It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Rett Madison talks inspiration behind new album "One for Jackie"
West Virginia native Rett Madison started writing songs as a child and performing at summer camps. Her most recent album, "One for Jackie," is an emotional powerhouse about her mother that thrust her into the spotlight. Dana Jacobson talks with Rett Madison about the new album and the tragedies surrounding...
Arguments
It's been my experience that most people starting threads like this one just want to plaster their opinion everywhere but are not actually willing to listen...
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ...     people   experience   threads  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
just like I have said in similar threads when is it a baby and or when is it human
Murder is generally frowned upon and or illegal
if you believe at conception a human is made/created whatever and you are Pro-life you should not change your mind absent proof that a life/human is not created at conception.
and since there is no clear definition of when life/human beings (yet) the issue will never be resolved.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Pro-life    similar threads   human beings   clear definition  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Applesauce I believe the only logically consistent train of thought is that life begins at conception. Because of this, I believe you should not have the right to end that life with the exception of extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Pro-Choice    exception of extreme cases   consistent train of thought   mind  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
Abortion is just a nicer term and makes people feel better than kill, though kill is more accurate imo.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Pro-Choice    only possible way   Pro-life   unique event  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human life    new unique genetic code   Pro-Abortion   Pro-Choice  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
tbh I'm not sure where I draw the line exactly, I totally oppose late term for any non life threatening reasons.
what ever is created at the time of conception is a live there can be no argument against that so that's not even something that can be argued.
the argument is defining what it is. It has unique chromosomes, dna, whatever all of which are human and nothing else. If only humans have human dna then it must be human most likely because we do know what it's not, it's not cancer cells, it's distinctly different than the woman so this claim that it's part of her isn't accurate, it's dependent and attached to her but to claim it is no different than any other part of her is just not factual. They only way to create conception is by fertilization of an egg from 2 humans, if grown to gestation it's always a human baby, it's never a puppy or a reptile.
so yeah the sticking point is the definition, everything else is irrelevant pretty much.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human dna    cancer cells   time of conception   humans  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human life    consistent answer   new unique genetic code   late term abortions  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whether the creature is technically a human or not is not very relevant. Something being a human does not mean it is free to feed on another human as a vampire without the latter's consent.
I do not see any holes in this rationale. I do see a lot of holes in an unconscious fetus being given the same rights as regular humans, however.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: regular humans    wishes of the body   life   creature  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: idea of abortion rests    different individual circumstances   terms   life  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@ZeusAres42 I was just using the term "Pro-Life" to clarify my stance that I am against abortion with the exception of extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk. I've stated my views and for the most part my reasoning behind why I have taken that stance.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: birth parents    grandparents   risk   life  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pro-choice on the other hand is clearly my position, there's no valid reason to frame it otherwise... I'm in favor of choice, nothing else...
You're absolutely right that the issue rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas, and that's the very reason why, no one but the pregnant woman, can deal with them... When personally faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, it's almost like the trolley problem, any choice will have consequences and only the one at the switch CAN make the choice, no one else can...
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: pro-life    moral dilemmas   Pro-choice   unplanned pregnancy  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
What about a person in a coma? or in a similar state? people who are paralyzed, their lives aren't sacred?
a baby that is cut apart, alive, that feels pain, a woman's feelings are worth more than preventing that death and suffering, that is truly barbaric.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: regular humans    similar state   child's life   wishes of the body  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pro-life is accurate so the opposite would be Pro-death, which is what the end result goal of "choice" actually is just like the end goal of Pro-life is life.
I disagree, the issue is simpler than people make it out to be. They complicate it to avoid facing the reality of what it is, they are afraid to face the truth.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's not about trying to "take away the woman's right to choose", it's about not allowing the murder of a baby for someone's own convenience.
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
1: It's not "Baby" it's "Fetus"... Like a caterpillar is not a butterfly...
2: You can only murder a person, fetuses are not persons... Though this may well change in the US if the Christian Talibans have their way...
3: The mere possibility of something happening while doing X is irrelevant... People have sex for the sake of having sex, even protected accidents happens, that's also life, happens... I highly doubt anyone in history purposefully got pregnant just to get a kick out of aborting later, or cheered and giggled when faced with this decision...
I can grant that life begins at conception, but then all living things die and procreating is effectively creating an inevitable death too... We could argue about the value of life itself but wouldn't that be purely philosophical? The government has no business in regulating philosophies, right? Freedom of thought and all, right?
