Im sure there is already a topic on this. But I dont want to revive a dead one. And Richard said something on another thread that really got on my nerves. So I thought it was high time to talk about this

Quote:


The justification is that if we say a fetus has rights, it takes away the rights of the woman, so we say that the baby isnt living just so the woman can keep all her rights. In no part of that post was there scientific approach to the question of whether a fetus is living or not. Instead, Richard (Who I am not insulting, just want to debate with, please understand this) and many others like him, say that a fetus isnt living solely to support a previously held view. Something I cant stand because there is no doubt in my mind that if it has human DNA and can survive more than a millisecond with out a "host", it should be considered human with as many rights as anyone else. The only exception being if the womans life is in danger, or in cases of rape. And even then im iffy. I dont think another human should be punished for the sins of his father.

When a woman has sex, she knows the consequences. She knows that their is a possibility of pregnancy. And when she has sex, she knows she may be giving up some of her rights so she can be a "host" to another human being. She made her choice! Her choice was to have sex. And it is now her responsibility to "host" that child until it is born. After it is born, she can put it up for adoption. But until that moment, she has voluntarily and by choice taken the risk of having a child. You could say im pro choice. You have the choice or whether or not youre going to risk getting pregnant. And after that, your rights matter no more and no less than the child inside you.


And the reason I say host is because thats the term you use to talk about whatever it is that a parasite is feeding off of. And pro-choice advocates often call fetuses parasites. A completely ridiculous claim in my opinion.

Angus wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 10:58pm:

Straw man, no one is saying we should be funding abortions?

Just a fair warning, I can't debate with people on a shorter basis than weekly.

BlackSand wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 7:52pm:


I'm not saying that the fetus can't have rights, because it will destroy the woman's rights. I'm saying that the fetus inherently does not have rights.

You want proof as to how the fetus is not a human. Instead, give to me proof that a fetus is any more human than sperm or an egg, and why we don't have laws banning masturbation or periods, or the very act that would cause a fetus to be born.

Quote:


If the fetus was able to survive without a "host", then it should not force a woman to give it sustenence, and it should not need to trespass on a woman's property, her body.

And why should exceptions be made in cases of rape or possible death? Assuming that abortion is murder, is murder okay on those grounds? Murder can't be legal sometimes, but most of the time it's bad. It's either evil, or it's not murder.

Quote:


Okay, let's continue to pretend that a fetus is a human being just for a second. Your argument is like saying that if I let some guy onto my property, and I decided I didn't like him, I shouldn't be able to kick him out. So what if I don't like him? He's dependent on my shelter.

Your argument about "she gives up some of her rights" is unacceptable. Because by definition, you can not give up rights. Rights are natural, and a fact of man and woman, regardless of whether or not the government protects them as it should. Human beings do not stop having rights just because the government initiates force against them.

Force - In this case, it seems that you would argue that the abortion is force against the fetus, which you consider to be a human being. What you are not addressing, is the inherent force in a woman surrendering her sustenence at gunpoint. The woman's body is her property, and even assuming that a fetus is a human, that fetus has trespassed on her property, and the woman has every right to remove it.

Fraud - You said something about "agreeing". The woman did not "Agree" to anything by having sex. She does certainly agree that she would get certain diseases, perhaps, but she did not agree to having any responsibilities.

Quote:


You are in fact, not pro-choice. Pro-choice, regardless of whether or not they believe that abortion is right or wrong, believes women should have the choice. If you don't believe a woman has an obligation to surrender her sustenence at gunpoint, then you are not pro-choice.

Quote:


Interesting that you mention that the "child inside of you" has rights. It was seem as though you believe that the child has positive rights. That the child has a right to force a woman to provide it sustenence, and that it has the right to occupy it's body.

Quote:


Parasites, by definition, are beings that survive off of the detriment of others. If the woman wants to keep the baby, then it's a mutualistic relationship. If the woman is forced to surrender her sustenence to a potential human being, if anything, then it's a parasitic relationship. The being had to live at the expense of a woman's pain.

And I think the right to life is more important than the freedom to choose.

Sperm and egg, once together, are different than when they are apart. That is the true beginning of existence for everyone. I mean what is the difference between a baby the moment before it is born, and the moment after its born? What makes one more alive than the other? The baby itself has never done anything wrong. The woman by choice has allowed sperm into her body. As a result of this, a life was formed. She may have a right to her body, just as someone as a right to their property. But when someone says "You can come in if you want." (no pun intended) and then sticks a needle through your head once you're in their house, that person is violated someone else's right who has done nothing wrong. The person who has invited the other person in has no right to kill the other person. Especially when that other person doesnt understand "get out." And cant get out by itself. In essence, that being is trapped. And it still has done nothing wrong. It isnt leeching off of anyone on purpose. Thats just all it knows. That being is completely innocent. To kill it is murder.

The baby is not there without permission from the woman. If science one day allows a fetus to be moved to a test tube, then thats fine. But to kill someone for their inability to function completely and for something you did is never justified. Reminds me of the holocaust. The germans blamed the jews for everything. But every problem they blamed on the jews they did to themselves. The government had no right to kill the jews because they were on their property.

The only argument I can possible understand is at what point a symbiote or fetus becomes a living human. Is it when the fetus has a heart beat or brain waves or fingernails or whatever it is.  Thats the only argument that makes the least bit sense to me. But deciding a fetus isnt alive for the simple fact that the mother doesnt want it is in no way justified in my mind. And saying that it is living, but has no rights because it is a leech is in my mind nothing less than first degree murder.

For anyone who does not think a fetus is a human being please go to an abortion at month four and watch as the non-living, dead fetal tissue's beating heart is found on ultrasound to then guide a long needle into it and inject a solution into its heart that kills the non-living tissue.  I have done this.  Also, ask yourself why you can find video on every surgery under the sun from hair plugs to vasectomy to tonsils to toenails but no one, and I mean no one, who is performing abortions is allowing it to be filmed for later public educational purposes.  If it is just a benign procedure then why all the secrecy?

Here is another interesting issue I have with abortion - equal rights and equal protection under the law.  Do men get three to six months to terminate their parental responsibilities?  Shouldn't men be allowed to wash their hands of an "unwanted" pregnancy in the first or second trimester as well?  Seems to me this isn't about libertarianism or equal rights - it is about special privilege for women.  If the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade (which would just send it back to each state to decide themselves) but with the caveat that whatever timeframe they give women to "choose" they must also allow men to "choose" as well so as not to violate equal protection under the law - would there be even one state that would allow abortion then?  No way even one state would allow abortion if it cam at the price of allowing men to act as egregiously irresponsible as women can. 

"But it is the woman's body and that is the difference."  So you must be suggesting that there is a Child Support Fairy  that leaves money under dad's pillow, right?  Last time I checked a man being forced to work for decades for a child he did not want is having his body used against his will for the benefit of another. 

Let's do some math.  California mandatory default minimum child support is 25% of dad's income.  On top of that dad is also often ordered to pay for daycare and health insurance/expenses separately from the 25% cash.  Often child support orders last well past 18 years as well but let's only look at 18 years and not add in the substantial extra costs of daycare and health insurance that dad will pay for this "unwanted" child (I know, I know, only women are allowed to not want their children).  25% of 18 years is 4.5 years.  Dad will get up and go to work for four-and-a-half years to support this child he did not want.  But you only work for eight hours a day you say?  OK, over four-and-a-half years let's assume dad works 2,000 hours a year which is 40 hours a week times 50 weeks (assume two weeks vacation).  That works out to 9,000 hours total minimum that dad will work to support his unwanted child and our society has absolutely no problem with that nor is anyone complaining that it is "his body" and he has to have total sovereignty over it.  Oh, and 9,000 hours works out to 375 full days when 9,000 is divided by 24, and I believe that is substantially longer than the nine months that that mom just cannot have her body 100% in her control. 

Maybe I should add in the daycare and health insurance/expenses costs now......... 

The point is that nobody cares how an "unwanted" pregnancy affects men at all.  If it means you work for years to support the child then that is too bad - step up and be a man and take responsibility.  I actually fully agree with this by the way.  My question though is why not the same standard for women?  At least deadbeat dads aren't killing their kids to get out of their responsibilities. 

It is a human being but if you want to lie to yourself to justify killing then great - at least give men the same opportunity to act as callously and irresponsibly by letting men "choose" to terminate their responsibilities during that same time-frame as well.  Equality is equality after all.