Abortion?

You agree that the baby has no rights, but you don't know if that...makes it rational...in the aspects of killing it? I'm afraid I don't understand.

Why not?

"Abortion is just wrong. If the woman conceives, she has to deal with the consequences. I don't have to explain why - simply stating my position makes me correct."

Can you explain why?

 

1. I mean, does it make it right in killing the baby? No, of course not.
-Sorry of my terrible choice of words. I'm not a "Shredder".

2. I don't understand what you mean by "Why not?"
-I am simply stating that if you're going to have "unprotected" Sex, that you should not have an abortion if a baby is imbued within' the Woman. It was her choice to make, unless it was a case of rape.
-In the event of "rape", I believe that it would be alright to have an Abortion, for "some" reasons.

3. I am simply saying that she has to deal with the consquences because she was the one who chose to have Sex. She could've simply said no, but was apparently in a "whore" state of being, unless of course, it was rape. I have stated above that in the case of rape, I believe the woman should be permitted to get an abortion, because it wasn't her choice in that case. She was forced against her will to perform such actions.

_________________________________________________________

What next, Shredder. I know I'll fail in Debate with you!

 

You claim that it's wrong to kill a being without rights (including the right to life)? How so?

Why shouldn't I?

If abortion is immoral, then how on Earth do you justify it in cases of rape?

You have not justified why she must carry the baby to term if she willingly consented to sex. Why can't she have an abortion?

That's not a very positive outlook.

 

But you yourself have stated that it is an irrational being, and therefore bears no rights.
Yet, I have stated that it should not be killed, except in the event of rape. Here, circumstances are to exist.

In cases of rape, the baby was obviously meant to exist if it had been imbued, but for all the wrong reasons. I don't believe that it would be right, in my view, that a woman would have to carry a baby that she never wanted, for she did not have a choice in it to exist. The only option she would have to choose, is having an abortion, or killing it after said baby had been born.

If she willingly consents to having sex, and a baby is to be imbued, then she must carry the baby for the full 9 terms, because it is not the babies fault for it to be destroyed, for said woman had apt to have Sex in the first place.

Neither is people saying they want Obama dead, which I am not in support of.

 

Yes, I have said that it has zero rights. So, why is it wrong to kill it?

If abortion is equal to murder, then rape case abortions are also murders. Why do you justify murder to spare the woman a little psychological trauma?

Imbued? Apt? These words are not being used correctly. >_>

It doesn't matter if it's the baby's fault - it has no rights. It is comparable to a rock, or a worm.

 

Yes, I have said that it has zero rights. So, why is it wrong to kill it?

--Is it right to kill any individual? Of course not. It is against the law to kill, and that was not my initial proposition.

If abortion is equal to murder, then rape case abortions are also murders. Why do you justify murder to spare the woman a little psychological trauma?

--Abortion is not equal to murder, and I have not stated such a notion.
And how would this justify me sparing the woman psychological trauma?

Imbued? Apt? These words are not being used correctly. >_>

It doesn't matter if it's the baby's fault - it has no rights. It is comparable to a rock, or a worm.

--Well, I'm sorry that I'm not as well informed in the English language as you.
A baby cannot be considered to be an object, for it has a Soul and Organs from which it exists. A baby is not a rock, and if a baby had no rights, then please explain to me why people go to prison for killing babies? In killing a baby, it's right to live had been brought forth, which even you have stated above.
Hmm... Contradictory. Please explain.

 

Killing a person is a violation of their rights - but a fetus has no rights. It's like killing a worm, or a weed.

If abortion is not equal to murder, then how is it wrong? How on Earth does the fetus have any sort of right to stay alive?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your arguments, given your word choice. Your quoting method isn't helping either.

Now we're getting somewhere. What evidence do you have of a baby having a soul?

Also, organs are not the basis of rights.

The law does not define morality or logic. Simply because there is a law against killing babies does not mean that the babies have natural rights.

It is not a rational being. It doesn't actually have rights.

 

As stated above, you have argued how a fetus has a right to live.
-This is a Thread about Abortion.
-Fetus' really don't have a right to live I guess, for it is just an opinion.

I give up for now, until I can compose my thoughts. (I'm really off tonight.)
-Shredderbeam wins on 11-20-08

 

If a Fetus has no rights, then why is it that people are sent to Prison for killing two; if they are to kill the Woman, and the Fetus within? In this, is there no right being seen for the Fetus? =D

So you say that Abortion is rational, but can you explain why you think so?
A fetus has such a right to stay alive, for it feeds off of its Mother to live. They mother has the choice to make the decision to have an Abortion, but if someone is so "make" the decision for her, then it is against the law.

Well, I've re-organized it just for you.

Everyone has a Soul in themselves, on which decides whether they are good or evil. I never said that organs were not the basis of rights, but simply of what an individual is composed of.

Oh, yes it does. The babies have been given the natural right to live unless the Mother is to decide differently. This is why people are charged for two murders, as stated above, if a Woman and her unborn child is killed.

And you can prove that a Fetus doesn't have right?
Do you want to ask a Judge their opinion?

--Aha, and I now have not given up. This is fun.

 

That is not my argument.

As I said above:

"The law does not define morality or logic. Simply because there is a law against killing babies does not mean that the babies have natural rights."

So anything that feeds from its mother has a right to life? I don't see how the act of receiving nourishment from a mother suddenly grants rights.

Empirical evidence of a soul, please.

Perhaps you do not understand me when I say "the law does not define morality". The law is a set of rules that everybody in a society agrees to live by - it is not automatically moral by definition. Think of historical examples: Were all of the Nazi laws automatically moral?

Actually, the burden of proof is upon you. Entities are assumed not to have rights until they can be proven to have them.

Again, we are speaking of natural rights, not legal ones.

 

Alot of good points were made.
But here's the zinger- none of you have ovaries.

Abortion should be allowed, but never encouraged.

 

What do ovaries have to do with it?

 

What Shredderbeam said and :-

Did you know that dolphins sometimes have sex for pleasure only?

I think she was trying to be funny.

 

Everything.

 

I really dont believe in it yet i kinda support it.
I don't believe some one should get an abortion if they got knocked up and dont want a baby.
I do believe if you get raped you should be able to have it done.

"Abortion you make them, We scape them"

 

Specifically?

 

This is where I go god mode.

I mean I understand if you get raped you would want a abortion but really is a gift from god. A baby is something that cant be thrown around. You cant have sex and be like "Oh ill have a baby another time" and leading to getting a abortion. Thats wrong. Its disgusting. A fetus should have rights. Its another living being which has a heart(well soon) and soul. No one should be allowed to kill a baby just because they got raped or had sex and didn't want it.

 

Getting raped and thus becoming pregnant is a gift from God?

Why not? And I thought we were talking about a woman getting forcefully raped here anyway.

You haven't justified your position at all. Prove that the soul exists, and give me one good reason having a physical heart should grant a fetus rights.

 

Specifically that you, Darren, will never have an abortion because you are a man, which means you do not have female sexual organs.

People, collectively, are not in the position to make such a decision about another human beings' body and what they can and cannot do with it.

If anyone who supports the complete ban of abortion acts claims to have an "ethical" motive/objection, banning "abortion" would mean a woman who miscarries cannot have a medical procedure to remove the dead fetus.

That doesn't seem very ethical.

 

It is an issue to be resolved by logic - which would be unaffected by the possession of ovaries.