Abortion.
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Shog9 wrote: If the father was just after sex, he should have made good and sure that was all she wanted too. I don't say that's an easy thing to do, but that is the way it is. You have to remember women are sneaky. :suss: They will get their way. :-D
-
I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I *am* anti-"Roe vs Wade". I think it was a gross abuse of the power of the court to simply decide in a non-democratic way that a fetus is not a human being. Obviously, pregnancy represents a medical condition, and there may be any number of valid medical reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. Like a lot of people, however, I do not consider birth control to be a legitimate reason. Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that I agree 100%.
-
See my post below. --- CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong?
My point was that women don't have a right to choose. I was illustrating the fact that men who become fathers cannot force a woman to have an abortion. If the fathers don't have a choise, then the precedent is set, and women don't legally have a choise either. I am against abortion. I guess I wasn't articulate in my agruments though..
-
My point was that women don't have a right to choose. I was illustrating the fact that men who become fathers cannot force a woman to have an abortion. If the fathers don't have a choise, then the precedent is set, and women don't legally have a choise either. I am against abortion. I guess I wasn't articulate in my agruments though..
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but how does this follow? Just because the father cannot force the woman to have an abortion, the woman can't have one if she wants? Since when is it the father's right to dictate the use of his wife's body in matters such as this? The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Aww damn, I GTG to bed :( Just when I thought I might find something more interesting than XSLT (which is truly utterly fascinating, BTW). Don't maul my argument into little tiny shreds before I wake up!
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but how does this follow? Just because the father cannot force the woman to have an abortion, the woman can't have one if she wants? Since when is it the father's right to dictate the use of his wife's body in matters such as this? The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his. The fact is that it is his sperm. And becuase it is his sperm, he must legally support the child with child support. I would agree with you if the courts didn't persue men for child support, but the fact is they do!
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: There are exceptions but very few that justify taking a life for personal convenience and that I feel is what most cases are about. Lack of responsibility. I agree. I have a question though. If you were a criminal and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, and killed the fetus, would you get charged with murder? If you would, then isn't abortion murder also? I remember reading a story in the news where a drunk driver crashed into a pregnant women who later lost the fetus, and he was charged with murder. I think those rulings prove that a fetus is a life in the US courts. So how can a woman decide if it is a life, or isn't a life? It isn't a choise, it is a fact!!
Martin Marvinski wrote: If you were a criminal and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, and killed the fetus, would you get charged with murder? If you would, then isn't abortion murder also? Let me nitpick. You are not a criminal until found guilty. Having already commited one crime does not influence this question. I do not know what the general policy in each state is. In high school in MO this question did come up and yes it would be prosecuted as murder. I agree with you completely. It is taking a life and you have to treat it as such. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. I am not saying that is a justification for outlawing abortion altogether, I am simply saying that we must be very cautious when allowing such power to the state. You must always be cognizant of the 'law of unintended consequences' espcially when dealing with political power. Abortion is an issue vital to our culture which goes far beyond the mantra of "A woman's right to choose". "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
BTW, I also think the "viability" argument is stupid. If the fetus is not viable than why does it need to be aborted? "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: does that make infanticide acceptable. Read it again - he was very careful to make definitions which have already answered that question. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. I disagree, hummmmmmm is the noise of an engine grinding... Maybe I need to get mine looked over.... hummmmmmm... ;P ****Colin Davies wrote: The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. A fetus and a baby are still two different things. It would be as well to simply do ayway with the whole idea and start counting your age from conception, then there would be no confusion. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
My opinion is simple - I do not have one. Or to be more specific, I do not have a "uiversal" opinion on abortion. Each individual case should be reviewed seperately by trained professionals and two things should be taken into consideration for every desicion: 1. The physical state of the human fetus at the would-be time of abortion, and when it makes the transition into a functioning human child. 2. The physical and emotional state of the bearing mother at the would-be time of abortion and when it makes the transition into a functioning human child. Most pro-life opinionated people believe that [1] alone is a valid and justifiable reason for abortion, but [2] cannot be overlooked - of special importance is the emotional state of the mother. Is it right to take a child to full-term and give them all chances of a good life with caring foster parents if the mother is destroyed as a member of society? I'm all for "a life is a life, regardless" but that 'regardless' does not apply when one would have a negative affect on another. It's basically the old "I have a right to do anything I want so long as it does not hurt others" - something Americans of all people should be very familiar with. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. I am not saying that is a justification for outlawing abortion altogether, I am simply saying that we must be very cautious when allowing such power to the state. You must always be cognizant of the 'law of unintended consequences' espcially when dealing with political power. Abortion is an issue vital to our culture which goes far beyond the mantra of "A woman's right to choose". "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. The fetus does not have the rights of a human being, and it will not until it is a baby, i.e. an independent human, or a human that could function as such (Colin is saying that this can happen at 21 weeks, my statistics say 5 months, but he sounds pretty sure of himself and therefore I guess we can trust him). That is why I keep stressing this certain point, that is, the point where a fetus has the capacity to function as an individual human, and therefore should be given rights. My timeframe for this certain point has been pushed back quite a bit by Colin's remark, but my essential stance remains the same. Stan Shannon wrote: Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. That is an exceedingly good point. Where could this lead? Although it is extremely implausable IMHO, this could lead to the "subhumanization" of infants, or children, or mentally damaged people, or anything that the majority/Supreme Court/Congress/whatever governing body has the power to do so, decides is not "human" enough. I can see where you are going, however, I again come from the point that not only is a fetus subhuman, it is also less developed mentally/physically than any of these other categories, and, most importantly,
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. Yes, but my point is that when life begins does not matter, it's when the life of an individual human (or a fetus with the capacity to function as such) with the rights guaranteed to a human, begins. I typed out my thoughts on this matter below, I would refer you to that. ****Colin Davies wrote: Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. If/since that is the case, I think we can definitely pin this certain point where fetuses have the capacity to function as a human being with rights back to 21 weeks. My previous statistics said 5 months, but you sound pretty confident that fully human babies are deliverable at 21 weeks, so I'll take your word for it. In that case, killing a fetus after 21 months is the killing of a human that could at that time function within society, and should have the right to life, and is therefore murder. ****Colin Davies wrote: The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. No, I disagree. A fetus is an unborn baby. A baby is a born fetus. Clearly cut. When an abortion is done, it is always done upon what can be literally termed a fetus, but since some fetuses (for some reason I want to say fetii, is that normal? :~ ) have the potential at that very moment to become babies, then they should not be aborted. Again, this turning point from a fetus with no rights to a fetus with the potential to at this very moment become a baby with rights happens, according to you, at 21 weeks. ****Colin Davies wrote: Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Again, no. If it cannot survive on its on, it is a parasite, and has the legal rights of any other parasite. The only point that seems debateable here would be that it is a parasite that could become a non-parasite within <21 weeks, but in my mind the potential future state of an entity should have no bearing upon its legal rights at the moment. I'd just like to toss this out there, as a reflection upon the "potential
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his. The fact is that it is his sperm. And becuase it is his sperm, he must legally support the child with child support. I would agree with you if the courts didn't persue men for child support, but the fact is they do!
Good point, I guess. I still think my argument stands, you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system that impairs us sensible peole to have arguments logically.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Good point, I guess. I still think my argument stands, you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system that impairs us sensible peole to have arguments logically.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system Problem is this is a moral issue not a legal one. Just because you can legally do something or not does not make it right or wrong. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