The reason why the government can and must enforce laws against murder of members of their society is because murder of a member is disruptive to society, and that's the sole purpose of the Law and the government, to insure order in society... Not because it's ultimately right or ultimately wrong, governments don't deal in what's right or wrong, philosophy does and therefore faith too, but both philosophy and faith are personal in ways no other things are, right? You wouldn't want the government to impose a particular belief on you right?
So the only valid rationale for being against the right to abortion, from a government stand point, would be to try and demonstrate factually, that abortion is disruptive to society, how it is so, in what ways and to which extent compared to other disruptive occurrences...
Then there might be grounds for something... Otherwise, it's a private matter between the pregnant woman and her own conscience or her god if she fancies one, no one else... And for that very same reason, you're perfectly justified in your stance about abortion (for yourself), as I am in mine...
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not see the practical ability to sustain oneself without anyone's help as relevant here. What's important is whether the creature needs to feed on someone else's body to do so. A child that has already been born needs only external resources and no longer feeds on the woman's organism.
Consider a fantasy world in which vampires exist and need to feed on people's blood to survive. They cannot survive otherwise; would it, in your view, justify prohibiting people from employing self-defense when attacked by a vampire? I would think not. It is the same here; abortion is nothing more or less than plain self-defense.
Killing a child that has already been born would not have anything to do with self-defense, however; it would be murder. Letting the child starve, but not actively attacking it - that is a more complicated matter, and strongly depends on the dominant societal norms. A society in which doing so is legal is not absolutely impossible, although pretty difficult to imagine given our history.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: fantasy world    plain self-defense.Killing   external resources   self-defense  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
How well do you think? Convince me you are not in favor of slavery?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.56  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Pro-Life    topic of abortion   interesting topic   new abortion ban  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: legal precedent    United State   Alabama   admission of guilt  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
A fetus is just a baby that hasn't been born yet, it's still a baby but that term is just used for when it hasn't been born yet. But I want to ask you, if a fetus is not a person then what do you believe constitutes a life that you cannot kill? At what point during pregnancy or after birth do you believe it is no longer okay to kill that baby? That's what I base my stance on, I believe the only logically consistent idea for determining that is that life begins at conception. And because I believe that's where life starts, you cannot kill it just like you can't kill anyone else.
Again, I don't want to misrepresent you. So I'd like to ask you to clarify, when you do believe it is no longer okay to kill a fetus/baby? At what point during or after pregnancy does that baby become a life that you cannot kill? Also, almost all cases of abortion are most certainly not "plain self-defense". Less than 1% of all abortions are due to the mothers health being at risk, rape, incest, or other cases such as that. Almost all people have abortions because they just don't feel like having to deal with a kid, they can't afford raising one, they're done having kids, or they don't feel like they're ready for one despite deciding they're mature enough to have sex. There is almost always an alternative that doesn't include killing the baby such as adoption.
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.02  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
There's a reason why the term "fetus" exist otherwise it would not exist, calling it a "baby" is just an appeal to emotion in this debate...
You want my opinion? It will be just as good as any other opinion, it won't be an argument, just a personal opinion but ok...
On life, my opinion is that yes, technically "life" begins at conception, I have no problem with that... Now, at what point during pregnancy can we proceed with an abortion? At any point really, the sooner the better but at any point before actual birth is fine with me... I personally would not have one, or it would certainly bother me a lot to be faced with this decision... Late term abortion are very sad things, and doing our best to reduce those occurrences is a noble goal. But the best way to rightfully reduce those numbers is by facilitating early term abortions and by educating the population... If you deny early access to abortion procedures, (like in many southern states) you are in fact increasing the occurrences of late term ones, those bureaucratic hurdles are responsible for those late term abortions...
Now, you're asking for AFTER birth too???? Seriously??? Ok.... Once a fetus is out of the uterus, we're not talking about abortion anymore... Postpartum abortion is not a thing... So after birth it would be murder in my opinion...
You know, there's nothing wrong with being against abortion, I don't see why you would want to change your opinion on this... You can dislike it as hard as you want, the choice is yours alone... Likewise my utter disdain for religion is my sole prerogative, I have every right to despise religion, as long as I don't force this belief on others and do not act toward restricting others rights to believe in any god... Now, if we're talking abort the right for a government to ban the procedure, it's another matter...
Deciding to abort or not, is a matter between you and your own conscience or your god if you fancy one, no one else... The same way I cannot legislate which god, one has a right to believe in...
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Once the baby is out of the woman's body, it is no longer a parasite, it is an independent creature. At that point, obviously, getting rid of it constitutes a murder. Any moment before that, abortion is self-defense.The exact reasons for choosing to undergo abortion do not really matter; what matters is that the person has the freedom to choose, because they own their body in its entirety and are not obliged to put up with anything that damages it, even if temporarily and reversibly. Those who oppose abortion are free to not undergo one on their own body, but they really have no say in what other people do with theirs.
