Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


View Poll Results: Would you still support abortion if you were convinced that abortions kill a Child?
Yes, I probably would 5 55.56%
No, I probably would not 4 44.44%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Thanks Tree128Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 30th, 2016, 07:40 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Aren't we already IN the abortion forum?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 07:46 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
i do believe in individual rights so even if you could demonstrate that a bundle of cells demanded rights you would then be subject to prove that those rights outweighed the rights of the host, this is the core of your argument. one that i cannot see a way to get passed.

even if i could be convinced of everything that swirls inside of your head, ideas and beliefs that i in no way wish to take away from you. there is no way you could convince me that the collective has the "right" to trump the individual therefor the host has the right to expel the unwanted growth from their body. IMO it is irrelevant to how that growth started. if the host wants to rid itself of it that is their choice. if you don't own the rights to your own skin, then in reality what in this world can you truly own.

we could get all philosophical about when and where life begins and bring it all the way down to molecules spinning around if we wanted to but that is what you have HD and wolf for
in general terms i agree with you. but if a woman has been pregnant for 8 months, knows she is pregnant, she has kind of given permission by default for the "growth" to continue living there. her inactivity becomes consent for the foetus to remain. if she suddenly says "you know, i dont really want to be pregnant any more, i want an abortion" i think its reasonable to reply "you had plenty of time to make that decision and you did nothing, that horse has bolted. if you dont want to be a mother thats fine, here is an adoption agency. but you have been saying "yes" to this foetus for 8 months now, its got to the point the foetus has a say too".

philosophically this is one of those grey areas where the principles are hard to sort out. if one has the right to own ones own skin, doesnt that apply to an 8 month old foetus too? but how can you make that work? there isnt an answer that satisfies everyone.
Thanks from Nwolfe35 and kbear
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 07:48 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
I think I would rather start a new one for the 'interview' - even if others will be able to add comments if that's ok.
ok, go for it.
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 07:49 PM   #44
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
i do believe in individual rights so even if you could demonstrate that a bundle of cells demanded rights you would then be subject to prove that those rights outweighed the rights of the host, this is the core of your argument. one that i cannot see a way to get passed.
You may not see a way to get past that 'conflict' but apparently the Supreme Court sees it the other way around. Their words (when deciding Roe) we that "once it can be established that a child (human fetus) is a person - the arguments FOR abortion become near IMPOSSIBLE to make." and the pro abortion lawyer in that case (Sarah Weddington) agreed.

Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
even if i could be convinced of everything that swirls inside of your head, ideas and beliefs that i in no way wish to take away from you. there is no way you could convince me that the collective has the "right" to trump the individual therefor the host has the right to expel the unwanted growth from their body.
I understand your position. BUT! Do you see how the Constitution (as it is currently written) would not allow for that? That is - (as the Supreme Court said) once the fetus is declared a "person" they become Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
IMO it is irrelevant to how that growth started. if the host wants to rid itself of it that is their choice.
I believe the counter argument to that will be along the lines that our laws have already drawn against entrapment. The laws that say you can't lure someone into a position against yourself and then claim the right to kill them in an act of "self defense."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
if you don't own the rights to your own skin, then in reality what in this world can you truly own.
That's a fair point but you don't seem to consider that the child about to be aborted has skin and rights too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
we could get all philosophical about when and where life begins and bring it all the way down to molecules spinning around if we wanted to but that is what you have HD and wolf for
HD & Wolf?
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 07:55 PM   #45
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
in general terms i agree with you. but if a woman has been pregnant for 8 months, knows she is pregnant, she has kind of given permission by default for the "growth" to continue living there. her inactivity becomes consent for the foetus to remain. if she suddenly says "you know, i dont really want to be pregnant any more, i want an abortion" i think its reasonable to reply "you had plenty of time to make that decision and you did nothing, that horse has bolted. if you dont want to be a mother thats fine, here is an adoption agency. but you have been saying "yes" to this foetus for 8 months now, its got to the point the foetus has a say too".

philosophically this is one of those grey areas where the principles are hard to sort out. if one has the right to own ones own skin, doesnt that apply to an 8 month old foetus too? but how can you make that work? there isnt an answer that satisfies everyone.
i completely agree though i don't feel that laws are needed to restrict them we just need to allow the medical community the right to refuse any abortion at any time. i consider drs in general to be logical people and for the most part would tell a woman to kick rocks if she were about to pop, and be shunned for preforming it otherwise
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 08:00 PM   #46
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
ok, go for it.
The interview thread has been started here.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 08:02 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
HD & Wolf?
i was waiting for you to star a new thread, but here goes.

Quote:
You may not see a way to get past that 'conflict' but apparently the Supreme Court sees it the other way around. Their words (when deciding Roe) we that "once it can be established that a child (human fetus) is a person - the arguments FOR abortion become near IMPOSSIBLE to make." and the pro abortion lawyer in that case (Sarah Weddington) agreed.
i quite agree. and for this reason i dont support late term abortions, i think once you are in the third trimester the term abortion no longer applies. in the third trimester, the term "unborn child" is accurate, and abortion at this stage is better called euthanasia.

Quote:
I understand your position. BUT! Do you see how the Constitution (as it is currently written) would not allow for that? That is - (as the Supreme Court said) once the fetus is declared a "person" they become Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
thats one for the lawyers, two individuals are equally entitled to opposite things, at the expense of the other. i dont have the answer to this. which is hard because there comes a time when an answer is needed.

Quote:
I believe the counter argument to that will be along the lines that our laws have already drawn against entrapment. The laws that say you can't lure someone into a position against yourself and then claim the right to kill them in an act of "self defense."
maybe. that will depend on how entrapment laws are worded, which will vary between different jurisdictions.

Quote:
That's a fair point but you don't seem to consider that the child about to be aborted has skin and rights too.
yes. once in the third trimester
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 08:05 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
The interview thread has been started here.
your other thread looks like a specific one between the two of you. i dont want to intrude onto your debate, nor put words in Nwolfe35s mouth.
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 08:06 PM   #49
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i was waiting for you to star a new thread, but here goes.



i quite agree. and for this reason i dont support late term abortions, i think once you are in the third trimester the term abortion no longer applies. in the third trimester, the term "unborn child" is accurate, and abortion at this stage is better called euthanasia.



thats one for the lawyers, two individuals are equally entitled to opposite things, at the expense of the other. i dont have the answer to this. which is hard because there comes a time when an answer is needed.



maybe. that will depend on how entrapment laws are worded, which will vary between different jurisdictions.



yes. once in the third trimester
I don't want to respond to these here right now. Doing so will totally ruin the chance to ask one of the questions that I want to ask in the interview on the other thread.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 08:07 PM   #50
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
your other thread looks like a specific one between the two of you. i dont want to intrude onto your debate, nor put words in Nwolfe35s mouth.
I thought you said your views were essentially the same.

So, once the interview is under way, you can add your comments then as you see fit.
Chuz Life is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
abortion, child, chuz life, proponents, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 03:06 PM
10-Year-Old Rape Victim Denied Abortion: The Horrific Realities of Abortion Bans LongWinded Abortion 32 December 7th, 2015 01:02 PM
Proponents Say They Have Signatures to Put Pot Legalization to a Vote in Calif. intangible child Money and Finance 0 December 14th, 2009 06:43 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.