"Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist."
I am? I never took notice. :3 You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind. Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this.
"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"
The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is. The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes. Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant. "Drop dead I say!"
""In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"
You fail. Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary. Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different. What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about. We are talking about the United States. We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner."
I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted.
"People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable. They are free to have sex or not if they choose. However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable."
You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen.
"Sure. You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet. Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."
Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say.
"This wasn't what was being discussed. You fail."
Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah.
"Right. Two things to consider. What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life?"
The unborn isn't concious, and thus, doesn't have those feelings. Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness. If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated.
"
http://lexrex.com/informed/foundingdocuments/declaration.htm";
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"
I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence.
"Right. She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others. Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand."
Right. But a fetus isn't a person.
"Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives!"
Assuming late in the seventh month and to term, then they may have a fragment of concious, a preresiquite for being a human 'being'. So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being. But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides.
>>276 >>277 Forced c-sections, and other dilemmas. In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation.
Here's an exerpt:
"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.
One prime example was a good friend of mine who was pregnant -- and dearly wanted to have a baby -- and in the third trimester it was discovered that her future child had developed without a full spinal cord, so that the baby would die at birth. So not to undergo the agony of such a situation she had a late term "partial-birth" abortion. Unfortunately, the state of Florida where she lived prohibited such abortions, so she had to fly across the country at great expense -- and much harassment by idiotic "pro-lifers" -- to have the abortion."
"We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.'"
A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me.
""No it wasn't. :D"
Yes it was. See above.
"
No it wasn't! :D
Hmm..
Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights. A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder.
This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts. The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal.
In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities. The potential of my financial success and making billions of dollars does not create the actuality of my purchase of Microsoft today. Likewise, the possession of a gun and an index finger to pull its trigger with which to potentially shoot my neighbor does not actually make me a murderer. The potential of my death does not permit my husband to now declare himself an actual widow and our daughter (if we had one) fatherless. Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications.
Another flaw with the anti-abortionist view is the failure to acknowledge the proper metaphysical relationship between mother and the unborn fetus. The fetus is physically within the mother and connected to her via the placenta and umbilical chord. It is directly physically dependent on the mother for all of its life sustaining needs-oxygen, energy and safety from the external environment. The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage, something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights.
Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant, an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine, a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face.
Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life. Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal." The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights. In other words, man has rights by virtue of "rational living entity," not by virtue of "living entity."
Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations. The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense, by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights. In other words, if you ate steak and potatoes yesterday you are a co-conspirator in murder and a cannibal.
The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will). The concept of individual rights can therefore only be properly understood in the context of a rational independent entity, not in the context of a living thing with rudimentary sensations.
The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights. The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied.