Prager University on Abortion.

[Psychic Missile]

Here are three facts to consider:

1) At the moment of conception, an organism is formed that meets even the most conservative scientific definition of life.
2) This life has human DNA so it is human life.
3) This human life is not guilty of any wrongdoing so it is innocent human life.

So the question becomes, does a woman's right over her own body supersede the innocent human life's right to life?

And it's hard to argue that the fetus is some sort of hostile invader who exists against the woman's will since the overwhelming majority of pregancies are the result of two people willingly engaging in an act that has a very good chance of causing the woman to become pregnant.

My answer to that question is yes.

People do many activities that have a risk of something bad happening. That doesn't mean they want that bad thing to happen.

[Jedidiah]

If a woman is getting an abortion, then obviously the fetus is uninvited. A body's response doesn't supersede the decisions of the person, otherwise you're arguing against the immorality of rape.

Not obvious at all since the woman in almost every case did indeed invite the fetus into here body by default. To say otherwise is not only not obvious, but ignorant.

You don't understand the argument. We are taking about someone's bodily rights. To violate those rights, to alter someone's body against their will, is wrong.

Yet it is alright to over rule one bodies rights to life, for the simple convenience of the mother who took action to invite the fetus into her womb.

[Psychic Missile]

Not obvious at all since the woman in almost every case did indeed invite the fetus into here body by default. To say otherwise is not only not obvious, but ignorant.

If a woman does not have sex with the goal of getting pregnant, she did not "invite" the fetus into her body, and even if she did, it is her body, and if she decides she no longer wishes to grant that "invitation", she can void it.

Yet it is alright to over rule one bodies rights to life, for the simple convenience of the mother who took action to invite the fetus into her womb.

Sure.

[Teallaura]

Are you making a legal argument or a moral argument? If you are making a legal argument, you've already lost. Abortion is legal. If you are making a moral argument, then constitutional law and legal personhood are irrelevant.

If a woman is getting an abortion, then obviously the fetus is uninvited. A body's response doesn't supersede the decisions of the person, otherwise you're arguing against the immorality of rape.

Plessy.

Brown.

Only fools believe in 'all Court decisions are correct'. Roe stinks worse than Plessy ever did. Bad decisions can and should be overturned.

Partial birth abortion was legal too. It isn't any longer. The legal fight is far from over.

[rogue06]

Plessy.

Brown.

Only fools believe in 'all Court decisions are correct'. Roe stinks worse than Plessy ever did. Bad decisions can and should be overturned.

Partial birth abortion was legal too. It isn't any longer. The legal fight is far from over.

I'm guessing that you meant Scott (as in Dred Scott v. Sandford) rather than Brown -- of course I could be wrong.

[Teallaura]

No, Brown reverses Plessy which had established 'separate but equal'. Dred Scott was stupid but it established that a slave was still property even once in a state that outlawed slavery. It was 'overturned' by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War.

[Teallaura]

Sorry. I misunderstood. I intentionally mentioned Brown because it reversed Plessv,. The juxtaposition was intended.

[Darth Ovious]

A cat can enter you home against your will. It's weird that you don't think that a benign concept. There are many ways of removing a cat from your home without killing it. There is no way of removing a fetus from a woman's body without killing it.

If there is no way to remove a fetus from a body without killing it then I wonder why pregnancy is not unworkable and why we are not an instinct species.

You don't understand the argument. We are taking about someone's bodily rights. To violate those rights, to alter someone's body against their will, is wrong.

You do not automatically get rights to do whatever you want with your body. We have laws that prohibit you from doing things with your body. We have drug laws, prostitution laws, drink driving laws, etc, etc. Heck we even have laws for child support. Technically speaking a law that requires you to pay child support forces someone to pay earnings, which they have earned using their own body, to their ex-partner. Either you must think paying child support is wrong then or you actually justify my argument if you think that paying child support is necessary.

If you can be forced to fill out tax returns using your own body and time then why is it a big deal if you're prohibited from killing a human life?

[Darth Ovious]

If a drunk driver does not drunk drive with the goal of running someone over, she did not "invite" the death of that pedestrian, and even if she did, it is her body, and if she decides she no longer wishes that "death", she can change her mind.

Actions have consequences and you should be responsible for those consequences. You can't just deny them because you want to.

[Mountain Man]

My answer to that question is yes.

People do many activities that have a risk of something bad happening. That doesn't mean they want that bad thing to happen.

That's a logic fail right there. If you concede that a fetus is an innocent human life that deserves legal protection then you can't very well turn around and claim that murdering it is justified just because a woman doesn't want something "bad" to happen. Also, begging the question that the creation of innocent human life is a bad thing in and of itself.

There's a reason I call you Idiotic Missile.

[Darth Ovious]

All credit goes to this blog

http://personhoodfairy.blogspot.co.u...ood-fairy.html

Personhood Fairy 3.jpg

[Psychic Missile]

Plessy.

Brown.

Only fools believe in 'all Court decisions are correct'. Roe stinks worse than Plessy ever did. Bad decisions can and should be overturned.

Partial birth abortion was legal too. It isn't any longer. The legal fight is far from over.

It may become illegal in the future, but for now it is legal, so any legal arguments that it shouldn't be allowed are pointless.

[Psychic Missile]

If there is no way to remove a fetus from a body without killing it then I wonder why pregnancy is not unworkable and why we are not an instinct species.

???

You do not automatically get rights to do whatever you want with your body. We have laws that prohibit you from doing things with your body. We have drug laws, prostitution laws, drink driving laws, etc, etc. Heck we even have laws for child support. Technically speaking a law that requires you to pay child support forces someone to pay earnings, which they have earned using their own body, to their ex-partner. Either you must think paying child support is wrong then or you actually justify my argument if you think that paying child support is necessary.

If you can be forced to fill out tax returns using your own body and time then why is it a big deal if you're prohibited from killing a human life?

You don't know what bodily rights are. You are arguing against a position you don't understand. Bodily rights involve altering someone's body against their will.

Actions have consequences and you should be responsible for those consequences. You can't just deny them because you want to.

I have heard the hypothesis that people who are anti-abortion don't really believe that abortion is murder, they just want to make sure women who have sex face consequences. This argument doesn't help dispel that hypothesis.

[Psychic Missile]

That's a logic fail right there. If you concede that a fetus is an innocent human life that deserves legal protection then you can't very well turn around and claim that murdering it is justified just because a woman doesn't want something "bad" to happen. Also, begging the question that the creation of innocent human life is a bad thing in and of itself.

There's a reason I call you Idiotic Missile.

It is possible for a woman and her fetus to both have rights while also allowing for abortion because the mother's right to her body supersedes the fetus's right to life. You already accept that sometimes one person's rights supersede another's. We have limitations on all of our rights for this reason.

The creation of innocent human life is a bad thing to a woman who that life resides in against her will.

You should be more careful when calling out logical fallacies and saying someone is an idiot.

[QuantaFille]

Bodily rights involve altering someone's body against their will.

Abortion is the act of deliberately harming someone's body against their will. You are contradicting yourself when one minute you say it's OK to harm someone else against their will, and the next you say it's not OK. Pregnancy, in the vast majority of cases, does no harm to the mother. Abortion does tremendous harm to at least the child. When deciding whose rights supersede the other's, the option that causes the least harm must be chosen. To do otherwise is absurd and immoral by ANY definition of morality.
In cases of rape, violence should not be answered with more violence, especially when the violence enacted in response to the initial violence is perpetrated against an innocent third party. You might as well go murder a random homeless person in response to having your home broken into. It makes just as much sense. Rape victims must receive counselling and be given the option to put the child up for adoption, absolutely. Coming to terms with what happened and being given a chance to heal emotionally is critical. Killing the aforementioned innocent third party is detrimental to healing and many rape victims regret doing so. She shouldn't be forced to keep the child of course, especially if she isn't in a situation where she could care for one but many DO keep the child and don't regret it. Encouraging violence in response to violence never got anyone anywhere.

I have heard the hypothesis that people who are anti-abortion don't really believe that abortion is murder, they just want to make sure women who have sex face consequences. This argument doesn't help dispel that hypothesis.

No, we just want women to be responsible adults about it. I have an idea. How about women who don't want to BE pregnant, don't GET pregnant in the first place? Use contraception, and/or don't sleep around. It's not rocket surgery. The CDC's stats on abortion say that in the vast majority of abortions, the mother was either not using any contraception at all or was using it inconsistently or sporadically. Does that sound like the behaviour of a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant? She invited the child, whether intentionally or not. Fact. In the cat analogy, it's like filling your house with open cans of tuna and opening all the doors and windows, and then shooting the cats who come in. BUT, the cats will eventually leave the house on their own (probably after the tuna runs out), and the child will eventually exit the womb on his/her own as well. No killing is necessary in either case. Pregnancy isn't permanent.