The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Neither side can ever prove exactly when a fetus becomes a human, or where life actually begins. It will always be a matter of opinion. Villifying one side or the other does no good.

So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother?

[Big_John]

I'll rephrase it - if you're even considering maybe having an abortion, except out of extreme necessity, you should not have gotten pregnant.

your need to put more skill points into your rephrasing attribute.

So if you went back 4 generations there would have been more people who thought abortion should be legal ?
Somehow I think you got your numbers wrong .

are you denying that abortion is an inherited trait??? madness.

So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother?

why not err on the side of caution and ban governmental encroachment into the rights of women to determination over their own bodies?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

your need to put more skill points into your rephrasing attribute.

Don't get pregnant if you're not prepared to raise the child. Don't have sex if you're not willing to accept the risk. It's not like sex is an accident or anything - you have the choice on whether you want to do it or not (except in the case of rape, in which case I reluctantly support abortion).

why not err on the side of caution and ban governmental encroachment into the rights of women to determination over their own bodies?

Life or government intrusion which does not exist?

[Big_John]

Don't get pregnant if you're not prepared to raise the child. Don't have sex if you're not willing to accept the risk. It's not like sex is an accident or anything - you have the choice on whether you want to do it or not (except in the case of rape, in which case I reluctantly support abortion).

cool, but that has nothing to do with my original statement. allow me to rephrase your words into something similar to my original statement that started this odd sequence...

"Don't get pregnant if you're not prepared to have an abortion. Don't have sex if you're not willing to have an abortion. It's not like sex is an accident or anything - you have the choice on whether you want to do it or not (except in the case of rape, in which case I reluctantly support pregnancy)."

Life or government intrusion which does not exist?

um.. neither does not exist. what do i win?

[yesdachi]

So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother?

Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom.

Check my political spectrum. I don't have a problem limiting freedom in some cases. As it happens, I believe that the right of the woman to choose is trumped by the right of the fetus to live in the majority of cases.

[Meneldil]

Check my political spectrum. I don't have a problem limiting freedom in some cases. As it happens, I believe that the right of the woman to choose is trumped by the right of the fetus to live in the majority of cases.

The foetus is not a person and as such, has no right whatsoever.

You do have the right to defend foetus and to fight abortion on the basis that it's a potential person, but that's about it really.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The foetus is not a person and as such, has no right whatsoever.

It depends how you define person. A human fetus is a member of the human species. It is therefore a human being (albiet at a different developmental stage), and therefore a person.

[Ironside]

It depends how you define person. A human fetus is a member of the human species. It is therefore a human being (albiet at a different developmental stage), and therefore a person.

So when does something belonging to the human species loose it's right to be a person? To take an extreme example, cutting off someone's head but keeping the body alive doesn't make it anything less than murder = the rest of the body is no longer considered a person.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So when does something belonging to the human species loose it's right to be a person?

A member of the human species never loses the right to be a person, as even somebody on death row is considered a person (with certain rights suspended) until the day they die. The difference between the two, before you point that out, is that the person on death row has forfeited his rights (by the logic that pro-capital punishment individuals use) - the unborn child is free of sin.