If you don't want a baby, get your tubes tied.

I will admit, there are some rare cases where the line between murder and self-defense can be a blurry one. Murder is killing when you do not have the right to kill; sometimes the basis for the killing is on questionable or shaky grounds.

Quite true. We can of course debate whether or how much the woman's responsibility for creating the situation affects her ethical obligations. That's probably a topic for another thread.

 

She has NO "ethical obligation" to give birth. What dark orifice did you pull that out of?

 

If the woman knew she did not want to be pregnant, and chose not to have her tubes tied, that does undercut her argument if she wants to complain about how unbearable pregnancy is to try to justify getting an abortion. One could, in this case, say that the woman's responsibility—or lack of thereof—for creating the situation does indeed have an affect on her ethical obligations, or at least the excuses that she can justifiably use to try to get out of those obligations.

Which one did you pull out the idea that a woman has the right to terminate her developing unborn child? Do you really want to be talking about dark orifices in a thread about abortion, and women being responsible for creating situations... ?

 

She can get her tubes tied and have all the sex she wants.
A tubal ligation, combined with another form of contraceptive, that would be a very very low chance of ever getting pregnant.

 

A baby is a living human. A toddler is a living human. Killing a living human is murder

 

This is going on already. There valid arguments that can be made for when the fetus attains significant brain function.

 

I find it disturbing that abortion is being done when the fetus has attained any brain function.

 

What do you mean by "brain function" ? The ability to think, feel pain ?

 

YOU decide what is an "ethical obligation" ???


WHY YOU?


WHAT woman wants to complain about how unbearable pregnancy is to try to justify getting an abortion ????


NO woman needs to do that ........women don't need to justify getting an abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

Women CAN but they don't have to.......my,my, what a tiny misogynistic dreamworld you live in

 

This is fallacy. (Assumed Premise). Your assume premise is that a child exists. You have not proven this claim to be true.

 

It keeps going back and forth. In some threads, I show incontrovertible evidence that it is a person, and choicers then try to divert the argument saying the woman still has the right to abort. In other threads, I make unassailable arguments why it should not be a woman's choice, and choicers switch gears insisting it is not a person. Choicers keep wanting to change the argument (and of course when all else fails they bring up rape ).

It's not a fallacy, I can only focus on arguing one premise at a time. The argument that a woman does not have the right to abort first stems from the prior premise that the fetus is a human being with human rights. That should be fairly obvious.

 

You have had it proven over and over again that a fetus is not a person...why didn't you take up Fugazi's debate challenge???

Pro-Choicers didn't have to divert anything and you're lying if you say they did. No Pro-Choicers has said that a fetus is a person .


IF the fetus is declared a human being , a person, then the woman has a solid right to self defense (abortion).


You have been told that many times ....

 

this is what is already in place.

 

you have NEVER made any argument that has not been pulled to pieces.

 

The identification or conference of personhood upon the fetus would add nothing to strengthen the alleged "self defense" argument. That is a non sequitur.
In either case, the fetus is still in no way responsible for the situation it and the woman find themselves in.

 

How so? My right to self defense doesn't become any stronger if what I am facing is a person rather than an inanimate object (like a killer robot).

 

You posted :Quote Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post

The identification or conference of personhood upon the fetus would add nothing to strengthen the alleged "self defense" argument."""

MOD EDIT - Rule 3
IF the fetus is declared a person that is already solid enough for a woman to have an abortion (using self defense)

 

Therefore it is irrelevant to your argument.

 

You are wrong, if a fetus is recognised as a person it would lead to the removal of any and all restrictions on abortion and mandate that the state pay for ANY abortion whether elective or not, so in reality it would not only solidify the self-defense argument it would enhance it.

 

No, people make mistakes, and I highly doubt that you are perfect . . . let's be real here.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about YOU. It's a woman's personal decision. She doesn't know you and doesn't care about your personal opinions. Women are going to do what they feel is right for them, not what you think is right. They are free people and are not under an obligation to you.

 

This is disgusting. Why is it ALWAYS the woman's fault.

 

It isn't the woman's "fault"...but misogynist control freaks NEED it to be women's fault so they can continue with the hate....

 

Exactly. Misogynist control freaks! They are the ones who need to tie their tubes if they are so obsessed with it.

 

Then we are free to kick them to the curb because men don't have the responsibility you might decide to push on them.
GREAT IDEA. Wish we had you at the beginning of this debate, you could have settled this thing several post back