Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[MysticSang'ha]

The fetus should only be protected when they can survive outside the womb? What about the brain and sentience? It's okay to rip a fetus apart in the womb when they are sentient?

I think it's the best constitutional compromise between respecting the autonomy between the autonomy of the person with the uterus gestating, and the autonomy of the fetus. Roe vs Wade is by far the most ethical position in consideration of all.

 

[Thruve]

ah, you mean the arbitrary rights that are given to humans by humans?

Why should the "rights" of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother?

And thank god you'll never be president lol
Might as well enslave black people again under your reign.

 

[Thruve]

What's irritating is the women's rights speech on the subject. So many women buy this propaganda from the left and it's yucky.

 

[averageJOE]

It is the mother's choice to have an abortion if there was even a slight risk to her health (the part you neglected, and I hope it was unintentional),

Every pregnancy for every woman poses great risk to her health.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Every pregnancy for every woman poses great risk to her health.

Then all women should do abortion. We will become extinct in no time

 

[illykitty]

Then all women should do abortion. We will become extinct in no time

I don't think that was his point though... More like, it poses a risk to all women... So they have to make a choice if they want to go through that risk.

Of course if a woman wants a child, it's a risk they are willing to go through. But if someone doesn't want a child, how can someone force them to go through that risk? (I know that you didn't say this, just a hypothetical situation illustrating the comment, or what I understood of it).

 

[averageJOE]

Then all women should do abortion. We will become extinct in no time

Read below, summed up pretty nice.

I don't think that was his point though... More like, it poses a risk to all women... So they have to make a choice if they want to go through that risk.

Of course if a woman wants a child, it's a risk they are willing to go through. But if someone doesn't want a child, how can someone force them to go through that risk? (I know that you didn't say this, just a hypothetical situation illustrating the comment, or what I understood of it).

Unless you can show how a woman can be risk-free of health problems due to pregnancy.

 

[McBell]

And thank god you'll never be president lol
Might as well enslave black people again under your reign.

My apologies.
I was unaware the question was to much for you.

Perhaps in time you might come back, but only when you can handle it, and address the points instead of such a blatant avoidance tactic.

Again, my apologies.
I sincerely hope my questions did not destroy your already fragile faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's the best constitutional compromise between respecting the autonomy between the autonomy of the person with the uterus gestating, and the autonomy of the fetus. Roe vs Wade is by far the most ethical position in consideration of all.

Fundamentally, I don't think it makes any sense to grant the fetus rights at viability. It says that a woman is only obliged to the fetus once it can live without her.

Personally, I think the most ethical approach would be to allow the woman to end the pregnancy at any time she chooses. Viability would just represent the point beyond which her doctors would try to induce a live birth instead of abort.

 

[Thruve]

My apologies.
I was unaware the question was to much for you.

Perhaps in time you might come back, but only when you can handle it, and address the points instead of such a blatant avoidance tactic.

Again, my apologies.
I sincerely hope my questions did not destroy your already fragile faith.

How ironic!! Oh, that is way to funny. Is that how you perceived my response? Because Im certain you were indirectly referencing to yourself there, my child, and yet, of course, you don't have any faith. That attempt to twist it on me was quite an attempt. Kudos

Oh, Btw, I wasn't joking about enslaving black people. I mean human rights are apparently subjective to you so, why not?
So, Now that my point is clear, perhaps you should try again to demean my faith over a debate about human rights.
Better yet lets question which is more moral, basic human rights, or woman rights. Had you made that argument instead, I would of responded more respectively >.>

 

[Bunyip]

How ironic!! Oh, that is way to funny. Is that how you perceived my response? Because Im certain you were indirectly referencing to yourself there, my child, and yet, of course, you don't have any faith. That attempt to twist it on me was quite an attempt. Kudos

Oh, Btw, I wasn't joking about enslaving black people. I mean human rights are apparently subjective to you so, why not?
So, Now that my point is clear, perhaps you should try again to demean my faith over a debate about human rights.
Better yet lets question which is more moral, basic human rights, or woman rights. Had you made that argument instead, I would of responded more respectively >.>

Well how did you get to the idea that enslaving black people is ok just because human rights are subjective? How does the subjectivity of human rights lead to that?

 

[Sunstone]

Oh, Btw, I wasn't joking about enslaving black people. I mean human rights are apparently subjective to you so, why not?

