Should the state prevent doctors from carrying out abortions?
Yes - In all cases
3.7% (9)
3.7% (9)
Yes - Except in extraordinary cases like rape
6.1% (15)
6.1% (15)
No
89.4% (219)
89.4% (219)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should the state ban abortion?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

SillyBear:

Volf:

Also like I said before, you don't speak for over a billion people, and your arrogant to think otherwise.

You call me arrogant because I say with confidence that women, as a whole, would react awfully to someone forcing them to have an abortion.

And yet you, on the other hand, are arrogant enough to appoint yourself as moral arbiter and make the claim that there is nothing wrong with forcing someone into a surgery they don't want.

If anyone is arrogant, it's you.

I'm done talking to you. You're hopeless.

I'm speaking for myself, nobody else. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for more than three billion people, that is quite arrogant.

cobra_ky:

Volf:

cobra_ky:

It IS a matter of which one is more important, because they're mutually exclusive.

Set aside the matter of legal responsibility because that is a separate issue. The effect on the man's life, from a purely medical standpoint, is nonexistent. Once the semen leaves your body, where ever it ends up has no physiological effect on your body. If the pregnancy is resulting from a one-night stand situation or something like that, then you may never even know you got someone pregnant.

I realize that, but I still don't think I'm asking alot to be able to decide whether or not I'm a father to somebody.

I realize that pregnancy can have a toll on a women's body, which is why I'm opposed to forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Abortions can also take a toll on a woman's body. You're asking quite a bit.

I realize this, which is why I've stated that the condition of the women's body(i.e. her physical health) should be taken into consideration. If the women is healthy, then I support the mans decision for the abortion. However if the women might die from the abortion, then I would be against it.

F4LL3N:

SillyBear:

I don't support abortion. At all.

I just think outlawing abortion would produce worse results. People would still get abortions, they'd just turn to the back alley and the black market to do so. It wouldn't be pretty.

But saying I support abortion is quite a fucking stretch.

I have to really question you, to be honest. How can you claim to be so anti-abortion when you would rather debate me than debate someone who not only is in favour of abortion, but is in favour of forced abortion that breaks human rights.

Abortion breaks human rights, full stop. I don't see a difference between what he's saying and what anyone else says. Unless the mother is in risk of actual death or serious bodily harm, I look at all abortion from the persective of the unborn.

If the unborn had a voice, they wouldn't care whether the abortion is forced or not. They'd care less if it was forced, because atleast then it's own mother isn't advocating it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

F4LL3N:
I don't see a difference between what he's saying and what anyone else says.

um, even I think that's a leap to make

Zekksta:

F4LL3N:

SillyBear:

I don't support abortion. At all.

I just think outlawing abortion would produce worse results. People would still get abortions, they'd just turn to the back alley and the black market to do so. It wouldn't be pretty.

But saying I support abortion is quite a fucking stretch.

I have to really question you, to be honest. How can you claim to be so anti-abortion when you would rather debate me than debate someone who not only is in favour of abortion, but is in favour of forced abortion that breaks human rights.

Abortion breaks human rights, full stop. I don't see a difference between what he's saying and what anyone else says. Unless the mother is in risk of actual death or serious bodily harm, I look at all abortion from the persective of the unborn.

If the unborn had a voice, they wouldn't care whether the abortion is forced or not. They'd care less if it was forced, because atleast then it's own mother isn't advocating it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

Correct, it wouldn't be self-aware and thus it would have no idea what's happening to it (if it could form ideas at all). Also "Abortion breaks human rights" made me laugh because outlawing abortion breaks a woman's right to her body. Fetuses are NOT people, thus abortion breaks no rights. They have the potential to be people but they aren't when they're aborted so the only person advocating against breaking someone's rights is Fallen.

Zekksta:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

You could always ask one of the many documented subjects of failed abortions. I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother tried to kill you?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was completely legal and supported by millions.

Volf:

F4LL3N:
I don't see a difference between what he's saying and what anyone else says.

um, even I think that's a leap to make

Fair enough.

F4LL3N:

Zekksta:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

You could always ask one of the many documented subjects of failed abortions. I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother tried to kill you?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was completely legal and supported by millions.

Ah, but they're the product of a failed abortion, and they were born. So they are not the unborn are they?

What I'm saying is the unborn lack sentience, which means they don't care if they're aborted.

So looking at things from the "perspective of the unborn" just seems incredibly stupid, unless you yourself lack sentience.

Zekksta:

F4LL3N:

Zekksta:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

You could always ask one of the many documented subjects of failed abortions. I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother tried to kill you?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was completely legal and supported by millions.

Ah, but they're the product of a failed abortion, and they were born. So they are not the unborn are they?

What I'm saying is the unborn lack sentience, which means they don't care if they're aborted.

So looking at things from the "perspective of the unborn" just seems incredibly stupid, unless you yourself lack sentience.

Well that all depends... Does not having a voice justify murder? Because I've met several intellectually disabled persons who wouldn't understand or even realize the gun to their head is about to kill them. Would it be stupid to look at this situation from their perspective and say, "Please don't kill me?"

F4LL3N:

Zekksta:

F4LL3N:

You could always ask one of the many documented subjects of failed abortions. I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother tried to kill you?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was completely legal and supported by millions.

Ah, but they're the product of a failed abortion, and they were born. So they are not the unborn are they?

What I'm saying is the unborn lack sentience, which means they don't care if they're aborted.

So looking at things from the "perspective of the unborn" just seems incredibly stupid, unless you yourself lack sentience.

Well that all depends... Does not having a voice justify murder? Because I've met several intellectually disabled persons who wouldn't understand or even realize the gun to their head is about to kill them. Would it be stupid to look at this situation from their perspective and say, "Please don't kill me?"

Hahahah an absolutely absurd comparison, one I should have expected.

The mentally disabled have sentience and life.

The unborn have neither, merely the potential for it.

They are not comparable.

Zekksta:

Hahahah an absolutely absurd comparison, one I should have expected.

The mentally disabled have sentience and life.

The unborn have neither, merely the potential for it.

They are not comparable.

It doesn't matter. The unborn are voiceless in the same way an intellectually disabled person is, or in fact even a young child. A father could place a gun to his 3 year old daughter's head and state, "I'm going to kill you" and she would struggle to understand what he actually means.

The topic we are currently discussing is the ability to voice opposition to willful murder, is it not? Because that's where you put your contribution in.

Twist the conversation as much as you want; if an unborn child had a voice, he/she would be against it's own murder in the same way an intellectually disabled person or a child would if they had a legitimate voice.

F4LL3N:

It doesn't matter. The unborn are voiceless in the same way an intellectually disabled person is, or in fact even a young child. A father could place a gun to his 3 year old daughter's head and state, "I'm going to kill you" and she would struggle to understand what he actually means.

No they are not and I want you to be sure about this, because the distinction does matter.

They are not voiceless in the same way.

The intellectually disabled/heavily disabled may be voiceless for several reasons depending on their problem. For a very brief example, some disabled people might be uncertain what's happening or even how to respond if someone pulls a gun on them. That might make them voiceless, but it doesn't mean they have no sentience.

A child may not understand the implications of someone pulling a gun on them. That might make them voiceless, but it doesn't mean they have no sentience.

The unborn, CANNOT, understand because it doesn't have sentience.

STOP COMPARING IT, IT'S NOT THE SAME.

F4LL3N:
The topic we are currently discussing is the ability to voice opposition to willful murder, is it not? Because that's where you put your contribution in.

Really? I thought we were discussing whether the state or or should not be involved in abortions. You were talking with someone else about that when you put forward the argument that we should see it from the point of view of the fetus. I called you on it. Thus here we are.

F4LL3N:
Twist the conversation as much as you want; if an unborn child had a voice, he/she would be against it's own murder in the same way an intellectually disabled person or a child would if they had a legitimate voice.

You are the one trying to twist the conversation. This is our exchange.

You: The unborn would care about being aborted.
Me: The unborn can't care because they lack sentience (my word of the day).
You: Comparison to disabled people for some reason
Me: False comparison, disabled people have sentience
You: Comparison to disabled people again and this time children.

To be honest I'm getting kind of tired of it.

Zekksta:
Snippage of certain jibberish that states a child/intellectually disabled person might be voiceless but they still have sentience

What? I know a 40-something year old intellectually disabled person (since birth) who has the mind of a three year old. While he is capable of perceiving certain things, he would not understand the implications of someone pointing a gun at him and stating he was going to die. This is also applied to the average child who wouldn't understand the implications. 3-year-olds are barely even self aware. While they can recognize themselves in a mirror, they do not understand life like we do. They're more interested in chocolate than whether or not they deserve the right to life.

People need to unwrap their mind around the idea that only a sentient being deserves any rights or respects. It's ab-so-fucking-lutely false. You subconciously know it's false, but to acknowledge this is false is to give up one of the few justifications you actually have concerning abortion.

Really? I thought we were discussing whether the state or or should not be involved in abortions. You were talking with someone else about that when you put forward the argument that we should see it from the point of view of the fetus. I called you on it. Thus here we are.

Thus you acknowledge the current topic at hand is concerning the (lack of) ability to voice opposition to willful murder.

You are the one trying to twist the conversation. This is our exchange.

You: The unborn would care about being aborted.
Me: The unborn can't care because they lack sentience (my word of the day).
You: Comparison to disabled people for some reason
Me: False comparison, disabled people have sentience
You: Comparison to disabled people again and this time children.

To be honest I'm getting kind of tired of it.

I stated, "If the unborn had a voice, they wouldn't care whether the abortion is forced or not. They'd care less if it was forced, because atleast then it's own mother isn't advocating it." I.e. No matter the reason, the unborn would be against their own murder (especially if it's their own mother advocating it.)

In which you state, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care. Don't they lack sentience?" I.e. You ignore the fact I stated "IF" so you could twist it around like what I'm saying isn't even theoretically imaginable.

Followed by me stating the disabled are in the exact same voiceless position as the unborn.

Followed by you once again bringing sentience into the discussion because that's one of the only arguement you actually have (i.e. you're standing on thin ground.)

Followed by me stating the same as I did from the beginning, only now with children.

Yeah, exactly. You changed the entire topic by adding sentience into the discussion, even though you clearly do not understand intellectually disabled people/children do not have the same sentience as you or I. My sentience is better now than it was fucking 6 months or even 2 weeks ago. Sentience develops as your brain develops.

You don't just gain 100% efficient sentience the second you leave the womb.

F4LL3N:
Snippage of certain jibberish that states a child/intellectually disabled person might be voiceless but they still have sentience

Hey bro, do you even know what sentience means?

Noun 1. sentience - state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness"
awareness
consciousness - an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness"
2. sentience - the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing"
sensory faculty, sentiency, sense, sensation
faculty, mental faculty, module - one of the inherent cognitive or perceptual powers of the mind
sense modality, sensory system, modality - a particular sense
sensitivity, sensitiveness, sensibility - (physiology) responsiveness to external stimuli; the faculty of sensation; "sensitivity to pain"
3. sentience - the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart
animateness, liveness, aliveness - the property of being animated; having animal life as distinguished from plant life
insentience - lacking consciousness or ability to perceive sensations

F4LL3N:
What? I know a 40-something year old intellectually disabled person (since birth) who has the mind of a three year old. While he is capable of perceiving certain things

Bang. Case closed. He has the ability to perceive. The unborn do not. Also, he is alive.

F4LL3N:
People need to unwrap their mind around the idea that only a sentient being deserves any rights or respects.

So we should give rights and respects to beings that aren't sentient? Now that is a position I can acknowledge, because it makes a whole lot more sense than comparing non sentient things to disabled people. (I still think it's wrong).

Let's continue under the assumption you said this first, and not a pathetic comparison.

F4LL3N:
It's ab-so-fucking-lutely false. You subconciously know it's false,

You've now made a claim I subconsciously know it's false. Prove it. I do not believe that is the case.

F4LL3N:
but to acknowledge this is false is to give up one of the few justifications you actually have concerning abortion.

