What is it?

The fact that every single pregnancy carries with it a multitude of health risks and the risk of death would give women the right to have an abortion self defense of their own bodies. Does it make sense now?

 

Now he's going to ask, "UH, duh, what health risks" ...for the millionth time...

 

Probably, but whatever, I'm kinda over this.

 

I'm kinda with you on that...all the arguing and abortion is still legal...and that's what matters.
I do like those posts by Cady, Grannie, Gorn, GiftedOne and Fugazi, I learn a lot......now if I can just remember it ...

 

A paper cut is an injury but we don't burn all of our books and documents to avoid getting them.

 

Do you think a paper cut is comparable to the tearing of skin and tissue that pregnancy causes? Do you know what perineal tearing is? I would just like an acknowledgement that pregnancy does cause injury and permanent damage to a woman's body.

 

Choosing is limited by the laws of nature and our mastery over nature with the laws of science. Pregnancy is not a prerequisite for sex, but sex is certainly a prerequisite for pregnancy. Unless you want to invoke our mastery of science in determining which fetus should be aborted and when? That would exclude our friends in philosophy, theology, politicians, lawyers, and the supreme court strictly out of the decision until a consensus is agreed.

In most legal cases it does. Have you never heard of a contract, or an implicit contract? Our whole legal system is based on it. You are begging the question in this one single case.

What fairy tale world do you live in? To "take a risk", even as a statement, is implicitly defined as a risk to suffer "harm" or "injuries". This whole line of reasoning is pointless since it's a fairy tale version of the natural law of cause and effect.

That's just bad education. An unborn human shouldn't be the bearer of burdening rational being's lack of leadership and education. Or maybe they should in your view? You may want to unburden irresponsible males, and gender feminists who hate the nature of their biology, but why reward the self destructive for their ignorance? I don't think we should, why do you?

Yes that is a human being, with it's own select DNA and 46 chromosomes; but as long as we advocate war, the death penalty, euthanasia, then the law (your idea of protected rights) is arbitrary and under the whim of any particular court. Lawyers are not scientists, and are painfully slow to react to new science.

This is not uniformly enforced. If a man does not want the abortion, then there is no way a woman can legally have an abortion. But you are not arguing that. You are arguing for special rights for a woman.

Question: If a man is raped by a woman, doesn't consent to sex, and she becomes pregnant...does he have the right to deny her to birth that child if he doesn't consent? Yes this is a thought experiment, but so is the bodily rights argument and the violinist.

Even if that male wants this? If you say no, then you are enabling a culture of irresponsible male behavior. I just ask that you remain philosophically consistent on how you apply these laws, otherwise anyone at anytime could come along and change them.

 

My finger was never made for paper to cut it, my finger has many uses. But a uterus has the sole purpose of gestating a fetus. And an abortion has one purpose, killing a gestating fetus. Paper had no purpose to cut my finger. You tell me which one is more incorrect?

 

Just because a woman has a uterus, that doesn't mean she is obligated to gestate a fetus. She also has a brain to determine how she wants to live her life.

 

Just because a man got a woman pregnant, and doesn't want the baby, doesn't mean he is obligated to let her live. Fundamentally, there is a lack of responsibility here, only one lack of responsibility is allowed by fiat law because the law makers didn't have the proper information to come up with an informed decision. We could explore that idea if you want.

The male and fetus also have a brain. But you're not talking about "brain", you're talking about "reason". In which case, anyone advocating for the male and fetus should have equal input on the outcome of the pregnancy. Unless you are arguing for special rights for the woman? Is that what you are doing?

 

Oh trust me, spend a couple years here and you'll be reciting facts and statistics back to people on this subject like it's nobodies business. In fact I was just doing this the other day when I got into a debate about with my dad. I think I stunned him because this is one of the few subjects I can talk about very easily since I know so much about it. lol

 

It sounds like you're arguing for special rights for the fetus. How many human beings have the right to use another person's body or parts of their body for anything including survival without that other person's permission first?

No one has that right. The fetus is as equal to the rest of us in this instance.

And men have just as much right to govern their own uteruses and bodies as women do. A woman's uterus belongs to her, not to the fetus and certainly not to the man she slept with whether it was a long term commitment to him or a one night stand.

 

The vast majority of pregnancies are not life threatening.

 

Yet women still die in labor, not as many as before, but women still die in labor, every day, even in the United States....

But the question is who has the right to choose.
Once we give someone the right to choose, the reasons that motivate them aren't any of our business, it's their right to choose, for whatever reason they want.
That's the whole thing about rights, we draw the line, and say this person can do anything they want to do on that side of the line. Not on this side, this side is my side, I choose what happens on this side. But what happens on that other side is really none of my business.....and the deal is, what happens on my side of the line isn't any of your business, that's what a right is....

 

You obviously have no idea what pregnancy and childbirth are all about.

 

But that is not up to YOU to decide, it is not YOU that has to take the risk and YOU have no right to force anyone else to take the risk.

 

Oh, I'm not completely hopeless (yet) , I remember the interesting, important bits....

 

Now you're equating abortion with the murder of a pregnant woman? Is this your idea of humor? The reality is that many pregnant women have been murdered with this motive, making yet another reason abortion should be a legal option.

The woman became pregnant because she alone was irresponsible? So she got herself pregnant...

How is it a "special right" for a woman to control what happens to her own body?

 

This sounds like a threat. Far too many women have been killed because they didn't obey a man's dictates concerning pregnancy.

Perhaps YOU didn't have the "proper" information when you formed your opinion, or perhaps YOU didn't have the capacity to fully understand the "proper" information. We could explore the possibility that two people can come to different conclusions in spite of having the same "proper" information to base their opinions on.

So now anyone at all should have "input" on an individual woman's pregnancy? How special is that?

 

A woman can live just fine without a uterus, more so than she can without a kidney. The uterus, by nature, is not there "for" the woman; it's there "for" the fetus. Therefore, it's logical to say that the fetus has a vested interest as well as the male; since the fetus is half his genetically. You're argument is with irresponsible males that have not been supportive of providing a welcoming environment for the fetal human once it is born. All abortion does is completely free them from that responsibility and leaves it all on the shoulders of the woman, which is fundamentally unfair.

 

Something like this.

[video=youtube;tzyhWcknCMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzyhWcknCMQ[/video]

 

That is where your logic leads. You're just making an unjustified exception for a woman that unnaturally kills an unborn human. There is no other form of a human killing another human that you would consider "ethical", is there?

According to your logic. Otherwise you wouldn't absolve the male so completely from the decision making process. Your line of reasoning says that the male is so hapless, evil, and irresponsible that he should be no where near the human until it is born. You are creating irresponsibility in males and fully burdening females with your argument, and that's not fair.

Because she's not just controlling what happens to her human body, she's controlling what happens to another human body. Where neither life is in danger, if she were to exercise prudence, then both humans could enjoy their inalienable right to life.

 

That's where Cady's logic leads if it is applied universally. So it is only in exception that an argument for not gestating a fetus can be made. Besides, a homicidal man scenario is irrelevant in your argument since the man would most likely kill the pregnant woman whether abortion was illegal or not. The only difference is that your reasoning should make it ethical for the man to kill the woman.

Inform me on Roe V Wade. Did not 9 Supreme Court Justices decide that the Federal Government will allow the killing of unborn babies because experts in philosophy, theology, science, and medicine could not come to a consensus on what a human life is? Do you think we have a better understanding now than we did in 1972? If yes, then shouldn't this ruling be revisited?

Right now anyone does have input. Her boyfriend, friends, family, and especially the irresponsible males in her life because there is the option to kill the human life and they want to opt out of that responsibility. Wouldn't all of that "input" be better served in preparing a home for that child when he or she arrives?

 

The uterus has all of her DNA and belongs to her. She is the only one who gets to make medical decisions about it. It directly affects her health all the time. If she gets cervical cancer or uterine cancer, it's her problem to worry about not any man's or fetuses. Why do you think women go to the gynocologist for regular pap smears and other vaginal checkups? It is a part of her, it is inside her body and never leaves it (unless she has it removed for health reasons). And no, the purpose of her uterus is for her to CHOOSE to use it if she WANTS to gestate children.

Also the uterus does more for HER than just gestate zefs. It also provides structural support for her body and is there for her personal pleasure, i.e. uterine orgasms during intercourse.

http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-Does-the-Uterus-Do.aspx

Fetuses have no vested interests in anything. They are not conscious beings to care what happens to them. It is silly to pretend that they somehow do.

I have said this once before and I will say it again, there are plenty of women out there seeking to be mothers. If a man truly wants to father offspring he should find a willing and able woman to do so with him instead of trying to FORCE an unwilling woman to do it for him.

I could seriously care less what you think is responsible for the men or the women in this situation. I have already made it clear that I am of the opinion that men deserve an equal right to sign away all parental rights to an unwanted child the woman CHOSE to birth, much like in a closed adoption setting.

 

Sure there are. We kill humans all the time in cases of self defense (which is what abortion is), we kill them in times of war, and we also execute violent criminals. These are all ethical times to kill people.

Everything you have said here is nothing more than irrational hyperbole and slippery slope fallacy.

Actually yes, she is controlling what happens to her human body, she is controlling her uterus and choosing to have the lining removed along with whatever may be attached to it, i.e. placenta, so that she does not have to risk her own health and life through pregnancy and childbirth.