Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

Yes, I know and people also die all the time. It doesn't mean they don't have rights, same is true with the fetus.

No, it's not. People who "die all the time" are given rights as human beings under the law because they were BORN. The unborn do not have rights given by nature or the law. You keep personifying nature. It cannot "give" anything.

 

[Warbler]

Okay but... why?

Within your own arguments you've already made... why? Why isn't that a perfectly logical response? If it's an innocent life/human/individual/soul/whatever why isn't killing it murder?

because having a miscarriage is not killing your fetus. It died yes, but you didn't kill it. Sometimes these things happen it is not the fault of the mother. Same with a stillborn child.

Or you could answer the question as to why there are exceptions for rape and incest. How are the babies any less innocent in those cases?

I spoke about that in other responses above. Please read them.

 

[Norman Alexander]

true illegal and/or unsafe abortions are a problem. Also true that women will attempt to go to places where abortions are not illegal.

At last.

Now take the next logical step. To eliminate the problem of illegal and unsafe abortions... What do you think needs to happen, hmmm?

 

[smartcooky]

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

A . fetus . does . not . have . rights!

 

[Warbler]

You may not be 'certain' but the problem is that some people are certain. But that certainty is not based on any science but solely on personal opinion. In essence, their personal opinion is the basis for thinking they can legislate what girls/women can do with their own bodies.

true. but I still think someone or some entity should speak for the fetus.

psion10 did not misspell "fetus" as "foetus" is the correct British spelling.

Oh, I did not know that. Sorry psion10.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Good question. I would say it is when a legit and qualified MD Doctor whom the mother is patient of, says the risk is too great for the mother to carry the baby to term and recommends abortion.

So take the rights away from a woman and give it to her doctor?

 

[thaiboxerken]

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

But who says a fetus has rights? Why should a fetus have rights?

 

[Warbler]

Yes. You've found a solution in the magic fairyland where there are unlimited people waiting to take in children.

ha, ha. nonetheless, there are many whom can't have children of their own that would love to adopt.

How many children have you adopted I wonder? I'm gonna guess zero.

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.
4. while I have not adopted, my brother has, if that means anything to you.

 

[Warbler]

Yes, it is fact. "Nature" does not give "rights" to anything. Nature is not a thinking entity. It gives nothing. Nature simply "is". You are personifying nature. People, in the form of government, give "rights".

Now you are disagreeing with the whole point of the Declaration Independence. It argued that rights come from nature, that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

Because that is the essence of nature: all living things die.

true, I don't see what that has to do with whether not the fetus has rights, but true.

 

[Stacyhs]

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

You keep talking about the "rights" of the fetus. It keeps being pointed out to you that, under the law, the fetus has no rights as it is not a person. And no one speaks "for the fetus"; anyone who claims to be doing so is speaking for the benefit of their own agenda.

Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
That idea was also an important part of the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

This is based on a religious belief. If the 'Creator' actually endowed us with these then everyone all over the world would be enjoying them and there'd be no reason to then legislate them into law. Which is exactly what they did in the Bill of Rights. MAN granted them, not some "Creator".

 

[Warbler]

Just checking where are we at here.. Do you agree that a homeless persons right to live would outweight any other persons right to private property in cases like the extreme cold spell at Texas last year? Or in any northern state?

In other words, would you agree that not allowing a homeless or anyone crash under your roof in these cases even without permission is ok when there might be life threatening circumstances?

A bit of a tortured comparison, but I've noticed pro-lifers usually be a bit more rabid on the "stand your ground" issues and be pretty gun-ho, when it comes to private property.

in an extreme cases maybe. but normally is it not choice between having a homeless person sleep in someone's private property or the life of the homeless person. There are other options there shelters specifically for the needs of the homeless. There are charities. But in extreme cases, extreme solutions may be required.

 

[Stacyhs]

As some point, as in cases or rape or incest, it becomes cruel to force the female to carry the pregnancy to term. Maybe I am being incontinent in that stance, I don't know. But I do know I don't want to force the rapped to carry the child to term, same with incest.

So then "being cruel to the woman" becomes superior to the fetus' "right to life"? How is it not cruel to deny a woman an abortion when she does not want to carry and give birth to a child she either then has to raise or give up for adoption?

Do you see how arbitrary you are being?

 

[Stacyhs]

I wasn't referring to pregnant children. Like I said I am willing to listen to legit MD medical experts to determine when the risk is too great. If we are talking about a child age 10 or younger. I doubt I would oppose an abortion in that case, especially if risk to the pregnant child is high.

You DOUBT you would oppose an abortion?

 

[Norman Alexander]

ha, ha. nonetheless, there are many whom can't have children of their own that would love to adopt.

And if a woman chooses to carry the child to term and adopt it out after birth rather than abort it, then they will know there is a willing parent available. But her choice comes ahead of that event. Some life decisions are VERY tough.

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.
4. while I have not adopted, my brother has, if that means anything to you.

For him to adopt, some woman chose to carry, gestate and birth that child, then chose to give it up.

The issue is about choices. Which is why the opposition to such laws as adopted in Texas is called "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Abortion" as the religious crazies think.

 

[Warbler]

Nope, its fact.

Rights are defined and enshrined in laws... without those laws, there are no rights for any individual*. These laws specifically say to whom those rights are granted. Fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn are nowhere mentioned in any laws that define human rights.

Therefore, those laws to not apply to them.

Therefore, fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn have no rights. This is an irrefutable fact.

*NOTE: See North Korea as an example of somewhere in which people have no rights.

Apparently, you do not understand the ideas argued in the Declaration of Independence. Please read it. It argues that rights come from nature. That is the whole point of America.

Go away and read a primer on what "logical fallacy" means so that you don't use terms that you don't understand.

No, I won't go away, despite your arrogance and rudeness. Attacking the validity of an opinion based on the age and gender of the opinion holder is a logical fallacy. The age and gender of the opinion holder has nothing to do with whether or not a certain opinion is valid.

The vast majority of the Texas Republican legislature are white men.

Okay.

They are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions are not what I object to. It is what they do that I object to. No-one, BUT NO-ONE in a civilised society should be allowed to deny any person autonomy over their own body, unless doing so is a matter of public safety.

It it were only their own body that was affected, I would agree, but the fetus is also affected. Someone or some entity should speak for it.

FAIL! It does no such thing.

There opinion is rendered invalid because they are old and male, it follows that there must be something wrong with being old and male.

 

[Warbler]

Why is the doctor making the decision and not the mother?

because the doctor is more expert at assessing the risk to the mother if the child is carried to term?

 

[Norman Alexander]

because the doctor is more expert at assessing the risk to the mother if the child is carried to term?

So if the doctor assesses that she would have no issues carrying to term, should she be forced to do so?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Their opinion is rendered invalid because they are old and male, it follows that there must be something wrong with being old and male.

It follows that they are not female and of child-bearing age. They are not equipped or experienced in that particular situation, and never will be. They have only opinions about it, based on their religious views from afar, and nebulous notions about bills of rights that have no bearing on the situation at all.

 

[Warbler]

Yes, it is an OPTION. In other words, a CHOICE that the woman alone has to ultimately make. It is not up to anyone else.

if it only affected her, I would agree, but it also affects the fetus.

No one can "make sure they do have the finances, house, stable environment, ability to care of the child, willingness to care for and love the child." Finances change, people get divorced, people die, etc.

true, but research can be done. background checks an be done. Interviews with the perspective parents can be done. A look at their financial situation can be done. I remember when my brother and his wife when through with their adoption, what they had to go through to get approved was quite extensive.

Again, you are giving a clump of cells or a partially formed, non-sentient entity the same equivalency as a "child". The vast, vast majority of abortions happen within the first couple of months of conception. It is not a "child" who is "better off".

But some do get abortions later on and in situations where the fetus has grown beyond being able to be described as a clump of cells.

Again, you are giving a clump of cells or a partially formed, non-sentient entity the same equivalency as a "child". Aborting an early stage embryo/fetus is not the same damn thing as giving up a fully formed, sentient CHILD that you've carried for 9 months and felt moving within you.

So the big question is, where do you draw the line? when does the fetus attain rights, when it is more than just a clump of cells?

Do you honestly think women don't think about that before making a choice to abort or not? Do you think they take it lightly? Like it's a choice between buying white or wheat bread?

I think some take it lightly and some don't. Not all women are the same.

[/QUOTE]
But women can only make the decision for themselves at the time they are pregnant. What they MAY feel in the future cannot be controlled or predicted.[/QUOTE]

So therefore can you really predict that they will incur trauma when giving the child up for adoption?

 

[Warbler]

Does the mother get a say in this? She may have other reasons besides medical ones NOT to be forced to be a breeding incubator.

I was talking about situations where the life of the mother was in danger(more in danger than the normal pregnancy).