Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

Is this a living person?
If yes, how does this person's rights apply in this situation?

An embryo is not a "living person". It is a "potential living person", as is a sperm and an egg.

Even if for argument's sake, it isn't the same--do you guys know that there are forms of birth control that stop the zygote from implanting? These women who use these forms of the Pill, or IUDs, never know that they've conceived. Also, many women spontaneously abort without knowing it. Are these women murderers?

 

I have much more respect for an argument of whose rights take precedence (while still giving both sides equal rights)

Um, that's an impossibility, a contradiction. One's rights cannot have precedence if they are equal.

It boggles the mind how anyone can even think this is possible.





Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

An embryo is not a "living person".

If it doesn't meet the official criteria, then legally, it is not a "living person." Therefore, abortion would have to be allowed for as long as the zygote, embryo, or fetus does not meet the ofiicial criteria.

The official criteria should be based on the same criteria we use for determining life in those who are not in the womb - and that is not "viability."


EDIT:
[Moved to post below]

 

One's rights cannot have precedence if they are equal.


Sure they can, JFT.

For example, if we have two people who need a heart transplant (one with blood type A and one with AB) and are going to die, but have only one heart (blood type A), then they guy with A blood is going to be saved first solely because that is the person you can help.

Maybe not the best example, but if you require another one, I am sure I (or somebody else, if they want to take a shot at it) can come up with a better example.

 

The official criteria should be based on the same criteria we use for determining life in those who are not in the womb - and that is not "viability."

1) No, it shouldn't have the same criteria, because the situations are too different.

2) The current criteria for humans outside the womb is brain activity. When do fetuses start displaying brain activity?

EDIT: JF

What? That makes no sense whatsoever.

A better example would be:

If we have two people who need a heart transplant (both with blood type A) and are going to die, but have only one heart (blood type A), who gets it?

Still not perfect though, because a heart is not a right.






Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Um, that's an impossibility, a contradiction. One's rights cannot have precedence if they are equal.

It boggles the mind how anyone can even think this is possible.

Let me try to explain.

You and I have "equal" rights, correct? We both have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, my "right" to liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not extend to any point where I would infringe upon your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If I feel that, in my pursuit of happiness, I should kill you and take your money, I can't do that because it infringes upon your right to your own life. So, your right to life takes precedence over my right to pursue happiness in this specific situation. (It does not, however, negate my general right to the pursuit of happiness.)

The saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." When two individuals' rights are in conflict, there must be a determination of whose rights take precedence, as well as the extent to which the other's rights in that area are suspended.


The current criteria for humans outside the womb is brain activity. When do fetuses start displaying brain activity?

I seem to remember hearing that the basic brainwaves start within a few weeks, but the higher brain functions (beyond the low-level stuff that regulates body functions) begins around the end of the first trimester, or early in the second trimester.

 

Abs: You want me to post proof--give me a second and I'll go back through the thread and quote every post that mentions the "consequences" of sex. Acts that don't deserve punishment don't have "consequences".

a_g, in this you are horribly misinterpreting what people say, and imposing your own connotations onto their words.

Allow me to remind you of the definition of consequence:

con·se·quence Pronunciation Key (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.

1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.
4. Importance in rank or position: scientists of consequence.
5. Significance; importance: an issue of consequence. See Synonyms at importance.

By both definitions 1 and 2, pregnancy is a consequence (as in a condition that logically or naturally follows from) of sex. Pregnancy is also a result of having sex (the cause).

None of this requires that pregnancy always come after having sex, nor that it is the only possible consequence, but it is still a consequence of having sex.

That is simply the English language. To then claim that someone is saying that pregnancy is a punishment, or anything like unto it, is to misrepresent the opposing position. It is intellectually dishonest in that it is putting words into someone else's mouth.

You may associate "consequence" and "punishment", but that is in your mind more than anything, and not in the English language.

Kimball Kinnison

 

>>>> The official criteria should be
based on the same criteria we use for
determining life in those who are not in
the womb - and that is not "viability." <<<<

Where are the morals here?

Surely we are not going to allow an "official criteria", conceived by polititians (for the sake of their own hidden agendas) to guide you on this issue. It has nothing to do with "government laws" or "official criteria".

It has to do with morals.

It is as simple as this: there are laws and they must the followed (wherever that country may be).

If one does not agree with the law on abortion, or what ever other law there is, than we can hop on a plane and go somewhere where the law is favourable to our ideals or morals. Remember, the laws are created by a politician for his own political agenda, so they really mean nothing at all because they simply change during the next elections.

One, then has to live the fact the abortion occured. Guilty or not, does not matter to anyone else.

It is not their business, and it is not the business of anyone else to interfere with the decision taken to either abort to keep the baby.

But the choice is there and we have the right to choose. Personally, I am against it, but the choice is there if ever my partner and I decide to go down that road.

It is no one elses business.

And KIMBALL, humans do not have sex, we make love.

By the way, if we are to be pedantic on the English language, how does one "HAVE" sex? Do we drink it? Do we eat it? Do we have it on toast?

I think not.

 

And KIMBALL, humans do not have sex, we make love.

