Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
.I should be forced to pay for a woman to abort her child ? really ?
Where is the law requiring you to do that?
why..what difference does an hour make ?....how about if they birth the baby just until the head crowns the stick a drill in it...is that murder ?so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?Unborn fetuses have the right to life. Seems pretty clear.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
No.
That would be murder.
The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?
why..what difference does an hour make ?....how about if they birth the baby just until the head crowns the stick a drill in it...is that murder ?so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?Unborn fetuses have the right to life. Seems pretty clear.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
No.
That would be murder.
jeez dude ?...lol....thats your empty response?..please share.. enlighten me with your objective understandingEots, are you able to objectively understand what you are posting? Jeez, dude.
It means what I said. You are both nuts.The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?
Say what? Case and point? What is that supposed to mean?
It means what I said. You are both nuts.The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?
Say what? Case and point? What is that supposed to mean?
Good for you? I don't care what nuts spend their lives doing.
The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
Male reproduction,what is that anyway??!!!Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
I think the fundamental problem with this debate is right here in what you are trying to say. You are trying to establish when something actually becomes what it already is. A 'baby' or 'fetus' is the same thing in different developmental stage. It's a living human organism in state of being... a human being. This is difficult for some people to admit and then have the conversation on when it's alright to kill it.
The conversation must begin with everyone on the same page, accepting the biological fact that we are talking about human life. This is not up for debate, there is nothing inconclusive about it, we know precisely when a human organism begins life in the state of being. Some desperately want to attach artificial caveats and criteria which do not belong. "Viability" is the worst of these because it places an impossible criteria on the fetus, the expectation it should be able to survive outside it's normal environment. This NEVER determines what something is or isn't.
I am devoutly pro life. I don't believe in capital punishment or euthanasia. I see no scenario where I could ever personally choose abortion. However, I believe strongly in democratic society and the establishment of laws governing society based on will of the people. I can accept that others have differing criteria than myself. In that spirit, I think abortion should be allowed but highly regulated and limited. There is no reason for it ever to be done outside the first trimester except to save the life of the mother.
Incorrect.As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.
1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.
The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
Incorrect.As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.
1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.
The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
As a fact of law, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently abortion is neither 'murder' nor 'infanticide.'
And prior to birth, the protected liberty of the woman is immune from unwarranted interference by the state, as the issue impacts solely on the woman's bodily integrity.
The 'potential to become a baby' argument therefore fails as it can be applied to the sperm and ovum prior to fertilization as justification to ban contraceptives, which is just as unwarranted and un-Constitutional as seeking to 'ban' abortion.
