Is this a specious argument for pro-abortion?

I don't understand why you lack this ability to infer things that are quite clear. Are you that narcissistic that you think every personal pronoun is about you specifically?

I agree! People who oppose capitol punishment but endorse abortion are hypocrites. I guess that makes me one.

Only if you think that life begins at conception and then call yourself pro-life.

What am I if I believe that life does begin at conception but dont believe that I have the right to dictate to others how to make there life decisions? I find nothing is black or white, right or wrong and people who do are the hypocrites in my opinion.

I assume human life is meant and thus you must consider the killing of unborn humans to be a felony legalised by a fiction probably for economic considerations.

@ Spendius

I ask again: "What in your opinion is the offense against the fetus that abortion presents?"

Morally, each person IS and shud be fully sovereign
and autonomous over his or her own body,
such that a woman is rightfully entitled to defend herself
from any intrusive organism for ANY reason, or for NO reason,
as judged by herself. That includes the argument that u hypothesize.
The embryo is only a parasite and has no right to hitch a ride.
To find otherwise, against the hostess's will, is to approve of slavery.

Its just a matter of self defense. Everyone has that natural right.


Concerning your remark about: "innocence of a child",
I 'd like to point out that if the embryo is not wanted,
then like an un-invited guest at a party, he has NO right
to be there and shud be assisted to leave. The parasite is NOT innocent,
but rather he is in a state of larceny, tresspass, assault & robbery.
I was tempted to add burglary, but technically, her body is not
real estate, so that intrusion does not apply.



David

During the days of the Soviet Union, there were some of the satellites countries that only used monthly abortions as their standard birth control. It was like one vacuuming ones rug often. It also allowed the macho males to "enjoy" sex without the hindrance of condoms.

And while today it's a "legal and safe medical procedure," I just believe it is not an ethical procedure. We have nothing to argue. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

In my opinion, an abortion is acceptable by many, since they view a fetus as not really a human yet. I view it as a human already.

And, it is my business to voice my opinion, since as a member of society, I find the treatment of fetuses not always ethical. I do not want to change women's minds. I would like to see society's laws changed. That I have every right, in a democracy, to comment on.

I hope that this will not come as a shock,
but what U "ASSUME" has no effect upon what anyone "must" consider, Spendius.





David

I vu it as innocently killing a HUMAN robber or killing a human burglar.




I respect your 1st Amendment Right to comment,
regardless of the fact that this has never been a democracy.





David

It is only the woman's right to choose, since current laws says so; however, laws change. For example, once upon a time, stealing a horse resulted in death by hanging.

So, with time, a democratic country could decide that killing a fetus, due to poor planning, or what not, is not the ethical thing to do.

By the way, you know that during the Vietnam Era, I did not have a right to choose where my body could live, since Uncle Sam wanted it for a few years of service. It was not my right to choose where my body could reside. It had to reside in a military installation.

Somehow women, in my opinion, have empowered themselves with a "right" that in a prior time was not their "right." And, to gain that "right" the fetus HAD TO LOSE HIS/HER RIGHT TO LIVE. Something is wrong with that picture ethically, in my opinion. In effect, taking rights from one group, to give it to another group it not ethical. That's why we had the civil rights movement in the U.S., or all the rebellions against colonial rule.

Rights cannot be given one group, and taken from another, and be ethical, unless one group doesn't deserve their rights. Perhaps, fetuses have somehow done something wrong? Obviously not. Abortion is just, in my opinion, a fait accompli of rights.

In my opinion, the fact that a woman has a body does not infer to her the right to kill the fetus that is growing in it. Just like a mother cannot kill her child.

Using the word "choice" presupposes, in my opinion, that a woman has a God given right to choose. Actually, any God that exists did not give her that choice, by virtue of the woman's body maintaining the fetus, until labor. Perhaps, there is some God that I do not know about that oversees women's rights? In a polytheistic society there might be a God of Unwanted Pregnancies?

SO STIPULATED. David



Yes.




That 's right; well said!


We DON 'T approve of that.




Any person who does that is an imposter, a fake,
a charlatan and NOT an American conservative.

U can tell whether he is a real conservative or not
by whether he deviates from principles of Original Americanism,
as set forth in the US Constitution.

Definitionally, he cannot be a conservative if he is a deviant (i.e., a liberal).





David

Specious, since if the mother doesn't feed the newborn, it dies. Mothers do not have the right to starve a child.

When animals abandon their young, and let it die, it is their way to deal with an unwanted child; however, only after delivery. Perhaps, abortion can be seen as an analogy to an animal abandoning its young? Just because women have the mental ability to agonize over the decision to abort, or not to abort, a pregnancy doesn't mean they are not doing something akin to an animal abandoning its young, in my opinion

On this matter, Izzy, we can agree (except that I 'd join your sentence fragment
with the rest of your sentence).





David

You are totally unique. There has never been, and never will be again, a Krumple exactly like you. An aborted Krumple would have denied the world from knowing your uniqueness. You are underestimating your value to the human family. That is why abortion should be a crime.

To criminalize abortion
is to effectively repeal the 13th Amendment
and to re-authorize slavery.





David

So, how was abortion once a crime, and there still was the 13th Amendment?

Just to be perfectly clear Foofie I did not, repeat not, write-



Nor would I ever have done or will do.

Krumpie is confusing wishes, engineered, mainly by Media, with instincts. She has to either deny instincts or, if accepting them, to deny harmful results from thwarting them.

An embryo or a partially developed fetus is not "an unborn kid". And yes, it is "a clump of cells" that are a living organism, but it is not yet a developed human being, and to think of it as the equivalent of a fully developed human being, is to impose fantasy, or religious dogma, on reality. And while that fetus is inadequately developed enough to exist outside of utero, by any means, it remains a part of another's body and not a legally independent "human life" of any sort.

Whether pregnancy termination results from a spontaneous abortion, i.e. a miscarriage, or a medical procedure, it is the interruption of a biological process that prevents the development of a human being. Contraception does that prior to conception, abortion does it afterward.

What we are really discussing is the issue of a woman's legal reproductive rights--her legal right to control the reproductive capacity of her own body. And those rights would, and should, include access to both contraception and abortion. Just as men have access to both methods of contraception, as well as medical procedures, such as vasectomies, which allows them to exercise control over their reproductive abilities.

Those who believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception obviously do not share this view. I believe that such people are choosing to substitute religious dogma, or fantasies regarding some future potential, for the actual biological reality of the state of fetal development that is being interrupted with an abortion. They are entitled to hold these views, and to use them to guide their own choices about abortion. What I do not think they are entitled to do is to legally impose their own moral views on this issue on others, and to legally prevent other people's access to abortion based on these views.

You are clearly being judgmental about a woman's sexual behaviors, and bringing in issues that I feel are really irrelevant to an abortion discussion, when you say, "She should have thought about all that before she allowed somebody who doesn't give a damn about her to shag her gratuitously." The circumstances under which a woman became pregnant, or her particular reasons for seeking an abortion, are irrelevant to whether a medical abortion should be an available legal option for those who wish to terminate a pregnancy. Your thinking on this issue is incredibly narrow, as well as narrow-minded.

I don't wonder that you, personally, never hear people discussing whether or not they have had an abortion, or even considered one, given your extremely negative views of both the kind of "sexually loose" woman who gets herself in the circumstance of needing an abortion, as well as your negative and judgmental views of the procedure itself, although these methods include non-surgical procedures, as well as an Abortion Pill which will induce a miscarriage in the first 5-9 weeks of pregnancy. Who on earth would want to discuss her abortion with you given your attitudes?

I've already said I've known women, both single and married women, who've had abortions, so women obviously do discuss such things with close friends, or relatives, or partners--with people they trust. It's not a subject that's likely going to be part of a revelation in a casual conversation with someone you don't really know or know well. For one thing, it's a very personal, and emotionally laden topic. You don't hear many women casually discussing the clinical details of their mastectomies, or what their bodies look like after radical mastectomies either, or men casually discussing their impotence after prostate surgery either--there are many things people consider personal, or emotionally difficult to talk about.

And you are also failing to look at the wide range of reasons that women seek abortions for unwanted pregnancies, even beyond instances of rape. Knowledge that she is carrying a fetus with a severe genetic disorder, such as Tay-Sachs disease, or a fetus with a profound birth defect, might be among those reasons. The serious physical risks of pregnancy--severe hypertension, diabetes, eclampsia--particularly for a woman who has had such medical problems during previous pregnancies, or for an older woman who has become pregnant toward the end of her reproductive years, might be another reason to choose the option of abortion. And selective abortion, to prevent too many multiple births, and to increase the viability of the remaining fetuses, can be a routine procedure when pregnancy results from in vitro fertilization, where multiple fertilized eggs are implanted in order to increase the probability of a successful pregnancy.

To focus on women's sexual behaviors--and any other factors prior to conception--or which are related to how conception occurred--are not really relevant to a discussion of abortion, particularly to a discussion of whether abortion should be legal. Either abortion should be a legal medical procedure or it should not. I think those who oppose abortion, but will legally allow it only in exceptional cases--rape, incest, where the life of the mother might be in jeopardy--are unduly limiting choice in the matter. I support a woman's legal right to choose to abort, regardless of her reasons for doing so.

The issue is choice vs anti-choice in the matter of a woman's reproductive rights, and her legal right to seek medical procedures and treatments that allow her to maintain control over her body's reproductive abilities. How she conceived, or why she chooses abortion, is a personal matter that is no one else's business--let alone the business of the state.

So you are more than free to voice your opinions on this issue, as is everyone else. I'm only concerned with these "pro-life" opinions when they translate into legislation that imposes mainly religious views and prohibitions on others who may, or may not, share these views. I am not trying to convince you to share my views on whether or not a fetus is a human being, we will likely never agree on that matter. Similarly, I don't want you to legally impose your views on anyone else. The issue of legal choice relates to the choice of available reproductive options, and not to the forcing of beliefs and attitudes about terminating a pregnancy on others. Those who oppose abortion, are free not to have an abortion. But, those who wish to have an abortion, must also be allowed the legal freedom to make that choice. The issue is allowing choice--legal choice.