The Abortion Debate

[Raina Luxe]

To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

[Dhyana]

Barely_evil

To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

But Hitler and his regime were unwanted by the rest of society and thus were gotten rid of.
So, what's your point?

(except for that part where hitler killed himself but that was in response to society not wanting him)

[Lexia_Starr]

Barely_evil

Women resent that the value of a woman is sometimes determined by whether a man wants her. Yet feminists insist that the value of an unborn boy or girl is to be determined by whether a woman wants him or her.

Sorry, but it's not the same thing. A woman, first and foremost is an independant being. Second of all, the "want" of a man to a woman entails what her "usefulness" would be to his male ego which is inherently degrading and dehumanizing. Whereas the "want" of a woman to a pregnancy involves her willingness to allow a parasitic organism to gestate within her own personal body.

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Barely_evil

Women resent that the value of a woman is sometimes determined by whether a man wants her. Yet feminists insist that the value of an unborn boy or girl is to be determined by whether a woman wants him or her.

I seriously hate those in-post signatures people are so fond of using..... They waste space, and are pointless.

That aside, humans intrinsically have no value to anyone but themselves. A fetus is no different. That said a fetus is in direct violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy and a woman's right to beodily integrity. As such, she has a right to remove the violation regardless of any value you or anyone else may place upon the fetus. Please, don't try to make this a debate of values, as the only value anyone has is all in thier own mind.

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Repost for response, if you can even respond at all....

Barely_evil

what you have all failed to realize, is that having a baby is a beautiful thing.

Your opinion does not make it fact, nice try though. Actually, I've seen a live birth, several in fact, and in all honesty, Goatse, tubgirl, and lemon party are all more appealing in my eyes.

Barely_evil

I have one i'm still alive, she is the best thing in my life....

Good for you, again, you're trying to use opinion as proof....

Barely_evil

the nine months of pregnancy isnt hell, i miss when my child was in me and kicking..... even if it were torture, wouldn't it be worth it???

Again with the opinion, opinion is not support for your stance, and not everyone shares it. Good for you that you miss it. As for being worth it, I don't believe it is.

Barely_evil

no, not to a selfish teen who cares too much about her social life and what her boyfriend may say.....

Or to a teen who was raped.... Of course, it's only selfish teens who get abortions, never a married woman, or a woman who simply NEVER ******** WANTS KIDS.

Barely_evil

and then all the hell she would get from her parents... oh no!

Or she wants to finish school, advance in her career, or has too many kids already.....

Barely_evil

women who have abortions also regret them, mind you, in their later years when theyve been rode hard and put up wet, and theyre all alone.......

I had an abortion almost 14 years ago, to this day, I do not regret it, and in fact view it as one of the best things I've ever done in my life. I never want kids, I never did want kids, and I never will want kids.

Also, in case you've never seen it before http://www.imnotsorry.com

The only women who regret thier abortions had them due to outside influences such as family and friends. Hell, there are women who have children and regret them. You mind actually researching the topic next time, before we have to be subjected to your bullshit?

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Barely_evil

To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

President Bush didn't WANT Saddam Hussein in power anymore, and look what that got us. By the way, congrats on breaking Godwin's law, you fail at debate. Your entire arguement is nothing but a string of fallicious statements.

[Alias Ryuuzaki]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Barely_evil

To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

President Bush didn't WANT Saddam Hussein in power anymore, and look what that got us. By the way, congrats on breaking Godwin's law, you fail at debate. Your entire arguement is nothing but a string of fallicious statements.

Hitler? In MY abortion debate??
(It's more likely than you think)

Not to mention the whole slippery slope argument... While it's not invalid, it's not always applicable

(ALSO: 9000 more posts until 100k! YUO CAN DO IT)

[Sloth Prince]

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

The biggest difference between your scenario and carrying a fetus is that a fetus is physically attached to a woman's body and is draining her body of nutrients. A born child is not.

[Sloth Prince]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

The biggest difference between your scenario and carrying a fetus is that a fetus is physically attached to a woman's body and is draining her body of nutrients. A born child is not.

But that is irrelevant, the child is still using the woman's body. If the woman doesn't want the fetus to use her body, she can get rid of it, so why can't she get rid of the child in the forest?

A grown man needs one of my kidneys, and I can say no, even though he's not physically attached to me in any way.

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Chaotic Muffin

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

The biggest difference between your scenario and carrying a fetus is that a fetus is physically attached to a woman's body and is draining her body of nutrients. A born child is not.

But that is irrelevant, the child is still using the woman's body. If the woman doesn't want the fetus to use her body, she can get rid of it, so why can't she get rid of the child in the forest?

A grown man needs one of my kidneys, and I can say no, even though he's not physically attached to me in any way.

The kidney however is attached to your body.

Again, the child in the forest scenario you are presenting is not the same as a fetus in the womb. The fetus is physically attached to the woman's body, the child is not.

[Veolin]

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

I wonder if this can be tied in with what the thread creator has on the front page under McFall V Shimp in which case it was ruled "The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue."

If this held true, then the woman would indeed be able to leave the child behind without being at fault and the question at hand would become would she want to?

[Sloth Prince]

Veolin

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

I wonder if this can be tied in with what the thread creator has on the front page under McFall V Shimp in which case it was ruled "The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue."

If this held true, then the woman would indeed be able to leave the child behind without being at fault and the question at hand would become would she want to?

Oh boy, the pro-lifers will LOVE that.

Another hypothetical:

pro-lifer on youtube

So a mother swimming with her 2 year old child on a beautiful day should not be culpable for deliberately letting the child drown since the child supposedly has no right to expect her mother to keep carrying her? Please explain.

You cannot say that the woman is responsible since she put the child there in the first place, since technically the woman would be responsible for putting the fetus in her womb in the first place. (or, rather, the woman and the man would be responsible.)

I would say that this would be child abuse, but since the law doesn't seem keen on making people take care of other people, I don't see how that would work.

[venomkid1214-venomkid]

hi

[Sloth Prince]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Chaotic Muffin

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Chaotic Muffin

Wait, but you all are missing the point.
If right to protect bodily integrity applies to abortion, why shouldn't it apply to the situation where the woman has to carry the kid back to civilization?

If there's no one else around to take care of the kid, but carrying the kid is causing the woman some kind of pain or hardship or whatever, she would be able to leave the kid behind, even though it would mean certain death for him, right?

If that's not the case, then what law exactly is forcing the woman to carry the kid?
Or is it just the woman's will that matters?

The biggest difference between your scenario and carrying a fetus is that a fetus is physically attached to a woman's body and is draining her body of nutrients. A born child is not.

But that is irrelevant, the child is still using the woman's body. If the woman doesn't want the fetus to use her body, she can get rid of it, so why can't she get rid of the child in the forest?

A grown man needs one of my kidneys, and I can say no, even though he's not physically attached to me in any way.

The kidney however is attached to your body.

Again, the child in the forest scenario you are presenting is not the same as a fetus in the womb. The fetus is physically attached to the woman's body, the child is not.

But it IS the same in so much as the child is causing the woman pain and discomfort. So she should be able to just abandon the child to protect her bodily integrity.