• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion? The final conclusions?

Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?

  • It should always be allowed

    Votes: 35 36.5%

  • It should never be allowed

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • It should be allowed within the 1st trimester only

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • It should be allowed up to the 2nd trimester only

    Votes: 16 16.7%

  • It should be allowed within the 1st trimester health exceptions permitting

    Votes: 5 5.2%

  • It should be allowed up to the 2nd trimester health exceptions permitting

    Votes: 24 25.0%

  • It should be allowed only with health exceptions permitting such as death of parent

    Votes: 6 6.3%
  • Total voters
    96
thaiboxerken said:
"Persons . . . are members of a social community that shapes and values them, and personhood must be defined in terms of interactions and relationships with others."

Susan Sherwin. 1999. Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians. Ed. Soifer, Eldon. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, p. 267

R. v. Sullivan, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence and whether a partially-born fetus is a person.
Click to expand...

These seem to be legitimate sources. But like anything, it's not written in stone.
 
Pardalis said:
The right to live.
Click to expand...

Okay, so, now that you have admitted that you think that the government should bestow upon fetuses the "right to live," please answer my other questions.

How would you even know that a fetus exists, in order to grant it "rights"?

Right now, under US law, only the born are granted any "rights." What laws would you enact in order to detect the presence of fetuses, and enforce their "right to live"?

How shall the government establish a policy to determine the presence or absence of pregnancy in women, in order to facilitate the granting of "the right to live"? First, the presence of a fetus must be established. How should the government should operate in order to ensure the most accurate tracking of individual pregnancies? What laws do you propose to use in order to make women comply with the new regulations that you wish to establish?
 
EverLastingGodStopper said:
How would you even know that a fetus exists, in order to grant it "rights"?
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't take long before we notice their existence.

This is complex issue and I'm not pretending to know what is right, and I don't know what are all the possible legal ramifications to this issue. But denying them the right to live seems wrong to me, since we still don't know what they are exactly. I'm not saying that it is wron, as an absolute, but we shouldn't just dismiss this issue either.
 
But denying them the right to live seems wrong to me, since we still don't know what they are exactly.
Click to expand...

If you don't know what it is, then why are you fighting for it's rights? That's just silly. The issue should be dismissed on the notion that you've just admitted that don't know what it is you're talking about.
 
EverLastingGodStopper said:
Do you think it is nice to force me to be pregnant against my will? Do you think it is nice to use the power of the government to force me to endure an unwanted pregnancy? Why?
Click to expand...

That's why I voted for "It should be allowed within the 1st trimester health exceptions permitting". This is not a black and white issue, there is no true right or wrong answer.

What was not nice is your derogatory comment towards me, since I did agree on the legitimacy of the sources you submitted.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If you don't know what it is, then why are you fighting for it's rights? That's just silly. The issue should be dismissed on the notion that you've just admitted that don't know what it is you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing for its rights because I do know what this "thing" will become: a full fledged human being. That is a fact. ;)
 
Pardalis said:
Well it doesn't take long before we notice their existence.
Click to expand...
CDC statistics said:
Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks.
Click to expand...
According to the CDC, in the USA, roughly 88% of all abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, before "we'd notice" the pregnancy. So do you still stand by your stance that a fetus should be granted, by government, the "right to live"? How should the government operate to enforce this right?
Pardalis said:
This is complex issue and I'm not pretending to know what is right, and I don't know what are all the possible legal ramifications to this issue. But denying them the right to live seems wrong to me, since we still don't know what they are exactly. I'm not saying that it is wron, as an absolute, but we shouldn't just dismiss this issue either.
Click to expand...
Then how shall the government establish this "right?" Under current law, US rights apply only to the born. Are you suggesting a constitutional amendment without thinking through the ramifications of such an action?
 
This is not a black and white issue, there is no true right or wrong answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a black and white issue. Either abortion is wrong or it's right. Either the fetus is a person, thus abortion is murder, or the fetus is not a person, thus there should be no problem with it.

There isn't any evidence that a fetus is a person.
 
Pardalis said:
I'm arguing for its rights because I do know what this "thing" will become: a full fledged human being. That is a fact. ;)
Click to expand...

It MIGHT become a human being. That is a fact. Until it does, it shouldn't have rights as a human being. It's just a growth inside of a woman and nothing more.
 
Pardalis said:
Then I disagree. One part of being a critical thinker is to admit there are no certainties.
Click to expand...

That's just absurd. A huge part of being a critical thinker is to know that there are certainties and to find out what those are. It is a fact that evolution happens, believer think that it's an "uncertainty." It is a fact that a fetus is not a person as well.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's just absurd. A huge part of being a critical thinker is to know that there are certainties and to find out what those are. It is a fact that evolution happens, believer think that it's an "uncertainty." It is a fact that a fetus is not a person as well.
Click to expand...

Scientists never claim to know absolute certainties. Even though I totally agree with the evolution theory, no scientist ever claimed it was an absolute fact.

Stop trying to portray me as a "believer", you don't know me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom