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
 

Volf:

CM156:

Volf:
It's all speculation, but please while your seeing into the future, can you tell me when we finally get flying cars and jet-packs?

I can cite case law that backs me up. Roe, as much as I may disagree with it, is a bullet in pretty much any claim you make in this regard. I can't find any court precedent that says someone has the right not to be a father. But I can find bits that show that a person is responsible for the logical consequence of their action. The logical consequence of sex, unlikely as it is with protection, is a child.

So is that a no to the flying cars? You should know, seeing as you can see into the future and all.

Do you understand what people like me do?

We study the court and, based on voting records and precedent justices follow, predict how they'll vote.

Do you think ANY justice on SCOTUS right now would uphold your law? AT ALL?

Also, if you have to resort to deflecting the issue, I think it's a safe bet you've run out of ammo.

CM156:

Volf:

CM156:

I can cite case law that backs me up. Roe, as much as I may disagree with it, is a bullet in pretty much any claim you make in this regard. I can't find any court precedent that says someone has the right not to be a father. But I can find bits that show that a person is responsible for the logical consequence of their action. The logical consequence of sex, unlikely as it is with protection, is a child.

So is that a no to the flying cars? You should know, seeing as you can see into the future and all.

Do you understand what people like me do?

We study the court and, based on voting records and precedent justices follow, predict how they'll vote.

Do you think ANY justice on SCOTUS right now would uphold your law? AT ALL?

Also, if you have to resort to deflecting the issue, I think it's a safe bet you've run out of ammo.

I have plenty of "ammo", but I have run out of taking this thread seriously once I started getting labeled as "evil".

Volf:

CM156:

Volf:
So is that a no to the flying cars? You should know, seeing as you can see into the future and all.

Do you understand what people like me do?

We study the court and, based on voting records and precedent justices follow, predict how they'll vote.

Do you think ANY justice on SCOTUS right now would uphold your law? AT ALL?

Also, if you have to resort to deflecting the issue, I think it's a safe bet you've run out of ammo.

I have plenty of "ammo", but I have run out of taking this thread seriously once I started getting labeled as "evil".

Tell you what, why don't you create a thread on this exact same manner? IE, forcing women to get an abortion if someone doesn't want to be a father? I'm sure that would prove to be quite the debate.

Also, hit me with your best shot. I haven't labeled you as "evil", despite my desire to stoop down to that level.

CM156:

Tell you what, why don't you create a thread on this exact same manner? IE, forcing women to get an abortion if someone doesn't want to be a father? I'm sure that would prove to be quite the debate.

Also, hit me with your best shot. I haven't labeled you as "evil", despite my desire to stoop down to that level.

I've seen people's opinions on what I said are, so it isn't necessary.

I wasn't referring to you with the evil comment, just the moment where I had to take a step back and laugh at giving me such a title. Good to see that you don't resort to such childish labels.

CM156:
snip

This is completely off topic to the subject of this thread, but you said you studied the constitution, right? Could I PM you a question I have about it? Perhaps you could clear something up for me.

Volf:

CM156:

Tell you what, why don't you create a thread on this exact same manner? IE, forcing women to get an abortion if someone doesn't want to be a father? I'm sure that would prove to be quite the debate.

Also, hit me with your best shot. I haven't labeled you as "evil", despite my desire to stoop down to that level.

I've seen people's opinions on what I said are, so it isn't necessary.

I wasn't referring to you with the evil comment, just the moment where I had to take a step back and laugh at giving me such a title. Good to see that you don't resort to such childish labels.

This is clearly an issue you feel very strongly about. So why not create your own thread on the topic? I'm sure it'll draw more people in.

Also, I don't appreciate my legal research being in any way associated with divination or fortune telling

Volf:

CM156:

Volf:
So is that a no to the flying cars? You should know, seeing as you can see into the future and all.

Do you understand what people like me do?

We study the court and, based on voting records and precedent justices follow, predict how they'll vote.

Do you think ANY justice on SCOTUS right now would uphold your law? AT ALL?

Also, if you have to resort to deflecting the issue, I think it's a safe bet you've run out of ammo.

I have plenty of "ammo", but I have run out of taking this thread seriously once I started getting labeled as "evil".

Really? Then answer the question; what Justices would support your hypothetical law? See contrary to what you believe, CM is simply using SCOTUS' previous decisions as a indication of how they would respond in future. It's called simply pattern regonition; if a Justice has voted consistantly on a particular issue, than it stands to basic reason that they will vote that way on the same issue.

So bring out your "ammo" instead of your laughable attempts at mocking someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about; how would your hypothetical law not be in violation of Roe v Wade, the Federal Constition (which guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the inherrent right of all citizens, whereas your law would infringe upon the liberty of another person). It's not a difficult question.

But then again you believe that the Falklands should be forced to join Argentina or be independent when they themselves want to be British, so clearly your not someone who bothers with such things as "facts."

CM156:

Volf:

CM156:

Tell you what, why don't you create a thread on this exact same manner? IE, forcing women to get an abortion if someone doesn't want to be a father? I'm sure that would prove to be quite the debate.

Also, hit me with your best shot. I haven't labeled you as "evil", despite my desire to stoop down to that level.

I've seen people's opinions on what I said are, so it isn't necessary.

I wasn't referring to you with the evil comment, just the moment where I had to take a step back and laugh at giving me such a title. Good to see that you don't resort to such childish labels.

This is clearly an issue you feel very strongly about. So why not create your own thread on the topic? I'm sure it'll draw more people in.

Also, I don't appreciate my legal research being in any way associated with divination or fortune telling

I only feel as passionate about the subject as those who respond to me. If nobody had responded to me, I would have just made my comments and left it at that.

Shaoken:

Volf:

CM156:

Do you understand what people like me do?

We study the court and, based on voting records and precedent justices follow, predict how they'll vote.

Do you think ANY justice on SCOTUS right now would uphold your law? AT ALL?

Also, if you have to resort to deflecting the issue, I think it's a safe bet you've run out of ammo.

I have plenty of "ammo", but I have run out of taking this thread seriously once I started getting labeled as "evil".

Really? Then answer the question; what Justices would support your hypothetical law? See contrary to what you believe, CM is simply using SCOTUS' previous decisions as a indication of how they would respond in future. It's called simply pattern regonition; if a Justice has voted consistantly on a particular issue, than it stands to basic reason that they will vote that way on the same issue.

So bring out your "ammo" instead of your laughable attempts at mocking someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about; how would your hypothetical law not be in violation of Roe v Wade, the Federal Constition (which guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the inherrent right of all citizens, whereas your law would infringe upon the liberty of another person). It's not a difficult question.

But then again you believe that the Falklands should be forced to join Argentina or be independent when they themselves want to be British, so clearly your not someone who bothers with such things as "facts."

Do you have a grudge against me or something? What does what I said in another thread about a completely different topic have to do with what I'm saying here? Don't answer because the answer is that the two have nothing to do with each other.

Volf:

Shaoken:

Volf:
I have plenty of "ammo", but I have run out of taking this thread seriously once I started getting labeled as "evil".

Really? Then answer the question; what Justices would support your hypothetical law? See contrary to what you believe, CM is simply using SCOTUS' previous decisions as a indication of how they would respond in future. It's called simply pattern regonition; if a Justice has voted consistantly on a particular issue, than it stands to basic reason that they will vote that way on the same issue.

So bring out your "ammo" instead of your laughable attempts at mocking someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about; how would your hypothetical law not be in violation of Roe v Wade, the Federal Constition (which guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the inherrent right of all citizens, whereas your law would infringe upon the liberty of another person). It's not a difficult question.

But then again you believe that the Falklands should be forced to join Argentina or be independent when they themselves want to be British, so clearly your not someone who bothers with such things as "facts."

Do you have a grudge against me or something? What does what I said in another thread about a completely different topic have to do with what I'm saying here? Don't answer because the answer is that the two have nothing to do with each other.

No, the answer is quite simple; you have a repeated history of not caring for facts at all. The falklands issue was just showing that; you didn't give a fuck what the people of the Falklands wanted, you have a grudge against the British and therefore the right answer was the one that didn't involve them in it.

Likewise, your entire arguement in this thread is what you think is right, and you ignore all evidence to the contrary. CM even told you upfront why the Justices would vote against your hypothetical law, and you tried to mock him by asking him if he could see the future. Fuck, did you even address a single point CM raised about the Supreme Court?

My point still stands; morally your point of view about a man getting a court to force an abortion is no different than the man beating the woman until she suffered a miscarriage; both involve the man forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want.

Furthermore, the man isn't a father in any meaningful way; he won't raise the child, he won't take care of it, he won't imprint any of his values on it, he won't give the child a single thing. Socially, the father is the one who raises the child. If the childs has a man who looks after it, then wether or not he's biologically the father is irrelevant, the child will still consider them as their father.

