"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[quip]

Liar.

The comment that is the issue is that you said unborn infants don't have an unconditional right to life. There is no condition of which they are capable that frees anyone to take their life.

So I missed the word 'unconditionally,' but that's irrelevant as there are those whose right to life is unconditional; those who are the most innocent among us: children, and that includes the preborn.

It has nothing to do with 'innocent" nor 'capability'; Much like my hypothetical uncle and your liver, my uncle has no unconditional right to your liver (or bodily anything for that matter)...even when such leads to his imminent death.

Now to connect the dots for you.....the unborn have no such inherent right to the mother's body. Fairly simple concept once you remove the subjective, emotional drama from the equation.

 

[jwp98]

One good reason to keep it legal is to allow for medical indications. Uncommon I think.

Technically, it isn't "her body", though it seems to be. One doesn't cross any tissue planes to get there, and an embryo is immunologically sequestered and genetically distinct. Unequivocally alive and not mom.

I'd like to see more emphasis on the father's rights-- to adopt, run away, or support. He cannot logically have postpartum duty without legal rights during pregnancy. It's " his body " too. (He may realize this when he perceives the child's spirit visiting him late some night.) But then, a disconnect between rights and responsibilities, despite widely available free education and healthcare, is what got us 50 million sad stories. One has to imagine there's been a policy error somewhere, a damning one.

 

[gcthomas]

Maths lesson for Lighthouse ...

Maths lesson for Lighthouse ...

[[Blah, blah, blah and other "can't do maths" comments"]]

(my summary of the comments)

Try this from the Pro-Life LifeNews.com:

1) 94% of pregnant women in Ireland bring their babies to birth. 6% opt for an abortion. However, from the time that a man makes a life-long commitment to a woman, the risk that she would choose an abortion falls to less than 2%. [2011 data]​

There were around 5000 abortions in the UK in 2012 by Irish women, out of about 75 000 pregnancies per year, making 6.6% (as an underestimate).

From irishhealth.com:

In fact, according to the most recent figures released by the British statistics office, in the first three months of last year there were 1,667 abortions performed in Britain on Irish women. During the same period, there were 13,894 births in Ireland. By that ratio, one in nine Irish pregnancies end in a British abortion.​

My emphasis in both the above quotes.


Ireland has all but banned abortions, but it has just exported them 'industry' to the UK and other European nations. Banning abortions does not particularly reduce the number of abortions or the desire/need for abortions.

Quoting Ireland as a shining example of low maternal mortality figures as a result of restrictions on abortion do not stand up to the light of even a shallow investigation. The ban just causes extra misery to people who need help and support.

 

[Lighthouse]

It has nothing to do with 'innocent" nor 'capability'; Much like my hypothetical uncle and your liver, my uncle has no unconditional right to your liver (or bodily anything for that matter)...even when such leads to his imminent death.

Now to connect the dots for you.....the unborn have no such inherent right to the mother's body. Fairly simple concept once you remove the subjective, emotional drama from the equation.

Yup, you're a fool.
And while the right to life does not preclude the right to die no one has the right to choose death for anyone else; and when one is incapable of choosing then it is our moral obligation to choose life to the best of our ability. If we cannot save them then letting them die is the right thing to do, rather than hooking them up to machines, hoping for something in the future.

And before you ask, suicide is the cowards way out and assisted suicide is homicide.

And the only people I hear emotional drama from are the ones who support abortion, claiming the pregnancy could be a drain on the woman's emotions, etc.

I'm coming at this from a logical standpoint, as I have no emotional investment in this issue.

(my summary of the comments)

:yawn:

Try this from the Pro-Life LifeNews.com:

1) 94% of pregnant women in Ireland bring their babies to birth. 6% opt for an abortion. However, from the time that a man makes a life-long commitment to a woman, the risk that she would choose an abortion falls to less than 2%. [2011 data]​

There were around 5000 abortions in the UK in 2012 by Irish women, out of about 75 000 pregnancies per year, making 6.6% (as an underestimate).

I don't trust Life News. And he knows I don't trust him, and why.

