---

I am a strong supporter of the concept of choice, and thus consider myself to be pro-choice.

I support the choice to have sex. That sex is a concious act that individuals take part in, and in doing so make a voluntary choice to do so, with the exception of rape. I also have enough knowledge of science to understand that upon making the choice to have sex, that I am also making the choice to run the risk of having my sperm mix with a woman's eggs to produce a separate and unique individual. Rape is when your right to choice has been violated, thus any obligation to future consequence is null and void.

I also support the choice to live or not. That if an individual wants to kill themselves for whatever reason, then they should be allowed to do as such. Thus if someone is so poor, or so unloved that their quality of life is to a point where their life is not worth living, then they should have the right to make the choice to continue living or not.

In support of the choice to live or not also follows that other individuals should not be allowed to force either of those conditions upon another individual, unless said individual has done something to forefit their rights. That a person who has made grievous crimes has forefitted their right to make their own choice about life or death, thus the state is allowed to make the choice for them. That an individual who has attempted to attack another and as such is attempting to take away that person's right to choice is in effect forefitting their own right to choice and as such the person being attacked has every right to choose to kill the attacker or not in the defense of their own personal right to choose.

When abortions take place there is no regard for choice, with exception to medical emergancies and sometimes rape. The child's right to decide if it lives or not is being violated, and the violators of said rights should be punished. Anyone who would do such a thing simply is proving that they oppose the very concept of choice, and are in effect anti-choice.

---

---

I'd have to say that I'm agreeing with whoisabs point of view. And I like Rasafarian's time machine analogy. In my opinion, having an abortion just because you were too stupid to use birth control is pathetic. It just shows that you weren't ready to have sex yet. The whole frame of mind that foetuses don't have the right to live, just because they're helpless and aren't born yet is the same as justifying the murder of a senile/mentally retarded person. I mean, THEY wouldn't know what was going on , just as a foetus wouldn't know it was being killed, but I think everyone knows that killing a retarded person because it was an inconvenience is WRONG.

---

---

Quote: from Rastafarian at 5:52 pm on April 2, 2007

---

 So illegal immigrants should be murdered it seems.

---

That a person who has made grievous crimes has forefitted their right to make their own choice about life or death, thus the state is allowed to make the choice for them.

Considering that the operative term is illegal when it comes to illegal immigrant...

---

I think I'll either just address what I perceive to be the point of his topic without actually reading it, or maybe read it and exercise the prodigious critical reading capacity instilled in me by my time in the finest crackhouse/middleschool in the state!

Without realizing it, I'll try to poke holes in abs's position even though he already provided an explanation that renders my argument null and void.

Also, I have no idea what the word life means.

In addition, my name is actually killc0ps77, which should have been a given in that the name "killc0ps77" already speaks of rampant inability to think. My name is probably also nickkyd and marine chic. And maybe eiwetz.

Dalai Lama was pretty stupid too...

okay, dumb people in this topic imho lol wtf bbq lmao?

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

1. Is a 4 week fetus sentient?

2. Is a 4 week fetus sapient?

Why would you treat a fetus, which is definitely not sapient, and not sentient during at the first 24-28 weeks, as deserving of human rights?

---

I think it addresses them.

Why would you treat a fetus, which is definitely not sapient, and not sentient during at the first 24-28 weeks, as deserving of human rights?

---

People in comas are not sentient. Is it okay to kill them?

---

Babies are not sapient.  

---

Debatable. I'd argue that they have some degree of sapience.

---

Do you consider infanticide justified?

---

Well, no. Not only are babies sentient beings, who are highly responsive to pain, there is also debate over whether they are sentient. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

---

People in comas are not sentient. Is it okay to kill them?

---

Merely because a coma patient is unresponsive to the outside world is not indicative of whether they are sapient (witness a sleeping human being). Coma patients demonstrate complex brain waves which are highly suggestive of a dream like state. One can dream, and still maintain their sapience. Your logic is very badly flawed... you're attempting to compare a human with a functioning higher brain with a fetus, whose nervous system isn't completely developed.

Of course, if you were to ask me whether a human being in a vegetative state, with no higher brain function was deserving of human rights, I'd respond in the negative.

Post edited at 7:05 am on April 4, 2007 by mountain hare

Nothing concerning the OP was addressed.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

You need to justify why a fetus is deserving of equal consideration when compared with a sapient being. Hell, I'd even lower the bar, and ask why a fetus without a properly developed nervous system during the first 20 (?) weeks deserves to be compared with sentient beings.

---

Parasites do not get the right to decide whether or not their host will get rid of them.

---

---

Wow, the calibre of the arguments on this thread leaves much to be desired:

---

---

Debatable. I'd argue that they have some degree of sapience.

---

Are you sure babies qualify?

---

Well, no. Not only are babies sentient beings, who are highly responsive to pain, there is also debate over whether they are sentient. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

---

---

Merely because a coma patient is unresponsive to the outside world is not indicative of whether they are sapient (witness a sleeping human being). Coma patients demonstrate complex brain waves which are highly suggestive of a dream like state. One can dream, and still maintain their sapience. Your logic is very badly flawed... you're attempting to compare a human with a functioning higher brain with a fetus, whose nervous system isn't completely developed.

Of course, if you were to ask me whether a human being in a vegetative state, with no higher brain function was deserving of human rights, I'd respond in the negative.

---