Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 08:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Its granting them that they are equal. I also said even if they were NOT equal, it would still work. Why? Because you would be giving special rights to something that isn't equal to you. And if you DO consider it equal, then you cannot give the unborn "baby" special rights.


So, whether its a person is irrelevant.


So, again, pro-lifers tend to say "but its a person". Even IF that was the case, it would not help their case at all.

Personhood is granted by law. It's a legal concept.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 01:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe to some these are arbitrary, but they are easily defined to leave very little doubt and very little grey area.

There is a point where the fetus has a brain and a nervous system (sometime around start of month 7) and there is a later point where the fetus is viable outside the womb (sometime around start of month 8).
I agree that there is a point where the brain and nervous system develops and I agree there is a point where viability outside the womb becomes a high percentage.

But I disagree that either of these points denote a change from non person to person or from non human to human.

I also disagree that there is anything sacred about a "person" or a "human".
I strongly disagree that your beliefs in personhood give you any "rights" to interfere in the choices of the woman.

(12-09-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  For six months a woman should have the option to abort; after eight months, not without a compelling reason. Between seven and eight months? That may be a little grey.

Women don't wake up one day seven months pregnant. For six months she had a choice. By not aborting then, she has made a choice.
This is your opinion, but my opinion is different. In my opinion, if it doesn't impact you then it isn't your business to interfere. Using force on a pregnant woman is an act of violence on your own behalf. Hiding behind law and police just delegates the physicality and risk to them rather than on you. They become your henchmen. But just as the person who contracts a hit man is accountable of the crimes of the hitman, you are accountable for the actions of your police if you have put into law and obligation for them to interfere.

It hinges on the rights of the baby. The mother's rights cannot trump the rights of another human being. There is nothing magic about being born - it is viability that defines it.

It is my view based on facts and a rational argument. You have neither. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 01:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  For six months a woman should have the option to abort; after eight months, not without a compelling reason. Between seven and eight months? That may be a little grey.

Women don't wake up one day seven months pregnant. For six months she had a choice. By not aborting then, she has made a choice.
Chas, I agree with you in principle. And my own person sense of morals says third stage abortions are a bad idea. But I don't believe this should be legislated upon. The exact point that the fetus becomes a person is too arguable. I'm not sure whether you are saying it should be legislated on, but I just wanted to raise the point.

Actually, I do believe it should be legislated.
Do you think some magic happens at birth? Before modern science and medicine, the moment of birth was a rational point to bestow personhood. However, viability is now a rational point to do that.

Is it ethical for a woman to abort at 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? 8 months, 27 days? No? Then when?
If, however, your answer is yes, go drink battery acid. Drinking Beverage

Quote:The "born alive" rule is a common law legal principle that holds that various criminal laws, such as homicide and assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". U.S. courts have overturned this rule, citing recent advances in science and medicine; and in several states, feticide statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include fetuses in utero. Abortion in Canada is still governed by the born alive rule, as courts continue to hold to its foundational principles. In 1996 the Law Lords confirmed the rule applied in English law but that alternative charges existed in lieu, such as a charge of unlawful or negligent manslaughter instead of murder.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 06:57 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  It hinges on the rights of the baby. The mother's rights cannot trump the rights of another human being.
Who is the authority on what is a right and what is not a right?
Who authoritatively decides whether a mother's rights can or cannot trump that of another human being?

A fetus is a human being. It is living, it is human. It is a human fetus.


(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing magic about being born - it is viability that defines it.
There is nothing magic about being viable, nor is there anything magic about being a human being. There is nothing magic about developing a nervous system.

Why do you take it as your responsibility to stop a woman from having a late term abortion?
Why are you so aggressive about your stance?

(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is my view based on facts and a rational argument. You have neither. Drinking Beverage
I don't see the point of this vacuous statement.
You have not demonstrated that your label of human being vs non human being correlates with the point that an unborn becomes viable and you have not shown that a viable unborn is sacred. You certainly haven't show why the fate of this unborn is your own business and gives you the obligation to interfere in the mothers business.
You have not shown any facts contrary to my position and you have not shown how my position of "not interfering in the affairs of the mother" is irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 03:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Personhood is granted by law. It's a legal concept.
And thus people saying "Late term abortion should be illegal because it is a person" are making circular claims and thus not adding any value to a discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, I do believe it should be legislated.
Do you think some magic happens at birth? Before modern science and medicine, the moment of birth was a rational point to bestow personhood. However, viability is now a rational point to do that.

Is it ethical for a woman to abort at 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? 8 months, 27 days? No? Then when?
If, however, your answer is yes, go drink battery acid. Drinking Beverage
What I personally think is irrelevant to what should be legislated in a situation like this that is far from concrete. I would be uncomfortable from an ethical standpoint if a woman I had sex with wanted an abortion during the last 3 months. But that's me. Your question about when it's ethical actually illustrates the point I previously made. The exact time of personhood can't be stated. We can pick 6 months, but maybe it's really 6 months and 1 day or 5 months and 30 days. Or maybe it's different for each woman or baby. There is too much disagreement over exactly when that is, ranging from conception to just before birth. When a law is to be implemented that applies to everyone, especially when it involves a person's body and human life, I think there should be overwhelming agreement about what's right.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Like I said, I am granting this fetus full personhood. It has the same rights as me and should be treated like me. Its just devils advocate. Do I think it actually is a person? No.


So, if its a equal to a 2 year old baby, can a baby then use its mothers body without her consent? For example, if a baby needs to use the mothers body to live for say… 9 months? Is the mother obligated to give up her body? If not, why? If the 2 year old baby is equal to the baby in the womb, why does the baby in the womb get to use the body for 9 months but the 2 year old doesn't? You would be granting SPECIAL rights to the unborn baby.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
I hope some of you good people realize that granting the baby the same personhood as us is just playing devils advocate for the pro-lifer. We don't have to argue the first premise because it works both ways.

Pro-lifers are all about "its a person no different than us!". Grant them that and then argue with it.


Check this out


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_o..._responses

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 08:40 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 12:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-09-2014 11:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  I've explained my position. I've never once said I would force my opinions on anyone.


(11-09-2014 11:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  I'm fine with early abortions... But I do think there must be a cut off point.
If you won't force your opinions on anyone then how would you look to implement this cut off point?

By threat of extreme violence...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
12-09-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 08:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  By threat of extreme violence...
So you are no different to those people that bomb abortion clinics? Killing doctors, nurses, administrators, pregnant woman, all because you disagree with them on something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: