After birth abortion?

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, ‘no right’?  He didn’t climb in from the outside.  Fetuses don’t assert themselves into existence of their own volition.  They don’t ask to be conceived.  This is getting a bit silly.

1. It does not matter if it was conceived there or not it's an unwanted organism and it has not right to live within her and use her body[/i]

You say a fetus has no personhood, yet you’re always going on about its rights.  So, is it a person or not?

[Amarok]

1. It does not matter if it was conceived there or not it's an unwanted organism and it has not right to live within her and use her body[/i]

You say a fetus has no personhood, yet you talk about its rights all the time.  So, is it a person or not?

Not following you ? 

I said it has "no " right to use here body not sure were your going with that. Because i see no contradiction between saying it's not a person and saying it has no right to use someones else body or that forced pregnancy is a violation.

[LadyForCamus]

You say a fetus has no personhood, yet you talk about its rights all the time.  So, is it a person or not?

Not following you ? 

I said it has "no " right to use here body not sure were your going with that.  Because i see no contradiction between saying it's not a person and saying it has no right to use someones else body or that forced pregnancy is a violation.

When you say that a fetus has no right to be in a woman’s womb it sounds like you’re insinuating that the fetus itself is trying to assert some control over the woman’s body that it thinks it deserves. That, Ofc, is ridiculous.  A fetus in the womb is not trying to claim undeserved rights.  It’s simply doing what it is biologically programmed to do, which is gestate.  Whether or not it’s allowed to stay where it is, and continue that involuntary process to its completion is determined by others. Obviously, the fetus isn’t in control of where it is, or what happens to it.

[Amarok]

Not following you ? 

I said it has "no " right to use here body not sure were your going with that.  Because i see no contradiction between saying it's not a person and saying it has no right to use someones else body or that forced pregnancy is a violation.

When you say that a fetus has no right to be in a woman’s womb it sounds like you’re insinuating that the fetus itself is trying to assert some control over the woman’s body that it thinks it deserves. That, Ofc, is ridiculous.  A fetus in the womb is not trying to claim undeserved rights.  It’s simply doing what it is biologically programmed to do, which is gestate.  Whether or not it’s allowed stay where it is, and continue that involuntary process to its completion is determined by others. The fetus obviously has no control of where it is, or what happens to it.

I never insinuated any such thing .That's a straw man of my position which i have made more then clear 

My position in no way argues the fetus is consciously carrying out the violation in question merely that it's actions are a violation if it is against the mothers will  .How you keep missing this i don't know ?

[LadyForCamus]

When you say that a fetus has no right to be in a woman’s womb it sounds like you’re insinuating that the fetus itself is trying to assert some control over the woman’s body that it thinks it deserves. That, Ofc, is ridiculous.  A fetus in the womb is not trying to claim undeserved rights.  It’s simply doing what it is biologically programmed to do, which is gestate.  Whether or not it’s allowed stay where it is, and continue that involuntary process to its completion is determined by others. The fetus obviously has no control of where it is, or what happens to it.

I never insinuated any such thing .That's a straw man of my position which i have made more then clear 

My position in no way argues the fetus is concisely carrying out the violation in question merely that it's actions are a violation if it is against the mothers will  .How you keep missing this i don't know ?

A fetus cannot ‘act’ in the colloquial sense of the word any more than a plant or a parasite can, because it is not conscious. Generally speaking, only people can act on each other.  I agree with you that government forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy (justified or not) will cause her to feel violated, but that has nothing to do with the fetus itself.  That violation is the result of the actions of grown adults.  The fetus is innocent.

[Catholic_Lady]

My sister was almost aborted when my mom found herself pregnant with her at 19 to a drug dealing, abusive boyfriend.

My sister had nothing to do with the circumstances she was put in. It wasn't her fault. She didn't ask to be put in that situation. She was a completely innocent bystander to the crappy situation she was put in. The notion that my sister was somehow an intruder who was violating my mother's body is absurd.

Thank God for my pro life aunt who took my mother in and was the only person who told her not to abort. She saved my sister's life.

[Amarok]

A fetus cannot ‘act’ in the colloquial sense of the word any more than a plant or a parasite can
, because it is not conscious. Only people can act on each other. 

I consider instinct action nor do i think conscience deliberation is needed to act .Thus the fetus or a ring worm   drawing on a persons  resources and living in there body against her will is a violation wither it by deliberation or instinct the result is the same and thus the women has the right to remove the violator from her body

 I agree with you that government forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy (justified or not) will cause her to feel violated, but that has nothing to do with the fetus itself. That is the result of the actions of grown adults.  

I agree with your first point but it goes beyond feels it is by any definition forced reproduction thus is equal to rape as far as i'm concerned . What i will disagree on is that it has nothing to do with the fetus because wither it wills it or not it's unwanted presence is a violation and she holds the right to remove it .

 The fetus is innocent.

That plays no role in this as i'm not arguing from guilt or innocence. Nor does it factor into rightness or the mothers right to remove it  or they act it doing against her will.


This is a blood sucking lamprey it's innocent of a willful act it's still violating me when it starts to drink my blood and i still have the right remove it from my arm even if it results in it's death .

---

My sister was almost aborted when my mom found herself pregnant with her at 19 to a drug dealing, abusive boyfriend. 

That's very sad  but aside my point 

My sister had nothing to do with the circumstances she was put in. It wasn't her fault.

Nor am i saying it was 

 She didn't ask to be put in that situation.

Once again not what i'm arguing 

She was a completely innocent bystander to the crappy situation she was put in.

Once again not what i'm arguing 

 The notion that my sister was somehow an intruder who was violating my mother's body is absurd. 

No it's not as that what she was doing by simply being there if your mother did not want her there was a violation and she was within her rights to remove her .As tragic as they could be .

Thank God for my pro life aunt who took my mother in and was the only person who told her not to abort. She saved my sister's life.

Good as long as it was voluntary  and not forced by law then i have no issue with it .

[Angrboda]

A fetus in the womb is not truly separate from the mother carrying it. Starting from falsehoods only leads to absurdities.

[Amarok]

A fetus in the womb is not truly separate from the mother carrying it.  Starting from falsehoods only leads to absurdities.

But i think at least enough as to not be part of her body .Not as though it matters really to the Pro choice side .

[LadyForCamus]

I consider instinct action nor do i think conscience deliberation is needed to act .Thus the fetus or a ring worm   drawing on a persons  resources and living in there body against her will is a violation wither it by deliberation or instinct the result is the same and thus the women has the right to remove the violator from her body

I understand the point you are trying to make, but again, it seems unnecessarily vitriolic to refer to the fetus as a “violator.”  It implies some sinister intention on its behalf, which is silly.

I agree with your first point but it goes beyond feels it is by any definition forced reproduction thus is equal to rape as far as i'm concerned . What i will disagree on is that it has nothing to do with the fetus because wither it wills it or not it's unwanted presence is a violation and she holds the right to remove it .

I’m saying that the fetus is not, and cannot be culpable, contrary to how you’ve colored your rhetoric, intentional or not. I’m not saying that is your position; I’m just explaining how it sounds to me.

 The fetus is innocent.

That plays no role in this as i'm not arguing from guilt or innocence. Nor does it factor into rightness or the mothers right to remove it  or they act it doing against her will.

I will retract the word ‘innocent’ with regard to the fetus.  It was imprecise and smells a bit of an appeal to emotion in retrospect.  I just mean that in situations of unwanted pregnancy, the fetus is not capable of making a moral decision about its presence.

This is a blood sucking it's innocent of a willful act it's still violating me when it starts to drink my blood and i still have the right remove it from my arm even if it results in it's death .

Comparing a fully developed, self-sufficient, adult parasite of another species to the fetal stage of human gestation is a false analogy. That creature (ew, btw 😛) does not carry the potential for personhood.