Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

And when did that authority become the prevailing one in the world or this country?
Or is it back to the middle ages and what the Church wants is the only thing that matters?

By church dogma, but not science.

And what is wrong with that?

And you are free to do so.

That is fine, but we are debating and thus even if we disagree we can discuss our positions in detail.

 

Thus proving that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a human being, NOT a "potential" one!!!

 

@prometeus
@Cady

If the argument that it's a woman's body and therefore a woman's choice to expel the baby in the uterus from her body on the basis that it is her body, then arguments demonstrating why babies who live in uteruses have the right to life are irrelevant. This is why we must first address the issue of whether or not the mother has the right to expel not just a baby but anyone from her own body, which is clearly her property, even if the said person will die. If so, it's irrelevant whether the baby is conscious, etc. All that matters is that the baby lives within the mother, and therefore the mother may expel the baby. Of course, in order to stay consistent, you must accept that third trimester abortions must be legal, as well as throwing babies out of cars on a highway while maintaining a fast velocity of the vehicle -- seeing as the car is your property.

When I bring up arguments like this -- the principle that you can always expel someone from your own property is a fallacy -- pro-choicers always jump to an argument similar to "well the fetus doesn't have a right to life -- it's not a real person." In order to jump to this argument, let's first recognize that the first principle -- the principle that you can expel anyone from your own property at any time, is a fallacious train of thought. This is the first step to argue -- if you concede to this point, all other principles regarding to how a baby living within a uterus has rights is not only relevant but the only basis for the abortion issue.

I'm taking a clear position on this first principle: you may not always forcefully expel someone from your property. An airplane owner cannot throw all his passengers from the plane. A driver cannot throw a baby out of a moving car. These are forms of murder, plain and simple. Conceding to this point does not necessarily make abortion murder, since you can move on to the claim that the fetus does not have any rights due to its inferior nature. However, before arguing this point, we must first argue the primary point of the pro-abortion argument: woman's body; woman's choice.

 

This is actually much more serious than merely ejecting someone from your car, as that will not always result in the person's death. Ejecting a fetus created by your own actions and placed within you by the same, always results in the fetuses death. Furthermore the creation of the fetus was the natural known consequence of a voluntary action.

There is no rational reason to allow legal at will abortion.

Another perinent question has to be, can anyone use their body in any way they want? If so, can a man use his to beat another person's to death? If not, why not?

 

I agree with you here -- I just like using analogies that tend to put it in perspective. Almost no one thinks you should be able to throw a baby out of a car but that's not as bad as abortion which guarantees the death of the innocent child.

However, I would disagree with the argument that there's "no rational reason to allow legal at will abortion." I know what you mean, but there never needs to be a merit reason to "allow" something. There's no good reason to allow people to do jiggle dances... what's the point in that? The question shouldn't be is there a merit reason for an activity to be permissible but rather is there a merit reason to prohibit such an activity. When is the use of force justified? So, the statement shouldn't be "[t]here is no rational reason to allow legal at will abortion" but rather "there are several very rational reasons to prohibit abortion." Of course, it's legitimate to make the claim that there's no rational reason for an exemption of murder in this case, assuming that everyone believes murder should be illegal. I don't mean to be an annoying nit-picker here -- just thought I'd shine my view on that.

 

I am 100% pro-choice.

We should first get consent from the baby before taking any action. If the baby wishes to be killed then abort it.

 

The law I cited (The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004) is a Federal Law, and covers all 50 states and all its territories. I think you would be hard pressed to find a state where there is absolutely no law regarding the homicide of unborn children.



Blue "Homicide" or "murder". (22 states)

Yellow Other crime against fetus. (5 states)

Grey Depends on age of fetus. (11 states)

Green Assaulting mother. (12 states)

I think this map may be outdated as Colorado and other states have passed more fetal protection laws recently.

Another excellent article:
http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=135873

 

So you are now saying the unborn are "potential human beings"?

 

While of course there are many authorities on morality and ethics, one would think that the church that has been around 2 thousand years and has over 1,000,000,000 followers is definitely amongst the most well know authorities on morals and ethics.

It is a demonstration of absurdity by being absurd.

Not just a potential human, but a developing human. It certainly is not going to grow into a tree.

It is in fact a unique human DNA. That is well proven.

Nevertheless, in all the above examples, the fetus is not guilty of wrong doing and deserves the right to live.

I believe that I spoke of that exception just a few lines above.

If true (not to conceed your point) it is irrelevent.

See above.

Just attempting to use terms used by the opponents. Not that I agree with the characterization.

 

Almost 2,000 years ago and about 200 years ago respectively.

Pretty sure the science is on my side on this one.

Perhaps you could tell us at which stage of developement that you would say a fetus is worthy of protection?

 

From your article:

So two state fetal laws indicate that a fetus has no legal rights until viable. Other state laws apply at different points and all contradict each other and existing laws, such as claiming dependency tax exemptions. I don't think you can cite these laws as proof of anything, certainly not personhood.

 

Well apparently both laws are intended to protect the unborn.

 

In Latin American countries, the Catholic Church has dominant influence in the creation of laws. Where it has influenced anti-abortion legislation, the abortion rate is rampant, as well as the maternal death rate. In some cases abortion is illegal even for the life of the woman. Women are jailed after botched abortion attempts while their existing children go motherless.

Do you think the Catholic influence in Latin America has created an exemplary model for the US to follow?

 

We have always had laws against the murder of human beings. If a fetus were actually considered a human being, those laws would apply and "fetal homicide" laws would not be necessary.

 

Here is the thing. People have said you cannot legislate morality. But that is what we do everyday. We have laws against murder, murder is immoral, laws against theft, theft is immoral, thou shalt not bare false witness...ect. Abortion was at one time illegal in most (if not all of America) at some point in time. Laws became more relaxed in some states until it was decriminalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While laws may have changed, morals and ethics have not.

With regard to Latin American countries, if they in fact are democratic nations, it is up to them to decided for themselves. In America, this issue was decided by a panel of 9 judges.

I think the Catholic doctrine of respecting the life of the unborn is not only a good model to follow in the creation of laws banning abortions, but it is also good moral and ethical code for individuals to follow.

Whether legal or illegal, no abortion is safe. Women sometimes die during legal abortions too, and the fetus always dies. The risk of rising illegal abortions is not an adequate reason for allowing them legally.

Well if I had it my way anyway.

 

This has been covered. The errant Roie ruling muddied the waters, so the clarifying fetal homicide laws had to be enacted. In actuality, there cannot be a homicide law without the killing of a human being. That is the very definition of homicide!!!

Your argument that a fetus is not a human being is a sad pathetic and throroughly debunked one.

 

The purpose of laws is to maintain order in society, and sometimes those laws coincide with morals, but you can't foist your own morality on others by force of the government.

And before that, it was legal in America. Doctors lobbied for the criminalization of abortion because they wanted exclusive rights to perform it.

Nice dodge. I asked if the Catholic influence in Latin America has provided an exemplary model for the US. No answer for that?

I think the Catholic doctine of respecting the life of the unborn at the expense of the born is not a good model to follow.

Please spare us your contrived "concern for the safety of women." Abortions are ten times safer than pregnancy and childbirth, and no, the "fetus" doesn't always die. The majority of abortions are performed by the eighth week (embryo stage).

If you really wanted to reduce the rate of abortion, you would support policies known to accomplish that. Otherwise, your motives are seriously in question.

 

I think that was the point of my post. We legislate morality. Basic codes of civil behavior were derived from religious doctrines.

You got me there.

My concern is not contrived and my motive are for the lives of the mothers and children. They are people and they deserve to live. We have to end this wholesale slaughter of innocent people.

 

Many churches and religious organizations support reproductive rights. Judaism holds that human life begins upon first breath. You want to foist your personal religious doctrines on everyone.

*sigh* If you think abortion is murder, support policies to reduce the abortion rate. Criminalization of abortion does not usually accomplish that, and always increases the maternal death rate. It seems you just want to criminalize abortion regardless of whether that achieves your stated goals.

 

It IS the woman's body and it IS her choice, that much is undeniable. What you seem to attempt is paint the issue as a single argument and it is not. The woman's bodily sovereignty is only one of the multiple reasons why abortion must not be outlawed.
Moreover there has been no right to life of fetuses, so aspect of your evasion is baseless.

But is is not a baby, it is an early term fetus.

It is not irrelevant. The very fact of what it is makes it OK to evict.
In many ways it is similar to a person waking up say after drinking all night, covered in blood and with a knife in their hand. It makes a difference whether it was a chicken or another person that the blood came form.

You are veering off into the weird and bizarre and i suspect it is because you are not able to support your position otherwise.

A stupid argument especially in the light that the passengers and the plane owner are under contractual agreement.

 

That is already done.

 

Yes and as such it applied only to federally controlled areas. It it was universal there would be no need for state laws of the same type.

It does not see above.

Look harder there are.

None of that refutes what I said, namely that in MOST states killing an fetus before viability is not a crime.

 

If this is true, why the prohibition on later term abortions?

 

This is all false as has been pointed out previouosly.

 

That means the law applies everywhere. There is no such federal law that only applies to selective states. Federal criminal laws of this sort cover all 50 states and its territories.

I have provided proof that federal laws, as well as some 35 to 39 states have laws that protect "potential human beings" viable or otherwise which was in response to this post by Cady: