes, i agree, and it's a simple issue for Libertarians.
However, the Authoritarians like to stick their selfish noses in other people's business.
.

that's funny given that the pretend libertarians are anti-choice and anti-marriage equality.

try again.

---
I'm not a pretend Libertarian, and my Libertarian views include social responsibility, unlike the extreme egotistical variants.
I am very pro-choice and a "think for yourself" personality.
.

 

[ChrisL]

a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

Because, like most people involved in this debate, they were too obsessed with the fetus to look at the argument from the perspective of the woman's rights. It's a common problem because your side does everything in its power to keep the debate focused on the fetus instead of on the pregnant woman.

As if they even care about some stranger's embryo. Weirdos.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

That's exactly my point. The fetus does not have the right to violate the mother's right to bodily autonomy just because he requires her body to survive.

 

[Chuz Life]

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

That's exactly my point. The fetus does not have the right to violate the mother's right to bodily autonomy just because he requires her body to survive.

Do explain how a child in the womb that is only there because the mother and her partner put it there and 'connected' it to her body herself. . . is violating HER right to HER body.

If someone walked up to you while you were sleeping and connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if that connection was severed before 9 months. . . how would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

And if they changed their mind and cut the connection themself and you died as a result. . . how would they not then be liable for your murder?

 

[BreezeWood]

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

That's exactly my point. The fetus does not have the right to violate the mother's right to bodily autonomy just because he requires her body to survive.

Do explain how a child in the womb that is only there because the mother and her partner put it there and 'connected' it to her body herself. . . is violating HER right to HER body.

If someone walked up to you while you were sleeping and connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if that connection was severed before 9 months. . . how would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

And if they changed their mind and cut the connection themself and you died as a result. . . how would they not then be liable for your murder?

.

Chris Smith says more than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade

more than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade

. . how would they not then be liable for your murder?

... more than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade


54 million women - too bad for you Drama Queen the right to Chuz is the humane law of the land and good luck on gaining traction with your gimmick laws against recreational sex, everyone knows you are just groping in the dark - for anything to end personal choice as a self declared war against humanity.

.

 

[PK1]

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

That's exactly my point. The fetus does not have the right to violate the mother's right to bodily autonomy just because he requires her body to survive.

If someone walked up to you while you were sleeping and connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if that connection was severed ... how would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

---
Terrible analogy!
You think a fetus has "majority" rights to the woman's body? Nope! A woman rules her body, including everything inside ... unless you are talking Islamic culture.

Here's the kicker: the fetus has no awareness of its existence, unlike the "you" in your example.

If you don't like abortions (most pro-choice folks don't), then don't get one, but imposing your beliefs on another family's privacy is reflective of Islamic law or other non-libertarian cultures
.

 

[Chuz Life]

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

That's exactly my point. The fetus does not have the right to violate the mother's right to bodily autonomy just because he requires her body to survive.

If someone walked up to you while you were sleeping and connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if that connection was severed ... how would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

---
Terrible analogy!

It's a great analogy.

You think a fetus has "majority" rights to the woman's body? Nope!

Nope.

You answered the question for me.

Anyone who reads my posts and follows them for very long will see that I consistently argue that all persons have equal rights.

A woman rules her body, including everything inside ... unless you are talking Islamic culture.

No person has the right to violate the rights of other persons.

Here's the kicker: the fetus has no awareness of its existence, unlike the "you" in your example.

Big deal.

"Awareness" is not a legal requirement for personhoood. In fact, our courts have already ruled that a child born with no cerebral cortex at all (thus no capacity for thought or awareness) is just as entitled to the protection of our laws as you are.

If you don't like abortions (most pro-choice folks don't), then don't get one, but imposing your beliefs on another family's privacy is reflective of Islamic law or other non-libertarian cultures
.

That reads a lot like "if you don't like child molestations. . . then don't molest any nut imposing your beliefs. . . . "

You get the point.

An aborted child is a molested child.