Umm... last I checked, the word "sex" in that context refers to a specific physical act. That act is a component of what you refer to as "making love".

I should also add that there are some people who do not "make love" but simply decide to perform that physical act. The two are different, although one is a part of the other.

There are humans who do have sex, choosing to avoid any other emotional attachment. To claim otherwise is extremely inaccurate.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I've done both.

TK: Morals aren't something that you can, or should, legislate into law.

Which is why the law should be based on whether or not any of the people and other creatures in the country (as in those already born) will be harmed. If no one will be harmed, then the act should be legal. Beyond that, people are free to impose their own moral restrictions on themselves. No one is stopping them. However, legislating a stricter moral code is removing freedoms.

 

>>>> The government should not care
about the motivation; it should only
protect the rights of the individuals involved. <<<<

How can you trust the government? Honestly, the decisons made by current governments change during the next elections. And then, how many people vote? Is it over 50% of the population? I don't think so.

So, you outlaw abortion, so what! Hop on a plane and go to Mongolia or where ever the abortion can happen.

It is about choice.

Anakin Girl: >>>> Morals aren't something that you can, or should, legislate into law. <<<<

That's exactly what I am talking about. It has never been about the law, but about the morals. The law will not stop one terminating the pregnancy.

One can make the law so strict that it will force people into the back yards or going abroad. People then live with the guilt (or relief).

It is not anyone's business but your own. But we must have the choice.

It is our right to chose. Not the government's.

 

I can't believe you looked it up. The word sex that is.

Really. I don't believe we need the offical dictionary to guide us here.

>>>> There are humans who do have sex, choosing to avoid any other emotional attachment. To claim otherwise is extremely inaccurate. <<<<

So "humans" are into really weird sex acts with no emotional attachments. But is that really getting thier rocks off? Extremely inaccurate. I don't say to my partner, let's go and "HAVE" sex, honey, like if we are going to have some ice-cream.

I prefer to suggest the idea that we might make love.

That a little bit more "respectable". Accurate or not.

 

I can't believe you looked it up. The word sex that is.

Really. I don't believe we need the offical dictionary to guide us here.

I didn't have to look it up. If I had, I would have posted something like this.

Although, since you mentioned it, you might check the first definition there. I happens to say, 1. sexual activity, sexual practice, sex, sex activity -- (activities associated with sexual intercourse; "they had sex in the back seat").

That definitely describes the physical act, which is only one component of making love, but not the entire thing.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Pro Choice.

 

TK: Morals aren't something that you can, or should, legislate into law.

Well, then I guess we better get rid of all those laws against murder and stealing. As well as laws against giving false testimony, or bribery. Afterall, you can't legislate morality.

 

I second that emotion.

 

There's a difference, ElfStar: Every religion in the world is against stealing and murder. You're not going to find very many people who think those actions are OK, unless you get into something like self-defense. You won't find 90-page-long threads on whether or not murder is acceptable. As it is, abortion should be legal until its morality is no longer so debatable.

 

There's a difference, ElfStar: Every religion in the world is against stealing and murder. You're not going to find very many people who think those actions are OK, unless you get into something like self-defense. You won't find 90-page-long threads on whether or not murder is acceptable. As it is, abortion should be legal until its morality is no longer so debatable.

It's certainly true that most religions have some types of murder that are outlawed, but many also contain rituals or customs that would be considered murder to us. You are not allowed to make human sacrifices in America even if it is in your religion. So in essence we are legislating their morality.

Regarding abortion, I'm afraid I don't see the logic there. It does not follow that the presence of debate means we should allow abortion. If anything, we should err on the side of caution, which would be to dissallow it except when the life of the mother is at stake.

 

Who is going to take care of all the unwanted children?

 

Honestly, I don't know, Anakin_Girl. I'm sure some of them will be adopted. I'm sure some of them will end up living on the streets. I'm not going to say it would be a happy life for all of them. But they deserve the life God gave them.

Perhaps one would grow up to be the next Hitler. Perhaps one would become the next George Washington. I'm not so arrogant that I will say with confidence what would happen. But I would rather let what would happen, happen, than condone abortion.

 

Me, I'd rather be dead than living on the streets.

 

Perhaps you would, Anakin_Girl. But you are not everyone. There is no way to know how someone else would feel about it. Perhaps some would rather die, but others would want to live. Why should their wishes be ignored?

 

Embryos have wishes?

As I have said, I'm against partial-birth abortion. That's when the infant is a separate being that can survive outside the womb.

 

Well, then I guess we better get rid of all those laws against murder and stealing. As well as laws against giving false testimony, or bribery. Afterall, you can't legislate morality.

We have the rights to life, liberty and property, as well as the right to due process under the law.

Murder infringes upon one's right to life; therefore, the government is charged with the responsibility of prohibiting murder.

Theft infringes upon the right to property.

False testimony interferes with due process. (Note that lying is not necessarily illegal.)


Certain morals correspond to actions that protect our rights, and other morals do not.

That is why some will correspond to laws (such as murder and theft), and others will not (such as pre-marital sex).

 

Me, I'd rather be dead than living on the streets.


Living on the streets is not a terminal illness. Most people pick themselves up either with help or not and move on to fruitful lives.