-->
@TWS1405_2
And you "twit", doesn't even understand an analogy.
Or was it a metaphor?
And if context was always unarguable, DebateArt would be a chat room.
Abortion
Posts
Total:
255
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm not talking about bodily autonomy right now
Then you are missing the entire point. The pro choice stance is not that killing a fetus is moral, no serious person would claim that. There is no controversy around this as is evidenced by the fact that you can be charged for double homicide by killing a pregnant women which is nearly unanimously agreed upon within our society.
The pro choice position recognizes that there are two fundamental rights in direct conflict here, so the only question is which right wins out. As in any other case where this happens, when one right intrudes upon another the intruding right loses.
I think the abortion argument is a difficult one. Basically, it is the right of the fetus to life versus forcing a woman to carry a child against her will.
Firstly does the fetus have a right to life? I would say that rights only exist in law. So if the law decrees that a fetus has a right to life then it does, but if the law decrees that it has no right to life then it doesn’t. The right to life in law is simply a requirement used so that society can function.
Is there any evidence of intrinsic or basic rights that exist independently to any laws? Regarding the right to life, this like many moral principles is based on empathy, an inherent trait that enables you to identify with other people and produces a desire to help and protect them; although these feelings may very in intensity depending on person and circumstances.
So if it is down to empathy, then who does one empathise with, is it the fetus or is it the woman forced to carry a child against her will? To me there seems to be no right or wrong on this and it is down to sentiment and opinion.
There are those who for religious reasons oppose abortion because they claim it conflicts with their belief in the sanctity of human life, unfortunately that belief seems rarely consistent.
-->
@Double_R
Then you are missing the entire point. The pro choice stance is not that killing a fetus is moral, no serious person would claim that. There is no controversy around this as is evidenced by the fact that you can be charged for double homicide by killing a pregnant women which is nearly unanimously agreed upon within our society.
Ok, so Pro choice argues that killing the fetus is not moral, but not letting a woman decide what she want's to do with her body is more important than the life of another.
Ok, well let me ask you this:
How did the woman get pregnant?
If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.
If she makes a stupid decision, she doesn't get to fix it by killing a baby in the womb, which you stated isn't moral.
Usually when people F-around in life, they have to face the consequences of their actions.
The pro choice position recognizes that there are two fundamental rights in direct conflict here, so the only question is which right wins out. As in any other case where this happens, when one right intrudes upon another the intruding right loses.
You can't play the game of how many lives are going to die.
Which is more moral:
A mother who made the stupid decision to have unprotected sex, or sex in general, and then got pregnant, so she decides to kill the baby.
That is a loss of a human life, without any reason besides convenience.
Or, the mother gets charged for the abortion, and she gets charged with murder.
I never said that when she gets charged with murder that she would be put to death.
I believe that she should be charged with murder, and jailed for life.
This way we will save more lives, and in the process the abortion rate will go down, and we wont have to put anyone to death in the process of it.
-->
@Elliott
Basically, it is the right of the fetus to life versus forcing a woman to carry a child against her will.
If a woman chose to have sex, then it is not against her will.
Firstly does the fetus have a right to life? I would say that rights only exist in law. So if the law decrees that a fetus has a right to life then it does, but if the law decrees that it has no right to life then it doesn’t. The right to life in law is simply a requirement used so that society can function.
This argument doesn't hold any standing ground, because for all of history, and today, some races and cultures are not allowed the right to life in those country's, even though they are already born humans. So the law isn't a good base for this argument, because the law can change, and peoples standards, can use this claim to take over and do a lot of things.
The whole point of America, isn't to follow the law blindly. The people make the law based on what they think is morally right or wrong so they argue it in court.
So this argument wouldn't work.
So if it is down to empathy, then who does one empathise with, is it the fetus or is it the woman forced to carry a child against her will? To me there seems to be no right or wrong on this and it is down to sentiment and opinion.
Both. The mother won't die and wont be pregnant forever, and she won't even have to keep the child after. She can give it up for adoption.
The decision that she made she has to live with.
You don't get to kill something just because of convenience.
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh, I understood the analogy. It’s no different than saying no two people come away with the same understanding after reading the same book. All you’re doing is stating the obvious. A point that has nothing to do with this topic under discussion, and still has nothing to do with the linguistical reality of context. If properly conveyed, there can only be one intended cogent meaning behind the context given.
Oh, and the “forum” section of DART is, by definition, a chat room.
If a woman chose to have sex, then it is not against her will.
