Abortion

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because we have rights. A person is something that has rights. We stil don't know why we have rights, or why we deserve them and others don't. It isn't clear, but we know that you and I fit into the category of "person" and a cow doesn't.

It seems you are asking me for the reason we are different than cows. That's the very question I've been asking all of you guys.

Alright. And no, I'm not asking why we are different than cows, but I know they are animals, thus they cannot possibly have the same rights as us, like, civil marriage, for instance. But I do think animals deserves their own rights, too. That's aside.

Why is abortion considered murder to you?

Originally posted by Utsukushii
The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard states that the fetus begins to have rights at 22 weeks.

And I agree with that (as long as the mother is not in danger), it shouldn't take 5 months to decide to whether you want an abortion or not.

But why does it get rights at 22 weeks and not sooner or later?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Alright. And no, I'm not asking why we are different than cows, but I know they are animals, thus they cannot possibly have the same rights as us, like, civil marriage, for instance. But I do think animals deserves their own rights, too. That's aside.

Why is abortion considered murder to you?

I never said abortion was murder. I said it might be murder, since we don't know if what we are killing should be a person or not. So I would argue, that since it's a massive gray area, we shouldn't take the risk.

Because at 5 months, a fetus has a chance of surviving out of the womb

a 1 year old wouldn't survive on its own either...

legal abortions aren't really all that safe either...

Originally posted by truejedi
legal abortions aren't really all that safe either...

how do you mean?

Originally posted by inimalist
a 1 year old wouldn't survive on its own either...

I didn't say on its own now did I. I said OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB

Originally posted by truejedi
legal abortions aren't really all that safe either...

Safer than the back alley

Originally posted by Utsukushii
I didn't say on its own now did I. I said OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB

explain the difference please

the logic seems to be that because the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother can kill it

Originally posted by inimalist
explain the difference please

the logic seems to be that because the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother can kill it

If it can stay alive outside of the womb, adoption can be an consideration.

i still dont see how that makes it any different

Originally posted by inimalist
the logic seems to be that because the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother can kill it

As cruel as it sounds, basically yes. It's her body, It's her choice

so, seriously, if a baby is 3 days old... can the mother just abandon it, though it will die? What is the difference of being alive and functioning inside the womb, and being alive and functioning outside of it? nothing magical happens at birth to fundamentally change the fetus into a child, it is just a location change.

And as for the other comment: Look at the long-term health affects than an abortion has on the body of a mother.

Originally posted by truejedi
so, seriously, if a baby is 3 days old... can the mother just abandon it, though it will die? What is the difference of being alive and functioning inside the womb, and being alive and functioning outside of it? nothing magical happens at birth to fundamentally change the fetus into a child, it is just a location change.

And as for the other comment: Look at the long-term health affects than an abortion has on the body of a mother.

Well, it can't abandon it and leave it to die, I do believe in many places they can however give them into proper care and abandon them.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
As cruel as it sounds, basically yes. It's her body, It's her choice

Truejedi nailed it. Why can the mother do whatever she wants with the fetus based off of nothing more than the fetus needing her to live? The child still needs the mother to survive even after birth, but we would not say she has any right to harm the child then, now would we?

you mean inimalist nailed it

Originally posted by inimalist
you mean [b]inimalist nailed it [/B]

omg_smilie

Oh, right.

Originally posted by TacDavey
inimalist nailed it. Why can the mother do whatever she wants with the fetus based off of nothing more than the fetus needing her to live? The child still needs the mother to survive even after birth, but we would not say she has any right to harm the child then, now would we?

Fixed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said abortion was murder. I said it might be murder, since we don't know if what we are killing should be a person or not. So I would argue, that since it's a massive gray area, we shouldn't take the risk.

But you think abortion is bad, am I correct? You are against it, aren't you? What are the risks?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
But you think abortion is bad, am I correct? You are against it, aren't you? What are the risks?

What I said. I think there is a risk that we are killing children. It is possible the fetus is a child, and we have not yet been able to show that it isn't. It isn't an acceptable risk if you ask me.

A fetus will be a child.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
A fetus will be a child.

The question is WHEN does a fetus become a child?