@Applesauce
A person in coma is already a citizen with full rights. You cannot choose against their desire to terminate their life - although, I suppose, you can choose to stop using resources to maintain it, unless you have signed some sort of contract with that person stating otherwise.
A mosquito also has feelings and feels pain, yet I do not think you will hesitate for a moment before killing one that is feeding on your blood. Something having feelings does not suddenly make that something an exempt from the general rules.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: exact reasons    sort of contract   woman's body   abortion  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Plaffelvohfen Calling it a baby is not an appeal to emotion fallacy, it's just not using a euphemism. All I was asking was for you to pinpoint when you think it's no longer okay to kill it, and you seem to have the same opinion on that as the person above so just read what I said to him. If we can both agree that conception is what constitutes a life like you said, then that should be the end of the discussion because you can't take the life of another human being.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is factually false as governments take human life on a regular basis... If you argue that there are exceptions, then I'd argue that abortion is one of those exceptions too...
See, I don't like abortions, I don't cheer and dance when an abortion is performed, bottom line is it's not ANYONE's choice but the pregnant woman's... It's a matter between her and her own conscience or her god if she believe in one, no one else...
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: life of another human being    regular basis   human life   end of the discussion  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
A mosquito also has feelings and feels pain, yet I do not think you will hesitate for a moment before killing one that is feeding on your blood. Something having feelings does not suddenly make that something an exempt from the general rules.
proof that mosquito's have feelings and feels pain?
a woman's body is designed to accommodate, protect and grow the baby, this claim it's a parasite is laughable, show me another organism that is designed to carry, create and grows it's own parasite.
Any moment before that, abortion is self-defense.
give me any real definition of self-defense that could apply, actual self-defense arguments use to protect one's self from death.
because they own their body in its entirety
show me proof that the baby is the woman's property
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: general rules.proof    real definition of self-defense   own parasite.Any moment   feelings  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Plaffelvohfen Calling it a baby is not an appeal to emotion fallacy, it's just not using an euphemism. I was just simply asking you to pinpoint when you think it is no longer okay to kill the baby, and it seems that you have a similar opinion to the person above so read what I said to them. If we can agree that life begins at conception like you said, then that should be the end of the discussion because you can't take the life of another human being.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: unborn baby    different discussion   difference   murder  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
What proof do you need? You are welcome to read the papers on the subject; all insects have nervous systems and experience feelings.
The "baby" is not the woman's property, but everything that is within the woman's body is her property, just like everything that is in your body is your property. If your body is not your property, then you are a slave to the state, and this is not in the spirit of our Constitution.
@Dylan
The location is not as relevant as what the creature is doing. To me, here what is relevant is that the creature inside is feeding on the woman's body, hence, in the interest of preserving her body, she is free to do with the creature whatever she feels like. Everything else, such as whether the creature is autonomous or what reason the woman might have to get rid of it, is beside the point I am making.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's an appeal to exception if your premise states that taking a human life is wrong...
This is your formal argument, correct?
1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
2) Fetuses are innocent human beings.
______________________________
3) Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human life    innocent human beings   appeal   formal argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: innocent individuals    extreme abnormal cases   mothers health   fetuses  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ok then I'll argue that the plausibility of the premises rest on an equivocation on the term ‘human being’:
1) Human in the genetic sense = being a member of the biological species homo sapien.
This includes not only functioning children and adults, but also includes fetuses (even very early fetuses) and living human bodies without functioning brains (e.g. those in irreversible comas).
And,
2) Human in the moral sense = being a full-fledged member of the moral community. The moral community is the set of beings with moral agency, and consists of all and only persons.
If ‘human being’ has the same sense in both premises then one of them is question-begging. Either the argument assumes that it is wrong to kill something merely because it is homo sapien, or the argument assumes that a fetus is a member of the moral community. Both of these claims are contentious...
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human being    member of the moral community   human bodies   member of the biological species  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mothers health    broken record   previous replies   case  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Plaffelvohfen What exactly is the point you're trying to make? You know what my stance is here from my previous replies, I just think you shouldn't be able to kill another person without proper justification.
Justification or alibi? In either case Roe Vs Wade describes Privacy lost by the admission of Pregnancy Abortion.
You do not address the United state by it's complete state of the union made on all Female Pregnancy. Two things must take place with all pregnancy.