Has nothing to do with forcing a woman to carry a child against her will or her choice not to do so.
This argument doesn't hold any standing ground, because for all of history, and today, some races and cultures are not allowed the right to life in those country's, even though they are already born humans. So the law isn't a good base for this argument, because the law can change, and peoples standards, can use this claim to take over and do a lot of things.The whole point of America, isn't to follow the law blindly. The people make the law based on what they think is morally right or wrong so they argue it in court.So this argument wouldn't work.
That different countries may have different laws doesn’t contradict my point that rights are founded in law.
Both. The mother won't die and wont be pregnant forever, and she won't even have to keep the child after. She can give it up for adoption.The decision that she made she has to live with.You don't get to kill something just because of convenience.
That forcing a woman to carry a child against her will isn’t a mater of life a death is irrelevant as to whether there are any intrinsic or basic rights regarding the right to life.
My point is that whether you are either pro-choice or anti-abortion is down to whether you empathise with the fetus or the woman forced to carry a child against her will.
Your comments don’t really seem to relate to my post. In that I’m not taking sides just putting forward what I see as an objective assessment.
-->
@Elliott
The fetus has no rights, legal or otherwise.
Empathy has no basis in this argument. It is quashed by the woman’s personal Liberty rights, as outlined in #42. As such, the rest of your comment is rendered moot.
-->
@Elliott
My point is that whether you are either pro-choice or anti-abortion is down to whether you empathise with the fetus or the woman forced to carry a child against her will.
The problem with your point about empathy is that others so-called empathy vanishes once they’ve forced the girl/woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Once the child is born, those people wash their hands of that empathy and don’t give a second thought towards the life-long well-being or suffering of that child. Therein lies the hypocrisy of their “empathy.”
-->
@TWS1405_2
The fetus has no rights, legal or otherwise.Empathy has no basis in this argument. It is quashed by the woman’s personal Liberty rights, as outlined in #42. As such, the rest of your comment is rendered moot.
If rights are made in law, then if the law says it has rights it does,but if the law says it doesn’t then it doesn’t.
If empathy isn’t a factor then what drives people support the rights of the fetus or alternatively the rights of the woman’
-->
@TWS1405_2
The problem with your point about empathy is that others so-called empathy vanishes once they’ve forced the girl/woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Once the child is born, those people wash their hands of that empathy and don’t give a second thought towards the life-long well-being or suffering of that child. Therein lies the hypocrisy of their “empathy.”
I think that is a valid point and I wouldn’t dispute it.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Others should keep the nose out of the pregnant womans bodily business, unless she asks for others assistance.
This is the only moral integrity choice. All else is virtual rape of the pregnant woman via others sticking nose into her bodily bussiness and is just plain sick-n-head.
We observe people watching news of others dying on other side of planet and some feel varying degrees of empathy for them.
We know from some documentation --starting with 90's Bosian war---, that humans have a physical part of brain that deals with empathy, and the ability to shut off access to that part of the brain, so as to not have empathy as people who were your neighbor and/or friends are being systematically murdered.
Over man years, a woman who has a girl in birth, ---in one or more countries ex China--- is more likely to kill the child, if a boy brings more abilities to make and income to support the child. This most likely in more rural areas but maybe in cities to. I dunno any of the statistics over the last thousand or more years.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, well let me ask you this:How did the woman get pregnant?If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.
First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective. There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance.
The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.
And then you have rape and incest, not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do. Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".
So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How did the woman get pregnant?
By being inseminated and then fertilized. There's also in-vitro fertilization.
If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.
She may or may not know of the consequences. Furthermore, having protected sex does not guarantee her not getting pregnant. '
If she makes a stupid decision,
Having protected or unprotected sex is not necessarily a stupid decision. Of course one would assume one is trying one's best to mitigate against the contraction of STI's and the conception of unwanted pregnancies.
she doesn't get to fix it by killing a baby in the womb, which you stated isn't moral.
Why does the zygote/embryo/fetus die? It's very important to understand the distinction. Does it die because the mother initiated harm, or does it die because its physiological underdevelopment disallows it from surviving outside of its mother's womb? Once we understand this distinction, the question goes beyond, "who kills whom?" and focuses on the capacity to behave the womb to the exclusion of all other interests. When a pregnant woman is coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term, you are excluding her interests despite the fact that it's her womb.
A mother who made the stupid decision to have unprotected sex, or sex in general, and then got pregnant, so she decides to kill the baby.That is a loss of a human life, without any reason besides convenience.
It's her womb, so she can exercise decisions at her own convenience when it concerns said womb. The onus is not on her to justify decisions made at her own convenience, but on those of you who would presume to assume the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's proxy and exclude its mother's interests in favor of its survival. In other words, it's up to you to justify the reason a zygote/embryo/fetus has a claim to its mother's womb which supersede and excludes its mother's interests. And reasons like, "she's the one who decided to have sex" and "she knew the consequences," are not sufficient.
Or, the mother gets charged for the abortion, and she gets charged with murder.I never said that when she gets charged with murder that she would be put to death.I believe that she should be charged with murder, and jailed for life.
So your response is to detain her for the rest of her life because she behaved her body as she saw fit. And who's the beneficiary of this resolved dispute? The zygote/embryo/fetus? No, it's presumably dead. The mother? No, she's being detained. Society? No, the members who maintain bodily autonomy are certain to reject this. Or is it just you and those of your ilk who have nothing to do with the mother or her unborn baby?
-->
@Double_R
First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective.
This is true.
But the fact that you and a lot of other people make this argument, proves my point.
When having sex (protection or not) both participants know that even with protection there is not guarantee that the woman won't get pregnant.
That is why, when a man and a woman are both consenting to sex, they are also consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant.
So if you get pregnant that is no one else's fault but yours. Therefore you don't get to kill the child inside the womb that has done nothing wrong, just because you screwed up.
There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance.
You know what else is 100% effective preventative?
Not having sex when your not ready for a child. Just saying.
The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.
It's funny that you brought up human nature, because human nature goes completely against your argument.
Abortion is not human nature. Killing your offspring just because of convenience is not human nature.
I am not trying to take away the drive for sex. But if you want to argue human nature then take into consideration that the reason for reproduction in humans is to....well reproduce.
Also humans have evolved as a group of people to become/have more self control over our natural drives.
When I get mad at someone, my natural drive is to sock them in the face. But since I have been taught and evolved to have self control, I'm not going to do that.
The problem with your argument is that you are viewing humans as creatures who can't control their natural drives, and that abortion should be legal, because humans like to have sex a lot.
That is not a very concrete argument at all.
And then you have rape and incest.
This is a completely different argument.
You are just using rape and insest as a way to get out of your first argument.
But either way, I will still argue it.
Getting raped is obviously a horrible experience and is scarring for life.
But getting an abortion also scars people for life as well. Most women who get abortions regret it, but no one talks about that part.
You can't fight one bad experience with another.
You can't fight rape with a death.
You have to fight that horrible experience with a life.
There is many people out there who have been the product of a rape. And they wouldn't have lived the life they had if the mother had decided to abort them.
There is no difference between a baby that is the product of rape, and a baby that is the product of consensual sex.
not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do.
This is good argument.
And I also think that this is a big problem for women.
But I don't think that killing a child is the solution for this problem.
Also lets not forget, that if you choose to hang out with the wrong group of people, then bad things usually happen to you. I'm not saying that it is the woman's fault that she got pregnant, but I am saying that kids should be taught to be smart and wise when it comes to sex.
I think that instead, the solution to this problem should be to teach young girls and kids in general in schools about the dangers of sex, and what can happen if you do it. I also think that men should be held accountable for the care of a child if involved in the making of one.
Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".
Not all of the time.
In cases of rape, yes.
In cases of psychological manipulation, kind of.
In cases of consensual sex, no, it was the woman's choice to consent to sex.
So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.
There are a lot of factors involved, that doesn't disprove my point.
The government's job is to uphold the law. And one of the aspects of the law, is that murder is illegal.
Abortion is literally murder (look at the Abortion is Murder debate on my profile) so that should make it illegal.
A lot of things have a lot of factors involved, but that doesn't mean that the government can't enforce the law.
Also it's not just the women. It's the men as well.
If you put money into a soda machine, is the soda yours, or the machines.
Making a child is both the man's decision and the woman's decision. Obviously rape and insest are different, but you get my point.
-->
@Double_R
-->@YouFound_LxamOk, well let me ask you this:How did the woman get pregnant?If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective. There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance.The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.And then you have rape and incest, not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do. Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.
Well sad!!!
Also it's not just the women. It's the men as well.If you put money into a soda machine, is the soda yours, or the machines.Making a child is both the man's decision and the woman's decision.
