Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

I certainly did not say that.

But, we are forced to support the children that men walk away from.

If the right gets what they want, that will change because children should work or go hungry. After all, there are those school toilets that need cleaning.

 

[eots]

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It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.

so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?

No.

That would be murder.

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 ?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.

Say what? Case and point? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?

No.

That would be murder.

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 ?

Prove that abortions are done an hour before birth.

Prove that anyone is putting a drill into a fetus' head an hour before birth.

Or, instead of dishonest hyperbole, we could just stick to facts.

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Eots, are you able to objectively understand what you are posting? Jeez, dude.

 

[eots]

Eots, are you able to objectively understand what you are posting? Jeez, dude.

jeez dude ?...lol....thats your empty response?..please share.. enlighten me with your objective understanding

 

[eots]

 

[Politico]

Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.

Say what? Case and point? What is that supposed to mean?

It means what I said. You are both nuts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.

Say what? Case and point? What is that supposed to mean?

It means what I said. You are both nuts.

I may be nuts.....but I haven't lived my entire life failing to properly construct that idiom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

"[N]obody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either."

Nonsense.

Your perception of the issue is predicated on your personal, subjective belief that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is a 'child,' where there are others who do not share your belief, as their belief that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a 'child' is just as considered and valid as yours.

The Constitution wisely and appropriately prohibits the states from interfering with how citizens perceive the issue, citizens are at liberty to decide for themselves when life begins in accordance with their own beliefs and good conscience, in addition to affording women the protected liberty of privacy to make decisions concerning personal matters without unwarranted interference by the state, where the state may not compel a woman to have a child against her will.

 

[Politico]

Good for you? I don't care what nuts spend their lives doing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Good for you? I don't care what nuts spend their lives doing.

You are welcome.

 

[Boss]

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.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

Male reproduction,what is that anyway??!!!

Its a very simple thing,human life,nothing more nothing less,do you value others right to live or not,this is a common sense subject,its not a goldfish.Politics,religion don't have a place in the discussion,once again,its not a gold fish,it a human being every single time.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Agreed with your first and second paragraphs, 'fetus' or 'baby' is life simply at different stages. Woulda liked to address the third, but figure this of all groups is not the one to off topic in.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am alive. I now have the choice to be alive and I am wholeheartedly in support of the continuation of such. If somebody else had decided 61 years ago to terminate my life, I would not be allowed such a personal decision.

There can be no real argument that the net result from conception is a human life. One the process of cell growth takes place, that is what you end up with -- a human being -- and so it really doesn't make any difference whether it is 2 days after conception or 200. If the process is stopped, a human being is prevented from existing -- the same sort of human being as any of us who do have that ability in regards to our own self determination.

It's a funny thing to me how a longstanding liberal principle is never applied to the issue of abortion, as the attitudes have become so entrenched as to represent a sacred cow. The principle, however, involves the support of the powerless against those who possess it in such ways as to infringe upon them. How anybody could argue against the fact that the developing human is the one lacking the power here is beyond me, but as far as I'm concerned, protecting the ability of those lacking power to make decisions for themselves is entirely consistent with true liberal ideology. That is why my personal attitude is that abortion prevents a life from occurring and when I look inward and address the nature of my own, I have an impossible time wishing to prevent it for another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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 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.

Several states already consider the "unborn baby" a baby as in drunk driving fatalities involving pregnant women where the baby is another life adding to the charge. So-called feticide laws.

"What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 37 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances."
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims National Right to Life

Abortion, because it's legal isn't murder correct. But it IS (using new word just learned heh) feticide.

"Missouri: The killing of an “unborn child” at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)."