The abortion debate

[DamnYankee]

It's been resolved already. But Americans don't really like anyone to be free, so they keep the debate alive in hopes of forcing everyone to accept their views on things. Using the courts to deny people their free choice isn't what I've been led to believe that the US is all about. Guess I was wrong on that. it's kinda like this board, lot of people with an American flag next to their name, but very little in the way of free speech or free choice.

Well, there ya go.... With all of two threads, I believe, in which there is any input from me (one of those people with an American flag next to their name), obviously you haven't read what's in them. Therefore, you have made a general assumption based on your own views, and your own desires to keep these debates alive are, no doubt, in hopes of forcing everyone to accept them. Little wonder there will ever be any compromise on this issue or that this debate will ever end.

 

[Ralph]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

Do you really view animal life and human life equal? I wonder why then do animals have the full protection of the American System of Jurisprudence while in a state of pre-birth gestation, while human life is exampled in a pre-birth state of gestation as personal property to be disposed of without penalty? What I find amusing is the fact that it is the same system of Jurisprudence and its contradictory hypocrisy that gives us both statements of declaration.

An animal while in a state of gestation (pre-birth) is a valid and viable example of LIFE within that species (The endangered species act of 1973) and the willful destruction of that pre-birth life is punishable by law in the form of fine and/or imprisonment. Yet we find on the books no such legislation protecting pre-birth humanity, in fact such is considered worthless until it breeches the magical birth canal that defines life, as declared by legislation through opinion from the bench (Roe. v. Wade).

 

[Care4all]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

Do you really view animal life and human life equal? I wonder why then do animals have the full protection of the American System of Jurisprudence while in a state of pre-birth gestation, while human life is exampled in a pre-birth state of gestation as personal property to be disposed of without penalty? What I find amusing is the fact that it is the same system of Jurisprudence and its contradictory hypocrisy that gives us both statements of declaration.

An animal while in a state of gestation (pre-birth) is a valid and viable example of LIFE within that species (The endangered species act of 1973) and the willful destruction of that pre-birth life is punishable by law in the form of fine and/or imprisonment. Yet we find on the books no such legislation protecting pre-birth humanity, in fact such is considered worthless until it breeches the magical birth canal that defines life, as declared by legislation through opinion from the bench (Roe. v. Wade).

This is very true. When the American Bald Eagle was on the endangered species list, if you destroyed the eggs of an Eagle, the penalty was the same as if you killed the Bald Eagle itself.

 

[frazzledgear]

To suggest that killing a fetus at early stages is on par with killing a citizen, a born person is stupid. It says that thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc., things born people posses but fetuses don't are worthless and the only thing that gives human life value is the fact that it possesses the DNA to be called human.

Let's try this one again -but I'll try to use smaller words especially for you.

1. Birth ONLY determines when citizenship begins. But it does not ever determine when life begins. Citizenship brings certain rights that do not exist until one becomes a citizen. Like habeus corpus and the right to not be arrested for what you say, etc. However, a right to keep one's life isn't one that is granted upon or hinges upon citizenship. Which is why it isn't legal to kill a visiting foreigner. The right of someone to keep their life is a human right. Pretending there is actually an age restriction to that right is merely age discrimination of the most lethal sort. What determines whether it is of value is the fact that human is ALIVE. Not what it happens to be doing with that life at the moment.

2. A fetus is not a plant, puppy or goldfish -it is a human life at all times. It is alive, biologically incapable of being anything but the human offspring of its parents -so it is a human life. That means no matter how old someone is -if they are killed, it is a human life that was killed. Lots and lots of people in the whole world consider it murder to kill a human life -no matter how old that human was at the time it was killed.

3. You either consider human life to be inherently valuable -or you don't. But for those who don't, it means drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and declaring "any and all human life younger than THIS may be killed -even by the millions and millions." Then you start to feel the pressure to move that line JUST a bit. Why not the severely handicapped? And just how "severe" is severe anyway -let's move that line too. If a fetus can be legally killed any time until the moment of birth (as is true in several states), then why not killed immediately after birth? Some people ARE pushing for that you know. All because that child still has no true self-awareness than it did right before its birth and won't yet for weeks, no concept of citizenship and won't for years, is incapable of seeing itself as a separate being from all others and has much less comprehension of the world than even a baby just a few months older. If you make that kind of distinction that the stage of development a human happens to be in determines the value of their life -then for YOU it really is true that the murder of a 2 yr. old is a much less crime than killing a teenager -which is still a lesser crime than killing an adult.