So your entire arguement boils down to the man getting an equal say for a few seconds of contribution to the conception, solely because his concience can't handle the consequences. Well, that's too bad; if that same man hit someone with his car and that other person was put into a vegitative state, he can't order a court to take him off life-support just to sooth his own conscience.

Bottom line, that man (and by extesnion you for believing in all this) are selfish for thinking that their own desires should override that of the one who actually has to go through with the pregnancy or the abortion.

Shaoken:

Volf:

Shaoken:

Really? Then answer the question; what Justices would support your hypothetical law? See contrary to what you believe, CM is simply using SCOTUS' previous decisions as a indication of how they would respond in future. It's called simply pattern regonition; if a Justice has voted consistantly on a particular issue, than it stands to basic reason that they will vote that way on the same issue.

So bring out your "ammo" instead of your laughable attempts at mocking someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about; how would your hypothetical law not be in violation of Roe v Wade, the Federal Constition (which guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the inherrent right of all citizens, whereas your law would infringe upon the liberty of another person). It's not a difficult question.

But then again you believe that the Falklands should be forced to join Argentina or be independent when they themselves want to be British, so clearly your not someone who bothers with such things as "facts."

Do you have a grudge against me or something? What does what I said in another thread about a completely different topic have to do with what I'm saying here? Don't answer because the answer is that the two have nothing to do with each other.

No, the answer is quite simple; you have a repeated history of not caring for facts at all. The falklands issue was just showing that; you didn't give a fuck what the people of the Falklands wanted, you have a grudge against the British and therefore the right answer was the one that didn't involve them in it.

Likewise, your entire arguement in this thread is what you think is right, and you ignore all evidence to the contrary. CM even told you upfront why the Justices would vote against your hypothetical law, and you tried to mock him by asking him if he could see the future. Fuck, did you even address a single point CM raised about the Supreme Court?

My point still stands; morally your point of view about a man getting a court to force an abortion is no different than the man beating the woman until she suffered a miscarriage; both involve the man forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want.

Furthermore, the man isn't a father in any meaningful way; he won't raise the child, he won't take care of it, he won't imprint any of his values on it, he won't give the child a single thing. Socially, the father is the one who raises the child. If the childs has a man who looks after it, then wether or not he's biologically the father is irrelevant, the child will still consider them as their father.

So your entire arguement boils down to the man getting an equal say for a few seconds of contribution to the conception, solely because his concience can't handle the consequences. Well, that's too bad; if that same man hit someone with his car and that other person was put into a vegitative state, he can't order a court to take him off life-support just to sooth his own conscience.

Bottom line, that man (and by extesnion you for believing in all this) are selfish for thinking that their own desires should override that of the one who actually has to go through with the pregnancy or the abortion.

The fact that you brought up what I said in another thread, (and I won't get into my answer here, if you care about the topic so much, respond to me in the thread your referring to) you come off as if you have a grudge against me. Talk to somebody else, because I won't talk to you for the rest of this thread.

Volf:
The fact that you brought up what I said in another thread, (and I won't get into my answer here, if you care about the topic so much, respond to me in the thread your referring to) you come off as if you have a grudge against me. Talk to somebody else, because I won't talk to you for the rest of this thread.

And once again, you dodge what is said because despite your claims, you have no ammo.

It's not hard; back up your claims. But you won't, because you can't. And this little stunt of yours is still proving it; you can't actually address a single point brought against you. You're just like F3llen, you just repeat yourself until people get bored and stop talking to you, then say that you're right and you won.

Shaoken:

Volf:
The fact that you brought up what I said in another thread, (and I won't get into my answer here, if you care about the topic so much, respond to me in the thread your referring to) you come off as if you have a grudge against me. Talk to somebody else, because I won't talk to you for the rest of this thread.

And once again, you dodge what is said because despite your claims, you have no ammo.

It's not hard; back up your claims. But you won't, because you can't. And this little stunt of yours is still proving it; you can't actually address a single point brought against you. You're just like F3llen, you just repeat yourself until people get bored and stop talking to you, then say that you're right and you won.

Again, you have some grudge, and I wont' indulge it.

Volf:

Shaoken:

Volf:
The fact that you brought up what I said in another thread, (and I won't get into my answer here, if you care about the topic so much, respond to me in the thread your referring to) you come off as if you have a grudge against me. Talk to somebody else, because I won't talk to you for the rest of this thread.

And once again, you dodge what is said because despite your claims, you have no ammo.

It's not hard; back up your claims. But you won't, because you can't. And this little stunt of yours is still proving it; you can't actually address a single point brought against you. You're just like F3llen, you just repeat yourself until people get bored and stop talking to you, then say that you're right and you won.

Again, you have some grudge, and I wont' indulge it.

Yet you feel the need to get the last word in edgewise.

It's not a difficult question; reveal what "ammo" you have. You've been making excuses to avoid it, not just to me (who, btw, doesn't give a damn about you, I think you just make shit up and then avoid trying to prove any of it), but to CM as well.

So, what ammo do you have exactly?

Zekksta:
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.

Disclaimer: A good theory can take years to develop, this was written in less than an hour. So I'm not claiming it's perfect.

Some claim that sentience is one characteristic of a human. Therefore, an organism would need this to become human.
I claim sentience develops over time the more you use it. All brain functions begin as nothing and increases in functionality and capacity over time.

Therefore:
The more sentient one becomes, the more human they become.
If not, you're saying sentience doesn't actually make someone human.
You can't claim something makes something human, but doesn't increase it human-ly as it develops.
That would mean it doesn't actually contribute any attributes towards humanity.

The more human you become, the more relevant your unalienable rights become.
This is made clear when you argue an unborn has no unalienable rights until later in pregnancy.
This is; however, incorrect. All humans have equal rights. Therefore, sentience must not be a characteristic needed.

You could argue:
Regardless of sentience capacity and functionality, having sentience automatically makes you an equal human. However, this undermines the original concept.
The unborn are not human due to the fact they lack the capacity for sentience at that current stage, regardless of any potential to aqcuire it.
By this very same logic; A one week old with 1% sentience capacity would hardly be in the same class of 'human' as a 40 year old with 40-60%+ sentience capacity. As the capacity to have sentience is what defines humans.

If you argue having sentience full stop makes you equal human regardless of capacity and functionality, you're claiming the actual ability to perceive sensory information isn't that important. Even though this is what sentience measures.

For example:
An unborn has 0% capacity; it has no sentience.
A 1 week old has 1% capacity; it can see and hear, etc., but it would have very little perception/awareness of any of this (it's premature.)
A 25 year old has 50% capacity; it can see and hear, etc., and it can perceive each situation thoroughly.

If you argue the measure of sentience isn't important, you reduce the importance of sentience altogether.
So now you're arguing, that although sentience is a characteristic needed to be human, it's not actually important how developed it is.
This contradicts the original statement, "The more sentient one becomes, the more human they become."
If sentience capacity and functionality isn't important, then the previous statement must be incorrect.
If it is correct, then you are simply stating sentience is not important to begin with.

This would all make sense on a practical level.
1) You arguably become more human, by definition, because your ability to perceive sensory information has increased.
2) Due to this increase, you literally do aqcuire more rights. Drinking alcohol and driving a car, for example.

However, if this is true, yet again we come to the conclusion that 'Age X' is more human than any age beforehand, i.e. '20 is more human than <20'. This; however, doesn't change the fact "all humans are created equal, with certain alienable rights."

The conclusion to this thoery? If sentience is important then you're arguing not all living humans are created equal. Which, by law, is incorrect.

This is backed up by original claim regarding children and the disabled, not to mention other illnesses that remove certain sentiental functions such as the lack of ability to feel suffering.

The main problem in my mind with stopping abortions is that it will force people to either do them themselves or get some black market doctor to do it. If this happens the standards of the procedure will drop into the lethal area.

F4LL3N:
If those questions are genuine, then you obviously don't value human life. The point of this debate is nill then. I'm appealing to the hyprocites who pretend they care about life then say abortion isn't that bad of an act.

So, are you gonna answer them or are you going to do like every other nincompoop who can't justify his belief system and run away?

Volf:

cobra_ky:

It is a sure thing that a woman might die if she gets an abortion. Statiscally speaking, it is going to happen at some point.

Yes I guess that's true, but I wouldn't change my position because a women might die, because if I followed that logic, I couldn't with good conscious be pro-choice, because at some point, a women will die from an abortion procedure.

cobra_ky:
You're supporting tying women down and forcing an invasive medical procedure on them without their consent. For some reason this doesn't strike you as being particularly bad.

Its the lesser of two evils in my mind. Yes under more desirable circumstances I would hope that the two people would come together a make the decision together. However under less desirable circumstances, I would say that a person has a right to make sure their not forced to be a parent if they don't want to.

In the minds of just about everyone else on earth, it is a much, much greater evil. One that flies in the face of everything we as a society believe about medical ethics.

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
If those questions are genuine, then you obviously don't value human life. The point of this debate is nill then. I'm appealing to the hyprocites who pretend they care about life then say abortion isn't that bad of an act.

So, are you gonna answer them or are you going to do like every other nincompoop who can't justify his belief system and run away?

I dont have to justify anything to you. You're asking random pessimistic questions that play very little role in this debate.

-Since when was life valuable?
Always or never. Which answer would you like me to use? Neither would refuse the unborn rights without saying murder is completely legal and okay.

-So what if someone's a human? You talk as if that's some important fact we should all take notice of.
We're talking about unborn human's. Why would you ask such a question?

-Why is humanity important?
Do you want to hear that it's not important? Because that would change nothing.

I didn't answer your questions because they're pointless. They don't prove or disprove anything.

Shaoken:

Volf:
The fact that you brought up what I said in another thread, (and I won't get into my answer here, if you care about the topic so much, respond to me in the thread your referring to) you come off as if you have a grudge against me. Talk to somebody else, because I won't talk to you for the rest of this thread.

You're just like F3llen, you just repeat yourself until people get bored and stop talking to you, then say that you're right and you won.

I'd prefer if I didn't have to repeat myself, tbh. That would change if people didn't ignore the facts I present.

F4LL3N:
I dont have to justify anything to you. You're asking random pessimistic questions that play very little role in this debate.

Well yes they do actually. The whole reason you're against abortion is because you have this perceived notion that humanity has the "right to live". Says who? Since when was being able to survive on this planet give us the "right" to live? We're no different from animals. Are you sayin they also have the right to live? In which case, how dare you eat meat you immoral bastard?

F4LL3N:
-Since when was life valuable?
Always or never. Which answer would you like me to use? Neither would refuse the unborn rights without saying murder is completely legal and okay.

We're not refusing fetuses any rights because they have no rights.

F4LL3N:
We're talking about unborn human's. Why would you ask such a question?

Because humanity has as much right to live as any other animal on this planet.

F4LL3N:

I didn't answer your questions because they're pointless. They don't prove or disprove anything.

Well yes they do prove something actually. They prove that the whole "life is sacred" argument is pointless. If you cannot provide a reason as to why life deserves to live then you have no leg to stand on.

Pro-choice here, for it allows both to be...mostly happy. Those who belief life starts when the sperm and egg meet can have it, and those that choose not to have the baby for whatever their reasoning(financial, timing, social, rape, belief, etc) have a right to do so, for just as the majority may not suppress the rights of the minority, the minority cannot impose its will on the majority.
I'm also a dude and feel that I have no right telling what a woman can do with her body(and my involvement with the baby decision began and ended with whether I used a condom or not, or her contraception if I trust her on that). Then there is the horror stories my grandparents told me of a couple of their friends who got pregnant in their high school days, when abortion was illegal and pregnancy outside wedlock was very taboo... one nearly died from a bad 'back alley' abortion clinic and another could never have kids again after the procedure destroyed their reproductive organs. So yeah, let people decide, and keep it legal, for people will seek out abortions, be it legal or not.

Volf:
Its the lesser of two evils in my mind. Yes under more desirable circumstances I would hope that the two people would come together a make the decision together. However under less desirable circumstances, I would say that a person has a right to make sure their not forced to be a parent if they don't want to.

Are you honestly saying, that you cannot bear the thought of being the biological father to some kid somewhere (which you may even be at this moment), but you are perfectly fine living with the thought of having forced someone undergo an invasive procedure, which mentally scars the woman for life?

Are you in all seriousness incapable of seeing the difference between these two? Either you live with the thought that you are a biological father to some kid or you brutally force a woman to abort her pregnancy, to deny her becoming a mother. You are effectively denying her right to give birth to her child. And she would have to live with that.

Have you even for a second thought of what that might do to the woman? How horrific that would be? And how could you live with that knowledge? I wholeheartedly agree with SillyBear. If someone had a court order to abort my pregnancy, I would not go easily. I would put up such a fight that I don't think anesthetics would be needed, as I would have to be beaten unconscious.

I also must agree with Shaoken, and I quote: a father forcing the mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want to have a biological son or daughter is morally no different than the father beating her into a miscarriage.

You should really think about what you are saying here and maybe read the replies you have received once more.

For the record, I am pro-choice. And it is the choice of the woman that counts.

Jack Rascal:

Volf:
Its the lesser of two evils in my mind. Yes under more desirable circumstances I would hope that the two people would come together a make the decision together. However under less desirable circumstances, I would say that a person has a right to make sure their not forced to be a parent if they don't want to.

Are you honestly saying, that you cannot bear the thought of being the biological father to some kid somewhere (which you may even be at this moment), but you are perfectly fine living with the thought of having forced someone undergo an invasive procedure, which mentally scars the woman for life?

Are you in all seriousness incapable of seeing the difference between these two? Either you live with the thought that you are a biological father to some kid or you brutally force a woman to abort her pregnancy, to deny her becoming a mother. You are effectively denying her right to give birth to her child. And she would have to live with that.

Have you even for a second thought of what that might do to the woman? How horrific that would be? And how could you live with that knowledge? I wholeheartedly agree with SillyBear. If someone had a court order to abort my pregnancy, I would not go easily. I would put up such a fight that I don't think anesthetics would be needed, as I would have to be beaten unconscious.

I also must agree with Shaoken, and I quote: a father forcing the mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want to have a biological son or daughter is morally no different than the father beating her into a miscarriage.

You should really think about what you are saying here and maybe read the replies you have received once more.

For the record, I am pro-choice. And it is the choice of the woman that counts.

nice strawman, but I don't support beating women

Volf:

Kendarik:

Volf:
I idea that I was forced to be somebodies father against my will is bad.

Also, I'm not getting into a oppression Olympics contest with you

I'm still trying to figure out how you are "forced" into anything. What force is being applied? What are you being "made" to do?

And btw, when rights conflict most countries resolve that conflict by doing comparisons of the relative infringement/harm to each to decide how to resolve the conflict.

The decision of whether or not I'm somebodies father is being decided for me, hence I'm being forced to be a father.

You have yet to demonstrate how that harms you in any way. Please define that specifically for me.

Per our discussions so far, you would have no responsibility, no child support, so how does it hurt you that you are a "father" by virtue of the donation of one sperm?

Volf:

Jack Rascal:

Volf:
Its the lesser of two evils in my mind. Yes under more desirable circumstances I would hope that the two people would come together a make the decision together. However under less desirable circumstances, I would say that a person has a right to make sure their not forced to be a parent if they don't want to.

Are you honestly saying, that you cannot bear the thought of being the biological father to some kid somewhere (which you may even be at this moment), but you are perfectly fine living with the thought of having forced someone undergo an invasive procedure, which mentally scars the woman for life?

Are you in all seriousness incapable of seeing the difference between these two? Either you live with the thought that you are a biological father to some kid or you brutally force a woman to abort her pregnancy, to deny her becoming a mother. You are effectively denying her right to give birth to her child. And she would have to live with that.

Have you even for a second thought of what that might do to the woman? How horrific that would be? And how could you live with that knowledge? I wholeheartedly agree with SillyBear. If someone had a court order to abort my pregnancy, I would not go easily. I would put up such a fight that I don't think anesthetics would be needed, as I would have to be beaten unconscious.

I also must agree with Shaoken, and I quote: a father forcing the mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want to have a biological son or daughter is morally no different than the father beating her into a miscarriage.

You should really think about what you are saying here and maybe read the replies you have received once more.

For the record, I am pro-choice. And it is the choice of the woman that counts.

nice strawman, but I don't support beating women

Nobody said you supported beating women. I agreed with Shaoken about the morality of your statement and for your convenience I have highlighted the key point for you.

Now, instead of evading every question asked, would you like to answer them? I can really see now, even though I read all the posts on this thread, how futile it is to try to debate or reason with you. So I must repeat; you should really think about what you are saying here and maybe read the replies you have received once more.

Volf:

Jack Rascal:

Volf:
Its the lesser of two evils in my mind. Yes under more desirable circumstances I would hope that the two people would come together a make the decision together. However under less desirable circumstances, I would say that a person has a right to make sure their not forced to be a parent if they don't want to.

Are you honestly saying, that you cannot bear the thought of being the biological father to some kid somewhere (which you may even be at this moment), but you are perfectly fine living with the thought of having forced someone undergo an invasive procedure, which mentally scars the woman for life?

Are you in all seriousness incapable of seeing the difference between these two? Either you live with the thought that you are a biological father to some kid or you brutally force a woman to abort her pregnancy, to deny her becoming a mother. You are effectively denying her right to give birth to her child. And she would have to live with that.

Have you even for a second thought of what that might do to the woman? How horrific that would be? And how could you live with that knowledge? I wholeheartedly agree with SillyBear. If someone had a court order to abort my pregnancy, I would not go easily. I would put up such a fight that I don't think anesthetics would be needed, as I would have to be beaten unconscious.

I also must agree with Shaoken, and I quote: a father forcing the mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want to have a biological son or daughter is morally no different than the father beating her into a miscarriage.

You should really think about what you are saying here and maybe read the replies you have received once more.

For the record, I am pro-choice. And it is the choice of the woman that counts.

nice strawman, but I don't support beating women

Missing the point. Both events have the same outcome; both result in the mother having the child aborted against her will, and suffering emotional and pyschological trauma from it. The only real difference is that in your example the man is getting the courts to do the abortion for him.

Did you ever bothered to answer what would happen in your scenario if the mother refuses to get the abortion? Does the court get the police to physically force her to go to the abortion clinic?

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
I dont have to justify anything to you. You're asking random pessimistic questions that play very little role in this debate.

Well yes they do actually. The whole reason you're against abortion is because you have this perceived notion that humanity has the "right to live". Says who? Since when was being able to survive on this planet give us the "right" to live? We're no different from animals. Are you sayin they also have the right to live? In which case, how dare you eat meat you immoral bastard?

F4LL3N:
-Since when was life valuable?
Always or never. Which answer would you like me to use? Neither would refuse the unborn rights without saying murder is completely legal and okay.

We're not refusing fetuses any rights because they have no rights.

F4LL3N:
We're talking about unborn human's. Why would you ask such a question?

Because humanity has as much right to live as any other animal on this planet.

F4LL3N:

I didn't answer your questions because they're pointless. They don't prove or disprove anything.

Well yes they do prove something actually. They prove that the whole "life is sacred" argument is pointless. If you cannot provide a reason as to why life deserves to live then you have no leg to stand on.

Again, what you're asking me is pointless. You're running out of ground to stand on so you're bringing up random questions that would not remove the fetus' right to life without claiming all murder is acceptable. How does this prove me wrong in any way?

I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...

What is the point you're trying to conclude? There is no physical attribute humans have that says we deserve to live. It's a philosophical question. Unless you're trying to refer to the brain and our intelligence... In which case, that is wrong. Using intelligence would suggest not all persons deserve life equally. In a thinking man's world, this might be the case. But in a thinking man's world, we'd have such an understanding of philosophy that we would realize it's not right who decides which persons are worthy of life.

All logical evidence still suggests abortion is murder therefore wrong.

F4LL3N:
that would not remove the fetus' right to life without claiming all murder is acceptable.

Right to life? Since when did anyone have the right to life? Didn't I just tell you the moral argument doesn't work here?

F4LL3N:
I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...

So humanity has the right to live because humanity says it has the right to live? Yeah, that works. I'm guessing if an alien race came to Earth and degreed that its right to live is more important than ours we should just roll with it and let them eat us as a delicacy, right? Oh wait, we're doing the exact same thing right now with animals. Your entire argument is based on selfishness. If a human has the right to live so does a pig.

F4LL3N:
What is the point you're trying to conclude? There is no physical attribute humans have that says we deserve to live.

Exactly.

F4LL3N:
Unless you're trying to refer to the brain and our intelligence... In which case, that is wrong. Using intelligence would suggest not all persons deserve life equally.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot here. If intelligence is not the thing that gives us the right to live then what is? If you say that all humans have the right to live then you must also say that all animals have the right to live. After all, if intelligence is not what gives us that right then there's virtually nothing to separate us from them.

F4LL3N:
But in a thinking man's world, we'd have such an understanding of philosophy that we would realize it's not right who decides which persons are worthy of life.

We already do that on a regular basis.

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
that would not remove the fetus' right to life without claiming all murder is acceptable.

Right to life? Since when did anyone have the right to life? Didn't I just tell you the moral argument doesn't work here?

In which case you argue murder of a 'living' human being is acceptable. All this proves is you have a morally wrong view on human life. It is a moral question, btw.

F4LL3N:
I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...

So humanity has the right to live because humanity says it has the right to live? Yeah, that works. I'm guessing if an alien race came to Earth and degreed that its right to live is more important than ours we should just roll with it and let them eat us as a delicacy, right? Oh wait, we're doing the exact same thing right now with animals. Your entire argument is based on selfishness. If a human has the right to live so does a pig.

I didn't say a pig doesn't have the right to live. I believe there's an organisation titled 'PETA' if you're that into animal rights. Me, personally, well I share very little physical and mental connection with a pig so I'm not exactly going to get upset when someone eats pork.

This argument has nothing to do with animal rights.

F4LL3N:
Unless you're trying to refer to the brain and our intelligence... In which case, that is wrong. Using intelligence would suggest not all persons deserve life equally.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot here. If intelligence is not the thing that gives us the right to live then what is? If you say that all humans have the right to live then you must also say that all animals have the right to live. After all, if intelligence is not what gives us that right then there's virtually nothing to separate us from them.

You need to understand there's a difference between one species and another. There's a human rights movement and an animal rights movement. I do not understand why your bringing up completely irrelevant subjects.

That's beside the point. Humans don't have equal intelligence, therefore, if intelligence is a factor, you argue humans are not created equally. Earlier on this page I wrote a theory that tries to show this is also the case for sentience (or any factor that comes from the brain.)

Hence why I argue it should be defined biologically. Which, I might add, has yet to be disproven. Very few people bothered to counter my biological thoery because they know it's right. The few that did counter tried to say my definition also applies to cancer cells; which is completely false. I know it's not good to be arrogant, but it's so hard when people blantantly ignore facts because they don't want to admit what it is they are really supporting. You yourself have turned to "no one deserves the right to life" and "killing a pig is murder" rather than admit human life begins at conception.

I personally believe that the /potential/ for human life begins at conception. There are tons of things that could go wrong from the point of conception to the point that the fetus/child/what-have-you exits the birthing canal, however.

To me, abortion is another of those consequences.

I look at it from a different perspective.
I do not believe it is right to bring a child into the world when it is not wanted. Just because someone has a moral hangup does not mean that it should happen.

If neither parent or the mother wants the child, there is little purpose for me to suggest carrying it to term even for adoption. Adoption is hardly a guaranteed shot at a good life. If I cannot give the child a good life, I would consider it selfish to go through with having it.

I know not everyone discusses the potential of pregnancy with their significant other/person they met in the backroom of a frat house, but when the responsibility arises to make a decision whether or not to allow the pregnancy to continue, I do believe that both halves have a say in it. However, ultimately, I do feel it should be the mother's choice.

Regardless of what anyone says, until they make it possible for a man to carry a child to term and then squeeze it out of whatever hole is appropriate for him, the woman will ultimately have the final say.

And it is the mother's fault just as well as the father's fault if due precautions are not taken. That being said, I do not believe that an unwanted child should be a "consequence". That is hardly an appropriate way to look at bringing in another life.

F4LL3N:
In which case you argue murder of a 'living' human being is acceptable.

It is actually. We do it on a regular basis.

F4LL3N:
I didn't say a pig doesn't have the right to live. I believe there's an organisation titled 'PETA' if you're that into animal rights.

Oh, so you support PETA's firebombings of animal research labs now?

F4LL3N:
Me, personally, well I share very little physical and mental connection with a pig so I'm not exactly going to get upset when someone eats pork.

A lot of animal rights activists feel a physicl and mental connection with animals. Why are you angry of your views being shunned when you're doing the exact same thing for animal rights activists?

F4LL3N:
You need to understand there's a difference between one species and another.

I'm not saying there isn't, I'm saying you haven't stated it yet and until you do I'll continue to operate under the assumption that there isn't any. If it's not OK to kill a human being it's not OK to kill an animal.

F4LL3N:
That's beside the point. Humans don't have equal intelligence, therefore, if intelligence is a factor, you argue humans are not created equally. Earlier on this page I wrote a theory that tries to show this is also the case for sentience (or any factor that comes from the brain.)

Are sentience and intelligence the things that separate us from animals then?

F4LL3N:

Hence why I argue it should be defined biologically.

Biologically speaking, if we take out intelligence and sentience, there's virtually no difference between you and a pig.

F4LL3N:
Very few people bothered to counter my biological thoery because they know it's right.

Well I know I'm right, therefore I am! Oh logic, you so silly.

F4LL3N:
. You yourself have turned to "no one deserves the right to life" and "killing a pig is murder" rather than admit human life begins at conception.

Why at conception? Why not when the sperm is formed? Most of the genetic material that makes up a human being is in the sperm. Technically speaking, everytime a sperm is wasted an individual human being is wasted since that genetic makeup will never be achieved again. How does it feel to be a mass murderer F4LL3N?

Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It is already against the law where I live. Should be legal if you ask me.

PercyBoleyn:
Biologically speaking, if we take out intelligence and sentience, there's virtually no difference between you and a pig.

I don't mean to sounds rude, but sentience only refers to a degree of self-awareness resulting from sensory feeling and being able to process that data. In other words, pretty much any animal more neurologically advanced than an anemone (essentially the most basic animal in terms of neurological development) is technically sentient.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked