The abortion issue...

whether a fetus has legal rights or not.

As of this time, a fetus has no legal or Constitutional rights. This is not debatable, it is established law in Roe v. Wade.

Should the fetus have human rights? That is the question, and I believe they should, because they are human beings, just like you and I are human beings, they simply happen to be in an earlier developmental stage than you or I. (well, maybe not you... but...you get the point)

To deny the fact that a human fetus is a human being, is the same basic argument our ancestors used to discriminate against slaves. By making them sub-human, you can deny their rights as a human, and make it morally "okay" to kill them under whatever circumstance you choose. The fact that human fetuses don't have a political voice, or any means to speak for their rights, doesn't mean they shouldn't have basic human rights, any more than previous arguments for slavery. You are simply denying them their rights by changing the definition of what they are, and that is the same exact way the slaves were treated for centuries. It didn't make it "right" did it?
 
One can be against abortion but nor for making it illegal.

Sure you can! It just makes you a two-faced, talking out of both sides of your mouth, hypocrite! But you are right, you CAN have that view, and many people do!
 
When it comes to Abortion you are anti-choice... You want the government to take that choice away from women.

And you are Anti-life, because you support legally killing innocent humans. You want government to condone the rights of women to kill innocent human beings under any circumstance, because you think they have this right. See how that works?
 
Dixie said:
whether a fetus has legal rights or not.

As of this time, a fetus has no legal or Constitutional rights. This is not debatable, it is established law in Roe v. Wade.

Should the fetus have human rights? That is the question, and I believe they should, because they are human beings, just like you and I are human beings, they simply happen to be in an earlier developmental stage than you or I. (well, maybe not you... but...you get the point)
Click to expand...
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. It is clearly just an opinion, however: the very fact that it is so controversial is proof enough of that.

You do not have the right to impose that opinion on anyone else. ESPECIALLY since you yourself will never have to bear the burden of it.
To deny the fact that a human fetus is a human being, is the same basic argument our ancestors used to discriminate against slaves. By making them sub-human, you can deny their rights as a human, and make it morally "okay" to kill them under whatever circumstance you choose. The fact that human fetuses don't have a political voice, or any means to speak for their rights, doesn't mean they shouldn't have basic human rights, any more than previous arguments for slavery. You are simply denying them their rights by changing the definition of what they are, and that is the same exact way the slaves were treated for centuries. It didn't make it "right" did it?
Click to expand...
No, it is not the same basic argument. Yes, our ancestors did argue that slaves were not fully human but the argument was absurd on its face. It did not hold up to scrutiny and was eventually discarded.

On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd. Absurd and devaluing just what it means to be human.
 
Knowing what I know of science and history I am confident there will not be abortion 150 years from now. To those living in that time it will seem as anachronistic as the slave trade. It was not some moral revolution that brought an end to slavery in the societies of earth but rather technological and economic change.

The same will be true of abortion. What would abortion matter when humans aren't even naturally born and are manufactured. The future will blur these ethical lines more than many of you can imagine.
 
Hi Darla.

Well, it have not been around for a number of reasons.

1. I am in a transition period in my life. I need to find a new job as my company has fallen on hard times.

2. I wanted to take a break from political debate for a while but since I had to complete my term on the FullPolitics Security Council I started to find my presense on these boards an obligation more than an intellectual diversion.

3. Visiting these boards after a while showed that nothing has really changed with any of the people on either site. I've been on these type of boards for 3 years and many times I thought that I offered new and clever ways to approach various topics. At the time some agreed that they were interesting ideas but alas it does not appear they have made an impact for even those I have spoken with frequently on these boards and don't seem to have been affected by them in the long run.

4. I'm not especially interested in political debate at this point. I'm much more interested in philosophy. Politics is but a small compartment of this larger discipline and what I have found that good political debate comes when one leaves the argument of politics and enters the philosophical realm. It is at this point it transcends the what and even the how and why but leaves one question. What is important and why?


Just popped in to see how you all have been doing. Thought I just throw in a few comments since I didn't want to be so self-important as to make a thread proclaiming my presence.

I hope all is well with all of you here.
 
Oh, ok, I kind of understand, but I always thought you contributed a lot. I even asked Damo where you were.

I'm sorry to hear about your job, good luck with that.
 
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. It is clearly just an opinion, however: the very fact that it is so controversial is proof enough of that.

No, I am sorry, it's not "my opinion" that a human fetus is a human, it is science and biology which determines this, and there is no question whatsoever, unless you can offer some evidence to contradict science and biology, which has yet to be done. It is your opinion that a fetus is not human, and it is a wrong opinion, not supported by science or biology.
 
Yes, our ancestors did argue that slaves were not fully human but the argument was absurd on its face. It did not hold up to scrutiny and was eventually discarded.

The argument that a fetus is anything other than human, is absurd on its face as well. You can't have it both ways. The same scrutiny that eventually outlawed slavery, will one day outlaw abortion on demand. It's the exact same argument in both cases. You are trying to ignore science and biology, and call a fetus something other than what it is, so that you can continue to deny it the rights it deserves and should be entitled to. White people did the very same thing to black people for centuries, it never made it "right", although, it was entirely legal.

On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd. Absurd and devaluing just what it means to be human.

And the argument that black people were property and not humans, was not absurd on it's face either, at one time. Many people did not recognize or acknowledge black people as human, they viewed them as property, and maintained the Constitution gave man the right to do whatever he wanted with his property. Same argument!
 
a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being

Guess what? A 10-month-old baby is not a fully developed human being.
A 10-year-old child, is not a fully developed human being.
A 16-year-old child, is not a fully developed human being.
A 21-year-old adult, is not a fully developed human being.
A 35-year-old, is not yet fully developed as a human being.
A 72-year-old can still develop some, therefore is not a fully developed human being.

Stage of development has nothing to do with what something is. If it is human, it deserves to have human rights, regardless of what you want to claim to the contrary.
 
"I am pro-legal abortion... I am NOT pro-abortion."

As I said, you are FOR abortion being legal. That is one of the two sides of the debate. The other is AGAINST abortion being legal. Hence you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Bottom line is you are FOR allowing people to randomly decide when to end a human life. That is your choice and your right to have that opinion.

But it doesn't change the two positions. You are either FOR it being legal or AGAINST it being legal. Period.
 
"On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd. Absurd and devaluing just what it means to be human."

So your argument is that because it is not fully-developed, that the child should not be entitled to basic human rights. That is a very slippery slope.... because who is to determine how developed a person must be in order to be "fully-developed"?

That IS indeed the same argument that was made against the slaves. "They are not as intelligent or sophisticated (insert "fully developed") as we are, thus they are sub-human"

The one true fact that pro-abortionists seem unable to grasp... it is a HUMAN LIFE. Science dictates that. That is NOT altered depending on a stage of development.

If you feel that is incorrect, please provide your reasoning for that.
 
Superfreak said:
"On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd. Absurd and devaluing just what it means to be human."

So your argument is that because it is not fully-developed, that the child should not be entitled to basic human rights. That is a very slippery slope.... because who is to determine how developed a person must be in order to be "fully-developed"?
Click to expand...
Non causa pro causa, SF. That's one of the most famous of all logical fallacies:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

My position is that there is a clearly and easily defined destinction between a fetus and a baby. One has but to look at them to make it obvious. It is as easy a distinction as the one between an acorn and an oak tree, as I often put it.

Now, one CAN talk about at what point a developing fetus should be presumed to be an "unborn baby" to borrow the anti-abortionists' term. If you want to talk about stages of development that's fine with me. That is, however, exactly the basis of the Roe v. Wade compromise.
That IS indeed the same argument that was made against the slaves. "They are not as intelligent or sophisticated (insert "fully developed") as we are, thus they are sub-human"

The one true fact that pro-abortionists seem unable to grasp... it is a HUMAN LIFE. Science dictates that. That is NOT altered depending on a stage of development.

If you feel that is incorrect, please provide your reasoning for that.
Click to expand...
No, to claim that someone is less intelligent or sophisticated is not the same thing as to say he or she isn't "fully developed." They're not even remotely the same. To say that a fetus isn't fully developed is to say that it has not yet developed to some critical point. Again, we can argue about where that point is so long as we're able to stipulate that there is some period of development before it is reached.
 
it's all just hot air moving back and forth..... abortion used to be illegal and now it is legal.... and women have the right to chose whether or not they want to be pregnant or not.... and pro-lifers are whining. tough shit.

If the supremes change the law, and take away a woman's right to chose, pro-choice people will be whining, and it will be tough times for us.

but for those of us democrats with vasectomies and fully grown children, we would not see the revocation of Roe v. Wade as a totally bad situation. It will, I believe, doom the republican party to marginal minority status for several generations, not that the ineptitude of Dubya won't do that anyhow.
 
Superfreak said:
"I am pro-legal abortion... I am NOT pro-abortion."

As I said, you are FOR abortion being legal. That is one of the two sides of the debate. The other is AGAINST abortion being legal. Hence you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Bottom line is you are FOR allowing people to randomly decide when to end a human life. That is your choice and your right to have that opinion.

But it doesn't change the two positions. You are either FOR it being legal or AGAINST it being legal. Period.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are a reasonable person, so Id like to see you admit... One can be for it being legal, but still personally against it... Right?
 
Super, (Dixie, and Damo)

i think it should be legal, because then we can at least have a count of our progress in the reduction of them....and ....otherwise, they will continue, only underground, and in an unsafe manner to the desparate mother. I think there must be changes to the law that includes full disclosure of both the physical and mental ramifications, along with some true choices readily available to the patient, and i would recommend closing the clinics and making it as pro-choicers claim, between a doctor and the patient in the doctors office, one on one....

my mother-in-law is 87 and she told me about her sister having a back alley abortion, and her girlfriend having one when she was expecting her 4th child, and dying from it. NOT a pretty picture of how it WAS....in texas, when she was young.

i think that God gave us free will....and that includes the freewill to make mistakes and to repent of them...He rejoices when we repent...when we seek him and His forgiveness.....He did not make us perfect, for a reason...i suppose...it would have been too boring and non rewarding to him if we were, but who knows why honestly.

Saul/Paul was a mass murderer and He chose him to spread The Good News....HE could have chosen someone else that was holier than holy to do His bidding...to spread the Word, but He didn't. WHY do you think that was...???

Also, God favored King David...even though david had basheba's husband murdered when he found out that basheba was going to have his child from his affair with her. WHY do you think that was....???

God also favored Moses...another murderer, yet he chose him as the deliverer of His people and of His Word, the Torah. WHY do you think that was...?

the Jews struggled with God over and over and over again, spitting in His face time and time again, becoming Pagans, and turning their backs to him, YET our Omni present, past and future God STILL picked them to be His chosen people. WHY do you think He did that...?

Maybe, since He knew David's and Paul's and Moses' and the Jews hearts....? Maybe He knew that they loved Him...but they would go through a struggle to get that point... thus a love stronger than that of mr. and mrs. goody two shoes???

Abortion is not even a topic of discussion in the Bible, BUT the sin of fornication...sex before marriage is mentioned as a ''no, no'' probably over a hundred times... i would venture to say that the BIG sin to God was the sex before marriage because THAT is what causes the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. i guess He wanted to nip it in the bud...amongst other things, before the unwanted pregnancy happened thus never mentioning abortion???

Did God ever mention that fornication would be okay as long as you used some sort of birth control in those hundred times or so where He discussed it in the Bible?

One last question or two...

you said you were not married yet, are you a virgin? Are you celibut, saving yourself for marriage?

and this goes to Damo and Dixie too....were you virgins when you got married, and for you Dixie...have you been celibut since your divorce?

a yes or no will suffice.... i just need to know EXACTLY where you guys are coming from...excuse the pun....before i continue discussing this with you...

(and yes Damo, i know you are Budhist now and not a Christian anymore...though you know Christianity moreso than most Christians :) )

care
 
Last edited:
My position is that there is a clearly and easily defined destinction between a fetus and a baby. One has but to look at them to make it obvious. It is as easy a distinction as the one between an acorn and an oak tree, as I often put it.

There is a clear and easily defined distinction between a white person and black person too. There is an easily defined distinction between a man and woman as well. One need only look at them to see the difference.

Your point again???

Please stop using the example of an acorn, it is invalid. An acorn has not yet germinated and begun to grow, much like a human female egg or male sperm have not conceived and begun to grow. No one is arguing for sperm and eggs to have human rights, only the living growing human organism known as a fetus, which is scientifically established as human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top