Abortion: with or against?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Why is it you answer everyone with that smug attitude and do nothing but pick fights. not everyone is confused here. And just to throw you a bone show me where a person is legally defined instead of being so vague in your points. because lets be honest with such vague answers your not debating your instigating. Im not picking sides in this abortion crap but your attitude in general on this site rubs me the wrong way. And by the way giving me the definition of a person isnt what im asking for thegerg

1. Person is deflecting
2. Person lost the arguement
3. All of the above

Pretty simple really. You just focus on what words I used instead of the actual arguement. I've noticed that you also ignore the two sentences above. Which means you had no arguement in the first place other than "Woah, woah, woah. I think that word is questionable therefore your arguement is void"

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You posted concerning a constitutional definition of a person. You have yet to provide a constitutional definition of a person. The Constitution does not define a person. You are continuing to fail to support your claim that "The constitution only defines persons in a post natal form."thegerg

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Why is it you answer everyone with that smug attitude and do nothing but pick fights. not everyone is confused here. And just to throw you a bone show me where a person is legally defined instead of being so vague in your points. because lets be honest with such vague answers your not debating your instigating. Im not picking sides in this abortion crap but your attitude in general on this site rubs me the wrong way. And by the way giving me the definition of a person isnt what im asking for thegerg

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The arguments we make are composed of words. It is very important to pay attention to the words we use. Your argument was that the Constitution defines a person in a certain way, that is simply false. Hubadubalubahu's argument was that I claimed "they" didn't legally define a person in a certain way. He is being vague as to who "they" are and seems to think that I have somehow contradicted myself. If you wish me to address your argument make the argument clear and then support your argument.thegerg

Pretty simple really. You just focus on what words I used instead of the actual arguement. I've noticed that you also ignore the two sentences above. Which means you had no arguement in the first place other than "Woah, woah, woah. I think that word is questionable therefore your arguement is void"

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I am telling no one that their definition of "person" is wrong. I am simply saying that the Constitution does not define "person", as others have claimed.thegerg

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="thegerg"]Your argument is that the Constitution defines a person in a certain way. That is simply not the case. You are continuing to post a description of how the word is used in the Constitution, not a definition of the word according to the Constitution. I have not ignored those sentences, I am just telling you that they do not provide a constitutional definition for any word.thegerg

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, it doesn't. You seem to be confused as to the legal definition of a human person. Please do some research before posting again.thegerg

i am going to laugh my ass off if thegerg talks about context after arguing with me that context never matters.surrealnumber5

Man, OT will truly have its world rocked if an antinatalist ever appears.

Man, OT will truly have its world rocked if an antinatalist ever appears.

T_P_O

I understand that position when it comes to many people.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i am going to laugh my ass off if thegerg talks about context after arguing with me that context never matters.thegerg

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]Your innocent man example lacks a context, so we do not know if the death of the innocent man is the only possible solution or a solution that will even work. Both of these conditions must be fulfilled for it to be a suitable analogy to the abortion situation.

Genetic_Code

If there is no possible way for the man to save himself EXCEPT by murder, then how can you be so sure that his act of self-defence is "wrong"? Would you rather he choose to lie down and die just because of another person's actions? The other individual may have endangered him unintentionally - but the law still considers individuals to be accountable for "accidental crimes", which is why a person can be convicted of manslaughter. By suggesting that this action is morally wrong you are implying that the threatened individual has a less valuable life than the threatening individual.

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You may be right, it may be killing. However, an unborn fetus does not fit the legal description of a living person. It is not bull, it is law.thegerg

if it has a heartbeat it does!

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="thegerg"]I have never argued that context doesn't matter.thegerg

I'm in between... I myself couldn't get one unless it was going to affect the health of me or the baby or if I knew it had some kind of disability because I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to cope with that.

Though if women want to get and get abortions for being irresponsible with their birth control then I won't even try stop them.

I've got an odd opinion on abortion: On the one hand, I feel that an unborn baby is a living person and aborting them is the same as murder. On the other hand, I feel that if other people want to do that, well, that's their business I guess.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I believe you are thinking of the thread in which you tried to argue that a word can be redefined due to its context. I never argued that context doesn't matter, simply that the words "criminal" and "illegal" don't mean the same thing and that to describe an act that is not criminal as being criminal is simply incorrect.thegerg

and the argument at hand was that things are bad because they are illegal, and that was the argument i was addressing before you chimed in to derail the thread.... i guess kinda like i did here.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

In most cases I oppose it. The Qur'an says a few things that have lead me to believe that God has a plan for a baby's life. I think it's OK to abort it if the mother's health is at a serious risk, though.

Well, we don't believe that He causes all things to happen, because if that were true, He would be the one who causes people to sin, making him a cruel tyrant. He allows things like abortion to happen, but that doesn't mean it's a kin to a puppet master controlling his puppets by forcing people to abort their fetuses. When I said that He has a plan for a baby's life, I meant that His message of salvation is open to all of humanity. Even though a baby doesn't understand what a relationship with God is, the human being, once it gets old enough to understand, is welcome to choose the path of Islam. His plan is for that person to live by Islam.

I've heard that some hadiths [our oral traditions] say that all babies are born sinless and are in a state of Islam, meaning that if the baby dies, it will go to Paradise. I've never come across this hadith personally, so I don't have a source, unfortunately. Sorry if that's a little convoluted-- it's difficult for me to explain. It was a great question, though. Thank you for asking it.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

2) If the baby was concieved out of rape, then why not refer to #1 above? its not his fault that he was concieved in such a horrific way, neither is it the woman's fault. Everyone deserves the same chance at life.

trugs26

ah, but is it really right of society to expect a woman to have a constant reminder of such a traumatic experience for 9 months straight? Personally I don't think so.

I'm not speaking to the issue of abortion here, not making a claim for or against. I am going to say that the issue of a child concieved from rape is not a 9 month experience however. This isn't a rare thing unfortunately, although it's relatively rare in the USA. Some people can have that child and divorce him/her from the event that gave birth to it completely. More often, you hear about seeing the mix of your own features, and the rapist's features... a grim and constant reminder. There are women who argue that having had sex forced on them, it's a further crime to force them to carry and bear a child of that crime. Obviously the position of someone who believes that abortionis murder would say that you don't respond to rape with murder. Still, it's worth exploring the issue a bit more...

We can say, "well, give the kid up for adoption, the it really is just 9 months", but this it's not so simple. The normal processes that lead to bonding with a child usually factor in, they just exist in conflict with the trauma of being raped and seeing the face of that rapist in your kid. Obviously some also worry about what being the child of someone who would rape a woman means for that child's future behaviour and temperment, but I'm not sure how much that factors into any given culture.

In short, to assume that this can be easily reduced to an issue of 9 months, and all of the bodily stress and changes that are the result of pregnancy which has been forced on a woman, is innacurate. You can't consider the choice to abort, or appreciate the magnitude of a choice to keep such a child without fully appreciating the reality of the situation.

Personally I don't like abortion, but I still support the choice. Best bet is to not end up in a situation where you have to choose.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I understand the argument you are trying to make. If your point was "all that is illegal is illegal" I did (and continue to) agree. But, what you said was something along the lines of "all that is illegal is criminal", which is simply incorrect. Context can not change that fact.thegerg

and the argument at hand was that things are bad because they are illegal, and that was the argument i was addressing before you chimed in to derail the thread.... i guess kinda like i did here.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You too persisted with the argument, trying to claim that the context in which the word was used somehow redefined it. Which was incorrect. Which was my point.thegerg

Against, only in particular cases....like rapepspdseagle

You do know that statistically 3 out of 5 rapes are never reported right? The closest thing they do is being anon and contacting a hotline or a support group.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="thegerg"]No, it doesn't. You seem to be confused as to the legal definition of a human person. Please do some research before posting again.thegerg

This is exactly what we needed, anyways, with.

[QUOTE="Setsa"][QUOTE="DevilishStyles"] I'll give you points for effort. DevilishStyles

I am against it for two reasons:

1. Yes I am amongst those that say it is killing babies...there is such a thing as adoption if they don't want the baby.

2. When my mother was pregnant with me, her sister's boyfriend at that time was going to pay for an abortion...if my grandmother hadn't stepped in, I wouldn't be here today...so that is a very personal reason for me as to why I am against abortion.

The only time I would ever agree with one is if the pregnancy put the woman's life in jeopardy.

[QUOTE="DevilishStyles"][QUOTE="Setsa"] None for wit? :( In all seriousness though, regardless of one's individual opinion of controversial topics like abortion and same-sex marriage, I believe the most ignorant thing to do is brand an entire sect of people as ignorant or close minded solely because their views differ from your own. Such prejudice can, ultimately, be a larger problem than the initial topic at hand.Wren28

I am against it for two reasons:

1. Yes I am amongst those that say it is killing babies...there is such a thing as adoption if they don't want the baby.

2. When my mother was pregnant with me, her sister's boyfriend at that time was going to pay for an abortion...if my grandmother hadn't stepped in, I wouldn't be here today...so that is a very personal reason for me as to why I am against abortion.

The only time I would ever agree with one is if the pregnancy put the woman's life in jeopardy.