the prochoice person can think of the issue in terms of protecting the historically weak, vulnerable, and disenfranchised - namely the woman.

Actually, the difference between "prolife" and prochoice is where value is placed. Do you place more value on potential human life or actual, living, breathing, thinking, feeling, existing, independent human life. I place more value on the woman, her life, her desires, her health, and her rights as a human being than I do on a fetus that there is no guarantee that it will be born at all, most statistically (even when not considering abortion) are not.

it is more than simply forcing someone to do something that they don't want and you know that. It is forcing someone to do something with their personal body against their will or against their health. Forced pregnancy is .N.O.T the same as forcing people to abide by simple traffic laws, it is in fact much worst. Don't simplify the realities of the situation simply in order to defeat it later. That is called a straw-man fallacy.

am I on the side of protecting a woman's right to own her own body and make decisions about it herself.

there is no "right to live." there never has been. The preamble to the constitution is not established law, it is simply an introduction.

it's not that hard of a concept. First, pregnancy is no guarantee that a child will be born. Even when you dismiss abortion, more than half of all pregnancies end naturally. Therefore, a fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T, merely potential human life. The potential exists but can be end at any moment for any reason and is usually outside of our control. The .Woman, however, exists! She is real, she is actual, she has overcome the uncertainty of potential. By placing value, dignity, and respect on the woman, we choose to acknowledge her independent existence and that her body is her own, it belongs to no one else but her during the span of her life from birth to death. Without acknowledging that fundamental fact of existence, you open the possibility that all human persons, not just women, can have their bodies used in ways that they do not agree with or wish. Simply, if you force women to donate the use of their bodies and organs during pregnancy, what is to keep the government from requiring donations from all of its citizens despite what the owners of those bodies and organs want and need.

It is a question of values. Do you value the woman who actually exists or do you value the fetus which only has the potential to one day exist independently?

And before anyone replies, no, you cannot value you them both equally since one is using the other's body as life support. They are not two separate intenties to where you can choose to value them both equally because they are attached to one another through the woman's actual body.

izzy you know in your heart whats right hun don't let them get you an all

I certainly understand where you are coming from! It can be easy to see both sides of this issue.

I have come to the conclusion that a fetus, (with the exception of a late term fetus-6mo , & i'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, either...) simply does not have more "value" than the woman carrying it. It is inside her body, and she is fully responsible for it. Part of that responsibility may mean ending it's existence, it may not, but either way, it is absolutely none of my business to tell her what to do.

If it is a moral dilemna, society should allow her to decide what her morals are, and she can either be happy with that or face the consequences later.

Regardless, I don't think legislating against abortion is going to solve any problems. Fifteen year olds get pregnant, birth control fails, and women get raped. Outlawing abortion is not going to stop these unwanted pregnancies from occurring.

"the prochoice person can think of the issue in terms of protecting the historically weak, vulnerable, and disenfranchised - namely the woman."

thats true

"actually, the difference between "prolife" and prochoice is where value is placed. Do you place more value on potential human life or actual, living, breathing, thinking, feeling, existing, independent human life. "

well you see I dont believe the unborn child is merely a potential human life, I do actually agree with biology that the unborn child is a living actual human being

and if the issue were merely value between a actual dependant less developed human life in the unborn child vs actual human life of a fully developed independant human life in the woman, then I would fully agree with a womans right to choose, the whole issue of the unborn child taking presidence over the woman is to me totally wrong. I can not deny if the mothers life is in danger that she should not be made to carry the child to term, that in itself is a blatant disregard for the life of the mother.

I have no quandry in that respect.

Also I dont have issue with the reproductive choice of a woman since I believe the child to be biologically speaking an actual human being I believe that the woman has already reproduced... The choice is no longer a matter of chosing to reproduce or not she has already reproduced

that issue is not a quandry to me.... It is quite clear to me that there is no further choice in that matter it has already been choosen willingly or accidently...There is no longer a choice in that regard and no concern for me in the issue of reproductive choice, the issue of abortion simply dosnt effect that right.

The problem that occurs for me is when the life of the mother isnt at risk when it isnt the value of a actual dependant, less developed human life (unborn childs life) vs the fully developed independant actual human life (mother)

its when its the actual human life of the dependant, less developed life (unborn child) vs the social, ecconomic, lifestyle choices ect of the actual independant fully develioped human life (mother)

i believe that any and every human being..I.E person (inc unborn human being) has the right to life but I also believe that every adult person should be free to exersize their own social ecconomic lifestyle choices....So can the social, ecconomic lifestyle choices of an independant actual human beings outweigh the right to life of dependant actual human being?

As an adult, a fully developed actual human being... Should I be allowed as a matter of a social, ecconomic, lifestyle choice to choose to abort (end the life of) my dependant, less developed 2 month old actual human life new born baby?

