What about abortion?? click dont be afraid

the government is there to protect the rights of the PEOPLE. that being said, fetuses arguably should have rights as people, and therefore they should be protected by the government and legislation. again this all just comes down to the same dam argument. lets move on
 
as said earlier, does that mean that only slave owners can pass laws regarding slavery?

or how about only black people can pass laws affecting black people?

or how about only cows can pass laws regarding the treatment of cows?

 
The real question here, I think, is what rights do the unborn deserve? We don't let the individual decide which rights of others they may not infringe upon. That would be anarchy.

Regarding the other examples I raised, obviously some people have more informed opinions on them than others. But regardless, everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if for no other reason than no man is an island - the bell that rings for the unborn or the enslaved or the oppressed rings for us all, to paraphrase Donne.
 
you have not established that the fetus does NOT have the same rights as a person... and therefore, they are equivalent. for woman to say that men to get a say in this is absolutely absurd.
 
so it is wrong to kill us. why is it wrong? there are many answers. because then others would loose good experiences with us, or because it makes whoever killed us brutal, or even better, killing is bad because its effect on the victim. the loss of someone's life ends all experiences, activities, enjoyment that would otherwise be ones future. the loss of such experiences and future personal life, which are valuable, or means towards something valuable, to either us or our friends and family. this natural property, that killing is serious wrong because of the loss of ones future, is the best explanation to what makes killing bad. since fetuses have a valuable future ahead of them, they have a right to life, and this right to life makes them human, and therefore bad to kill them.
 
Men do get to weigh in on the subject, but not on equal grounds.

One of the main reasons given for abortion is because of the ill-effects it will have on the woman, for 9 months she will have to carry it, eat for it, she will change physically, have to deal with social stigmas about her pregnancy, she will have to stop working for a period of time to have the baby, she will have to litterally sacrifice 9 months of her life and dedicate it to the baby.

The man on the other hand risks nothing, makes little/no sacrifice for the baby during pregnancy, and can if he wants walk away from it whenever he wants.

This is why it should predominantly be a topic for women to discuss, and us men while be able to say one or two things, should not be dominating this discussion.
 
No, you have NOT shown why this argument is wrong. Sure, TODAY we've established that slaves and Jews, etc. should have been granted rights. But AT THE TIME, "personhood" was defined differently. The color of your skin was the gauge of what rights you deserved.

Obviously, NOW we view those things as horrific offenses against human rights. You need to look at it as it was viewed at the time.

This really isn't that complicated.
 
No it's not how pregnancy works, but it is the same PRINCIPLE -- one being has the life of another completely dependent upon the one individual, and that THIS is a much BETTER analogy than slavery or the holocaust.

With that said. Would you if you woke up one morning attached to another person stay in that bed for 9 months, or would you say I'm sorry I've got my life to live? (or more appropriately would you condemn anyone for saying that "i'm sorry I've got my life to live"
 
Which, histoically, has been the biggest problem. As much as the US likes to consider itself current, fair and democratic, its far from.

From the outside, you still appear very white, conservative, and male. Until that changes, don't expect much else too. Rich white people have the same agenda, hog power.
 
The fetus cannot live independently on it's own, how does this circumstance not warrent a different set of rights for a fetus vs. a human being?

 
Well you've just acknowledged the unborn as a person. And essentially admitted that you think it's ok to kill someone if they are a great enough inconvenience to you. With THAT being said, yes I would condemn that.
 
I don't understand how it DOES. What about other person incapable of living on their own? What about infants, the mentally ill, or the elderly? Can we kill them if they're dependent on others?
 
Ok for example if we were to say that a fetus should be treated exactly like persons who are already alive

then should we not hold a baby accountable for manslaughter if the mother dies in labor? (considering this is an absurd notion the answer is no, because we are dealing with different circumstances, a fetus and a living person are different entities, subject to different rights)
 
What? This doesn't even deserve a response. Are you implying that we give the unborn the right to be immune from manslaughter charges if their mother dies? You've got to be kidding me.
 
Well please explain to me how you can even compare slavery to abortion. Id love to hear it.
 
but he doesnt have too, earlier you said, that he cant have an opinion on abortion because he cant give birth...

so can you have an opinion on me peeing on the wall, because you cant..
 
With slavery, I believe one group infringes on another's unalienable right to liberty. With abortion, I believe one group infringes on another's unalienable right to life. With slavery, those infringing do not think the others are persons deserving said right. With abortion, those infringing do not think the others are persons deserving said right.
 
What about them? Passive euthanasia is fine by me.

I thought you might have me with the infants but then i realized: What is your argument? That every human being has the exact same set of rights? This just isn't the case, infants and children are not held to the same expectations as 'adults' There are overlapping rights no doubt, but to say that an infant a 30 year old and an 90 year old all are to be held as equals just doesn't make sense to me.
 
How about poisoning them? Or stabbing them in the back of the neck and proceeding to suck out their brain with some type of vacuum attachment? Or just physically ripping them apart? Abortion is not equatable to passive euthanasia.
 
I don't think they're exactly all equals. Clearly an infant, for example, doesn't have the right to vote. But they all have certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not pushing for infant suffrage here, I'm simply saying that it should not be acceptable or legal to murder or enslave ANYONE, regardless of skin color, age, or mental capacity.
 
well passive euthanasia is when the person wants to be killed... so unless a fetus asked for abortion its completely different.

rights, yes they all have the same set of rights. expectations, obviously not.
 
Euthanasia in general is something i support, it is a circumstantial thing for me -- active sometimes, passive in others, i don't really care to put out an argument for when one is justified or the other.

Yes the way we go about abortions now is fine by me. You can try and get all graphic and evoke an emotive response, but it won't work. There are much worse ways to get rid of a fetus.

But go back to my scenario with the man and the bed, are you going to lay there for 9 months so that another can live? Are you going to condemn others if they don't?
 
WRONGGGGG

passive euthanasia is letting die -- it is when you remove life support systems, when you stop sustaining life.

active euthanasia is actively taking ones life

it has nothing to do with one's autonomous decision for death

 
well the obivous problem, and im surprised nobody pointed it out when i first brought up the thought experiment of a man connected to you, is how the hell did he get there? if I, through some action, where I knew this was possible conclusion, yes I would sit there. this thought experiment is used to show that abortion should be allowed in rape cases.
 
but why is abortion in this instance okay? from your perspective abortion is taking away ones ability to develop into a human being. does a fetus conceived by sexual assault lose this right?
 
I don't think he was saying that he DOES think it's ok in that case, only that the hypothetical scenario really isn't useful for trying to prove abortion acceptable (unless, of course, you're willing to say that you'll murder someone for inconveniencing you).
 
it's not JUST for rape cases it can be for unexpected pregnancies, or a change in circumstances,

you don't know what can happen over the course of 9 months.

i think that yes Maybe i'd be able to be there for someone to give them back their life, but i don't feel that i'd be obligated to. I think that my life has a greater precedence over that of the man, or a mothers life has precedence over that of her unborn child.

It's not like every mother HAS to get an abortion, and thats not to say that a lot of abortions are done so selfishly, but there are circumstances that arise that a person is morally permitted to abort a child, or i'd be permitted to remove my self from sustaining the life of the patient.

 
Why? Is there logic behind this, or is it just that you wouldn't feel obligated? And once again, I'll raise the point that your scenario paints abortion as passive; it is not.
 
i think one of the possible solutions to this debate is, man up and take responsibility for your actions!

girls, if you got knocked up, well tough luck, you chose to have secks.. (unless you were raped, and that is terrible)

guys, if you got your girl knocked up, well man up and take responsibility and care for her, and the baby..

when you partake in certain actions sometime you will need to take responsibility for your actions..

America is full of winers today, who are looking for the path of least responsibility in response to the actions they committed.
 
Yes. my biggest problem with legalized abortions, it sends the message that you do not need to take responsibility for your actiions.

ive got likean 8 hour car ride, ill reply
 
I agree with you on those points for sure. Im sick of hearing about girls/women using abortion as a means for birth control. That should not be an option and it's honestly not healthy at all. Though there needs to be some middle ground. People do make mistakes, it happens. For instance, how many kids on here have had pregnancy scares? Too many. Now are you telling me if you were 16 or 17 (because a lot of kids that are that age are having sex) is man enough, excuse me, mature enough to take care of another child? No.

And once again, I do agree with you when you say that people need to take responsibility for their actions. But it seems as though our society has said "no its ok....you can be a complete fuck up, dont worry we'll take care of your mistakes...here, why dont you go have another one and another and another and another kid...we'll keep paying for it"
 
good point, and if i personally offended you earlier, i apologize...

although you are still wrong, to a certain extent..

this is going to make me sound cruel and heartless, but... boo frickedy whooo... 16, and 17 year old kids(that is what they are) should not be having sex until they are ready to deal with the possible consequences...

same goes for people of all ages, i dont care if you are 20 if you are going to have sex then deal with your actions..

 
Nah dude I dont get offended easily, dont sweat it.

And yes, 16 and 17 year old kids should NOT be having sex. But the thing is, people dont like to deal with their responsiblities, hence people suing people or corporations over the stupidest shit EVER. But where to draw the line....?
 
i can agree with some of that, but not the choice part, people who are raped(dont get me started on rapist's they are the lowest of the low) did not choose to be raped... true some people look like they are asking for it by the way they dress, but that doesnt make it right... and they still didnt consent to sex..

i also never made a comment on the Rape abortion, that is a whole other can of worms, and i personally dont have my mind made up on that issue, but in general, i do have my mind made up on abortion...
 
thank god, i thought you might have been playing the sarcasm card, but on the interwebz it doesnt always show..

that being said, i do believe that you can boil it all down (in most cases) too, "you had sex, you had a baby" is there any surprise there? "i mean, holy shit, i had sex, and now my GF is pregnant, wow! what a shocker"

and even if you are on "the pill" you have to know that every time you "do it" you are taking that chance..

 
I don't think there should be an exception for rape. Rape is a tragedy, no question, and rapists should be punished severely. But an unborn being that bears no guilt for its own existence should not face capital punishment for its father's behavior.

 
The morning after pill is contraceptive - it prevents fertilization. I don't have any problems with contraception; it is obviously enormously different from abortion.
 
i know i am opening myself up to the whole slippery slope argument, but i respect you enough to tell you the truth...

i see no problem with the morning after pill, i know its a slippery slope one way or the other. but that is my take on it..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top