The Right to Life

Joseph Nieves

Strategos
I'll limit my rebuttal to abortion in case of rape.

I've been browsing through these pages, and I think I can conclude none of you is a woman who would suffer from an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong, please let me know who the female is. I love how some of you think being pregnant is a walk in the park ("why not just have the baby, she can put it up for adoption!") while it's quite taxing on her body, completely putting aside the obvious emotional burden on the woman if the child wasn't wanted, feeling no love for it, hating that it's growing inside them. Do you have any idea how traumatizing that is? So if she decides to abortion, another invasive procedure, don't you agree that's entirely HER decision?
Considering how many abortions and pregnancies there have been in my family, I know how traumatizing it is for people to learn that future family member is gone. How many cousins and second cousins were gone, number of cousins could probably be double. Imagine the trauma of telling your kids that you had an abortion because you didn't feel like taking care of it. They have feelings too, and losing a sibling hurts. Is even worse if you learned that there exit from the world was because your parents planned it that way.

What about when you have to many abortions that when you want a kid you are no longer able to? That has happened, and now cousins of my parents can't have kids and start families like they want to because of the choice the woman made in the past. I remember my mom telling me how sick one of my aunts was after she had an abortion at 17, aren't those things taxing on the body? Or the burden of being forced to go to abortion by someone else and then living with that for the rest of your life?

this is simple

a cow has more cognative ability than a fetus it feels pain and is often aware its about to be slaughterd

is that murder ?

no
Is it killing? Yes. Murder? No, cows can't turn into people. Also the baby can respond to pain, just click here.


is a fetus a person a human being ?

should it be defined as more than it is ?

why do humans have more rights than other life forms is that fair ?

what are the rights of the host, do they lose all rights after conception ?
A fetus a person? Well tell me what else it can be. Not an animal, not a plant, not bacteria. Looks like the only other living thing would be people, therefore it is not being defined more than it is. :)

The rights of the host? The full rights of all citizens male or female. Should the host get extra rights for consenting to having sex, the scientific way of our specie reproducing?

Since you compare people to animals so much I guess I can argue that they don't have abortions, so we shouldn't either. More rights than other life forms, called survival of the fittest ;) Seriously though if you were concerned about that you would give your computer to the pigeon outside the window who has no electronics. Or maybe let them have access to your fridge, they might even eat there own kind :D Why should humans subject themselves to being just average, isn't the goal to be better than others not worse or the same?

Also your premise of this being an argument for Christian ideals is terribly ignorant, I have argued that abortion is murder throughout this thread yet am not a religious person in the least.
^This

for the record im pro abortion

and thankfully sanity agrees with me in my country. greater minds than ours debated it and saw sence enough to make it law
Not sure what country this is so can't dispute it. Here in America though abortions rates have been decreasing, and laws in some states have more heavily restricted when an abortion can happen. Roe v Wade said that the constitution had no say in the privacy of a woman and her doctor, doesn't mean that abortion is right. Just means the Constitution was made when abortions weren't even possible and therefore it wasn't included. Although it does say that everyone has the right to life, happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Which are being denied when ending a pregnancy.


Didn't respond to everything, although that was mainly because the rest was just the same repetitive argument.
 

Brandr Usur

Guest
Considering how many abortions and pregnancies there have been in my family, I know how traumatizing it is for people to learn that future family member is gone. How many cousins and second cousins were gone, number of cousins could probably be double. Imagine the trauma of telling your kids that you had an abortion because you didn't feel like taking care of it. They have feelings too, and losing a sibling hurts. Is even worse if you learned that there exit from the world was because your parents planned it that way.

What about when you have to many abortions that when you want a kid you are no longer able to? That has happened, and now cousins of my parents can't have kids and start families like they want to because of the choice the woman made in the past. I remember my mom telling me how sick one of my aunts was after she had an abortion at 17, aren't those things taxing on the body? Or the burden of being forced to go to abortion by someone else and then living with that for the rest of your life?
Sorry, buddy. But I think if you tell your children you had an abortion because you were raped, I think they'd understand. Wouldn't you understand if your mom told you?

As for;
- Forcing an abortion on someone (?)
- Having too many abortions so you can't have kids anymore (?)
- Having an abortion because you don't feel like taking care of it (?)

I have no idea what to do with those comments, because it wasn't what I was talking about in the slightest, but I'll give it a quick reply. I understand this has apparently happened to your family, but in cases 2 and 3 I would recommend actively using birth control (not foolproof, but still) if you want to have sex as to avoid this scenario - if that's somehow against your religion, well, I can't really help you then, but then again: if it's somehow against your religion, then so is abortion, so there wouldn't be any. Number 1 is a terrible thing, but how exactly would we force abortion on someone? No doctor would be quick to help a disgruntled husband or parent forcefully remove a child if it's against the patient's wishes. Were it to happen, I'd say that's equal to rape.

Anyway, that's my last comment on it. Apparently we need to do something with a pebble's logic in his OP, instead of focusing on abortion itself. ;)
 

a pebble

Strategos
Recently received this objection:

There stands an objection to stating that knowing the potential consequences of an action, yet doing the action anyway makes the individual responsible for the consequences should they occur.

They propose a situation of a car which I know has the astronomical possibility of the breaks failing. Should the breaks fail, I was aware of the consequence of brake failure and therefore am responsible for the consequences that result from the brakes failing – following my reasoning.

The issue comes about that I am placing too much blame on the individual. The problem with this objection is that some scenarios are compared to the other without the situations being parallel.

My reply: if things which natural occurrence are impeded in order to avoid a consequence, yet the consequence still comes about, the individual, if knowing the possibility of the consequence, is responsible for the consequence.

As it is not a natural occurrence for the car’s breaks to fail, I cannot be obligated to be responsible for those consequences. However, if having sex, and I am impeding the natural result of sex, which is impregnation, and were impregnation to still occur, I am responsible for the consequence.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
Recently received this objection:

There stands an objection to stating that knowing the potential consequences of an action, yet doing the action anyway makes the individual responsible for the consequences should they occur.

They propose a situation of a car which I know has the astronomical possibility of the breaks failing. Should the breaks fail, I was aware of the consequence of brake failure and therefore am responsible for the consequences that result from the brakes failing – following my reasoning.

The issue comes about that I am placing too much blame on the individual. The problem with this objection is that some scenarios are compared to the other without the situations being parallel.

My reply: if things which natural occurrence are impeded in order to avoid a consequence, yet the consequence still comes about, the individual, if knowing the possibility of the consequence, is responsible for the consequence.

As it is not a natural occurrence for the car’s breaks to fail, I cannot be obligated to be responsible for those consequences. However, if having sex, and I am impeding the natural result of sex, which is impregnation, and were impregnation to still occur, I am responsible for the consequence.
I agree with this. Anything uncontrollable should be considered "an act of God" while the person should be punished for things like this that are controlled and done on purpose.
 

the bilingual poet

Guest
Abortion is murder just as much as the death penalty. And the fact that such a penalty is deliberated by a jury, just makes it so much worse.

Murder ,according to experts C. Bieker and E. Hernandez, is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. In some U.S. states, laws regarding murder are determined by the Model Penal Code. - Wikipedia

"Without justification or valid excuse" - this one is debatable, it may apply here, depending on whether you consider it possible to have a valid excuse or not.
"unlawful killing of another person with malice afterthought" - definitely not.

In most states abortion is legal, and how many women relish the idea? Surely not that many.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
Abortion is murder just as much as the death penalty. And the fact that such a penalty is deliberated by a jury, just makes it so much worse.

Murder ,according to experts C. Bieker and E. Hernandez, is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. In some U.S. states, laws regarding murder are determined by the Model Penal Code. - Wikipedia

"Without justification or valid excuse" - this one is debatable, it may apply here, depending on whether you consider it possible to have a valid excuse or not.
"unlawful killing of another person with malice afterthought" - definitely not.

In most states abortion is legal, and how many women relish the idea? Surely not that many.
I agree with the part about abortion being murder, but the death penalty is reserved for those who killed many people or something of the same level.
 

the bilingual poet

Guest
Actually, isn't the question whether we should consider a foetus as a human being? As opposed to the current definition, which is the following: At common law, a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the vagina and took its first breath. - Wikipedia

Therefore, the state-sanctified killing of criminals, who ARE human beings, no matter how you look at it, is no better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

figtree2

Polemarch
A fetus is alive and a human as soon as it has a heartbeat (That definition is wrong). Before that, it is not alive. It is still wrong to end potential life though.
 

the bilingual poet

Guest
Everything we do is ending POTENTIAL life ^^ A war can end millions of potential lives, just as many real ones, AND is not an act of whatever god you may choose to believe in. And yet we sanctify it? How can we justify so many deaths?

How do you justify the castle doctrine? This guy is breaking into my house! Bang. Now he isn't.

That fetus isn't wanted, why force it to come into a world just to be cast aside? Why force the mother to bear a responsibility she may not have asked for, may have even gone out of her way to avoid? Especially in the case of rape victims: would you force the poor woman who is scarred for life to look on the face of her assailant for the rest of it?

An unhappy family makes for an unhappy child. A child should be a gift, wanted dearly by the parents, loved.

Otherwise, it is a curse for all involved.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
The castle doctrine is used when a person's life is at stake. This is defending one's self. Wars have happened forever and people do it in the name of their religion sometimes. Personally, I do not like wars, but my country joined 2 wars after getting attacked by other countries. The fetus should not be killed. If the mother does not want it, give it up for adoption and spare it. If she does this, she doesn't have to face it the rest of her life.
 

the bilingual poet

Guest
Sure, because there's a real shortage of kids in orphanages, let's get more of them... It's no skin off your nose, right?
I don't know how many people who were raised in care can say that it was a happy childhood, but surely not that many. Especially when you grow up realising that your mum just didn't want you. It's one thing to put a child into care because his parents died, it's another thing entirely if they're still alive.

I'm not sure how you can call that "sparing" a child.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

the bilingual poet

Guest
Seriously? I've met people who are 80 and are sick of being what they themselves call "a drain on society". I won't argue for or against their point of view, but who are you to decide they're wrong? Forcing people to live, because of YOUR principles, that is wrong. What gives us the right to decide? I am fully aware that this is a double-edged sword, that I am also questioning the right to choose of the parents in the case of abortion...

But my question is therefore this: who gave us the right to decide on someone else's life or death? What makes us a better judge than them?

Whether it be a fetus, a terminally ill patient who wants to go out while they're still able to do it with some dignity, a criminal, or a pensioner who has seen enough: who made us god?
 
You suggested that putting a child up for adoption is wrong as their life would be horrible. I said how that's very cearly wrong. How that resulted in your respondong with "just let 80 year olds die!" I have no idea.

Now as for
But my question is therefore this: who gave us the right to decide on someone else's life or death? What makes us a better judge than them?
I must ask when is a fetus choosing death? I mean, forcing people to never experience life at all because of YOU not wanting them, that is wrong.
 
Last edited:

the bilingual poet

Guest
I am fully aware that this is a double-edged sword, that I am also questioning the right to choose of the parents in the case of abortion...
I mentioned that...
 
My bad. Instead I'll just answer your question.

But my question is therefore this: who gave us the right to decide on someone else's life or death? What makes us a better judge than them?
We don't have the right to decided anything for them. Hence why I would say let the fetus live. Doing anything else is interfering with the fetus' "choice". Idk if that would qualify as choice but it's fair to assume it is.
 

the bilingual poet

Guest
What you're saying is contradicting what you've already said: that any life is better than none.

In that alone, you are judging those who wish to end their own lives. Yet you say that we don't have the right to do so.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
What you're saying is contradicting what you've already said: that any life is better than none.

In that alone, you are judging those who wish to end their own lives. Yet you say that we don't have the right to do so.
One killing his or her self is just as bad as killing another. Nobody has the right to end someone else without a valid reason.