A Sound Argument Against Abortion

[Truth_Bringer]

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

http://www.l4l.org

[claire]

What if I don't consider a fetus or embryo a person; then, this argument is not sound.

[von-Scharnhorst]

What YOU think is of no conequence. It is what the law sais that is important.

[Truth_Bringer]

If left alone, what will happen to that embryo or fetus?

You should read the following:

When Do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

[Nicholas]

A woman should have the right to say what happens to her body. The state should have no say in this. The pro lifers are usually loony tune Christian fundamentalists who are very out of touch with reality.

[TellMeMore]

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
Hogwash, there's a very good argument that children are not human beings until they're about 2-3 years old, insofar as they don't recognise themselves as seperate entities and are not self-conscious.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
And miscarriage is manslaughter I suppose. There are not two people involved, there is a mother and a growth inside the mother's body.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
Prenatally we are not persons. We are addendums of our mother's womb. Should we feel bad that our antibodies kill viruses that would harm us?

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
Right? A cluster of cells has rights? Only a looney would argue that seriously. Parents are responsible for their offspring (until they reach adulthood. the offspring that is, not the parents (essex joke there)). Until the child seperates form the mother the mother is responsible (fully) for what happens to the growth.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
Hogwash. Viable individuals may have rights, but foetuses are not individuals.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
Err, no, you're confusing justice with law.

[Crowly]

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
Hogwash, there's a very good argument that children are not human beings until they're about 2-3 years old, insofar as they don't recognise themselves as seperate entities and are not self-conscious.


There's a very good argument that children are not human beings until they are 11 years old and have passed the concrete operations critical periods.

[/psychology guff]

[claire]

What YOU think is of no conequence. It is what the law sais that is important.

Many people share my views and are pro choice. Although, as sad as it is, most people are pro life.

[Crowly]

That would be 'most people in America.'

[TellMeMore]

There may be a percentage (even a significant percentage) in the US and a samller percentage in the UK, but 'most' people, I don't believe.
The most vociferous people possibly.

[Bart Fishermans]

Many people share my views and are pro choice. Although, as sad as it is, most people are pro life.
I'm ............
pro life
pro peace
pro happiness
pro love
Amen

[Truth_Bringer]

A woman should have the right to say what happens to her body.

Problem is, there are two bodies involved in abortion.

The state should have no say in this. The pro lifers are usually loony tune Christian fundamentalists who are very out of touch with reality.

Are these pro lifers Christian fundamentalists?:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org

[Truth_Bringer]

there's a very good argument that children are not human beings until they're about 2-3 years old, insofar as they don't recognise themselves as seperate entities and are not self-conscious.

And then there is a better argument to the contrary:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

and a growth inside the mother's body.

What happens to that "growth" as you call it if it's left alone and not aborted?

[von-Scharnhorst]

What happens to that "growth" as you call it if it's left alone and not aborted?
Oh good, a guessing game. I like guessing games.

[Crowly]

And then there is a better argument to the contrary:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

I'm afraid that's pro-lifer rubbish. I am studying psychology at university as we speak and the vast majority of modern pscyhologiss agree that a 'person' must pass through several critical phases to be a proper human being.

However, this is not advocacy for killing children.

The difference is, however, a grouping of cells is not a child and the potential for life does not outweigh the wishes of an extant, human, adult mother. To argue that the mere potential for life outweighs a person's wishes would be to argue that contraception is wrong... or it would be hypocrisy.

[Truth_Bringer]

I am studying psychology at university

Whoopy freakin' do.

the vast majority of modern pscyhologiss agree that a 'person' must pass through several critical phases to be a proper human being.

Hundreds of years ago the vast majority of learned folks once believed the world was flat, did that make it so?


The difference is, however, a grouping of cells is not a child and the potential for life does not outweigh the wishes of an extant, human, adult mother. To argue that the mere potential for life outweighs a person's wishes would be to argue that contraception is wrong... or it would be hypocrisy.

Flawed logic. Contraception prevents conception. Two different situations.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Just when would the fans of abortion say that is the correct time to top Granny? When she forgets to buy bog roll? when she sets fire to the cat? or when she can not even remember what a cat is?

What is the difference between a person who is clinivcaly dead, but still on life suport, and the aborted feotus/child, call it what you will.

[Crowly]

Whoopy freakin' do.

I mention it only because it implies I have some idea of the subject matter we are discussing, rather than having read a few pro life websites.


Hundreds of years ago the vast majority of learned folks once believed the world was flat, did that make it so?

Hundreds of years ago abortion was also illegal. As you so eloquently put it, time moves on and the foolishness of the past is left behind.

Flawed logic. Contraception prevents conception. Two different situations.

Conception, however, does not equal life. It equals potential life. How many times does a pregnancy fail before it even reaches the first month? It's not a human life lost, it's the loss of cells.

You just can't argue potential against reality.

What is the difference between a person who is clinivcaly dead, but still on life suport, and the aborted feotus/child, call it what you will.

The person on life support is no longer a person if brain dead and there is no logical reason to keep them there. The aborted foetus is not any more alive than your average tumour.

[zoobee]

if i was going to make an argument against abortion, i could do better than this self proclaimed "sound argument". this is the same old tired weak argument that ive read a million times. big deal. i can repeat stuff too if i wanted.

in my own life, i am against abortion. i cannot picture any instance where i would want one, unless it threatened my life. if someeone came to me saying that they wanted an abortion, i would probably tell them that i wasnt really for abortions.

but i would also respect their decision to get one. this argument is about choice. a woman should have the ability to make that choice about her body. if she makes the wrong one, she has to deal with it. if you are religious, then she will have to deal w her actions to God. and its not my place to tell someone that they cant get an abortion just because i am on another side of a very controversial topic. the very nature of something that is controversial means that no one on either side is going to be able to find indisputable proof showing that they are right, otherwise it wouldnt be controversy. and i am not about to support taking away rights before there is indisputable proof showing that we should.

also, your arguments are just terrible. at least come up w something new.

IMO, abortions should be regulated and limited. using it as birth control is just sick. making it illegal is just as irresponsible. do you ppl not look at history? do you want black market abortions again, where women and their babies were being killed by infections, faulty services, and shady "doctors"?

[von-Scharnhorst]

The person on life support is no longer a person if brain dead and there is no logical reason to keep them there. The aborted foetus is not any more alive than your average tumour.
But recent research has shown, that even "brain dead" react to the environment. So, it is possible that, as far as they are concerned, they are still alive.

Surely the same with a foetus? Allthough I will admit, two cells do not majke a prison., but how many, 5? 20?

What we need to establish is when the first brain patterns start.
Zoobee IMO, abortions should be regulated and limited. using it as birth control is just sick. making it illegal is just as irresponsible. do you ppl not look at history? do you want black market abortions again, where women and their babies were being killed by infections, faulty services, and shady "doctors"?
That, basically, is also my opinion.

[Crowly]

But recent research has shown, that even "brain dead" react to the environment. So, it is possible that, as far as they are concerned, they are still alive.

Well, flowers and bees and bacteria react to the environment. That's the difference between sentience and sapience, sapient beings know they're reacting.

If you're brain dead, and this is just my opinion, you're gone.

[von-Scharnhorst]

If you're brain dead, and this is just my opinion, you're gone.

O.K, so if you could recapitulate. Would you also reverse that and say that there has to be a certain amount of "awareness" for the begining of life?

[claire]

But recent research has shown, that even "brain dead" react to the environment. So, it is possible that, as far as they are concerned, they are still alive.

Surely the same with a foetus? Allthough I will admit, two cells do not majke a prison., but how many, 5? 20?

What we need to establish is when the first brain patterns start.

That, basically, is also my opinion.

Very few areas of the brain work when someone is "brain dead" That is why they are still alive. They aren't concious to the world around them ,or even themselves, and can only react in few ways.

[Crowly]

Would you also reverse that and say that there has to be a certain amount of "awareness" for the begining of life?

Nope, it's hard to explain, certain elements of the physical brain have to be in place before the person is in the slightest bit aware. The brain is essentially a 3 layer cake and what we know as human is definitely the sweet upper layer.

Sentience, the reaction to the world around you, is actually present in everything from bacteria to plants, from mice to humanity.

Sapience, the understanding of self, is the sole preserve of the highest order mammals. Studies have shown an implied, if simple, level of sapience in chimpanzees for certain, and I personally believe it to be present in many of the larger, predatory (a must) mammalian species.

On to claire's point:

Very few areas of the brain work when someone is "brain dead" That is why they are still alive. They aren't concious to the world around them ,or even themselves, and can only react in few ways.

There are varying degrees of 'brain death.'

Brain stem death - the most dead, if you will, is when the brain has shut down everything from higher order functions to even the functions of the medula. Without total life support this 'body' (person?) will cease organic function almost immediately.

Sometimes the brain suffers a cell cascade in the upper levels of function, this means the brain or 'person' has lost self awareness, emotion, consciousness etc. They may however retain the autonomous functions of the human body - the heart beats without the brain, the muscles twitch in response to direct nerve impulse, the body will digest nutrients etc etc. I must stress that at this point the person is not a person, not a being.

To conclude, I am afraid it is impossible to classify a foetus as a human being with all the rights inherent, until it has passed a certain level of development. Whether or not that development is equivocable with the set legal date for abortion is another matter.

Let me pose this to you in return:

If abortion is killing a human being because it may become life, yet contraception is not the same - what is the morning after pill (the 72 hour post conception pill)?

[von-Scharnhorst]

The thing I aw about brain death, typicaly, on T.V. But I am TRYING to find a link, Was a U.S neoro surgeon who put the persons involved in one of these MRT scanners, then asked them to imagine various actions.

Playing tennis was one, walking around your house, and making coffeee were others.

The electro pattern of the brain showed that EXACTLY the same impulses as that of a healthy person doing the same task.

He has repeated this experiment many times, and it has been successfully repeated in London and...Either Japan or South Korea.

[Crowly]

Nah. If your the relevant lobes have shut down then sound processing is totally non existant.

[von-Scharnhorst]

These Doctors have prooved different.

I believe it was BBC World i saw it on. I will try and find the reference.

[Crowly]

Thing is, it flies in the face of modern medical knowledge of the brain, so I'll have to see some pretty compelling evidence before I accept that.

[von-Scharnhorst]

I have JUST this second got off the BBC web site.

I can not find the info. I searched for "brain death" and got about 4 bloody million pages!!. The problem?

I know to within three months WHEN it was reported, BUT, the bloody things are NOT kept in date order. Typical stupid BBC Bastards.

So I sent an E-Mail telling THEM to bloody find it.

That may be next week, so remind me. ;)

[zoobee2]

is this what you were looking for?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115766990059456911-JxePzsciWiTWU72yp91YrPtOT30_20070907.html?mod=rss_ free

Personally I dont care much for what these kinds of studies say. If I was in that kind of state, I doubt I would want to hang around.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Aye. Thats the one. I should also be getting the BBC one soon. Which has more of the science behind it, as I remember.

Thanks Zoobee.

[zoobee2]

Google. Everything you were ever looking for. ;)

[von-Scharnhorst]

Well I made the mistake of trying to use the BBC's own search engine.

They MUST have a system. But I don't think they bothered to tell any one what it was. Particularly the engine builder.

§ million entrys from 2000 onwards, and no date order???

IDIOTS.

Thanks again any way.

[claire]

Ah, google, has man made invented anything better?

[von-Scharnhorst]

I just want to know why all the letters I post on the web sites I write on are available on google, why my registration details of some web sites are available there, and HOW do you complain and get them removed.

OR even worse, if something is wrongly atributed to you, how do you correct it?

[Truth_Bringer]

if i was going to make an argument against abortion, i could do better than this self proclaimed "sound argument".

Then do it.


also, your arguments are just terrible. at least come up w something new.


Your replies are just terrible. Please come up with something new.

[Truth_Bringer]

I mention it only because it implies I have some idea of the subject matter we are discussing,

It implies no such thing, and proves even less.



You just can't argue potential against reality.

You assume your views of science are unquestionable. That's already been disproven. You also assume there is no life beyond this life and no spirit or soul attached to the organism. That cannot be scientifically proven now of course, but how do know with 100% certainty that it won't be a scientific reality 1,000 years from now?

[zoobee2]

Why would I make an argument against abortion and help you when I am obviously pro choice? That just doesn't even make sense.

The main prob w this debate is that there really isn't anything new to say, on either side. And there is no possibility of any one side ever convincing the other. That is the main reason why I believe that instead of the standard all-or-nothing, black and white mentality that both sides seem fixated on, there needs to be a compromise. I do not understand why the middle ground is so scary. Granted, it is not what either side would prefer. However, compromise is always better than deadlock, IMO.

Pro-lifers want to focus on the rights of the "baby". Pro-choice ppl want to focus on the rights of the mother. Why aren't both their rights important?

We are supposed to learn from history. When abortion was illegal, it was a disaster. Women went to the black market to get them, and many wound up dead, both them and their babies. Doesn't it defeat the purpose if both wind up dead?

I hate playing the what if game, but you know I hope I would never ever get an abortion, but if by some strange twist of fate there were some situation that endangered my life, I would like to know that I at least have the option to choose my fate and not have it dictated to me by some politician who knows nothing of me or my life. The prob isn't really abortion, I think it is the ppl that take advantage of their right to abortion.

As far as the soul argument goes, that is religious ideology. But even so, if I were to believe that at conception this unorganized microscopic lump of cells has a soul, should I believe that my finger nail cells all have souls as well? Do my hair clippings go to heaven?

[RandomCoolzip]

Other people are not your property, remember? That means if a woman (other than you, if you're a woman) decides to relieve herself of a fetus, it's her business, not yours. If she doesn't think a 1-month or 2-month fetus qualifies as a person yet, who are you to force her to carry the fetus to term and accept the monumental responsibilities of motherhood? Who are you to set yourself up as an authority on when a bundle of cells has reached a sufficient state of development to qualify as a "person" in a legal and moral sense, and demand that other people submit to your beliefs about that?

A consistent libertarian respects the right of other people to think and believe differently on controversial issues, and to act on their beliefs. You're trying to have it both ways here.

[von-Scharnhorst]

if a woman (other than you, if you're a woman) decides to relieve herself of a fetus, it's her business, not yours. If she doesn't think a 1-month or 2-month fetus qualifies as a person yet, who are you to force her to carry the fetus to term and accept the monumental responsibilities of motherhood? Who are you to set yourself up as an authority on when a bundle of cells has reached a sufficient state of development to qualify as a "person" in a legal and moral sense, and demand that other people submit to your beliefs about that?
I think this is a case of the law sending out mixed messages. Take U.K, or Germany, for example, where the law is, except for odd small differences in wording, the same.

On the one hand abortion is legal, which follows your principal. BUT there are other laws, such as the time limit, the fact it is ilegal unless done by qualified doctors, which I think is something we could ALL agree on. It is illegal to procure a misscarraige. Which, is, after all probably THE most natural way to get rid of the foetus. Then there is the law on infanticide.

So, really, the law is in a mess. It is one of these things that needs 100% Yes or 100% no. This middle ground is a mine field that needs clearing.

I would agree thatabortion should be legal, where the Mothers life is endangered, I would also add mentally endangered here as well. If the Mother is seriously suicidal, say.

However I would not alow abortion, merely "because it would upset Granny if she found out I was pregnant". Or "It would ruin my carreer chances to have a baby". TOUGH, or did no one tell you HOW people get pregnant?

[RandomCoolzip]

I think this is a case of the law sending out mixed messages. Take U.K, or Germany, for example, where the law is, except for odd small differences in wording, the same.

On the one hand abortion is legal, which follows your principal. BUT there are other laws, such as the time limit, the fact it is ilegal unless done by qualified doctors, which I think is something we could ALL agree on. It is illegal to procure a misscarraige. Which, is, after all probably THE most natural way to get rid of the foetus. Then there is the law on infanticide.

So, really, the law is in a mess. It is one of these things that needs 100% Yes or 100% no. This middle ground is a mine field that needs clearing.

I would agree thatabortion should be legal, where the Mothers life is endangered, I would also add mentally endangered here as well. If the Mother is seriously suicidal, say.

However I would not alow abortion, merely "because it would upset Granny if she found out I was pregnant". Or "It would ruin my carreer chances to have a baby". TOUGH, or did no one tell you HOW people get pregnant?

My post was intended to point out that Truth-Bringer was being inconsistent in claiming to have presented a libertarian argument against abortion. Passing judgement on what other people may do is inherently un-libertarian.

Now, I do not claim to be a libertarian, and I accept that you cannot build a workable society on militant individualism alone. I do believe, though, that whenever we constrain personal liberty by law, we have to have very good reasons for doing so. So I'm going to ask you, first of all, what's it to you if your female neighbor decides to have an abortion? What's your justification for constraining her liberty in that area? Are you claiming that your beliefs about the ethical and moral status of the fetus are the only right ones, so that they should be enshrined in law?

[von-Scharnhorst]

My post was regarding what the LAW sais. I am not a judge, I do not interpret law, I merely follow it. This does NOT stop me, or any one else, from campaigning to change it.

My last sentence gives my personal view.

whenever we constrain personal liberty by law, we have to have very good reasons for doing so.
And the murder of a child is NOT "good reason"? I do NOT see abortion as "murder" per sé.

BUT when it is done to please Granny, or to increase employment opportunity then "mens reá", guilty intent, means that it becomes murder.

[claire]

How do you become a moderator?

[von-Scharnhorst]

Send a P.M to stevectaylor and ask.

[Crowly]

You assume your views of science are unquestionable. That's already been disproven. You also assume there is no life beyond this life and no spirit or soul attached to the organism. That cannot be scientifically proven now of course, but how do know with 100% certainty that it won't be a scientific reality 1,000 years from now?

Absolutely ludicrous. Do you have any basis in the medical sciences? Thought not.

If you begin to argue spirit, soul, rubbish like that, then you are already lost to the world of logical debate. I deal sheerly in empirical evidence, as any rational man should. If I am proved wrong in 1000 years then I would hope that in 1,000 years they change the laws regarding this.

The fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of the evidence implies that I won't be proved wrong in 1,000 years. Keep your beliefs, don't have abortions if you don't like them, but don't let your zealotry intrude upon the rational population.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...mod=rss_ free

This is actually reasonably interesting stuff. It does seem to be something of a one off though, according to their research -

He cautions that the results apply only to this patient, and that others in a vegetative state aren't this responsive. Indeed, 60 previous patients in a vegetative state show no such brain activity, says Steven Laureys of the University of Liege, Belgium. "But she was different," he says. "Her brain activity shows a clear act of intention. The activity in her higher-order cognitive areas means, to me, that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings."

- As you probably know the brain is capable of re-routing neuron pathways to circumvent damage over a period of time, if I were to lay an educated guess I would say this woman's brain has managed to find routes around the damage to restore some, just some, level of mental function.

I would seriously doubt she is alive and awake inside an immobile body, though.

I call anomaly on this one.

[Spades]

I think this is a case of the law sending out mixed messages. Take U.K, or Germany, for example, where the law is, except for odd small differences in wording, the same.

On the one hand abortion is legal, which follows your principal. BUT there are other laws, such as the time limit, the fact it is ilegal unless done by qualified doctors, which I think is something we could ALL agree on. It is illegal to procure a misscarraige. Which, is, after all probably THE most natural way to get rid of the foetus. Then there is the law on infanticide.

So, really, the law is in a mess. It is one of these things that needs 100% Yes or 100% no. This middle ground is a mine field that needs clearing.

I would agree thatabortion should be legal, where the Mothers life is endangered, I would also add mentally endangered here as well. If the Mother is seriously suicidal, say.

However I would not alow abortion, merely "because it would upset Granny if she found out I was pregnant". Or "It would ruin my carreer chances to have a baby". TOUGH, or did no one tell you HOW people get pregnant?

I agrtee with this post but would like to add
To me, abortion is always the womans decision to decide and the man has no real right to persuade coerce or whatever. Even then i would say abortion shouldnt be legal because its a scapegoat for the fact that you made a big oops and now you want to make it go away. There are special circumstances for abortion in my eyes though, (ex: rape). But nonetheless But i will leave abortion and it legality up to the females because its them who have to suffer the most pyschological stress and most i know most guys just dont want to have a kid so early. Post-pardome disorder or something of the such.

[claire]

A person having a baby that they don't want will have a miserable life, then the unwanted kid will have a miserable life.

[Spades]

A person having a baby that they don't want will have a miserable life, then the unwanted kid will have a miserable life.

First off, dont do the crime if you cant do the time is my motto.
Secondly, im sure the kid will be like hmmm i could be either dead or have a possible chance to make something of myself even if it is hard.
Thirdly, will have a miserable life just for having a baby? How do you know they will? Maybe they might have a great life, or maybe they will let the baby destroy their lives. A lot of people seem to manage to have babies at young ages, i think that person w/ill manage.

[von-Scharnhorst]

A person having a baby that they don't want will have a miserable life, then the unwanted kid will have a miserable life.
They know what causes it.

It's their own damn fault.

[claire]

It's not the kids fault.

[stevectaylor]

A question. Is wearing a condom restricting the Sperms humans rights of freedom to move?. Apologies the main point is surely there has to be a cut off point for when you can or can not have an abortion.

[claire]

If you can pay for it, why not? I think it's wrong to abuse abortions like that, but it would be too hard to control.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Aye. Fair enough. I was refering to the Mother.

[Spades]

A question. Is wearing a condom restricting the Sperms humans rights of freedom to move?. Apologies the main point is surely there has to be a cut off point for when you can or can not have an abortion.

Its to general of a statement imo, because they do not have the freedom to move because they die pretty quickly. But i get what you are saying so here goes my explanation!!

Once the sperm and the egg have united/joined/conceived whatever the term may be then they basically for something that you no longer can control. Its not like you can have an abortion if you dont know you have a baby.

I am not generally against abortion i just am against any decision the guy might have in it. The woman is the one who will suffer the post-pardom depression.

[Lenin not Stalin]

There is a serious logical flaw which the anti-abortionists are perpetuating. The fact of the matter is that a fetus is not a human being any more than a sperm cell or an embryo is. The point in which an infant gains emotions is the point in which the infant gains it's "personhood" if you will. Until the fetus is a person you are not murdering anything. If you consider aborting a fetus murder, then every female over 12 is a murderer simply because they monthly eject "could be babies." That train of thought is both extreme and sensationalist, so when talking about abortion the phrase "murdering a baby" should hold no weight. Aside from that there are a few other points which I would like to discuss.

First: Rape victims have had children forced upon them and to make them bear that fetus IS a violation of the carriers rights. To not allow the carrier to abort is an injustice which in a modernized nation like our own should not exist.

Second: Our basic constitutional rights guarantee us freedom of will. A woman has the right to remove an in preferable pre-birth mass from herself. Simply because the religious right believes that it is immoral because of some interpretation of a holy book does not necessitate that every one else heeds their will.

In conclusion: As I mentioned early on in my post there is no constitutional violation by the abortionist; and because of this lack of any legal violation the only (legally speaking) impetus for an individual not to abort is the religious views of a few. To force someone to comply with another individuals religious beliefs is another violation of one of the citizens of America's most treasured rights, our freedom of religion.

[Spades]

While in general I am not totally against abortion i think anyone who commits it is well, an dishonorable person. My arguments have nothing to do with any religion so your argument towards forcing religion is null. While Raped wome i guess can abort, forcing them not to abort is NOT a complete injustice. In the courts during custody battles the focus is ALWAYS on whats best for the child. Not whats best for the mother or father. The focus IS NEVER on the parents. One does not have constitutional rights to kill their child, I have yet to see that. If you see it can you please show me where. But i guess you are going to argue that the fetus is not a child, but I believe that in it should be given the same consideration as one.

[Lenin not Stalin]

Spades, I personally believe that abortion is rather immoral. However I have to consider the rights of others not my own personal opinion when I think about this particular topic. On the topic of raped women I believe that although it may not be a complete violation it is most certainly a restriction of their rights, and because (at least legally speaking) the mother has preference over the fetus I believe abortion should be allowed. I respect your opinions on this topic and until quite recently agreed with them whole heartedly, yet in the end, when I analyzed the situation, I inevitably came to the conclusion that it is the right of the individual that is paramount not my own personal opinions. I hope you come to the same conclusion that I did but if you don't, I still understand where your coming from.

[Spades]

Lenin, I agree with you that Raped woman can abort because there was no intent their at all (To have a child), and that a raped victim having a child just puts more complications on everyones life that would not turn out so well. The reason I am not totally against abortion is because ultimately its the Woman's choice, i am afraid often times the guy would play to much of a factor in that choice. Woman will have to go through post-pardom depression and thats what I am afraid will happen. (The guy forcing her to have an abortion and then depression causing even more stress to a possible suicide). I am always for the childs/unborn childs rights because I know myself i would not want my parents to have had an abortion no matter what they were going through. But ultimately, I leave it up to the Woman even though the idea really irritates because i see it as a form of involuntary manslaughter. (excessive word i know but i couldn't think of any better way to phrase it unfortunately).

[Lenin not Stalin]

I suppose at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, because we both seem to understand each others perspectives, and both disagree with them I don't see how any finality will come of this debate.

[Spades]

I suppose at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, because we both seem to understand each others perspectives, and both disagree with them I don't see how any finality will come of this debate.

You posted right after me dang thats quite response. Phew someone else see's that sometimes conflicts just wont end on forum debate. Your right

[sleeper]

I personally feel that abortion is and should be a right but the reason I'm posting is for a few reasons.
1) IF abortion is murder, then you can't say just because someone was raped they can get it....how is one form of murder any less than another?
2) How much do you think the "rape" rate would go up? I know that not all women, but some would take advantage of the system and claim to have been raped so they wouldn't have to give birth...

[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Debating!!]

I personally feel that abortion is and should be a right but the reason I'm posting is for a few reasons.
1) IF abortion is murder, then you can't say just because someone was raped they can get it....how is one form of murder any less than another?
2) How much do you think the "rape" rate would go up? I know that not all women, but some would take advantage of the system and claim to have been raped so they wouldn't have to give birth...

Abortion is genocide, the greatest genocide ever perpetrated.

[RicDemian1]

If you believe that a person dies when brain functions cease permanently, then consider the life form in utero that has yet to develop a brain, or to have brain functions beyond primitive life forms. And as far as this position that life begins at fertilization and is "ensouled", why not go further back and sanctify gametes?

[poldsfgrayuimp]

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Libertarians for Life (http://www.l4l.org)

1. you should include YOUR definition of a person, since my definition certainly doesn't allow for a single cell with a complete set of DNA to qualify as a person, not if it is identical to the trillion other single-cell organisms that make up a majority of the life on our earth.
2. If my definition stood, abortion would be closer to an antibiotic than a homicide. I am not saying that after fertilization a women has an infection or anything, i'm just giving a comparison.
3. Innocence is a matter of conditon. Innocense in one respect could very well guarantee guilt in another
4. That is horrible, its comparible to "If you got shot by your neighbor than that bullet has the right to stay in your body".
Think about it. In the event of a rape, fertilization could be the result of force. If more or less a baby was forced into you, you should have the right to remove it.
5. Again, you are basing this statement off of your notion that a single cell qualifies as a person.
6. The proper purpose of the law is protect society from harm. Such harm could be an overwhelming strain on our welfare system, worsening our current problems.

[C.E.F]

I find this topic of discussion rather unastute. It seems Abortion is prominent in American society, the land of the free is rejecting a person's civil right, surely this is unacceptable is it not?

The US has always, stood by freedom of repression, freedom of the individual, so why is abortion even a case? Or is it only a case for those who combine Religion with politics (a dangerous mix).

A person has the right to freedom, freedom from repression, freedom of choice, freedom of the individual. Yes, responsibilities come into force, but abortion seems to be a main issue amongst the right wing thinkers of the world, who in essence are the advocates of "freedom of speech, freedom of choice". Is Abortion not a choice?

Is it not more 'sinister' to bring a child into this world, without the mental, emotional and ecomonic strength to watch the child/children flourish in their future. These same people who are Anti-Abortion are Anti-Socialism especially when it comes to a 'welfare state'.

I have spoken to several American Republican supporters who are Anti-Abortion and they too are Anti-Socialism/Anti-welfare, these people can't have it both ways, because if a woman gives birth to a handful of offspring and hasn't got the finanical capabilities to raise these children then welfare is needed and most ethical and unapathetic people know what such people think of 'welfare provision'.

[ShugNiggurath]

Abortion is genocide, the greatest genocide ever perpetrated.

Why have the username 'Debating' when you're going to bandy about emotive points and nothing to quantify them.

Perhaps you should have used the username 'Haranguing' ;)

[Rodendrew]

Then what is human "life"? For most people posting here, it seems to be a state that begins at some relative point (11 years old, really?) and ends at some random point down the road (either at death or random amounts of brain disfunction). Is there really a right to life? For anyone? You can write "laws" all day, and people will still do what they want, will still follow social norms first. Personally, I think if people were responsible, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. For the most part, I find abortion to be an attempt to cover someone's mistake.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
Hi,

to go back to the roots of this thread:

What an oxymoronic nonsense to call it:
'A Sound Argument Against Abortion'

Probably the simplest point to make is that any attempt to pretend there is a sound argument against abortion seems to be couched in the Aesopian misrepresentation of calling it 'Pro Life' - if there was a sound argument in opposition to abortion I feel it would not be founded on such a distortion of our language - May I have the timerity to ask the corrupt promoters of opposition to abortion masquerading behind their sham name of 'Pro Life' Whose Life?

The fascist concept of seeking to control the body and life of other people has no part in Libertarianism as any informed individual would deem it thus I believe it is dishonest of the original poster of this trite twaddle to give it the credibility of a strap line of 'Libertarian' - just as it is of dubious merit to peddle the belief that abortion is in some way a 'sin' against the christian beliefs or any other gods that mankind may have chosen to invent & believe in.

It is an obscenity, evil and anti natural to bring to birth an unwanted child. A crime against the mother and against the fundamental human right of self determination of the woman. The evil of permitting the breeding of children to die of starvation or misery as unsustainable and unwanted after borth is staggering hypocracy. No less obscene is the evil of denial of birth control whether in the spread of disease from copulator to progeny and the cruel obscenity of bringing to life a child to die of disease or starvation is heinous in extremis.

It is the right of the Mother and no one else whether they CHOOSE the Pro Life route considering their life and that which an unwanted child may lead ensures the Pro Life route is clearly abortion where appropriate.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Spades]

Hi,
It is the right of the Mother and no one else whether they CHOOSE the Pro Life route considering their life and that which an unwanted child may lead ensures the Pro Life route is clearly abortion where appropriate.


Fine let the mother do the abortion... by herself. Secondly,

"It is an obscenity, evil and anti natural to bring to birth an unwanted child"
What ???:confused:

As for the right of the mother?? Where is this right you speak of.... Personally I think abortion is evil for various reasons and if mother's are so determined to not have the child then they should have thought of this before hand. I don't see why having doctors waste their time on performing abortions as very wise.

[Machmer]

Fine let the mother do the abortion... by herself.

We'd have all sorts of calamities then though. If it's going to be legal it needs to be done by trained professionals.

[Spades]

We'd have all sorts of calamities then though. If it's going to be legal it needs to be done by trained professionals.

I know it would cause calamities that was my point. Abortions are are cowardly and wrong and if we don't give them a way out (Doctor's abortion) then a lot of women will end up having the child because they won't dare try to perform it by themselves. Why waste a doctor's time an Brain power on abortion when it can be used towards other things.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I know it would cause calamities that was my point. Abortions are are cowardly and wrong and if we don't give them a way out (Doctor's abortion) then a lot of women will end up having the child because they won't dare try to perform it by themselves. Why waste a doctor's time an Brain power on abortion when it can be used towards other things.

Hi,

your totalitarian and intollerant judgement does not enhance your argument.

NO Doctor is forced to carry out the humanitarian and caring medical procedure for women - no one asked YOU to acquit this medical duty and these Doctors, who are in the main caring and conciensious individuals are funded not by tax payers but by charities.

Your willingness to plunge back into the dark ages where women did not have control of their lives and bodies is mysogenistic, selfish and in my opinion quite ludicrous.

It is on a par with the American policy of shooting, bombing and killing people who choose to reject the fatally flawed concept of Democracy - a concept not even followed in the Republic of America.

I accept others will disagree with me and for that reason they have the right to not have or carry out abortions themselves - they have no right to impose their obscene views on others.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Laura]

Fine let the mother do the abortion... by herself. Secondly,

"It is an obscenity, evil and anti natural to bring to birth an unwanted child"
What ???:confused:

As for the right of the mother?? Where is this right you speak of.... Personally I think abortion is evil for various reasons and if mother's are so determined to not have the child then they should have thought of this before hand. I don't see why having doctors waste their time on performing abortions as very wise.

There are many reasons why a woman might need an abortion, example if she's raped....also if a girl is subjected to incest.

Both cases, I think the woman and/or girl involved, has been through enough psychological trauma, without having to further her trauma by forcing her to give birth to a rapists baby or an incest baby.

The pro-Life crowd say "it's not the baby's fault", I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with it.

Also if the abortion is performed early on, it's a fetus and as such it's a collection of cells and not yet a human being, in my opinion life doesn't begin at conception.

When abortion was illegal, there were still a huge number of abortions, they were usually performed by backstreet abortionists, who had little medical knowledge, used less than hygienic instruments and really were no more than butchers, and MANY women and girls died as a result of botched abortions, often they were just abandoned and left to bleed to death in dingy hotel rooms or some such.

Is this REALLY the sort of situation that we want to return to, is this really the sort of sub-Victorian and Draconian society we want to return to....where women and girls are left to die from botched backstreet abortions?

Of course, in the days when abortion was illegal as well, those women and girls who could afford to have a professional abortion carried out by a medically qualified doctor, did so....quite a number of doctors in Harley Street in London for example, performed secret abortions for a fee.

I would agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a means of contraception, but I would also say that abortions are carried out for a variety of reasons....as I pointed out, for rape, for incest and also for where the life of the mother would be in severe danger if she carried a child to full term.

Abortion should remain legal, and abortion should be carried out by doctors who are qualified, JUST in case some complication arises or whatever.

Hi,

your totalitarian and intollerant judgement does not enhance your argument.

NO Doctor is forced to carry out the humanitarian and caring medical procedure for women - no one asked YOU to acquit this medical duty and these Doctors, who are in the main caring and conciensious individuals are funded not by tax payers but by charities.

Your willingness to plunge back into the dark ages where women did not have control of their lives and bodies is mysogenistic, selfish and in my opinion quite ludicrous.

It is on a par with the American policy of shooting, bombing and killing people who choose to reject the fatally flawed concept of Democracy - a concept not even followed in the Republic of America.

I accept others will disagree with me and for that reason they have the right to not have or carry out abortions themselves - they have no right to impose their obscene views on others.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I completely agree with you Greg.

[Battleborne]

There are many reasons why a woman might need an abortion, example if she's raped....also if a girl is subjected to incest.

Both cases, I think the woman and/or girl involved, has been through enough psychological trauma, without having to further her trauma by forcing her to give birth to a rapists baby or an incest baby.

The pro-Life crowd say "it's not the baby's fault", I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with it.

Also if the abortion is performed early on, it's a fetus and as such it's a collection of cells and not yet a human being, in my opinion life doesn't begin at conception.

When abortion was illegal, there were still a huge number of abortions, they were usually performed by backstreet abortionists, who had little medical knowledge, used less than hygienic instruments and really were no more than butchers, and MANY women and girls died as a result of botched abortions, often they were just abandoned and left to bleed to death in dingy hotel rooms or some such.

Is this REALLY the sort of situation that we want to return to, is this really the sort of sub-Victorian and Draconian society we want to return to....where women and girls are left to die from botched backstreet abortions?

Of course, in the days when abortion was illegal as well, those women and girls who could afford to have a professional abortion carried out by a medically qualified doctor, did so....quite a number of doctors in Harley Street in London for example, performed secret abortions for a fee.

I would agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a means of contraception, but I would also say that abortions are carried out for a variety of reasons....as I pointed out, for rape, for incest and also for where the life of the mother would be in severe danger if she carried a child to full term.

Abortion should remain legal, and abortion should be carried out by doctors who are qualified, JUST in case some complication arises or whatever.


All I can say is: I agree on the issue of rape,incest or medical reasons for a abortion...this is between the mother and God...for carte blance abortion based on sex of the child possible looks etc,or inconvience to the mother or father...well I say BS!

[Spades]

First off, America is not a true democracy more of a Republic so please do not throw lines in to make your argument sound so holy and righteous especially if you do not even word these lines correctly.

Secondly, my main point is that in the American system focus has always been on the child's rights and NOT the parents. Unlike you I do not think of myself and how I might have to care for a child and how it would be inconvenient for me. So since its inconvenient in your eyes it must be ok to kill a child. Dehumanize the child to make it ok to kill it, go ahead but it doesn't make you right.

Control of their bodies? You type a lot of things to try to hype your side up but in actuallity they had the choice not to get pregnant. They had the choice to take preventative measures. They didn't and now a life has been formed and they are mad because what, it INCONVENIENCES THEM! How ludicrous is that to kill something because it might make your life harder. Maybe if they gave it a chance they'd realize the joy it could bring. But they wouldn't know that until they had the child.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

First off, America is not a true democracy more of a Republic so please do not throw lines in to make your argument sound so holy and righteous especially if you do not even word these lines correctly.
America is NOT more of a Republic - it is a Republic with a limited Democracy.

Secondly, my main point is that in the American system focus has always been on the child's rights and NOT the parents.
Which of course is foolish and in the main founded on unsubstantiated superstition.

Unlike you I do not think of myself and how I might have to care for a child and how it would be inconvenient for me.
Unlike you and since I believe in the right to life and consideration of quality of life I believe it is a fundamental human right that women have control over their own bodies and whether they breed or not at a given time.

So since its inconvenient in your eyes it must be ok to kill a child. Dehumanize the child to make it ok to kill it,
Where do you come off with the intrusive right to denigrate the valid decision of others in the determination of their lives and down grade the gravitas of their rights to life to being merely an 'inconvenience'.
The embryo/foetus is NOT a child it is by deffinition an embryo or foetus to pretend it is a child is as inaccurate and offensive as to call a baby girl a young woman to justify paedophillia!

go ahead but it doesn't make you right.
However you phrase your fascist style demands to impose your will and deny women the right to self determination and the right to a life of the quality they find acceptable is not only not right it is patently and palpably EVIL.

Control of their bodies? You type a lot of things to try to hype your side up but in actuallity they had the choice not to get pregnant.
They have the right to self determination and if by accident, error or imposition (rape, incest, statutory rape or medical danger) the right to life is that of the person the woman carrying the embryo or foetus.

They had the choice to take preventative measures.
And some may have chosen not to and had an unexpected outcome or may on reflection excercise the right to control their lives.

They didn't and now a life has been formed and they are mad because what, it INCONVENIENCES THEM!
How deeply offensive you can be on this issue in your desire to deny women the right to the life they choose - women are NOT just vessels for your mysogenistic prejudice.

How ludicrous is that to kill something because it might make your life harder.
Not remotely ludicrous the right to life is that of the person and that person has the right to determine whether they breed or not.

Maybe if they gave it a chance they'd realize the joy it could bring. But they wouldn't know that until they had the child.
Don't be idiotic - some ppeople do not like children, many who choose abortion are mere children choosing their right to life, many have as many children as they can rewsponsibly acquit their duty to.

Abortion is clearly an act of self determination and a fundamental human right.

It is not for you or people like you to impose some obscene fascist view that you have a right to deny the women the right to life based on self determination.

It is ENTIRELY a matter of self determination for a woman to have control over her own body and only in an obscene form of slavery can a view they must be forced to breed be acceptable. Women have the right to life, their own life!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Spades]

America is NOT more of a Republic - it is a Republic with a limited Democracy.
Thats pretty much what a republic is..... a limited democracy. Do you even know what you are talking about???:confused:


Which of course is foolish and in the main founded on unsubstantiated superstition.
What ARE you thinking? It seems that you are mistaken. When court battles come up over children its always about what is best for them NOT the parents and saying otherwise is SELFISH beyond belief, IMMORAL, and down right silly.



Unlike you and since I believe in the right to life and consideration of quality of life I believe it is a fundamental human right that women have control over their own bodies and whether they breed or not at a given time.
Belief in right to life and consideration... your for abortion hence the destruction of a life? This is absolute nonsense. They can not breed simply by A) not doing it or B) simply take the various necessary precautions so that it doesnt happen. Not that hard. Quality of life consideration is the silliest thing I heard. Because I think that YOU will have a bad life that gives me the right to just end your life for your? Is that the conclusion you've come to?

Where do you come off with the intrusive right to denigrate the valid decision of others in the determination of their lives and down grade the gravitas of their rights to life to being merely an 'inconvenience'.
The embryo/foetus is NOT a child it is by deffinition an embryo or foetus to pretend it is a child is as inaccurate and offensive as to call a baby girl a young woman to justify paedophillia!
What reason would 'most' abortion people have then? Most arguments for abortion are that their quality of life would be deminished because the parents wouldn't take very good care of them. Because by giving good care to the children they would be a responsibility and thus if you didn't want the responsibility then you would see it as an inconvience. What possible reason can you make to justify the abortion? (Don't go into rape or the special circumstances llike that because then i'll just ignore you).


However you phrase your fascist style demands to impose your will and deny women the right to self determination and the right to a life of the quality they find acceptable is not only not right it is patently and palpably EVIL.
Self-determination? You ASSUME that they have the right to KILL something when they naturally couldn't safely do it themselves. Your right to life of the quality doesn't make any sense and is silly and i will not address how silly it is any further. If anything your dance around the basic right to life (For the child) is PURELY EVIL.


They have the right to self determination and if by accident, error or imposition (rape, incest, statutory rape or medical danger) the right to life is that of the person the woman carrying the embryo or foetus.
Medical danger yes, but my focus is and always will be on the child.


And some may have chosen not to and had an unexpected outcome or may on reflection excercise the right to control their lives.

You think so selfishly about oneself and not about others. The right to life trumps that of 'control over ones life' because you do not lose control when you have a kid.

How deeply offensive you can be on this issue in your desire to deny women the right to the life they choose - women are NOT just vessels for your mysogenistic prejudice.
Offensive? Sometimes other people come before their right to choose. I am sorry but these fantasy rights that you endow on the women are stilltheres up until they fail to take the right measures (Protection). I think of the child's rights over someone's oops.


Not remotely ludicrous the right to life is that of the person and that person has the right to determine whether they breed or not.
Oh where is this right written? Can I see it? Secondly they have the right to choose when to breed or not. ITS NOT THAT HARD. But when your body says that its going to breed but the brain is like oh no this could ruin my life and i must end it, that I am sorry to say is not a right.


Don't be idiotic - some ppeople do not like children, many who choose abortion are mere children choosing their right to life, many have as many children as they can rewsponsibly acquit their duty to.
Don't call me idiotic please, and i've already gone over this. You reiterate the same thing over and over.


Abortion is clearly an act of self determination and a fundamental human right.

Fundamental human right... you just say things now that make your argument sound even worse than better like it should be after so much typing.


It is not for you or people like you to impose some obscene fascist view that you have a right to deny the women the right to life based on self determination.
Fascist? That all I ask is that you take the easy precautionary measures so that a child isn't conceived? Is that so hard? Sorry I don't like to kill somethign because it might inconvience me.


It is ENTIRELY a matter of self determination for a woman to have control over her own body and only in an obscene form of slavery can a view they must be forced to breed be acceptable. Women have the right to life, their own life!
You reiterate the same thing over and over again with new fancy framing such as 'slavery' and 'self determination' but thats basically just dancing around the issue like always. WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE??? Hmmmm?

Regards,
Greg L-W [/QUOTE]

[Laura]

All I can say is: I agree on the issue of rape,incest or medical reasons for a abortion...this is between the mother and God...for carte blance abortion based on sex of the child possible looks etc,or inconvience to the mother or father...well I say BS!

Yeah that's what I said, the issues of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger...I don't agree with abortion being used as a means of contraception.

I consider myself pro-Choice for the above reasons, and I certainly don't want abortion outlawed again.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

clearly in any caring society the right to life and self determination is a matter of choice for the woman & any civilised Country would give women control over their own bodies.

I appreciate that America is a deeply repressive society in some contexts as portrayed by their willingness to massacre 10s of 1,000s of people in The middle East to force them to adopt America's chosen style of Governance. America clearly has little understanding of concepts of a right to life, quality of life or self determination.

It is the right, by any civilised reason, of a woman to have sovereignty over their own bodies and life - they have the right to life of the quality or style they can achieve.

There is no sound argument against abortion based on choice by the woman the embryo clearly has no logical right to destroy the life of a human being.

No man has the right to impose his will on a woman and interfere with her right to life and control over her own body.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Spades]

Just reiterating the same thing over and over. Its more of the right to be selfish and think of oneselves above others. Secondly, If your soo concerned with the rights of women why don't you go crusade down over to the middle east and try to spread it? Why do you make excuses for countries who rate a 5 on the pts for violence? Tell me... Do you want to know the real reason?

You want abortion to be legal because that way when you make an oops you can persuade the girl into getting an abortion so you are not burdened. Sorry, but thats just not a good enough reason in my book.

[Machmer]

Just reiterating the same thing over and over. Its more of the right to be selfish and think of oneselves above others. Secondly, If your soo concerned with the rights of women why don't you go crusade down over to the middle east and try to spread it? Why do you make excuses for countries who rate a 5 on the pts for violence? Tell me... Do you want to know the real reason?

You want abortion to be legal because that way when you make an oops you can persuade the girl into getting an abortion so you are not burdened. Sorry, but thats just not a good enough reason in my book.

You are not supposing the rights of a full grown adult human are below that of a blob of cells are you?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Just reiterating the same thing over and over. Its more of the right to be selfish and think of oneselves above others.
I note how you do JUST this - you put your desire to impose your will before the rational rights of sef determination and a right to life for women with dominion over their own bodies.

Your desire to control others is fascist in nature.

Secondly, If your soo concerned with the rights of women why don't you go crusade down over to the middle east and try to spread it?
Maybe copy the obscene behaviour of America? Accept OUR imposed values or be slaughtered - the great American liberty!

Why do you make excuses for countries who rate a 5 on the pts for violence? Tell me... Do you want to know the real reason?
Having lived in the Middle East AND America, Asi, Africa, South America, India & the Far East I have a feeling you may have some difficulty in teaching me about foreign cultures. If you class the Middle East as 5pts. for violence that would leave America somewhere near 50 pts. I guess.

You want abortion to be legal because that way when you make an oops you can persuade the girl into getting an abortion so you are not burdened. Sorry, but thats just not a good enough reason in my book.
Try not to judge everyone by your squalid values you make a fool of yourself and have no right to insult people by dragging them down to your level.

I have no desire to impose my will on others.

I believe in self determination.

I believe in the right to life and control of one's own body for women.

Since you have produced no valid argument beyond your personal prejudices and belief in your obscene right to impose your views on women.

Let us stop wasting time as you clearly have no humanitarian values and a mysogenistic approach to the rights of women as any civilised peoples would understand them.

Learn from your own chosen name - when out of one's depth with no civilised clarity of argument of calibre STOP DIGGING!

If you are so insecure as to feel a need to have the last word and once again demean yourself by being offensive go ahead - You alone will be impressed.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Spades]

I note how you do JUST this - you put your desire to impose your will before the rational rights of sef determination and a right to life for women with dominion over their own bodies.

Your desire to control others is fascist in nature.
My will? WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING my reasoning.


Maybe copy the obscene behaviour of America? Accept OUR imposed values or be slaughtered - the great American liberty!
First of you must realize the concept of a social contract, and its not imposing the will on someone and I grow tired of the same old lines from you. I guess asking you not to kill something is imposing to much now.


Having lived in the Middle East AND America, Asi, Africa, South America, India & the Far East I have a feeling you may have some difficulty in teaching me about foreign cultures. If you class the Middle East as 5pts. for violence that would leave America somewhere near 50 pts. I guess.
So? Clearly you do not know what that scale is which makes me wonder if you read anyone else's studies of other countries and not just what you wish to believe. PTS = political terror scale fyi. 5 would be the maximum (can't get a 50). You've been wrong a few facts already makes me wonder about most of your comments now.



Try not to judge everyone by your squalid values you make a fool of yourself and have no right to insult people by dragging them down to your level.
There were rights that are fundamentally guaranteed to everyone life being one of them. Not the right to choose. I'm sorry that I respect the fundamental rights better than you. Excuse me for trying to enforce such rights and not kill human beings.


I have no desire to impose my will on others.

I'm not imposing my will upon anyone and if you cannot see that determination then this argument will go nowhere. I respect the right to life something most would agree to when they accept the social contract. If you wish for unlimited liberty to do whatever you want then find a place that has no government and live there.... but hope you can deal with the downsides of living in a state of nature. Its not imposing my will its protecting one of the basic rights of our social contract.

I believe in self determination.

Self determination? What does that even mean? Do you know even know? How is it a 'fundamental' right as in how is it as powerful as the right as life? Please give more then the usual lines.

I believe in the right to life and control of one's own body for women.

One can control one's body but if you have to go to a specialist to perform abortion to kill something that's growing a separate life inside of you then well you are no longer in control of your body, if you were you wouldn't need the specialist.

Since you have produced no valid argument beyond your personal prejudices and belief in your obscene right to impose your views on women.

You don't listen at all. I mean the argument that its just a blob of cells is an argument because he believes that the fetus isn't a person and thats fine but i just disagree. You on the other hand go into some weird logic as it seems to me.

Let us stop wasting time as you clearly have no humanitarian values and a mysogenistic approach to the rights of women as any civilised peoples would understand them.

No humanitarian values? HOW DARE YOU! I believe in life and to let live not to destroy for no REAL reason. Self-determination.... the right to choose those words are so hollow. Do you really believe those to be reasonable excuses to have an abortion? I surely don't.

Learn from your own chosen name - when out of one's depth with no civilised clarity of argument of calibre STOP DIGGING!

Digging? Ignoring my comments and then reiterating the same-old lines does not make your side anymore right and the other person to be digging. Listen, try to understand someone else's argument (understand doesn't mean agree) stop with the degrading comments and start actually reading what I've said. If you were then you'd at least comment with sentences that had to do with what you were quoting. Not just reiterating the same thing over and over and over.

If you are so insecure as to feel a need to have the last word and once again demean yourself by being offensive go ahead - You alone will be impressed.

Degrading comments such as that are very immature. It's one thing if they slip out on accident but its another if you just whip them out in order try to belittle your opponent of the debate as to make yourself seem superior because you belittled the other person. I was hoping to learn something of your side from you but alas I did not because you decided to ignore me instead of debate me.

[WC Grouch]

There are sound arguments on both sides of this issue but I live in the real world. Marijuana prohibition has not decreased marijuana use. Abortion prohibition will not decrease abortions.

[SVTman]

Oh good, a guessing game. I like guessing games.

dude if you have to guess what happens to that growth then you are in a much poorer state then you realize.

[SVTman]

Just when would the fans of abortion say that is the correct time to top Granny? When she forgets to buy bog roll? when she sets fire to the cat? or when she can not even remember what a cat is?

What is the difference between a person who is clinivcaly dead, but still on life suport, and the aborted feotus/child, call it what you will.

the clinicly dead are just that dead. they have no life ahead of them unless there is a reasonable argument that they can live. while that baby hasn't even been give the chance to live and die before you kill it.

[Laura]

There are sound arguments on both sides of this issue but I live in the real world. Marijuana prohibition has not decreased marijuana use. Abortion prohibition will not decrease abortions.

Abortion prohibition will not decrease abortions.

Exactly, and this is why the pro-Life people genuinely baffle me.

When abortion was illegal, there were STILL abortions being performed, albeit of the Backstreet and dangerous variety....unless a woman had access to some money, and then she could have an abortion performed by a Doctor "on the quiet".

However most women were left with no alternative choice but to put their lives in the hands of creeps in dingy hotels using dirty instruments.

I really don't think we, as a society, WANT to return to those appalling days.

[Albion 69]

I really don't think we, as a society, WANT to return to those appalling days.

I would agree but the statistics make grim reading.... In 2006 the total number of abortions was 193,700, compared with 186,400 in 2005, a rise of 3.9% ..the ever increasing numbers point to a failure in sex education and a lack of personal responsibility. How to reverse this trend should be one of society's/governments top priorities.

[SVTman]

Exactly, and this is why the pro-Life people genuinely baffle me.

When abortion was illegal, there were STILL abortions being performed, albeit of the Backstreet and dangerous variety....unless a woman had access to some money, and then she could have an abortion performed by a Doctor "on the quiet".

However most women were left with no alternative choice but to put their lives in the hands of creeps in dingy hotels using dirty instruments.

I really don't think we, as a society, WANT to return to those appalling days.

wrong they had the choise to have to baby to and give it up for adoption. dont ever say that someone doesn't have a choise we always have a choise. that women chose to have sex. and we all know that you will have children if you have sex so she chose to consieve that baby the second she got in bed. you always have a choise.

[SVTman]

Exactly, and this is why the pro-Life people genuinely baffle me.

When abortion was illegal, there were STILL abortions being performed, albeit of the Backstreet and dangerous variety....unless a woman had access to some money, and then she could have an abortion performed by a Doctor "on the quiet".

However most women were left with no alternative choice but to put their lives in the hands of creeps in dingy hotels using dirty instruments.

I really don't think we, as a society, WANT to return to those appalling days.

wrong they had the choise to have the baby too, and give it up for adoption. dont ever say that someone doesn't have a choise we always have a choise. that women chose to have sex. and we all know that you will have children if you have sex so she chose to consieve that baby the second she got in bed. you always have a choise.

[Laura]

wrong they had the choise to have the baby too, and give it up for adoption. dont ever say that someone doesn't have a choise we always have a choise. that women chose to have sex. and we all know that you will have children if you have sex so she chose to consieve that baby the second she got in bed. you always have a choise.

What about women who are raped? They didn't CHOOSE to have "sex" with the rapist?

What about girls who are victims of incest? They didn't CHOOSE to have "sex" with their Father or their Uncle or their Grandfather or their Brother.

So what should those women and girls do? Be forced to have a rape baby or an incest baby?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

in the expectation that some 'challenged' moderator, unable to avoid showing off AGAIN will excercise his ego and ban me because he, she or it will be unable to support their 'opinion' with fact or clarity, confidence or tollerance' - I note every time a subject is locked or a person is banned it is a 'Fascist' act of Kontrol - The ONLY time a moderator should act to curb freedom of speech is in the instance of PROVEN libel, foul or abusive language or ad hominem attack seeking dishonestly to win a point.

Locking threads or banning people based on opinion is merely a measure of the lack of intellect of the Moderator.

So here goes - in the hope that they have matured a little since I was last banned. A measure of their ineptitude and self inmdulgent insecurity on both previous occasions.

________________DRAWING A LINE UNDER IT & MOVING ON______________

Firstly the contention of the naming of this thread is palpable bunkum.

To name the thread of a discussion: 'A Sound Argument Against Abortion' is to seek to deny discussion as it is firstly only an opinion and further one without foundation much beyond superstition.

I do not believe in the context of a discussion that 'A Sound Argument Against Abortion' is other than tortalagous I do not believe that there is a 'sound' argument against abortion.

There may well be a 'sound' argument against getting into the position of wanting OR needing an abortion. That is debatable.

If you became pregnant by whatever circumstances how can it be someone elses business as to whether you have an abortion or not anywhere but in a police state?

By what obscene right have some bunch of fascists who are against life to be against YOUR life.

Right To Life - too damned right the Right to life MUST include, in a civilised nation, the fundamental human right of self determination.

It is an act of pure evil for any group to force a second rape on a woman and after one man has used her for his orgasm that another group gang rapes her intellectually forcing her to be the recepticle of their twisted egos and fascist desire for control.

This is as ludicrous as the obscene American Government slaughtering people to force them to accept America's choice of government.

No man has the right to force another to breed against their choice THAT IS RAPE.

Abortion is an absolute right. There is no possible argument that could be defined as 'A Sound Argument Against Abortion' - save only try to avoid being in the position of wanting or needing an abortion as it is not usually good for your physical health however good it may be for your life and mental health.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Albion 69]

Hi,

in the expectation that some 'challenged' moderator, unable to avoid showing off AGAIN will excercise his ego and ban me because he, she or it will be unable to support their 'opinion' with fact or clarity, confidence or tollerance' - I note every time a subject is locked or a person is banned it is a 'Fascist' act of Kontrol - The ONLY time a moderator should act to curb freedom of speech is in the instance of PROVEN libel, foul or abusive language or ad hominem attack seeking dishonestly to win a point.

Locking threads or banning people based on opinion is merely a measure of the lack of intellect of the Moderator.

So here goes - in the hope that they have matured a little since I was last banned. A measure of their ineptitude and self inmdulgent insecurity on both previous occasions.

________________DRAWING A LINE UNDER IT & MOVING ON______________



Regards,
Greg L-W.

I sense a bit of history between you and a Moderator :rolleyes:...out of interest which one was it ?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I sense a bit of history between you and a Moderator ....out of interest which one was it ?

Hi,

as I said:
________________DRAWING A LINE UNDER IT & MOVING ON__________:rolleyes:

By reading back on the forum you can draw your own conclusions but far be it from me to further undermine their sad egos. :cool:

This thread is about the Right to Life of women and their fundamental human right to self determination over their own bodies.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Bober]

[QUOTE=Truth_Bringer;12670]The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Libertarians for Life (http://www.l4l.org)[/


Very well said. I couldn't agree more

[Spades]

Von-Scharnost I do believe but I am not 100 percent sure. It might have been because every now and then he would make little jabs at von for something he said awhile back.

[Hafke]

[quote=Truth_Bringer;12670]The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Libertarians for Life (http://www.l4l.org)[/


Very well said. I couldn't agree more

(1) Nobody regards a fetus as equal to a born child. To use an old argument, if there was a fire in a fertility clinic and you had the choice of saving one child or a box of one hundred embryos, I refuse to believe that anyone would be so psychopathic as to "save" the box of embryos. If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy she is not prosecuted for child endangerment. If she has a miscarriage she is not prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

(2) The pro choice position is "pro the lives that already exist". No woman has an obligation to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want, regardless of how conception occured, why she doesn't want a baby, or when the abortion occurs. "Pro life" is simply pro existence. The pro lifers will not care when the baby won't stop crying, when the toddler is throwing a tantrum or whenever the mother is at the end of her tether, and as such should shut up.

[Sharon den Adel]

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.


1. An embryo or fetus is nothing remotely like a human being, so to argue this is ludicrous. An embryo/fetus is not independant, cannot think, feel, or make decisions. It is not aware of it's surroundings, it is non - sentient, non - concious, non - aware.
You are virtually saying that a fertilised egg is a human being - why not go one step further and claim that a human egg and human sperm are also human beings, and should not be destroyed?

2. Legally, abortion is not homocide. Homocide involves the deliberate killing of another human being. A fetus does not fit this critera.

3. So we should allow brain dead patients to languish on life support, because to remove them is to hasten their death? So no one should have the right to take their own life if in great pain, or terminally ill? So the USA should immediately ban capital punishment?

4. A fetus has no right to be in the mothers body if she does not wish it to be there. The mother is concious, aware, sentient, and is capable of making her own life decisions. A fetus is not capable of any of these. A fetus should never be considered more important, or even of equal importance, as the mother.

5. The law is there to protect women, and to give them the right to choose. The law has made the right decision, in that it (here, anyway) does not recognise a fetus as a human being. To do this could possibly deny women the right to make their own reproductive choices.

6. A fetus is not innocent. Just because it didn't ask to exist doesn't mean it is innocent.
The law doesn't exactly side with those innocents convicted of capital crimes, does it? In fact, the law can work against you on occasion.

[Minotast]

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Libertarians for Life (http://www.l4l.org)

The so called "sound" argument for abortion is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body (a strictly social libertarian view point brought to America by the British, not something everyone else agrees, unless they are a woman that has little care in the world beyond herself). The reason why this really is an unsound argument is because you have to justify that the child is really part of a woman's body. And the truth of the matter is that it isn't. It is foreign in the sense that it's genetical structure isn't the same. It is a merger of two sets of genes in a way that takes on the genetic characteristics of two entities, which makes it the product of two entities and eccentially the same being part of both bodies merged into one. You can't call something that you cannot control and isn't genetically part of yourself a part of yourself, because it is like calling a parasite a part of yourselfl. However the difference between a parasite and a child is that a child transfers white blood cells and special enzymes to a woman that actually increases her lifespan or helps prevent cetain diseases. You could press matters into a sense of legality rather than science, since it is the only true leg you can stand on. But you have to understand that our sense of legality (what is right and what is wrong) is based on our cultural standings. And who is the say that our cultural standings or our beliefs are right or wrong?

Usually we had someone called a god to determine what was right and what was wrong. Supposively we were even given ten commandments to truly understand what was right and what was wrong and these ten commandments eccentially exist as the golden rule in all other religions that dont' descend from Abraham and Noah. However, a lot of people don't believe in a god like entity and therefore place their trust in knowwing what is right or wrong in the hands of others, typically those that weren't even place into office directly by themselves such as the president, justices, judges, many representatives and senators that do not correspond to your own state or district.

We have to place a sense of faith in ourselves and our nation, but this only works if we have something to agree upon and many, many people disagree on the principles concerning abortion. There are many people that would love to replace sex with cloning, a lot people who believe that just women should do whatever they want, a lot of people who feel abortion is only legal when it involves certain circumstances such as rape or medical concerns, and a lot of other people feel that abortion should not occur at all because it goes against nature. We eccentially are a part of nature. Therefore, we are going against ourselves. Needless to say, it is hopeless to truly resolve the issue based on legality of what people want based either on what people believe or comprehend. Even though abortion is unlawfully legal for right now based on judicial review without a law or executive action to review. Need I remind you that abortion became legal by what a judge had said and not by our congress nor any president. Therefore it is an unlawful legality.

So what do you do? Well we can't base it on principles of legality, because we are more like 9 nations put together based on our cultural differences in the many regions that make up the United States, which therefore makes direct democracy impossible and the whole issue was presented before us not by the Senate, House, or even the President, but by a judge who seemlessly holds has the ability to make laws and enforce them by his or her own will. It really just shows you how corrupt our judicial system is which allowed Bush to be in power to begin with.

Another argument is that an infant isn't a living thing until it breathes air, which is not really sound at all, because that makes fish and amphibians not living things. It could be argued with by the fact that an infant is jointed together with this woman that provides it with food and such that it cannot survive without. But how is it moral to allow something to die without giving it something for it to live. A lot of people cannot live without some sort of medication throughout much of their lives. People suffering from cancer have to use medication, which is often drugs like marijuana in order to survive. Also there many cojointed people that are stuck together in such a fashion that one is very likely that live without the other, but not vice versa. How do you justify killing someone who is breathing air, can think and talk with you, and has done no crimes? It is inconcievably wrong. I mean this a person with a name, personality, identity, and everything necessary on a mental level to establish a person and we just kill him because he can't survive on his own. How cruel do we have to be?

So how can you justify that an infant should die? Perhaps because it can't really think? Well a lot of humans can't think either including Bush and the mentally challenged. Should they die? Is it justifiable to kill them because they can't think on a human standards like a little infant? And who really knows they can't think? No one has done any serious testing based on the subject, unless it was done by the Nazis in concentration camps without us knowwing? And how can we really accept such data when the Nazis themselves believed that blood hair makes you superior to someone with darker hair? Why should we agree with psuedo-science all of a sudden?

We have to do more testing on this matter to try and make an agreement on when an embryo becomes a fetus and if a fetus is a living person. In my own personal opinion a fetus is a living person. As an embryo develops into the physical appearance of a living being, which makes it a fetus, it develops the cognitive detemining factors eccentially in order for it to analyze data, store data, and reconfigure data to illustrate what we can identify as creativity. This isn't something we really need to test. We can see it in all other animals on this planet. Once they are born they pretty much capable of doing many of things of its parents. Perhaps a human child is really no different aside from that, except lacking a super ego to balance out its heavy id which prevents it from thinking of many things aside from it self. But then again selfishness shouldn't make them not living things, because then we might as well kill ourselves. Aren't we all selfish beings?

So is there really a justifiable cause to call a infant or a fetus something that isn't a person? No its a person. It has an id, which makes it capable of thinking of it self thus giving its self an identity. In a lot of ways we are virtually the same and we can't very well kill something off with its differences are so challenging to differentiate from everything else that we can't outright kill such as the co-jointed, the mentally challenged, the selfish, and the sick or dangerously ill. A infant thus think and a preborn infant is really no different than a born infant. When they are crying while being born they are actually bringing forth noise, but in a means of communication. They also communicate in a means by kicking and doing various things in a woman's womb such as, "give me more space, stop laying on me (your belly), and give me some damn food." Communicating is something that only one with a functioning brain is capable of performing and something we all do and acknowledge doing as being humans beings. So a fetus does think and is a human being. However, I do believe more research has to be done to determine things more clearly involving fetuses.

Now we can argue about abortion being justifiable when involving circumstances such as rape and we can justify abortion of an embryo once more study has been done concerning the development of a human being and I think that's all I have to say concerning the issue.

[Gregor Johnston]

Now we can argue about abortion being justifiable when involving circumstances such as rape and we can justify abortion of an embryo once more study has been done concerning the development of a human being and I think that's all I have to say concerning the issue.[/quote]

Given that, as you have cogently argued, abortion is indefensible on moral grounds, then it can be no more justifiable in instances of rape. The embryo following a rape is obviously not responsible for the distressing circumstances under which it was created and it has as much right to self-determination and survival as any other.

[Trouble43]

Given that, as you have cogently argued, abortion is indefensible on moral grounds, then it can be no more justifiable in instances of rape. The embryo following a rape is obviously not responsible for the distressing circumstances under which it was created and it has as much right to self-determination and survival as any other.


So the woman, who is pregnant, is forced not only to go through the trauma of the rape itself and it's aftermath, but to also carry her rapist's child for 9 months?

What do you think this would do to her state of mind? As a rape victim I can tell you I, although I wouldn't personally undergo abortion as a rule, would not have had the courage or state of mind to carry my attacker's child through 9 months and then.....what at the end of it? You surely can't be advocating the woman being forced to raise the child as well?

I was lucky in some ways, I knew my attacker, he was then boyfriend who thought no actually meant yes....twice. Although he tried to hide my birth control pill he, thankfully, didn't succeed and so this nightmare scenario didnt occur for me.

I can only assume no one you love has ever undergone something so terrible; if they had I doubt you would be so steadfast in your conviction.

I sincerly doubt that you would tell your daughter, sister, wife that they must carry their attacker's child to term......

[pauli007001]

So the woman, who is pregnant, is forced not only to go through the trauma of the rape itself and it's aftermath, but to also carry her rapist's child for 9 months?

What do you think this would do to her state of mind? As a rape victim I can tell you I, although I wouldn't personally undergo abortion as a rule, would not have had the courage or state of mind to carry my attacker's child through 9 months and then.....what at the end of it? You surely can't be advocating the woman being forced to raise the child as well?

I was lucky in some ways, I knew my attacker, he was then boyfriend who thought no actually meant yes....twice. Although he tried to hide my birth control pill he, thankfully, didn't succeed and so this nightmare scenario didnt occur for me.

I can only assume no one you love has ever undergone something so terrible; if they had I doubt you would be so steadfast in your conviction.

I sincerly doubt that you would tell your daughter, sister, wife that they must carry their attacker's child to term......

I choose to take no stance on this issue,i am a man and will never have to make this choice.I feel for the rape victim,or even the irrisponsible individual who got pregnant.i also think what about the child?Such a difficult and emotive issue,yeah,i think i will stay out of this one!

[My Winter Storm]

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

There is no scientific proof that a fetus is a human, and nor is there any scientific proof to support your claim that a fertilised egg is a person.

Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

Murder is the killing of a person. As there is no scientific proof to say that a fetus is a person, abortion cannot be murder. Legally, abortion is not murder as the fetus is not considered a person until birth.

There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

Prenatally, we are all foetus's. Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die.

It is my firm belief that a woman has a right to choose.

Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

You fail to provide a reason for why this should be so.

No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.

The Government depersonifies us everyday. All the Government has done with abortion laws is put the rights of the woman ahead of the fetus, which, in my view, is fair and just.

The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Again, innocence does not come into it. It is irrelevent.

[Gregor Johnston]

[quote=Trouble43;45821]So the woman, who is pregnant, is forced not only to go through the trauma of the rape itself and it's aftermath, but to also carry her rapist's child for 9 months?

Nobody is in any way belittling the trauma of rape for the victim. There should of course be better psychological counselling services available for these women to assist them, but the circumstances of how they became pregnant do not justify the act of abortion. Personally, I would jail convicted rapists for a minimum of 15 years and require that they only be liberated after that once the parole board were satisfied by expert evidence that they no longer pose a risk.

What do you think this would do to her state of mind? As a rape victim I can tell you I, although I wouldn't personally undergo abortion as a rule, would not have had the courage or state of mind to carry my attacker's child through 9 months and then.....what at the end of it? You surely can't be advocating the woman being forced to raise the child as well?

Whether or not they raise the baby or have it adopted by one of the many childless couples is a matter for the mother, but the birth of a child is a blessing like no other and should not be prevented simply because of the manner of conception.

I was lucky in some ways, I knew my attacker, he was then boyfriend who thought no actually meant yes....twice. Although he tried to hide my birth control pill he, thankfully, didn't succeed and so this nightmare scenario didnt occur for me.

I can only assume no one you love has ever undergone something so terrible; if they had I doubt you would be so steadfast in your conviction.

The fact is that there are increasing numbers of abortions every year, 13,081 in Scotland alone in 2006 according to the most recent available statistics and drastic action must be taken to address what constitutes in my view mass slaughter on an unparallelled scale. As far as my "conviction" is concerned, this is primarily on religious grounds of conscience, but even putting that aside, abortion is not justified morally.

[Trouble43]

Nobody is in any way belittling the trauma of rape for the victim. There should of course be better psychological counselling services available for these women to assist them, but the circumstances of how they became pregnant do not justify the act of abortion. Personally, I would jail convicted rapists for a minimum of 15 years and require that they only be liberated after that once the parole board were satisfied by expert evidence that they no longer pose a risk.

So you are advocating forcing a rape victim to carry her attackers child to term? Then what? That she has to raise the child? Also the minimum sentence is of no help to the woman or young girl you are forcing to carry the child of the man who attacked her. You don't seem to have thought this through from the victims point of view at all.

Whether or not they raise the baby or have it adopted by one of the many childless couples is a matter for the mother, but the birth of a child is a blessing like no other and should not be prevented simply because of the manner of conception. I can tell you now that whilst a pregnancy might be a 'blessing' to a lot of women and couples, it certainly wouldn't be to the woman who was raped. You really have no concern for her at all do you? I find your attitude very uncaring of the rape victim; she appears, in your mind at least, to be little more than recepticle for the baby to grow. Her feelings do not figure for you, do they?

Also you say "whether or not they raise the baby....." What do you mean they?You are surely not saying the rape victim and her attacker should raise the child together? That is cruel and brutal, really it is; I can't believe you can even think that. Do you think a woman whose been raped would even want to see her attacker again, let alone raise a child with him?


The fact is that there are increasing numbers of abortions every year, 13,081 in Scotland alone in 2006 according to the most recent available statistics and drastic action must be taken to address what constitutes in my view mass slaughter on an unparallelled scale. As far as my "conviction" is concerned, this is primarily on religious grounds of conscience, but even putting that aside, abortion is not justified morally.So answer my question please - if your wife, sister, daughter, mother was raped and became pregnant by their rapist would you insist they carry that baby to term; possibly even raise the child alone or with their attacker? Even if it was evident that they were under extreme mental anguish from the attack, let alone the pregnancy? I have to assume judging by your seriously misguided words above that you have not. You are very lucky.

I am a christian; but as a rape victim I know how I'd feel if I became pregnant with my attacker's child. And I speak as a someone who was at least fortunate enough to know my attacker - that he was not some random stranger who attacked me indiscriminately; I think the latter would be worse.

Yes, you have a point - abortion is not always the answer; but neither is torturing an already traumatised woman for 9 months - life. God would not wish that either would He?

[Marxist Nutter]

I choose to take no stance on this issue,i am a man and will never have to make this choice.I feel for the rape victim,or even the irrisponsible individual who got pregnant.i also think what about the child?Such a difficult and emotive issue,yeah,i think i will stay out of this one!

I agree 100%; but oh how lucky we are to able to (not?) take this stance! Maybe the church and doctors should follow our example and butt out as well. Of course they should be able express their view; but allow the individuals concerned to make their own decisions and not force their view on people who are in such difficult circumstances.

[Gregor Johnston]

If you re-read my original post, I do express concern for the victim, advocating better counselling services and the word "they" was being used as a pronoun referring to rape victims in general, not of course the woman and her attacker. It is understandable that a rape victim would be emotionally traumatised at the prospect of giving birth to the baby of her attacker, but the unborn child is also an innocent victim and deserves the protection of the law. irrespective of the circumstances under which it was conceived. It is not for us mere mortals to play God and judge which children should be spared and which should be aborted due to the distress of the mother- life starts at the point of conception as far as I am concerned.
You also appear to consider the punishment of the rapist to be an irrelevance in this debate. Clearly, however, if the law sends out a message of severe and uncompromising prison sentences for the perpetrators this will protect more women from their behaviour and hopefully deter some men from carrying out such crimes. It also may provide some comfort to the victims to see their attackers incarcerated for long prison terms.

[Trouble43]

If you re-read my original post, I do express concern for the victim, advocating better counselling services and the word "they" was being used as a pronoun referring to rape victims in general, not of course the woman and her attacker.

Im sorry but all the counselling services in the world would not easily