would you?

why are all of my comments from him

I appreciate what you're saying. Thank you for defending the rights of some 170 million American women.

my pleasure

ah yes, millions of unborn children don't have the right to life?

The way I see it, they aren't so much "unborn" as "potential". I've had a miscarriage -- I really do have experience with this issue.

they still have the right to life.

Well, that's getting into the territory of the guy who wants your kidney. He has the right to life, but how much of YOU does he get to have in order to have that right?

Explain this to me, I don't usually read other's comments

The fetus is not an independently viable living organism. It needs the blood, bones, placenta, et cetera of the mother to survive. It doesn't eat and excrete.

So, if a potentially living person needed your organs to survive, do they have a right to them? Without your consent?

So if a 3year old needs it's parents to survive they can kill it?

Nice slippery slope strawman argument. A 3 year old can breathe and eat and excrete without using anyone else's organs. So can a newborn for that matter, although they are very dependent.

I have a feeling you have not thought through how emotionally devastating many of these scenarios are for the women involved. Have you listened to women about how the decision feels to them?

Here are some stories, not slanted one way or the other. I hope you can see the women through these tiny windows as the diverse individuals they are.

https://nymag.com/news/features/abortion-stories-2013-11/

sorry for late reply, but yes. i know how devastating it is for a woman, but all i want to say is that the child's life is equal in value to the woman's life, and even if a woman's life is devastated a child shouldn't have to be killed for that. about the "strawman" argument, I could also say that they kidney argument is also a "strawman" argument because it doesn't have it's own DNA and it's not a child, or even anything that would develop into a child.

Reasons you should be pro-life (although I personally believe that in an instance of rape or a situation in which the mother will die if she gives birth then abortion should be permitted):

As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 59.8 million babies murdered by abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in the year 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million infants murdered by abortion a year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). By 2016, the number of yearly abortions in America dropped to a historic low of less than 1,000,000.

Approximately 22% of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion.

Only about 1 percent each year are attributed to rape and incest. 40% of women ages 15 to 44 have had at least one abortion. 4 out of 10 teen pregnancies end in murder by abortion. Based on the rate of abortion, it was estimated (2000) that 43 percent of American women would have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

7 out of 10 U.S. women are sexually active (usually as fornicators) but do not want to become pregnant.

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. 57% of all women having abortions between 15 and 44 are in their 20's. 36% of non-Hispanic women are abortions were white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, and 25% are Hispanic.

Although 66% of women having abortions had some type of health insurance, 57% paid for their abortion out of pocket. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket.

in a situation of rape or in the mother will die the following should happen:

if the mother would die, then the doctors should do everything they can to save the child's life, it's still a child.

in a situation of rape, it's still a child. if the mother didn't want it, then they could send it to an orphanage.

This is not a compelling argument.

That's not the argument. Stop twisting Firestar's words like a typical liberal.

When people say that one bad decision, accident, or terrible twist of fate means that a woman or girl no longer gets to control her own body, yes, that's what it sounds like.

Ridiculous burdens are placed on girls and women around sex and reproductive health, and if, for any reason, they get pregnant, suddenly lots of people want to tell them what to do with their bodies in the most intimate way.

Think about it like this:
A girl (17 years old) goes to a college party. She doesn't wear her favorite party dress: it might look too "sexy". She makes sure that she goes with friends, doesn't go into a room with a boy or boys without other girls present, drinks less than half a bottle of beer (which she makes sure to get directly from the keg because if she takes a cup from someone else she could be roofied). She worries about smiling at boys, even ones she likes. She leaves just when the party is picking up because her friend is leaving and they have to walk home together -- failure to do any of those things opens her up to one variety of rape or another.

Then someone like Firestar will tell her that what she wants, needs, or feels isn't important anymore. That's the burden of his argument: Whatever the choices she made that ended in her pregnancy, those are the last choices she is entitled to.

I have already specified multiple times that in an instance of rape or physical/death risk to the mother that I would allow an abortion. But in general, no. Why? A living entity inside of you is your responsibility, not your body.

So my argument apparently justifies rape? Because it doesen't.

Your argument says basically what Mansplainer above says to the woman: "Well, it sucks that you got raped, and now you have to be continuously retraumatized for the next nine months."

No, rape is terrible. But the child also has a life that is equal in value to the woman's life.

Fair.

wow finally someone who sees my views sensible

Yeah, you won't get much acceptance at politicsTOO. What happened to them saying #MeToo about Biden or Cuomo? Lol.

I'd ask you both to run that argument past a few rape survivors before you break out the champagne to congratulate yourselves.

I said fair.

Plus we're talking about the fetus's right to life, not denying the father's criminality.

They're people who have the responsibility to not kill the life contained in them.

This is why Alien can be read as a parable about motherhood (Especially Alien 4).

"This is why Alien can be read as a parable about motherhood (Especially Alien 4)."

What?

"Right to choose"

The obvious question not being confronted is what choice is at stake? The choice to kill another human being to bypass the consequences and responsibilities that should accompany the choice to create another life; in essence the choice to murder one's own children so sex can be engaged in freely without responsibility or consequence. Sometimes women die from abortion. Since abortion is deliberate and thought about in advance, it is comparable to a premeditated killing.

The majority of abortions (80%) are actually carried out when the baby is still an embryo, which is a quickly growing, small cluster of cells. Killing one of them is the equivalent of killing a tree. It is alive, but has no sense of consciousness

Yet it will almost definitely become conscious soon. Everyone has the right to life.

That is the equivalent of removing a kidney. Sure it will die, and sure, its alive, but it isn't conscious, in fact, there is no real proof that a foetus is conscious until a short while before it is born

I meant MORE conscious. A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, & the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, & sound, & shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/key-question-when-foetus-sentient-being-528676.html

Fetuses have sensory perception. They can feel pain. They are conscious.

"Right to one's own body"

The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to their bodies. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft, and therefore, this is not an absolute right, but a privilege that is not intended to exceed another's unalienable rights, including the right to life. As Hugh V. McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian University pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one's body and "we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions and disadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies."

"Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: 'That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it'. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if 'X' stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: 'That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?' On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when 'X' pertains to one's body or to parts of it? I do not think so."

-Hugh V. McLachlan, Glasgow Caledonian University.

As McLachlan continues to point out, this emphasis on rights neglects the other side of the coin, responsibilities or duties. He gives on pg. 177 the example of an insurance policy, and how using one's body to commit suicide can invalidate such a contract. Logically, creating another human life should likewise bring responsibly for actions toward that life - how is the decision to create another human life of lesser importance than the decision to sign an insurance contract? Why should one be able to kill a separate person to void the sexual decision to bring about another life, yet not be able to kill oneself without voiding an insurance contract?

"Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others."

-Francis J. Beckwith, Christian Research Journal.

If your kidneys would save someone else, do you HAVE to donate them? Women shouldn't HAVE to support another life without their consent. Most women DO choose to have kids, but it should be by their free and prepared choice.

Huge difference. Your kidneys are not living organisms inside of you that you created because you consented to f**k someone. Completely different.

Oh, consent -- we get to assume that all pregnancies stem from informed, capable consent.

I didn't assume. I already specified earlier that I support abortion if there was rape or if the mother will die if she gives birth.

Consent is complicated. I hope your definition of rape includes date rape and statutory rape. Are 13 year olds able to give consent? What if the person pressuring them to have sex is a family member or a person who has power over them?

1. Never said 13-year-olds can give consent; they're obviously minors.
2. If a family member pressured someone into having sex with them, it would obviously be rape & incest, which is also illegal.

I don't see what the questions are.

Well, I'm glad to hear that. So you would agree to abortion for minors?

Yes. I am generally pro-life but I do make exceptions.

Your kidneys are very much alive

Your kidneys are not living organisms. The argument about kidneys is total bullshit.

Yes they are. Otherwise they wouldn't do anything. They are made up of cells, so techically, they are

The argument is f**king retarded. If you "kill" a kidney, it doesn't have a whole central & peripheral nervous system so that it perceives pain, nor does it have consciousness. Contrarily, a fetus has both.

It's very simple. It does stuff, so it is either a machine or an organism. It doesn't need electricity, meaning it isn't a machine. I am aware of the fact that it isn't self-sufficient, but they are living nonetheless. They are a bit like viruses

Ultimately, the real question is whether the fetus in question is another human being to be accorded unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for if so, no right to one's body should give power to infringe on its unalienable right to life. Your right to your body does not include the right, in other words, to kill others using that body to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of a sexual decision to create another life. That is what in the real world is called "murder" and it is reprehensible. Therefore, the real question is at what point a fetus becomes a human being.

yeah but in the situation I am talking about it isn't a decision its being forced

I already said that in an instance of rape or a situation in which the mother will die if she gives birth then abortion should be permitted. I'm just stating why I believe that in general, aside from those two exceptions, abortion is wrong.

i don't think so you have your opinion and I have mine

Okay.

The traditional answer is when it "quickens", around 4-5 months old.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

When what quickens?

Read the citation. Traditionally, babies weren't treated as living creatures until they were closer to being able to live on their own.

A fetus is obviously a living organism. "Traditionally"? There's no "traditionally". Just science.

1. An individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.

Can it survive outside of someone else's body?

It's a living organism. It has the right to life.

From a woman's perspective, it's all grey areas. There's this time of potential, before the baby is a full person, but it's a potential person and you imagine it as a person . . . and somewhere north of 30% of those naturally miscarry. There's a time when you're fertile and a time when you're not . . . and they bleed into each other.

There's birth control, but nothing's perfect. I know a woman who got pregnant after a tubal ligation, and another who got pregnant on mega-doses of hormonal birth control taken exactly as the doctor prescribed them.

Consent, and ability to consent are a spectrum too. I find it hard to deal in absolutes, and I can't in my conscience constrain a woman from taking control of her own body and fertility. In an ideal world we'd have easily available, 100% effective birth control and support for parents -- we don't. When all that is true, we can revisit the morality of abortion as an absolute.

And while your arguments are based in science, as you say, they are driven by a moral evaluation of the issue.

"Right to privacy"

To get abortion legalized, the Pro-Choice movement had to argue that women should have a "right to privacy". However, logically, if the fetus is a human being and thus murder would be committed, privacy is no excuse for such murder. Logically, killing someone in the privacy of one's own home should no more be an excuse for murder than killing them in the privacy of one's body. Furthermore, as Judge Henry J. Friendly pointed out in the nation's first major abortion case, Hall v. Lefkowitz, abortion is actually a complete violation of privacy when you look at it, requiring intervention in a woman's most private areas by a physician and variety of medical personnel.

"A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests... Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection."

"Women choose, not men"

The Pro-Choice movement likes to say men and fathers should have no say in the abortion debate, only women. However, as Thomas J. Lucente Jr. points out, this is similar to saying one can't criticize the President unless one is the President.

"The pro-abortion crowd will argue that because I am a man, I should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion, unless, of course, I support the mass murder of 50 million babies in the last 39 years. That's akin to saying I can't criticize the president unless I have been the president."

-Thomas J. Lucente Jr.

As Alan Keyes has pointed out, the Pro-Choice movement essentially is arguing for the baby's rights to be dependent on the mother's desire for it, making women slave-owners, essentially - this is very different from the Declaration of Independence which says the Creator gives us our unalienable rights, rather than them being dependent upon other people.

"Either you can subscribe to the American creed which says that God endowed us with our rights, or you can subscribe to the abortion creed which says that those rights are the consequences of our mother's will."

-Alan Keyes, speech at Southern Methodist University, Feb. 24, 1997.[32]

"... abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required... Well, it's a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don't recognize what that's saying? What that's saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother's choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust."

-Alan Keyes, speech in San Francisco, March 3, 2003.

the babies arent even born yet

yes. this is completely true

They're still living organisms that have the right to life. They are scientifically proven to feel pain in the fetus because they develop their nervous system before birth. Murder is murder.

that isnt murder

wit yo dumbass

LOL YOU SERIOUSLY AUTOMATICALLY REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS *YOUR* PARTY WHO OWNED THE SLAVES? EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE SOUTH WAS FULL OF DIXIE DEMOCRATS BACK THEN! STOP BEING IN DENIAL!

It's the logically immoral killing of a human being.

oh hell no republicans were the slave owners

well i know for sure mine weren't slave owners

Many more reasons I can use, but I'm tired.