Assuming rights are subjective, there would still be no reason why one would be compelled to enslave people. Furthermore, still assuming rights to be subjective, there would still be no reason why one would be compelled to accept all alleged rights as equally desirable or valid.

Last, even if rights are somehow objective, we would have no way of knowing that except through some subjective means of inquiry. Thus, all rights might as well be subjective, for all we know.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Read below, summed up pretty nice.

Unless you can show how a woman can be risk-free of health problems due to pregnancy.

You should have told me you wanted to turn this into an ambiguous words play

Either ways, as the pregnant woman has rights and no one should tell her what to do, the baby should have rights too. The baby is a human too. If any one wants to take only one side and completely treat the other as on object, it is their own humane choice to do that. I'm trying to be neutral here and try to treat each side according to their circumstances.

You wanna hold this "risk" thing against me, it is okay be my guest. We only share views here and I welcome any criticism with an open heart (figuratively speaking of course). Nothing in this life if perfectly risk free. We reached a high level in the medical field. This is not the Medievil (if I get the spelling right) era any more.

We are only sharing views here. I'm not saying I'm always right

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't think that was his point though... More like, it poses a risk to all women... So they have to make a choice if they want to go through that risk.

Of course if a woman wants a child, it's a risk they are willing to go through. But if someone doesn't want a child, how can someone force them to go through that risk? (I know that you didn't say this, just a hypothetical situation illustrating the comment, or what I understood of it).

Thanks for the follow up ma'am.

It is just that I couldn't find any other explanation for his post if studied against my posts. Don't worry about it, I welcome any discussions

No forcing or anything. It is kinda humble request to consider, in case it would not do serious harm. The mother says something, that something is what ultimately should happen if she does not change her mind.

 

[s2a]

Last poll:

Pro-choice: 48
Pro-LIfe: 17

Choice (still) wins.

Anything else?

 

[Thruve]

Assuming rights are subjective, there would still be no reason why one would be compelled to enslave people. Furthermore, still assuming rights to be subjective, there would still be no reason why one would be compelled to accept all alleged rights as equally desirable or valid.

Last, even if rights are somehow objective, we would have no way of knowing that except through some subjective means of inquiry. Thus, all rights might as well be subjective, for all we know.

THANK GOD for the law.




I guess those might as well be subjectively valid.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

If x-rays and scans show that a baby is likely to be born severely handicapped, surely parents have the right to choose to abort?
It's only the parents who use abortion as a contraceptive who are morally wrong.
For example my parents had a shotgun wedding because I was on the way, I suspect my dad wanted to have me aborted (what cheek!) but my mother said no..

 

[McBell]

How ironic!! Oh, that is way to funny. Is that how you perceived my response? Because Im certain you were indirectly referencing to yourself there, my child, and yet, of course, you don't have any faith. That attempt to twist it on me was quite an attempt. Kudos

Oh, Btw, I wasn't joking about enslaving black people. I mean human rights are apparently subjective to you so, why not?
So, Now that my point is clear, perhaps you should try again to demean my faith over a debate about human rights.
Better yet lets question which is more moral, basic human rights, or woman rights. Had you made that argument instead, I would of responded more respectively >.>

*yawn*
Your ego seems to be getting in the way of your reasoning.

Any other strawman you want to attack?
Go ahead, get it out of your system.

Perhaps after it has been purged you will be ready for a serious discussion?

Or are you content with your strawmen?

 

[McBell]

THANK GOD for the law.




I guess those might as well be subjectively valid.

Please present a list of objective laws.
Please present a list of objective rights.

Please, no more dictating to me what I think, believe, feel, etc.
Just the lists.


Take you time.

 

[Thruve]

Please present a list of objective laws.
Please present a list of objective rights.

Please, no more dictating to me what I think, believe, feel, etc.
Just the lists.


Take you time.

So, what your saying is that theres no reason why laws are made.
That depending on the person, its validity is subjective. Is that what your saying? Otherwise, theres no need for me to post a list of objective laws. Killing might as well be viable, forget the reasons. If someone kills your wife, despite the fact that she may have ran over the killers dog the day prior, in his mind hes morally justified. In yours, however, hes not.

Whats with the strawmen? To you, human rights is subjective, even the most basic. Life is apparently not a human right to you. Coming from a soul without any form of faith, thats reasonable. Sadly, I can't even imagine how your children will turn out.