|
Post by bombmaniac on Apr 29, 2010 13:12:05 GMT -5
you fail to see the point. whether or not they are wanted is irrelevant. they are their own life, other's opinions are completely irrelevant.
|
|
tnj
Meteor
Posts: 52
|
Post by tnj on Apr 29, 2010 13:14:56 GMT -5
And I disagree, because I think they are part of the woman's body until they're born. Especially since they can't survive without it. Fetuses big enough to survive outside the uterus should not be aborted, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 29, 2010 13:48:04 GMT -5
tnj, your "It's mine so I can do what ever I want attitude" reminds me of a pro-slavery argument used in the south before the civil war. -"Laws designating slaves as property and protecting the owner's right to property are almost as old as the United States itself." Just wanted to throw that out there.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Apr 29, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
TNJ...i wonder...according to you, can a hospital take a person off life support? i dont mean braindead, i mean suppose a person who had a heart attack, and needs a respirator to survive...if the hospital doesnt "like" them, can they simply unplug and kill them? i think according to your logic youd say yes, its their equipment and they dont like the patient...
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 29, 2010 15:45:41 GMT -5
There's a big difference between your BODY and your property. Property is a man-made concept. You can buy things, but that doesn't mean that those things are ethical or lawful. Your body isn't yours because you OWN it. It's yours because it's your natural home (for lack of a better explanation). You need your body, and you need to do with it what you think is best. It's not comparable to property.
|
|
tnj
Meteor
Posts: 52
|
Post by tnj on Apr 29, 2010 16:16:41 GMT -5
krzych32 & bombmaniac: Like Chelsea said, it's not the same thing. At all.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 29, 2010 19:44:59 GMT -5
There's a big difference between your BODY and your property. Property is a man-made concept. You can buy things, but that doesn't mean that those things are ethical or lawful.
Chelsea, every concept is a man made concept. So the two situations are very comparable.
"Your body isn't yours because you OWN it. It's yours because it's your natural home (for lack of a better explanation). You need your body, and you need to do with it what you think is best. It's not comparable to property. "
With that logic, the best thing for my body right now is to own slaves so I don't have to work myself. What you are saying is that we should just forget about everything and fallow our most basic instincts. Also, I believe that I have every right to own goods.
tnj@ you are missing the whole "debate" part in your post. At least give something to support what you are saying.
So, yeah, it is the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 29, 2010 20:25:23 GMT -5
There's a big difference between your BODY and your property. Property is a man-made concept. You can buy things, but that doesn't mean that those things are ethical or lawful. Chelsea, every concept is a man made concept. So the two situations are very comparable. But your body isn't a concept. So no, they aren't comparable. With that logic, the best thing for my body right now is to own slaves so I don't have to work myself. What you are saying is that we should just forget about everything and fallow our most basic instincts. Also, I believe that I have every right to own goods. How is buying a slave doing something to your body? It may effect how you use your body, but it's not something you do directly to your body, whereas abortion is. You can't say that buying something is the same as controlling your own body. You. Just. Can't.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 29, 2010 21:11:37 GMT -5
Chelsea, body itself is not a concept, but having to do what you want with it is.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Apr 29, 2010 22:11:04 GMT -5
Chelsea, body itself is not a concept, but having to do what you want with it is. How so? Isn't that pure nature? Acting with the well-being of your body in mind is not an abstract concept like ownership, but pure instinct instead. Seeing as how a fetus is directly dependent on a mother's body, I think it is conceivable to consider the fetus to be an extension of the mother's body.
|
|
tnj
Meteor
Posts: 52
|
Post by tnj on May 3, 2010 6:03:24 GMT -5
tnj@ you are missing the whole "debate" part in your post. At least give something to support what you are saying. I didn't feel like repeating Chelseas post 'cause she gave the same arguments I would've done if she hadn't *facepalm* Btw this is too off topic. The way I write something or not is irrelevant to the discussion. ANYWAY! No. The only one who has the right to decide over someone else's body is the person inhabiting it. Other people can't be someone's "goods" or "property" because they are people! With their own lives, and the right to make their own decisions. Fetuses do not have these rights since I think of them as part of the woman's body. HOW is this relevant? Slavery is illegal because YOU CAN NOT OWN OTHER PEOPLE! They are not property, and can't be compared to property either.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 3, 2010 11:02:09 GMT -5
tnj, but you are missing the point, what I am saying is that you can't use your own rights to decide if someone will live or not. What I was trying to do here is just show that it was done before.
|
|
tnj
Meteor
Posts: 52
|
Post by tnj on May 4, 2010 4:03:47 GMT -5
Well, I don't consider fetuses to be "someone" until they're born or have the ability to survive outside the uterus, so I guess that's why I didn't get your comparison. I don't think it's the same thing. Yes, I know fetuses can feel pain and have personality traits and stuff like that, but as long as the can't survive outside the uterus, I see them as part of the mother's body and therefore they have no rights of their own.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 4, 2010 9:57:31 GMT -5
tnj, that an interesting argument, but just because they are dependent on their mothers to survive doesn't mean that thay should have no right. Lets take the same logic to another level. People with mental disorders, people that are very sick, and many elderly should not have any right's, because they are a part of our society but they are not bringing anything in. Just like unborn babies, they can't survive by themselves, they need society to help them out. Another example, children, they should just be left to die. Not able to survive by themselves, they constantly need help from their parents. A parent should be able to kill it's child then, it's theirs, they take care of it, and when they choose to, they should be able to put it down. So as you see, just because one can't survive on it's own, should not mean that they should have no right at all.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on May 4, 2010 14:19:41 GMT -5
tnj, that an interesting argument, but just because they are dependent on their mothers to survive doesn't mean that thay should have no right. Lets take the same logic to another level. People with mental disorders, people that are very sick, and many elderly should not have any right's, because they are a part of our society but they are not bringing anything in. Just like unborn babies, they can't survive by themselves, they need society to help them out. Another example, children, they should just be left to die. Not able to survive by themselves, they constantly need help from their parents. A parent should be able to kill it's child then, it's theirs, they take care of it, and when they choose to, they should be able to put it down. So as you see, just because one can't survive on it's own, should not mean that they should have no right at all. Your examples aren't necessarily true, except for the one about children. But you can't take it for granted that the others can't take care of themselves because many can. But the point wasn't that they don't have the knowledge/instinct of how to care for themselves; it was that they can't physically survive without the mother. If you're caring for a child that has been born, it doesn't matter WHO proved for the child, as long as the child gets certain necessities to life. But in the case of an unborn child, the fetus is directly dependent on the MOTHER. No one else can stand in for what the mother provides. Unless the fetus is in the mother, living of off her like a parasite, the child will not survive. It is a physical dependency on HER, not a general dependency on help from ANYONE.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 4, 2010 15:21:55 GMT -5
Chelsea, I'm happy to see that we agree that parents should have a right to kill their children I also like the way you use CAPS LOCK. But going back to the arguments. I am not talking about all people that are sick, elderly etc. just the one's that can't really take care of themselves and without society they will die. They may get help from anyone, but if society in GENERAL chooses to, shouldn't they be able to just get rid of them? I know I'm paying higher taxes because of that, so they are parasides to society as much as a baby is a paraside to it's mother. So, when can we start the killing?!
|
|
tnj
Meteor
Posts: 52
|
Post by tnj on May 6, 2010 5:47:01 GMT -5
They were all born. I differ between born and unborn, so your examples don't apply.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 6, 2010 15:20:43 GMT -5
tnj, no, my examples work perfectly, you are the one who can't form a decent counter argument. What you are setting is double standard, its like me saying that laws don't apply do woman, and leaving it there.
|
|
ibeckie
Meteorite
My bark is worse than my bite.
Posts: 5
|
Post by ibeckie on May 8, 2010 11:20:37 GMT -5
krzych32 'So when can we start the killing?' Statement of Debatable Fact One: The world is overpopulated. So, if women 'x' doesn't want a kid and aborts it - isn't it win-win? As for the right of the cluster of cells fondly known as the 'fetus'. Well, I could bang about how the woman has more rights. How it has no feelings blah blah blah. But I sense you wont respons to that because you LOVE cells so, check these out-their example: 1) Tumors are cells. Can we kill 'em? Pleasssseeee. PLEASE. I dont want a tumor. Oh wait. The cells have rights. Damn it. 2) Do you support war? Do then Afghan soldiers have rights? Pah no! They are foreign. Killing them is A-O-K. Even thought they aren't really doing anything wrong - or at least doing anything we aren't doing.. Same goes for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, USSR the list goes on. And on. And on. Cause America is freaking hypocritical. So who gets rights? Who doesn't get rights? Please help me with this one.
|
|
|
Post by TheLazyCuddler on May 8, 2010 12:23:43 GMT -5
I think abortion should be a last option. And ONLY if you cannot care for the child. Before abortion there's adoption. Or Orphanages.
|
|