Abortion. & Welfare.

[pandaz xx]

Okay.
So women have their own choice correct?

So why should they say that you're going to hell if your getting an abortion.
It's actually not a baby yet. So it's not murder.
It's a fetus. FETUS. not baby.

& girls that don't get abortions... some of them live off of welfare.
Yeah.
I hate girls like that.
Don't they have any sense?

I think that the welfare office should def. have a hour working limit.
Like you have to work 20 hours a week to get a check.
or blah blah blah.

They give it to girls that don't even have jobs to support themselves.
& when the welfare check does come, they usually spend it on themselves.

Not ALL women do it.
But some of the...well let's say. skanky ones do.

I don't want my taxes going to the government, that goes to the welfare office for stupid girls that don't wanna work because " Oh i'm 18 & i got knocked up so I can't work" or. "Oh i have 3 kids & i need more money because I don't work"

& I think abortion is fine when it comes to rape.
or incest.
or money problems.(for the ones not dumb enough to not live off welfare)

other than that...
no.

If you just don't want the baby.
..Give it up for adoption.
Seriously.

Someone that can't have children could want him/her.
& your just going to kill it because you made a careless mistake of having sex without not wanting a baby?
No.

Think.
It helps.

[Castle]

Quote by: pandaz xx It's actually not a baby yet. So it's not murder.

Please explain the distinction between the fetus one second before birth and the baby one second after?

Quote by: pandaz xx other than that... no.

Why? If it's not murder, who cares?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Castle Please explain the distinction between the fetus one second before birth and the baby one second after? Why? If it's not murder, who cares?

Before birth it relies on the mother for its continued existence. After birth it does not.

It's not murder, so we shouldn't.

[pandaz xx]

1. The "fetus" isn't a baby until about 5 months.
Sorry if I didn't verify that.

2. Just because it's not murder... that means nothing.
You shouldn't just not have a baby if you can give it up for adoption.

[pandaz xx]

CoffeeSaint is actually correct.

But it has formed into a semi-baby at about 5 months.

but still needs it's mother.
therefore.
it's a fetus.
k?

[Castle]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Before birth it relies on the mother for its continued existence. After birth it does not.

This is inaccurate. It is possible to for a fetus to survive (not sure exactly when this occurs, but I know its before birth) without the mother (on special machines and things, obviously). Babies are also very dependent on parents for quite a while after birth.

And since when was (lack of) dependency a requirement for personhood?

Quote by: pandaz xx The "fetus" isn't a baby until about 5 months. Sorry if I didn't verify that.

What precisely is the reasoning behind that distinction (that the fetus is deserving of rights after 5 months)?

Quote by: pandaz xx You shouldn't just not have a baby if you can give it up for adoption.

Why not? What's the problem with it?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Castle This is inaccurate. It is possible to for a fetus to survive (not sure exactly when this occurs, but I know its before birth) without the mother (on special machines and things, obviously). Babies are also very dependent on parents for quite a while after birth. And since when was (lack of) dependency a requirement for personhood?

Didn't say anything about personhood, or the child's potential for independent life. I just told you the answers to your questions: before birth, the child is at that moment dependent on its mother for its continued existence, and after birth, it is not dependent on its mother for its continued existence -- anyone can care for it.

Abortion isn't murder because abortion is legal and murder is unlawful killing.

If you'd care to discuss these issues, certainly, but my intention was to give simple answers to simple questions.

[Castle]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Didn't say anything about personhood, or the child's potential for independent life. I just told you the answers to your questions: before birth, the child is at that moment dependent on its mother for its continued existence, and after birth, it is not dependent on its mother for its continued existence -- anyone can care for it.

The intended implication of my question was asking for a distinction that would make the fetus unworthy of the same rights that we afford to infants. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Abortion isn't murder because abortion is legal and murder is unlawful killing.

By "murder", I refer to "morally wrong killing", rather than "unlawful killing". Again, I apologize for the confusion.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Castle The intended implication of my question was asking for a distinction that would make the fetus unworthy of the same rights that we afford to infants. I apologize if that wasn't clear. By "murder", I refer to "morally wrong killing", rather than "unlawful killing". Again, I apologize for the confusion.

Oh no, it was clear. But I respond to words, not intentions.

As for the fetus being unworthy of the same rights afforded to infants, it was included in my reply: it is dependent on its mother for its continued existence. For its rights to be protected, the mother's rights must be infringed, and one person's rights end where another's begin. Of course, at one minute before birth, the infant's potential rights should be taken into consideration, as long as the protection of the rights would not put the mother at undue risk, so an abortion at birth-minus-60-seconds should not be acceptable. And it isn't.
But if you want to make this shades-of-gray issue into a black and white one, there it is: infant that depends on its mother has no rights; infant that could be cared for by anyone has rights.

As for morally acceptable killing, abortion is morally acceptable to me. Killing a viable infant when there is no risk to the mother is not, generally speaking (there are complications involved in it, of course, as with any moral question). So the "murder" answer remains the same, as well.

Edited to add: 1337 posts! I am LEET!

[pandaz xx]

gogo
smart coffeesaint.

=]

[Castle]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Oh no, it was clear. But I respond to words, not intentions.

Somehow, I guessed as much. By doing such, you accomplish naught but adding to the length of this discussion:(

Quote by: CoffeeSaint For its rights to be protected, the mother's rights must be infringed, and one person's rights end where another's begin.

So, for instance, the mother's right to privacy ends when the fetus' right to life is infringed?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Of course, at one minute before birth, the infant's potential rights should be taken into consideration, as long as the protection of the rights would not put the mother at undue risk, so an abortion at birth-minus-60-seconds should not be acceptable. And it isn't.

And two minutes before birth? At what point to do you draw the line?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But if you want to make this shades-of-gray issue into a black and white one, there it is: infant that depends on its mother has no rights; infant that could be cared for by anyone has rights.

Why?

[samsara15]

If the fetus is viable, and the woman wants an abortion, remove it and support it on life-support, at expense of the state, then put it up for adoption. There are lots of families out there, begging for a chance to adopt. Lots of these women who seek abortion might not object to having their tubes tied, at the same time.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Castle Please explain the distinction between the fetus one second before birth and the baby one second after?

Please explain the distinction between a minor, one second before they turn 18 and an adult, one second after. It's certainly an artificial boundary, but it is, indeed, a boundary. And since murder is a legal term that does not include non-born humans, abortion cannot, by definition, be murder.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Castle Somehow, I guessed as much. By doing such, you accomplish naught but adding to the length of this discussion:(

Really? Were you honestly asking for an opinion, or did you have an agenda of your own when you asked your questions? Somehow, I find the "honest curiosity" possibility to be unlikely.
You asked for a response, and you got a response. If you didn't like the response, then reexamine your questions.

Quote by: Castle So, for instance, the mother's right to privacy ends when the fetus' right to life is infringed?

That would be the case, except the fetus has no rights. The mother is the established person, already with inherent rights; the fetus is the interloper, and so has less claim to the body in question.
If there were a way to maintain both the rights of the mother, and the potential rights of the fetus, that would be the optimal situation. But if that is not possible, then the woman's rights are preeminent.

Quote by: Castle And two minutes before birth? At what point to do you draw the line?

The point at which the fetus is unquestionably viable and giving birth would not put the mother at undue risk -- provided the mother has had reasonable opportunities to have an abortion prior to that point. I don't think unquestionable viability can be given a specific date; I would assume the point is not fixed. It should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Quote by: Castle Quote by: CS But if you want to make this shades-of-gray issue into a black and white one, there it is: infant that depends on its mother has no rights; infant that could be cared for by anyone has rights. Why?

First, because the Constitution does not specify conception as the point when rights are granted or enforceable, but it does imply birth as such a point. Second, because the mother's rights are preeminent, as I said above. Third, because a fetus's rights cannot be enforced, because its right to liberty cannot be protected: it cannot be released from the womb.

[Osborn F Enready]

My opinion....

Abortion is a right of an expectant woman who so chooses.

A child has rights, a fetus does not.

A citizen is BORN, not conceived.

Rights are not available until you become an individual entity(not a part of the mothers body), unless the mother so chooses to invoke those rights in the case of wrongful death, had she planned to deliver, but her opprotunity was taken by a criminal act.

Any woman has a choice for abortion for whatever reason, though I have mixed feelings on late term abortions, and abortion abusers (how rare is that in THIS country, though I know in some places such as Cold War Russia it was used as a form of birth control), I will still always fall towards individual rights, which are THAT of the MOTHER, until a child is born.

That is my position, and I approve this message.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: pandaz xx CoffeeSaint is actually correct. But it has formed into a semi-baby at about 5 months. but still needs it's mother. therefore. it's a fetus. k?

It still needs its mother (or some other caretaker) for a number of years after it's born.

[Zhavric]

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions nor will it do much to assist the welfare state.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Zhavric Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions nor will it do much to assist the welfare state.

I think the government needs to get out of the business of legislating medical procedures. At the same time, I do believe that abortion is murdering an unborn child and, so, I don't believe it's morally right to have an abortion. But, that's an issue for philosophers and theologians, not governments.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Chancellor It still needs its mother (or some other caretaker) for a number of years after it's born.

But anyone can care for the baby after it's born. Prior to birth, there is only one person on the planet who can do it and if they decide, as is their right, that they don't want to do it...

You can't force involuntary servitude on anyone.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Cephus But anyone can care for the baby after it's born. Prior to birth, there is only one person on the planet who can do it and if they decide, as is their right, that they don't want to do it... You can't force involuntary servitude on anyone.

It;s not involuntary servitude, it's the consequence of chosen actions: if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she has no business letting some guy dip his wick into her.