>388
"You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is."
Please don't make me laugh. That's not what I'm advocating. No need to stoop down to a personal level with me.
"Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'."
Uhhh okay... I dunno what gives you the idea that I'm advocating abortions on a whim, unless you're just venting some steam out on me. If you are, please direct it somewhere else. Xel and I see eye-to-eye here.
"ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed."
I consider myself a libertarian/utilitarian. On another note..what does it matter what a person is? If the person is on a side that you don't like does that make what they invalid to you? You're being quite a Collectivist.
*sigh* Assumptions assumptions...
"Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies. If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this."
Those said people are also the ones generally able to provide for their offspring. No use jeaopardizing your health for something that you can't provide for in the end.
"I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL."
See above.
"That's right, its not. But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk."
Again, see above.
"I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby. If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision."
It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age.
"First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.' If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible. Now, they must deal with the consequences. I have no responsibility to deal with them for them. Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not."
If I saw a bum I'd probably just buy him a load of bread out of good thought since I'm a nice person. Show some compassion. :/
""The unborn isn't concious,"
Consciousness begins before birth. You fail. Even Xel knows this."
Even I know that as well, I was speaking in the matter of more of a conscience.
"The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life. Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is. Even Xel agrees with me here."
So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going. Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy, statistical analysises prove that late abortions are done for the reasons I mentioned beforehand. (Stop holding Xel's hand, geez.) Xel agrees with me here. :3 -holds his hand- <3
""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."
I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.' I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past."
Now you are just being a spiteful ignoramous. Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.. I guess you'll let mothers whose fetuses are diagnosed with severe malformation watch their babies die in front of their eyes shortly after birth, or let them give birth to a stillborn. Congrats. -claps- You really gotta stop being prejudice against me.
""But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."
*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?"
It'll cause problems for both pro-choice and pro-life sides. One scenario.. Assuming that fetuses feel pain during the birthing process from being squeezed through tight vaginas, it'll make forced c-sections more widespread. It'll condone the evisceration of pregnant women's bellies. More info.
>>267 >>277
"1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year. While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of. This is an annual number... 15,500/yr is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life"
It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers.
""No it wasn't! :D"
You fail to explain why it wasn't."
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=904492
>>387
"To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is. Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception. That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human."
Then you and me see eye-to-eye here.
"Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage. I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such."
Eye-to-eye here again..depending on what your stance is in the time of the pregnancy.
"How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this."
Not until said person starts pushing it in other people's faces.
"Oh god, I sense a Randroid!"
-question mark pops out of head- ?
"The democrats are wrong on abortion."
That, and the Repubs are more wrong.
""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."
Fail. You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins. You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists."
I was making a general, scientific statement. Not declaring my view on when 'life' begins.
"You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with. Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail. If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins. The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless."
Jibba jabba. See above.
"I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights."
<sarcasm>
So it's alright if I live inside you? -moves inside and erases her memory of how she did it- Cozy, warm...and wet...eeek.
</sarcasm>
"More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles."
More prejudice. Analogies, no comparisons. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
""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."
Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel. Killing at this point should constitute murder."
Assuming 23 weeks in pregnancy. Said movements being only reactionary and not purposeful. Also, uncapable of being able to 'feel' due to lack of a cerebrum and 'mind.'
""The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."
OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..! Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious. I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next. Funny stuff."
Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me.
""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."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that."
Yeup, but I decided to be more crude with that statement as a large example.
We see eye-to-eye on most things, but what I abhore about you is your prejudice against me and your notion of deciding to get personal to try to stir up my thoughts. Please refrain from doing so.