[democrat-hippie]

YOU are not the one giving birth, YOU are not supplying the child with nutrience..

have just as much right to step in

no you don't, it is her body and not yours. period.

[Todd D.]

no you don't, it is her body and not yours. period.

Yeah, except you don't seem to be able to read what I wrote. I don't believe that a fetus is a part of her body. I believe that a fetus is a combination of both the male and female's parts that form a new being. Therefore she does not have the right to do whatever she wants with it, anymore than a mother has a right to drown her babies in the bathtub if she doesn't want it.

As for the reasoning that only women should make this decision, that is patently retarded. First of all, last time I checked, it takes two to tango. That fetus is half the man's who impregnated her. Therefore it is only right that he have at least some say in the situation. Second of all, it's caveman logic to think that only people who go through experiences should be able to decide if they are right or wrong. I've never drank and drive, but I know that it's wrong to do it. I've never shot anyone, but I know that it's against the law. Idiot logic to say that only women should make this decision.

Oh, and on a more personal note, I think you have some fucked up priorities when you think it's morally wrong to kill a cow to make a cheeseburger, but it's ok to jam a vacuum in the back of a babies head to suck it's brains out. That's just my opinion though.

[Randomizer]

I consider that a right of a human being to live has a higher priority than self-ownership of a body by a woman. The question here is whether or not the fetus is assumed to be a human being with full legal and moral protection this gives.
We do not consider taking life universally wrong. We can take life in self-defense, we can take life at war, we can take life of an animal. Morality is not absolute (except for religious types). It is a set of values and guidelines the society creates in order to fuction the best way. For example killing someone who attacks you can be considered no less a loss and tragedy than killing an innocent person, however by refusing someone a right to self-defense you are encouraging more attacks and more deaths as a whole. Thus the society decided that in this particular case the generally accepted humans' right to live will be overriden and we no longer consider killing in self-defense immoral. Likewise we do not consider killing an animal when there is a clear need for that immoral. So in order to establish what definitions and rules we will use on something that is a a grey area (which abortion is) it is necessary to see what what is in the best interest of the society in the long term.
The thing is, women get pregnant without wanting to. It happens. Considering a fetus a full person from the start and banning abortion will lead to many unwanted babies which is detrimental to the society.
Granted, the best interest of the society on the particular issue can be insufficient if it breaks the consistency of a system as a whole. In this case it can be argued that allowing to kill an individual for the best interest of the society breaks the internal consistensy of systems based on rights of individual which includes libertarian. Using the same logic for example you can genetically engineer a race of slaves and proclaim that it is in the best interests of the society to have them.
I believe that this argument can be countred the following way. Abortion considts of two elements. First it is the actual killing of a creature in its current state with all the ensuing losses, and second it is the loss of the potential of a human developing in the future. The fetus itself, at least at the early stages has the development level of an animal and the losses of aborting it are minimal. The second is more tricky. However using the logic that aborting a potential human is wrong, you should also consider it criminal to prevent the appearance of even the humans that were not concieved, like the use of contraception or a married couple deciding not to have children. Thus killing is only wrong when the fetus has evolved enough so that it's killing can be considered cruel by itself. Considering this I believe it is best to set the age upon which someone is considered an individual with rights either at birth or at least in such a way that it gives a window of opportunity to abort the fetus.
It should be noted that should our techniques of contraception improve sufficiently to be completely reliable even given human nature, the situation will change and without the actual sufficent need for abortion the principles system will become more consistent with adoption of pro-life policy which people already described here.

[Garibaldi]

I noticed you said a fetus has the development of an animal. This is not a legitimate argument, for a few reasons. One, physical appearence don't determine what is human. If a man is horribly mutilated in an accident and comes out with no legs, a squashed abdomen region, and three fingers per hand, he no longer looks human. The other perspective owuld be intellectual development, which is also wrong. Apes and 5 year old girls are just as smart as each other, and the ape is probably less violent. Does that mean we should be allowed to kill a five year old girl?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Garibaldi - perhaps it is immoral to kill a chimp AND immoral to kill a 5-year-old?

As it is, equating enwombed humans with animals or humans who aren't solely dependent on a mother is itself a false analogy of the type you seem so keen to avoid.

[Garibaldi]

I was pointing out randomizers fallacy, and no, it is not immoral to kill a chimp. I'm not sure how they taste, but they better start feeding the hungry or get out of the way of progress.

[democrat-hippie]

That fetus is half the man's who impregnated her.

Yes that is true, but the man has no right to tell her she has to have the babie if she does not want to. Sure, the man needed to have sexual intercourse to make the fetus (unless the sperm was donated) but the woman has to carrie the fetus, go through the pain of labor, and give the child nutrience for it to survive...all the man has to do is have sexual intercourse.

