x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends ff8c072dd79a91c1300f032d674241a8d64367100ffb1f25fa3f9bec4a05319f
Kidzworld Logo

Politics and Religion

Do you support abortion? Why or why not?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Next →
Posted By:
AlphaT
AlphaT
Member since:
March 2011
Status:
Offline

Posts: 11113
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted 30 days ago

"-KitCat-" wrote:

1. What is the cut off?

18-25 weeks, some states there is no cut off.

That's the cut off as stated by various state laws. I asked you what the cut off is, not what a random state legislature thinks the cut off should be. We're talking about the difference between killing and murder, so if there is a cut off, you should know it right?


"-KitCat-" wrote:

2. Then why does consent for the act which transplants organs serve as consent for someone else to use your organs?

you consent for them to remove your organ so someone else can use it. You also have to consent to the other person using it. If I have something removed, it does not give them consent for someone else to use it.

Example: for whatever reason I have a kidney taken out in surgery. No one can use my kidney. It's mine.

You need consent for both.

Consenting to the act which makes you pregnant inherently makes you responsible for the consequences of engaging in that act.
Example: You consent to eating nothing but fast food for an entire year. You become unhealthy. Regardless of whether or not you wanted to become unhealthy, you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. 

You don't get to kill someone because you didn't want to create them when you engaged in the very activity which created them. This should be common sense, but you think that people aren't responsible for the consequences of their actions. 
 

"-KitCat-" wrote:

The part where you show that bodily autonomy applies to a mother ending the life of her child.

just how it applies to anyone, related or not. Just because it's a matter of life or death does not mean someone is obligated to your body. Has nothing to do with responsibility. Also a woman responsibility is not to give birth.

It has everything to do with responsibility. If our obligations are the same when it comes to our children and a complete stranger, then there is nothing wrong with leaving your children cold and alone on the street. You can do that with a random stranger, because you have no obligation to their well being. But I think we can all agree that we cannot throw our children out on the streets. 

Since we do have an obligation to our own children, you need to show how this obligation stops short of not killing them while they're developing. 

"-KitCat-" wrote:

1. How does age determine our rights? Do older people have more human rights than younger people?

you gain certain rights as you get older.

Also a 5yr old does not have the human right to right to marry.

Let's not be pedantic. If you cannot see the point I'm making,  I can reform my question to "How does age determine our right to life?" 

But to your claim, we do not gain human rights as we get older. Marriage is not a human right, it's a civil right. Marriage is a privilege granted by an authority, such as the government.
Contrast this with the right to life. All people have the right to be alive simply because they are human. This right is not granted by an authority, and it exists in absence of an authority. 

And, please, let's not bring up the concept of just killing. It's an interesting red herring, but a red herring nonetheless.

"-KitCat-" wrote:

2. You keep claiming that the mother has no obligation to the life of her child, but you haven't argued for this claim. You need to present some reason why what you say is correct.

she is not obligated to give birth.

Legally she has not obligation to the fetus (unless of course she decides she wants carry to term)

Once they are born, then you have a legal obligation to the child, usually until they are 18.

So I asked you to tell me why a mother has no obligation to the life of her child, and you gave me to reasons:

1. Because she has no obligation to give birth. 

This is just a reassertion. It's not an argument for why women have no obligation to give birth, it just is the claim that women have no obligation to give birth. 

2. Because the law says she has no obligation to give birth.

Just because something is legal does not make it correct. There have been many things which the law has said that you disagree with, like the banning of gay marriage.


Posted By:
-KitCat-
-KitCat-
Member since:
July 2017
Status:
Offline

Posts: 107
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted 29 days ago

"AlphaT" wrote:

"-KitCat-" wrote:

1. What is the cut off?

18-25 weeks, some states there is no cut off.

That's the cut off as stated by various state laws. I asked you what the cut off is, not what a random state legislature thinks the cut off should be. We're talking about the difference between killing and murder, so if there is a cut off, you should know it right?


"-KitCat-" wrote:

2. Then why does consent for the act which transplants organs serve as consent for someone else to use your organs?

you consent for them to remove your organ so someone else can use it. You also have to consent to the other person using it. If I have something removed, it does not give them consent for someone else to use it.

Example: for whatever reason I have a kidney taken out in surgery. No one can use my kidney. It's mine.

You need consent for both.

Consenting to the act which makes you pregnant inherently makes you responsible for the consequences of engaging in that act.
Example: You consent to eating nothing but fast food for an entire year. You become unhealthy. Regardless of whether or not you wanted to become unhealthy, you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. 

You don't get to kill someone because you didn't want to create them when you engaged in the very activity which created them. This should be common sense, but you think that people aren't responsible for the consequences of their actions. 
 

"-KitCat-" wrote:

The part where you show that bodily autonomy applies to a mother ending the life of her child.

just how it applies to anyone, related or not. Just because it's a matter of life or death does not mean someone is obligated to your body. Has nothing to do with responsibility. Also a woman responsibility is not to give birth.

It has everything to do with responsibility. If our obligations are the same when it comes to our children and a complete stranger, then there is nothing wrong with leaving your children cold and alone on the street. You can do that with a random stranger, because you have no obligation to their well being. But I think we can all agree that we cannot throw our children out on the streets. 

Since we do have an obligation to our own children, you need to show how this obligation stops short of not killing them while they're developing. 

"-KitCat-" wrote:

1. How does age determine our rights? Do older people have more human rights than younger people?

you gain certain rights as you get older.

Also a 5yr old does not have the human right to right to marry.

Let's not be pedantic. If you cannot see the point I'm making,  I can reform my question to "How does age determine our right to life?" 

But to your claim, we do not gain human rights as we get older. Marriage is not a human right, it's a civil right. Marriage is a privilege granted by an authority, such as the government.
Contrast this with the right to life. All people have the right to be alive simply because they are human. This right is not granted by an authority, and it exists in absence of an authority. 

And, please, let's not bring up the concept of just killing. It's an interesting red herring, but a red herring nonetheless.

"-KitCat-" wrote:

2. You keep claiming that the mother has no obligation to the life of her child, but you haven't argued for this claim. You need to present some reason why what you say is correct.

she is not obligated to give birth.

Legally she has not obligation to the fetus (unless of course she decides she wants carry to term)

Once they are born, then you have a legal obligation to the child, usually until they are 18.

So I asked you to tell me why a mother has no obligation to the life of her child, and you gave me to reasons:

1. Because she has no obligation to give birth. 

This is just a reassertion. It's not an argument for why women have no obligation to give birth, it just is the claim that women have no obligation to give birth. 

2. Because the law says she has no obligation to give birth.

Just because something is legal does not make it correct. There have been many things which the law has said that you disagree with, like the banning of gay marriage.

1. The cut off is what each state sets it to be. 

2. And if the most responsible thing to do is get an abortion? 

3a. I'm honestly not seeing how anything you said, had anything to do with what I said. I'm talking about body autonomy and how no one has a right to your body even if it means they will die. 

3b. I don't see where I said a parents obligations are the same for a stranger and their child. 

4a. Do you believe in the death penalty? 

5. She does not have to give birth because she can choose to. Remember body autonomy? 

6. No woman can call herself free if she does not own and control her own body. Her other rights are hollow if she is forced to carry and give birth. Being born is not a right, it's a gift. People don't ask to be born, they are forced. 

7. When should abortion be allowed? 

8. Also abortion rates are going down. 
Most abortions happen before 12 weeks. With 34% happen before 6 weeks. 
A fetus does not develop a cerebral cortex until around 24 weeks. 

Posted By:
AlphaT
AlphaT
Member since:
March 2011
Status:
Offline

Posts: 11113
Star 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1eStar 771721baa52164faab3e80914eb3e8e418513288f39d7ccffd0d5c4f8d045d1e
Posted 29 days ago


"-KitCat-" wrote:


The cut off is what each state sets it to be.


Let's be clear about what we're talking about. We're talking about the point where a fetus possesses human rights. This is not determined by state law, this has to be a biological fact. 

If it's murder to kill a baby the week before they're born, then a state which says you can have an abortion up until the day of birth is allowing murder. Correct? 

So, what is the actual cut off point? Imagine if there was no government, what week of pregnancy would it be wrong to have an abortion?



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 2. And if the most responsible thing to do is get an abortion?

You'd need to show how killing your child is more responsible than not killing them.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 3a. I'm honestly not seeing how anything you said, had anything to do with what I said. I'm talking about body autonomy and how no one has a right to your body even if it means they will die.

And I'm bringing up the fact that mothers have a responsibility to their children that they do not have to other people. You say this paternal responsibility still allows for mothers to kill their children, and so you need to give us an argument for what that's the case.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 3b. I don't see where I said a parents obligations are the same for a stranger and their child.

Bodily autonomy makes sense when it's applies to random strangers. You have no responsibility to the stranger who needs an organ, so it's your choice whether to help them or not. 
You then try to apply this logic to our own children, and I'm pointing out the fact that we are more responsible for our children than we are for random strangers.  

A lack of obligation is what allows bodily autonomy. If we have an obligation to our children, you need to show how aborting them is compatible with this responsibility.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 4a. Do you believe in the death penalty?

No. This is also an interesting red herring, but a red herring just as well.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 5. She does not have to give birth because she can choose to. Remember body autonomy?

You're using circular logic. You say women can abort their babies because they can choose who uses their body. I show you that women have a responsibility to their children that they do not have to anyone else. When asked to show how this responsibility does not invalidate abortion, you reaffirm that a woman has bodily autonomy.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 6. No woman can call herself free if she does not own and control her own body. Her other rights are hollow if she is forced to carry and give birth. Being born is not a right, it's a gift. People don't ask to be born, they are forced.

Women do own and control their own body. The woman controlled her own body when she chose to create her child. She now has to live with those consequences, just as everyone has to live with the consequences of their own actions. 

And of course people don't ask to be born. How is that even relevant?



"-KitCat-" wrote:


 7. When should abortion be allowed?

In cases where carrying the child to full term would pose a direct threat to the mother's life.



"-KitCat-" wrote:


Most abortions happen before 12 weeks. With 34% happen before 6 weeks.



A fetus does not develop a cerebral cortex until around 24 weeks.

Your point? Does the cerebral cortex magically confer person-hood? Is there a spectrum whereby people with a damaged cerebral cortex are less human than those with a normal cerebral cortex? 

Unless you can show me that the value of human life is tied directly to human development, the week in which a child is killed is meaningless. 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Next →

Latest Forum Posts

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

The Backwards Story

Kaitlyn I By Tomboy_ I A Book, That I plan...

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

The Backwards Story

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

Have a Question about God or Religion? Ask...

The avatar of the user above you appears a...

Latest Videos

Play Online Games