From irishhealth.com:

In fact, according to the most recent figures released by the British statistics office, in the first three months of last year there were 1,667 abortions performed in Britain on Irish women. During the same period, there were 13,894 births in Ireland. By that ratio, one in nine Irish pregnancies end in a British abortion.​

My emphasis in both the above quotes.

Ireland has all but banned abortions, but it has just exported them 'industry' to the UK and other European nations. Banning abortions does not particularly reduce the number of abortions or the desire/need for abortions.

Quoting Ireland as a shining example of low maternal mortality figures as a result of restrictions on abortion do not stand up to the light of even a shallow investigation. The ban just causes extra misery to people who need help and support.

Are you arguing that it would not be higher if it was legal?

Also, you have made the point of why we should not allow this to be a states right issue.

And your appeal to "extra misery" is nothing but a ploy to play on emotions. I have Asperger's, I have no empathy for people contemplating murder.:nono:

 

[LKmommy]

The right to one's own body.

No unwanted pregnancies

Sex between a male and a female can result in pregnancy if you did not already know this. If you do not want a pregnancy do not have sex. Why kill a child?

Except for children?

My thoughts exactly Resurrected! What about the growing child's rights? YOu just beat me to the response!:thumb:

 

[quip]

Yup, you're a fool.
And while the right to life does not preclude the right to die no one has the right to choose death for anyone else; and when one is incapable of choosing then it is our moral obligation to choose life to the best of our ability. If we cannot save them then letting them die is the right thing to do, rather than hooking them up to machines, hoping for something in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....... I have no emotional investment in this issue.

Well, it seems your rant belies your assertion. But I digress.


About that rant. Let's break it down:

"And while the right to life does not preclude the right to die no one has the right to choose death for anyone else"

Death does incur from time to time by the very act of procuring liberties. War is a prime example; the threat of death levied against the act of murder is another (mentioned prior). Maintaining liberty for the self is not to choose death for anyone else, rather (in the case of abortion) maintaining liberty denies unwarranted subsistence, sadly, with the unwanted consequence being death, a critical distinction.....your emotive proclamation fails to distinguish.

"and when one is incapable of choosing then it is our moral obligation to choose life to the best of our ability."

This is the crux of the matter. We do indeed have such capacity, it's our naturally endowed right to make such a choice. There simply is no such necessary moral obligation restricting a woman from choosing liberty for herself by employing her own set of values/consciousness; it's her role to make either the solitary choice to abort, seek external guidance or see the pregnancy through. This is strictly a personal issue not one for general consensus...though, I'm quite sure, you and similar minded ilk would be more than happy imposing such "moral obligations" upon others. All the more reason to support the very right to demand otherwise!

"If we cannot save them then letting them die is the right thing to do"

Correct.

(Taken into the right context) This is the most sensible thing I've ever seen you post on this forum.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, it seems your rant belies your assertion. But I digress.

I'm coming from a place of logic, not emotion.

And the only reason you're calling it a rant is so you can ignore it, by making it out to be the ravings of one foaming at the mouth; i.e. you're making a straw man so you can pretend to have the intellectual high ground.

About that rant. Let's break it down:

"And while the right to life does not preclude the right to die no one has the right to choose death for anyone else"

Death does incur from time to time by the very act of procuring liberties. War is a prime example; the threat of death levied against the act of murder is another (mentioned prior). Maintaining liberty for the self is not to choose death for anyone else, rather (in the case of abortion) maintaining liberty denies unwarranted subsistence, sadly, with the unwanted consequence being death, a critical distinction.....your emotive proclamation fails to distinguish.

In war those in the wrong have chosen death for themselves even if they are unaware of the fact, and even if they do not lose their lives. If they take the lives of those in the right, or of an innocent, they have committed murder.

In the case of abortion an innocent life is taken and all complicit are guilty of murder.

And would you care to point to where I'm being emotive?

"and when one is incapable of choosing then it is our moral obligation to choose life to the best of our ability."

This is the crux of the matter. We do indeed have such capacity, it's our naturally endowed right to make such a choice. There simply is no such necessary moral obligation restricting a woman from choosing liberty for herself by employing her own set of values/consciousness; it's her role to make either the solitary choice to abort, seek external guidance or see the pregnancy through. This is strictly a personal issue not one for general consensus...though, I'm quite sure, you and similar minded ilk would be more than happy imposing such "moral obligations" upon others. All the more reason to support the very right to demand otherwise!

