Should women have "the right" to end a pregnancy?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

There you go with that word again, "life." Mature children are universally accepted as being alive, autonomous individuals, a cla$$fication whichcannot be objectively applied to fetuses.

theone86

That depends on how you define life.

When you think about it, fetuses are technically attempting to take your life by slowly eating away at your body. Therefore killing it could qualify as self-defense. :)nervmeister

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The fetus consumes food, it produces waste, it breathes, and it develops into a human being if not interrupted. That isn't proof of life to you? Many of us need to learn some lessons that science can't teach us.. although this evidence should be enough proof.

OMG.. I have to vent a little bit in the interest of sanity and in defense of common sense. We "scientifically" know what happens when you put sperm and eggs together, right? You end up with new life. End of discussion for any reasonable person.

hartsickdiscipl

Scientifically speaking food is stored energy, waste is matter that has no current use to a specific organism, according to your logic my air conditioner was alive until I killed it. Scientifically a fetus is nothing more than cells with potential for life until sometime in the late second trimester when it begins to resemble a human being, and even then I don't think brain functions even begin until the third trimester. It's still a question of whether it's life or not, I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, but that there is scientific support for each assertation and that the final decision will ultimately be subjective.

Let me put it this way.. If you think trees are alive, tell me how a fetus is not alive.

So it's immoral to chop down trees?

When you think about it, fetuses are technically attempting to take your life by slowly eating away at your body. Therefore killing it could qualify as self-defense. :)nervmeister

But it IS a legal concept. It makes no sense to use the word as anything else. mourninguser1

Someone can't stay in your house without consent.

Someone can't stay in your body without consent.

Sex does not imply consent.

The baby was a right to life, but it is a weak one as he or she cannot obligate someone to help him or her' nor does the baby have any claim over the use of the body.

Therefore, you cannot abort a baby with the intent of murder, but you can use whatever means necessary to remove it from your body.

There's my thoughts in a nutshell.

_BlueDuck_

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]A fetus "is" "living", at no point is it dead.

racer8dan

That depends on how you define life.

Again, not necessarily living, and an infant has active brain functions, something that is universally accepted as being indicative of true life.

[QUOTE="nervmeister"]When you think about it, fetuses are technically attempting to take your life by slowly eating away at your body. Therefore killing it could qualify as self-defense. :)Snipes_2

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"]But it IS a legal concept. It makes no sense to use the word as anything else. T_P_O

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Someone can't stay in your house without consent.

Someone can't stay in your body without consent.

Sex does not imply consent.

The baby was a right to life, but it is a weak one as he or she cannot obligate someone to help him or her' nor does the baby have any claim over the use of the body.

Therefore, you cannot abort a baby with the intent of murder, but you can use whatever means necessary to remove it from your body.

There's my thoughts in a nutshell.

hartsickdiscipl

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people, though, have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"]When you think about it, fetuses are technically attempting to take your life by slowly eating away at your body. Therefore killing it could qualify as self-defense. :)nervmeister

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] Mmm greetings hartsickdiscipl why are you still calling it murder. We've been over this.mourninguser1

I wouldn't say it if it wasn't so. Science often can't teach you the important things in life. Kindly get out of my proverbial face.. thank you. I already told you that you and I can't have a discussion.. partly because you don't accept that the result of putting egg and sperm together is life.

Back on subject for a second.. like I said earlier-- for the purposes of this discussion, I am using the term "murder" to describe the taking of human life.. or human life that is forming. I am not using it as a legal term. The term carries a certain weight to it, and I will keep using it because I believe it fits here.

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

What "purpose" has it outlived exactly? Religion makes a lot of people selfless and compassionate...foxhound_fox

It has made a lot of people kill each other over stupid reasons as well. You make it sound as if religion is needed to make selfless and compassionate people? You can get those without threats of hell and promises of reward after you die.

Frankly I'd rather bad people be bad rather than wolf in sheeps clothing. Some of those Catholic priests in the news beat up children red raw for fun; and these were people religion assured us were of the highest moral fiber.

The function of religion is to control people, today we have science to explain the unknown and we have the law to keep order. The only thing keeping religion alive is it is passed on from one generation to the next by those it has infected. It serves little purpose today, it results in problems because it isn't flexible to change and yet tells us how to live our lives in the 21st century based on bronze age ideas.

It's posing problems right now. The admittedly religiously motivated pro-life people in this thread aren't interested in discussing whether abortion is good or bad, they are telling people it is bad; and you're a child murder if you think otherwise. These people draw their views from commands by God, interpreted by the church no less. God is authority, God is not to be questioned, so they won't consider any argument to the contrary.

You may argue the same of me, my concern is reducing the amount of suffering in the world; and banning abortion isn't going to help with that. I have yet to be given a argument as to how banning abortion is going to make the world a better place, the only result I see is suffering and increased population. How does making a women a slave to her biology make the world a happy place? We didn't spend centuries rising ourself above nature only to be bossed around by it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Someone can't stay in your house without consent.

Someone can't stay in your body without consent.

Sex does not imply consent.

The baby was a right to life, but it is a weak one as he or she cannot obligate someone to help him or her' nor does the baby have any claim over the use of the body.

Therefore, you cannot abort a baby with the intent of murder, but you can use whatever means necessary to remove it from your body.

There's my thoughts in a nutshell.

Teenaged

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"]If you don't eat enough to fight off it's onslaught against your body, it will.nervmeister

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="binpink"]

If all you've got is to throw pedophiles into this... I clearly need not bother anymore. And I do think that's backwards, I think women should be allowed to be prostitutes.

binpink

Your idea of caring crosses the (my) line. And I find it troublesome that you would be so emotionally/mentally concerned about my fetus. We can help each other but "helping" a fetus you aren't related to is beyond caring. My body is my business, not the courts' or police or yours.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

hartsickdiscipl

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I wouldn't say it if it wasn't so. Science often can't teach you the important things in life. Kindly get out of my proverbial face.. thank you. I already told you that you and I can't have a discussion.. partly because you don't accept that the result of putting egg and sperm together is life.

Back on subject for a second.. like I said earlier-- for the purposes of this discussion, I am using the term "murder" to describe the taking of human life.. or human life that is forming. I am not using it as a legal term. The term carries a certain weight to it, and I will keep using it because I believe it fits here.

hartsickdiscipl

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] But it IS a legal concept. It makes no sense to use the word as anything else. mourninguser1

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

hartsickdiscipl

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

If I want I can have a gun at my house, caressing it, for my own pleasure. Nothing dictates that I should use it to kill someone. Guns are made for decorations, for collections etc etc

That is disregarding the fact that your analogy is flawed.... -you have connected guns to sex, while you should connect guns to genitalia and killing to sex....-

If I "straighten" up your analogy a bit, then you are saying that: killing is meant for the anihilation of an enemy, while it may as well be for me to let off steam, retaliate, for self defense and so many other reasons.

IMPORTANT EDIT HAS OCCURRED.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"]The baby still speeds up the process. It's like a tapeworm in that manner.nervmeister

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Someone can't stay in your house without consent.

Someone can't stay in your body without consent.

Sex does not imply consent.

The baby was a right to life, but it is a weak one as he or she cannot obligate someone to help him or her' nor does the baby have any claim over the use of the body.

Therefore, you cannot abort a baby with the intent of murder, but you can use whatever means necessary to remove it from your body.

There's my thoughts in a nutshell.

hartsickdiscipl

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.

Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] But it IS a legal concept. It makes no sense to use the word as anything else. mourninguser1

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"](RED) Um no. Do you want it more flatly put? No.

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

Snipes_2

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

Among other things they offer pleasure. Therefore, by your mindset they are meant for pleasure.

Why do you "place" child-bearing "above" pleasure?

[QUOTE="nervmeister"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] It doesn't speed up the process, you're going to die either way if you don't eat enough. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] But it IS a legal concept. It makes no sense to use the word as anything else. mourninguser1

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

you intend to end anothers life before it is even started. Snipes_2

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Whether or not you like the example I chose the point is still valid. We have to care about others lives, humanity depends on it. No oncologist is in practice because of the money... it's because they care or else they'd have become something more profitable to them personally. Why do the courts exist? Police? Because society is rapped around taking action for things that aren't "any of their business".jeremiah06

Your idea of caring crosses the (my) line. And I find it troublesome that you would be so emotionally/mentally concerned about my fetus. We can help each other but "helping" a fetus you aren't related to is beyond caring. My body is my business, not the courts' or police or yours.

I don't know how I could have been any simpler with what I said, so I have to assume you just like to use extremes and be untruthful. Because you've done both. I never expressed extreme dedication. That's your own creation. I never said society can't help each other. I clearly stated we can. That was followed by my opinion on this very specific issue because, as I said in the first sentence, that level of "helping " crosses the line to me. Which means there is a line in the first place.

i think this is the tenth billion time we had this dissection. and for the tenth billion time NO! :evil:

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Someone can't stay in your house without consent.

Someone can't stay in your body without consent.

Sex does not imply consent.

The baby was a right to life, but it is a weak one as he or she cannot obligate someone to help him or her' nor does the baby have any claim over the use of the body.

Therefore, you cannot abort a baby with the intent of murder, but you can use whatever means necessary to remove it from your body.

There's my thoughts in a nutshell.

_BlueDuck_

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.

Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.

Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.

A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.

Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.

Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?

Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.

I love how the majority of men in here are telling women what to do with their bodies. :lol:

If I ever got raped and became pregnant, I would do anything in my power to end the pregnancy. Fetuses don't have rights.

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

"Murder" is not exclusively a legal term or concept. Looking it up in the dictionary reveals a variety of definitions, one of them being:

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

That's how I'm using it in this discussion. The kill or slaughter a fetus inhumanly.

hartsickdiscipl

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.

Not another dictionary argument!

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"](RED) Um no. Do you want it more flatly put? No.

By all means when you have sex, apply your personal convictions to it, and focus your "attempts" at having a child.

Many people have sex for the pleasure (physical or emotional); their "cause" is no less important than yours.

Teenaged

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

If I want I can have a gun at my house, caressing it, for my own pleasure. Nothing dictates that I should use it to kill someone. Guns are made for decorations, for collections etc etc

That is disregarding the fact that your analogy is flawed.... -you have connected guns to sex, while you should connect guns to genitalia and killing to sex....-

If I "straighten" up your analogy a bit, then you are saying that: killing is meant for the anihilation of an enemy, while it may as well be for me to let off steam, retaliate, for self defense and so many other reasons.

IMPORTANT EDIT HAS OCCURRED.

If you keep that gun at home, caressing it for your own pleasure.. and it goes off and blows your kid's head off, you're accountable. It's inherently dangerous because of the purpose for which it was created. When you take that gun into your possession, you're taking responsiblity for whatever might happen while you're handling it. Likewise, sex and pregnancy are even MORE directly connected. Don't try to complicate the basic factors of cause and effect, and the purpose for which sex was OBVIOUSLY created.

Moral of the story- If you play with fire, you might get burned. Take accountability and stop weaselling around trying to find some loophole.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] Cute, but the law decides when something is murder; not a dictionary. Murder is unlawful and requires intent.Teenaged

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.

Not another dictionary argument!

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mourninguser1"] Cute, but the law decides when something is murder; not a dictionary. Murder is unlawful and requires intent.Teenaged

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.

Not another dictionary argument!

He/she tried to say that I wasn't using "murder" properly in my discussions. I proved them wrong. The dictionary can be your friend.

I love how the majority of men in here are telling women what to do with their bodies. :lol:

If I ever got raped and became pregnant, I would do anything in my power to end the pregnancy. Fetuses don't have rights.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="binpink"]

Yes, it's my fetus in my body. Fetus being the key word. Not born child. You don't have the right to support their life because it's mine. Not talking based on principle, supporting they be allowed to live, or right to your opinion. I'm talking about you not being able to have any voice for a fetus that isn't yours. You do not speak for a fetus unless it's inside your body or one you've created.

binpink

I realize I can't own a fetus or child the way I can a car. But I do own my body. And I shouldn't be forced to use it as an incubator. My body, my right.

I love how the majority of men in here are telling women what to do with their bodies. :lol:

If I ever got raped and became pregnant, I would do anything in my power to end the pregnancy. Fetuses don't have rights.

PeaceChild90

I totally sympathize. I can't say for a certainty that I wouldn't feel the same way if I were raped. I do know that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and that there is nothing inherently evil about the baby that results from a rape.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.

hartsickdiscipl

If I want I can have a gun at my house, caressing it, for my own pleasure. Nothing dictates that I should use it to kill someone. Guns are made for decorations, for collections etc etc

That is disregarding the fact that your analogy is flawed.... -you have connected guns to sex, while you should connect guns to genitalia and killing to sex....-

If I "straighten" up your analogy a bit, then you are saying that: killing is meant for the anihilation of an enemy, while it may as well be for me to let off steam, retaliate, for self defense and so many other reasons.

IMPORTANT EDIT HAS OCCURRED.

If you keep that gun at home, caressing it for your own pleasure.. and it goes off and blows your kid's head off, you're accountable. It's inherently dangerous because of the purpose for which it was created. When you take that gun into your possession, you're taking responsiblity for whatever might happen while you're handling it. Likewise, sex and pregnancy are even MORE directly connected. Don't try to complicate the basic factors of cause and effect, and the purpose for which sex was OBVIOUSLY created.

Moral of the story- If you play with fire, you might get burned. Take accountability and stop weaselling around trying to find some loophole.

Your point with this far-fetched scenario?

First of all, I have unloaded my gun. It has no bullets in it. What other scenario can you think of?

So you are implying that because sex can lead to pregnancy then that is what it is meant for. Sorry to break it to you but I cant accept a non-sequitur just because it is what it is "obvious" for you to believe.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.

mourninguser1

Not another dictionary argument!

Unless of course its the....... OXFORD DICTIONARYYYYYYYYY!!!!

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.

Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.

hartsickdiscipl

A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.

Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.

Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.

A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.

Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.

Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?

Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.

Also comparing a drag strip to the possible results of sex is so far off base its not even funny.

I still stand by my conviction that a woman killing her own unborn baby is self-defense. nervmeister

Here's my take on the matter: get rid of clinical abortions, keep the morning after pill. Condoms break, women are raped, and it's not difficult to have one too many. In short, $#!% happens. That pill fixes it. Abortions 5 months down the line is just a shirk of responsibility and really, why are we defending the people that blow it off for that long anyway?

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.

Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.

Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.

A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.

Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.

Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?

Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

If I want I can have a gun at my house, caressing it, for my own pleasure. Nothing dictates that I should use it to kill someone. Guns are made for decorations, for collections etc etc

That is disregarding the fact that your analogy is flawed.... -you have connected guns to sex, while you should connect guns to genitalia and killing to sex....-

If I "straighten" up your analogy a bit, then you are saying that: killing is meant for the anihilation of an enemy, while it may as well be for me to let off steam, retaliate, for self defense and so many other reasons.

IMPORTANT EDIT HAS OCCURRED.

Teenaged

If you keep that gun at home, caressing it for your own pleasure.. and it goes off and blows your kid's head off, you're accountable. It's inherently dangerous because of the purpose for which it was created. When you take that gun into your possession, you're taking responsiblity for whatever might happen while you're handling it. Likewise, sex and pregnancy are even MORE directly connected. Don't try to complicate the basic factors of cause and effect, and the purpose for which sex was OBVIOUSLY created.

Moral of the story- If you play with fire, you might get burned. Take accountability and stop weaselling around trying to find some loophole.

Your point with this far-fetched scenario?

First of all, I have unloaded my gun. It has no bullets in it. What other scenario can you think of?

So you are implying that because sex can lead to pregnancy then that is what it is meant for. Sorry to break it to you but I cant accept a non-sequitur just because it is what it is "obvious" for you to believe.

Unless you have superpowers and can create a hurricane in Greece, or move the poles of the Earth, you have no accountability for that. There is nothing far-fetched about somebody having a gun accident that kills someone, although they didn't intend to do it. Why would you even say that?

Unloading your gun = Eradication of all sperm/vasectomy prior to intercourse in terms of genitalia and sex. But guess what? If you forgot to take the one out of the chamber, you're still accountabile when you point that gun at someone and shoot them. Just like a man who has a vasectomy is still accountable if he somehow gets someone pregnant. The woman is responsible as well, whether she likes it or not.