Or should I be allowed to end the life of my 2 month old new born disabled baby or rape baby?

This really is a quandry?

On the one side all actual human life is in my opinion deserving of the right to life (keep on living) yet it is also my opinion that adults have the right to make social, ecconomical and lifestyle choices for themselves without pressure from government or religious sources.

So then if I do believe in the right to life of all actual living human beings and I believe in the expert biological testimony that the unborn child is a actual living human being but I also believe an adult should be free to make social ecconomic and lifestyle choices for themselves where should my allegiance be?

With the unborn child who I believe has a right to life

or

with the right for adults to be free to make their own social,ecconomic and lifestlye choices which includes when in the case of the mother who wishes to end the life of her unborn child infringes upon the right to life of her unborn child.

I sure am stumped!

Is their no way that we could defend the right to life of the unborn child and the right for adults to make social, ecconomic and lifestyle choices?


Would it not be possible for us to restrict the right to exersize these choices over the right to life of the actual dependant human being (the unborn child) as we do with other actual dependant less developed human beings namely the dependant 2 month old baby?

Or would that consitute a massive infringement of our right to make social, ecconomic and lifestyle choices if that is the case then I think we should also try to remove other massive infringements imposed upon adults regarding other dependant, less developed actual human beings... Namely the new born child up until they are of an age where they can exist without any dependancy on adults and are fully developed and are at least developed past puberty.

"forced pregnancy"

jen the issue is not forced pregnancy.... The woman is already pregnant no one forced her to become pregnant... She is pregnant... Reproductive choice has nothing at all to do with the issue!

"it is forcing someone to do something with their personal body against their will or against their health."

like I have said jen I do believe in a choice in a life or death situation I have no quandry with that but I do agree it would mean forcing a person to do something (gestate) with their own body often against their will... That I grant is something I am well aware of but to abort would mean to remove the right to life of a human being and also their own bodily attomany too.

"don't simplify the realities of the situation simply in order to defeat it later."

i take your advice seriosuly but I also request that you dont over complicate the relalities of the situation simply in order to protect it...Surely that would be a straw man fallacy too!

For example "forced pregnancy" is over complicating the issue her pregancty is not forced it maybe an accidental pregnancy and could even be a planned pregancy but it is certainly not a forced pregnancy except perhaps in the case of rape and then we would have to know the motives of the rapist.

"am I on the side of protecting a woman's right to own her own body and make decisions about it herself. "

hey jen so am I that is why it is so hard but what about the unborn childs right to life and also her own bodily attonamy too?

"there is no "right to live." there never has been. "

so I can legally kill you, wow I didnt know that!

I am not talking about law here but what should be law, you say it is legal for me to kill you, that we have no right to life... Do you think that is how it should be?

"first, pregnancy is no guarantee that a child will be born. "

true

"even when you dismiss abortion, more than half of all pregnancies end naturally. Therefore, a fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T, merely potential human life. "

that again is over complicating the issue in order to protect it, I could say the same thing about born children in countries with high fatalities rates such as africa... Probably more than half perish before they reach adulthood before they reach a level of indepenancy and are fully developed would it be fair to say these children are at best "merely potential human life" your statement has to be a strawman fallacy!

"the potential exists but can be end at any moment for any reason and is usually outside of our control. "

again the same can be said of children in africa etc

"the .Woman, however, exists! She is real, she is actual, she has overcome the uncertainty of potential. "


but the unborn child is real, she is actual and is beyond merely potential otherwise their would be no pregnancy and no need for abortion again this has got to be another straw man!


"by placing value, dignity, and respect on the woman, we choose to acknowledge her independent existence and that her body is her own, it belongs to no one else but her during the span of her life from birth to death. "

i agree with placing value, dignity and respect on all human beings.

By placing value, dignity and respect on the unborn child we choose to acknowledge her dependant but actual existance and that her body is her own... It belongs to no one else but her durring the span of her life from conception unto death.

This is not deminishing the persons rights.... It is extending them.

"you open the possibility that all human persons, not just women, can have their bodies used in ways that they do not agree with or wish."

no not at all I am protecting them even from an earlier time in their life.

However please consider this by removing the right to life of unborn human beings you are jepordising the right to life of all human beings...Even you admit that you believe that no one has the right to live!


"simply, if you force women to donate the use of their bodies and organs during pregnancy, what is to keep the government from requiring donations from all of its citizens despite what the owners of those bodies and organs want and need."

no I am not doing that I am not forcing women to donate their bodys and organs durring pregnancy, that is just the natural process... It is not forced its just the way it is...Thats nature... If you have a problem with your gender I am sorry you were born a woman but that is the card you have been delt.

However if you permit your government to remove the right to life of the unborn child what is to stop the government from removing your right to life as you have already pointed out the right to life is already in a perilous situation.

