Should abortion be abolished?

DBTER

So firstly I don't know if this debate is still active but here is my "argument" --
My answer is yes, abortion should be demolished. By completing abortion it either succeeds and the living baby dies as a result or the abortion fails but you have a deformed baby with intense medical problems who has to live like that for the rest of his life. My point is that there's a high risk of failure and by consequent destroying any possible potential in that baby. My second point is that based on the constitution any living being (human) has the right to live. So the abortion concept completely unfollows this rule because after all, that baby was living in the mother's body and breathing and was alive. My third point is what's the man voice and input on this. As a dad (well I guess not if the abortion happens), will he get any decisive opinion on this matter? After all, he participated actively in the creation of that baby. To finish, there are some extreme cases where I would understand the will to abort a baby but in 99.99% I don't think that it should be legal.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****You may not have claimed abortion is a lifestyle choice or convenience, but it is supported by the reasons you cited.

It’s not that’s merely your opinion 

****You don't think a fetus is an organism...I'm just using the definition of offspring.  I never said offspring=child.

Where did I say that? Oh good you agree it’s not a child why do you call it child murder then?

****Nope, Using bodily autonomy only as a means is not a sweeping generalization, otherwise it would be cited as a reason for obtaining one.

No one is using that as a reason except you 

**** What decisions do men get that ever trump a women's when regarding children?

Right so in the U S an alcoholic mother is given custody of kids even if the dad is hardworking and sober?

****I never said the create only to destroy.  They accidentally create and then destroy in order to keep a lifestyle they want.

They don’t “accidentally create “ most get pregnant but change their minds due to circumstances 

              ****Because you can't kill something just to make your life better.  

So you cannot have a cow killed for steak or eat fish?

****You also can't determine for the child that their suffering would be so great they'd rather be dead.  

But no one is saying that except you , you cannot force a woman to give birth against her wishes when her suffering would be so great she would rather be dead 

****If the suffering is that bad why hasn't the mother committed suicide? (Clarity: Don't commit suicide)

Some indeed do , do all suffering people commit suicide in the U S?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Lifestyle choice is not an opinion.  Having an abortion for reason cited: education, wealth.  Those are choices for lifestyle/convenience.

Just because offspring doesnt = child doesnt mean their cant be murder.  Child isn't = to baby or adult, but still is murder.

That's exactly my point, no one uses bodily autonomy for a reason, only as a means, suggesting that they don't care near as much about bodily autonomy as they do ending the life of the fetus to continue the lifestyle they deem fit.

Yes, often times the mother is still granted partial custody even if she has addiction problems and the man doesn't.  My friend experienced that first hand.

"They don't accidentally create"  So you think the majority of abortions occur because during the original act they wanted a kid and then suddenly decided they don't?

A cow and a fish aren't human.

Some people commit suicide yes.  But as an argument plenty of people bring up the fact that many women who have abortions are poor/suffering and don't want to bring a child into that.  I'm saying you can't make the assumption that the child would rather be dead, also if the suffering is that bad why haven't aren't they dead (suicide)

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

"Any moment other than birth is subjective, birth is the only objective moment for personhood.'  How can you claim that is objective?

People who can't feel pain are still people.  People that need machines (pace-makers ect) are still people. You say after 21 weeks they are viable, yet you still say not person until birth, so you'd be fine with killing them.  Objectively assigning person hood to a baby outside the womb that is less developed than one inside the womb is illogical.

Attached is a pregnancy chart.  Fetus looks quite a bit like a baby after 12 weeks.  Not that looks should define what a person is either.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

True, looks shouldn't define what a person is, yet you show me this cute little chart pushing the "looks" argument in order to trigger an emotional reaction, it's fallacious...

Say that for argument sake I grant you (against my personal belief) that personhood begins at conception, I have another line of arguments for this...

I'll ask you first this, do you think that a person who causes harm without intent (you crashed your car into another car), is nonetheless responsible for this harm?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

**** It is not an opinion.  

I know but claiming abortion is a lifestyle choice or convenience is 

****Having an abortion for reason cited: education, wealth.  Those are choices for lifestyle/convenience.

Again merely your opinion 

****Just because offspring doesnt = child doesnt mean their cant be murder.  

It does where I live thankfully 

****Child isn't = to baby or adult, but still is murder.

It’s not , and even in the U S it’s not, repeating an untruth doesn’t make it true 

****That's exactly my point, no one uses bodily autonomy for a reason, 

only as a means, 

It’s called excercising  bodily autonomy 

**** suggesting that they don't care near as much about bodily autonomy as they do ending the life of the fetus to continue the lifestyle they deem fit.

You keep repeating the same nonsense 

****Yes, often times the mother is still granted partial custody even if she has addiction problems and the man doesn't.  My friend experienced that first hand.

The U S sounds like a dreadful place to bring up kids 

****”They don't accidentally create"  So you think the majority of abortions occur because during the original act they wanted a kid and then suddenly decided they don't?

No , the decision comes after depending on circumstances 

****A cow and a fish aren't human.

Why’s it fine to kill them?

****Some people commit suicide yes.  But as an argument plenty of people bring up the fact that many women who have abortions are poor/suffering and don't want to bring a child into that.  I'm saying you can't make the assumption that the child would rather be dead, also if the suffering is that bad why haven't aren't they dead (suicide)

No one said an unthinking fetus would rather be dead , ask women why they don’t commit suicide when they are suffering would that make you happier?

YeshuaBought

@Dee Personally opposed, safe legal rare, I am. I agree with choice if it is a last resort, because genetically, the zygote, is not part of the mother's body. This is what I need both parties to unnnnnnnnnnnderstand about what I am saying: One need not like a right, to understand it, or support it. Please know that I support safe legal rare, evennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn though I believe a zygote is a baby. In conclusion, personhood does nnnnnnnnnnnnnot give one person the right to another person's body. I hope that helps.

YeshuaBought

@TKDB And prolifers want to force raped women to give birth, and police the birth control, see how that works?

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

@TKDB And prolifers want to force raped women to give birth, and police the birth control, see how that works?

Sexual assault is not a justification to have all woman admit to a murder by description publicly. Non of what you say has any bearing on why woman could not preserve united state constitution by choice. Can abolishment of a unconstitutional practice take place by declaration of constitutional independence? Female specific amputation abolished the self-incrimination of Female pregnancy abortion, while the basic principle of citizen ship of a Nation negates the complex principle of forced birth as a united state. 

All woman shall be created equal by their creator pregnancy. All woman perform female pregnancy abortion killing a baby by knowingly not nurturing the living egg allowing it to die. This is about as basic as an explanation can get on this matter. Both you and TKDB want to force control on an independent matter and what is worse is the way it is to do so by creating a violation of the medical hypocritic oath.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

You were the one that said the don't look like humans, so i posted it.

They can indeed be responsible for the wreck, if they were drunk driving, driving recklessly, speeding, pass through stop sign.  They would be responsible for the others injuries even if it wasn't their intent.  Also accidents aren't one of the primary outcomes of driving; pregnancy is a primary outcome of sex.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I never said they didn't "look" human... You assumed I did... I said it was not a person, as in legal terminology... 

Now, you agree that causing tort or harm, even without intent, makes one responsible for that tort/harm, right? That is what you just agreed to, exact?

Then, by the same logic, a fetus, even if it's not its intent, causes tort/harm to the pregnant woman by using her body without consent, by endangering her life, by jeopardizing her economical future, etc... It is therefore responsible for those torts, even if it's not its fault... And as such the woman is legitimately allowed to stop this continuous tort/harm by whatever means necessary...

MichaelElpers

@Dee

You don't even post arguments, "your wrong" is the basis of your arguments, you sound like a child.

If the reason for an abortion is education, wealth ect. tell me how that is not a lifestyle choice?  Will it kill them?  That is fact, not opinion.

Just because offspring doesnt = child doesnt mean their cant be murder.  "It does where I live." that is anecdotal so it doesn't matter.  A child doesn't equal adult but both are murder.  You can get a worse charge fro assaulting a female if you kill the fetus. 

Regarding unfair child practices, This happens to men everywhere.  I'm glad you don't live  in the U.S. either.

No one uses bodily autonomy for a reason, suggesting that they don't care near as much about bodily autonomy as they do ending the life of the fetus to continue the lifestyle they deem fit.  This is a completely logical statement, you can't argue by just saying its nonsense.

****They don't accidentally create"  So you think the majority of abortions occur because during the original act they wanted a kid and then suddenly decided they don't? No , the decision comes after depending on circumstances.

Funny! On one hand i get the people that say most be are responsible when it comes to contraception they just get unlucky because theyre not 100% guarantees, then i get you who says they got pregnant on purpose then decide the abortion later...very unlikely.

***No one said an unthinking fetus would rather be dead.  Yes, they do all the time.  They say why bring a fetus into a world in which they'd suffer and be unwanted; they are making the argument that the fetus would rather be dead.

Dr_Maybe

YeshuaBought said:

I say no. There are too many what ifs to abolish abortion. I am personally opposed, but supportive of last resort choice. No one actually likes abortion. As the only disabled child (now 38) of a mother without adequate support for her and myself, I believe tough choices sometices have to be made, even if the fetus is a baby. Forced organ donation is not a right. I promise not to be abusive, but if anyone wants to debate me, post here. MartinGocic inspired me to make this debate, even if I disagree with him on this.

There are no rational reasons for abortion to be banned. All the reasons to ban it are emotional and or religious, reason and reality play no part.

John_C_87

Okay so would abolishment of female pregnancy abortion be determined on if a better replacement for the expression exists? People change there names all the time to acquire fame and fortune. Talk about being stuck in a rut.  

John_C_87

Dr_Maybe said:

YeshuaBought said:

I say no. There are too many what ifs to abolish abortion. I am personally opposed, but supportive of last resort choice. No one actually likes abortion. As the only disabled child (now 38) of a mother without adequate support for her and myself, I believe tough choices sometices have to be made, even if the fetus is a baby. Forced organ donation is not a right. I promise not to be abusive, but if anyone wants to debate me, post here. MartinGocic inspired me to make this debate, even if I disagree with him on this.

There are no rational reasons for abortion to be banned. All the reasons to ban it are emotional and or religious, reason and reality play no part.

There are legal reason to stop the use of female pregnancy abortion its a self-incrimination. There is no reason what so ever not to abolish female pregnancy abortion when des cribbing basic principle it describes every woman who ovulates and refuses to get pregnant in the world. It can literally become abolished and no one would know the difference other then the loss of self-incrimination and the creation of United State Constitutional right for woman.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The difference is the woman made the concious decision that created the fetus and therefore it is her fault.

If someone injects themselves with a drug I would blame them for any injury that occurs not the drug, it made no decision.

Jeopardizing economic future is not endangering their lives.  


Also you brought up prolifers say fetuses are distinguishable from babies. (I inferred that you believed at some level looks matter then) My point is after about 12 weeks they are pretty close, but yes looks shouldn't matter all that much.  It does reinforce their humanity though.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

*****You don't even post arguments, "your wrong" is the basis of your arguments, you sound like a child.

I do post arguments , you’ve addressed none so far as you stupidly repeat the same nonsense in everyone of your party political broadcasts 

****If the reason for an abortion is education, wealth ect. tell me how that is not a lifestyle choice?  

I never stated any of these as a reason , do try and keep up 

****Will it kill them?  That is fact, not opinion.

Kill who? Who is them? 

****Just because offspring doesnt = child 

doesn’t mean their cant be murder.  "

Right so using your own logic killing a fish is .......murder  

****that is anecdotal so it doesn't matter.  A child doesn't equal adult but both are murder.  

So in the U S abortion is now deemed murder?

****You can get a worse charge fro assaulting a female if you kill the fetus. 

Because the woman carrying the child did not invite nor want the attack are you really that ? 

****Regarding unfair child practices, This happens to men everywhere.  I'm glad you don't live  in the U.S. either.

So am I seeing as it has people like you by the cart load 

****No one uses bodily autonomy for a reason, suggesting that they don't care near as much about bodily autonomy as they do ending the life of the fetus to continue the lifestyle they deem fit.  This is a completely logical statement, you can't argue by just saying its nonsense.

That piece of nonsense is totally meaningless 

****Funny! On one hand i get the people that say most be are responsible when it comes to contraception they just get unlucky because theyre not 100% guarantees, then i get you who says they got pregnant on purpose then decide the abortion later...very unlikely.

Funny people like you think women get pregnant just to abort for the fun of it 

****Yes, they do all the time.  They say why bring a fetus into a world in which they'd suffer and be unwanted; they are making the argument that the fetus would rather be dead.

The fetus doesn’t have an opinion you need to read a book on basic biology maybe borrow one from an educated neighbor 

BTW you said it’s wrong to kill but fine to kill an animal why’s that?

Also you think it’s right to force women to give birth against their wishes why’s that as you keep refusing to answer?

MichaelElpers

**** "I never cited education or wealth as a reason"...You posted earlier: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now.  


No because as a stated before fish aren't human...do you think a fetus is not human?


****So in the U S abortion is now deemed murder?   

Do you know what anecdotal means?  Just because currently abortion isn't viewed as murder doesn't mean its not.  We one viewed slavery as OK, did that make it right then.  

****You can get a worse charge from assaulting a female if you kill the fetus...."Because the woman carrying the child did not invite nor want the attack are you really that ?"

I guess you missed the term WORSE.  Attacking a women is always assault, but injuring a fetus in the attack can get you extra charges, why do we value its existence more in that instance?

****"That piece of nonsense is meaningless"?

Another childish argument.  I can't disprove you, so Ill just say your wrong .  Let me put it this way.  The 2nd amendment is also controversial.  If gun owners are exercising their second amendment citing and stating "We have the right to own guns to protect ourselves and our families", but then in turn bought a gun a never cited that as a reason for owning one, I would find something wrong with that law.

*****Funny people like you think women get pregnant just to abort for the fun of it

Nope, never claimed that.  I think the majority of women get accidentally pregnant because they are irresponsible.  Either in the way that they don't use protection, or they are acting on impulse and have not considered the consequences that may occur.  Also again dodge with no argument.

****The fetus doesn’t have an opinion you need to read a book on basic biology maybe borrow one from an educated neighbor.

Again never stated that the fetus had opinion, only that people are deciding what heir opinion should be.  Their unwanted and would go through suffering, so were doing a favor by not bringing them into this world.

Do you actually read my statements before you post? because what you interpret me saying is almost never what was actually stated.

****BTW you said it’s wrong to kill but fine to kill an animal why’s that? Also you think it’s right to force women to give birth against their wishes why’s that as you keep refusing to answer?

I say its wrong to kill a human. I value humanity more than other animals as nearly all species value their own more than others.  

Sounds like you think that you value human life and animal life the same.  Do you think people should be tried for murder for killing animals?  Otherwise why would you pose the question. I think its wrong to kill and animals only for sport.

I think abortion is wrong because the women created the human life inside her.  She shouldn't have the right to renege on a decision she consentually made when that means killing that human life for reasons other than life or permanent impairment of her physical being.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

A woman makes the conscious decision to kill the fetus regardless as a united state. You are just supporting the ridiculous basic idea of body control.

It isn’t about a choice of sex it is about the risk of immigration and if a large enough risk is presented as a united state to negate the use of self-incrimination by deception set on woman by law. Not American United State Constitution.

Female pregnancy abortion is a open admission to a murder, this means it needs, it is required to be proven as not true. That is the very reason the idea of when killing the babies are appropriate with all woman. When they have sex, or when the don't have sex in either case about 350 babies are going to die per woman. Which is really kind of minimal as millions of babies die as make produce many more sperm than woman create eggs.

John_C_87

So, Should female pregnancy abortion be abolished? Yes, if it means the end to the imposed self-incrimination, and if replaced with a United State Constitutional substitute that was supposedly non existent by woman. Should it matter if the concept was abolished?

At this point no-one is defensing why a self-incrimination must be shared as a United State in America let alone any Nation. Are any of you? Did we miss that detail? 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I disagree... Pregnancy isn't the sole purpose of sex... Having sex, doesn't entail a pregnancy... As I already said, for couples actively seeking a pregnancy, the average number of required sexual intercourse is 78... Sex and procreation are not required to be linked, certainly not in 2019 with in vitro procedures and insemination... The simple fact of using contraception IS being accountable & responsible...

And let me ask you this, what is your stance on pregnancy resulting from rapes? Do you think a woman who was raped, should nonetheless be forced carry the pregnancy to term?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I have never stated that pregnancy is the sole purpose, but one of the primary outcomes.  If it takes 78 times for those not using protection and trying to get pregnant, for those using protection it should mean with the 99% and 85% effectiveness ratings for birth control and condoms the percentage should be very, very, low; i don't believe the majority of people who get abortions were being responsible for this reason. Sex and procreation are linked unless you have gone through procedures.

As far as rape goes, I'm slightly more murky.  The mother didn't have the choice and therefore not responsible, but I believe the fetus is a person it doesn't deserve to die either.  It's a really crappy situation.  Also I don't believe the data shows that rape victims who receive abortions are better off mentally than those that don't; in fact I think those they have the child usually are more emotionally sound (admittedly I don't know the numbers though). 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Nonetheless, what you're doing is placing bodily function above one's self-agency, and that is unacceptable.... A woman is more than an uterus or a reproduction machine... 

The “keep your legs closed” argument has a small amount of prudence with a big shitty pile of shame and misogyny.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen
Not sure how I'm doing that, I actually think I'm doing the exact opposite.  I'm placing the life of the fetus over a bodily function due to the fact that the bodily function isn't required, the woman has the ability to control that bodily function, and there are ways to prevent a pregnancy from occurring (some close to 100%).  Obviously a woman is more than a uterus which would be why I place their life above the fetus'.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

If one is adamantly opposed to abortion, one is committed to some set of values which requires that women who become pregnant (whether intentionally or unintentionally) must endure the process of pregnancy and birth, no matter how distressing, painful and risky it is for them. 

The justification given for this is usually based on an abstract notion of the value of “fetal life”, rather than on the ground that suffering is morally improving for the women concerned.

Extreme opponents of abortion argue that abortion is equivalent to murder and that, no matter how much women may suffer, they cannot be allowed to “kill their children”. But opposition to abortion entails a demand that women suffer, regardless of the circumstances in which they came to be pregnant, and despite the opportunities for ending pregnancy that exist. 

Since an unwanted fetus is analogous to an invading organism, even if it is viewed as a human being, an argument can be made that the woman is entitled to refuse to act as a life-support system for it, and to abort in self defense. What about those who do not believe that fetuses are full human beings, but believe that abortion following consensual sexual activity is “wrong”?

As the philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards has pointed out, the only time when we insist that a particular consequence must follow a particular activity, and do not allow people to escape the consequence, is when the consequence is intended as a punishment.

Apart from this punitive aspect of anti-abortion belief, it is also objectionable in ethical terms because it treats the pregnant woman as a means to an end: that of producing a baby.

If we start from the premise that the promotion of freedom and the prevention of suffering are fundamental goals which society ought to support, then the prospect of women forced into suffering even—death—ought to worry us. Kant says that “a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself”. 

Denying women abortion is, on this analysis, unethical because it subordinates women to a reproductive end.

The present tendency to characterize questions about abortion ethics in terms of concerns about fetuses, or even fetal “rights”, tends to sideline women and the realities of women's lives. Such sidelining of women is not entirely accidental; it is trite that many “fetal rights” proponents are opposed to the present increase in women's freedoms, and want to roll them back. Others who speak of fetuses as having “rights” assume that fetuses either have, or should have, rights, without necessarily explaining why this should be so, or why it should result in another person's loss of autonomy.

To put women back centre-stage, we should ask: why do women want abortions? Research has shown that the most commonly reported reason worldwide is that women wish to postpone, or stop, childbearing. Abortion is a form of family planning, though it may not be “politically correct” to say so. What other reasons do women give for wanting abortions, worldwide? They include:

• disruption of education or employment;

• lack of support from father;

• desire to provide for existing children;

• poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children;

• relationship problems with husband or partner, and

• a woman's perception that she is too young to have a child.

To compel such women to bear unwanted children is in my view a form of ethical despotism,  in Mill's words: “compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”. If people are to be free, that freedom must include freedom to make these difficult and extremely personal choices.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't consider the fetus equal to an invading organism for two reasons. (1) Not considered an invader if you were the one whose decision directly allowed it to enter.  2. This organism is human.  I would say the comparison is closer to someone that commits a purposeful act that harms someone else. I believe they would indeed be responsible for providing nonthreatening care to keep the victim alive. While slightly different because the women hasn't harmed the fetus, they committed an action that created the fetus with direct intention to kill it later if pregnancy occurs.  

"The only time when we insist that a particular consequence must follow a particular activity, and do not allow people to escape the consequence, is when the consequence is intended as a punishment."
I would not consider the fetus a punishment, but Duh, no people don't try to escape consequences that they want.  Also i wouldn't say the consequences are intended as a punishment (we aren't purposefully getting women pregnant or preventing abortion to punish them) but are saying the consequences involve taking the responsibility to not kill a human life you brought into being.  

We would only be treating women as a means to an end: producing a baby, if we weren't giving them the ability to consent to sex and forcing ourselves upon them.

"Others who speak of fetuses as having “rights” assume that fetuses either have, or should have, rights, without necessarily explaining why this should be so, or why it should result in another person's loss of autonomy."
They should have rights because they are human, they are in a developmental stage that every human must go through.  They are there through the action of the mother whose consent to sex leads to a possible loss in bodily autonomy.  Also as I've told Dee, none of those reasons list the want for bodily autonomy.  They are using "autonomy" as a means for a end that is completely separate (family planning)

I definitely agree abortion is a form of family planning, and that the reasons above are true. I argue it shouldn't be a valid one.  Mill: "They must be able to make extremely personal decisions".  Killing of the fetus (another entity) no longer makes it personal.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

I cannot endure anymore of your repetitious  nonsense , if you can try one more time and answer my original question as in ......Why should the implied rights of a fetus supersede  the rights of a woman to bodily autonomy? 

i guarantee you will reply with yet opinion piece piece that totally ignores what I keep asking you 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Oh, but you do factually punish a woman "for having sex" when you burden her with an unwanted pregnancy... You do treat her like cattle... You do want her to jeopardize her future, her career, you do not care about her in the least, nor the fetus, not really... If that woman doesn't have the financial means to raise that kid so that he will lack necessities, you don't care... The fact that this child is unwanted and will not be loved, you don't care... 

All you care about is some abstract notion of "sacred life", and a mere potential one at that...  It's just holier-than-thou in my opinion. 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Well considering that's not what you asked with your last post, I did answer your question.  You asked last time why is killing a human wrong and not animals I answered that?  So I guess the answer to my question is yes to think humans and animals are equivalent in value.

Your the one that only posts arguments that just say your wrong, misinterpret my arguments, and then pose just pose new questions.

So why should the fetus' rights supercede bodily autonomy?  Because the life of a human being supercedes 9 month bodily autonomy.  When women have sex they have consented to the possibility of a pregnancy.  For the fetus to live, which i believe to be valuable, that entails that the mother carries them.  Because the mother knows before hand that a pregnancy entails the use of there body, they forfeit bodily autonomy to the fetus that they created with their own decisions.

If a child needed their mother to breastfeed for food, would you say the mother has the right to starve them interest of bodily autonomy?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen @Dee

See Dee a quote from plaff.  And argument you said people never make.

"If that woman doesn't have the financial means to raise that kid so that he will lack necessities, you don't care... The fact that this child is unwanted and will not be loved, you don't care..."

In essence he just said, because of poor circumstances we've deemed that the fetus would be better off dead.  Apparently killing them is better off, and apparently I'm the uncaring one for saying you cant make that decision for them.  And actually I do care, I donate to that specific cause more than anything else. (Not tooting horn, but correcting the accusation made against me)

I don't consider it potential life...it is already alive just less developed.

You make HUGE leaps by saying I'm treating women like cattle or reproductive machines.  I didn't realize that I was locking them up, forcing sex upon them, and then saying they had to carry the child.
I'm allowing them to make all the decisions except killing the life they created.  A risk they decided to take with their own free will.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

I'm allowing them to make all the decisions except killing the life they created.  A risk they decided to take with their own free will.

Your allowing them? How very big of you. You’re still totally missing the point ( for the 50th time) .......Why should an unwilling human being be forced to give birth to the unwanted? Why should a fetus be granted a right so as to deny a woman her right to bodily autonomy.........Bet you do as always and bring up arguments that fail to address this simple quested again 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****Well considering that's not what you asked with your last post, I did answer your question.  You asked last time why is killing a human wrong and not animals I answered that?  So I guess the answer to my question is yes to think humans and animals are equivalent in value.

You didn’t , actually I value a lot of animals more highly than humans so you attempt to avoid answering yet again. You said killing is wrong so why is killing an animal not wrong?

An animal suffers pain by being killed for our satisfaction and also has more intelligence than a fetus so why’s it right to kill an animal and not a fetus which feels no pain and is unthinking?

****your the one that only posts arguments that just say your wrong, misinterpret my arguments, and then pose just pose new questions.

I actually don’t , I keep asking you one question regarding a woman’s right to bodily autonomy you keep ignoring such and post up nonsense in response

****So why should the fetus' rights supercede bodily autonomy?  

A fetus has zero rights , bodily autonomy is what a woman has the right to exercise as in it’s a human right something you wish to deny 

****Because the life of a human being supercedes 9 month bodily autonomy.  

What does that nonsense even mean?

****When women have sex they have consented to the possibility of a pregnancy.  

So what even if that’s the case?

****For the fetus to live, which i believe to be valuable, that entails that the mother carries them.  

Again that’s what you believe , you wish to force a woman to give birth 

****Because the mother knows before hand that a pregnancy entails the use of there body, they forfeit bodily autonomy to the fetus that they created with their own decisions.

They “forfeit” LOL .....Wow! Spoken like a true Victorian finger wagging moral crusader

****If a child needed their mother to breastfeed for food, would you say the mother has the right to starve them interest of bodily autonomy?

What has the born got to do with the unborn?

Vaulk

If you have to kill it to get rid of it then it's alive...not potentially alive.  If it's alive then it has life.  If it has life, then abortion is taking life away from something that's alive.  Hence my position for abolishing abortion in the vast majority of cases.  In cases of all rape scenarios I agree that the Woman should be allowed to terminate as she had no decision in the creating of that life.  In all other cases consent to engage in sexual intercourse was the choice made by the Mother and Father and if we want equality for all then decisions about responsibility for the child end after conception.

John_C_87

@Vaulk ;
If you have to kill it to get rid of it then it's alive...not potentially alive.

In a legal process of immigration, a claimed made by allegations unconfirmed by admission of a death that does not set a requirements on the return of the person who is immigrating into a Nation, in this scenario all nations. When the persons, young or old is simple returned to the place to which they had been destine to reach originally in their travels. It is not anyone's fault all woman happen to kill babies as a united state by not nurturing the egg and feeding it the egg or eggs the natural medication it so desperately needed to keep it alive.

I agree that the Woman should be allowed to terminate as she had no decision in the creating of that life.
That is not the point a woman has not delegation over law the sexual assault becomes murder, the accused is no logger a rapist if a woman becomes pregnant he is under the criminal charge of attempted murder. either the rapist is playing a role in the death of the child by female specific amputation or the rapist has placed the woman in danger of death by the female pregnancy. A United State Constitutional address needs to be made on the use woman have with a criminal accusation of rape before law.

ThePresident2040

A woman’s body a woman’s choice. Denial of access to bodily autonomy in the case of abortion is the denial of a basic right so abortion should be legal

I personally believe that this argument is incorrect. It was both the man and the woman's choice to become pregnant (hopefully), so it should also be the man's choice to have the child. After all, it's not fair if the man doesn't want to have the kid, and then he has to pay child support. I think abortion should technically be legal, but only in extreme cases of bodily harm or death. In the case of rape, I believe that the woman should have the child and choose to keep it or place it for adoption. I understand that this is not an ideal situation, but it is a human being's life, no matter the inconvenience that it may cause to the parent. I don't think that a young mother should be allowed to kill her child just so she can shirk her responsibilities. I feel like the mother should either raise the child or put it up for adoption. Human life can't be devalued.  

John_C_87

Dee said:

@MichaelElpers

I'm allowing them to make all the decisions except killing the life they created.  A risk they decided to take with their own free will.

Your allowing them? How very big of you. You’re still totally missing the point ( for the 50th time) .......Why should an unwilling human being be forced to give birth to the unwanted? Why should a fetus be granted a right so as to deny a woman her right to bodily autonomy.........Bet you do as always and bring up arguments that fail to address this simple quested again 

This is not a right to be given by the people for woman, it is direction given by woman to admit to a crime before any facts are known publicly. Female Pregnancy abortion describes a action that needs to be addressed by a court of law as an public admission to official stop life. As for MichaelElpers she allows woman in a united state to make all the decisions except killing the life they create. No she is separating two groups of woman who kill babies. Woman who have sex and woman who do not have sex both woman share the united state of intentional death when it comes to the life created inside them. They both can share a presumption of innocence regardless of female pregnancy or not provided the American United State Constitution was preserved, by woman, by men, by anyone in the public.

Female Specific amputation abolishes female pregnancy abortion. It does this by removing the self-incrimination of authority to kill by admission. It is almost impossible as a united state for others to prove beyond reason that a woman's body was violated forcing her to conceive a child. It is not impossible for people to argue immigration status for all woman in a natural impartial way to preserve all woman's presumption of innocence.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

I've answered that already, but lets try again. First of all the fact that they are unwanted doesn't matter. You don't get to kill someone just because you deem them unwanted. I've already answered the second one plenty of times.  I believe that the fetus because human and in a developmental that every human must go through is valuable, and believe that the consent to sex is a consent to a potential pregnancy (i've explained why before).

MichaelElpers

@Dee

I did answer why I believe humans to be more valuable.  For one I think humans are intrinsically more valuable, secondly like all other species I value my own more than another.

You value other animals more than humans...hilarious.  So I guess you advocate that animals should receive more rights than humans?  We kill animals for satisfaction? I guess you think all carnivorous that put other animals through pain are evil. When regarding the thinking capability and suffering of the fetus, most of you don't consider it a person until birth and it does start feeling pain and have consciousness before that.  Brain activity begins in week 6. Feel pain at 20 weeks.

And yes you pose different questions, I've already quoted you posing multiple questions.  I answer each one in turn.

****Because the mother knows before hand that a pregnancy entails the use of there body, they forfeit bodily autonomy to the fetus that they created with their own decisions. "They “forfeit” LOL .....Wow! Spoken like a true Victorian finger wagging moral crusader.  "

No just someone who believes people have responsibilities.  And again not no argument.

****Because the life of a human being supercedes 9 month bodily autonomy.

What does that nonsense even mean?  Seems pretty clear.  The fetus' right to life supercedes the bodily autonomy of someone that will last for 9 months.

****If a child needed their mother to breastfeed for food, would you say the mother has the right to starve them interest of bodily autonomy?

"What has the born got to do with the unborn?"  Again, never answered the question.  I want to know if you think the mothers right to bodily autonomy trumps that of the baby that needs food from her body?

Read your post again.  The only response you gave that wasn't a question or just a statement claiming nonsense was: " I value animals a lot more than humans, and a fetus has zero rights (which by the way is also just an opinion, law can be wrong)"  There was no form of argument, this how people respond that don't have an argument.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****I've answered that already, but lets try again

You didn’t , but please try 

****First of all the fact that they are unwanted doesn't matter. 

It seems to matter to you so how does it not matter to you?

****You don't get to kill someone just because you deem them unwanted. 

“Someone” ? How is a fetus now “someone”?

****I've already answered the second one plenty of times.  

No you haven’t 

****I believe that the fetus because human and in a developmental that every human must go through is valuable, and believe that the consent to sex is a consent to a potential pregnancy (i've explained why before).

I put more value on the born than the unborn. So what if a women consents to sex and wants to get pregnant , circumstances change and she should not be forced to give birth 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****I did answer why I believe humans to be more valuable.  

You didn’t 

****For one I think humans are intrinsically more valuable, secondly like all other species I value my own more than another.

“You think” why are they more valuable? No , not like all other species only humans place value on others 

****You value other animals more than humans...hilarious.  

Yes , funny that I would a cat more highly than a Hitler 

****So I guess you advocate that animals should receive more rights than humans?  

Why “more “ rights I value animals more highly than some of the despicable examples of humanity I’ve witnessed.

The question you’re still avoiding is why should an animal with more intelligence  than a fetus be killed for unnecessary human consumption?

****We kill animals for satisfaction? I guess you think all carnivorous that put other animals through pain are evil. 

Again another argument from you I didn’t make , animals do so out of necessity humans mostly do not , can you see the difference there?

****When regarding the thinking capability and suffering of the fetus, most of you don't consider it a person until birth and it does start feeling pain and have consciousness before that.  Brain activity begins in week 6. Feel pain at 20 weeks.

So what? An animal has more intelligence than a fetus so why do you value the fetus more?

You keep avoiding this question why’s that?

****And yes you pose different questions, I've already quoted you posing multiple questions.  

And you fail to address most of them

****I answer each one in turn.

I wish you would even try 

****No just someone who believes people have responsibilities.  And again not no argument.

Yes and a woman has a responsibility to herself and her own future happiness something you wish to deny her 

****Seems pretty clear.  The fetus' right to life supercedes the bodily autonomy of someone that will last for 9 months.

Bodily autonomy lasts for life not “9 months” , the fetus has no right to life even in your country 

****I want to know if you think the mothers right to bodily autonomy trumps that of the baby that needs food from her body?

A baby believe it or not is born and is now separate  entity to the mother and entitled to all that goes with that , do you comprehend this?

****Read your post again.  

My post is sound , your avoidance regarding answering what I’m asking is your problem not mine 

****The only response you gave that wasn't a question 

Your failure to answer questions is still your fault , do you know on a debate site you can question others opinions?

****" I value animals a lot more than humans, and a fetus has zero rights (which by the way is also just an opinion, law can be wrong)"  There was no form of argument, this how people respond that don't have an argument.

Now you resort to outright lying .....I actually said .....

actually I value a lot of animals more highly than humans, I gave examples of the humans I’m referring to.

Law can be wrong, really meaning laws you disagree with are wrong , I disagree with the right to carry a gun so using your logic that’s wrong ......right?

I’ve provided you with plenty of arguments and all I get back is your emotional opinion pieces which are just that and lack any substance whatsoever 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
 @Dee ;

Do either of you really care about human life? You both agree that all woman can kill babies intentional by not getting pregnant, at will with no possible repercussions ever when woman all do so without sex. It goes so far to say woman will even allow other people to kill babies as long as sex by the woman is not involved and only then male masturbates in a cup. Which is still sex and the murder takes place by practice of science or medicine. With the woman’s full consent as the must surgically donate living egg.

John_C_87

@Dee
@MichaelElp@Dee ;

Lets deal with this other basic idea of using a sexual assault as a way to place all woman in a state of self-incrimination. Even if the woman has a fabricated control over her body and is forcibly raped she does not have control over law. There are several crimes that can be directed of the action a rapist makes effect her and others. The first depends on if that person was male or female while other arguments of sexual assault become, attempted murder, even murder and not rape at all. There is no viable reasons to keep all woman in a self-incrimination because of sexual attacks.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and expropriates her liberty. If a woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus’s imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it. While it is not usual to think of pregnancy as an injury, that is exactly how the law already defines it when it is imposed on a woman without her consent. 

For example, when men or physicians expose women to the risk of pregnancy by means of rape or incompetent sterilization, and a pregnancy follows, the law clearly establishes that women have been seriously injured. The term the law uses for such a coerced pregnancy is wrongful pregnancy, and the law holds the perpetrators responsible for the injuries entailed by it. 

I expand the concept of wrongful pregnancy to include what the fertilized ovum does to a woman when it makes her pregnant without her consent. It is the only entity that can make a woman pregnant, and when it does so without her consent, it imposes the  serious injuries of wrongful pregnancy even if the pregnancy in question is medically normal. . . .

To the extent that the law protects the fetus as human life, the law must hold the fetus accountable for what it does: Using someone's body without consent, even if using this body without consent wasn't its intent... 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Were talking about humans in general, not the few specific bad examples.  In general, we value humanity more than any other species, apparently you do not.  Unless you're assuming every aborted baby is Hitler.

Maybe carnivorous animals should've evolved to the point where they aren't eating meat then.

Indeed you can question others arguments, but you can't refute them with more questions or merely stating there nonsense.

I didn't say all laws that i disagree with are wrong, I said they could be based on the premises.  Your claim the fetus' have no rights due to law doesn't mean that law is correct, so i try to argue the premise on why i believe that law to be incorrect.

Actually you haven't provided any arguments only questions.  Please actually present your argument as a statement.  

****I want to know if you think the mothers right to bodily autonomy trumps that of the baby that needs food from her body?

"A baby believe it or not is born and is now separate  entity to the mother and entitled to all that goes with that , do you comprehend this?"  I do, but again oyu didn't answer my question.  Does the baby have the right or does the mother have the obligation to feed the baby if it interferes with her bodily autonomy?  It's not that hard just answer it.

****I put more value on the born than the unborn. So what if a women consents to sex and wants to get pregnant , circumstances change and she should not be forced to give birth.  Yes and a woman has a responsibility to herself and her own future happiness something you wish to deny her.  

I also give slightly more value to the born as I would allow abortions for those whose life is in danger, no one has rights to hurt another human in order to accomplish goals.  This is why as I've stated before that the argument comes down to whether the fetus is deserving of being considered a person, and I believe as a society we need to determine objectively what that means.

I think any form of human life is deserving of the title.  My belief in this comes from the fact that all people must go through this stage of development, it is a key portion in any persons life.  You can't draw the line at birth because a baby inside the womb could be more developed than one outside; logically how could the more developed one not be a person.  If you draw the line nearly anywhere else but conception you can usually apply that same logic to someone already born.

So where do you believe someone because a person and WHY.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Where I continue to disagree with you, is that the women isn't consenting.  Of all the actions that lead up to a pregnancy, where else other than the man and women can you place the responsibility of the pregnancy.  They are the only ones that consented to anything.   

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

There you go again, subordinating a woman to her bodily functions, effectively treating her as cattle...  

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy just like walking in a park at night is no consent to be mugged or raped, there's a risk sure, but we're allowed to defend ourselves in such cases... If a woman is legitimately allowed to defend herself from a rapist in that park, using any means necessary, then a pregnant woman has the same right to defend herself against this fetal intrusion... 

To the extent that the law protects the fetus as human life, the law must hold the fetus accountable for what it does: Using someone's body without consent, even if it wasn't its intent... 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Your constant repetition of the  same tired old nonsense is tiresome ......I’ve asked you one question from the start as in why should a fetus have the” right “ to use a woman’s body against her consent? 

All you keep saying is “because it’s a human / a baby / a child etc ,etc which still does not explain the WHY......No doubt this question you cannot effectively answer will have you deliver yet another lecture from the pulpit 

EmilyRouse

@YeshuaBought
I agree there are too many what ifs; But the issue is many of these aren't valid excuses to take the unborn's life. I see no correlation to forced organ donation. Forced organ donation isn't a right, but life is. You give a testimony of how your mother couldn't support you and your family, but I ask you this; Are you glad she gave you the opportunity to live? The ability to fight to survive, even if it was a struggle? Do you think everyone deserves that chance to fight for their survival?

EmilyRouse

For the people who tend to report things as fallacy; Could you comment why in the future? It's very tricky as an amateur debater to understand all the fallacies and see how to avoid them when unaware of what specific one was present in the debate.

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Where I continue to disagree with you, is that the women isn't consenting.  Of all the actions that lead up to a pregnancy, where else other than the man and women can you place the responsibility of the pregnancy.  They are the only ones that consented to anything.   

I do not believe Plaffelvohfen is going to answer the question you ask MichaelElpers where else other than the man and women can the responsibility of pregnancy belong. A doctor, a woman can have recreational sex yet go to a specialist medical doctor to become pregnant.

Plaffelvohfen the problem is woman can also protect men for false allegations of rape. A rape does not justify female pregnancy abortion. Instead a sexual assault is reason for female specific amputation. There is a lot in basic principle that takes place and having a woman self-incriminate herself to create an illusion of authority over her body is reckless on a international level.

The control you claim is the murder that all woman perform by not getting pregnant in the first place, or by having a male masturbate and kill many babies so they can chose just one…..? Sorry there is still complex forms of murder taking place with medical help.