Another asinine ignorant false analogy. *facepalm*
-->
@TWS1405_2
The 14th was not written just for former slaves and their offspring; but rather it provides due process and equal protection of the laws upon "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
This was written this way because of African Americans, who were born in the US. Otherwise it would be impossible to immigrate to the US.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Just looked it up.
And an internet forum, is defined as differing from an internet chat room.
Basically chat is chat. Personal messaging provides more of a chat room.
A forum exchanges lengthier and more compositional narratives.
-->
@TheUnderdog
<<<TWS1405_2>>>The 14th was not written just for former slaves and their offspring; but rather it provides due process and equal protection of the laws upon "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."This was written this way because of African Americans, who were born in the US. Otherwise it would be impossible to immigrate to the US.
JFC!!! I hat part of “…or naturalized…” do you not comprehend!! This is the third time I’ve pointed out this glaring fact to you; it’s in black and white for Christ sake.
-->
@zedvictor4
No, they’re the same damn thing. The inky variance is length of responses. Intent and purpose is the same. To have [a] discussion.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why do you believe this?What reasoning do you have behind this?
Proof by contradiction.
Let’s say an embryo is a human being. If this is the case, then IVF wouldn’t exist without the government putting an end to it already because of all the embryos that have to die to produce one healthy pregnancy. This means an embryo, and by extension a zygote is not a human being.
Now granted, out of the 4 states that banned IVF, 3 of them voted for Joe Biden. But their concern is maternal safety, not dead embryos. Texas banned killing zygotes in the womb, but legalized killing embryos in the lab. I don’t understand this. Abortion is a big voting issue for many Republicans. IVF is less of an issue, even though it makes more sense to legalize abortion than IVF (less maternal pain). But if IVF gets to be legal, so does abortion.
Finacines are not more important than a human life.
Socialists agree with you 100%. But if this was the case, it justifies me forcing you to adopt someone and spend all that money to save their life. I don’t want to adopt because of the expense and the same is true for most people. If it was free, adoptions would become significantly more common, but people refuse to adopt others and save their lives because of the cost. Nothing that lasts a temporary amount of time has infinite financial value, including the human life.
The doctors on the other hand who perform the abortions should be charged with murder, because they know what they are doing and they are the ones dismembering the child.
But this will lead to abortionists deciding not to perform abortions anymore, which means the female that wants the abortion will do it herself. So whatever punishment you impose for the doctor you would have to do for women if it is to be banned.
Most women getting abortions are told and tricked by planned parenthood that the babys inside of the womb are nothing more than just a clump of cells, and the mothers when getting the abortion do not realize what they are actually doing.
Not accurate; the slogan is “my body my choice”, not, “We don’t believe a zygote is a human being.” They are totally fine with killing the unborn if they are connected to them and causing them pain.
-->
@Athias
What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humansare by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?
The same way human beings can conceive skin cells, hair cells, or sperm cells. You can have human chromosomes while not being a human being. But if I believed a zygote was a human being, I would want it to be illegal to kill them.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The government's job is to uphold the law. And one of the aspects of the law, is that murder is illegal.
This is question begging. We're talking about what the law should be.
Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from this point on is to affirm why you believe that.
Abortion is literally murder (look at the Abortion is Murder debate on my profile) so that should make it illegal.
Murder by definition involves malice. That's not what were talking about.
We're talking about whether a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. In order to argue that a women should not have this right you seem to be arguing that a fetus is a person or at least should be regarded as one. But a fetus, particularly in it's earliest stages does not hold any of the characteristics we associate with personhood, so you have no basis to argue this except for telling us how you feel about it. That is useless in a conversation about the law.
Everyone will feel differently about this question, that is again, why it should be up to the women and not the government.
That is why, when a man and a woman are both consenting to sex, they are also consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant.So if you get pregnant that is no one else's fault but yours. Therefore you don't get to kill the child inside the womb that has done nothing wrong, just because you screwed up.
Who's you? Because last time I checked it takes two to create a baby, yet it's the women's body only that will have to be subjected to the consequences.
Regardless, we are again at the point where you are asserting that the women's "screw up" is a valid reason to deny her a right to her own body. And you justify this right by asserting that a fetus is a person, which it's not.
That's what this debate really comes down to, we can argue about the rest all day long but in the end that will be pointless. Because you see a fetus as a person, you believe having sex is a punishable act. It's really that simple.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Alright; so the amendment states that all persons born or naturalized have rights. It doesn’t prohibit states from giving rights to other groups (the unborn if the state wanted, to do that, or the undocumented if the states want to do that). It merely establishes a federal minimum; you must give equal protection under the law to those born or naturalized in the US.