I have no such moral dilemma because I refuse to draw a line in the sand. I DON'T OWN THAT LIFE, therefore I have no right to make that determination about a life other than my own. Only the owner of a life may do that. The fact that one stage of life is a universal stage of development for all humans cannot be used to justify the killing of anyone just because those who want to kill it are already past that stage of development. That makes no moral sense whatsoever.

No one can impart to you the ability to find human life to be inherently valuable. You either developed that long ago -or you are just incapable of doing so. But surely you can understand why those who are incapable of doing so are actually a pretty scary group to be running things. It doesn't work out too well for everyone else in the long run. History has repeatedly proven that when those who have decided they have the right to declare some human life to be of no real value and therefore disposable gain real power -it increases the threat from the state to ALL human life. Those who claim a "right" to decide that some humans are not entitled to even keep their own lives -only include ever more people who can be killed. Those at risk of being killed NEVER shrinks -it only continues expanding.

 

[Father Time]

I'm so sick of the slippery slope crap.

"Oh no if we don't follow your EXACT opinion, then we'll somehow feel pressure to change our opinion to something more extreme and then we'll have to oblige. Good thing that all depends on what opinion someone has as opposed to the person."

You and that rancid unprovable bullshit can take a long walk off a short cliff.

I can hold my position against scrutiny if I think I'm right just as much as you can.

 

[code1211]

It's been resolved already. But Americans don't really like anyone to be free, so they keep the debate alive in hopes of forcing everyone to accept their views on things. Using the courts to deny people their free choice isn't what I've been led to believe that the US is all about. Guess I was wrong on that. it's kinda like this board, lot of people with an American flag next to their name, but very little in the way of free speech or free choice.

This is a common argument. The problem is that the idea of freedom must be viewed so narrowly for this to stand up that it cannot stand in the real world society in which we live.

You refer to freedom as if there were some Perfect Freedom that can be achieved within this society or any society and, of course, this cannot happen. If you are alone, you may have perfect freedom, but as soon as you add one more person to your society, your freedom is abridged.

In our case, in the USA, as an example, when the light turns red, I am expected and obliged to stop my car. Is this a loss of freedom? Yes. Is it required to live in a society? Yes. Some rules, laws, of society exist to allow a smooth chain of transactions between us all. Some exist to safeguard rights.

Safeguard rights from what power? Some safeguard rights from the control of the state and some from the more powerful individuals. Abortion does neither of these. The more powerful individual in this is the potential mother. The unborn is the one who requires the safeguard and our laws have stripped this away.

The Abortion laws are part of the group that allows a smooth chain of transactions. It has nothing at all to do with freedom. It has to do only with convenience. An unwanted baby is too inconvenient for our society to bother with.

I will very likely never be closely concerned with an individual wrestling with this decision again in my life. I feel very bad for those who will. What bothers me in this debate is the santimonious avoidance of the real and only issue in the whole mess which is convenience. There is no moral justification. Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others.

The freedom argument assumes that the unborn is not a person and therefore reaches for the Moral justification. This assumption is unfounded.

If you support abortion, you support convenience. Period. There is no other justification.

 

[code1211]

[

I think if the government would have kept their noses out of it, then it would have never become the industry of today

So, you kill your baby out of spite because they tell you not to?

so since it was no ones business but one's own, there was no physical business or industry openly supporting it....imo.[/B]

Wrong, They were there, they just weren't as well known outside the iundustry. That's like saying the drug dealers didn't exist before the cops caught onto them. They were there, it's just that noone was looking




That doesn'ty even make sense- just what are you trying to say?



so too rape and homicide, but we have laws about those now

you said the founders and our government did not get involved in the abortion debate or making abortion illegal because there was no means to detect pregnancy early on, and I am saying that there still was no means to detect pregnancy early on in 1850 and this did not stop our government from getting involved then and making it illegal.... so why didn't the founders get involved in making abortion illegal or at least mentioning the tragedy of it all...since women were aborting their babies legally during the time of our founders?

Was there established law on this at the time of the Founders? I thought that they established the law. Isn't that what they were famous for?

 

[code1211]

To suggest that killing a fetus at early stages is on par with killing a citizen, a born person is stupid. It says that thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc., things born people posses but fetuses don't are worthless and the only thing that gives human life value is the fact that it possesses the DNA to be called human.

Not worthless. Just irrelevant to the topic. It's all a bunch of straws you're grasping at in order to justify doing something heinous, because too many people got educated in basic science and you couldn't use the canard, "It's not really alive" anymore.

And you don't get it. Human life IS valuable precisely because it's human LIFE. So you don't consider a fetus to have thoughts. I don't consider YOU to have thoughts. Doesn't mean I get to kill you, because technically, you're still alive, so in the eyes of the law, you have value.

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

 

[code1211]

To suggest that killing a fetus at early stages is on par with killing a citizen, a born person is stupid. It says that thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc., things born people posses but fetuses don't are worthless and the only thing that gives human life value is the fact that it possesses the DNA to be called human.

Let's try this one again -but I'll try to use smaller words especially for you.

1. Birth ONLY determines when citizenship begins. But it does not ever determine when life begins. Citizenship brings certain rights that do not exist until one becomes a citizen. Like habeus corpus and the right to not be arrested for what you say, etc. However, a right to keep one's life isn't one that is granted upon or hinges upon citizenship. Which is why it isn't legal to kill a visiting foreigner. The right of someone to keep their life is a human right. Pretending there is actually an age restriction to that right is merely age discrimination of the most lethal sort. What determines whether it is of value is the fact that human is ALIVE. Not what it happens to be doing with that life at the moment.

2. A fetus is not a plant, puppy or goldfish -it is a human life at all times. It is alive, biologically incapable of being anything but the human offspring of its parents -so it is a human life. That means no matter how old someone is -if they are killed, it is a human life that was killed. Lots and lots of people in the whole world consider it murder to kill a human life -no matter how old that human was at the time it was killed.

3. You either consider human life to be inherently valuable -or you don't. But for those who don't, it means drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and declaring "any and all human life younger than THIS may be killed -even by the millions and millions." Then you start to feel the pressure to move that line JUST a bit. Why not the severely handicapped? And just how "severe" is severe anyway -let's move that line too. If a fetus can be legally killed any time until the moment of birth (as is true in several states), then why not killed immediately after birth? Some people ARE pushing for that you know. All because that child still has no true self-awareness than it did right before its birth and won't yet for weeks, no concept of citizenship and won't for years, is incapable of seeing itself as a separate being from all others and has much less comprehension of the world than even a baby just a few months older. If you make that kind of distinction that the stage of development a human happens to be in determines the value of their life -then for YOU it really is true that the murder of a 2 yr. old is a much less crime than killing a teenager -which is still a lesser crime than killing an adult.

I have no such moral dilemma because I refuse to draw a line in the sand. I DON'T OWN THAT LIFE, therefore I have no right to make that determination about a life other than my own. Only the owner of a life may do that. The fact that one stage of life is a universal stage of development for all humans cannot be used to justify the killing of anyone just because those who want to kill it are already past that stage of development. That makes no moral sense whatsoever.

No one can impart to you the ability to find human life to be inherently valuable. You either developed that long ago -or you are just incapable of doing so. But surely you can understand why those who are incapable of doing so are actually a pretty scary group to be running things. It doesn't work out too well for everyone else in the long run. History has repeatedly proven that when those who have decided they have the right to declare some human life to be of no real value and therefore disposable gain real power -it increases the threat from the state to ALL human life. Those who claim a "right" to decide that some humans are not entitled to even keep their own lives -only include ever more people who can be killed. Those at risk of being killed NEVER shrinks -it only continues expanding.

Tightly reasoned and well written.

 

[JBeukema]

I thought that they established the law. Isn't that what they were famous for?

You are an idiot

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

Again, you are an idiot. Non-citizens have rights,. just not the same rights as citizens. Life is protected regardless of legal status and property is protected regardless of citizenship, for instance

 

[Father Time]

Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, prove that all who are pro-choice are anarchists.

This is the exact same crap I've heard from PETA freaks so many times, 'if we don't respect (animal) rights than soon we won't respect anyone's rights'

 

[code1211]

I thought that they established the law. Isn't that what they were famous for?

You are an idiot

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

Again, you are an idiot. Non-citizens have rights,. just not the same rights as citizens. Life is protected regardless of legal status and property is protected regardless of citizenship, for instance

Thank you. Having long wondered if I'm an idiot, you have cleared this up for me.

Do non-citizens have rights or do they have values. Rights, it seems to me are more easily defined.

Now, what rights are non-citizens accorded and what rights are accorded to the unborn? We know that Lacy Peterson was dead, the verdict says murdered, while she was pregnant. We know that Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders because of this. Are the unborn people and therefore eligable to be murdered or are the things without rights and therefore eligalbe to be disposed without consequence?

As an idiot, I look to your obvious enlightened view to clear this up for me, the US legal system and the Supreme Court who should be hearing cases on this but so far have elected not to do so.

 

[Father Time]

I thought that they established the law. Isn't that what they were famous for?

You are an idiot

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

Again, you are an idiot. Non-citizens have rights,. just not the same rights as citizens. Life is protected regardless of legal status and property is protected regardless of citizenship, for instance

Thank you. Having long wondered if I'm an idiot, you have cleared this up for me.

Do non-citizens have rights or do they have values. Rights, it seems to me are more easily defined.

Now, what rights are non-citizens accorded and what rights are accorded to the unborn? We know that Lacy Peterson was dead, the verdict says murdered, while she was pregnant. We know that Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders because of this. Are the unborn people and therefore eligable to be murdered or are the things without rights and therefore eligalbe to be disposed without consequence?

As an idiot, I look to your obvious enlightened view to clear this up for me, the US legal system and the Supreme Court who should be hearing cases on this but so far have elected not to do so.

Animals have very little rights, and yet you can be arrested for being cruel to them and killing them (or at least some of them). Case in point Micheal Vick.

 

[code1211]

Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, prove that all who are pro-choice are anarchists.

This is the exact same crap I've heard from PETA freaks so many times, 'if we don't respect (animal) rights than soon we won't respect anyone's rights'

Whether or not pro choice advocates are anarchists or not has nothing to do with this particular argument being groundless. Not haveing thought something through does not automatically make anyone into something. It should be noted that rationalizing something and something and proving something to be well founded are two very different things.

 

[Father Time]

Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, prove that all who are pro-choice are anarchists.

This is the exact same crap I've heard from PETA freaks so many times, 'if we don't respect (animal) rights than soon we won't respect anyone's rights'

Whether or not pro choice advocates are anarchists or not has nothing to do with this particular argument being groundless. Not haveing thought something through does not automatically make anyone into something. It should be noted that rationalizing something and something and proving something to be well founded are two very different things.

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[code1211]

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, prove that all who are pro-choice are anarchists.

This is the exact same crap I've heard from PETA freaks so many times, 'if we don't respect (animal) rights than soon we won't respect anyone's rights'

Whether or not pro choice advocates are anarchists or not has nothing to do with this particular argument being groundless. Not haveing thought something through does not automatically make anyone into something. It should be noted that rationalizing something and something and proving something to be well founded are two very different things.

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

Whoa, there, Big Fellow! I said nothing about a slippery slope and did not extend this beyond anything that I said. YOU are the one who said that this needed to result in anarchy.

My point is that abortion can be justified only in that it is too inconvenient for the aborter to carry the unborn to term and then to commit 18 years of her life to raising that born child.

By saying that this is justified by the "right to choice" assumes that the unborn is not a person and has no rights. Because Scott Peterson was convicted of a DOUBLE homocide when he was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, US Law recognizes that this other homocide conviction resulted from the murder of the unborn.

The "right to choice", legally, amounts to the right to define the person-hood right out of another person. Scott Peterson kills an unborn and it's murder. A woman kills her own unborn and the right to choice. This is not how it is read, however, it is how it is. All of the BS about whether or not a fetus is a person is just that. This is not a debate about anything beyond convenience.

When anyone tries to justify abortion because the fetus is not a person or a person has no rights until born is just so much hogwash. It is either convenient or not. The law allows a person to elect convenience over life.

 

[Father Time]

Whether or not pro choice advocates are anarchists or not has nothing to do with this particular argument being groundless. Not haveing thought something through does not automatically make anyone into something. It should be noted that rationalizing something and something and proving something to be well founded are two very different things.

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

Whoa, there, Big Fellow! I said nothing about a slippery slope and did not extend this beyond anything that I said. YOU are the one who said that this needed to result in anarchy.

Nice attempt at spin jack, you were the one who said it would imply anarchy not me.

By saying that this is justified by the "right to choice" assumes that the unborn is not a person and has no rights. Because Scott Peterson was convicted of a DOUBLE homocide when he was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, US Law recognizes that this other homocide conviction resulted from the murder of the unborn.

As I just said a moment ago (and which you conveniently ignored), U.S. law lets you kill and eat some animals but won't let you be cruel to others. Beyond that animals have absolutely no rights. Hell we inject them with diseases an untested concoctions in the name of medical research.

Now cut the desperate deflections and attempts to change subjects you said

"Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

Now back up the ridiculous statement that treating fetuses different than born people will somehow result in "freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

 

[frazzledgear]

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, prove that all who are pro-choice are anarchists.

This is the exact same crap I've heard from PETA freaks so many times, 'if we don't respect (animal) rights than soon we won't respect anyone's rights'

Whether or not pro choice advocates are anarchists or not has nothing to do with this particular argument being groundless. Not haveing thought something through does not automatically make anyone into something. It should be noted that rationalizing something and something and proving something to be well founded are two very different things.

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

"Reeks" of the crappy PETA argument? That is only possible if you think immature humans are actually a different species and therefore of no more value than an animal. And you merely proved you do not consider immature humans to be quite human but more like a totally different species! Talk about going through some mental gymnastics on that one. Sorry, it doesn't matter how old a human life is -it is ALWAYS human and ALWAYS of the same species as you. So any argument PETA has with regards to some other species has nothing to do with this issue.

The PETA crap doesn't work for me for several reasons anyway. One is that there just is no such thing as "animal rights" no matter how often those loons screech "ANIMAL RIGHTS" and demand we all eat cardboard. Rights can only be claimed by members of a species with the demand those rights be recognized and respected by members of their OWN species. Human rights exist for every member of the species, while societal rights are those claimed by members of a particular society that exist only for citizens of that society and not the members of another society. The right to keep your life is a human right -not a right claimed by a particular society for just its own members. But if your right to keep your life is a human right, that same right exists for ALL owners of a human life and not just some of them. Pro-abortionists in effect want to change the human right of all humans to their own life -to no longer be a human right at all but just a societal right that exists only for some humans only. And then insist this somehow represents real "progress" for our entire species. ROFLMAO! Oh yeah, declaring open season on the owners of some human lives by the owners of other human lives is a real step forward for us, isn't it? A big improvement over those stupid people of the past who actually thought all human life was inherently valuable. Real progress can only be made by devaluing all human life entirely. LOL Even animals don't kill their own for reason of merely being inconvenienced today. So perhaps animals should be declaring rights for humans instead of expecting humans to do that, huh?

"Rights" are NEVER granted by a totally different species, which is what PETA is pretending to do. But that still cannot turn them into "rights". You cannot claim "rights" for another species when that species does not and will not recognize those "rights" even among themselves. If the members of a species do not recognize these supposed "rights" and the members of that species do not enforce those "rights" among its own members -THEN THEY DON'T EXIST AT ALL. It is nothing more than our own species VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING to hold to a certain standard of treatment for animals. Standards we are just as free to decide to change whenever we want -which only proves again that they aren't "rights" in the least. If those animal "rights" don't exist among members of their own species, then they sure as hell don't exist in ours. So PETA is being deceitful to the max by pretending animals have any rights whatsoever -they do not. Animals have whatever WE decide they will get from us -at all times it is WE who decide it and WE who control that.

But humans do have rights -it is our own species that claims these rights and have done so on behalf of ALL members and expect that right to be recognized by all members of the species. It is our own species that enforces any violations of those rights by another member of the species. The fact that some members of our own species are not in the position to enforce it on their own behalf is totally irrelevant. The vast majority usually are never in a position to enforce it on their own behalf -which is why true human rights are claimed for ALL members of the species. Not just those able to personally enforce it for themselves at the moment. That is what makes it a "human right" in the first place -it exists for all owners of a human life equally and not just some of them or just for those who can personally enforce it for themselves.

If the right to keep your life isn't a human right that applies to all owners of a human life after all - then the right to keep YOUR own life isn't a real human right either. And those who would deny you that right ALWAYS start by claiming to have a greater right to decide the value of a life they don't own -over the right of the true owner. The abortion debate isn't about some bullshit crap involving PETA pretending that totally different species have "rights" those species neither claim for themselves nor recognize among the members of their own species, much less enforce it among those members. Tossing in a completely irrelevant statement about PETA is just a statement showing how far you are willing to go in devaluing human life itself.

