What is it?

Yes, all the women having abortions. Now please answer my question Sam.

If women really just want to avoid parenthood then why wouldn't they just give birth and give it up for adoption?

 

War is ethical?

irrational hyperbole, no. Slippery slope, maybe. But you're the one making the positive claim that a fetus can ethically be killed.

The "risk" of health and life is far different from the actual "harm" to health and life. Your stance doesn't even allow for that to happen, transferring risk immediately to harm. This is the exact same mechanism that makes Stand Your Ground laws so dangerous. The "risk" of harm versus "actual" harm.

 

Then man never intended to kill the woman beforehand. The man intends to kill the fetus, by killing the pregnant woman. This just strengthens my argument that the irresponsible male is being protected by abortion on demand laws. Law controls men. You can either allow a man to have a fetus killed legally, or you can have him punished for pursuing the coarse of having to kill the woman to kill the fetus. Please stop empowering the worst of our species, this is what is wrong with pro-choice arguments.

You can't claim that because a case hasn't been in the Supreme Court since 1973. We certainly have far better information as to what a human life is. Science is arguing, right now, if a virus is a life. Why should we not revisit, in the courts, what a human life truly is?

[video=youtube;HCqD1pagbbE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCqD1pagbbE[/video]

Short cut. She told her step mother that she is pregnant and the step mom basically said "get a job or we'll kick you out". Her father and boyfriend (irresponsible males) said "get an abortion".

You're just defending these delinquent individuals. You're arguing that a baby, yes a crying (*)(*)(*)(*)ting baby, will ruin all of these people's life. Why not apply the burden of responsibility to these people? Is it ultimately for the harm of all involved, in your opinion?

 

Which is precisely why she may have them removed from her body.

Also women do not have special rights they have equal rights. What you want to do is give the fetus special rights to use people's bodies without their permission, a right which no one else has.

Killing in self defense.

I already showed that the uterus is important to a woman's body structure. Your intent to ignore this fact is duly noted.

You assume too much.

If a woman wants to involve a man in her medical decisions, whether they are life threatening ones, such as cancer, or whether they are her pregnancy and decision to abort that is her choice. But the fact remains that unless she wants to involve others it is her problem to deal with alone.

Sure she does. If she does not want to be pregnant anymore she may have an abortion. If she does not want to experience regular periods she may take a certain birth control to rid herself of them. Etc.

Yes, most women are quite aware of how their natural biology works. They also know there are plenty of preventative measures to take to change how their biology works if they want to.

Just because your body does something naturally (grows cancerous cells for example) does not mean you want it to happen or that you should be denied the opportunity to stop it from happening.

Considering a fetus has no mind it has no intent on anything. Considering a uterus has no mind it also has no intent. Sometimes there is no 'intent' at all and things just happen.

You really enjoy using the slippery slope fallacy don't you?

Since when are sleeping person's inside other people's bodies?

I never once mentioned rape. For all we know a woman may have slept with a man consensually, got knocked up and now he is trying to force her to give birth against her will. Which is why I say that a man needs to find a partner who wants to make babies with him, that would be the sensible thing to do, don't you agree?

Again I could care less. As adults we have plenty of choices to make in front of us and we cannot nor should we try to force people to be responsible nor force them into parenthood against their wills. This is just another conscious choice everyone needs to make on their own. That is the ultimate freedom.

I don't believe in child support. If both parents opt to raise the child they should get split custody and use their money when they have the child to care for them. That's how it should be, none of this full custody to one parent BS, while the other pays a fortune to him/her with no guarantee that money is even going to the child's needs.

The child support thing only makes sense in situations where one parent is violent/abusive and the child should be kept away from them, otherwise it makes no sense to me.

 

what are you implying?

 

War can be justified and ethical at times, yes. But that is a whole other subject entirely.

Slippery slope most definitely. And yes, the fetus can be ethically killed as a woman is doing so in self defense of her autonomy.

I'd rather remove the risk entirely before I am in immediate harm. There is nothing wrong with evading unwanted risks.

- - - Updated - - -

I am implying nothing. I am asking you a very clear and forthright question which you continue to evade and dodge.

If women really just want to avoid parenthood then why wouldn't they just give birth and give it up for adoption?

 

Please stop blaming women for men's worst impulses and actions. Men are responsible for their own actions. Women have been murdered for refusing to have abortions and also for having them. It is not the abortion itself or the lack of it, it is the fact that women can make the choice without his permission. Get over it, we're not going back to asking permission. Well, actually, women have always had abortions without men's knowledge.

There really is no new information.

If the prospective father doesn't want to be one, she must know she's on her own in this. So she must decide what is the best course of action for her. You cannot just "apply the burden of responsibility" to people, they either accept responsibility or they don't, but you can't make them responsible. It is probably better for the potential baby to be aborted than to be born to irresponsible people and reared by them.

 

That's because the fetus is innocent, and it's only in the woman's body because of her choices.

 

Glad you brought that up. What is the difference between IVF and pregnancy through intercourse? It is the mastery of nature through science. Where do those IVF clinics get their access to viable fetus'? Through science. Why kill another human? Because we are threatened by their existence, or we don't know that they are human beings and believe that they are some other species out to harm us. Which is it for you?

A placenta attaching to the uterine wall is an implicit agreement, at least in science.

Consent IS an act of reason and deliberation. But don't, all of a sudden, argue that there is no implicit and explicit acts of consent. Pregnancy is implicit consent to homestead an unborn human to the point that it my be cared for by someone else. Unless you want to argue that women have "special rights" to kill this human?

You are arguing that if I consent to a revolver being pointed at my temple and then fired, then that I am not consenting to a bullet from the revolver being responsible for my demise. There is no other way that a bullet can be lodged in my skull, and I can't act surprised if it is and then blame the bullet. Your arguments are insufficient and lacking in moral consistency. You're arguing for special rights for a woman.

That is fair if applied consistently. But abortion on demand doesn't apply to this argument.

This is sexist and doesn't include the decision of women. Which century did you get this quote?!

This is an exception. There is no universal argument for abortion other than coming from you.

These are special rights. You could not argue the same if a male chose to not consent to an abortion. This is a starting point to an honest discussion. Admit that the right to abort by a woman is a "special right".

Yes, and I kill unborn fetus' while I do it. #irrelevant

I can't argue for them. They can piggy back on my arguments if they want to, but I argue for my own position.

Sorry, can't agree.

You're using "differentiation" in a specific way and then railroading me on the definitions of science. Let's define terms. What is differentiation, and explain to me how you go from " 200+ cells to human being"?

That is the problem. There is, by fiat, a legal decision to allow women to kill a fetus regardless of a male's wishes.

Yes, you are.

So you're making an exception to kill a human. That is contrary to inalienable rights. Unless you have a definition that doesn't kill a human?

Again, you're making a special exception for that woman. Why does she have more rights than the rest of us? Admit that these are "special" exceptions and we can move on to the more important arguments.

I can conceive of a scenario where a male is mysteriously attached to the greatest violinist ever. But I agree. The violinist argument is flawed but I'm not sure why you support arguments for it.

You can't have "after the birth" if you abort. You can excuse a man from all responsibility but I don't see how that helps a mother and fetus.

MY point exactly. 9 humans decided whether any human can die in womb. I'm not a sheep, sorry.

So you admit that abortion on demand is a problem?


(something else conservatives gnash their teeth and wail over).

So why abort? Instead of just waiting it out for a few months?

- - - Updated - - -

Dead humans is relevant.

 

The fetus is innocent of what?

 

Not if you give irresponsible males the out of having abortion on demand. Which choice do you think they will choose, raising a child or having that slut abort that thing? Your stance empowers these weak individuals.

By irresponsible males whom you choose to empower.

Incorrect. An abortion is meaningless to an irresponsible male. It's the obligation to raise a child that the male responds to. My point is that there are other options other than abortion on demand.

DNA? HELLO?! Anyone?

So now we're getting somewhere. If the prospective father and mother DON'T want the right to raise (homestead) that child, then they should pass that right on to a willing participant. We could argue adoption laws but I think that's best served for a different thread.

I'm a determinist (somewhat). Someone has a specific choice due to the prior choices they made, and their current choice will be instrumental in future choices. Just because someone doesn't think they can burden a responsibility doesn't mean that they are incapable of burdening that responsibility. Your stance gives them an out and fosters irresponsibility.

Heads up, let's not go down that road. Otherwise, you will be arguing that being killed before birth is better than being abused.

 

This is the problem with abortion on demand arguments. Treating a fetus as your own property. The abortion is slavery topic usually falls into absurdity, but this is the crux of the argument. Which human is property? I subscribe that we don't use humans as property, but the right to raise them is indeed property. Pass that property on to someone else if you don't want to own it.

 

Of purposeful harm to a woman. Does a fetus have purpose? You tell me.

 

Also women do not have special rights they have equal rights. What you want to do is give the fetus special rights to use people's bodies without their permission, a right which no one else has.[/QUOTE]


She can destroy other DNA on demand? This is indeed a special right that an irresponsible male and fetus do not have. Do they have it?

Stand your ground laws are stupid. And to equate stand you ground laws with the threat of a fetus using your uterus is also stupid. Most aborted fetus' will not kill you.

A plurality of anecdote is not data. A uterine orgasm is just as unsupported as a vaginal or clitoral orgasm. All of which are not scientifically substantiated. And structure can be regard as lack of natural support. If the uterus wasn't there, evolutionarily, wouldn't we see a different mechanism to provide structure?

 

A cancer does not have an irresponsible male's DNA. Why do you keep equating a cancer to a fetus? You can isolate the mother in this decision, just like the supreme court did by fiat of 9 judges, but if you are willing to follow course with any decision then you are also just an instrument of fiat by 9 judges, that had no understanding of science and philosophy.

That is not natural. Since when is an abortion natural? You're convoluted and brainwashed.

 

So you acknowledge that your argument is against nature and not living humans? And then put sole responsibility on the woman, thus giving an irresponsible male a free pass to impregnate all the women he desires. Your morality in practice, not mine.

An irresponsible male has no choice but to accept cancer. You want to give that same irresponsible male a choice to reject a fetus. Unless you're arguing that a fetus is cancer? Is that what you're doing? I can't even conceive that a cancer could be conscious, can you?

 

So apply that knowledge. Don't just default to a position that free's irresponsible males.

So now you're defaulting to DNA, and if that's the case then Roe V Wade should be revisited since DNA science did not exist at that ruling.

Biologically, a placenta proves intent. We could argue about what a "mind" is but it would be unfruitful. Intent is a much easier argument and a placenta clearly shows an intent to live.

 

So you're making an exception? Good, let's discuss why exactly that you are making that exception. Why should an unconscious fetus be killed by his/her care giver?

They are temporarily unconscious, just like a fetus. Again you default to biology. Biology doesn't support your argument to kill a fetus. So why keep defaulting to it?

You can mention or imply, it doesn't matter. Your argument implicitly allows it for the whole. You brought up FORCE. I don't know of any other sexual force than rape, do you? Let's just stay on topic.

 

No, you are under the illusion that libertarian free will exists. It doesn't. Removing the choice of abortion on demand influences irresponsible males to raise their child. You may not care, but it is happening regardless of your own will.

The problem is that you are not giving both parents the option. You are giving one parent the option because it is her body. And you have no moral authority to say what "ought" to be for the unborn when you advocate abortion on demand. This is not your discussion because you are biased.

That is homesteading. Who has the right to raise a child? If you abuse, or kill, the child then you relinquish that right. Pass those rights on to others if you are not prepared.

 

Abortion is not for the benefit of males. And it does nothing to empower males or disempower them. I don't think women should be forced to bear and rear children in order to make men stronger, as if that would ever happen anyway.

Irresponsible males don't respond to obligations. They run.

DNA tells you what about human life? Only that it is human. We already knew that.

If it were actually possible to stop abortion, there would not be enough adoptive parents to adopt all. Even so, it's not a great solution. Giving a child up for adoption is MORE emotionally traumatic for a woman than abortion, and it lasts for a lifetime.

When it comes to bearing and rearing a child, it would be best if it is NOT a burden, but instead something that is desired.

Quite likely so. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

 

Few women are willing to endure the rigors of pregnancy/childbirth in order to just hand the child over to someone else. If they choose to do so, that's also their choice.

 

The fetus did not chose to "violate the woman's body autonomy". The fetus could not have avoided getting the woman pregnant. However, the woman could have avoided choosing to have sex, and getting pregnant.

 

Meaning the woman is "guilty" because she chose to have sex? That's it, isn't it...

 

Yes, when you chase some of these Anti-Choicers around in their little circles it ALWAYS comes back to "Women Must Be Punished For Enjoying Sex"

 

Where did I say that the woman is guilty because she chose to have sex?