Question for 'pro-lifers'
04 Nov 2014, 1:23 am
funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
if the babies body and brain has formed an you have to chop it up to get it out cause you can't pull it out in one piece then it's a person.
Since when are people entitled to have access to other people's bodies (at significant medical risk throughout the entire ordeal nonetheless) against their will?
Even actual people aren't given the rights many wish to insist a fetus has; why would we give a fetus rights that we wouldn't consider giving a person?
Unless she was raped it's not against their will.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 1:42 am
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
if the babies body and brain has formed an you have to chop it up to get it out cause you can't pull it out in one piece then it's a person.
Since when are people entitled to have access to other people's bodies (at significant medical risk throughout the entire ordeal nonetheless) against their will?
Even actual people aren't given the rights many wish to insist a fetus has; why would we give a fetus rights that we wouldn't consider giving a person?
Unless she was raped it's not against their will.
Pregnancy requires ongoing consent. It's a process that lasts 9 months and consent may be retracted at any point.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
04 Nov 2014, 2:00 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
if the babies body and brain has formed an you have to chop it up to get it out cause you can't pull it out in one piece then it's a person.
Since when are people entitled to have access to other people's bodies (at significant medical risk throughout the entire ordeal nonetheless) against their will?
Even actual people aren't given the rights many wish to insist a fetus has; why would we give a fetus rights that we wouldn't consider giving a person?
Unless she was raped it's not against their will.
Pregnancy requires ongoing consent. It's a process that lasts 9 months and consent may be retracted at any point.
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 2:09 am
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
04 Nov 2014, 2:26 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
You do not have the right to murder, inconvenience and burden are not legitimate justifications for murder. The only legitimate justification to kill is in self defense. You don't get decide who is a person and who isn't, human life is human life. There were some people that thought differently about 70 or 80 years ago in Germany. When you create a life then it ceases just being just your body, besides cases of rape you consented to the creation of this life and you are responsible for it.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 2:30 am
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
You do not have the right to murder, inconvenience and burden are not legitimate justifications for murder. The only legitimate justification to kill is in self defense. You don't get decide who is a person and who isn't, human life is human life. There were some people that thought differently about 70 or 80 years ago in Germany. When you create a life then it ceases just being just your body, besides cases of rape you consented to the creation of this life and you are responsible for it.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy isn't murder, murder is unlawful killing.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately self-defence, you're removing an unwanted parasite, preventing it from using your body without your consent at significant medical risk.
Consent to sex is no more consent to pregnancy than eating undercooked pork is consent to keeping a tapeworm colony.
The Nazis were murdering people, you know, born humans. Your comparison is dishonest and cheap.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
04 Nov 2014, 2:49 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
You do not have the right to murder, inconvenience and burden are not legitimate justifications for murder. The only legitimate justification to kill is in self defense. You don't get decide who is a person and who isn't, human life is human life. There were some people that thought differently about 70 or 80 years ago in Germany. When you create a life then it ceases just being just your body, besides cases of rape you consented to the creation of this life and you are responsible for it.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy isn't murder, murder is unlawful killing.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately self-defence, you're removing an unwanted parasite, preventing it from using your body without your consent at significant medical risk.
Comparing an unwanted fetus to a Jewish or Roma person in the Holocaust is a cheap, disgusting emotional trick.
Comparing a human life to a parasite is what is cheap and disgusting, you do not consider it a life and that's where we differ but mind you when you give yourself the power to declare a life a "non-person" then it is logical to assume that power can be extended to other groups. There is no justifiable reason for abortion when the sex was consensual and there poses no significant danger to the life of the mother which is very rare in this country. Inconvenience or burden does not justify murder, do you think it would be right to kill other dependent people?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 2:58 am
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
You do not have the right to murder, inconvenience and burden are not legitimate justifications for murder. The only legitimate justification to kill is in self defense. You don't get decide who is a person and who isn't, human life is human life. There were some people that thought differently about 70 or 80 years ago in Germany. When you create a life then it ceases just being just your body, besides cases of rape you consented to the creation of this life and you are responsible for it.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy isn't murder, murder is unlawful killing.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately self-defence, you're removing an unwanted parasite, preventing it from using your body without your consent at significant medical risk.
Comparing an unwanted fetus to a Jewish or Roma person in the Holocaust is a cheap, disgusting emotional trick.
Comparing a human life to a parasite is what is cheap and disgusting, you do not consider it a life and that's where we differ but mind you when you give yourself the power to declare a life a "non-person" then it is logical to assume that power can be extended to other groups. There is no justifiable reason for abortion when the sex was consensual and there poses no significant danger to the life of the mother which is very rare in this country. Inconvenience or burden does not justify murder, do you think it would be right to kill other dependent people?
The mother doesn't owe the fetus access to her body.
It's dishonest to compare a fetus, especially early in pregnancy to a person, but ultimately irrelevant. Even a person wouldn't be granted access to another person's body.
You severely underplay the risks, complications and permanant physical changes associated with pregnancy. Dependent people don't leech calcium from the people they depend on's bones. This isn't a reasonable comparison.
You expect the state to force even mentally handicapped, mentally ill and children to carry unwanted pregnancies against their will? The state has no right to make that demand of anyone. You can morally oppose abortion all you like. The moment you try to have the government interfere with access to it, that's overstepping the state's interests.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
Last edited by funeralxempire on 04 Nov 2014, 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
04 Nov 2014, 3:07 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No, the unborn are human life and when you create it you are responsible for it be it before birth and after.
People can abandon children to the state's custody or adopt them out, clearly you're not required to remain responsible for your born children who are undeniably people.
We all have absolute ownership over our bodies, we are entitled to remove unwanted parasites from them, even if those parasites happen to be human. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for it.
You do not have the right to murder, inconvenience and burden are not legitimate justifications for murder. The only legitimate justification to kill is in self defense. You don't get decide who is a person and who isn't, human life is human life. There were some people that thought differently about 70 or 80 years ago in Germany. When you create a life then it ceases just being just your body, besides cases of rape you consented to the creation of this life and you are responsible for it.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy isn't murder, murder is unlawful killing.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately self-defence, you're removing an unwanted parasite, preventing it from using your body without your consent at significant medical risk.
Comparing an unwanted fetus to a Jewish or Roma person in the Holocaust is a cheap, disgusting emotional trick.
Comparing a human life to a parasite is what is cheap and disgusting, you do not consider it a life and that's where we differ but mind you when you give yourself the power to declare a life a "non-person" then it is logical to assume that power can be extended to other groups. There is no justifiable reason for abortion when the sex was consensual and there poses no significant danger to the life of the mother which is very rare in this country. Inconvenience or burden does not justify murder, do you think it would be right to kill other dependent people?
The mother doesn't owe the fetus access to her body.
It's silly to compare a fetus, especially early in pregnancy to a person, but ultimately irrelevant. Even a person wouldn't be granted access to another person's body.
You severely underplay the risks, complications and permanant physical changes associated with pregnancy.
You expect the state to force even mentally handicapped, mentally ill and children to carry unwanted pregnancies against their will? The state has no right to make that demand of anyone.
You can call it silly if you like but I don't find it silly at all, I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else. Life is life, extinguishing it unjustifiably is murder. It is a fact that most pregnancies carry no significant risk, it is a fact that the vast majority of pregnancies result from consenting sex, for most abortions neither of these are applicable. Murder is wrong, terminating a pregnancy is killing a human life, abortion on demand because it is inconvenient and burdensome is not justifiable therefor it is murder. Asking me to accept abortion is asking me to accept murder.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 3:21 am
Jacoby wrote:
I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else. I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else.
That's nice, but not relevant. You aren't comparable to fetus, but ultimately the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant to my position.
Jacoby wrote:
Life is life, extinguishing it unjustifiably is murder.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is justifiable. The owner of the body doesn't owe an unwanted pregnancy access to her body.
Jacoby wrote:
It is a fact that most pregnancies carry no significant risk, it is a fact that the vast majority of pregnancies result from consenting sex, for most abortions neither of these are applicable. Murder is wrong, terminating a pregnancy is killing a human life, abortion on demand because it is inconvenient and burdensome is not justifiable therefor it is murder. Asking me to accept abortion is asking me to accept murder.
The fact is you're minimizing the risks and making an unreasonable demand. The state forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will is an unreasonable expectation. It's effectively the state overruling her ownership of her own body. Forced pregnancy is effectively slavery.
Pregnancy is only a potential risk of sexual activity, not a guaranteed one. Many people take measures to protect against pregnancy but still unfortunately become pregnancy, other times people are in situations where raising a child isn't an option. It's an unreasonable expectation to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
04 Nov 2014, 3:37 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else. I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else.
That's nice, but not relevant. You aren't comparable to fetus, but ultimately the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant to my position.
Jacoby wrote:
Life is life, extinguishing it unjustifiably is murder.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is justifiable. The owner of the body doesn't owe an unwanted pregnancy access to her body.
Jacoby wrote:
It is a fact that most pregnancies carry no significant risk, it is a fact that the vast majority of pregnancies result from consenting sex, for most abortions neither of these are applicable. Murder is wrong, terminating a pregnancy is killing a human life, abortion on demand because it is inconvenient and burdensome is not justifiable therefor it is murder. Asking me to accept abortion is asking me to accept murder.
The fact is you're minimizing the risks and making an unreasonable demand. The state forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will is an unreasonable expectation. It's effectively the state overruling her ownership of her own body. Forced pregnancy is effectively slavery.
Pregnancy is only a potential risk of sexual activity, not a guaranteed one. Many people take measures to protect against pregnancy but still unfortunately become pregnancy, other times people are in situations where raising a child isn't an option. It's an unreasonable expectation to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
It's perfectly relevant. You can disagree about who you consider human I guess but I just think it is immoral and shouldn't be tolerated. Your rights end where mine begin, you do not have a right to murder.
04 Nov 2014, 5:19 am
Jacoby wrote:
You can call it silly if you like but I don't find it silly at all, I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else. Life is life, extinguishing it unjustifiably is murder. It is a fact that most pregnancies carry no significant risk, it is a fact that the vast majority of pregnancies result from consenting sex, for most abortions neither of these are applicable. Murder is wrong, terminating a pregnancy is killing a human life, abortion on demand because it is inconvenient and burdensome is not justifiable therefor it is murder. Asking me to accept abortion is asking me to accept murder.
Murder is the immoral killing of persons and is the most heinous crime there is. Don't downplay it by calling the killing of non-persons "murder". You are equating your life to the life of the bacteria you kill every time you use soap. If that's how lowly you think of people...
04 Nov 2014, 6:29 am
The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can call it silly if you like but I don't find it silly at all, I wouldn't want to be declared unhuman therefor not worthy as the same rights as everyone else so I don't believe it is right to make that declaration for anyone else. Life is life, extinguishing it unjustifiably is murder. It is a fact that most pregnancies carry no significant risk, it is a fact that the vast majority of pregnancies result from consenting sex, for most abortions neither of these are applicable. Murder is wrong, terminating a pregnancy is killing a human life, abortion on demand because it is inconvenient and burdensome is not justifiable therefor it is murder. Asking me to accept abortion is asking me to accept murder.
Murder is the immoral killing of persons and is the most heinous crime there is. Don't downplay it by calling the killing of non-persons "murder". You are equating your life to the life of the bacteria you kill every time you use soap. If that's how lowly you think of people...
On that I agree and that's why I believe what I believe. I hope that your life is never in the hands of someone that considers you a non-person, a parasite or bacteria that you should wash away like nothing. It has happened before and can again when people don't respect the sanctity of life, we should all be grateful that our parents did. There are people out in the world that believe that people like us are a burden and that our lives aren't worth living, if they had a way(and there may well be in the not so distant future) to screen us out to be "lawfully" killed before birth then they would.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,348
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Nov 2014, 11:41 am
Jacoby wrote:
On that I agree and that's why I believe what I believe. I hope that your life is never in the hands of someone that considers you a non-person, a parasite or bacteria that you should wash away like nothing. It has happened before and can again when people don't respect the sanctity of life, we should all be grateful that our parents did. There are people out in the world that believe that people like us are a burden and that our lives aren't worth living, if they had a way(and there may well be in the not so distant future) to screen us out to be "lawfully" killed before birth then they would.
You're still equating non-equals.
You're still giving a fetus a controlling interest over the woman's body, one that trumps her ownership of her body.
You wouldn't want to be forced to remain pregnant against your will either. You wouldn't want your 11 or 13 year old daughter to be forced to remain pregnant if she had became impregnated through a consensual sex act. Personally, I have more empathy for a person, a living woman than for a lump of human tissue with the size and self-awareness of a seahorse.
You can't care that much about sanctity of life, you've already said you're willing to allow a pregnancy started by rape to be terminated. The embryo resulting from rape is innocent of it's father's crimes, why does it not share the same sanctity of life as other unborn humans? You're lacking consistency.
Only the mother owns her body and may choose to remain pregnant, the state interfering in this matter is a gross violation of her bodily autonomy.
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
04 Nov 2014, 2:46 pm
Are you unable to empathize with people in a coma then?
I think this issue is really complicated, if I had a gun pointed to my head I'd say legalize abortion until 8 or 9 weeks, whenever the neural pathways are formed. That gives plenty of time to terminate unwanted pregnancies without what I think begins to be taking away the human's right to live.
Why this is so hard, is what has already been pointed out: Where do you draw the line?
Killing a toddler is murder.
Killing a newborn is murder (by the way, this newborn is just as much of a "parasite" as the fetus).
Killing a baby days away from birth, IMO, is murder
etc.