I don't feel I need to justify abortion at all. I think it's already justified.

F4LL3N:
Thus you acknowledge the current topic at hand is concerning the (lack of) ability to voice opposition to willful murder.

First of all, I don't see it as murder.
Second of all, anti-abortion does have a voice, a very loud one. Isn't it winning in your America?

F4LL3N:
I stated, "If the unborn had a voice, they wouldn't care whether the abortion is forced or not. They'd care less if it was forced, because atleast then it's own mother isn't advocating it." I.e. No matter the reason, the unborn would be against their own murder (especially if it's their own mother advocating it.)

BUT
THEY
CAN'T

THEY CAN'T CARE.
STOP SAYING THEY WOULD CARE.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE CONSCIOUSNESS NEEDED TO CARE.

The thing is, it's not about them not having a voice. It's that they can't actually care, or even conceive anything like a human would. True, some human beings can't conceive the danger they are in, BUT it's not alright to just kill those humans (as I'm sure your next argument would accuse me of trying to do) because they already have life.

The unborn do not.

F4LL3N:
In which you state, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care. Don't they lack sentience?" I.e. You ignore the fact I stated "IF" so you could twist it around like what I'm saying isn't even theoretically imaginable.

Do ho ho. As I've been reminded time and time again for several of my posts, theoretical conversations like this get you nowhere. Sure, things might be different if they had sentience. They don't have sentience though. That's just how it is, all the "if's and buts" are actually fairly pointless in this position, and arguing for law based on "if's and buts" should not be done.

F4LL3N:
Followed by me stating the disabled are in the exact same voiceless position as the unborn.

They are not.

F4LL3N:
Followed by you once again bringing sentience into the discussion because that's one of the only arguement you actually have (i.e. you're standing on thin ground.)

Because that's all you're saying. You just keep bringing up how the fetus would feel, when I'm trying to bang into your head that they can't feel.

F4LL3N:
Followed by me stating the same as I did from the beginning, only now with children.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with this idiotic example.

F4LL3N:
Yeah, exactly. You changed the entire topic by adding sentience into the discussion

See I take issue with that. I don't think the state should ban abortion, and my reasoning is that there is no need to justify abortion, because it doesn't even need to be justified.

I believe there is nothing wrong, with deciding to abort a thing in your body that does not have sentience or life, it may have the potential to have it in time, but it does not have it.

Whether the unborn is sentient or not seems relevant.

F4LL3N:
even though you clearly do not understand intellectually disabled people/children do not have the same sentience as you or I. My sentience is better now than it was fucking 6 months or even 2 weeks ago. Sentience develops as your brain develops.

Intellectually disabled people and children have sentience, even when they're just born.
The Unborn do not have sentience. It's basically the same as the salad I just ate for dinner.

It's not that I don't understand that disabled people and children are on a different level of understanding or ability to comprehend situations than I am.

I just think your attempt to say it's the same thing as a fetus's lack of sentience is hilarious.

F4LL3N:
Abortion isn't taking responibility for the pregnancy. You're killing the fetus so it doesn't get in the way of your precious life.

So what?

F4LL3N:
What's your point? We should devalue life?

Since when was life valuable?

F4LL3N:
It's a biological fact. What you consider to make someone human is an opinion. Consciousness changes nothing. Sentience changes nothing. I could just as easily say "you must be able to type at 120 words per minute to be considered human.

So what if someone's a human? You talk as if that's some important fact we should all take notice of.

F4LL3N:
Humanity is far too important to let the majority decide it's definition. That's what happened with black slavery, remember?

Why is humanity important?

cobra_ky:
snip

Which is why I believe men should be allowed to walk away from the pregnancy if they so choose to do.

@Volf: The woman's right to her own body is what's at play here. I agree, the rights that the father has are too limited; the fact that he cannot opt out of, say, child support and has no say is quite bothersome, and that needs to be remedied somehow. However, the remedy is not to violate a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body! It simply cannot be! That right is pretty fucking important, in case you haven't noticed in the debate thus far. The fundamental disconnect here has to do with the separated roles involved. In the man's case, his life may get thrown upside down. In the woman's case, her body is playing the host. Violating a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body for the sake of the man's comfort is disgustingly flawed.

@F4LL3N: *sigh* You know, when I first saw your posts on the issue in off-topic, I figured you were over-zealous, but generally a decent debater. With that in mind, do you know why so few people bothered to read your massive first post? If I had to take a guess, I'd say it has to do with the rhetoric. You know, assuming that everyone against you is a baby-killer, pulling appeals to emotion such as the "failed abortion" thing, expecting everyone else to put up with you assuming your right and using that as a means to demean and dehumanize us or compare us to Hitler, pretending not to see the difference between dehumanizing a clump of cells and a living, sentient human... You know, stuff like that. Then add the fact that you have this common tactic of, when pressed with an objection to an assertion, simply restating the assertion without actually addressing the objection...

Look, how should I put this... You're not a fun nor easy person to debate with, and I have trouble taking you seriously, especially when you make such outspoken, brazen, and ludicrous statements as, say, that sexual liberty and interest in sex beyond procreation is a sign of lack of self-respect... And then go ahead and call yourself a feminist. Wow. Dude, give it a rest. Try toning down the rhetoric, dropping the appeals to emotion, and actually figuring out what we're talking about. Thanks.

As stated before, males shouldn't really have any say in the matter. I still voted no for other reasons stated already.

What I really find annoying is that the arguments against abortion usually appeal only to emotion ("I was going to be aborted, but I lived. Why would you take that right to live from me?") and is often mixed up with religious bullshit. Neither of those aspects sway me in any way regardless of the subject.

F4LL3N:

Kendarik:

You could say it, but you'd just look silly. Especially considering we were talking about a woman KEEPING her child when the man didn't want it.

Besides, isn't it pretty obvious that if a man wants no part of his child the child is better off without him?

Correct; if a man wants no part of his child, the child is better off without him. However, you were being sexist. Which is the complete opposite of what you should be. After all, Pro-Choice is a Feminist movement. The Feminist movement is meant to be anti-discrimination.

I am assuming your a women.

Huh? Please explain how I was being sexist, and be specific.

Also the pro choice movement is not a feminist movement, it just basic human rights. All people should have control over their body.

F4LL3N:

Kendarik:

You could say it, but you'd just look silly. Especially considering we were talking about a woman KEEPING her child when the man didn't want it.

Besides, isn't it pretty obvious that if a man wants no part of his child the child is better off without him?

Correct; if a man wants no part of his child, the child is better off without him. However, you were being sexist. Which is the complete opposite of what you should be. After all, Pro-Choice is a Feminist movement. The Feminist movement is meant to be anti-discrimination.

I am assuming your a women.

Huh? Please explain how I was being sexist, and be specific.

Also the pro choice movement is not a feminist movement, it just basic human rights. All people should have control over their body.

F4LL3N:

SillyBear:

Volf:

I realize that pregnancy can have a toll on a women's body, which is why I'm opposed to forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Just half an hour ago you were trying to tell me that a male should have the right to force a female into surgery because he doesn't want to be father.

Now you are saying that you care about the rights of females and respect their decisions.

Tell me, just how are we supposed to take you seriously?

I love how you say "force a female into surgery" as if abortion is the worse possible scenerio, yet you 100% support abortion when a women is too childish to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Just enough hypocrisy to make me wonder where Pro-Choicers get any of their logic from.

You don't understand the difference between surgery against your will and surgery by your choice and you talk to us about lack of logic? If as your gf I decide I want you to be forced to have a vasectomy even though you don't want one that's reasonable?

Surgery that you want can be good while the same surgery, if you don't want it, can be barbaric.

Also it is mature, not childish, to not take on responsibility that for any reason you can't handle. For example, its responsible, not childish, to not buy a house when you have no job.

Volf:

SillyBear:

Volf:
Then I amended what I typed because I acknowledged that the women's life might be at risk, or that some men might abuse this as an alternative to condoms, which I oppose.

Then you agree with me and realise how much of a piece of bullshit your idea was.

Great news!

lol, nice try but nope, because I don't think that in every case a women might die if she goes through an abortion. So I'll state it again, I am for both parties deciding whether or not they want to be parents.

You are incorrect, even every case a woman might die from an abortion. It's a listed risk on the informed consent. While it is VERY unlikely, it can happen. Any surgery carries that risk. Also rare but a greater risk, permanent infertility.

Volf:

SillyBear:

Volf:

Also like I said before, you don't speak for over a billion people, and your arrogant to think otherwise.

You call me arrogant because I say with confidence that women, as a whole, would react awfully to someone forcing them to have an abortion.

And yet you, on the other hand, are arrogant enough to appoint yourself as moral arbiter and make the claim that there is nothing wrong with forcing someone into a surgery they don't want.

If anyone is arrogant, it's you.

I'm done talking to you. You're hopeless.

I'm speaking for myself, nobody else. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for more than three billion people, that is quite arrogant.

Find one woman, anywhere in the world, who would agree with you on this.

Volf:

cobra_ky:

Volf:
] I realize that, but I still don't think I'm asking alot to be able to decide whether or not I'm a father to somebody.

I realize that pregnancy can have a toll on a women's body, which is why I'm opposed to forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Abortions can also take a toll on a woman's body. You're asking quite a bit.

I realize this, which is why I've stated that the condition of the women's body(i.e. her physical health) should be taken into consideration. If the women is healthy, then I support the mans decision for the abortion. However if the women might die from the abortion, then I would be against it.

Virtually every medical involves some risk of death. It's not particularly high in the case of abortion, but it increases drastically the further along into pregnancy you go. How long would a man have to exercise his "right" to make a woman have an abortion anyway? Whatever the case may be, eventually you're going to have a situation where a woman will die because someone forced her to get an abortion against her will.

This is why getting to make your own medical decisions is such a big deal.

F4LL3N:
What? I know a 40-something year old intellectually disabled person (since birth) who has the mind of a three year old. While he is capable of perceiving certain things, he would not understand the implications of someone pointing a gun at him and stating he was going to die. This is also applied to the average child who wouldn't understand the implications. 3-year-olds are barely even self aware. While they can recognize themselves in a mirror, they do not understand life like we do. They're more interested in chocolate than whether or not they deserve the right to life.

No one is suggesting that we murder three year olds.

F4LL3N:
People need to unwrap their mind around the idea that only a sentient being deserves any rights or respects. It's ab-so-fucking-lutely false. You subconciously know it's false, but to acknowledge this is false is to give up one of the few justifications you actually have concerning abortion.

Sentient beings do have rights, but we're specifically talking about the right to life here. Animals are sentient but most of us reserve the right to kill them in certain circumstances. There are non-sentient human beings, we typically call them braindead, and their medical proxy is allowed to decide whether to terminate their life or not.

F4LL3N:

Yeah, exactly. You changed the entire topic by adding sentience into the discussion, even though you clearly do not understand intellectually disabled people/children do not have the same sentience as you or I. My sentience is better now than it was fucking 6 months or even 2 weeks ago. Sentience develops as your brain develops.

You don't just gain 100% efficient sentience the second you leave the womb.

There is a point in pregnancy where sentience begins to develop, and it is not at conception.

F4LL3N:

Sorry. I would tell any person who supports abortion to get their priorities right. The fetus' life is more important than nine months of inconvience for the women.

You really don't understand anything about raising or giving birth to kids do you?

cobra_ky:

Volf:

SillyBear:

You call me arrogant because I say with confidence that women, as a whole, would react awfully to someone forcing them to have an abortion.

And yet you, on the other hand, are arrogant enough to appoint yourself as moral arbiter and make the claim that there is nothing wrong with forcing someone into a surgery they don't want.

If anyone is arrogant, it's you.

I'm done talking to you. You're hopeless.

I'm speaking for myself, nobody else. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for more than three billion people, that is quite arrogant.

Find one woman, anywhere in the world, who would agree with you on this.

Volf:

cobra_ky:

Abortions can also take a toll on a woman's body. You're asking quite a bit.

I realize this, which is why I've stated that the condition of the women's body(i.e. her physical health) should be taken into consideration. If the women is healthy, then I support the mans decision for the abortion. However if the women might die from the abortion, then I would be against it.

Virtually every medical involves some risk of death. It's not particularly high in the case of abortion, but it increases drastically the further along into pregnancy you go. How long would a man have to exercise his "right" to make a woman have an abortion anyway? Whatever the case may be, eventually you're going to have a situation where a woman will die because someone forced her to get an abortion against her will.

This is why getting to make your own medical decisions is such a big deal.

F4LL3N:
What? I know a 40-something year old intellectually disabled person (since birth) who has the mind of a three year old. While he is capable of perceiving certain things, he would not understand the implications of someone pointing a gun at him and stating he was going to die. This is also applied to the average child who wouldn't understand the implications. 3-year-olds are barely even self aware. While they can recognize themselves in a mirror, they do not understand life like we do. They're more interested in chocolate than whether or not they deserve the right to life.

No one is suggesting that we murder three year olds.

F4LL3N:
People need to unwrap their mind around the idea that only a sentient being deserves any rights or respects. It's ab-so-fucking-lutely false. You subconciously know it's false, but to acknowledge this is false is to give up one of the few justifications you actually have concerning abortion.

Sentient beings do have rights, but we're specifically talking about the right to life here. Animals are sentient but most of us reserve the right to kill them in certain circumstances. There are non-sentient human beings, we typically call them braindead, and their medical proxy is allowed to decide whether to terminate their life or not.

F4LL3N:

Yeah, exactly. You changed the entire topic by adding sentience into the discussion, even though you clearly do not understand intellectually disabled people/children do not have the same sentience as you or I. My sentience is better now than it was fucking 6 months or even 2 weeks ago. Sentience develops as your brain develops.

You don't just gain 100% efficient sentience the second you leave the womb.

There is a point in pregnancy where sentience begins to develop, and it is not at conception.

And there are women who choose by themselves to get an abortion and still die, yet we don't outlaw abortion(well unless a place is pro-life).

By your logic, should all women be forbidden from even having the option to get an abortion if a percent of women might die from the procedure?

F4LL3N:

Zekksta:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the unborn don't even have the capacity to care.

Don't they lack sentience?

You could always ask one of the many documented subjects of failed abortions. I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother tried to kill you?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was completely legal and supported by millions.

That argument is pure silliness.

Ask all the many documented kids born because of failed condoms.

I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Some example questions could be:

1. Are you happy you were given a "chance" at life?
2. How does it feel to know your mother and father tried to stop you from being born?
3. How does it feel to know what happened to you was [b]completely legal and supported by millions.

Volf:
And there are women who choose by themselves to get an abortion and still die, yet we don't outlaw abortion(well unless a place is pro-life).

By your logic, should all women be forbidden from even having the option to get an abortion if a percent of women might die from the procedure?

Do you really not understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary risk?

People die from bungee jumping. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit you to forcibly tie someone up and push them off of a bridge against their will? No.

People die from plastic surgery. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit a spouse to say they don't like how their partner looks and forcibly make them undergo plastic surgery? No.

Kendarik:

Volf:
And there are women who choose by themselves to get an abortion and still die, yet we don't outlaw abortion(well unless a place is pro-life).

By your logic, should all women be forbidden from even having the option to get an abortion if a percent of women might die from the procedure?

Do you really not understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary risk?

People die from bungee jumping. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit you to forcibly tie someone up and push them off of a bridge against their will? No.

People die from plastic surgery. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit a spouse to say they don't like how their partner looks and forcibly make them undergo plastic surgery? No.

The possibility of the women dieing was brought up, so I used the same trail of thought to show how it's absurd to ban what I'm saying because even voluntary abortion poses some risk.

As for your comment about plastic surgery, a girls face isn't biologically related to me.

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
And there are women who choose by themselves to get an abortion and still die, yet we don't outlaw abortion(well unless a place is pro-life).

By your logic, should all women be forbidden from even having the option to get an abortion if a percent of women might die from the procedure?

