Late Term Abortion

[Adrian II]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

[HoreTore]

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

[Strike For The South]

And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not.



And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf

Lol thats a fallacy. As soon as woman finds out she is pregnant she sould stop drinking and smoking the effects in the earlier part of the pregnancy (the part in which she doesnt know) are negligible.

Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

[HoreTore]

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

If there are retarded people out there still living in their mothers womb against her will, then yes, I certainly support getting them out, retarded or not!

[Adrian II]

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

I already told you.

Basically, this is for the same reason why nations have the right to defend themselves, even if that means killing innocents in the process.

Social security has nothing to do with this.

Nor has the fact that humans are mammals. That's a naturalistic fallacy. Do gerbils have freedom rights? We're mammals alright, but we're human mammals. We do things differently.

[Strike For The South]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

Is this really an arguement you're putting forth. Its how mammals have children its not some intrusion it is a living human. The human got there by having an act that she knew couldvery well lead to pregnancy. I would also like to point what you describe is a parasitic relationship and that is how science defines a baby in the womb

[Kralizec]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

You're against social security too, now?

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

[Samurai Waki]

You're against social security too, now?

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

Well said Sir. And about the point where I stand on the issue; the reason why I've been acting a little more pro choice, is simply because I don't want to see that option go away.

[Viking]

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting?

[Kralizec]

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting?

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

[Viking]

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

[Craterus]

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

[Viking]

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

I have not been argumenting against late term abortion, though, only about when a human is human (which is not at all the same line of argumentation); which of course there is no absolute answer to at all. Nothing is ever perfectly round, but some figures are rounder than others.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

Children live and feed off of their parents until the age of 16-20 (35 for the extreme case lol).

People who have sex accept the possibility of becoming pregnant. The baby has the right to feed off of the mother because she said it could. First she said it could by having sex, then by not aborting it while it was still unconscious. Obvious exceptions made for girls who are underage or who were raped. Also obvious exceptions if the pregnancy significantly threatens the health of the mother, or if the baby has a serious enough medical condition (metabolic disorders, no working kidney's etc). There may be a couple other exceptions I can't recall at the moment.

If the none of the exceptions are met I have to disagree with you Adrian. Pregnancy and child birth are harsh to deal with but that's life, sometimes you just have to suck it up. If you don't want the baby give it up for adoption.