1. A woman lengthens a life, or as many eight lives in basic principle.
2. An alien non resident of the United States crosses a border entering America. Legally or illegally.
In tune with impartiality a juror can never be allowed to know the nature of the illegal entry into the united states of America, Nor can they know there is a Capital punishment made by the nature of return to origin nation in deportation process.
I agree a woman should not need bear a burden like this alone without the United States Constitutional right of all woman are created equal.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: United state    case Roe Vs Wade   Capital punishment   nature of the illegal entry  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mother's health    example   risk   birth  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
My point is that it does not follow that it's wrong to kill fetuses based on those premises...
But ok, consider this other anti-abortion argument:
(1) All fetuses are persons.
(2) Every person has a right to life.
(3) Therefore, every fetus has a right to life.
(4) Therefore, abortion is wrong.
For argument sake and against my own beliefs, I'll assume that 1 and 2 are true and I'll argue that (4) does not follow from (3). From the fact that something has “a right to life” it does not follow that it is wrong to kill it. This much is easy to see, since most of us agree that it is not wrong to kill in self-defense.
This suggests that (4) needs to be qualified “except to save the life of the mother”. But the gap between (3) and (4) is much wider than this. Along these lines, there is the notion of bodily autonomy, and that this might outweigh the fetuses right to life. (Notice that this does not assume that the fetus is literally part of the mother’s body).
True, anti-abortionist can simply respond that the right to life is the strongest and most fundamental right there is, and so outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens to her body.
But here I won't even argue that the mother’s right over her own body outweighs the fetuses right to life. I'll argue that many opponents of abortion have (incorrectly) assumed that it is always and everywhere wrong to kill innocent people, and once understood correctly, it will be seen that (4) does not follow from (3).
I'll use Judith Jarvis Thomson argument from analogy (This is an argument of the form “Action X has properties A, B, and C. Action Y has properties A and B.Therefore, Action Y has property C.” In the case of the ethics property C is often “is morally permissible.” If you object to the conclusion of an argument from analogy, you must show how the cases are relevantly different. It is not OK to say “one case is unrealistic” unless you explain how this is relevant to the morality of the case.)
So, suppose that the society of music lovers has kidnapped you and connected you via IV to a sick violinist. The violinist took no part in your kidnapping, and in fact would never have approved of it. If you stay attached to the sick violinist for nine months, he will live; if you detach before nine months, he will die. Here is the argument:
There is no easy way for the anti-abortion argument to be amended to account for this. Saying that those who are products of rape have no right to life or have less of one “has a rather unpleasant sound” (meaning it is discriminatory in a bad way), not to mention it is ad hoc.
The solution is not that certain fetuses have less of a right to life or none at all; the solution is that having a right to life simply does not entail having the right to someone else’s body. This means that the argument is invalid; the conclusion (4) does not follow from the premises.
So what does the right to life consist in? One suggestion:
(a) the right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
Objection: Sometimes the bare minimum is something you have no right to. (Violinist example).
(b) the right not to be killed
Objection: Sometimes you can be killed by being deprived of something you have no right to. (Also, there is self-defense)
We can thus conclude that the right to life guarantees only the right not to be arbitrarily killed.
WHEN DOES THE RIGHT TO LIFE APPLY?
This is an argument intended to show that the right to life does NOT guarantee the right to the resources we need to live.
Premise 1: Even if Johnny Depp could save my life merely by touching my forehead, he would not be murdering me if he failed to do so.
Premise 2: If it were very easy for Johnny Depp to touch my forehead, he would have some (weak) obligation to do so. If it were very difficult for him to do so (if he lived far away, for instance), he would have NO obligation to do so.
Conclusion 1: My right to life does not mean that people are required to give me the things I need to live.
Conclusion 2: We have SOME obligation to be “good Samaritans” and to give others the things they need to live. However, this is a fairly weak moral requirement, and failing to do so does not mean that one has committed “murder” or that one has violated an innocent’s person “right to life.”
On the basis of these arguments, we can conclude that the morality of abortion may vary somewhat on a case-to-case basis. For example, it would (most likely) be morally wrong to have an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy in order to be free to travel to Europe. It would (most likely) be morally OK to have an abortion in the first trimester if the pregnancy would be very difficult (health-wise, career-wise, etc.) for the woman. In neither case, however, would having an abortion be akin to “murdering” a person.
We can also note two significant differences between this position and some more common pro choice positions:
1. This position does not entail that abortion is always morally acceptable.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    anti-abortion argument   sick violinist   innocent people  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.
My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: abortion cases    nonexistent marginal case   birth control   mother's health  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: death penalty    rape victims   support torture   social safety nets  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Location in this case correlates with the determinant of whether killing the creature is fine or not, but it in itself is not the determinant. Whether it was born prematurely or not, again, is not relevant to my argument; what is relevant is whether the creature is actively feeding on the mother's body, or not.
Whether this creature is deserving of life in itself or not is secondary to the freedoms of the creature it is parasiting on, which is the mother.
I am just expressing how I see it, and explaining why my position is self-consistent. You do not have to agree with me, but you cannot deny that my position is well thought-out and lacks any obvious holes.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mother's body    freedoms of the creature   creature   Location  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 37%  
  Substantial: 28%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: abortion    business   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
What proof do you need? You are welcome to read the papers on the subject; all insects have nervous systems and experience feelings.
it's your claim insects have feelings, it's your burden of proof not mine to disprove, this comparison of any mammal to an insect is a fallacy at best.
The "baby" is not the woman's property, but everything that is within the woman's body is her property, just like everything that is in your body is your property. If your body is not your property, then you are a slave to the state, and this is not in the spirit of our Constitution.
if it's not her property than it's a separate thing? what is it? What is a thing that has unique human dna, human heart and brain waves?
you can not use lethal force to protect your property so whether your body is your property or not isn't relevant in the context of someone else's life.
how is a baby the day before the due date killed in utero? do you know the procedure?
if you made the argument that if the woman no longer wanted to be attached to the baby that the baby should just be taken out, that's one thing, but killing the baby first isn't necessary is it, in fact it would be removed alive and then given to someone who wants it. justify killing the baby if you can as I don't find it necessary when the gestational age has been long enough where it could easily survive outside the womb.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would say this, all murders end in death, not all deaths are murder, thus I didn't use the word murder
all successful abortions end in death, that's all I'm saying, it's accurate and correct, just people people don't like the term because it makes them feel bad isn't relevant.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: murders end    successful abortions end   people people   death  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
John is correct and all these arguments for pro death aren't what Roe v. Wade is about. The ruling is about privacy and not having to admit that an abortion occurred, that's all it is about. it does not say that abortion is legal, a right or any such thing. There are certain criteria needed to determine if a crime has been committed based on an investigation. The ruling basically prevents an investigation and disclosure for the criteria, which isn't the same thing as saying it's legal.
Read John_C_87 posts when he use words like admission, alibi and similar, though much is difficult to understand due to the translation into English from whatever his native language is, I believe he is correct in the interpretation of the law, case. It's consistent with other discussions on the ruling as well.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: such thing    native language   nbsp   interpretation of the law  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say...... all successful abortions end in death, that's all I'm saying, it's accurate and correct, just people people don't like the term because it makes them feel bad isn't relevant.
My reply .....Yes that’s true , so if you wish to be consistent and you accept that abortion is the murder of a baby do you want women who abort given life imprisonment as the murder of a baby is in most societies given the harshest prison sentences?
Also do you want a woman who aborts to have any other of her other children put into care ? Again to be consistent you couldn’t have a mother who’s a child murderer look after children could you?
Finally if a woman who is raped and is convicted of the murder of the rapists child through abortion and is charged and given serious jail time would you think it fair the rapist gets less jail time than a baby murderer?
All these problems will now arise in the throughly backward state of Alabama
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: people people    successful abortions end   murder of a baby   serious jail time  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The woman doesn't want to be pregnant, removal of the baby accomplishes that, so how do you justify killing it first, seems like an unnecessary step, a cruel and barbaric one actually. What is the point or need to kill it first?
From what I have heard and understand these laws do not punish the woman but rather punishes the person who actually preforms them, much like not punishing the drug user but punishing the dealer, manufacturer.
If you believe babies are innocent, shouldn't be killed etc then how they are conceived is irrelevant as they didn't chose how they because alive
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: murder of a baby    serious jail time   people people   successful abortions end  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is every person's problem the moment woman had been voted into the Congressional Armed Civil Service. Congress and woman then placed all woman into a united state which set all woman as created equal before united states constitution. This also is the justification in declaration a united state on basic principle of admission is not acceptable.
At no point have all woman been proven to in truth have complete control of pregnancy. In truth the only area woman has a majority of control is in the decision of how pregnancy might take place.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moment woman    person's problem   mother's health   only area woman  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
State of then union address:
Rape is not a facture in any litigation of the accusation of murder. The use of lethal force by induction into Armed Services is set on the basic principle illegal or legal entry into the united states. These two basic separations set a legal ground that can be monitored for abuse that is clear and easier to interpret for judicial governing as a united State.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: use of lethal force    united state   basic principle   Armed Services  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.
My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.
My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill it without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: abortion cases    nonexistent marginal case   birth control   mother's health  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra