Abortion-do women have the right to kill?

[atlantabiolab]

You are making far too many assumptions and it isn't for you to decide whether or not a woman *might* regret aborting a fetus.

Regretting one's actions are not requirements for morality. Should we set murderers or rapists free if they show regret for their actions? Are people free to do as they wish, so long as they show regret?

Should every child have a chance?

YES.

Should children that are abused, neglected, and harmed be taken away from their "parents" and be cared for and loved?

YES.

Does that mean it will happen?

HELL NO. Unless you have had personal experience with just how pathetically miserable this system is, please don't even bring that issue here.

Just because you personally behaved responsibly throughout your lifetime does not mean that there were not countless others who have not. Unless you are about to open your home to love and care for the children of those who have not, I am sorry, but your arguement doesn't make sense.

If this were a perfect world your arguement would not even be needed.

THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD.... and no amount of wishing it would be will not make it so.

Your argument is a contradiction in itself. You assert that children (individuals) should be given a chance, but then turn around and claim that if they cannot be GUARANTEED a great life, one which you decide the standards, then no chance should be granted.

As for the notion that if one has never "adopted" unwanted children, then one has no right to make moral judgements, this is ridiculous. Have you ever brought homeless people into your home??? Then I guess you could not make a moral judgement if someone decided that they should be rounded up and gassed, correct??? By your argument you could not disaprove of this action, for YOU have never lifted a finger to better this situation.

I guess it is OK if we decided to nuke Ethiopia, since you have never adopted the poor, starving children of this nation, correct??

BECAUSE this is not a perfect world, man must be guaranteed his rights, the primary right being that of life; without a claim to his own life, then he can make no argument against any tyranny which others wish to impose on him.

 

[Werd]

You took every one of my words out of context and twisted them around to suit your arguement.

I never said any of the things that you assigned to me, but hey, you said I did so you are correct.

You are a man. You have no say in what a woman does with her body. The fetus is a parasite. Sorry, morality or no, this statement is true. Who will or will not take care of that child is not up to you to decide before it is born. Until you can find a way for men to carry the child there is nothing you can say that will make this issue "right" or "wrong". This is just another way for men to try and enforce their will on women.

Plain and simple:

If you are against abortion then don't have one.

 

[atlantabiolab]

You took every one of my words out of context and twisted them around to suit your arguement.

I never said any of the things that you assigned to me, but hey, you said I did so you are correct.

I took the essence of your idea and threw it back at you. Learn logic.

You are a man. You have no say in what a woman does with her body. The fetus is a parasite. Sorry, morality or no, this statement is true.

Learn basic biology. The fetus is NOT the woman's body; it is a new individual, if this were not true, then it would never leave her body, or it would become a clone of her. Humans are not yeast, they do not "bud". The fetus is NOT a parasite. All parasites are of different species, and cause harm. This is a poor attempt at making a specious argument. Fetuses do not ENTER the mother, they are derived from her; her actions gave rise to its existence. No parasite has this nature. Fetuses, except in rare cases, do not cause harm to the mother. Parasites, by nature, cause harm to the host.

Who will or will not take care of that child is not up to you to decide before it is born. Until you can find a way for men to carry the child there is nothing you can say that will make this issue "right" or "wrong". This is just another way for men to try and enforce their will on women.

Horrible reasoning. So morality is sex specific, there is female morality and male morality, possibly Caucasian morality and Negroid morality, also? Your idea argues that anyone can do anything they wish, since actions are only to be judged by the participants; they cannot be understood or reasoned by anyone else. Until I murder someone, I cannot judge if murder is wrong; until I rob others, I cannot judge if theft is wrong, correct?

Plain and simple:

If you are against abortion then don't have one.

Plain and simple, this argument is for imbeciles. If expanded to other actions of humans, you can easily reason the fallacy of it.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

How can any of you argue FOR a procedure that - if done to you - would result in your non-existence?

 

[Mandinka2]

The fetus is NOT the woman's body; it is a new individual, if this were not true, then it would never leave her body, or it would become a clone of her. Humans are not yeast, they do not "bud". The fetus is NOT a parasite. All parasites are of different species, and cause harm. This is a poor attempt at making a specious argument. Parasites, by nature, cause harm to the host.

Right on most points , wrong on the above:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parasite
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Parasites do not neccessarily cause harm to the host - an example is the leech in medicine.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Right on most points , wrong on the above:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parasite
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Parasites do not neccessarily cause harm to the host - an example is the leech in medicine.

Any medical definiton of a parasite requires two species.

 

[Mandinka2]

Any medical definiton of a parasite requires two species.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=parasite&action=Search+OMD

parasite
<biology> An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism (for example Giardia).

(27 Sep 1997)

I was wondering about that and was trying to find one - it refers to one organism living off "another" organism without giving reference to specie. I dare say you're right thought and the definition is incomplete. the point I made (poorly) above is that the relationship between host and parasite can sometimes be mutually beneficial. It is not malevolent BY NATURE.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Right on most points , wrong on the above:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parasite
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Parasites do not neccessarily cause harm to the host - an example is the leech in medicine.

I am glad you presented such arguments, for it further buttresses my points. If one is merely going to use the idea of "parasitism" in reference of one who takes from others with little or no benefit, then I assume you have no qualms about the killing of welfare recipients, small children, the elderly, countries which are supported by our benevolence, etc.

 

[Werd]

What was I thinking?

You are right.




Only MEN have the right to kill. Us silly feeble women will yield to your will because we are, of course, the weaker sex and need to have men decide our lives for us.

 

[Mandinka2]

I am glad you presented such arguments, for it further buttresses my points. If one is merely going to use the idea of "parasitism" in reference of one who takes from others with little or no benefit, then I assume you have no qualms about the killing of welfare recipients, small children, the elderly, countries which are supported by our benevolence, etc.

Huh ? What the fuck are you bringing benevolence into this for ? I merely pointed out you were wrong in saying that "Parasites, by nature, cause harm to the host." . I didnt say that parasitism was a good or bad thing for a SOCIETY (killing of welfare recipients, small children, the elderly, countries which are supported by our benevolence, etc.). Just stick to the point and you won't make so many errors which make your style of rhetoric look like raving. You were doing well up to this btw.