No one has the right to do this:

There is nothing moral about doing that to an innocent person.

"If we cannot save them then letting them die is the right thing to do"

Correct.

(Taken into the right context) This is the most sensible thing I've ever seen you post on this forum.

And this is why you are a fool.

 

[gcthomas]

I'm coming from a place of logic, not emotion.

... and yet you show images to tug on the heart strings.

You play the same games with this as the people you are criticising.

 

[Lighthouse]

... and yet you show images to tug on the heart strings.

If there's nothing wrong with it why do those images tug on the heart strings?

You play the same games with this as the people you are criticising.

Honestly, they don't illicit an emotional response from me at all.

Neither do images from the Holocaust.

Doesn't mean I don't know they're wrong when I see them.

Also, I'm not accusing you of being emotional, nor am I attempting to discredit your argument by calling it an emotional rant.

I am, however, accusing you of being illogical and irrational, despite your protestations to the contrary. And if anything, I consider you to be completely devoid of emotion. The fact that you can't tell there's something wrong with the events that led to what is recorded in the images I posted proves that.

 

[gcthomas]

If there's nothing wrong with it why do those images tug on the heart strings?


Honestly, they don't illicit an emotional response from me at all.

Neither do images from the Holocaust.

Doesn't mean I don't know they're wrong when I see them.

Also, I'm not accusing you of being emotional, nor am I attempting to discredit your argument by calling it an emotional rant.

I am, however, accusing you of being illogical and irrational, despite your protestations to the contrary. And if anything, I consider you to be completely devoid of emotion. The fact that you can't tell there's something wrong with the events that led to what is recorded in the images I posted proves that.

Show the part where the logic fails. Rationality relies on demonstrating a position with reference to evidence and reality. Show where that fails for my arguments.

 

[Lighthouse]

Show the part where the logic fails. Rationality relies on demonstrating a position with reference to evidence and reality. Show where that fails for my arguments.

You haven't shown any evidence for your position.

 

[gcthomas]

You haven't shown any evidence for your position.

Nor you for yours. So why must you be right and me wrong?

 

[quip]

I'm coming from a place of logic, not emotion.

No, not even close. Your predilection for the fetus blinds you from an objective perspective on the issue.

And the only reason you're calling it a rant is so you can ignore it, by making it out to be the ravings of one foaming at the mouth; i.e. you're making a straw man so you can pretend to have the intellectual high ground.

I'm ignoring nothing. Dismissive of the manipulative rhetoric perhaps, but ignoring is not an option. The anti-abortion mind set is too prevalent in this country.

In war those in the wrong have chosen death for themselves even if they are unaware of the fact, and even if they do not lose their lives. If they take the lives of those in the right, or of an innocent, they have committed murder.

The unborn have no capacity for guilt nor innocence, you're simply projecting such upon the unborn due the emotional impact it holds.

In the case of abortion an innocent life is taken and all complicit are guilty of murder.

And would you care to point to where I'm being emotive?

Your bombastic use of terms such as 'innocent' and 'murder' and as gcthomas pointed out.....

No one has the right to do this:

There is nothing moral about doing that to an innocent person.


And this is why you are a fool.

Case...point!

 

[WizardofOz]

Therefore, abortion must remain legal

Therefore, abortion must remain legal

Thank you to those who have contributed. There have been a lot of rationalizations thus far. I am not debating any points as of yet. I just want to make sure that I have the positions stated and understood correctly.

I also want to keep the discussion as civil as possible. I have engaged a few of you on this topic but I respect all who have contributed. :e4e:

"life begins at conception" is untenable as well. It's almost impossible to enforce very early term abortions and many forms of contraception would be illegal if a so called "Life Amendment" were passed.

I do not think a fertilized egg or a ball of undifferentiated cells is a person.

Research shows that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce abortion rates at all, it simply makes it less safe for the woman. Countries where abortion is illegal have similar rates to those where it is legal.

a blanket life amendment type law wouldn't be supported by much of the population at all.

even when illegal it was still done extensively but often in unsanitary conditions.

children (who) certainly do not deserve to be born into poverty and a miserable existence.

