Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.

1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.

The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.

Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.

Incorrect.

As a fact of law, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently abortion is neither 'murder' nor 'infanticide.'

And prior to birth, the protected liberty of the woman is immune from unwarranted interference by the state, as the issue impacts solely on the woman's bodily integrity.

The 'potential to become a baby' argument therefore fails as it can be applied to the sperm and ovum prior to fertilization as justification to ban contraceptives, which is just as unwarranted and un-Constitutional as seeking to 'ban' abortion.

Several states already consider the "unborn baby" a baby as in drunk driving fatalities involving pregnant women where the baby is another life adding to the charge. So-called feticide laws.

"What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 37 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances."
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims National Right to Life

Abortion, because it's legal isn't murder correct. But it IS (using new word just learned heh) feticide.

"Missouri: The killing of an “unborn child” at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)."

This confuses civil law with that of criminal law, substantive due process with procedural due process.

When someone acts in a criminal manner that results in the loss of a pregnancy, the crime is committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus, as a fact of law it is not a person – it's the woman's right to decide for herself whether to have a child or not that's been taken from her, it is the woman who is the victim, not the embryo/fetus, her right to decide has been violated by the criminal act, where the suspect is prosecuted in the context of criminal law.

The right to privacy in the context of civil law and substantive process, on the other hand, addresses the woman's relationship with the state, where the woman is afforded the protected liberty of being free from unwarranted interference concerning whether to have a child or not, as the state may not compel a woman to have a child against her will.

 

[percysunshine]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

 

[percysunshine]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

The man would have to prove he's the father, which would be impossible unless the woman agreed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.

Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.

I think the fundamental problem with this debate is right here in what you are trying to say. You are trying to establish when something actually becomes what it already is. A 'baby' or 'fetus' is the same thing in different developmental stage. It's a living human organism in state of being... a human being. This is difficult for some people to admit and then have the conversation on when it's alright to kill it.

The conversation must begin with everyone on the same page, accepting the biological fact that we are talking about human life. This is not up for debate, there is nothing inconclusive about it, we know precisely when a human organism begins life in the state of being. Some desperately want to attach artificial caveats and criteria which do not belong. "Viability" is the worst of these because it places an impossible criteria on the fetus, the expectation it should be able to survive outside it's normal environment. This NEVER determines what something is or isn't.

I am devoutly pro life. I don't believe in capital punishment or euthanasia. I see no scenario where I could ever personally choose abortion. However, I believe strongly in democratic society and the establishment of laws governing society based on will of the people. I can accept that others have differing criteria than myself. In that spirit, I think abortion should be allowed but highly regulated and limited. There is no reason for it ever to be done outside the first trimester except to save the life of the mother.

We don't have to accept any such technicality as 'human life' making a day old fertilized egg the absolute equivalent of you or me or any other human at any stage in life for purposes of making law.

By your standard every abortion from conception on would be first degree murder. It is foolish to even think that a consensus of Americans would ever support that idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

So when you end up with one vote for abortion and one vote against, what breaks the tie?

Let me guess....

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am alive. I now have the choice to be alive and I am wholeheartedly in support of the continuation of such. If somebody else had decided 61 years ago to terminate my life, I would not be allowed such a personal decision.

There can be no real argument that the net result from conception is a human life. One the process of cell growth takes place, that is what you end up with -- a human being -- and so it really doesn't make any difference whether it is 2 days after conception or 200. If the process is stopped, a human being is prevented from existing -- the same sort of human being as any of us who do have that ability in regards to our own self determination.

It's a funny thing to me how a longstanding liberal principle is never applied to the issue of abortion, as the attitudes have become so entrenched as to represent a sacred cow. The principle, however, involves the support of the powerless against those who possess it in such ways as to infringe upon them. How anybody could argue against the fact that the developing human is the one lacking the power here is beyond me, but as far as I'm concerned, protecting the ability of those lacking power to make decisions for themselves is entirely consistent with true liberal ideology. That is why my personal attitude is that abortion prevents a life from occurring and when I look inward and address the nature of my own, I have an impossible time wishing to prevent it for another.

Sperm trying to reach an egg represent a developing human life, by your standards.

 

[jillian]

As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.

1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

 

[Boss]

The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.

Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.

I think the fundamental problem with this debate is right here in what you are trying to say. You are trying to establish when something actually becomes what it already is. A 'baby' or 'fetus' is the same thing in different developmental stage. It's a living human organism in state of being... a human being. This is difficult for some people to admit and then have the conversation on when it's alright to kill it.

The conversation must begin with everyone on the same page, accepting the biological fact that we are talking about human life. This is not up for debate, there is nothing inconclusive about it, we know precisely when a human organism begins life in the state of being. Some desperately want to attach artificial caveats and criteria which do not belong. "Viability" is the worst of these because it places an impossible criteria on the fetus, the expectation it should be able to survive outside it's normal environment. This NEVER determines what something is or isn't.

I am devoutly pro life. I don't believe in capital punishment or euthanasia. I see no scenario where I could ever personally choose abortion. However, I believe strongly in democratic society and the establishment of laws governing society based on will of the people. I can accept that others have differing criteria than myself. In that spirit, I think abortion should be allowed but highly regulated and limited. There is no reason for it ever to be done outside the first trimester except to save the life of the mother.

We don't have to accept any such technicality as 'human life' making a day old fertilized egg the absolute equivalent of you or me or any other human at any stage in life for purposes of making law.

By your standard every abortion from conception on would be first degree murder. It is foolish to even think that a consensus of Americans would ever support that idea.

Well, it's not 1st degree murder because we've chosen not to make it that. It has nothing to do with biology. It's not a technicality, it's a fact of biology we can't deny. There is no such thing as a "day old fertilized egg" because that isn't how biology works. There is an egg and a sperm cell, the sperm cell penetrates the egg, the egg forms a barrier to prevent other sperms from penetrating and the fused egg and sperm cell will either complete the fertilization process or they won't. Fertilization is complete whenever the fused cells reproduce another cell. At that point, there is a living human organism in the state of being. It's no longer a fertilized egg cell, it is a living organism because it has met that biological criteria.

There is a lot of time between when that living organism officially meets it's criteria as an organism and when it breathes it's first breath, speaks it's first word, or goes on it's first date. It does not change what it already is. Americans deserve an honest and open dialogue about this issue on the basis of facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.

Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.

I think the fundamental problem with this debate is right here in what you are trying to say. You are trying to establish when something actually becomes what it already is. A 'baby' or 'fetus' is the same thing in different developmental stage. It's a living human organism in state of being... a human being. This is difficult for some people to admit and then have the conversation on when it's alright to kill it.

The conversation must begin with everyone on the same page, accepting the biological fact that we are talking about human life. This is not up for debate, there is nothing inconclusive about it, we know precisely when a human organism begins life in the state of being. Some desperately want to attach artificial caveats and criteria which do not belong. "Viability" is the worst of these because it places an impossible criteria on the fetus, the expectation it should be able to survive outside it's normal environment. This NEVER determines what something is or isn't.

I am devoutly pro life. I don't believe in capital punishment or euthanasia. I see no scenario where I could ever personally choose abortion. However, I believe strongly in democratic society and the establishment of laws governing society based on will of the people. I can accept that others have differing criteria than myself. In that spirit, I think abortion should be allowed but highly regulated and limited. There is no reason for it ever to be done outside the first trimester except to save the life of the mother.

We don't have to accept any such technicality as 'human life' making a day old fertilized egg the absolute equivalent of you or me or any other human at any stage in life for purposes of making law.

By your standard every abortion from conception on would be first degree murder. It is foolish to even think that a consensus of Americans would ever support that idea.

Well, it's not 1st degree murder because we've chosen not to make it that. It has nothing to do with biology. It's not a technicality, it's a fact of biology we can't deny. There is no such thing as a "day old fertilized egg" because that isn't how biology works. There is an egg and a sperm cell, the sperm cell penetrates the egg, the egg forms a barrier to prevent other sperms from penetrating and the fused egg and sperm cell will either complete the fertilization process or they won't. Fertilization is complete whenever the fused cells reproduce another cell. At that point, there is a living human organism in the state of being. It's no longer a fertilized egg cell, it is a living organism because it has met that biological criteria.

There is a lot of time between when that living organism officially meets it's criteria as an organism and when it breathes it's first breath, speaks it's first word, or goes on it's first date. It does not change what it already is. Americans deserve an honest and open dialogue about this issue on the basis of facts.

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg; saying biology doesn't work that way is nonsense. Does biology have a definitional ban on using the term 'fertilized egg'? Do you think it impossible for me to find biologists ever using the term 'fertilized egg' because biologists have established that no such thing exists?

lol, indeed.

 

[Boss]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

 

[jillian]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

 

[Boss]

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg...

Facts are never irrelevant. All you did was state that I was wrong, you need to show evidence I am wrong. There is no such thing as "day old fertilized eggs" because they have become something else if they are fertilized. There can be day old unsuccessfully fertilized eggs, those are not human organisms. Again, the process of fertilization is only complete when the result is reproduction. The instant that happens, fertilization is complete and there is a new living organism produced. A "fertilized" egg would be an egg which has completed the fertilization process, thus technically an oxymoron.

What you are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle and call a living organism a "fertilized egg" which is non-existing.

 

[chikenwing]

As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.

1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.

The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.

Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.

Incorrect.

As a fact of law, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently abortion is neither 'murder' nor 'infanticide.'

And prior to birth, the protected liberty of the woman is immune from unwarranted interference by the state, as the issue impacts solely on the woman's bodily integrity.

The 'potential to become a baby' argument therefore fails as it can be applied to the sperm and ovum prior to fertilization as justification to ban contraceptives, which is just as unwarranted and un-Constitutional as seeking to 'ban' abortion.

Several states already consider the "unborn baby" a baby as in drunk driving fatalities involving pregnant women where the baby is another life adding to the charge. So-called feticide laws.

"What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 37 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances."
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims National Right to Life

Abortion, because it's legal isn't murder correct. But it IS (using new word just learned heh) feticide.

"Missouri: The killing of an “unborn child” at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)."

This confuses civil law with that of criminal law, substantive due process with procedural due process.

When someone acts in a criminal manner that results in the loss of a pregnancy, the crime is committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus, as a fact of law it is not a person – it's the woman's right to decide for herself whether to have a child or not that's been taken from her, it is the woman who is the victim, not the embryo/fetus, her right to decide has been violated by the criminal act, where the suspect is prosecuted in the context of criminal law.

The right to privacy in the context of civil law and substantive process, on the other hand, addresses the woman's relationship with the state, where the woman is afforded the protected liberty of being free from unwarranted interference concerning whether to have a child or not, as the state may not compel a woman to have a child against her will.

You seem very confused

When someone acts in a criminal manner that results in the loss of a pregnancy, the crime is committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus, as a fact of law it is not a person

If this was true,then people would only be charged with the what happened to the women,but its not that way,the law gives the unborn value,hence the double charges. This is simple stuff!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

Since others have kinda gone off-topic first, I'll say what I wanted to yesterday.

As to the religious side of this, the Bible has no objection at all to abortion. Acts we'd call abortion appear several times in it.

 

[jillian]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

Since others have kinda gone off-topic first, I'll say what I wanted to yesterday.

As to the religious side of this, the Bible has no objection at all to abortion. Acts we'd call abortion appear several times in it.

yes.

and one of my objections to the radical right trying to govern on this issue is that my own belief system leaves it to the woman and her doctors.

 

[chikenwing]

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg...

Facts are never irrelevant. All you did was state that I was wrong, you need to show evidence I am wrong. There is no such thing as "day old fertilized eggs" because they have become something else if they are fertilized. There can be day old unsuccessfully fertilized eggs, those are not human organisms. Again, the process of fertilization is only complete when the result is reproduction. The instant that happens, fertilization is complete and there is a new living organism produced. A "fertilized" egg would be an egg which has completed the fertilization process, thus technically an oxymoron.

What you are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle and call a living organism a "fertilized egg" which is non-existing.

Anything and I mean anything will be said,to dance around a very simple concept,but to admit that a human beings life is on the line,would totally undermine the pro abortion main point,it not human,so it can be killed with no consequence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

Since others have kinda gone off-topic first, I'll say what I wanted to yesterday.

As to the religious side of this, the Bible has no objection at all to abortion. Acts we'd call abortion appear several times in it.

yes.

and one of my objections to the radical right trying to govern on this issue is that my own belief system leaves it to the woman and her doctors.

As the 'sperm donors' (for the time being, tech continues to improve, so for how much longer men are involved with a woman's pregnancy remains to be seen,) men should have say a 49% (less than equal since the woman carries the baby) say in things. If the doctor discovers some concern it could sway things out of the woman's hands then. But it's wrong to discount the man's desire altogether. But at the same time we don't wanna make his will equal since then rape becomes a means to control women making them pregnant, and forcing them to remain pregnant.

 

[jillian]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

Since others have kinda gone off-topic first, I'll say what I wanted to yesterday.

As to the religious side of this, the Bible has no objection at all to abortion. Acts we'd call abortion appear several times in it.

yes.

and one of my objections to the radical right trying to govern on this issue is that my own belief system leaves it to the woman and her doctors.

As the 'sperm donors' (for the time being, tech continues to improve, so for how much longer men are involved with a woman's pregnancy remains to be seen,) men should have say a 49% (less than equal since the woman carries the baby) say in things. If the doctor discovers some concern it could sway things out of the woman's hands then. But it's wrong to discount the man's desire altogether. But at the same time we don't wanna make his will equal since then rape becomes a means to control women making them pregnant, and forcing them to remain pregnant.

i understand why men want a say. but that just gives the guy veto power. in an abusive relationship, that could be deadly for a woman. it is also a recipe for leaving the issue to court determination and we all know that's used as a means of delaying the process so long that the exercise of choice becomes impossible.

it's not that the man's desire should be discounted. if the woman and man have a relationship, they'll arrive at a determination together or at least consult. government isn't supposed to legislate relationships.