"it is a question of values. Do you value the woman who actually exists or do you value the fetus which only has the potential to one day exist "

i value both the woman who actually exists and the unborn child who acttually exists

"no, you cannot value you them both equally since one is using the other's body as life support. They are not two separate intenties to where you can choose to value them both equally because they are attached to one another through the woman's actual body."

yes and I agree that in cases where the life of the mother is at real risk then I do beleve in choice but both have an actual body and both are human beings and both are alive and both have a right to life and both have a right to bodily attonomy

i do agree it is a question of values....It is actually a question on

the value of human life vs the value of social, ecconomical and lifestyle choices.

once more as i've seen so many other places, the terminology is making you (and others) confused.
The fetus is a human. I think a better term for jenn is "potential person", as that is something the fetus is not.



well, that's the issue, in my opinion. There isn't any more to it. Once you concede to this fact; that the woman is worth more than the fetus (or however you want to phrase it, if "worth more" doesn't sit quite right), there is no morally right way you can say "she cannot/should not abort if she's not going to die" or any other excuse. A right to one's body is the right to one's body.
You may not like a woman's reason to abort, but unless you want to remove her right to do as she pleases with her body, then you cannot tell her not to.



i understand what you are saying here; and something important to remember is that the quality of the mother's life is just as important to keep in mind as the potential quality of life of the fetus. It is no more fair to put a baby into an adoption agency than it is to put a woman through the discomfort of pregnancy and th epain of labor, combined with the potential 18 years of barely making the bills each month. A woman who gives the child up for adoption may also feel pain the rest of her life. People tend to focus only on protecting the fetus's future, but you also have to remember the mother's.



yes. They can. Because until we become independant from our mother's body (and I mean literally seperated, umbilical cord cut) we are dependant and thus lesser. Her desicions matter more than us.



no... If it's a newborn, then it is no longer connected to your body. It is seperate, it is its own identity. Someone, anyone else, can care for that baby now. It is no longer surviving soley off your body and nutrients. It is no longer occupying your womb.



same thing here. If they are born, they are "independant" from you, and you no longer have the right to do anything to them.



remember what you said way up there... You believe the mother is more worthy than the fetus. That's all that needs to be said. The fetus is totaly dependant on the mother; as it is not independant in any way shape or form, it has no rights. It is occupying your body as a guest, and guests can be kicked out.



that depends. I personally like the fact that social abortions are not allowed past a certain time marker, unless to save the woman's life or due to severe fetal anomalies.



we do; like I siad above, in many places abortion is illegal for social rasons after a certain stage of development.



as you can clearly see from above (again) such resrtictions already exist; and they harm no one.



jenn means pregnancy as the whole nine months up until birth. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant, in other words. And that's trying to control her body.



who's bodily autonomy? The fetus's? It has no bodily autonomy nor any rights thereof; because it is dependant as opposed to independant like a newborn. Abortion in no way removes the woman's bodily autonomy, so I think you meant the fetus'.



as stated above... "pregnancy" means the whole nine months. Outlawing abortion would mean that you would literally force a woman to remain pregnant, thus removing her rights to her body. I think you are meaning "forced conception", which of course, the woman has already concieved.



they don't have any because they are dependant, not autonomous.



no, murder is illegal. "right to life" is not the same thing as "right to not be killed". "right to not be killed" means no one has the right to invade your space and take away your life. "right to life" means that every single egg and sperm out there has a right to become a person. In my opinion, anyway. "right to not be killed" means you can't have your alrady-there rights removed. A fetus doesn't have removable rights... Since it has none at all.



please read my above comment.



no... It is a fact related to abortion and pregnancy. This is important bcause pro-lifers rant abut how every pregnancy is precious and no baby should ever die. But the female body by itself kills half of them... Horrible, right??



the african children are born.



actually it has not overcome the potential. Misscarriages happen at all stages of pregnancy. Until that child is born, there is no way to say "it will absolutely survive".



but you stated waaaaay up there that you think the woman has more right to control her body than the fetus has to survive. You contradict yourself.



which person, I ask again? The fetus is not a person. So, how is placing equal value on the fetus and mother extending the mother's rights? It is not. It is extending the fetus' rights, and possibly removing the mother's rights. That's not good.



protecting the fetus removes all rights from the woman.



not if you delcare that birth is one of the defining moments.



that can be ended by abortion or miscarriage



we don't have a problem with our gender, and I find that slightly offensive. We do have a problem with men assuiming and forcing us to be slaves and to not have reproductive control. We want to be able to have sex without the worry of a baby. Men can do it. Birth control helps. Abortion is a last resort that we have an absolute right to.



it never removed it since the fetus never had rights in the first place.



but you value the woman more; you said you did. Have you forgotten?

men have no reproductive control. They have to worry more than women because women can have the abortion, men are just plainly forced to fatherhood whether they are against it or not.

i am pro-choice in every aspect in my life I believe choice are there to stimulate the human mind.

As per jen she said we have to abide by traffic regulations and we dont we have a choice to break the rules or to follow them, it is completely our decision.

Now now nightangel, no man man is forced to be a father, it is a choice to be made, if he stay in the childs life and care for it he is a father if not he is a sperm donor.

A person has a right to life a human does not, therefore when you are born you become a human/person and that entitles you to rights.

You can choose to call it baby/child but in reality it is a human fetus, fetus regards to being dependant on the mother.

Why shouldnt people have right?

So why shouldnt people have rights when they are breathing,eating,thinking beings?

What does a fetus do?
Aboslutly nothing but grow withint the mothers uterus.

Why should someone be forced to carry a child against their will? Why should they?
Explain to me why a human being with rights should be forced to do something?

Choices are what makes the human species so interesting, without choice we would have never evolved, if you take a choice away you cause a ripple effect that can cause a negative impact so choose wisely?

If you believe in choice you have the right to choose!
If you believe in pro-life you do not

no they don't have to worry more. They don't have to worry about getting pregnant, or having to deal with those emotions that a woman has to deal with if she accidentally becomes pregnant.

You do realise the percentage of guys that will get a girl pregnant and leave her? That's one of the reasons so many girls need and want abortions; because they know their boyfriend isn't mature enough to deal with a baby.

and do you realize the percentage of women that get pregnant on purpose to trap the men they are after for?

sad to say the guy made a choice to have sex so hes not 100% innocent

Why did any of us even reply to this? I knew, knew, from the very depths of my being that izzy was not actually interested in fairly seeing both sides of this issue. In fact, all of both of the incredibly long diatribes are simply a way to reintroduce overemotional rhetoric, ignore basic human biology and anatomy in favor of beliefs, and to construct straw men fallacies.

The only difference between this and past attempts to do the same thing is that this one is at least couched in language that does not make izzy look completely insane, only marginally so.

Be honest izzy, you didn't post that because you actually are conflicted about anything. You posted it to reiterate the same position you've been preaching from in a way that people would, for once, take seriously because it wasn't complete demaghogic rhetoric as it has been in the past.

still the girl's desicion, even if it is a wrong one. And he has just as much a right to leave her in that situation as he does when she's accidentally pregnant; which is why abortion needs to be an option

i used to be staunchly pro-life; as far as I was concerned, foetuses are human beings so intentionally killing them (no matter what the circumstances, because that doesn't change them being human beings) was murderous and totally unethical. I changed my mind (i'm now very pro-choice) when I read that the concept of personhood is different to humanhood (foetuses are humans but not persons) and the parasitic nature of foetuses, I changed my mind.

I also read a philosophical theory which is something along the lines of "if you woke up physically attached to someone else via tubes and this other individual had to live and feed off your body, use your organs etc. For nine months (otherwise s/he would die), and you chose to have the wires removed before the nine months were up (resulting in his/her death) would you think that's fair?". I looked at this and realised that, yes, it was fair, and thus so is abortion (because this can be completely compared to abortion). Some pro-choicers say that it doesn't matter if the foetus is a person, because the woman's right to control her body comes first. Also, as foetuses, tumours, teeth, skin cells, and hair strands contain human dna, yet nobody is fighting for their 'fundamental right to life'.

The reasons why and how many times a woman aborts is totally not the point: her body, her right, her choice. Simple as. I strongly advocate contraception but should a woman choose not to wear it that's her choice, however silly it would be to do that.

On another note, I would never want my own child aborted. And that's why I am pro-choice.

Kypros

cute but incorrect. First, at least you admitted that this was simply a personal belief and not a fact. As we all know you can believe any insane, dishonest, or unfactual thing you want to and no one is going to stop you. Secondly, the fetus is only a potential human person (and you knew full well what I was actually saying) because there is .N.O guarantee that a pregnancy will result in an actual child. Statistically, more than half of all pregnancies end .N.A.T.U.R.A.L.L.Y. There cannot be an actual human person without a successful birth of some sort. You cannot have an independent, actual, right-bearing person without birth. Lastly, since you knew full well that I was talking about personhood, your attempts to be snarky are duly noted with the last part of your statement.

then what's the problem? .That is the essence of this entire issue.

if you want to warp language, go right ahead, but don't expect anyone else to agree with you or support you in your quest to do so.
and if the pregnancy ends early, naturally, as more than 50% of all pregnancies do? We don't, nor have we ever, considered a woman or a couple to have reproduced until a live birth has taken place. Miscarriages are not reproducing by any stretch of the imagination. Again, barring fate, genetics, illness, etc - reproduction can only take place once the couple has, in fact, successfully reproduced after a live birth. You do not claim that a mere pregnancy, over half of which end naturally, is reproduction because if it ends - and most do - there is no reproduction. This is as simple as I can make biology for you.

no, it's not. The woman either has a right to her own body or she does not. And if she does not, then equal protection under the laws of this nation goes into effect and either no one has the right to their own body or the argument is false and women reclaim their rights. You cannot stipulate that women take on the burden and risks of pregnancy without stipulating that everyone, including men, take on the same. Since that is not possible without forced organ donation, it is unlawful and unethical to expect or require women to assume the risks of pregnancy.

your personal beliefs are not facts. Fetus' are not persons.
your personal beliefs are not facts.
.Strawman .Fallacy. your over-simplification of a very serious issue is noted, again. However, this is more and far more important than deciding where you will shop today or what you will eat today. The basic human right (and yes, unlike the "right to life" it actually exists) to own your own body is at stake.
strawman fallacy, again. This is more than just about shopping, going out, or anything else you are trying to make it seem like.

fallacy, two of them in fact. First, as I have stated before, this is more than just about the woman's lifestyle choices. The question would have better been stated, "should I be allowed as a matter of owning my own body and deciding for myself what happens to it the choice to obtain an abortion and end the life of.."

and the second fallacy occurs when you change the debate. We have been talking about fetus', not newborns or other independent persons. Further, while fetus' are absolutely physically dependent upon the woman, newborn neonates are .S.O.C.I.A.L.L.Y dependent upon society. There is a huge difference between the two. anyone may take care of a neonate, it does not have to be the woman. But only the woman must sacrifice her body to the fetus. And it is her body, not simply her wallet or social life.

So, the actual statement should read: "should I be allowed as a matter of owning my own body and deciding for myself what happens to it the choice to obtain an abortion, thereby terminating the absolutely physically dependent, less developed fetus using my body and its resources?"

again, don't change the debate in the middle of it. We were talking about fetus', not actual children. If you would like to return to the actual debate, please feel free to do so.

fallacies.

fallacies. And, it sounds as though you made up your mind prior to all of this drivel. If that's the case, then why post it?


fallacies.


no, you're not and you're not a good actor either.


fallacy.


fallacy and medically/biologically dishonest.

fallacies.

you know, again, full well what I meant. You would be forcing her to remain pregnant, and thus donate her body and resources, against her will. Please stay on topic. Your attempts to muddle the debate are noted but not appreciated.

and in a pregnancy, this can occur at literally a seconds notice or no notice at all. The risk of death is inherent within each pregnancy. You cannot wait until the woman is actually dying before you grant her the right to her own body. That is sadistic and absurd.

please point out where I have done so and no, it would be a different fallacy altogether.

The fact of the matter is that you don't know the realities of pregnancy nor can any of us predict how any pregnancy will turn out. Because pregnancy .I.S so uncertain, you cannot force women to assume those risks against their will. They have to be willing to risk their health and life (and yes, many women never recover from their pregnancies) freely, not by state compulsion.

if you force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, you are forcing pregnancy on her. That is not a leap in logic.

no, you're not nor have you ever been.

there are laws against unlawful killing. It would be unlawful to kill me. However, that does not equate to a "right to life." legally, you do not have a "right to life." you may only have the right not to be unlawfully killed but that can be easily waved in a variety of different circumstances.

fallacy. I did not say that you have the legal right to kill me.

first, you should education yourself about logic and debate before you make claims about fallacies that you cannot substantiate. Secondly, my comments are biologic fact, over half of all pregnancies end naturally. That is not overcomplicating the issue, that is a fact of the issue. Thirdly, because it is fact and not merely an opinion, again you cannot compel women to assume the risks of continuing a pregnancy against their will. Fourthly, again, we were talking about fetus', not actual people in africa or anywhere else - please stay on topic.

except I was talking about fetus' and not actual children in africa. Please stay on topic.

the fetus has not overcome the uncertainty of potential. When the fetus does so, it is born. Before birth, there only exists the potential that a live birth will take place. After birth, there exists the actual. A pregnancy is a chance, potential, that a live human person will be born. It is not a guarantee. To say that the fetus is the same as the woman carrying it, is dishonest at the very best.

you don't respect women, .Actual human persons, by compelling them to continue pregnancies against their will and health. That is the very height of disrespect, actually.

this is where you are having the biggest problem. You cannot respect the rights, value, and dignity of women when you value the fetus, potential human persons, over women, actual human persons. Since one is physically dependant on the others body and resources, you cannot claim to respect women while simultaneously advocating that they not have a right to their own body upon implantation - the actual beginning of a pregnancy. To attempt to compel women against their will to assume the risks of pregnancy in order to respect the dependant and potential person - the fetus - is [b].N.O.T valuing or respecting women as independent human persons.

actually it .I.S diminishing the .O.N.L.Y person's rights in the situation - the woman. The .Woman, despite your beliefs and opinions, is the only .Actual person involved in a pregnancy. Therefore, to compel her to continue a pregnancy against her will, you are diminishing her rights to her own body. You cannot extend rights to a fetus without necessarily diminishing the rights of the woman. Because of they are physically attached to one another, and because the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body and resources, they cannot have equivalent rights. You cannot have equivalent rights to your life support, you either must have less rights due to your dependent status or you must have more rights which diminish those of the other. For example, let's say that during a wanted, planned pregnancy something goes wrong and the fetus needs interuterine surgery in order to survive. However, this surgery carries an even greater risk to the woman's health though it is not certain whether she will succumb to the risks or not. Since, in your fairy tale world, the fetus has extended rights - would the woman be forced to undergo this surgery even if she does not or cannot assume the risks to her health? Because the fetus and woman share a symbiotic relationship, they cannot have equal rights. To put it rather crudely, parasites cannot have equal rights as their hosts without putting their hosts in jeopardy.

Since anything can happen in any pregnancy and even healthy pregnancies often leave long term damage and effects on the woman's body, the woman must choose to assume those risks and sacrifices to her body voluntarily.

at the expense of the woman. Again, as demonstrated above, you cannot protect one without it being at the expense of the other. The relationship is so that this is the reality.

you don't have a right to live and neither do fetus'. This is a legal fact. You have the right not to be unlawfully killed but even that is open to interpretation depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The fetus does not have this protection because it is not a recognized person under the law. Only human persons can have rights.

however, biologic ability does not equate to a requirement. because women are human persons, they have a right to determine what happens to their own bodies. This right is not suspended when they become pregnant but it would have to be in order to give rights to the fetus.
see above. Even though I was born a woman, it does not mean that the government has a right to compel me to remain pregnant against my will and health. To do so would be unfair under the equal protection clause which states that I have equal protection under the law as men do. men are not required by the state to give or sacrifice their bodies or organs for any reason. Therefore, women are not required by the state to give or sacrifice their bodies or organs for any reason, including pregnancy. Again, if you want to demolish the equal protection clause, it leaves open the possibility of the state requiring organ donation or worse.

you do not, nor have you ever, have a "right to life." the preamble to the constitution is just that - a preamble - an .I.N.T.R.O.D.U.C.T.I.O.N. It is .N.O.T established law and it cannot be used to argue a case in a court of law. How many more times will you need to be told this before you understand it?

You only have a right not to be unlawfully killed. However, this is more of a right for your survivors to sue for damages than it is a right that you can exersize yourself. Further, depending on the specifics of the individual case, this right is easily waved. Therefore it is not inalienable. Your right to bodily autonomy, however, is. You can flat out refuse to give of your body even if the government requests it and you will be legally justified in doing so (most governments have penalties if you do but you can still exersize your right to bodily autonomy even in the face of those penalties).

you knew exactly what I meant. Your attempts to be cute and to parade your opinions as fact are, again, duly noted.

define real risk. .How injured, ill, diseased, or maimed does a woman have to be before you would consider it a real risk? also, can you tell me your fool proof way of deciphering which women will be at "real risk" and which will not?

Pregnancy is a gamble, it is not a guarantee. Anything can go wrong at any time and frequently, things go wrong very quickly. How wrong do they have to be before the woman retains the right to her own body?

neither have a "right to life" (see above), only one is a human person, and only one has bodily autonomy and that is the .W.O.M.A.N. your opinions are simply that on this matter.

Since the fetus' body is attached to the woman's body, the courts have ruled consistently that it is an appendage of the woman for the duration of the pregnancy. They had to rule this way because to place more value on the fetus or to give it rights that it's never had would cause harm to women, devalue women, and diminish their rights to their own body. Because even the presence of the fetus can cause harm to the woman without warning, the choice is left to the woman as to whether she wants to assume those risks or not. The woman has bodily autonomy because she .I.S autonomous. The fetus is attached, dependent, and is not autonomous until birth. Hence the very definition of the term "autonomy."

Hey jen why do you have to be so uptight.... Relax you will live longer.

"cute but incorrect. First, at least you admitted that this was simply a personal belief and not a fact."

what is a personal belief and what is a fact in this sentance?

"dont believe the unborn child is merely a potential human life, I do actually agree with biology that the unborn child is a living actual human being"


1 personal belief is the part where I say I dont believe the unborn child is merely a potential human life that is my personal belief however

2. It is also biological fact that the unborn child is just that a "child" and an actual human life not just a potential human life... It is a biological fact that the unborn child is a actual living human being.

It is both a personal belief and a fact!

"as we all know you can believe any insane, dishonest, or unfactual thing you want to and no one is going to stop you. Secondly, the fetus is only a potential human person "

are you saying you can believe your own insane dishonest and unfactual claim that the unborn child is merely a potential person and no one is going to stop you....Your probably right but no sane honest and fact loving person is going to listen or respect you.

"there is .N.O guarantee that a pregnancy will result in an actual child. Statistically, more than half of all pregnancies end .N.A.T.U.R.A.L.L.Y. "

jen please, please pause here before you read on.







Take a deep breath and relax...Calm, calm... I am going to tell you something and before you react check it out....










The sexual act has already resulted in an actual child otherwise there would be no pregnancy.



"statistically, more than half of all pregnancies end .N.A.T.U.R.A.L.L.Y"

statistically the vast majority of all human beings lives end naturally either by old age or by illness or yes even by miscarriage. Some are murdered others are murdered under lawful execution such as electric chair or abortion.

"there cannot be an actual human person without a successful birth of some sort."

that is a throw away statement that has no firm footing to stand... Its like saying a worm eats moons or something it is a totally abstract unfounded comment and I really do expect much more from you than this!

There cannot be an actual human person without a successful birth... Where in the hell did that statement come from what basis or foundadtion do you have for making it...Why birth...Why not an average grabe of c or above in sat tests in school?

Birth, the moving of a unborn child down a birth canal and out throguh the vagaina.....Does you idea of birth also constitute cesarian section the removal of the unborn child from the womb via surgery...What the f**k do either of these processes do that makes the unborn child an actual living human being a person... A person isnt a human being with rights... Ia person is a human being because all human beings have rights even the most cruel most awful of us.

"you knew full well that I was talking about personhood"

oh I am not talking about legal terms I couldnt give a s-hite about government or legal terms all I am concerned about is the real honest non political biological nature of the fetus... Personhood isnt granted by government or judges but by nature...Biologically speaking the unborn child is a human being a person granted personhood by his species.


Also btw I really didnt think you were talking about legal terms...Who really gives a toss about what the goverment says...Lets be fair your only using it because it supports your possiton if the law was in opposition to abortion you wouldnt use it... So you can use it all you want but if you think it has any real weight in the issue your very much mistaken.

The real issue is the real deal the actual nature of the unborn fetus not some ambigious legal term... Who gives a caca about legal terms when we are killing actual human beings?

".That is the essence of this entire issue. "

then I am all for choice.

"if you want to warp language"

what am I warping in this sentance?

"i dont have issue with the reproductive choice of a woman since I believe the child to be biologically speaking an actual human being I believe that the woman has already reproduced"

there is nothing at all warped in that sentance it is plain common sense from the biological nature of the unborn child..If the child exists which undoubtedly the child does then the woman has reproduced.

"don't expect anyone else to agree with you or support you in your quest to do so."

i have come to expect nothing from no one or support from anyone..What you or others agree or disagree with what you or others support or oppose I really couldnt give a toss.

"and if the pregnancy ends early, naturally, as more than 50% of all pregnancies do?"


knock knock is their anybody in there just nod if you can hear me is there anyone at home?

If a miscarige occurs or abortion is carried out...I.E the pregnancy ends early.... Then the child dies...Honestly can you not even work that out?

"we don't, nor have we ever, considered a woman or a couple to have reproduced"

yes we do, do we not extend our sympathies to the mother who has just lost her child through a miscariage do we not feel sorry for the father and the family?

"miscarriages are not reproducing by any stretch of the imagination."

no a miscarige is the natural end to the life of a child conception fertalisation is the moment of reproduction.

"again, barring fate, genetics, illness, etc - reproduction can only take place once the couple has, in fact, successfully reproduced after a live birth. "

here you go again with this birth sh-ite, your nuts totally moon flea your comment is just so totally absurd.

"you do not claim that a mere pregnancy, over half of which end naturally, is reproduction because if it ends - and most do - there is no reproduction. "

no I dont... Pregnancy is the name given to the period of time of the gestation period ... Pregancy is not reproduction its incubation.

Life ends no ifs no buts, no halfs all life ends at some point be that in the womb or in a retirement village life ends... Pregnancy ends only after the baby is born or if the life ends or is ended

conception/fertalisation is the moment of reproduction not pregnancy if pregnancy ends then the new life has died not that is was never produced and not that the woman had not re-produced. This is as simple as I can make biology for you.

"the woman either has a right to her own body or she does not. "

she does but is it not valid to restrict the rights (not remove but restrict) the rights a woman has over her own body if those rights were infringing on the rights of another human being?

"if she does not, then equal protection under the laws of this nation goes into effect and either no one has the right to their own body or the argument is false and women reclaim their rights. "

no one wants to take away a womans right over her body that is propaganda what it is required is the restriction of only a small number of her rights over a small period of time i.E the gestation period.... Two rights.. The right to order a person to carry our a medical/chemical or surgical attack on the unborn child in order to kill the child in order to end the pregancy... And the direct attack on the unborn child by herself for the same reasons these are the only rights I would percieve is needed to be in order to protect the unborn child... So long as the killin of the unborn child is legaly considered homicide and punishable by life imprisonment then then I fully agree with legalised abortion for any reason and at any stage.

"you cannot stipulate that women take on the burden and risks of pregnancy without stipulating that everyone, including men, take on the same. "

your an fool, an absolute fool but for the sake of fairness to you I do believe that a man should be lawfully required to take on the burden and risk of pregnancy as much as they can naturally speaking.

"since that is not possible without forced organ donation, it is unlawful and unethical to expect or require women to assume the risks of pregnancy. "

why is it unethical or unlawful?

"fetus' are not persons."

yes they are...Thats a fact

however your right in that the government dosnt grant these persons.... Personhood.

"i also believe that every adult person should be free to exersize their own social ecconomic lifestyle choices"

how is my personal beleif a strawman fallacy... Its like saying I believe every human being has the right to eat cheese is a strawman... Its not a strawman its a personal belief.

"the basic human right (and yes, unlike the "right to life" it actually exists) to own your own body is at stake. "

the most fundemental human right is the right to life (continue to live) without it you dont have the right to your own body...Think about that!


" have stated before, this is more than just about the woman's lifestyle choices. "

it is the only area where I have a quandry the rest of the issue is pretty much black and white to me.

"the question would have better been stated, "should I be allowed as a matter of owning my own body and deciding for myself what happens to it the choice to obtain an abortion and end the life of.."

and end the life of the child.... Erm that is another issue that I dont have a quandry over...No the right to stab myself in the leg in order for the knife to go through my leg and into the head of the man crouched behind me is not a legitimate bodily right.... I simply see it this way...Abortion should remain legal for women to be legalally allowed control over their body...However the intentional killing of an unborn child should be punishable by life in prison... So your legallly allowed to have an abortion thus your freedom over your body is protected but at the same time the intentional killing of the unborn child is prohibited and punishable by law thus protecting the right to life of the unborn child and so as you can see that is not a quandry for me... I am favour of legal abortion its the right to life of the child I wish to protect not take away your right to an abortion

no dear men can't just leave a woman like that. He has to pay child support and he has to be a father. Why do women have abortion then? Cause they don't want to be mothers right? They don't want to care for the child and they know that if it exists they will have to care for them. So it is exactly like that for men. If the baby exists they are not going to ignore it, they know they have to take care of them. It is their son. If he leaves the child he is going to be stamped as a jerk/bad father.

no. They are not.

Y.O.U are a person. I am a person. Everyone posting on this forum aside from the spam bots are, amazingly, people.

It has been gone over and over and over again, what it is that makes us people. Physical independance; the ability to think, comprehend, to feel emotion; to be sentient, to be aware of our own existance. Those things make us people. Once you have those things, you remain a person unless your brain is thoughroully injured (coma, severe trauma, etc). When your brain can no longer function, you are no longer a person.

You are always a human, from before you are concieved. But a sperm is not a person. An ovum is not a person. A blastocyst is not a person. And embryo is not a person. This offspring is not a person until its brain is capable of doing these things.

A born baby is not sentient. Seriously, it's really not. Babies go through several stages of self-discovery, where the go "hey... The moving object is connected to me..." - their feet and hands. That's why they stick them in their mouths, they are learning about these mysterious floating objects. Sentiency comes later.

Look jenny bottom line is you know we pro-lifers value the life of the fetus. We like to be that way and we are not going to change. People from india think we americans live in the dinosaur era because we eat meat. They value all kinds of life including the animals. So for them not only the life of the fetus is valuable but the life of the animals is also valuable. Are they incorrect? Animals are not persons, they are not even human beings that is the fact. But they believe it is wrong to kill them. Now you leave us alone cause we are not going to change minds that because the fetus is not a person it has no value. For us pro-lifer they do have value you hear me and we don't want to be like you thinking they are not valuable.

i'm sorry; but do you actually know whether or not abortion is illegal in india? I personally would not use india as an example of a society and culture that is capable of saying anything about america. The caste system, a horrible, ancient economic system that damns any child born in the lower class to remain there forever; the continuing abuse to the "untouchables" caste - the lowest of the low - these criminal offenses against humanity make it my opinion that just because indians dont eat cows (they do eat other meat, by the way. Like pigs. And chickens.) doesn't mean they have "value for all animals" or "all life". They are also socially oppresive towards women. They really, really have no right to be used as a "good" social example.