The right to one's own body.

Women have the right to decide who or what can use their body's most private parts. This right over your own body supersedes the "right" of anyone else to use it, even if their life depends on it. The argument becomes even stronger when you consider the zygote, embryo or early fetus do not have higher brain function, and lack what most of us really value in a person.

One good reason to keep it legal is to allow for medical indications.

Therefore, abortion must remain legal.

Please, feel free to re-post any argument you feel I've missed

 

[WizardofOz]

The actual history of abortion is that even when illegal it was still done extensively but often in unsanitary conditions.

Most illegal practices are carried out in unsavory circumstance. We should ask why this person is seeking out a "back ally abortion" to begin with.

I am against abortions but I am even more against making abortion illegal. Oz asks what would change my mind. If our society would put in place protections for women during and after the pregnancy yet do so in a way that did not make it appealing as a way of life (welfare abuse).

I am also in favor of decreasing welfare abuse. As far as protections, if the mother was to give her baby up for adoption, she could possibly be paid as a surrogate for the adoptive family. Usually affluent, the adoptive family would be responsible for medical care in addition to all fees paid to the adoption agency as well as the mother. I am not suggesting selling babies, but mothers may be more likely to give their child up for adoption if they were treated well, had their medical care covered and then knew their child was going to a loving family. The parties could even negotiate visitation if they so choose and agree to such an arrangement.

It seems there is always an alternative that is better for all parties involved, including society as a whole.

 

[WizardofOz]

Problem is "personhood" groups tend to want to eliminate many common forms of contraception, removing one of the ways out of abortion.

I am admittedly not as familiar with contraception options as others probably are.

Are there any forms of contraception that personhood groups are not opposed to in your opinion? I'll do some digging on this in the meantime.

 

[WizardofOz]

Technically, it isn't "her body", though it seems to be. One doesn't cross any tissue planes to get there, and an embryo is immunologically sequestered and genetically distinct. Unequivocally alive and not mom.

Exactly. I feel this debunks the "it's the woman's body" rationalization. It's not. It's the body of someone else who happens to be living and growing inside the body of another.

I'd like to see more emphasis on the father's rights-- to adopt, run away, or support. He cannot logically have postpartum duty without legal rights during pregnancy. It's " his body " too. (He may realize this when he perceives the child's spirit visiting him late some night.) But then, a disconnect between rights and responsibilities, despite widely available free education and healthcare, is what got us 50 million sad stories. One has to imagine there's been a policy error somewhere, a damning one.

I agree here as well. I do not feel a woman should have the right to abort especially if the father opposes it. He should be able to quickly petition a court and get legal protections for the child.

Of course, I prefer to see legal protections given to all in the womb, regardless of the state of development, rendering this point null.

 

[WizardofOz]

Sex between a male and a female can result in pregnancy if you did not already know this. If you do not want a pregnancy do not have sex. Why kill a child?

Good point. Adults should be held responsible for every decision and action they make. There are consequences. If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant, who is at fault for the pregnancy? It is wrong to teach society that 'it's OK to get an abortion if you don't want the baby' as it results in "adults" remaining immature and unable or unwilling to be responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Not to mention, that society does indeed give them a viable option if they are unwilling or unable to care for the baby.

Adoption

I think our very own president could have conveyed this point better. If you don't want your young daughter "punished with a baby", encourage her to give the child up for adoption so that it can, at minimum, live, and at most have a better life than you could offer.

Punished with a baby

:down: Shameful pandering for votes

 

[resurrected]

I am admittedly not as familiar with contraception options as others probably are.

Are there any forms of contraception that personhood groups are not opposed to in your opinion? I'll do some digging on this in the meantime.

condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomy

anything that prevents fertilization of the egg



of course, the best way to do that is abstinence

 

[xAvarice]

condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomy

anything that prevents fertilization of the egg

of course, the best way to do that is abstinence

Abstinence doesn't work because for most people it's a facade, sex education and openess towards sexual discourse is proven to lower unwanted pregnancies and more importantly, teen pregnancy.