With Regards to Abortion, Whose Rights are More Important: Fetuses or Women?

In your opinion, whose right is more important to protect? The right of life for a fetus, or the right of choosing how to take care of your body for a woman?

Note: after reading this, and all of the analogies, i think i have developed a good analogy you might understand. And no, I'm not trying to take credit for what someone else wrote, just trying to show people a good analogy.

Think about a cake batter that is sitting in a can. This can gets dirty. The baker has two choices: throw it away:cry:, or make it and hope the baker has made a big discovery and that the cake will taste delicious:shock:. This cake batter has potential, good and bad, and is essentially cake, but in a different form. What would you do?

The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.Mr_sprinkles

lol rent

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

DJ_Lae

The Fetus is not sentient - so it has no sanctity or protection, unless the woman wills it.

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

DJ_Lae

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

If they took care of their body, the problem wouldn't exist usually.SolidSnake35

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.Manly-manly-man

Life is full of delightful consequences, I agree.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Manly-manly-man

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

And the fetus could possibly have a great life and possibly discover the cure for cancer. We could argue possibilities all day, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has the right to kill anybody else.

The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Dracargen

That's completely untrue. That is like saying it is wrong for a person to squash a bug or kill a rat. It absolutely isn't. As far as I'm concerned, abortions are 100% fine as long as the fetus isn't concsious. After that it's a bit debatable, but until the fetus can think, I don't get how someone can care other then religious reasons.

The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Dracargen

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Manly-manly-man

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

couldn't have said that better myself

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Dracargen

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

And the fetus could possibly have a great life and possibly discover the cure for cancer. We could argue possibilities all day, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has the right to kill anybody else.

No, the fetus can not have possible grown up to a great life in most cases. Trailer trash 15 year olds getting knocked up and having a baby they don't want does not end in a great inventor or scientist.

If they took care of their body, the problem wouldn't exist usually.SolidSnake35

Thats not true in all cases, and when the time comes to consider abortion saying things like that wont make the problem go away. Sorry that came out harsh,

I think that a woman has the right what to do with her own body, but thats not to say that the new life growing inside her is not to be valued, however no one can force a woman do that, if she dosent value the feutus then **** happens its no one elses business.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Manly-manly-man

That's completely untrue. That is like saying it is wrong for a person to squash a bug or kill a rat. It absolutely isn't. As far as I'm concerned, abortions are 100% fine as long as the fetus isn't concsious. After that it's a bit debatable, but until the fetus can think, I don't get how someone can care other then religious reasons.

O rly?

It absolutely is wrong to kill another human being, and you do not have the choice to kill someone if you find them inconvenient. There is NO reason to not consider a fetus a human, except for the excuse "it doesn't look like it!" in which case, neither do harley babies or children with large tumors, but I guess we should kill them as well. . .

No, the fetus can not have possible grown up to a great life in most cases. Trailer trash 15 year olds getting knocked up and having a baby they don't want does not end in a great inventor or scientist.Manly-manly-man

I don't agree completely, but in the vast majority of cases the baby probably grows up to be a burden on society. I still think the government should sterilize young girls in certain walks of life, but the outcry over something like that would be more insane than the legion of prolifers. I think it would solve a lot, though.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Dracargen

That's completely untrue. That is like saying it is wrong for a person to squash a bug or kill a rat. It absolutely isn't. As far as I'm concerned, abortions are 100% fine as long as the fetus isn't concsious. After that it's a bit debatable, but until the fetus can think, I don't get how someone can care other then religious reasons.

O rly?

It absolutely is wrong to kill another human being, and you do not have the choice to kill someone if you find them inconvenient. There is NO reason to not consider a fetus a human, except for the excuse "it doesn't look like it!" in which case, neither do harley babies or children with large tumors, but I guess we should kill them as well. . .

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Manly-manly-man

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

And the fetus could possibly have a great life and possibly discover the cure for cancer. We could argue possibilities all day, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has the right to kill anybody else.

No, the fetus can not have possible grown up to a great life in most cases. Trailer trash 15 year olds getting knocked up and having a baby they don't want does not end in a great inventor or scientist.

I agree; that's why we have adoption.;)

So the women now needs to actually protect herself from rape? Lovely.ChicaQueenWarGa

Rapists should be strung up and have their junk sliced off so passerby can watch them slowly bleed to death.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

The_Ish

The Fetus is not sentient - so it has no sanctity or protection, unless the woman wills it.

That's what I tell the women in my basement.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

The_Ish

The Fetus is not sentient - so it has no sanctity or protection, unless the woman wills it.

That's what I tell the women in my basement.

/sarcasm

I disagree, there are tons of reasons to not consider fetuses human beings. My main deal is that they are not sentient. Now, you may consider this an invalid reason, but it is a reason all the same.
quiglythegreat

Why should it not be considered a human simply because it isn't aware of itself? It becomes aware of itself in most cases, doesn't it?

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Dracargen

That's completely untrue. That is like saying it is wrong for a person to squash a bug or kill a rat. It absolutely isn't. As far as I'm concerned, abortions are 100% fine as long as the fetus isn't concsious. After that it's a bit debatable, but until the fetus can think, I don't get how someone can care other then religious reasons.

O rly?

It absolutely is wrong to kill another human being, and you do not have the choice to kill someone if you find them inconvenient. There is NO reason to not consider a fetus a human, except for the excuse "it doesn't look like it!" in which case, neither do harley babies or children with large tumors, but I guess we should kill them as well. . .

