The whole idea is that a fetus is a human being, therefore it has the same rights as the rest of us.

The exceptions, for a very basic example, would be "Abortion is illegal unless the girl was raped, or the pregnancy is a danger to the women's physical health." Not to mention through court, a judge has the authority to adapt to situations in a sensible, well thought out way. So, the judge would both know the circumstances, and be able to hand out exceptions.

A person is not subjective. The best colour in the world is subjective, a person is not. It looks like a person. It's going to be a walking, talking person. Anyway, lets assume it is not a person. What gives us the right to eliminate a human being, whether it is a "person" or not?

And it seems the other points are irrelevant, so no need to worry, then. :).

-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.

---

The mother knows the circumstances. That does not stop her from making the wrong choice.

---

---

The whole idea is that a fetus is a human being, therefore it has the same rights as the rest of us.

---

---

The exceptions, for a very basic example, would be "Abortion is illegal unless the girl was raped, or the pregnancy is a danger to the women's physical health." Not to mention through court, a judge has the authority to adapt to situations in a sensible, well thought out way. So, the judge would both know the circumstances, and be able to hand out exceptions.

---

---

It looks like a person. It's going to be a walking, talking person.

---

---

Anyway, lets assume it is not a person. What gives us the right to eliminate a human being, whether it is a "person" or not?

---

I'm prochoice in any situation, but this seems really hypocritical. If you really believe that this is a human being than why should it be killed because the mother was raped. It shows that even you do not fully believe that all pregnant women should be forced to give birth and that not all fetuses should be born- it can be OK to abort as long as a judge says so!

Then why is it not OK to abort if the WOMAN says so.

Oh, a PS if a woman has to lie about being raped to get an abortion she probably will. Do we want to give people a reason to lie about this VERY serious issue?

---

I don't understand how in one breath you can say how a fetus is ALIVE and HUMAN and A LIFE and show mangled body parts and then say "well, it's OK if the woman was raped"  

I'm prochoice in any situation, but this seems really hypocritical.

---

Post edited at 1:09 am on April 22, 2009 by 420trendz

-------
You lookin' at me funny?
GIMME yo' money..

The supposed rights? More like the rights it should have. The mother should not get the decision.

I think a rape victim should HAVE to keep the baby, but that is another argument, and I provided a basic example as stated, yes? And why shouldn't they handle abortion cases? They deal with issues over a $4 stolen toothpaste in the civil courts. The have judges who deal with civil cases. It is hardly trivial, anyway.

A baby is going to be a walking, talking, person. It isn't yet. But, why can't it be killed?

Jews and blacks weren't considered people. Fetuses aren't considered people. Just shows how wrong the law can be, and how we cannot trust it to define what a person is, yes?

-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.

---

Well, it depends whether you thinking ending a fetus' existence is a wrong decision or not. It is a human being, so you think it would have human rights.

---

---

The supposed rights? More like the rights it should have. The mother should not get the decision.

---

---

I think a rape victim should HAVE to keep the baby, but that is another argument, and I provided a basic example as stated, yes?

---

---

And why shouldn't they handle abortion cases? They deal with issues over a $4 stolen toothpaste in the civil courts. The have judges who deal with civil cases. It is hardly trivial, anyway.

---

---

A baby is going to be a walking, talking, person. It isn't yet. But, why can't it be killed?

---

---

Jews and blacks weren't considered people. Fetuses aren't considered people. Just shows how wrong the law can be, and how we cannot trust it to define what a person is, yes?

---

---

Let's try this thinking out on other issues:

Supppose someone in 1850 said, "The question is not whether slavery is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual plantation owner, or the government? If you're opposed to slavery, then don't buy any slaves, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Slavery is a personal choice between a man and his slave-dealer." (By the way, this is exactly the argument that some supporters of slavery made.)

Or how about this: "The question is not whether rape is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual man, or the government? If you're opposed to rape, than don't rape anybody, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Rape is a personal choice between a man and his sex therapist."

Americans have a great tradition of individual freedom. But there's an old saying: "You have the freedom to swing your arm back and forth all you like, but your freedom ends where my nose begins." Freedom does not include the right to deliberately harm innocent people. We do not allow each man to decide for himself whether he thinks rape is acceptable, because the woman he might choose to rape has rights too. Likewise, we should not allow each woman to decide for herself whether abortion is acceptable, because the child she might choose to abort has rights too.

---

Same thing.
--

Perhaps it is cynical, but does it matter?
--
I am 100% against abortions, moving on.
--
Just because it might get postponed, we shouldn't take it to court? Hm..
--
Why can't it be killed? Because the law has said it is a person. And back to what you said, a person is subjective. If I'm allowed the choice to kill a baby in the womb? Why can't I kill it outside? I don't think it is wrong, that's what YOU think. And what YOU think should influence YOUR decisions on what YOU do. Not to me. See what I did there? You might think killing a baby is wrong, but I should be allowed. Because it's a choice, and you are anti-choice.

-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.

---

Meh, history repeats, and your argument is flawed.

Same thing.

---

---

Perhaps it is cynical, but does it matter?

---

---

Just because it might get postponed, we shouldn't take it to court? Hm..

---

---

Why can't it be killed? Because the law has said it is a person.

---

---

And back to what you said, a person is subjective. If I'm allowed the choice to kill a baby in the womb? Why can't I kill it outside?

---

---

I don't think it is wrong, that's what YOU think. And what YOU think should influence YOUR decisions on what YOU do. Not to me. See what I did there?

---

---

You might think killing a baby is wrong, but I should be allowed. Because it's a choice, and you are anti-choice.

---

Post edited at 1:36 am on April 22, 2009 by 420trendz

-------
You lookin' at me funny?
GIMME yo' money..

---

Earlier it was stated that a woman who is pregnant is under emotional stress, correct? Well, would you want somebody like that making a decision which deals whether a fetus lives or dies?

---

---

If you need to go to court to persuade the judge to let you get a divorce, this allows someone to both judge whether you are mentally fit to make a decision, and whether an abortion is a suitable choice in the matter.

---

---

Rejected? They wouldn't reject an abortion case >.> Now, person applies for abortion with reason and evidence, and then somebody decides to reject it or accept it. It would be quite easy to make a branch of people for this, such as referees for Disputes Tribunals.

---

---

And it is not a poorly constructed argument, it is drawing a comparison between an abortion, and a "murder" the second after it is "legally" a human being. Not to mention is ties back to the quote I put forward. You're saying "The government can't make the choice whether it's right or wrong!" When it has done so previously, in circumstances which do not impact on you personally.

---

And it's great how you bring up personal issues. This is a personal situation. Not a social issue.

The government can't tell you to leave your girlfriend because she cheated on you right? That's a personal issue.

-------
You lookin' at me funny?
GIMME yo' money..

---

Nope. Anyway, there is a difference between 120 people we elect, who vote on issues independently; and an one emotionally unstable woman who has the power to kill a fetus.

---

---

Now, a court who has been given the information like I stated would understand the situation, and then could allow abortions in extreme circumstances. The whole idea is that the woman has to be at risk, that isn't to hard to figure out, if given information.

---

---

The government can't tell me to leave my girlfriend, yes. But this is a social issue which branches into civil law. It is the right of the fetus vs the right of the mother.

---

So what, is it a draw? :/

-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.

---

120 people who come from similar situations, not to mention there are local representatives for your region. Anyway, so she's not emotionally unstable then, why should she kill off the fetus? She can apply for adoption, or put it in a foster home. It goes back to the original argument of the fetus being a human being, and being entitled to the same rights as all other human beings. Because the law in unreliable, and keeps changing it's mind on what is human etc etc. Mind you, that point will keep chasing around in a circle too.

---

---

Not really. If the fetus is having a negative impact on the woman, i.e the birth will result in her death, then it is starting to infringe on the rights of the mother. I think we can agree on that.

---

---

So what, is it a draw? :/

---

And I'm not going to spend any more time on the subject to prove futile.

-------
You lookin' at me funny?
GIMME yo' money..