Abortion

[Shredderbeam]

What if it is up to the point of pain? I think I remember you once saying that babies have rights because they're going to be rational when they're older. Why is it that the line is drawn after the fetus/child comes out? It is the Woman's body, but it is also the body of a future person that has rights. And one of those rights, is the right to live.

If it is up to the point of pain, then it is just as eligible for moral consideration as any other creature that can feel the same amount of pain.

I changed my mind about the "rationality" argument.

Who is to say when life truly begins? A child of two has the right to live, even though he might not understand it. The fetus does not have a concept of itself, true, so what is the difference?

Biologically, it is easy to say when life begins, but that is not what I am arguing. I am attempting to argue for when an individual should have rights.

 

[bensino]

Text doesn't really convey who a person is. Don't assume.

You say "logic and science" like it's a bad thing.

It is not originally bad. When all you can rely on is logic and science, then its bad.

You have no right to tell me what to do with my body. You are responsible for yours, I am responsible for mine. If something is inside of me, how on Earth can you force me to sustain it for nine months if I don't want to?

For the very reason that the fetus is not autonomous nor self-sustaining the mother must protect and nurture it until it has reached that point. The fetus was developed solely for one reason: to live. For that, it has the right to live.

 

[Bewood]

The fetus was developed solely for one reason: to live. For that, it has the right to live.

Chairs were developed to be sat on, to provide a seat.

Are you telling me that it has the right to be sat on?

(p.s.
get on msn or reply to pm's)

 

[bensino]

Chairs were developed to be sat on, to provide a seat.

Are you telling me that it has the right to be sat on?

(p.s.
get on msn or reply to pm's)

I hate when you give examples with chairs or something non-living. It just makes you seem unintelligent. Clearly, a fetus and a chair are two completely different things. A chair will always be a chair. A fetus will be a living, rational human being.

I'm more interested in protecting the rights of those who are autonomous and rational.

I can't stress this any more: we are responsible for our bodies, we control our own bodies, we own our own bodies, and if we don't want to sustain a fetus for nine months inside of our bodies, we don't have to.

Protecting the rights? What rights should be availible, to someone killing a future human being, just because they want a girl instead of a boy?

 

[bensino]

.. Do you know what abortion is?

Very much so, and as i posted earlier on this thread, I believe that if there is a clearly legitimate reason for the abortion, such as the child having a horrible life when born, then it should be allowed. I did however post that illegitimate reasons should not be accepted as basis for abortion; such as not wanting a boy child. At this Shredderbeam replied, Why not?

 

[Shredderbeam]

It is not originally bad. When all you can rely on is logic and science, then its bad.

In order to come to a conclusion on certain issues, we must throw emotions out the window and rely upon reason. This is one of those issues.

For the very reason that the fetus is not autonomous nor self-sustaining the mother must protect and nurture it until it has reached that point. The fetus was developed solely for one reason: to live. For that, it has the right to live.

The fetus was not "developed for a reason". It is simply a natural occurrence when sperm fertilizes an egg. Nothing is guiding it.

A fetus will be a living, rational human being.

Future characteristics of a being have no bearing upon its moral status now - it is important to realize that the future has not happened yet, nor does it exist in some otherworldly realm. All that matters is now.

Very much so, and as i posted earlier on this thread, I believe that if there is a clearly legitimate reason for the abortion, such as the child having a horrible life when born, then it should be allowed. I did however post that illegitimate reasons should not be accepted as basis for abortion; such as not wanting a boy child. At this Shredderbeam replied, Why not?

Why can't a woman have an abortion if she wants a son? The fetus is equivalent, in terms of sensibility and self-concept, to a slug.

 

[bensino]

Why can't a woman have an abortion if she wants a son? The fetus is equivalent, in terms of sensibility and self-concept, to a slug.

No it is not. The slug will always remain a slug, whereas the fetus is the beginning of the most rational being on earth. One must also make decisions concerning the future in these situations.

Now lunch is over so i must leave. Can't asses the other things said.

 

[d great one]

Abortion, is not wrong if use in a good way. Like rape victims etc... (specially the ones who were raped by their own father).
Bad if abused like in example irresponsible teenagers or some woman who got preggy and doesn't want it.
Just my opinion though.

 

[Bewood]

I hate when you give examples with chairs or something non-living. It just makes you seem unintelligent. Clearly, a fetus and a chair are two completely different things. A chair will always be a chair. A fetus will be a living, rational human being.

I did it on purpose.

 

[The Riddler_]

Sometimes, hormones take over, kid. Sometimes, it's not that easy to think about, "I may get pregnant from this". Besides that, you're a hypocrite. "So much negativity", yet, look at the words you typed not even 5 seconds before.

How am I a hypocrite? All I said is that it was saddening, not that I was the most positive person in here.

It is a part of my body, it is irrational, and I'll do as I please with my body. If I want to have a liver removed, I can, as it's my liver, and whether or not I choose for it to be removed is none of your business. The same applies to the irrational fetus, which is not autonomous in any way. It requires me to care for it, and I am not obligated to care for anything or anyone.

Finn, right now your being very irrational. By what you believe in, if the baby is going to be born within 3 days, the mother can just stab herself in the stomach?

 

[Shredderbeam]

No it is not. The slug will always remain a slug, whereas the fetus is the beginning of the most rational being on earth. One must also make decisions concerning the future in these situations.

As I said above, the future does not exist - it is something that is going to happen. Why would something be accorded rights because of its future?

 

[cubfan57]

An unborn baby can not feel pain, this is one of your arguments... Go ahead and kill someone as long as it doesnt hurt then?
You have other irrational reasons too, but explain me this one. Just this one, dont go off into anything else.

 

[Shredderbeam]

An unborn baby can not feel pain, this is one of your arguments... Go ahead and kill someone as long as it doesnt hurt then?
You have other irrational reasons too, but explain me this one. Just this one, dont go off into anything else.

There are multiple reasons why it is acceptable to destroy a fetus, and not a full-grown human - the ability to feel pain is one.

The idea behind this is that it is inconsistent of us to inflict pain upon others when we ourselves do not wish to have pain inflicted upon us.

 

[Swan]

If she wants to, but that's generally not the preferred method of aborting a fetus.

May I point out that it is also one of the most dangerous and potentially fatal ways of doing so, as well.

 

Personally, I believe that I should be able to get an abortion if I see fit. If I were to accidentally get pregnant at 16 years of age, what would I do? I wouldn't be able to support my own child. Every woman has their own reasons for getting an abortion.

 

[The Riddler_]

If she wants to, but that's generally not the preferred method of aborting a fetus.

I think within 3 days of birth, it is not called a fetus.

 

[Live sabre]

Well up untill the time the time the embryo becomes a foetus, i believe it is ok, as it does not have any Human like characteristics, however at about 12-18 weeks it is a foetus, and looks like a human.. I think up untill then it is the mothers choice, but after then i consider it murder.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Personally, I believe that I should be able to get an abortion if I see fit. If I were to accidentally get pregnant at 16 years of age, what would I do? I wouldn't be able to support my own child. Every woman has their own reasons for getting an abortion.

What if the child were two years old, you were barely able to support yourself, and no adoption/foster options were available to you? The situation would be the same - would you think that you have the right to kill the child?

Well up untill the time the time the embryo becomes a foetus, i believe it is ok, as it does not have any Human like characteristics, however at about 12-18 weeks it is a foetus, and looks like a human.. I think up untill then it is the mothers choice, but after then i consider it murder.

The fact that it looks like a human does not grant it moral status - it is having the characteristics of a human which does this.

 

[Xbl00dx]

I personally don't agree with this. Because. In my opinion It's murder.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I personally don't agree with this. Because. In my opinion It's murder.

Why do you think that it's murder?