To Be Voided

[Lizardbreath]

I had an interesting thought. For those of you who are against abortion because you say it is murder. You should be against ALL FORMS OF WAR because legalized killing is murder. So anybody who is against abortion but for war is a hypocrite. Awesome.

[Venice_native]

That's true but in war, unborn children aren't usually targets. Any children for that matter. There is a difference between killing somone with a gun shooting and you and an unborn baby. Good point though.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

I had an interesting thought. For those of you who are against abortion because you say it is murder. You should be against ALL FORMS OF WAR because legalized killing is murder. So anybody who is against abortion but for war is a hypocrite. Awesome.

It would be people who are not against war where the civilians are purposely targeted/not distinguished from enemy combatants that would be hypocrites if they were against abortion (such as any form of nuclear war).

Abortion is killing without due process.
(assuming they are recognized by law)

[Lizardbreath]

But does war give our enemies due process?

[Tipsy]

They are given due process when they are within our jurisdiction. This would be incases of capture and so forth (though it could also be credited to international law). Unlike fetuses [assuming they are recognized by law], foreign enemy combatants are normally not within our jurisdiction.

Though I will make it much simpler and just put this in my religious beliefs. War can only be justified when:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition"

A justified war works for justice - abortion does not. The reasoning behind the two cannot be compared.

[Lizardbreath]

Yes they can; You agree that killling someone is murder right? So when a soldier kills somebody they are murderers. Also, a fetus has no citizenship whatsoever; which therefore means it is not under the protection of the United States. Primarily because it has no documentation within the government that states that it, in itself, is a citizen of the United States. You can only get Citizenship for a baby which is born, not one which is not.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

Yes they can;

I happen to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

You agree that killling someone is murder right?

Murder is illegal killing. The law I am going by is the law of God. Not all killing is murder.

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

So when a soldier kills somebody they are murderers.

Completely depends on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

Also, a fetus has no citizenship whatsoever

You do not require citizenship to obtain some basic rights when in the jurisdiction of the United States, life being one of them.

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

which therefore means it is not under the protection of the United States.

Only if it is not in the juridstiction of the United States.

Originally Posted by Lizardbreath

Primarily because it has no documentation within the government that states that it, in itself, is a citizen of the United States. You can only get Citizenship for a baby which is born, not one which is not.

You do not need to have citizenship to have the right to life in most countries.

A fetus is just not recognized under the law as discussed (with the reasoning why) long ago earlier in this thread.

[Undead Cheese]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

Also, a fetus has no citizenship whatsoever; which therefore means it is not under the protection of the United States. Primarily because it has no documentation within the government that states that it, in itself, is a citizen of the United States. You can only get Citizenship for a baby which is born, not one which is not.

This argument was already refuted.

[Lizardbreath]

No it wasn't. The United States only gives citizenship to born living and breathing people. Not non-born.

[Undead Cheese]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

No it wasn't.

Yes it was. Check the posts from the last time we had this debate.

[Lizardbreath]

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

Yes it was. Check the posts from the last time we had this debate.

Yeah...your debate lacked a base because you sited documents that were created before abortion was even thought of and stated it was used to back your anti-abortion argument. The constitution doesn't state that it gives babies inside mommies stomachs legal citizenship in the united states. It was written for people after birth. Until you show me that little part your argument is useless/null/void.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

Yeah...your debate lacked a base because you sited documents that were created before abortion was even thought of and stated it was used to back your anti-abortion argument. The constitution doesn't state that it gives babies inside mommies stomachs legal citizenship in the united states. It was written for people after birth. Until you show me that little part your argument is useless/null/void.

To quote myself... from eights months ago in this thread.

"It does not say adolescent or adult either, but we assume that it covers the rights of all humans."


===========================

As a note to all. If nothing new is brought to this thread then it will be closed.

[OneEliteMof0]

PHP Code:

 It's before the baby can feel, think ect when they are allowed to abort it. I don't think it has rights. 


PHP Code:

Tipsy Wrote:
And now to get back on topic, since when have people been able to discriminate rights based on physical characteristics or age, other than in cases of safety? 


In your quote you state "people". My question is when does the fetus actually become a person? There needs to be a defined law on abortion. However, not all abortion should be illegal.

Obviously a women (Normal child birth) waits 9 months for the baby to be born. The law needs to define where the fetus becomes somthing that has rights specifically. When that is defined, requirements to have an abortion should be outlined.

First of all, a Fetus is not a baby. It is not capable of thinking for itself. At that point it is not a complete life form. However yes it is alive, so was the egg it formed from. Not to mention the sperm it came from. I feel the fetus from day 1, should have the exact same rights as the sperm it originally came from. As both fall under similar catagories:

-Both are part of a human
-Both have a chance for life
-Both can be created
-Both can be killed


In which the womens egg's would also fall under this catagory.

Speaking as of day one which the egg + sperm meat. Common sense would say at stage 1, all 3 of those should have the same rights, if they had any rights at all. Now 9 months later, that Fetus would have grown, formed, developed. Now is a life form. Would have the same rights as any other human bieng. Oncethe specific outline from when it shares the same rights as a living human has been formed, anything beyond that should be illegal.

It has to have a changing point where it becomes a lifeform with rights. From where it once didn't have rights, to where it did.

If you feel that it should have the same exact rights from day 1, up untill 9 months later, than mabie you should be concerned about other things. Because 1 second before it entered the egg, compared to 1 second after it went into the egg, not much has changed.

What about when a Male masturbates? Taking somthing that had the possibility of life, and destroyed it by his own will.

This would not be much difference than eliminating the lifeform 5 seconds after it gained access to an egg.

Its not illegal to masturbate is it? Im sure it isn't sense half the world is not in prison. Mabie it is a Sin, but it is not illegal.

Or even a wetdream which is completly out of your controle. Pray to god and show remorse for your subconscious dream? Ofcourse not, that is inane.

98% of men masturbate, the other 2% are liars.





My point bieng is that a line needs to be drawn where it becomes a lifeform with rights. So discuss where you think that point is. Why? Also your views on weather the lifeforms rights would change from 1 second before going into the egg, compared to one second after going in.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0

In your quote you state "people". My question is when does the fetus actually become a person? There needs to be a defined law on abortion.


Obviously a women (Normal child birth) waits 9 months for the baby to be born. The law needs to define where the fetus becomes somthing that has rights specifically. When that is defined, requirements to have an abortion should be outlined.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Supreme Court Justice Blackmun (the writer of the majority opinion) wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." The Supreme Court refused to answer that question.

First of all, a Fetus is not a baby. It is not capable of thinking for itself. At that point it is not a complete life form. However yes it is alive, so was the egg it formed from. Not to mention the sperm it came from. I feel the fetus from day 1, should have the exact same rights as the sperm it originally came from. As both fall under similar catagories:

-Both are part of a human
-Both have a chance for life
-Both can be created
-Both can be killed

There is one key difference between a fetus and an egg/sperm. A fetus is human, it has 46 chromosomes - it is genetically identical to a human being. Sperm and eggs are not genetically identical to human beings and only have half of the chromosomes a human being has. A fetus is a human. A baby is a human. Sperm and eggs are not.

In which the womens egg's would also fall under this catagory.

Speaking as of day one which the egg + sperm meat. Common sense would say at stage 1, all 3 of those should have the same rights, if they had any rights at all. Now 9 months later, that Fetus would have grown, formed, developed. Now is a life form. Would have the same rights as any other human bieng. Oncethe specific outline from when it shares the same rights as a living human has been formed, anything beyond that should be illegal.

All three should not have the same rights. A sperm is not a human, it lacks the necessary chromosomes. An egg is not a human, it lacks the necessary chromosomes. A fetus is a human, it has all 46 chromosomes and is genetically identical to a human being.

It has to have a changing point where it becomes a lifeform with rights. From where it once didn't have rights, to where it did.

Perhaps it should receive 'human' rights once it becomes a living 'human'.

If you feel that it should have the same exact rights from day 1, up untill 9 months later, than mabie you should be concerned about other things. Because 1 second before it entered the egg, compared to 1 second after it went into the egg, not much has changed.

Except for the fact that it has become a human being and now is a body of 46 chromosomes genetically identical to a human being as to before it was a sperm and an egg, neither having enough chromosomes to be a human being.

What about when a Male masturbates? Taking somthing that had the possibility of life, and destroyed it by his own will.

Last time I checked sperm is not a human being, it lacks the necessary chromosomes.

This would not be much difference than eliminating the lifeform 5 seconds after it gained access to an egg.

Except it is now genetically a human as opposed to two bodies that are not.

Its not illegal to masturbate is it? Im sure it isn't sense half the world is not in prison. Mabie it is a Sin, but it is not illegal.

Masturbation does not kill a body that has 48 chromosomes and is genetically identical to a human being.

Or even a wetdream which is completly out of your controle. Pray to god and show remorse for your subconscious dream? Ofcourse not, that is inane.

I agree.

98% of men masturbate, the other 2% are liars.

I disagree. I do not fit into the category of masturbating or lying about it.

My point bieng is that a line needs to be drawn where it becomes a lifeform with rights. So discuss where you think that point is. Why? Also your views on weather the lifeforms rights would change from 1 second before going into the egg, compared to one second after going in.

I think a human being should receive human rights when it becomes human. One second before, it is two bodies that are not genetically human, one second after it is one body that is genetically human.

As a side note, all of this has been discussed before.

Edit: I'm an idiot and just realized last night I repeated '48 chromosomes' when in fact it should be '46 chromosomes'. It has been fixed.

[OneEliteMof0]

Instead of defining when life begins, we could define what life has rights.


Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside another human being.

The fetus is not an actual human being. It is a potential human being.

A great quote I found was, " Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not have freedom to make any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host."

A human being has actions it can make rationaly. A fetus does not have an action to performe. The women (by getting pragnant) gives permission for the fetus to be there. Permission is not a right. The woman should have a right to cancel a permission at any time.

A fetus is a potential human being, which would not be an actual individual, because it does not have ANY physiological Independence outside its host (Pregnant woman).

The issue of terminating the fetus is what the main issue is about here. If it were a full human being, it would not need a host to live off of. If the woman was to have it removed from her, with out damaging the fetus, but placed on its own to make its own actions, it would terminate itself.

This is why it is not a human being with rights. This is why the woman should be able to request it bieng taken out of her. If the women did not kill the baby, but just removed herself from bieng the "Host" the fetus depends on, she would not be killing the fetus. The fetus would die on its on because it is dependant on a "host".

One of the biggest problems with anti-abortion supporters who want it illegal actually are automatically wrong sense we have (Supposed to have) Seperation of church and state. Although views are influenced by many things, Religious views are to be taken out when the issue is a legal action.

EDIT:

PHP Code:

Tipsy wrote:
As a side note, all of this has been discussed before. 


Not seeing the relevance in that at all. Those very likly could be pieces looked at in the future to determine an abortion. They were completly on-topic reguarding abortion. Besides, think how many times abortion, when a life becomes a life, what makes it a human, and what stage is it okay to terminate. Im sure they each have been discussed before. I'm sure they will end up bieng discussed again in court, and out.

[Tipsy]

Not seeing the relevance in that at all. Those very likly could be pieces looked at in the future to determine an abortion. They were completly on-topic reguarding abortion. Besides, think how many times abortion, when a life becomes a life, what makes it a human, and what stage is it okay to terminate. Im sure they each have been discussed before. I'm sure they will end up bieng discussed again in court, and out.

The relevance is I have a responsibility to stop this thread from repeating over and over and over again. This it was not coming from me as a debator, but me as a moderator.

I will answer everything you have just said by quoting earlier posts in this thread to show this point. If no new discussion is added this thread will be closed.

One of the biggest problems with anti-abortion supporters who want it illegal actually are automatically wrong sense we have (Supposed to have) Seperation of church and state. Although views are influenced by many things, Religious views are to be taken out when the issue is a legal action.

I will show that being against various forms of abortion is not ‘solely a religious’ thing by answering all of your quotes not only from previous posts, but previous posts made by Undead Cheese who is an atheist – as in not religious.

Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside another human being.

Undead Cheese wrote:

“Yes, it is her choice to do whatever she wants with her body. She chose to have sex, fully understanding the potential consequences of this action regardless of the contraceptive(s) used. As is applied to the rest of society, your rights are limited to the point where they do not infringe on any other person(s) rights.”

And a bit later…

“I see that there are consequences for people's actions, and I feel they need to be responsible human beings and face them. Sex is a gamble, and there is always the chance that it will produce a child. Is it the child's fault that you had sex? No! So why should it be the one that's punished?

You can't just go to Vegas, bet all of your money on a hand, lose, and then not pay your debts.”

A human being has actions it can make rationaly. A fetus does not have an action to performe. The women (by getting pragnant) gives permission for the fetus to be there. Permission is not a right. The woman should have a right to cancel a permission at any time.

Undead Cheese wrote:

“Her comfort does not override the baby's right to live.”

A fetus is a potential human being, which would not be an actual individual, because it does not have ANY physiological Independence outside its host (Pregnant woman).

…

If the woman was to have it removed from her, with out damaging the fetus, but placed on its own to make its own actions, it would terminate itself

…

This is why it is not a human being with rights. This is why the woman should be able to request it bieng taken out of her. If the women did not kill the baby, but just removed herself from bieng the "Host" the fetus depends on, she would not be killing the fetus. The fetus would die on its on because it is dependant on a "host".

Undead Cheese posted:

“The problem with setting a definite point in time at which the child is given rights is simple. What characteristic entitles one the right to live, or, I should say, the right to continue to live? Is it neurological activity? A heartbeat?

Should the child not be considered "alive" simply because it is connected to its mother via the umbilical cord, thus granting the mother the right to terminate its existance? In that case, what about this scenario?:

A mother successfully gives birth to conjoined twins, whom for the purpose of simplicity shall be named Bob and Steve. Now, all is going well and both children are healthy; however, Steve's life depends on the use of Bob's liver. Because of this, should Bob be entitled the right to separate himself from Steve, even if it means Steve will die?”

The fetus is not an actual human being. It is a potential human being.

Undead Cheese wrote:

“From what I've seen the only people who have even pointed that out as a possibility are the supporters of abortion trying to create an inconsistency in the pro-life argument that simply does not exist. Sperm and eggs have absolutely zero[ potential for becomming human beings by themselves, as each of them only possess 23 of the necessary 46 chromosomes a human needs.

Other than that, the stages that take place in the womb are normal processes of development during the human lifespan, and thus should be considered part of it. These developments are no different than those that take place during infancy, adolescence, and throughout a human's entire lifespan. Their genetic code is identical to grown humans; they are merely at a different stage of development. Descrimination by age or physical characteristics is outlawed by the constitution.”

A great quote I found was, " Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not have freedom to make any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host."

…

Instead of defining when life begins, we could define what life has rights.

Undead Cheese wrote:

“Humans are defined by genetics, not by age or by physical characteristics. A fetus is genetically identical to a human and is therefore entitled to the rights guaranteed to it by our legal system. Now address this point or you will have lost this entire debate”

The issue of terminating the fetus is what the main issue is about here. If it were a full human being, it would not need a host to live off of.

Undead Cheese wrote:

“You have yet to explain why birth is some miraculous event that entitles someone to basic human rights. Why should I be able to kill a fetus one hour pre-birth as opposed to one hour post-birth? As I've already stated, a fetus is genetically identical to a fully grown human and is going through a normal stage in human development. How do you define a human? Genetics, not age. The constitution forbids discrimination based on age or physical characteristics, so it is therefore unconstitutional to say a fetus is any less than human simply because they lack certain characteristics you feel magically qualifies them.”

A great quote I found was, " Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not have freedom to make any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host."

I hope you now understand what I mean by all of this has been posted before. I have not myself addressed a single point, but used quotes from Undead Cheese to answer everything.

If nothing new is debated and this thread continues in the circle it is in, it will be closed.

[Lizardbreath]

Undead Cheese Wrote:
"How do you define a human? Genetics, not age. The constitution forbids discrimination based on age or physical characteristics, so it is therefore unconstitutional to say a fetus is any less than human simply because they lack certain characteristics you feel magically qualifies them.”

-Alright then I have a question for you then. If you state that the constitution forbids discrimination based on age or physical characteristics. Then allow me to officially own this thing Undead cheese wrote. When a baby is born it is stated on the birth certificate that it was born on Such & such date and Such & such time. From then on all people consider that baby to day 1+ however many days/weeks/months old. This method of telling age has been used since the dawn of time. So People officially recognize a baby's age once it comes out of the women. We don't just site there and tack on the extra 9 months that the fetus was in the women developing do we?

Undead Cheese Wrote:
"Humans are defined by genetics, not by age or by physical characteristics. A fetus is genetically identical to a human and is therefore entitled to the rights guaranteed to it by our legal system. Now address this point or you will have lost this entire debate"

- Really? Do you consider a leg in a women a human? or how about an ear? Is that a full human? No. That is the silliest argument yet.

Undead Cheese Wrote:

"The problem with setting a definite point in time at which the child is given rights is simple. What characteristic entitles one the right to live, or, I should say, the right to continue to live? Is it neurological activity? A heartbeat?

Should the child not be considered "alive" simply because it is connected to its mother via the umbilical cord, thus granting the mother the right to terminate its existance?

- If a mother doesn't want the child or does not feel that she will be able to take care of it properly she should be able to terminate the pregnancy. In the constitution it states that everybody should be given the opprottunity to pursue life/liberty/ happiness. If the government forces a women to have a child; and because this child is born she is forced into poverty because the person she had the baby with decided not to stick around. What then? You have just deprived the women of the liberty to choose her own happiness.

In that case, what about this scenario?

A mother successfully gives birth to conjoined twins, whom for the purpose of simplicity shall be named Bob and Steve. Now, all is going well and both children are healthy; however, Steve's life depends on the use of Bob's liver. Because of this, should Bob be entitled the right to separate himself from Steve, even if it means Steve will die"

-This is a special case scenario from which I do not know which choice I would make if I was the mother. Grant it they both have brains and the ability to think; but one cannot clearly live on it's own due to the fact that it doesn't have a liver. I believe this is the parents choice, not the courts.


To Tipsy: Everything Undead Cheese wrote is not fact; just because he presents an argument that is opposite of what we writed doesn't mean that it is 100% full proof. Though you may agree with him on this issue; that doesn't mean that others cannot come in here and give their own 2 cents on the issue.

[Lizardbreath]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-The United States particularly mentioned that everybody has a right to privacy within thier own homes and with their own bodies. Setting a law against abortion would break down the privacy that a women is entitled too.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

-Since the United States did not grant the governments right to decided whether or not a women should have an abortion. I believe we should leave this right to the people which is stated clearly in ammendment 10.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- In the beggining of this ammendment it clearly states that all persons being >>>>BORN<<<< or naturalized in the United states are entitled to life, liberty, or property. Not the Un-Born.

Definition of born:Brought into life by birth.

Edit^2: Tipsy wrote: "The Supreme Court disagrees with you"

-Obviously Tipsy missed the fine supreme court case known as Roe V Wade where the supreme court agreed with you ONEELITEMOFO. Tipsy seems to think that case never exsisted or something.


=================================

Apparently my warning has not been listened to. If you (collective, not aimed at any single person in specific) want to reword everything that has been said in the last thirteen pages then you may do it in the Void, but not in the Arcane Sanctuary. As a moderator of this forum, I have a responsibility to close this thread.

The repeating of arguments that have been constantly debated and hammered into the ground multiple times in this thread do not qualify as a reason to bump this thread.

(AS Rules:
Topic bumping is generally frowned upon, as most of you know. We really mind it, so long as you announce that the topic is being bumped. That is the first of two conditions.

The second is the most important one. I can not stress this enough, only, only, bump if you have something important and valid to say, at least a couple paragraphs in length. No one liners, or you will get warned and the post will be split and voided.

Violating these conditions multiple times can have serious consequences (i.e. temp ban, account probation, or banned solely from Arcane Sanctuary.).

Now of course, making a new topic is always the preferred option, and copying and pasting a certain reply from an old topic and starting a new thread to counter that reply is welcomed, and preferred.)

~The bumping posts have been split to the Void.