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]No, the fetus can not have possible grown up to a great life in most cases. Trailer trash 15 year olds getting knocked up and having a baby they don't want does not end in a great inventor or scientist.DJ_Lae

I don't agree completely, but in the vast majority of cases the baby probably grows up to be a burden on society. I still think the government should sterilize young girls in certain walks of life, but the outcry over something like that would be more insane than the legion of prolifers. I think it would solve a lot, though.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] I disagree, there are tons of reasons to not consider fetuses human beings. My main deal is that they are not sentient. Now, you may consider this an invalid reason, but it is a reason all the same.
Dracargen

Why should it not be considered a human simply because it isn't aware of itself? It becomes aware of itself in most cases, doesn't it?

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] I disagree, there are tons of reasons to not consider fetuses human beings. My main deal is that they are not sentient. Now, you may consider this an invalid reason, but it is a reason all the same.
Dracargen

Why should it not be considered a human simply because it isn't aware of itself? It becomes aware of itself in most cases, doesn't it?

Becomes? Couldn't you say the same thing about contraceptives?

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

Dracargen

Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.

And the fetus could possibly have a great life and possibly discover the cure for cancer. We could argue possibilities all day, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has the right to kill anybody else.

No, the fetus can not have possible grown up to a great life in most cases. Trailer trash 15 year olds getting knocked up and having a baby they don't want does not end in a great inventor or scientist.

I agree; that's why we have adoption.;)

Right, adoption is so much better. Being moved around so much that you don't have any friends or family, nor any sense of home, which is sadly a very common situation, is really great for a growing child.

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

Manly-manly-man

"It's just a sac of cells, and that's my justification for killing something that had never done wrong or otherwise deserved death, and that's it."

Wow, what a wonderful argument--making a lump statement and then going "and that's it--my word goes." :roll:

Do you have anything to say about the fact that, hey, there are atheists and agnostics who oppose heartless infanticide?

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

Manly-manly-man

"It's just a sac of cells, and that's my justification for killing something that had never done wrong or otherwise deserved death, and that's it."

Wow, what a wonderful argument--making a lump statement and then going "and that's it--my word goes." :roll:

Do you have anything to say about the fact that, hey, there are atheists and agnostics who oppose heartless infanticide? Mr. "You can't oppose abortion without religious reasons"?

I just don't like eugenics. I don't like controlling people like that and I think it's wrong to try to eliminate a group of society because they are not useful. Society has failed some people, and it will never be possible to eliminate those failures, but I think we can work on some of our collective errors.
quiglythegreat

Yeah, that's where it kind of falls apart. It would be nice if everything was easier to deal with and you could use a nice big blanket policy, but you quickly start running into the walls of ethics.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

Dracargen

"It's just a sac of cells, and that's my justification for killing something that had never done wrong or otherwise deserved death, and that's it."

Wow, what a wonderful argument--making a lump statement and then going "and that's it--my word goes." :roll:

Do you have anything to say about the fact that, hey, there are atheists and agnostics who oppose heartless infanticide?

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

Dracargen

"It's just a sac of cells, and that's my justification for killing something that had never done wrong or otherwise deserved death, and that's it."

Wow, what a wonderful argument--making a lump statement and then going "and that's it--my word goes." :roll:

Do you have anything to say about the fact that, hey, there are atheists and agnostics who oppose heartless infanticide?

Why should religion have anything to do with it? And yes, that is absolutely it. A non feeling chunk of cells is not a human being.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

I already gave a reason why they aren't human beings. First off, they aren't anything due to the fact that they aren't fully developed. Until they are concious they are a sac of cells, and that's it. And no, harlequin babies shouldn't be kept alive if I understand correctly and they are in constant pain. I'm not actually sure. If they're not in pain then they probably should be kept alive.

Dracargen

"It's just a sac of cells, and that's my justification for killing something that had never done wrong or otherwise deserved death, and that's it."

Wow, what a wonderful argument--making a lump statement and then going "and that's it--my word goes." :roll:

Do you have anything to say about the fact that, hey, there are atheists and agnostics who oppose heartless infanticide? Mr. "You can't oppose abortion without religious reasons"?

Also, why do you only have to deserve death? What has it done to deserve life? Until it is conscious, it doesn't deserve, nor does it have a right, to anything.

Right, adoption is so much better. Being moved around so much that you don't have any friends or family, nor any sense of home, which is sadly a very common situation, is really great for a growing child.

Manly-manly-man

Your concept of adoption is pathetic. First off, I'm adopted--I was adopted the day after I was born, with no complications. Secondly, children who wait a few years before being adopted

1. Grow up perfectly normal in most cases, and

2. Make a ton of friends--they aren't the only kids at an orphanage.:roll:

They are also not "moved around a lot," and the situation you talk about is not common at all.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Right, adoption is so much better. Being moved around so much that you don't have any friends or family, nor any sense of home, which is sadly a very common situation, is really great for a growing child.

Dracargen

Your concept of adoption is pathetic. First off, I'm adopted--I was adopted the day after I was born, with no complications. Secondly, children who wait a few years before being adopted

1. Grow up perfectly normal in most cases, and

2. Make a ton of friends--they aren't the only kids at an orphanage.:roll:

They are also not "moved around a lot," and the situation you talk about is not common at all.

Also, why do you only have to deserve death? What has it done to deserve life? Until it is conscious, it doesn't deserve, nor does it have a right, to anything.

Manly-manly-man

Hmm, the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. . . yeah, noone has the right to life.:roll:

I knocked a guy unconcious--he doesn't deserve to live. Let's kill it.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Also, why do you only have to deserve death? What has it done to deserve life? Until it is conscious, it doesn't deserve, nor does it have a right, to anything.

Dracargen

Hmm, the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. . . yeah, noone has the right to life.:roll:

I knocked a guy unconcious--he doesn't deserve to live. Let's kill it.

How do the rights in the constitution have anything to do with fetuses that were never concious? Nice straw man.