Abortion is a very simple issue. It involves whether you really believe that human rights exist for ALL owners of a human life -or only for SOME owners of a human life. Nothing else in between on that one. We all only own one life at all times -and either the owner of that life is the only one with the right to determine the value of that life -or you believe those who don't own that life have the greater right to decide that instead. For whatever reason that particular society deems appropriate -whether the existence of the youngest of human lives is inconvenient to whether the existence of someone with the "wrong" religion or skin color exists. YOU have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand based on age -but want to pretend you have any moral authority to demand some other society not draw that line somewhere else? Get real. Once the line is drawn at all, the only discussion is about how to keep moving that line even more. You've chosen one arbitrary line but want to tell others they cannot draw it somewhere else THEY want? It is drawing that line at all that increases the risk for all. No moral dilemma at all for those who refuse to draw that line at all - and are actually the only ones with any moral authority to demand other societies not draw a line anywhere either -including not for reasons of race, religion or gender -or age. Once those human rights don't exist equally for all members of our species for ANY reason - then it isn't a human right at all but a PRIVILEGE granted to some members that can be denied to others. For ANY reason a society decides to do so.

Either you believe that all owners of a human life have the inherit right to their life for no reason but the fact they own a human life -or no owner of a human life is truly safe from having others decide they have the greater "right" to take that life for whatever reason THEY deem to be worth more than your own life. Just like Nazi Germany did. Placing an arbitrary line that a special group of those who have already gotten through the universal stage of development we all must as part of human life and the human experience may kill those who have not yet gotten through that same universal human experience -represents no progress for our species whatsoever. And sorry -but the INCONVENIENCE to a woman of just a few months sure as hell isn't more valuable and more important than anyone else's LIFE.

For all you pro-abortion people, I have to ask. Do you find any irony in the fact that it was when the means and methods available to prevent the unintentional creation of a new human life were FAR less reliable and unwanted pregnancy was FAR more likely to happen by consenting to the act of sex -that there was far greater consensus about the inherent value of all human life and that all members of the species had the right to their life for no reason but the fact the life they owned was a human one? But it is NOW, when the ability to prevent the unwanted creation of another human life exists with near 100% certainty -that some people want the "right" to kill it and insist it is a life the human owner has no right to keep whatsoever. You would think that as it became easier and nearly 100% possible to prevent the accidental or unwanted creation of another human life that these people would be more likely to insist that the owner of a human life has the right to that life. Not less likely. The fact we have activists -who are in the minority - dominating the issue who have said the exact opposite instead and in spite of the near certain ability to prevent the accidental creation of another human life - is beyond pathetic. It is morally bankrupt.

 

[JBeukema]

Thank you. Having long wondered if I'm an idiot, you have cleared this up for me.

No problem.

Do non-citizens have rights or do they have values. Rights, it seems to me are more easily defined.

only insomuch positive rights are either codified or subject to a clear social contract

Now, what rights are non-citizens accorded and what rights are accorded to the unborn?

I will not give a full list, but I have given relevant examples.

As an idiot, I look to your obvious enlightened view to clear this up for me

You are wise to listen to your intellectual superiors

Animals have very little rights, and yet you can be arrested for being cruel to them and killing them (or at least some of them). Case in point Micheal Vick.

personally, I've never fully understood that

[

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

'slippery slope'; is not always a fallacy, just so you know

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

The argument borrows wholesale anarchist rhetoric and philosophy- it is an anarchistic argument. The 'pro-choice' crowd centers around the argument that nobody should be 'burdened' with a child or be responsible for any other person (the details may vary, but the heart of the argument remains the same) and that it is morally reprehensible ('wrong' or 'unacceptable') for society to force them to care for another 9in this case a child). These are moral arguments at the heart of anarchistic thought, and to logically follow this logic leads to a rejection of social contract- and, in turn, of the very concept of 'society' or organized groupings of people and law. those are the sources and logical implications of the arguments you have raised. now, you have three options::
-Recant your arguments
-Defend anarchy
-Explain a philosophy or argument regarding why we should adhere to your moral position in this (for that is what it truly is), accept your definitions, and adopt your policies or proposed law AND explain how those arguments may be used while not following the reasoning into anarchy

Oh, and in the future, explain why his argument is qwrong instead of crying ';slipper slope' and expecting a free pass

 

[Father Time]

Frazzledgear I haven't taken a position one way or the other but my line in the sand as you call is based on what the fetus can do not simply by age. It may be different between fetuses for all I know but stop with the straw man that I believe human value is determined by age.

Also once again stop with the bullshit that if I don't follow your line in the sand than I face a moral dilemma to change it. I don't. Period. Although there are people who think human life should be considered before conception to the point where sperm would be considered human life and thus you wouldn't be allowed to kill them (sperm has human dna in it after all).

Now if I were a dick I could run around claiming that your line in the sand leads to pressure from insane individuals who wish to criminalize male masturbation (amongst other things) to protect the precious human life inherent in a sperm.