If her life is in danger, then she has the right to an abortion. At that point, she is protecting her own life and has the right to do so. The natural side effects of pregnancy are no reason to murder one's child. That is simply a consequence of one's choice to have sex. Nope. Pregnancy most definitely has numerous effects on women.
It is only until very recently that childbirth has become relatively safe. Maternal- and child mortality used be extremely high and is still very high and a big problem in the Third World. However, despite these great technological advancements that have made childbirth "pretty safe", pregnancy does still affect a woman's body in a very serious way and so does giving birth. Claiming a fetus does not cause her harm is simply not true.
All abortions are about a woman protecting her own life. I do not think anyone has ever had an abortion because they did not want the "natural side-effects of pregnancy", they simply just do not want to be mothers. Nothing wrong with having sex.
Wrong. It is a separate life with a separate identity. It is still a separate life with a separate identity, whether it is dependent upon its mother's body for survival or not. It is a separate life. It is not "potential life". It already IS. It already exists. It exists from the very moment that it is conceived. While it, at that point, only has potential to exist after birth, it still already IS, dude... It still already exists. You are identifying no more than "I have the potential to become 6'5" tall"... Whether or not I accomplish that (I won't, since I am no longer growing), I still exist. Same with the human life inside of the womb. Yes. The bolded and underscored tells us that there is a living human in existence. You are perfectly okay with that living human being killed even though it has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. Just be honest about it.
Because abortion is the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die.
If they don't want to be a mother, then they shouldn't have sex (and create a living human inside of them to later murder).
No. No. No. It is a potential human being and thus have no rights because only human beings have rights. The fact that it is an actualised fetus does not make it a human worthy of rights. A zygote is a zygote, an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus. None of them is a baby. The only living human being is the unwillingly pregnant woman.
What if they just were in love and wanted to share something very deeply emotional, spiritually fulfilling and highly pleasuring with each other? What if they are two bright college students with very bright futures ahead of them? What if the woman is struggling to even maintain her own living? Would it really be rational for any of these to sacrifice their own lives for that of which is not yet a life? Or would it maybe be more rational for them to have abortions?
Yes yes yes. There is no "potential human", dude... A fetus already IS. A zygote already IS. You're still in paradox, Ritter... You keep going back and forth on this. You've already admitted that it's a human, but don't want it to be a human when I bring up my question to you. You are being both irrational and dishonest. Those are all developmental stages of HUMANS... a homo sapien zygote is a HUMAN... a homo sapien embryo is a HUMAN... a homo sapien fetus is a HUMAN... a homo sapien that is in the process of developing, or otherwise has a heartbeat, is a LIVING HUMAN. YOU support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes and have not expressed any desire to die. Nope, she brought the pregnancy upon herself and a fetus is a living human, as described above.
Every action has consequences. You are not free from the consequences of your actions. Would it be rational of them to have sex (and potentially become pregnant) when they are not in a position to adequately care for a child? Maybe it would be more rational to simply go through college first, and get married first, and become financially stable first?? Oh, but such a choice doesn't produce immediate satisfaction OH NOOOOOO!!!!
Okay, let's break it down: abortion is the choice to kill [forcibly remove the life of] a living ["is currently developing and/or has a heartbeat"] human [of the "homo sapien" species] who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die.
Already is what? Already is what? Where is the paradox. It is a human fetus, yes. Everybody knows that it is humans we are talking about and nobody has ever disagreed. What's your point? How can that which is in tne process of developing also be fully developed at the same time? You are the one who is not making any kind of sense whatsoever. Where? You support forcing a woman who does not want to be a mother to be a motjer (and potentially her partner to be a father). No, she did not. She just had sex.
Alright, this is a very interesting formulation as you chose to ditch the terms "murder" and "human being" from your answer. The answer is still insufficient and nonsensical. - Killing is not murder. - All life forms are not granted rights. - Only humans have rights. - That which is currently a developing human is not yet a human. - All animals have heartbeats, so that changes absolutely nothing. - The pregnant woman has not expressed any desire to be a mother and has committed no crime.
in existence. in existence. [1] a fetus is a human. [2] a fetus is not a human. You need to clear this paradox. You're making my point right now... You are now back to saying that a fetus is a human immediately after denying it. I never made any such claim. Human means "of the homo sapien species". Whether that be a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or whatever other developmental stage, that is still a human, as that is still of the homo sapien species. Throughout your exchanges with me. I have said no such thing. You are now resorting to dishonesty to distract from your unwillingness to answer my simple question. ... which can lead to pregnancy. SHE is making that decision and taking that risk. SHE is bringing it upon herself.
Yes, but what is your point? If you eat a ton of Skittles and start having a tooth ache, should you just accept the consequences of your actions or would it be right to pay a visit to the dentist? Yes. Unless they absolutely hate each other and/or see no value at all in each other. If they want to, sure. But, sometimes abstinence is irrational. It all depends on context.
I have not ditched "murder" nor "human being"... I am just defining the terminology used in my question to you, and you are still avoiding it I see... Killing is not NECESSARILY murder... but this point is irrelevant to the question as I have posed it. I said nothing about all life forms or about granted rights in my question to you. I said nothing about rights in my question to you. My words "currently developing and/or has a heartbeat" are defining the word "living", not the word "human". To be a "human" is to be 'of the homo sapien species'... The developmental stage is irrelevant, as all developmental stages of the homo sapien species are still of the homo sapien species. I said nothing of animals in my question to you. Having a heartbeat means that one is "living". Now, answer my question: Do you support the choice to kill [forcibly remove the life of] a living ["is currently developing and/or has a heartbeat"] human [of the "homo sapien" species] who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die? If she had no desire to become pregnant, then why did she make a choice to perform an act that is purposed for and can potentially lead to pregnancy?
A human fetus is not yet a fully developed human being. There is absolutely no paradox here. OK, I am starting to think Fox may be right; how is your reading comprehemsion? The debate is not about whether human females give birth to human babies, but rather one of whether a piece of protoplasm is to be given the same rights as a human being. Any citation? It is implied in your opinion and arguments. So, she should carry out the pregnancy against her will as punishment for indulging in the sinful act of having sex? Keep your Christian morals to yourself.
Why do you keep specifying "fully developed"?? The particular stage of development is irrelevant to determining the species of something. So, are you clearing your paradox by choosing #1, that a fetus (IOW, what is being aborted) is a human? No. My question asks nothing of "rights". All that matters is that the "piece of protoplasm" (you sure love coming up with different names concerning different stages of homo sapien development, don't you?) IS a human (IOW, of the homo sapien species). I already provided it. No. You are simply being dishonest to distract from your unwillingness to answer my simple question. Not against her will. She exercised her will in her choice to have sex. Sex is not in and of itself sinful. This has nothing to do with my Christian morals. Answer the question put forward to you: Are you in favor of being able to choose to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die if it will make some other person's life more convenient?
It may be irrelevant to determining the species of something, but this is actually - believe it or not - not a biology forum. We are discussing abortion and the essence here is rights. Since rights only apply to actuals, the stage of development is not only relevant, but even fundamental. Explain this "paradox" you keep referring to. Abortion is a matter of rights, Darwin. No, but I will let you get away with it this time. Your question is stupid and irrelevant. Are you serious now? You cannot be... Woo hoo. Are you sure about that? This has nothing to do with abortion and is a very transparent trap I am not going to walk into.
