Most Americans favor more restrictions on Abortion- is Roe v. Wade out of touch?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] Looks like we have a differing opinion on when it's a "product".Theokhoth

From your link:

The act of production; generation.

That which is produced

A fetus is produced.

In the most technical sense, yes.:|

:roll: too bad I don't match up to the logical capabilities of pre-schoolers...

Engrish_Major

:roll: At least some people understand the simple formula: A = B = C, therefore A = C.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

:roll: too bad I don't match up to the logical capabilities of pre-schoolers...

Theokhoth

:roll: At least some people understand the simple formula: A = B = C, therefore A = C.

No, what you're saying is that A=C, and B is part of A, therefore, B=C. Which is NOT true.

Because a fetus is no more human than cancer.

smarb001

Ad hominem. A cancer has no human genetic or biological information, so your objection is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Though for the "pro"-choice movement to have any weight at all, the fetus must be dehumanised, so I understand that these arguments are all you have to fall back on.

[QUOTE="smarb001"]

Because a fetus is no more human than cancer.

Theokhoth

Ad hominem. A cancer has no human genetic or biological information, so your objection is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Though for the "pro"-choice movement to have any weight at all, the fetus must be dehumanised, so I understand that these arguments are all you have to fall back on.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

So for the sake of argument, let's assume that the fetus should have a right to live, and that abortion should be illegal.

Should that be decided by popular vote? If attitudes change and there becomes an overwhelming popular opinion that women should keep the right to have abortions, should that be enough to keep abortion legal?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion or not, I still don't see how you could believe that the majority of the population should be able to decide what rights the minority gets. One of the purposes of human rights is to protect the minority from oppression by the majority.

Theokhoth

Majority vote is a small part of the process, but in the case of abortion, yes, I think it is acceptable. Is it "oppression" that the majority is against murder? After all, the majority is deciding what rights the minority gets here. The Presidential election? Is it oppression that the majority vote, when it agrees with the Electoral college, becomes the leader of the free world? The Senate? Is it oppression when a law or bill is not passed due to the fact that the majority voted "no"?

Murder isn't illegal BECAUSE the majority of people are against it.

Anyway, the danger in relying on majority vote to decide what rights people have is that if the majority of people support abortion, your logic dictates that it should be okay for women to have abortions.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

:roll: too bad I don't match up to the logical capabilities of pre-schoolers...

Engrish_Major

:roll: At least some people understand the simple formula: A = B = C, therefore A = C.

No, what you're saying is that A=C, and B is part of A, therefore, B=C. Which is NOT true.

No, in that case it's AC(B), where A is the mother, B is the fetus, and C is the rights to which they are entitled.AC(B) = ABC.

In short, it's the inevitable conclusion that "mother has rights (baby is part of mother) = Baby has rights."

Anyway, the danger in relying on majority vote to decide what rights people have is that if the majority of people support abortion, your logic dictates that it should be okay for women to have abortions.

MrGeezer

Actually, yes it does.Mr_sprinkles

Actually, no it doesn't, or it would be in the biological family hominidae.

In short, it's the inevitable conclusion that "mother has rights (baby is part of mother) = Baby has rights."

Theokhoth

I guess I'm not allowed to get growths removed either, then? D:Jandurin

:roll: Dehumanizing the fetus again.

[QUOTE="smarb001"]

Because a fetus is no more human than cancer.

Theokhoth

Ad hominem. A cancer has no human genetic or biological information, so your objection is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Though for the "pro"-choice movement to have any weight at all, the fetus must be dehumanised, so I understand that these arguments are all you have to fall back on.

What? Cancer is the out-of-control growth of human tissue, so yes cancer does have human biological information. And just like a fetus it saps the carriers energy to live. If a woman wants to get rid of an accidental pregnancy that will damage her life financially and socially, she has the right to get rid of the bunch of cells that is a human fetus, that she herself created.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]Dunno about you, but in my mind withdrawing life saving treatment is no different to never giving it.Theokhoth

You are, in effect, killing the other person, who was relying on you. There's a difference between that and him never relying on you in the first place.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] I guess I'm not allowed to get growths removed either, then? D:Theokhoth

:roll: Dehumanizing the fetus again.

If a woman wants to get rid of an accidental pregnancy that will damage her life financially and socially, she has the right to get rid of the bunch of cells that is a human fetus, that she herself created.

smarb001

She created? I thought it takes two to tango. . . .

She has the right to an adoption or to invoke a Infant Protection Act. She does not at any point have the right to kill her children for any reason.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]Actually, yes it does.Theokhoth

Actually, no it doesn't, or it would be in the biological family hominidae.

So by helping this person you are thereby surrendering any right of control over your own body until this guy is better?

Mr_sprinkles

He's not controlling your body.:| Neither is the fetus. And like I said with the fetus, there is the issue of parental obligation, which doesn't fit into your analogy.

Cancer cells are still your cells, they just replicate uncontrollably. the "human genetic or biological information" is still all there.Mr_sprinkles

If that were comparable to the situation, they would develop into humans, wouldn't they?

Give one example of this happening.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

:roll: too bad I don't match up to the logical capabilities of pre-schoolers...

Theokhoth

:roll: At least some people understand the simple formula: A = B = C, therefore A = C.

No, what you're saying is that A=C, and B is part of A, therefore, B=C. Which is NOT true.

No, in that case it's AC(B), where A is the mother, B is the fetus, and C is the rights to which they are entitled.AC(B) = ABC.

In short, it's the inevitable conclusion that "mother has rights (baby is part of mother) = Baby has rights."

It's obviously not the inevitable conclusion. Fetuses do not have the same rights. Again, you can not make up something, call it fact, and call it a logical conclusion.

[QUOTE="smarb001"]

If a woman wants to get rid of an accidental pregnancy that will damage her life financially and socially, she has the right to get rid of the bunch of cells that is a human fetus, that she herself created.

Theokhoth

She created? I thought it takes two to tango. . . .

She has the right to an adoption or to invoke a Infant Protection Act. She does not at any point have the right to kill her children for any reason.

Actually, yes she does, and its a fetus not a child. A fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells that has the opportunity to become a full grown human. This opportunity is ultimately in the hands of the parents, not of the government. Ultimately, the government cant do anything to stop her. Considering how republican you are, surely you dont want the government controlling such an intimate part of our lives?

It's obviously not the inevitable conclusion. Fetuses do not have the same rights. Again, you can not make up something, call it fact, and call it a logical conclusion.

Engrish_Major

It's simple logic. You're ignoring it by going "well, you can't just do that!" Yes, I can. I used simple logic and math to show that, were you actually consistent with your stance, you would be just as pro-life as I am.

Now I really gotta go.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

It's obviously not the inevitable conclusion. Fetuses do not have the same rights. Again, you can not make up something, call it fact, and call it a logical conclusion.

Theokhoth

It's simple logic. You're ignoring it by going "well, you can't just do that!" Yes, I can. I used simple logic and math to show that, were you actually consistent with your stance, you would be just as pro-life as I am.

Now I really gotta go.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

So by helping this person you are thereby surrendering any right of control over your own body until this guy is better?

Theokhoth

He's not controlling your body.:| Neither is the fetus. And like I said with the fetus, there is the issue of parental obligation, which doesn't fit into your analogy.

and before you say it, "having sex is choosing pregnancy" is about as valid as "going out at night is choosing to get raped"

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]Rights are not decided by popular vote, so wether or not the public agree with the womans right to choose (in the democrat's eyes) makes no difference as to wether that right should be defended or not.JoeRatz16

A women might get a abortion in the pursuit of "happiness" because she was raped and does not want to risk gestational diabetes because of it that might never go away. Might do it to be liberated from the shackles that bind her.

Constitution does say it.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="smarb001"]

If a woman wants to get rid of an accidental pregnancy that will damage her life financially and socially, she has the right to get rid of the bunch of cells that is a human fetus, that she herself created.

smarb001

She created? I thought it takes two to tango. . . .

She has the right to an adoption or to invoke a Infant Protection Act. She does not at any point have the right to kill her children for any reason.

Actually, yes she does, and its a fetus not a child. A fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells that has the opportunity to become a full grown human. This opportunity is ultimately in the hands of the parents, not of the government. Ultimately, the government cant do anything to stop her. Considering how republican you are, surely you dont want the government controlling such an intimate part of our lives?

It's funny how so-call conservatives LOVE govt intervention when it fits their ideology.