Abortion is a Human Right!

"it is not considered the taking of human life by the law"

The law says nothing about human life. It only says that the act of abortion is legal.

To deny that the fetus is not biologically human and not alive is once again putting one's head in the sand.

It is in fact taking a human life. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion, it is taking a human life. If you can prove otherwise, I suggest you present the argument and defend your case.

As for Nazi laws:

"The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party program which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens. The laws were passed unanimously by the Reichstag, or German Parliament, in a special session held during a Nuremberg Rally. The move was largely symbolic, as by this time Hitler had the power to pass laws without parliamentary approval, per the terms of the dictatorial Enabling Act."

Hitler had the ability to pass laws without parliamentary approval - this meant that "enemies of the State" could be defined as anyone he chose - which is exactly what the Nazis did.

I'm not morally outraged by abortion. But I am outraged that people like you are still in denial as to what abortion is in reality - it is taking a human life.
Again, if you can demonstrate through argument that it is not taking a human life, please present you case.
 
So the law says abortion is legal.

So all you got is your own personal moral outrage.

A fetus is just that, a fetus. It is not a baby.

Termination of a fetus is legal, period.

You have no case to present, apart from your belief that the state should control a woman's body and force her against her will to have babies.

Quote from AdvancedTrade:

"it is not considered the taking of human life by the law"

The law says nothing about human life. It only says that the act of abortion is legal.

To deny that the fetus is not biologically human and not alive is once again putting one's head in the sand.

It is in fact taking a human life. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion, it is taking a human life. If you can prove otherwise, I suggest you present the argument and defend your case.
More...
 
"A fetus is just that, a fetus. It is not a baby.

Termination of a fetus is legal, period."

You have no case to present, apart from your belief that the state should control a woman's body and force her against her will to have babies."

Where have I said that abortion should be illegal????? You still cannot come to terms with the reality of abortion.
Yes it's legal and I endorse that.

But a fetus is 1) human and 2) alive. Therefore, abortion is taking a human life. You simply do not have a argument to refute this point!!!!

For the simple minded here: if it wasn't alive, why would you have to kill it?????

Abortion is the one exception to all rules regarding human life - and that exception is that it is acceptabe to take (or terminate as you put it) that life.

Again, if you can refute any of what I have said, go for it.
 
Already been refuted, legally and logically.

Sorry, as much as you want to force your religious beliefs on others, it ain't gonna work.

Quote from AdvancedTrade:

"A fetus is just that, a fetus. It is not a baby.

Termination of a fetus is legal, period."

You have no case to present, apart from your belief that the state should control a woman's body and force her against her will to have babies."

Where have I said that abortion should be illegal????? You still cannot come to terms with the reality of abortion.
Yes it's legal and I endorse that.

But a fetus is 1) human and 2) alive. Therefore, abortion is taking a human life. You simply do not have a argument to refute this point!!!!

For the simple minded here: if it wasn't alive, why would you have to kill it?????

Abortion is the one exception to all rules regarding human life - and that exception is that it is acceptabe to take (or terminate as you put it) that life.

Again, if you can refute any of what I have said, go for it.
More...
 
(...below is a great comment on a message board discussing the issue of a fertilized egg being a person...)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/04/is_a_fertilized_egg_a_person

On December 5, 2007 - 4:22pm jhaber said:

Some philosophical arguments for and against the rights and wrongs of abortion do amount to arguments over whether a fetus is a person. One well-known paper says it must be a person as it has a full genetic compliment (but then so does a corpse, and another species can look awfully similar genetically, while birth defects never interfere with humanity). Another says it can't be a person because people are capable of pain, rational, able to communicate, and capable of autonomous action, things that a fetus acquires only over time if at all (although these, too, mature over the course of a life, and some paralytics or even anesthetics can impair these characteristics).

Interestingly, though, many arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with personhood. For example, perhaps the most famous philosophical paper on abortion grants that, ok, if you like, call a fetus a person, but you're still not required to give your body over to sustain another person. Meanwhile, a contrary paper takes instead a view a little like one expressed here about potential. More precisely, it says that we consider murder heinous because it eliminates a future, so by analogy abortion would be wrong. (Contraception would not be, this argument goes, because one can't identify the future person amid ejaculate.) Another looks for middle ground, saying that not every killing is murder, while not every nonperson, such as an animal, can be killed at will; it ends up asking for a limit only on late-term abortions.

Of course, these positions too are debatable, which allows philosophy departments to stay in business. But what's interesting is how the right to life movement, by insisting on the personhood issue, basically hijacks the whole debate. It denies other approaches, which is a dishonest way of making feminist concerns off limits. It's also helpful recall that Roe v Wade put privacy broadly in terms of a doctor - patient relationship, which seems reasonable to me.

What bothers me, too, is knowledge that different religious traditions assign the beginning of life differently. I forget how many weeks it takes for the spirit to inhabit the fetus in Judaism, but it is not zero. Thus, feminism aside, I feel personally injured by any limitation on abortion rights, because it necessarily amounts to government choosing one religious definition over another. We already know that it's at least partly about the Christian right forcing its beliefs on others, but it's helpful to remember that this is necessarily wrong in itself.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/
 
What religious beliefs? Where have I stated my religious or philosophical beliefs??? Please point it out or admit that I have never done so.

You are arguing the right or wrong of abortion. I am arguing that abortion is taking a human life. You STILL have not refuted that fact. Your contention is that it's legal. And so it is. But that does not negate the fact that abortion takes a human life.

1. Show where I have pressed some religious belief vis a vis abortion
2. Prove that abortion does not take a human life
3. Present your case for both of the above.

You can't do it!!!
 
In case you don't have a medical dictionary handy, here is the definition of abortion:

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously or accidentally as with a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by medical, surgical or other means. "Abortion" can refer to an inducing procedure at any point during human pregnancy"

Note the phrase: RESULTING IN OR CAUSED BY ITS DEATH.

Now, if you can refute that, please present you case. Abortion is taking a human life. Whether you are pro or con abortion, the facts on the ground are the same.
 
AT:
>I am arguing that abortion is taking a human
>life. You STILL have not refuted that fact.

The above is opinion, not fact.

>Your contention is that it's legal. And so it is. But that
>does not negate the fact that abortion takes a
>human life.

Please stop confusing your opinions with fact, there's quite a difference. You're entitled to your opinions, and your opinions may be quite good -- still not facts.

>Prove that abortion does not take a human life

You have done nothing but assert that it does take a human life. You're in no better position fact wise than 2C.

>You can't do it!!!

Apparently, you can't support your side either. Why do you somehow feel superior even though you're in an equal position?

As usual, it's an argument centered around definitions, and unless both parties can agree on the definition of "human life", there will never be a productive argument regarding the "taking" of it.

JB
 
Quote from AdvancedTrade:

In case you don't have a medical dictionary handy, here is the definition of abortion:

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously or accidentally as with a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by medical, surgical or other means. "Abortion" can refer to an inducing procedure at any point during human pregnancy"

Note the phrase: RESULTING IN OR CAUSED BY ITS DEATH.

Now, if you can refute that, please present you case. Abortion is taking a human life. Whether you are pro or con abortion, the facts on the ground are the same.
More...

That's easy to refute -- stop throwing softballs. I will use only the material presented by you and demonstrate that it in no way supports your specific argument (Abortion is taking a human life).

OK, please highlight where in your medical dictionary definition it states that a fetus or embryo is a "human life".

You've decided this, not the medical dictionary writers, and again it's your opinion and not fact.

JB
 
Answer me this pro choicers...Why is it an embryo/fetus during an abortion, but always referred to as a unborn child if the mother is assaulted/murdered? Can't have it both ways!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top