Do you really not understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary risk?

People die from bungee jumping. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit you to forcibly tie someone up and push them off of a bridge against their will? No.

People die from plastic surgery. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit a spouse to say they don't like how their partner looks and forcibly make them undergo plastic surgery? No.

The possibility of the women dieing was brought up, so I used the same trail of thought to show how it's absurd to ban what I'm saying because even voluntary abortion poses some risk.

As for your comment about plastic surgery, a girls face isn't biologically related to me.

And, other than a little clump of cells that you want to destroy, neither is the rest of her body that you want to force into surgery.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:

Do you really not understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary risk?

People die from bungee jumping. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit you to forcibly tie someone up and push them off of a bridge against their will? No.

People die from plastic surgery. Do we ban it? Of course not. People make an informed decision on the risks and decide accordingly what is best for them. Do we permit a spouse to say they don't like how their partner looks and forcibly make them undergo plastic surgery? No.

The possibility of the women dieing was brought up, so I used the same trail of thought to show how it's absurd to ban what I'm saying because even voluntary abortion poses some risk.

As for your comment about plastic surgery, a girls face isn't biologically related to me.

And, other than a little clump of cells that you want to destroy, neither is the rest of her body that you want to force into surgery.

If you know a better technique for conducting an abortion, I'm all ears(so to speak).

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
The possibility of the women dieing was brought up, so I used the same trail of thought to show how it's absurd to ban what I'm saying because even voluntary abortion poses some risk.

As for your comment about plastic surgery, a girls face isn't biologically related to me.

And, other than a little clump of cells that you want to destroy, neither is the rest of her body that you want to force into surgery.

If you know a better technique for conducting an abortion, I'm all ears(so to speak).

There isn't, which is why your argument that men should have a say is impossible to implement without violating basic human rights.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:

And, other than a little clump of cells that you want to destroy, neither is the rest of her body that you want to force into surgery.

If you know a better technique for conducting an abortion, I'm all ears(so to speak).

There isn't, which is why your argument that men should have a say is impossible to implement without violating basic human rights.

...and now we circle back to my argument that I have a right to not be somebodies father.

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
If you know a better technique for conducting an abortion, I'm all ears(so to speak).

There isn't, which is why your argument that men should have a say is impossible to implement without violating basic human rights.

...and now we circle back to my argument that I have a right to not be somebodies father.

A question I have already repeatedly answered by saying I agree. If you are willing to waive all rights and plan to be out of my life and the baby's life, then I don't want your money and the child is better off without you.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:

There isn't, which is why your argument that men should have a say is impossible to implement without violating basic human rights.

...and now we circle back to my argument that I have a right to not be somebodies father.

A question I have already repeatedly answered by saying I agree. If you are willing to waive all rights and plan to be out of my life and the baby's life, then I don't want your money and the child is better off without you.

That would just make not financially responsible, it wouldn't change the fact that I was still somebodies father.

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
...and now we circle back to my argument that I have a right to not be somebodies father.

A question I have already repeatedly answered by saying I agree. If you are willing to waive all rights and plan to be out of my life and the baby's life, then I don't want your money and the child is better off without you.

That would just make not financially responsible, it wouldn't change the fact that I was still somebodies father.

No, you wouldn't be a father, you would just be a sperm donor. A couple strands of genetic material, no more.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:

A question I have already repeatedly answered by saying I agree. If you are willing to waive all rights and plan to be out of my life and the baby's life, then I don't want your money and the child is better off without you.

That would just make not financially responsible, it wouldn't change the fact that I was still somebodies father.

No, you wouldn't be a father, you would just be a sperm donor. A couple strands of genetic material, no more.

no, I'm a biological father.

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
That would just make not financially responsible, it wouldn't change the fact that I was still somebodies father.

No, you wouldn't be a father, you would just be a sperm donor. A couple strands of genetic material, no more.

no, I'm a biological father.

Which means what? If you want to be a father, great. If not, bye. A few cells donated do not a father make. You want no part of it, have no part of it. Where's the skin off your nose? How are you hurt?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked