This is a fucking disgrace
-
fat_boy wrote:
When does life start?
From the standpoint of abortion, it's irrelevant. The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
fat_boy wrote:
Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born.
I agree that it's disgraceful. The intent of abortion should not be to kill a fetus but to remove it from the woman's body. If the fetus can be removed and kept alive, it should be. However, in that case, I would prefer that the woman be forced to carry it to term for a few more months. Unfortunately, who's to stop her from drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, or doing other nasty things to herself (and the fetus) in the mean time?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
he fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
I am stunned by the contorted thinking behind that absurd statement. As if the fetus could somehow ask for and obtain permission...or had any choice whatsoever in the matter.
-
fat_boy wrote:
When does life start?
From the standpoint of abortion, it's irrelevant. The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
fat_boy wrote:
Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born.
I agree that it's disgraceful. The intent of abortion should not be to kill a fetus but to remove it from the woman's body. If the fetus can be removed and kept alive, it should be. However, in that case, I would prefer that the woman be forced to carry it to term for a few more months. Unfortunately, who's to stop her from drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, or doing other nasty things to herself (and the fetus) in the mean time?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
You dont suggest abortions up to 8 months and three weeks?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
No, the potential for life begins at conception.
-
No, the potential for life begins at conception.
From the moment of the first cell division, it is no less alive than a bacterium infecting a cut. Any argument to the contrary is splitting hairs and silly word play.
-
RichardGrimmer wrote:
their "quality of life" is substantially diminished
I am sure you dont advocate killing all babies that are born with a disability or abnormality.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
The advances made
I was referring to understanding the life of a foetus in the womb. Regarding screening, same thing. You suggest it is OK to kill a disabled or deformed foetus, but not a normal one. Where do you get that double standard from and where do you draw the line? As for the mothers life, this is the only solid reason, but isnt necessarially tied to abortion law. Take the case of siamese twins. An operaiton would be caried out because of the risk to the two of them, even though there is a very hogh risk one will die. To preserve one life, one is sacrificed, and it is up to the doctor who gets the organs, the life. The situation of a mother at risk could be trated the same way outside of abortion law.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Take the case of siamese twins. An operaiton would be caried out because of the risk to the two of them, even though there is a very hogh risk one will die. To preserve one life, one is sacrificed, and it is up to the doctor who gets the organs, the life. The situation of a mother at risk could be trated the same way outside of abortion law.
It would be a legal minefield, and I seriously doubt you'd find any doctors who want to make that choice.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Take the case of siamese twins. An operaiton would be caried out because of the risk to the two of them, even though there is a very hogh risk one will die. To preserve one life, one is sacrificed, and it is up to the doctor who gets the organs, the life. The situation of a mother at risk could be trated the same way outside of abortion law.
It would be a legal minefield, and I seriously doubt you'd find any doctors who want to make that choice.
-
From the moment of the first cell division, it is no less alive than a bacterium infecting a cut. Any argument to the contrary is splitting hairs and silly word play.
-
So, wanking is killing life? I mean, a few million alive, moving sperm is life yes?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
When does life start?
From the standpoint of abortion, it's irrelevant. The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
fat_boy wrote:
Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born.
I agree that it's disgraceful. The intent of abortion should not be to kill a fetus but to remove it from the woman's body. If the fetus can be removed and kept alive, it should be. However, in that case, I would prefer that the woman be forced to carry it to term for a few more months. Unfortunately, who's to stop her from drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, or doing other nasty things to herself (and the fetus) in the mean time?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to
hell, as long as the foetus / child / person is still living at home or ugly or deformed or brain damaged from an accident or simply fucking irritating - "adults" should have the right to snuff out the lil fuckers. Sieg Heil!
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
So, wanking is killing life? I mean, a few million alive, moving sperm is life yes?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, sperm do not spontaneously divide or otherwise replicate, so they do not meet any definition of life that requires some form of self reproduction. My point, in part, is that any argument for or against abortion that tries to avoid the fact that the fetus is being killed by introducing some arbitrary definition of life is specious at best. There is no question that a life is being taken. The issue is whether or not the circumstances justify the act. Some would argue that taking a life cannot be justified under any circumstance, but most of them would not hesitate to disinfect a wound...
-
Al Beback wrote:
The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to
hell, as long as the foetus / child / person is still living at home or ugly or deformed or brain damaged from an accident or simply fucking irritating - "adults" should have the right to snuff out the lil fuckers. Sieg Heil!
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Thats pretty much the way I read his post too if you define 'using someones body' as being materialy supported by their labour in some way. Actualy, we might as well 'abort' all unemployed people since they are dependent on my 'body'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, sperm do not spontaneously divide or otherwise replicate, so they do not meet any definition of life that requires some form of self reproduction. My point, in part, is that any argument for or against abortion that tries to avoid the fact that the fetus is being killed by introducing some arbitrary definition of life is specious at best. There is no question that a life is being taken. The issue is whether or not the circumstances justify the act. Some would argue that taking a life cannot be justified under any circumstance, but most of them would not hesitate to disinfect a wound...
-
martin_hughes wrote:
It would be a legal minefield, and I seriously doubt you'd find any doctors who want to make that choice.
But this is already done, today.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I've heard of such decisions being made solely by a doctor and/or family members when the mother has been incapacitated (motoring accident, birth complications and other tragic emergency circumstances), but not the case you suggest where a doctor decides in advance whether the mother or child survives.
-
From the moment of the first cell division, it is no less alive than a bacterium infecting a cut. Any argument to the contrary is splitting hairs and silly word play.
An acorn is not an oak. It is a potential oak. In the same sense, a fertilised egg is a potential human being, it is not a human being.
-
No, sperm do not spontaneously divide or otherwise replicate, so they do not meet any definition of life that requires some form of self reproduction. My point, in part, is that any argument for or against abortion that tries to avoid the fact that the fetus is being killed by introducing some arbitrary definition of life is specious at best. There is no question that a life is being taken. The issue is whether or not the circumstances justify the act. Some would argue that taking a life cannot be justified under any circumstance, but most of them would not hesitate to disinfect a wound...
Rob Graham wrote:
so they do not meet any definition of life that requires some form of self reproduction
That raises an interesting question, are those who are sterile or plants which have been altered to be sterile alive then? BTW I pose this question as a thinking point ... and as such totally OT ;)
-
Thats pretty much the way I read his post too if you define 'using someones body' as being materialy supported by their labour in some way. Actualy, we might as well 'abort' all unemployed people since they are dependent on my 'body'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Thats pretty much the way I read his post too
Strange the way some minds work, isn't it.
fat_boy wrote:
Actualy, we might as well 'abort' all unemployed people since they are dependent on my 'body'.
and we haven't even touched on the elderly, who while having contributed to society are now a net drain - but it is coming, a natural extension of the concept.
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
sperm do not spontaneously divide or otherwise replicate
So a person born sterile is not alive?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I question whether you are actually intelligent life...
-
I've heard of such decisions being made solely by a doctor and/or family members when the mother has been incapacitated (motoring accident, birth complications and other tragic emergency circumstances), but not the case you suggest where a doctor decides in advance whether the mother or child survives.
So, its down to a matter of time. But, the legal system does not take that into account. If a doctor legally has the ability to decide, mother or child after a car wreck then he can do the same for a bad pregnancy. And so this issue can be removed from the debate about abortion. So lets bring this argument back to the fundamentals.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I question whether you are actually intelligent life...
-
Rob Graham wrote:
so they do not meet any definition of life that requires some form of self reproduction
That raises an interesting question, are those who are sterile or plants which have been altered to be sterile alive then? BTW I pose this question as a thinking point ... and as such totally OT ;)
Their body cells continue to divide and reproduce, replacing worn out and dead cells. That they do not form a new individual is irrelevant. they live because their cells reproduce.