-->
@Athias
By being inseminated and then fertilized. There's also in-vitro fertilization.
Well obviously, yes.
She may or may not know of the consequences. Furthermore, having protected sex does not guarantee her not getting pregnant. '
I think that it is safe to say that if someone knows about condoms, sex, etc., then they know about the consequences.
But let's say some don't know. I
Instead of abortion, how about we continue to teach the dangers of sex, in schools when kids become of age.
That way people won't have an excuse.
Having protected or unprotected sex is not necessarily a stupid decision. Of course one would assume one is trying one's best to mitigate against the contraction of STI's and the conception of unwanted pregnancies.
I'm not saying that having unprotected or protected sex is a stupid decision. What I am saying is that having sex, when you deliberately don't want children, or don't desire children at that time, because you can't afford them, is a stupid decision.
Why does the zygote/embryo/fetus die? It's very important to understand the distinction. Does it die because the mother initiated harm, or does it die because its physiological underdevelopment disallows it from surviving outside of its mother's womb?
It dies because the woman makes the decision to kill it.
Thats how it works.
We are talking about abortion here.
Once we understand this distinction, the question goes beyond, "who kills whom?" and focuses on the capacity to behave the womb to the exclusion of all other interests.
No, it doesn't. The mother doesn't want the child; therefore, she kills it.
That is the whole point of abortion.
When a pregnant woman is coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term, you are excluding her interests despite the fact that it's her womb.
Yes, it is here womb, but she is the one who consented to the possibility that a baby will be in her womb.
So, yea it is her body, but the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a part of her body and is another living human. Therefore, it would be morally wrong to kill it.
It's her womb, so she can exercise decisions at her own convenience when it concerns said womb.
Is it wrong to kill other humans?
Sometimes it isn't.
In war the human is willing to die, so no.
In murder cases, the human took another life, so no.
In the case of abortion, the mother took a chance. She got pregnant. Then, she decided to pay a doctor to kill the baby inside of her, that she consented to create, even though the child in her body did nothing to hurt her, and nothing to anyone else.
In other words, it's up to you to justify the reason a zygote/embryo/fetus has a claim to its mother's womb which supersede and excludes its mother's interests.
You might as well say that we should all stop reproducing with this argument.
The baby isn't claiming the mother's womb. It is using the mother's womb to survive for only 9 months. It did not claim the mother's womb. In order for the baby to claim the mother's womb, it would have to choose to be born then take claim. The baby was put, created in the mother's womb, (not by their own choice). That baby did nothing wrong. It was actually the mother's decision to place that baby in her own womb, so the action that the mother took created a life as well as the father. So, the mother has no right to kill the baby in her belly in the same way that a mother does not have a right to kill her born children.
You're claiming that the baby took claim of the mother's body, and that is completely false. The mother gave up her womb in order to grow a child, through biological processes.
Even if what you're saying was true, and the baby did claim the mother's body, you would still be contradicting yourself, because just by the action of claiming something, that child is a living human being with moral value, therefore it would be morally wrong to kill it.
But it didn't even claim the body, so your argument proves no purpose.
So your response is to detain her for the rest of her life because she behaved her body as she saw fit.
No, my response is to detain her for the rest of her life, because she killed a baby.
And who's the beneficiary of this resolved dispute?
There doesn't have to be a beneficiairy.
If a homeless man is murdered on the street with no family or friends, is that ok?
Should the murderer just be let free?
-->
@TheUnderdog
It doesn’t prohibit states from giving rights to other groups (the unborn if the state wanted, to do that,
You previously asked me where I read the pregnancy doesn’t have rights.
I cited two very specific laws in answer of that.
What part of those laws, especially the cit d US Code, did you fail to comprehend!?!
God!!! You’re as bad as IFound_Lxam at this discussion.
-->
@TWS1405_2
You previously asked me where I read the pregnancy doesn’t have rights.
If this is the case, the solution would be to change that, not to accept the status quo.
And Roe V Wade is gone; states can now protect the unborn if they want too.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let’s say an embryo is a human being. If this is the case, then IVF wouldn’t exist without the government putting an end to it already because of all the embryos that have to die to produce one healthy pregnancy.
Abortion is the death of a human, yet the government still hasn't put an end to it already, so this argument proves no purpose.
I am asking, why do you believe that a zygote/embryo is not a human being, but a fetus is?
Now granted, out of the 4 states that banned IVF, 3 of them voted for Joe Biden. But their concern is maternal safety, not dead embryos.
The question I asked had nothing to do with political sides.
I only asked a moral question.
Texas banned killing zygotes in the womb, but legalized killing embryos in the lab. I don’t understand this.
I actually agree with you on this one. Texas is kind of contradicting itself by doing this, and I think that this needs to stop as well.
Abortion is a big voting issue for many Republicans. IVF is less of an issue, even though it makes more sense to legalize abortion than IVF (less maternal pain). But if IVF gets to be legal, so does abortion.
This has nothing to do with the question that I asked you, but yes that would be the case.
Socialists agree with you 100%. But if this was the case, it justifies me forcing you to adopt someone and spend all that money to save their life.
No, this is where I differ from socialists. I believe that finances are less important than killing a human being, not just taking care of them in general.
But this will lead to abortionists deciding not to perform abortions anymore, which means the female that wants the abortion will do it herself. So whatever punishment you impose for the doctor you would have to do for women if it is to be banned.
No, because the solution for one death should not be another death. It should be an actual punishment.
So, we should imprison the culprits for life.
Not accurate; the slogan is “my body my choice”, not, “We don’t believe a zygote is a human being.” They are totally fine with killing the unborn if they are connected to them and causing them pain.
I'm not talking about the slogan; I am talking about what they tell parents who are concerned about getting an abortion. Literal abortion doctors have told their clients not to worry, because it is just a clump of cells, and not a baby.
-->
@Double_R
This is question begging. We're talking about what the law should be.Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from this point on is to affirm why you believe that.
Not my position whatsoever.
My position is that abortion is wrong, and as the people we should vote on the government enforcing that law.
Murder by definition involves malice. That's not what were talking about.
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"
That defines abortion. It doesn't have to involve malice, only a premeditated killing.
This is why Investigators have to investigate why different murders happened because some are different than others for reasons.
A gang member could murder someone, not because they had malice towards them, but simply because they were directed to.
We're talking about whether a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. In order to argue that a women should not have this right you seem to be arguing that a fetus is a person or at least should be regarded as one. But a fetus, particularly in it's earliest stages does not hold any of the characteristics we associate with personhood, so you have no basis to argue this except for telling us how you feel about it.
What does it mean to have personhood? To be a valuable person?
Can you answer that question for me without including zygotes/embryos/fetuses?
Everyone will feel differently about this question, that is again, why it should be up to the women and not the government.
Not just women, but people in general.
When creating laws, it's we the people, not we the women.
Who's you? Because last time I checked it takes two to create a baby, yet it's the women's body only that will have to be subjected to the consequences.
This is why I promote that you should not have children out of wedlock so that men will be forced to suffer the consequences as well.
But again, if a woman plays stupid, she gets stupid.
It's not the man's fault (unless he rapes or emotionally manipulates the woman) because he knows that if he has sex out of wedlock then he has no consequences. He took the risk and knew the consequences.
Now is it right that the man does this? Absolutely not. It is 100% wrong for a man to do this, but this is why you see more men eager for sex, than women are.
But women and men are biologically different (even if some beg to differ) it's true.
So, what might not be a big risk for a man, might be a really big risk for the woman. Vice versa too.
This is why women tend to keep to themselves more when it comes to sexual experiences, and men tend to be more open.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not defending the manipulative men for doing these things at all, I am simply saying that women need to be more aware of these things because the consequences of sex hurt women way more then it hurts men.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not defending the manipulative men for doing these things at all, I am simply saying that women need to be more aware of these things because the consequences of sex hurt women way more then it hurts men.
Now it's obviously wrong for men to do these things, but even though it's wrong, you still can't get him in trouble, because either way, the woman consented to sex with him.
Regardless, we are again at the point where you are asserting that the women's "screw up" is a valid reason to deny her a right to her own body. And you justify this right by asserting that a fetus is a person, which it's not.
1.) I am asserting that a woman has a right to her own body. Therefore, anything that she does with it, she has to live with the consequences of it.
Just like if a woman were to get a tattoo on her face, it was her decision, but she has to live with it.
So, if a woman chose to have sex with a man, that is her decision, and whatever happens after she has to live with, because she decided that it is ok for her to do that.
2.) A fetus is a living human by definition.
That's what this debate really comes down to, we can argue about the rest all day long but in the end that will be pointless. Because you see a fetus as a person, you believe having sex is a punishable act. It's really that simple.
A fetus is a living human by definition.
Sex is not a punishable act, but one that should be done with caution especially by the woman consenting to it.