Um... you do realize the other poster was basically referring to late term abortion, when they were using being born as the criteria?
Most of you haven't been very eager to look at your individual arguments by themselves. I wonder why that is...
My argument is very clear; Rights can only be attributed to actualised human beings. Since the pregnant woman is the only actualised human being involved in abortion, only she has rights. Pro-Abortion is pro-life. Anti-Abortion is Anti-Life.
Seems like a semantics game to me, because then we have to define precisely what is meant by "actualized". Do you mean they have to express certain human interactive qualities before they can be regarded as human beings? And that potentiality and even capacity are not enough? (i.e. It's not a telephone until someone actually uses it to make a phonecall)
Criterion. I don't believe late term abortion issues are worth arguing in the context of the general issue of a woman's right to choose. Most people accept laws protecting healthy fetuses that have reached the point of being able to survive delivery, carried by women with no health concerns. And, even if they strongly oppose such laws, there are pretty much zero later term abortions regardless of all the reasons that such an abortion may be necessay. You should get back to the main issue.
If you don't know what it means, you should look it up. In fact, any time you are reading a text and encounter a new word or term, it is very useful to look it up. RIghts do not apply to potentials and a telephone is a telephone regardless if it is being used or not. What's your point, btw? You always post either in single sentences or very vague questions and never make it clear what you want to say. I am getting sick of having to reply to 125 posts before you present your argument.
It's true. His comparison wasn't that unreasonable. You haven't bothered to explain why it's a false equivalency.
Tell you what, how about this? If a woman doesn't want to be forced to give birth, she can sign her name to a list, and be forced not to have vaginal sex, unless in specific cases she agrees that she wants a baby. All women on that list would not be punished for abortion, but would be punished for sex. They could have their names removed from the list at any time (provided there was a 3 weeks prior notice). Seems like a decent compromise, and pro-choicers could no longer complain that the pro-life cause wants to force them to give birth.
All posters who oppose abortion should be placed on a list that blocks them from posting until they have an argument that backs up their case. Thanks for making it clear your whole case against abortion is based on the hatred of women who are enjoying sex though. Took a while.
The point was just that pro-lifers do not necessarily want to force women to give birth. They just would prefer women not start making a baby if they don't want one.
Pro-choicers who just throw lots of arguments out there, even though the topic of the thread is only discussing one of those arguments.
Well, those who don't have some serious introspection to do because that is the very implication of their position. That is why they are having abortions, genius!
No one would do it, but the point would be to show women they're not being forced to give birth. There is another alternative option that exists (or existed) for them.
Abortion goes back to at least a few thousand years BC. Throughout history, there are hints and documented cases of various views on abortion. Are these ancient writings from long before modern medicine, in fact from near pre-hstory the soures you use for determining our law on medicine?
I wonder how many other things that argument could be used to justify. You do realize they were sacrificing live born babies in the Middle East, to their god Molech, up to about 500 BC. In the Roman Empire, a father had the right to kill his children.
Oh, you absolute genius, you. It is not being used to justify anything. It was just a correction to the poster's claim that there was "a time before abortions existed".
Well, I hope you see that's what happens when you aren't following a discussion and reply to a single post in isolation. Anyway, I think you will agree there were times in history where abortion was not a readily accessible option, and most women were not able to choose it?
