 |
|  |
 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
I wouldn't lower myself discussing on whether an embryo is a human being at a 3 months pregnancy.
This issue has nothing to do with the real issue of abortion : whether the kid and the parents can live a good life after birth or not. It's pretty easy to oppose abortion when you have no chance of ruining your life because of an unwanted pregnancy yourselves. I'm sure that would be wholly different if you had to cope with the result of some accidental sex during the rest of your life. |
FIrst how can you have "accidental sex"???? You chose to have sex or not, it is not an accident. An accident is when you are driving in your car down the street and someone runs a red light and hits you. Second If someone has sex out of marriage and does not use birth controll and a baby results, maybe those people should take responsiblity for what they created instead of thinking its ok because I can throw it away like some piece of trash. This is a human life. Would you support the killing of child that is on the streets or unwanted by the parent? WHy would it be no different with a fetus.
When it comes to Human Rights we do not just take them away from someone because we think that they will live bad lives and kill them right there. You have no idea what will happen to that child, all you have is a guess. A fetus cant voice it self ever and the legal system never considers maybe they do have rights after all. Even people who have brain damage have rights, even brain dead people. Why not so with a fetus?
Last edited by Jack_www on 04-08-2003 at 18:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CyberShy

|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by monolith94
"WHY is a human foetus not human - please define for me"
No memories, no motivations, no desires, no true thoughts.
"thus you think it's ok to kill any human being....... they'll reincarnate anyway."
Hardly - to kill a living person extinguishes far more than just the shell that is one's body - it extinguishes that person's memories, their ability to do good in the world, shortens the time they have with people they love... in short, it does many, many poor things, indeed. |
for the fetis you do kill their ability to do good to the world, you shorten their time they can spend with people they love completely.
And about the 'lost memories'
When you're death it doesn't matter how much momories you had, they're gone anyway.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
a baby, when you get down to it, is a parasite. he or she doesn't stop being a parasite until they move out of the home and get their own damn job.
now, killing the parasite when they're in the home is supposedly a heinous crime. why would killing the parasite in the womb be any different? it's just a change in residency.
personally, i think abortion is murder; i also believe, however, that the government at this time cannot legislate against it because there are huge differences in opinion as to whether a three week old fetus is human or not; there is no question as to whether it is alive or not.
the best thing to do is try and convince those women who want abortions against it. try and persuade their minds, but in the end, be accepting of their decision.
love the sinner, hate the sin, so to speak.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
I guess it's time to school you anti-choicers.
The abortion argument really divides into two stages:
(1) Is the fetus a human being?
(2) If it is, how does one balance any putative rights a featus might have with the right of the mother to control her own body and reproductive capacity? (This leaves the sub-issue of whether fetuses even have rights at all)
All questions of choice or trade-off occur at stage (2), but stage two questions only matter if we resolve the stage (1) question in the affirmative.
The fact is, anti-choicers cannot win the stage (2) argument. In fact, anyone who argues against the reproductive rights of women at stage (2) are simply anti-woman and should be banished to Saudi Arabia. But Zylka is making a stage (1) argument about the humanity of a fetus. Here is why Zylka is wrong.
Put simply, an acorn is not an oak. An acorn is a developmental stage of an oak without itself being an oak. Likewise, a fetus is a necessary developmental stage of a person without being a person. Here is the proof: instead of lancing an 11-month old fetus - surgically remove it intact. Now adopt it out to a nice family or put it in a foster home. If it survives outside the womb, then it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human. If it dies, then it was more acorn than oak.
Oh, one more thing for all you anti-choice social conservatives out there. Unless you are also anti-death penalty, you can shut the **** up on any "right to life". You obviously don't take seriously any so-called "right to life" if you are willing to execute people. This applies doubly to Catholics - since the Church has also called for the abolition of the death penalty.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: in any case, abortion is murder; a fetus is as human as a child, a teenager, a comatose patient, a retarded individual, a crippled individual, or elderly adult (all annoying and irritating parasites which have great odds against survival by themselves). the debate is largely about whether to accord the status of being human on the fetus. |
The issue is personhood. We simply do not agree that a fetus is comparable to many of those examples.
Children, teenagers, comatose patients, retarded individuals, crippled individuals, and elderly adults all have something that a young fetus clearly lacks. They all have personalities: even the comatose patient has a personality that's currently dormant, but nevertheless exists. The only type of adult comparable to a young fetus is a brain-dead comatose patient: and we don't support "rights" for those either, so at least we're being consistent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
quote: This applies doubly to Catholics - since the Church has also called for the abolition of the death penalty. |
the church believes in the sanctity of human life. death penalty and abortion are thus both wrong.
i'm confused as to what the thrust of that argument is. |
Tha is just a refusal to debate anyone who is inconsistent on this position.
quote: in any case, abortion is murder; a fetus is as human as a child, a teenager, a comatose patient, a retarded individual, a crippled individual, or elderly adult (all annoying and irritating parasites which have great odds against survival by themselves). the debate is largely about whether to accord the status of being human on the fetus. |
Wrong. Even of a fetus is fully human, abortion does not equate morally with murder (we'll skip the legal stuff and just think of murder for the moment as a morally impermissible killing). Suppose a fetus is a human (affirmative answer to the stage (1) argument - see my previous post). Then, the question of whether abortion is murder is a balancing act between the rights of women to control their bodies and reproductive capacity and any rights the fetus might have. But showing that a fetus has rights AND that these rights outweigh any rights of the mother is stage (2) (again, see previous post) of the abortion argument. The simple humanity of the fetus won't suffice. You must balance the competing rights claims. But that would be another thread - so lets stick solely with humanity of fetus arguments here in this thread.
quote: the crux of this is the difference between the two sides: one chooses to accord the status of being human on the fetus, the other does not. their reasons and their beliefs vary. it is precisely because of that difference that abortion at this time cannot be legislated. |
Again, I could concede that a fetus is human, and still argue that a woman's right to control her uterus supercedes any fetal rights. It is much the same as the right you might invoke to keep a gang of homeless people out of your house in winter - sure they may freeze, but dammit, you have a right not to let them into your house.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberShy
quote: one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath. |
I can't believe any jewish rabbi said that.
In the psalms King David says he was created and formed in his mother by God. And He was loved by God.
There is more in the Bible, but only that should be enough to claim that the Jewish faith believes that an unborn baby has a soul. |
I'll need to see the passage, but I don't see how this contradicts what the Rabbi said. At most it suggests that his body was formed by god in his mother's womb, it does not suggest that god gave him a soul in his mothers womb. I believe part of the theological argument for the Rabbi was that god actually doesn't simply give people a soul, its the very act of a body taking its first breath that allows the soul to enter the body.
There are definately biblical passages that suggest a soul is conveyed through the act of breathing. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...2&division=div1
Last edited by Mordoch on 04-08-2003 at 22:16
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa
yavoon:
pah convenience. Explain whats so bad about the way it is!
You always got to choose between choice or life, why favor one over the other?
3 months time for choice after that is for life. Now whats so bad about that?
And when someone suspects it is an easy thing for a woman to go for abortion I can only laugh. I guess this is maybe one of the most difficult descisions a woman has to face!
And just because a small percent of the women (ab)use the system for their joy does not justify to punish the much greater majority for whom abortion is a life-saver.
ata |
abortion is a life saver. wow the diction of a giant.
u can certainly agree w/ the law. but u have to be able to support ur case out of more than convenience. u have to convince ppl that even if that weren't the law that would be the right way to go.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zylka
|
|
LOL Ramo, so how exactly do you see an unresponsive invalid who does not know when to open its mouth for meals or go to the washroom as sentient? How does this being have "the capacity to produce abstract thought" when he/she does not even have "the capacity to stop sh*ting his/her pants"?
Furthermore, why does a fetus not have the capacity to produce abstract thought? What parametres set the ability for such mental construction? I'm really curious to hear these answers, is all.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|