The baby’s right to life is more important than the women’s choice to do what she wants with her own body. There are 2 bodies involved here not just one.
Did you not say a freezer full of embryos? Unless there are 500 pregnant women in the freezer then the embryos have not been implanted. Your scenario has nothing to do with the debate here at all. You’re just making up ridiculous scenarios that would never happen in real life just to prove some kind of ridiculous point. You don’t have a point.
You’re not worth my time either. I don’t know why I bother to reason with you. There is a way you can put me on ignore so I don’t waste anymore of your time you know.
Lots of things that are otherwise legal will jeopardize a professional license (e.g., sleeping with patients). I have no idea whether an abortion that close to term is one of them, but I could certainly believe that it might count as professional malpractice to abort instead of inducing labor and delivering a full-term baby.
I cannot explain why I think abortion is wrong any more clearly than with the above quote.
What about the soon-to-be dead bodies of all the people on the various organ transplant waiting lists? Why does my right to do what I want with my own body trump their right to a liver/heart/etc?
That’s not what we’re talking about here and I already answered that question. I did not cause their organs to fail. I am not obligated to put my life in danger to save them.
You do know that giving someone a kidney is not like removing a splinter right?
I guess I have less confidence in the medical profession’s self-policing than you do. Human beings have a wonderful capacity for gaming the rules, and organizations will protect their own unless the cost is very high.
For example, you’d mightfind that a surprising number of hypothetical patients in the hypothetical doctor’s practice were at risk of mental health injury at the prospect of delivery. Said doctor might even have a hypothetical mental health care professional colleague that would certify said patient as at-risk.
Principle of Double Effect. Learn it. Love it.
And in a world where ending pregnancy didn’t automatically mean fetal death, you’d see a lot more available embryos up for adoption. My assertion is just as backed as yours, Kreskin, since your argument has devolved into “I know exactly what all women who want abortions are thinking”.
I have never asserted that.
Certainly: The right to not be forced to give up your body to the whims of others is arguably the most important right. There, I’ve done it in my axiom system.
Sure there is–or are there no spontaneous abortions or miscarriages or stillbirths in your fantasy world?
No, but I’d certainly not accuse you of illogic.
I’ve said numerous times, I don’t care if you are pro-life, just don’t try to defend your damn beliefs with spurious logic and act like it proves anything.
Look, it IS what we’re talking about, when you are throwing around sweeping statements concerning what humans are and what rights they have. From the statements you’ve made, that’s a perfectly reasonable assumption about your beliefs. Since you deny it, you must actually belief that convenience DOES trump life in some cases–from your argument, there is also a duty of care component.
The reason people are continually poking you is that you’re trying to defend your belief with sweeping axiomatic statements that, when put together, result in beliefs that you then assert you don’t hold. This means that something is wrong with your axiom system. It does not mean that your belief is wrong, or invalid, but it does mean that the arguments you are currently using to support it are not convincing.
Neither is giving birth. Kinda my point.
Simply because it’s legal to do a procedure doesn’t make it legal, or within the licensing boards guidelines, to do it on just anyone.
It’s not a baby and there is no body in most abortions.
Thing is, she really only needs one axiom, i.e. it’s a human life at conception.
And people aren’t picking on her for some high level inconsistency with her reasoning. They disagree with both her axiom and the basis for it. If logical inconsistency were the metric, a good half of her opponents would be disqualified for similar reasons.
The problem is that doesn’t work in a vacuum, since it fails the “would you rescue 500 embryos or one five-year-old, all things being equal?” test. That axiom must be modified to function the way she is using it.
Granted, an axiom that would work is “I believe abortion is always wrong”, but the problem is you can’t do anything other than offer it–it will not convince anyone, and so people try to find a set of agreeable axioms and argue from them instead of just believing/voting etc.
I’ve yelled at a few of those.
It is? It’s not.
It’s one of those pages.
It makes no sense, actually. Essentially, what it means is that the woman’s actions are only considered to be wrong if she gives birth to a child which can be proven to have been negatively affected by her prior actions. If that child dies en utero, however, then no harm no foul. Your contention above simply replaces birth with the ability to feel pain. That is, it’s perfectly acceptable to abuse, mistreat and subject that child to all sorts of dangerous toxins before it can feel pain, but not afterwards, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to cause that child to die because of one’s actions before (s)he reaches the age they can feel pain, but not afterwards. In fact, is actually means that if a woman is going to do anything to her unborn child, that she’d better damn well make sure it dies, otherwise she might be in some kind of trouble.
If you stop and think about it, you realize just how ridiculous of a notion this is.
Oh, I realize that no one has complete bodily autonomy. It’s some of your fellow pro-choicers who don’t realize this. You’d better get on them about that.
I’m having trouble believing you would think a self-evident statement (well, as far as you’re concerned, anyway) is some kind of counterargument. Also, what is a clump of cells. You’re a clump of cells. I’m a clump of cells. Everyone posting on this thread is a clump of cells. Try to dump the dehumanization tactic, okay?
I do? Ironically enough, the only people in this thread who have adopted an absolutist approach towards abortion are the pro-choicers. Go figure, right?
You say go with science, yet when you are given what science actually says, you turn around and say that it really doesn’t say what it really does say. How does that work?
lol, really.
To play semantics… Beginning (n): The point in time or space at which something starts. When someone says that conception fertilization marks the beginning of a human’s life, they mean that conception/fertilization is the point in time at which you, as a human, can into being. Your otherwise idiotic assertion would have that you, as a human, had no beginning, which would beg the question as to if you didn’t have any beginning then in what state have you always existed. In fact, your assertion would have that there could be no place in which one could say that you became a human being, as that would necessarily have to be the beginning of your life as a human being and, according to you, “beginning of human does not equal human”. And since you don’t have a beginning as a human being, then there’s no way you can be a human being now. So what are you, exactly?
[quote]
A fertilized egg has no human characteristics, and an early fetus looks more like a fish than a person. Sure, it’s got human DNA, but so does my left hand and my left hand does not have rights separate to me.[/quoute]
You’re clearly ignorant of biology. All (well, I’ll say most. Not sure of plant embryos) embryos, regardless of species, look alike at the beginning of gestation, due to having a common ancestor. At any rate, are we defining individuals out of rights on the way they look now? Just when I thought the pro-choice position couldn’t get any more ridiculous. And comparing the unborn to your hand. Really…? So you believe the unborn are a part of the woman? I just want to make sure I understand before I bother responding.
You mean we should leave people alone to do to others according to their own conscience? Do we extend this benefit to everyone, or just to women in regards to abortion? I’d be willing to bet that it’s just to women in regards to abortion because, otherwise, that’d just be ridiculous.
:rolleyes:
And if it wasn’t for pro-choicers loving to kill babies, then no one would complain. And, seriously, let’s drop the “trying to force their beliefs on others” shtick. Unless you live in an anarchy, and even then, you either force someone to abide by your personal beliefs or you force someone to abide by yours. Let’s not kid ourselves, okay?
“Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.”
G.Tiller
I think, really, that sums up my beliefs.
It isn’t about me.
Thankfully I know what that is. Now respond to what I wrote out. Again I ask, so forcing death upon someone doesn’t violate their right to bodily autonomy? It ain’t a hard question, though I know why you refuse to answer it (especially after stating that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy only pertains to her solely).
And in a world where children are born self-sufficient, no one would ever have to pay child support. Of course, we don’t live in such a world, so it’s a moot point.
No, my assertion based on data compiled but the Alan Guttmacher Institute about the reasons why women have abortions. Your assertion is based on us living in some alternate dimension.
Oh, you didn’t?
How can one be forced to give up their body to the whims of another when that individual was not forced into the situation which required them to give up their body to another? It’d be like arguing that I’m being forced to pay my credit card bill after racking up thousands of dollars in charges. You’re misusing the word “force”.
Also, let’s be frank, what you’re claiming is an axiom, isn’t an axiom in the slightest. It’s a postulate. At least use the correct term. Jesus!
You mean to tell me that you only become a human if you’re born alive? So what are you before then? And, fwiw, I like how your question came out of nowhere and didn’t pertain to a word I said.
You can accuse me of being illogical all you want; perhaps you need to take a gander at the arguments being made by pro-choicers which beget those “illogical” statements. Say what you will, but I find that I’m better able to respond to your posts than you are mine. I mean, if I really wanted to I could have tons of fun with the plethora of rather faulty logic pro-choicers use, but I’m a little more tactful than that 
And in some abortions, the fetus has it’s heart stopped.
Man, that’s a stupid quote but given who said it, I wouldn’t be surprised. An action is not rationalized based on the feelings of the individual engaging in that action.
I’d like to hear some specific examples but let me guess you may be referring to drinking alcohol , smoking, taking drugs , while pregnant. Supporting the woman’s right to choose about her own body, doesn’t mean pro choice folks want women to behave irresponsibly. Most pro choice people I know wouldn’t support a woman who carelessly and recklessly got pregnant repeatedly and had numerous abortions, not would they support a woman who made the conscious choice to carry to term and then behave irresponsibly and recklessly endanger the welfare of that **intended ** child. Both are about making choices, and behaving responsibly, concerning the options you have to choose from. No cognitive dissonance present.
Once again, it’s a matter of having the ability ot make adult responsible choices. Alcoholism or drug addiction, is not an adult responsible choice. Most pro choice people would agree that viability , and the health of a viable fetus is a factor. According to the numbers most women make responsible choices along those lines , since very few abortions are done late 2nd trimester or third trimester. No mental gymnastics present.
The same would be true if the government insists you have to donate blood, or bone marrow, etc to save someone’s life. That’s something you claimed to not support.
Actually she needs another axiom as well. That one human life takes precedent over another life’s basic rights.
we sort through the arguments examining the validity and logic in them to dismiss the ones that don’t hold up. {on both sides} so far the pro life ones don’t IMO.