With regards to abortion, Who's rights are more important .. women or foetuses?

[Sorreltail]

In your opinion, whose right is more important to protect? The right of life for a foetus, or the right of choosing how to take care of your body for a woman?

[ShadowFox]

The womens right to choose when to have a child and how to handle things within her own body.

[Anmon]

Definitely the foetus, that little one has just as much right to life as you and me, the mother or father has no right to kill it for convenience sake.
For all the people screaming over population, abortion on demand is good thing, well would it have been good for you?
If your that concerned with over population then simply top yourself.

[Technosoul]

The woman in tradition is giving the gift of a child to the man (father). She does it willingly and should not be forced to do it unwillingly.

She can say no before sex.
She can say no during sex.
She can say no after sex (abortion).

To force a woman to give birth without her permission is like an act of rape. Same thing. Rape is immoral and unlawful.

That choice is totally up to the woman, to say yes, or to say no.
A violation of the woman's right to give permission in favor of male dominance is basic discrimination.

If you want a woman to give the gift of life you should get on your knees and beg her, or ask her, or whatever you can do that might be romantic.

If you do not agree then legalize rape and pass a law that women must obey all that men command of them.

oh oh... too late for that.. so pack up your bibles and forget about outlawing abortions.

[Pale RIder]

In a situation where there are competing rights, the greater right takes precedence. If the child doesn't represnent an immenent threat to the woman's life or long term health, then the right to live trumps the right to not be inconvenienced. If the chid does repesent an imenent threat to the woman's life or long term health, then she has the right to defend her life and terminate the pregnancy.

[Anmon]

Agreed Pale, life has the right, not convenience.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Sorreltail In your opinion, whose right is more important to protect? The right of life for a foetus, or the right of choosing how to take care of your body for a woman?

The only time when it becomes a question of "whose right is more important" is when the life of either is in jeopardy. If the abortion is simply out of convenience for the mother, rights don't enter into it, because there is no right to convenience.

Medical triage already answers the question when the life of either are in jeopardy. Triage is evaluating two or more patients and deciding who should be treated first. When life and limb is in question, the rule of thumb is, "save the one who has the best chance of surviving".

In almost all cases, the mother has the best chance of surviving, so she should be the one treated. If what is needed is an abortion, then that is what should be done.

[Nemesis]

Quote by: Anmon For all the people screaming over population, abortion on demand is good thing, well would it have been good for you?

Irrelevant mate. I wouldn't know whether it was good or bad because I wouldn't exist would I. Why is life automatically assumed to be better than non-life? Please refrain frrom using this argument in the future.

That is all.

[another day]

I like to think a little farther down the line.

What kind of a life do unwanted children get? They end up being shuffled around in foster homes and group homes...

[ShadowFox]

Ya. i love the people who argue about adoption, yet rarely adopt themselves.

[LadiesMan217]

I like to think a little farther down the line. What kind of a life do unwanted children get? They end up being shuffled around in foster homes and group homes...

I think they would generally prefer that to being dead.

[HelioPrime]

No questions here.

The fetus deserves life. Something that will develop into a human beings doesn't deserve to just be labeled a mass of cells and be used as a science project.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I think they would generally prefer that to being dead.

So your going to fell safe and secure assuming these children would have all rather been aborted?

[Anmon]

[=Nemesis;494489]Irrelevant mate. I wouldn't know whether it was good or bad because I wouldn't exist would I.

But you do exist, so you do know.

Why is life automatically assumed to be better than non-life?

um yeah go look at a corpse, maybe that will tell you.

"Please refrain frrom using this argument in the future. That is all"

Bought to you cheerfully by the budding young thought police cadets of the coming Illuminati.

[Walrus]

Rights are defined by society and if society decides that a foetus has a right to life then that right must be made universal. This would mean that a woman will be forced to carry and give birth to a child that they don’t want, even if that woman is a rape victim and may be little more than a child herself. Personally, I wouldn’t want to put any woman through that, so I think it should be down to the conscience of the individual.

[another day]

Quote by: HelioPrime So your going to fell safe and secure assuming these children would have all rather been aborted?

They haven't been born yet. They havent grown into people yet. This abstract possibility of a "human" means nothing. There are billions of real humans that already exist. These "potential souls" that you speak of are literally INFINITE, so it's absolutely meaningless to discuss them. You might as well ban masturbation because it wastes sperm which has the possibility of becoming a child. I Know that's an old argument but honestly, if you want to place that much value on a "potential life" then theres no stopping how far you go.

But what matters first is the people who already exist, the feasibility of the planet well supporting them, and the rights of those currently alive and developed and intelligent. A fetus doesn't have a sense of acute consciousness anymore then an ant does.

[Anmon]

sperm masturbated is not a human being, a sperm entering an egg is.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: another day I like to think a little farther down the line. What kind of a life do unwanted children get? They end up being shuffled around in foster homes and group homes...

If you believe that quality of life is a justification for killing, why aren't you advocating that we go about killing those who we know beyond any doubt are having a bad life, are unwanted, are unhappy, or abused rather than killing those who you suspect "might" have a bad life? For that matter, if having a bad life (by your definition) is so terrible, why isn't everyone who is having a bad life already dead from suicide if being dead really is preferable?

That line of thinking is so shallow as to be pointless.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Walrus Rights are defined by society and if society decides that a foetus has a right to life then that right must be made universal. This would mean that a woman will be forced to carry and give birth to a child that they don’t want, even if that woman is a rape victim and may be little more than a child herself. Personally, I wouldn’t want to put any woman through that, so I think it should be down to the conscience of the individual.

All killing comes down to the conscience of an individual and yet, we have no problem at all making the killing of post natals illegal.

Human beings have a right to live. Calling an immature human being a fetus does not change the fact that it is still a human being. The right to live is a human righ. Can you prove that unborns are not human beings?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: another day You might as well ban masturbation because it wastes sperm which has the possibility of becoming a child. I Know that's an old argument but honestly, if you want to place that much value on a "potential life" then theres no stopping how far you go.

Do you have any argument at all that isn't shallow, meaningless, or simply wrong? Sperm has no possibility at all of becoming a child. Alone, a sperm cell is of no more consequence than your fingernail clippings. It will never become anything more than it is. Hell, sperm cells don't even divide. They are formed, live a preprogrammed period of time and are either sluffed of or resorbed. Eggs fall into the same category. They will never become anything more than what they are.

Put them together, however, and all of their potential is realized. You have a living human being from the time fertilization is complete. From that point, you have a potential doctor, or musician, or serial killer, but not a potential human being.

Quote by: another day But what matters first is the people who already exist, the feasibility of the planet well supporting them, and the rights of those currently alive and developed and intelligent. A fetus doesn't have a sense of acute consciousness anymore then an ant does.

Logical fallacy does not constitute a valid argument. You assume that unborn human beings don't exist when clearly they do. An unborn at any stage of development is exactly as human as you and is as alive as you. A person is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you have manifested your potential.