And is it fair to the child if it is born unwanted, into a home without proper care? no. And sure, the babie can be put up for adoption, but many mothers would rather keep the child, thinking she can raise it properly, only to find out that child care is very hard. It is not fair to the mother, or the child.

I think you have some fucked up priorities when you think it's morally wrong to kill a cow to make a cheeseburger, but it's ok to jam a vacuum in the back of a babies head to suck it's brains out. That's just my opinion though.

you are right...that is your opinion. And i am sure many feel the same way...but i have my reasons.

[Todd D.]

Yes that is true, but the man has no right to tell her she has to have the babie if she does not want to. Sure, the man needed to have sexual intercourse to make the fetus (unless the sperm was donated) but the woman has to carrie the fetus, go through the pain of labor, and give the child nutrience for it to survive...all the man has to do is have sexual intercourse.

I can't repeat this enough, that was a consequence that the woman chose to accept when she decided to have sex. The very same logic is used to force men to pay child care payments if the woman chose to keep the baby, so why can't it be applied to women who get pregnant? The answer is because we live in a hypocritical world. Men are forced to be accountable to women, but women have absolutely zero accountability towards men.

And is it fair to the child if it is born unwanted, into a home without proper care? no. And sure, the babie can be put up for adoption, but many mothers would rather keep the child, thinking she can raise it properly, only to find out that child care is very hard. It is not fair to the mother, or the child.

Is it fair that my friend is paralyzed because he had a few too many drinks before taking the car out for a spin? Yes. Why? Because he made a decision and now is facing the consequences. The consequences of sexual intercourse is that there is a possibility that you may be pregnant, so yes, it is fair. Both men and women need to be held accountable for those consequences. The ONLY party that I feel sorry for is the child, but I have no sympathy for a woman or a man that chose to do what they did. None whatsoever.

[democrat-hippie]

Both men and women need to be held accountable for those consequences. The ONLY party that I feel sorry for is the child, but I have no sympathy for a woman or a man that chose to do what they did. None whatsoever.

yes- but what about the child in the middle of this? should the child be a punishment to the woman for having sex? absolutly not, the child does not deserve a life like that, i would rather be aborted before birth, than being abused, neglected, and unloved. Like i said, some mothers do not want to give up the child, so they keep it, not knowing how hard child care is.

so the point is...the child should not be a punishment to the man and woman for having sex..it deserves better than that.

[Todd D.]

yes- but what about the child in the middle of this? should the child be a punishment to the woman for having sex? absolutly not, the child does not deserve a life like that, i would rather be aborted before birth, than being abused, neglected, and unloved. Like i said, some mothers do not want to give up the child, so they keep it, not knowing how hard child care is.

so the point is...the child should not be a punishment to the man and woman for having sex..it deserves better than that.

I do not accept the idea that someone would rather never have existed than to MAYBE live in an environment that is less than pleasant. At least with being born, they have a chance. Being aborted is a unilateral decision that gives the child an absolute zero chance of life. I don't find that right.

Live in Poverty or Die? I'll live in poverty any day of the week.

[democrat-hippie]

you still havent answered my question,

that was a consequence that the woman chose to accept when she decided to have sex.

should the child be a punishment for the parents for having sex? I do not think a child should be a punishment, more like a privilage, but the way you are saying "accepting the consequence" you are making it sound like a punishment.

so i throw it at you again...should the child be a punishment for the parents for having sex?

[Randomizer]

I noticed you said a fetus has the development of an animal. This is not a legitimate argument, for a few reasons. One, physical appearence don't determine what is human. If a man is horribly mutilated in an accident and comes out with no legs, a squashed abdomen region, and three fingers per hand, he no longer looks human. The other perspective owuld be intellectual development, which is also wrong. Apes and 5 year old girls are just as smart as each other, and the ape is probably less violent. Does that mean we should be allowed to kill a five year old girl?

The point is that intellectual development, emotional maturity, the ability to understand death among other things of a fetus at early stages is less than that of a mature animal, at least of some species, and we are comfortable with the concept of killing them (pigs for example who are highly intelligent). I am quite willing to set a more strict standart for humans no matter at what stage than for animals, but this still leaves a window of opportunity to abort the fetus since based on just this point, with other one (the fetus will become a human in the future) out of the way (see original post), the rights from conception argument becomes absurd. A single cell feels and suffers nothing. It's just a matter of at what stage exactly you assume that it is developed enough to possess value (not in the sense of property and usefulness) on its own.

[Todd D.]

should the child be a punishment for the parents for having sex? I do not think a child should be a punishment, more like a privilage, but the way you are saying "accepting the consequence" you are making it sound like a punishment.

so i throw it at you again...should the child be a punishment for the parents for having sex?

Exactly, should the child be put to a death sentence because the parents decided to have sex? There are opportunities for every human being on the face of the earth. Some are harder than others, but at least living gives them that chance. Being dead does not. So no, the child should not be given the death penalty because the parents chose to have sex.

[democrat-hippie]

first- that is not what i asked. I will repeat, should the child be used as a punishment to the perants for having sex?

second- it is not a child- it is a fetus. It can not think, speak, or have any intilectual brain waves. so i really do not feel bad if it is aborted.

third- i have to thank you for being a good debater against me, and really debating. Many people get pissed off, and start screaming at me.

fourth- Once again....it is the mothers body, not yours. do not preach to her on what she should do with HER body

[Todd D.]

first- that is not what i asked. I will repeat, should the child be used as a punishment to the perants for having sex?

I don't consider a baby a "punishment" any more than I consider a gut a "punishment" for eating fatty foods. I consider it a consequence. In fact, I would suggest that a majority of people would call a baby, any baby, a blessing, not a punishment.

second- it is not a child- it is a fetus. It can not think, speak, or have any intilectual brain waves. so i really do not feel bad if it is aborted.

Before the partial birth abortion ban was put into effect, which almost as liberals cite as being Unconsitutional, babies could be aborted in the third trimester, and at points way later than some premature babies are birthed. It doesn't have brain waves? You might want to read up on that guy, babies spend an awful lot of time dreaming. I would call that brainwaves. Speaking is not a prerequesite for life, since the biological makeup of the womb obviously prevents any air from passing over the vocal chords.

third- i have to thank you for being a good debater against me, and really debating. Many people get pissed off, and start screaming at me.

Honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I will accept it as not and say thank you.

fourth- Once again....it is the mothers body, not yours. do not preach to her on what she should do with HER body

I don't consder a fetus to be HER body. I consider it to be a resident of her womb, but the fact remains that I consider it to be a different life. Therefore I am not telling her what to do with HER body, I am telling her what she cannot do with her baby's body. No different than laws against child abuse.

[democrat-hippie]

It doesn't have brain waves? You might want to read up on that guy, babies spend an awful lot of time dreaming. I would call that brainwaves.

http://www.bfl.org/crisis/life.htm

It says here "Dream patterns have been discovered around the eighth or ninth week. "
and "Six weeks after conception signals from the fetal brain can be detected."
so- i did read up on it, and those things only happen later. And it also says "Most abortions are not performed until the eighth week (56 days) of a pregnancy, or a little later." so- it has very little, if not at all brainwaves before the abortion. and a lot of other tings happen, around the 9th week, but for most fetus's, they have allready been aborted.

I consider it to be a resident of her womb,

ok- let is reside somewhere else and see how long it survives. She keeps it alive, she can decide when not to keep it alive.

[Visage of Glory]

so i throw it at you again...should the child be a punishment for the parents for having sex?

Punishment is not the same as consequence. There is always going to be consequences for your actions. If you accept them as a punishment or blessing, that is up to the person.

[democrat-hippie]

Did any one read what i wrote?

It says here "Dream patterns have been discovered around the eighth or ninth week. "
and "Six weeks after conception signals from the fetal brain can be detected."
so- i did read up on it, and those things only happen later. And it also says "Most abortions are not performed until the eighth week (56 days) of a pregnancy, or a little later." so- it has very little, if not at all brainwaves before the abortion. and a lot of other tings happen, around the 9th week, but for most fetus's, they have allready been aborted.

i think this deserves discussion.

[Garibaldi]

The point is that intellectual development, emotional maturity, the ability to understand death among other things of a fetus at early stages is less than that of a mature animal, at least of some species, and we are comfortable with the concept of killing them (pigs for example who are highly intelligent). I am quite willing to set a more strict standart for humans no matter at what stage than for animals, but this still leaves a window of opportunity to abort the fetus since based on just this point, with other one (the fetus will become a human in the future) out of the way (see original post), the rights from conception argument becomes absurd. A single cell feels and suffers nothing. It's just a matter of at what stage exactly you assume that it is developed enough to possess value (not in the sense of property and usefulness) on its own.

I don't agree with the terms of intellectual maturity, a fetus is a being with it's own genetic code, that correlates it to being human, and a a fuctioning system. While it can be debated whether or not it has a consious, that should not be considerd unless another being with the same genetic code exist who already has consious.

[Aethris]

I don't agree with the terms of intellectual maturity, a fetus is a being with it's own genetic code, that correlates it to being human, and a a fuctioning system. While it can be debated whether or not it has a consious, that should not be considerd unless another being with the same genetic code exist who already has consious.

First time posting but reading this I just have to ask, are you against artificial insemination?
As far as I know if involves taking several eggs from the woman and mixing them with a several sperm producing a number of potentials. One is implanted and if it takes the rest are normally destroyed, assuming the couple does not want more children. Each of those potentials has a unique genetic code that is not shared by any other conscious being.

I personally don't believe the fetus has a human right to life at conception.

Aethris