It's obvious Abortion is wrong

It's irrelevant whether she is the mother or not (BTW she cannot be a mother until after birth has taken place unless she already has born children), she has as much right, legally and morally, to end the life of another entity that is injuring her, as you do.

There is no moral justification in forcing one person to sustain the life of another person through a physical connection that they have not consented to, regardless of the circumstances that led to that situation.

You harp on about slavery and yet would could be more akin to slavery than being told you cannot decide who, what, where and when your body is used by another.

There is another kinship between women and slaves, they are/were treated as lesser people due purely to the accident of their birth .. gender for women and skin colour for blacks, and you simply want to enforce that discrimination.

 

And as a"host" she has every right to evict the "lodger".

You do understand that no individual has the right to use another persons body for their own purpose without consent do you not?

Obviously better than you do, for a start First Degree Murder requires the unlawful killing of another person, abortion is not unlawful ergo abortion does not meet the criteria, and your assertion fails at the first hurdle.

 

LOL another one who needs to learn history a little better . .you do know that under Nazi rule German women were considered property of the state don't you and could not obtain an abortion .. sounds very much like pro-life ideology to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether the fetus is a person or not is 100% irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or not . .either way it makes little to no difference concerning the legality of elective abortion, and it is no more 'murder' than you killing a person in self-defence who is injuring your without consent.

That is the problem with pro-lifers they harp on about the unborn being persons with all the protection that implies but want to ignore the restrictions that also come with personhood .. it's called selective thinking.

 

So 'Murder' as you like to insist abortion is - is only worth 5-7 years in prison is it?

Just goes to show not even pro-lifers really consider the unborn to be persons in the same way as born people are.

 

""of one of the devices produced by the company I work for in the UK""


That sounds fantastic! Can you tell me more ? A great fear I have is to be unable to communicate my wish to die if I was in that circumstance.
Could this device be applied to Alzheimer victims?

 

Nay, your point was recognised for what it was .. a pile of crap.

Dear oh dear, seems your history teacher failed you then.

Read this, you will probably see many, many similarities between pro-life ideology and Nazi Ideology - http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/women-in-nazi-germany/

This issue is far more than politics, it is the freedom of the individual to be free from state interference in who, what, where and when their body is used by another.

They don't bother me any more than pictures of open heart surgery or miscarriages do . .no doubt the pictures you have in mind to use are those that have been proven to be false and edited.

 

What a cop out, first your scream and shout it's "murder" and then back track to manslaughter when cornered .. BTW it cannot be manslaughter, abortion doesn't meet the definition.

 

As usual like most pro-lifers you miss the elephant in the room, the Jews that Nazi Germany deemed non-people had already been born, and you consistent misuse of the word baby only goes to prove you are an intellectually dishonest poster.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing legally, morally or ethically wrong with abortion . .you think there is so give your rationale as to why.

Irrelevant and off topic

 

These so called arguments are so old hat that it becomes boring to blow them full of holes all the time . .try to read and comprehend it will probably save you some embarrassment later.

A fetus is BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a SINGLE person in order to sustain its life
A baby is SOCIALLY dependent on ANY person in order to sustain its life

can you spot the difference or will you blindly attempt to assert there is no difference?

 

If abortion is murder, why is there a need to create laws that already exist to cover murder?

UVVA type laws are nothing more than an extension of consent laws specifically tailored to pregnant women, oh and ONLY apply in specific circumstances.

You punch a woman in the stomach and caused her to lose the fetus would be a violation of her right to consent to whether she remains pregnant or not.

 

Even a premature baby has to be BORN, one would suggest actually researching the numerous changes that take place during and immediately after birth.

It really is simple, while in the womb it is a fetus (amongst other designations), once born it is a baby.

- - - Updated - - -

So in reality than not showing at 1 month as you asserted.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't need to

 

I'm intrigued. Could you post some links to the device please?

 

90% of "pro-lifers" do that....they scream "Abortion is murder"....then when pressed on "So, you'd punish it the same way as murder if it were illegal?"....

they fold...and say "Okay, not murder...it's 'manslaughter'...and a woman who self-induced should 'only' get a few years for it."



The other 10% are honest and consistent.....and are misogynists who have never had a successful long-term relationship with a woman.

 

I see. They didn't need to use the pro abortion bogus arguments located on this forum.

They had actual legal arguments.

 

What I found out is the woman ends up blaming the man. She feels lousy she had her child terminated. She wonders what the child would turn out like. If she is just a punk, maybe she does not care. But the best way to bust up a relationship is for her to get pregnant and end up with an abortion.

Course in the rush to supply more work for abortionists, the left chooses to ignore her problems.

 

That's actually the only good argument for pro-choice that I know. It's funny that you explicitly reference morality, when others here can't seem to figure out that it's involved.

I brought up slavery because it was legal in the past. Those appealing simply to the current laws as a justification for abortion would also have to accept slavery to be consistent.

The way women and blacks have been treated over the millennia is deeper than that.

 

not in the public forum as it would violate the forum rules, but I will PM you some details.

 

They had no need to at that time, other arguments were used that were more than enough for the court to decide in favour of Roe, it is only since that time that pro-lifers have tried (wrongly) to assert other issues.

The personhood status was debated in oral arguments during the case, Jay Floyd was asked if he could show one case where the personhood of the fetus had ever been established . .he could not give a single case or even a reference to case where that had happened, and as such the court decided that the unborn did not meet the criteria of personhood under the constitution.

 

It is only involved to the extent that the person involved (ie the pregnant woman) wants it to be, at the end of the day life, including human life, only has as much value as another places upon it.

I am not a believer in absolute morality .. there could be absolute truths, but we are not in a position or even able to know what those truths are . .any truth we say is an absolute truth is nothing more than an opinion.

Yes slavery was legal, but in reality it has nothing to do with abortion . .the slave for one thing was not resident inside of another person and for another they were not injuring that person without consent, both of which are 100% true for the unborn.

Of course yes.

 

I disagree. You made an absolute moral statement, that pregnant woman have the right to choose abortion of not. The fact that the content involves a woman making a choice doesn't change that.

If you don't believe in absolute morality, then you can't say women have the right to choose. At best you can say that that is your subjective preference.

I never said slavery had anything to do with abortion...

I was refuting the argument that abortion should be legal simply because a court said so. For if you buy into that argument, you also need to accept any decision that court comes to, like the legality of slavery in past times. In no way am I comparing abortion and slavery together. Obviously they have nothing to do with each other. I could've chosen something else, like prohibition of alcohol.

 

You may of course disagree, but unless you can prove to me that there are absolute rights or wrongs then morality is only involved to the extent the person who is involved wants it to be, having the right to 'choose' (though I don't tend to express it as a right to choose, I express it as a right to consent) is not an absolute right .. but then no right is absolute, there are always exceptions to the rule.

are you looking a 'right' as an adjective or a noun, as an adjective right is defined as "morally good, justified, or acceptable", and as a noun "that which is morally correct, just, or honourable" . .either way I find that abortion is "morally good, justified, or acceptable" and "that which is morally correct, just, or honourable"

I am not a believer because no person has been able to show an absolute truth or absolute morality, so my position is one of while there may be absolute morality, I require proof to it's existence, and as I have said I don't normally say the right choose, I say the right to consent.

Apologies, it gets that sometimes conclusions are based on previous debates where slavery and abortion are deemed, incorrectly, to walk hand-in-hand.

Not necessarily, just because I believe in the legal justification of self-defence doesn't mean I have to believe in all other legal justifications.

 

I'm not making any positive statements of my own, just critiquing yours.

You said that, "she has as much right, legally and morally, to end the life of another entity that is injuring her, as you do." So unless you want to clarify what you mean by "morally", usually that points to some sort of objective, absolute morality. Otherwise you have to admit you're just stating your personal preferences.

So yes, you're appealing to absolute morality. You gotta own up to it.

You seem to be in contradiction. On the one hand you say woman have the right to choose/consent, but on the other reject absolute morality. Can you explain what you mean then?

It doesn't really matter what the court's justification is. If you accept one thing solely because of the authority of the court, then you have to accept everything that court says to be consistent. Otherwise, you're just cherry picking.

Just imagine the flip situation, where God says that abortion is wrong. A pro-life person might say abortion is wrong because God says so. But that same person would have to also accept that "gays are evil" if God also said that.

 

I like the term pro lifers. It makes me look so very human.

What an apt term.

 

Yup, they're "Pro-Life" of the fetus...after it's born, not so much.....they even wish to take away it's rights if it's female.

 

That is simply flawed posting

It goes that Poster A says a thing about poster A

Poster B shows up trying to mock A

Poster B makes no inquiry yet has the temerity to pretend to be the spokesperson of A