pro-life or pro-choice?

I don't believe anyone has the right to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body.

But what makes the child part of her body? I see it as a separate body. It is very dependent upon its mother to survive and develop, but it's not really part of her body.


Out of curiosity, would you support a law that prohibits abortion beginning in the late second trimester? (Ignoring the Constitutional requirement that this be an Amendment -- I'm asking whether you would agree that abortions at that stage should be illegal.)

 

Until much much later in the pregnancy, the child is a part of the mothers body, and if you don't know why then I'm not going to explain it to you!

I would never support such a constitutional amendment, because it would just open the gate for you pro-lifers to shove your moral and religous values down everyone elses throat, making it easier to outlaw abortion.

 

Until much much later in the pregnancy, the child is a part of the mothers body, and if you don't know why then I'm not going to explain it to you!

No, please ... I'd like an explanation.

I'll explain my reasoning: An egg leaves a woman's ovary. It has her chromosomes and was generated by her body. I don't exactly think it counts as "part of her body", but that doesn't really matter to me at this point.
A man's sperm enters a woman's body. It is not "part of her body". It is contained within her body, but those are not her cells. That sperm fuses with the egg to create a single cell. That cell is not part of the woman's body. It has a different DNA. It does not act as part of any tissue or organ in the woman's body. At best, it could be compared to a parasite -- drawing its nutrients from her body -- but it is not part of her body. (No, I am not saying that children are parasites, I am trying to explain how that I don't believe that a child can be considered, biologically, as part of its mother's body.)

Now, if you disagree with that, I would like to hear your explanation. It will help the rest of us understand why you consider an unborn child to be part of its mother's body until later in the pregnancy.

 

No, please ... I'd like an explanation.

If McCartney stays true to his word, then I'd best sub for him. It doesn't make sense, IMO, so don't shoot the messenger.
The argument, as I've debated against, is that since the mother and child are connected through a physical bond, and that the child is completely dependent on its mother for life through her delivery of nutrition, etc., that it is her's to do with as she pleases, regardless of the fact that it is still an independent entity (as far as standards of humanity are measured).
Also, even though this simulation is re-enacted almost perfectly when someone is on life-support, it doesn't count because that person has ALREADY been human.

Those are, believe it or not, the opinions as I have heard them.

 

1st trimester=pro-choice

2nd and 3rd=pro-life except in cases where the mothers life is in danger, the fetuses life is in danger, or both.

Edit: I believe, as do some Taoists, that the spirit moves into the fetus at the end of the first trimester. Does anyone know at what point brainfunction shows up?

 

I would never support such a constitutional amendment, because it would just open the gate for you pro-lifers to shove your moral and religous values down everyone elses throat, making it easier to outlaw abortion.


Please point out one place where I argued based on morals or religion.

I realize that a lot of people who are against abortion -- and probably most of the vocal opponents -- are against it for moral or religious reasons.

However, those same people would be against any form of murder for moral and religious reasons as well.

Does that mean that we cannot make a law against murder?

The fact that a religious person supports something does not mean it cannot be incorporated into the law. We just can't make a law soley on religious grounds.

We can't outlaw murder because the Bible says that God said "Thou shalt not kill."

However, we can make a law against murder because it deprives someone of their right to live.

We cannot outlaw abortion simply because some people find it morally wrong, or say that it is forbidden by God.

However, we can outlaw it because it deprives a human being of its right to live.

 

However, we can outlaw it because it deprives a human being of its right to live.

The question for many is when is it a human being? I have my beliefs on the subject, but a more scientific approach would be helpful. Higher brain functioning would be the best indication that there is a conscious mind there and I'm almost positive that there is no higher brain function present until the second trimester. Someone please correct me if I am wrong (also, provide your source of info as I would like to do some research into the subject as well).

 

The earliest showings of brain activity have been said, by some, to begin as early as four weeks. But it's not exactly a source I trust, and it's not on the internet, so that's not much help.
Ask Cailina, though. She's the biggest advocate of declaring a fetus a human being when it has brain activity you'll find anywhere around here.

 

Cool, maybe she'll see my post and help me out. Also, I just wanted to clarify that I said higher brain functioning. Afterall, flies have brainfunctioning and we kill them by the billions. C'mon, I know some of you own bug zappers, now own up to it!

 

I know the earliest brain waves are detectable around 40 days. I'm not sure about higher brain waves...someone ought to PM Medical-Droid, he'd know.

As to killing flies who have brain waves: hey I don't do that either...I try to avoid it anyway although it's possibly that I accidently kill some.

 

This whole debate all comes down to the question "is an unborn infant human, with the right to live?"

Now, I could get into a huge debate over that, but I have neither the time nor patience to do so. Instead, I'll leave you with this thought, originally inspired by a quote of Ronald Reagan's:

Given that human life should be protected and that we aren't 100% certain at which point of development an infant "becomes" human, don't you think that we should err on the side of caution so as to avoid violating someone's right to live?

Also, what is the main reason someone would abort their unborn baby? The answer, more often than not, is that the baby wouldn't be "convenient"...hence, it would somehow be "unwanted and unloved": better off dead.

I think it reflects very badly on the moral condition of our world when people are willing to risk violating another human's right to life in the name of convenience. I mean, how selfish can we get?

Those are just a couple of the reasons that I am pro-life.

 

The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks are not human. People now find that ludicrous. Why don't people find it just as ludicrous that the Supreme Court rules that unborn children aren't human? Is it up to them to decide? Up to the State? To the Nation?

The answer is no. God creates all human life, be it blacks or whites, elderly people or children in the womb.

 

" The phrase "right to life" is an excellent example of a "buzz word", designed to inflame rather than illuminate. There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time (with a few rare exceptions, such as among the Jains of India).
We raise farm animals for slaughter ; destroy forests ; pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there ; hunt deer and elk for sport, lepords for their pelts, and whales for dog food ; entwine dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great tuna nets ; and club seal pups to death for "population management". All these animals and vegetables are as alive as we.
What is protected in many human societies, is not life, but human life. And even with this protection, we wage "modern" wars on civilian populations with a toll so terrible we are, most of us, afraid to consider it very deeply.
Often such mass murders are justified by racial or religious or nationalistic redefinitions of our opponents as less than human."

-Carl Sagan

 

Pro-Choice is the way to go. There are so many factors which can make giving birth hard. The question isn't about whether the baby is born into a wanted situation. The question is if you're comfortable with the knowledge that some girls/women feel they have to use a coat hangar in an alley or not. It happens! The choice is to give a female confidence enough that she does not have to resort to such a measure. And, hopefully, when that confidence is acheived, she may think twice about aborting at all.

In a vast sea of darkness where no options exist, you shine a light, and 2 options then arise. 1st, to walk towards that light or not. 2nd, to go into it or not. Giving a choice to someone who before had no options allows that person time to think.

Pro-life and pro-choice people are wanting the same goal. Pro-life wants life. A Pro-choice person wants that option to choose, but in hopes that the choice will lead to life.

Isurus

 

"God creates all human life, be it blacks or whites, elderly people or children in the womb."

But, since we can't use religion to create laws...this is really an irrelevent comment. Tell the atheist that God creates all human life.

 

Ender, although it sounds as if you disagree with me, I believe in the "sanctity of human life", like many of America's founding fathers. To quote from The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Animals, on the other hand, were not bestowed with this right. However, it is still our responsibility to be good stewards of the world by not polluting it or causing animals to suffer needlessly.

I firmly believe that humans have a right to live, even if you consider that to be some sort of irrelevent "buzz-word".

Cailina, many of our laws are based on moral philosophies present in many religions, such as the belief that murder, rape, stealing, etc. is wrong. Look at the quote I posted above.

 

But, since we can't use religion to create laws...this is really an irrelevent comment. Tell the atheist that God creates all human life.

Cailina, many of our laws are based on moral philosophies present in many religions, such as the belief that murder, rape, stealing, etc. is wrong. Look at the quote I posted above.


You're both right. Many of our laws coincide with morals taught by various religions, but the religious endorsement alone is not enough basis for a law.

We can only make laws to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

We do not make a law against murder because God said it was wrong. We make a law against it because it deprives someone of their right to life.

We do not make a law against rape because it is morally wrong. We make a law against it because it violates someone's right to liberty (I'm guessing this is the one it would fall under).

We do not make a law against stealing because it is in God's law. We make a law against it because it violates someone's right to their own property.

We cannot make a law against abortion simply because it is considered morally wrong. We can only make a law against it if it deprives someone of life, liberty, or property. I believe that it deprives someone of life. That, as far as I see it, is the only point that can reasonably be debated on this issue.

Morals and religious beliefs are not the bases for our laws; the rights to life and liberty are. Understanding this, is there enough basis for a law against abortion? I say there is.

 

Boo-yeah!

 

I saw the same story on CNN.

For anyone who doesn't want to bother clicking the link, it basically says that states can now classify fetuses as "unborn children", making them eligible for government health care.

Of course, everybody recognizes this as a step toward giving fetuses legal standing and outlawing abortion.

I don't think there's any secret about it -- a couple of months ago, I saw a news story on a law the Republicans in Congress were trying to pass as the first in a series of steps toward anti-abortion legislation. (Does anyone remember which one that was? I've forgotten.)

 

The problem is that the Republican Party can't actually afford to allow Abortion's to be made illegal.

They can espouse pro-life sentiments towards their conservative right wing constituency, but some 80% of Americans support a woman's right to choose. If abortion is ever ACTUALLY made illegal, it would be a political disaster for the GOP.

 

I need help fast. I am debating for Pro-Choice in school and need the best arguments to counter a class full of hard core right to lifers.

 

Sorry dude. If they know what they're talking about, you've lost already
But to make the debate more interesting, here's the only possible point you can argue/stall with sucessfully: A fetus is not a human being until the umbilical cord has been cut.
Be prepared to do some illogical stonewalling.

Good luck anyway!

 

Well kids, I think this birthday party's over. In this thread.

I am thinking it may be best to continue this abortion talk over in the "Bush declares fetus a child" thread. It's the same issues, basically. This thread's just getting so big; it's time to share the wealth.

Any dissenting opinions? No.




The new thread for the abortion debate is here

 

Kill this now.