Abortion

And as I have pointed out to you, "life" alone is not the criteria for having rights. If it were, all things living, from trees to bacteria, would have a right to life.

I am not making the argument that because a fetus survives inside the mother, it is not human. I am arguing that whatever the criteria for having rights may be, they do not abruptly begin at the moment of conception.

 

Why do you think this? Every life starts somewhere.

 

If the criteria for having rights is simply to "be alive", then everything that is alive has rights. If the criteria for having rights is something else, then conception is not where rights begin.

 

I messed up. I added some reply in your quote.

When I say "life" I meen human life. If a woman had a tree growning inside of here no one would have a problem with her killing it.

 

There are so many things that come into play when talking about abortion.

rape, age, income, accidental.

Overall I think it is acceptable but there are some things I personally do not agree on, human cloning being one of them.

 

Aparently you havent read my previous posts.

Here is what I think. Again..

1. A woman had unsafe sex.

2. She should have to deal with the consciquences.

3. 9 months holding time is nothing. It may be a small hinderence to everyday life... but a mother can deal with it.

4. A woman who aborts a baby is selfish and only cares about herself and could care less about anyone elses life.

5. Once a woman has a baby she becomes attached to it. If she still wants to be rid of it, there is always adoption.

6. Rape is less that .01% of abortions and should not be even taken into consederation when deciding if aborting is right or wrong.

 

Why would you say that?

Yeah, so?

Why? Why should she deal with UNNECESSARY consequences?

Yes, only a small hinderence ... Alright, go and ask some mothers what they think of that comment, then.

Oh? Since when does abortion imply selfishness?

A lot easier to get an abortion - also a lot faster.

Yeah, so?

---

I draw the conclusion in terms of rationality. A fetus is not rational, therefore aborting a fetus makes no difference. You can not apply future arguments to this because the future hasn't happened yet.

 

I think it's right. Having a baby can ruin many lives, having an abortion hurts nobody.

 

Well by 1 way i think this sould be banned because it is a killing of another person and by other way it shouldnt because well if you do it like 2 weeks after you got pregnant the baby well i cant really call it a baby wouldnt feel really nothing... Btw some girl of my class is pregnant atm :O

 

Like I said in a previous post... A two year old has the right to live, even though it does not comprehend its new right. This thing cannot feed itself, or take care of itself. Why do we not simply let it die? Why is it wrong for the parents to kill this thing? Because it will become a rational being. So with this, the present-condition-rationality argument does not apply with modern morality, right?

 

No, to be rational a lot of the time (usually most of the time) you have to throw morals out of the window.

 

This is what I think. Allot of people really care of their child because it is their child and they want to help to get more people on this planet. I don't know allot of people who want to extinct the human race.
So next is that using a condom only protects you for around 95%. So you still have a 5% chance you get pregnant. The only fail proof method would be sterilization and then you also have to wait a few days after you are sterilized.
Yes, you should make people more aware about unwanted pregnancy, but you can't expect a teenage girl to keep her baby.

It hasn't have to be a woman's fault.

Why should she?

Ask any woman if 9 months is nothing. I bet over 95% will say it's a huge deal.

I wish it was so easy. Finding foster parents is hard nowadays. It will become even harder if no one will abort his unwanted child.

And remember it's a unwanted child, not a unneeded child.

 

Ok, then if a human life has rights, when does it receive these rights? If it is at the moment of conception, then why can't a rabbit fetus have rights? The difference between the two is hardly noticeable.

No, it is wrong to kill a two year old because it can feel pain, and it can see itself as a distinct being with a past and a future.

 

Animals dont have the same rights as humans






Oh and btw it seems like mods are trying to find an excust to infract me... are all mods like this? I accidentally make a double post then get infracted =s

 

Why don't they?

You are arguing that a fetus has rights as soon as it is conceived - but the only quality that the embryo has at that stage is being alive. Why is that enough to guarantee it rights?

Reversed, double posting doesn't matter in SFA when you're debating intelligently.

 

Why isn't it enought to garantee?

 

Well, if being alive is a guarantee of rights, then all things that are alive should have rights.

But, hey, you're the one making that argument, so the burden of proof is upon you.

 

Then why are we debating in the first place? I thought we were all debating from the shared idea that murder is immoral. I thought we were trying to find out when a human first obtains its rights.

I wasn't disagreeing with your pain argument. I was seeing if I could poke holes in his rationality one.

 

You've pretty much got the same point of view as me.

If you planned on the baby, you'd better be damn sure responsible enough to have it.
If you "planned" on having it, and have one, you've never really planned on it.
You need to me 100% sure you're not going to have a change of mind in this one, bud.
People get "cold feet" but that doesn't change anything.

If it's not planned, and somehow from a rape, Unprotected sex, broken condom, Or any other thing that defines you not wanting a baby at the time.
That would possibly be okay.
I could understand that.

 

Technically speaking, a baby isn't a baby until it can live on it's own (take it's first breathe). While the baby is being developed it is considered a fetus. It is a fetus until you cut the umbilical cord and it breathes on it's own. Thus, the fetus inside of you would not be killing because it is yet to be a human. You would consider a baby a human but not a fetus, because, a fetus cannot live on it's own. A fetus is reliant on the person giving birth to it. For example if your mother smoked crack, or cigarettes at the least, the health of the fetus will develop poorly. If you do not see my point, basically it is not murder because it is not a human until it can live on it's own. But it is murder when you are poor with decisions such as smoking cigarettes and heavy drinking, because the child is born with a deformity and likely to die after it's birth.