 

[PK1]

I consistently argue that all persons have equal rights.
...
"Awareness" is not a legal requirement for personhoood. In fact, our courts have already ruled that a child born with no cerebral cortex at all (thus no capacity for thought or awareness) is just as entitled to the protection of our laws as you are.
...
An aborted child is a molested child.

---
I argue from my ethical libertarian perspective, and if it reflects the law, so much better.

Equating an unborn, unaware, and mostly unconscious fetus to a healthy child is not only unrealistic & ridiculous, but also wins you no points with current US law on personhood, if the pregnant woman aborts.
The fetus cannot be claimed as a tax dependent, has no birth certificate, and is not a citizen until born.

Further, it's my ethical and practical opinion that a baby born significantly deformed, with no cerebral cortex at all (thus no capacity for thought or awareness), should be terminated, or you can take responsibility for its pathetic "life", not government.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

I consistently argue that all persons have equal rights.
...
"Awareness" is not a legal requirement for personhoood. In fact, our courts have already ruled that a child born with no cerebral cortex at all (thus no capacity for thought or awareness) is just as entitled to the protection of our laws as you are.
...
An aborted child is a molested child.

---
I argue from my ethical libertarian perspective, and if it reflects the law, so much better.;

In your opinion.

Equating an unborn, unaware, and mostly unconscious fetus to a healthy child is not only unrealistic & ridiculous, but also wins you no points with current US law on personhood,

If a child in the womb is not a person. . . not a human being. . . what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws?

The fetus cannot be claimed as a tax dependent, has no birth certificate, and is not a citizen until born.

I can't claim an illegal alien as a tax dependent either. . . and if they don't have a birth certificate. . . would it not still be a murder if I killed one?

Did "people" exist before birth certificates and tax exemptions were created?

Further, it's my ethical and practical opinion that a baby born significantly deformed, with no cerebral cortex at all (thus no capacity for thought or awareness), should be terminated, or you can take responsibility for its pathetic "life", not government.
.

Thanks for that glimpse into YOUR thought process.

Thankfully, the courts have already ruled against you on that aspect.

 

[BreezeWood]

If a child in the womb is not a person. . . not a human being. . . what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws?

what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws?

the woman did not Chuz to be murdered, nor was the embryo under the care of the third party that killed its parent ...

Do explain how a child in the womb that is only there because the mother and her partner put it there and 'connected' it to her body herself. . . is violating HER right to HER body.

and 'connected' it to her body herself. . .

you know perfectly well the parent does not personally connect the embryo to their body, it is a parasitic attachment accomplished solely by the embryo.



unless you have continuous intercourse to fertilize every egg available that individual is no different to the outcome of the potential embryo than the embryo that is detached from its parent - or why a flea lays 4,000 eggs, by nature all births are by chance.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Thankfully there are a FEW people around here who actually do have some functioning brain cells.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

 

[Chuz Life]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

To not care or to care less about this issue is not always a bad thing.

It might even enable you to examine the facts and the arguments presented from both sides and to remain objective as you do so.

That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

Neither one are helpful or productive for the debate in my experience and opinion.

 

[PK1]

If a child in the womb is not a person. . . not a human being. . . what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws?

---
If the pregnant woman looks forward to giving birth & creating her newborn legal person that she assumes responsibility for, and someone kills her fetus, then it's considered "murder" under the Federal law.

The pregnant woman, as an independent person in liberty-oriented USA, has freedom to choose if she wants to reproduce, and she is given that freedom until the 3rd trimester or "viability".

I'm sure you know the Federal law, and you're trying to twist it toward your underlying authoritarian religious dogma.
.

 

[PK1]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

---
You should care if you were brainwashed by religious dogma.
.

 

[PK1]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

... That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

---
Your inane feelings are all over this debate!
Please explain logically why you want an extremely deformed infant, without a cerebral cortex, to be kept "alive"?
.

 

[there4eyeM]

All humans die. Having a child means sentencing it to death. A mother decides to have a child or not. It is the woman's decision.