The Problem with Legalized Abortion

Do they "clearly define" what they consider to be murder, though?Many anti-abortionists make a distinction that abortion is permissible in the case of rape. How does the identity of the sperm donor make it not murder?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

If anti-abortionists have any genuine concern for the "distraught mother", why draw the line at rape? Is a fourteen-year-old with an unplanned pregnancy less distraught than a rape victim? How do you measure the level of distress? How distraught does she have to be for abortion to be morally permissible?And feel free to answer the question I asked: How does the woman's level of distress make abortion cease to be murder?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

And you still haven't answered the question: How does the woman's level of distress make abortion cease to be murder? How does the identity of the sperm donor make it not murder?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

When the birth certificate is issued.If anti-abortionists were honest, they'd be pushing for birth certificates to be replaced by conception certificates - and for death certificates to be issued for every miscarriage and failed implantation. They'd be pushing for a "proper Christian burial" for all of them, too. How many church cemeteries have a section for them?Be honest. Anti-abortionists aren't in favour of "rights" for the fetus.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

If you claim to be hungry and then sit in front of a pile of food and don't eat, we can conclude that your claim is insincere.Anti-abortionists don't spend a lot of time (or any time) working for the "rights" of the fetus. They spend all their time working to abridge the rights of the woman. If they really wanted to protect the fetus, they'd be working to make it a citizen at conception. Then any other protection would be redundant.If you were honest, you'd have an honest response instead of the hyperbolic "That's the silliest thing I've ever heard..."Edited by Ringo, : Reumoved readundant characters.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

I didn't say a word about what they "should" be doing. I predicted what they would do if their claimed intentions were sincere.A hungry man would eat if he could. A tired man would rest if he could. A generous man would give to the poor if he could.A man who claims a fetus is a person would push for full rights for it if he was sincere. I use the same logic there. A man who wants to control a woman's body would push for laws to let him do so.If you think those things would only happen in "dreamland", by all means tell us what hungry men, tired men, generous men and controlling men do in your world.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Irrelevant.The question asked was, "How is human distinguished from non-human?" and the answer I gave was, "When it has papers." The state - virtually every state - recognizes a human being at birth , not before. I'm saying that if anti-abortionists were honest about every conceptus being a human being, they would be pushing for them to be treated as human beings by the state from the point of conception. One of the most important ways the state recognizes its human beings is by registering them six ways from Sunday. Push for registering every conception and I might take your claimed motivations seriously. So, if you can come up with one or two areas of a woman's life that aren't controlled, that proves there are no areas that are controlled?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Exactly. You could stop the killing instantly by changing the law. It's automatically illegal to kill citizens, isn't it? So why not simply confer citizenship at conception? Not at all. I'm showing that there's an easy route you could use to protect the fetus - just make it a citizen. Your refusal to follow that route - and your refusal to even take it seriously - certainly weakens your argument. Exactly. And there's nothing illegal about pushing for fetal citizenship, is there? So why aren't you doing that? Don't worry. For you to call me stupid would be a compliment. I'd probably use it as my signature. That's what I'm saying. Either way the law has to change. If you succeed in making all abortions illegal, the next logical step is to give every fetus full citizenship from conception. So why not change that law instead of the abortion laws? Granting full citizenship at conception would automatically short-circuit any future attempts to kill those precious citizens.It would be well with you to figure that out instead of whining about how little I care.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

That seems to be the logical extension of the fetus-is-human position.Small wonder that anti-abortionists don't like to test their position logically.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

The point here is that the fetus has never had the status of a person - and it's rather telling that anti-abortionists aren't trying to change that. In fact, the idea has been ridiculed by both you and Nemesis_Juggernaut in this thread.I'll say it again: if anti-abortionists were really interested in the welfare of the fetus, they would be pushing for person-status for the fetus. Since they don't seem to be doing that, the whole fetus-is-a-person scenario has little credibility.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

It would have been nice if you had posted that earlier instead of calling it a "dreamland idea" in Message 118 when I suggested it. But why take it in steps? Slaves weren't emancipated in steps, were they? They weren't still slaves on Tuesdays and Thursdays, were they?If a case can be made that a fetus is a person, why not do it all in one step? Why not push for a Personification Declaration?Passing laws for better treatment of slaves is just an excuse for the continuatuion of slavery. Giving the fetus limited "rights" is as much as admitting it shouldn't have full rights.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

There's a difference between bestowing status and taking it away. To get a driver's license, you have to be of a certain age and demonstrate a certain level of driving proficiency. Once you have it, you have to do something pretty bad to lose it.In this thread, we're talking about the requirements for receiving a "person license". The circumstances for losing it are entirely different. The question I've been asking is why are they pushing for partial rights? Why not push for full rights from the moment of conception?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Exactly. All kinds of compromises were used to preserve the institution of slavery. We're not just talking about saving fetuses. We're talking about saving fetuses by giving them full human status - i.e. by giving them full citizenship at conception. That would automatically save all of them without any need for compromises.The question remains: Why aren't anti-abortionists going for full emancipation of the fetus?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Society requires parents to take care of their children to the age of majority. I don't see anything fundamentally different in that "host" relationship.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Then the question becomes: Why would that law fail to be passed? Because it it's only possible to fool legislators in small steps?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels