This is a fucking disgrace
-
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
Except that the abortion act is the enabler that allows doctors to make that decision: "1 Medical termination of pregnancy(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith— [F1(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or (b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or (c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or (d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]"
-
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.
So some of our cells are alive, and that means we are alive? How about hair an nail growth post death? CLearly some cells are still alive while the being as a whole is dead. And perhaps this is true for other cells. Does the marrow continue to produce red blood cells post death? Does the liver etc etc etc. No, clearly the life of the being is NOT tied to the life of its individual cells.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Not last time I checked, and you? Why does this interest you? Are you in need of a supplier? See my reply to OrigenSH, since he posed the same question as you did earlier, but without the obnoxiousness. What exactly are you arguing?
-
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.
So what is it, assuming you're a materialist, that you think is in an oak that isn't in an acorn?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Except that the abortion act is the enabler that allows doctors to make that decision: "1 Medical termination of pregnancy(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith— [F1(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or (b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or (c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or (d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]"
martin_hughes wrote:
Except that the abortion act is the enabler that allows doctors to make that decision:
Not necessarially. If the age of the foetus is ABOVE the legal age of abortion, then other laws come into play, like those you mentioned for a pregnant woman, 8 months pregnant, post car wreck, in a situation where it is her or the baby.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So some of our cells are alive, and that means we are alive? How about hair an nail growth post death? CLearly some cells are still alive while the being as a whole is dead. And perhaps this is true for other cells. Does the marrow continue to produce red blood cells post death? Does the liver etc etc etc. No, clearly the life of the being is NOT tied to the life of its individual cells.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
hair an nail growth post death?
...is a myth due to the impression given by the skin shrinking. Once the oxygen supply stops the redox system shuts down and there is no energy for cell divsion, or anything else, as I understand it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
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.
Steve_Harris wrote:
a fertilised egg is a potential human being, it is not a human being.
No argument, but it is alive, even if not yet quite a human being. You earlier stated that the fetus did not live, now you are taking a different stand. Now the argument becomes whether or not the circumstances justify taking this not-yet-human life, and at what point the life becomes sufficiently human to change those circumstances, which was fat_boy's original complaint.
-
Not last time I checked, and you? Why does this interest you? Are you in need of a supplier? See my reply to OrigenSH, since he posed the same question as you did earlier, but without the obnoxiousness. What exactly are you arguing?
I have globs of the stuff and it works, ask my 2 kids.
-
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
-
I question whether you are actually intelligent life...
-
fat_boy wrote:
hair an nail growth post death?
...is a myth due to the impression given by the skin shrinking. Once the oxygen supply stops the redox system shuts down and there is no energy for cell divsion, or anything else, as I understand it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as I understand it
You don't. I don't know why you skipped all your highschool biology classes, but between this and your views on evolution, I wonder why they gave you a diploma -- wait! Was it a church school???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
So some of our cells are alive, and that means we are alive? How about hair an nail growth post death? CLearly some cells are still alive while the being as a whole is dead. And perhaps this is true for other cells. Does the marrow continue to produce red blood cells post death? Does the liver etc etc etc. No, clearly the life of the being is NOT tied to the life of its individual cells.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
o, clearly the life of the being is NOT tied to the life of its individual cells.
That is your conclusion, but it is not at all supported by evidence. As Matthew points out, post-postmortem hair and nail growth is a myth, and there is no evidence that any further mitosis continues once the blood stops circulating. The life of the being is entirely tied to the collective life of the majority of it's cells (certainly some cells die and are replaced throughout the individual's life, but the death of a majority is accompanied by and indistinguishable from the death of the individual). I must presume that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, since the position you are taking would invalidate your original complaint...if the fetus does not live, then it does not matter when or if it is aborted, since no life is taken...if the fetus lives, then the issue becomes what circumstances justify the taking of the life.
-
MPs throw out bids to reduce abortion limit[^] Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born. In Europe its generally 12 weeks. When does life start? 10, 12 weeks? When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so. Its a long fucking way before 24 weeks though.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
When does life start? 10, 12 weeks? When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so.
Generally, a genetically unique individual human life begins at conception -- notwithstanding "identical twins" and also keeping in mind that it isn't genetic uniqueness which confers value upon the human entity. But even if the individual human being does not actually begin to exist at conception, it is nonetheless true that an individual human being (or sometimes, multiple individual human beings) exists long before the mother even suspects that she's pregnant.
-
No, the potential for life exists in the individual egg and sperm. That potential is realized when the two are joined into one.
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
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No, the potential for life exists in the individual egg and sperm. That potential is realized when the two are joined into one.
Actually given the number of spotaneous abortions that occur all the time, I'm not sure that the potential lasts long enough to be realized. God is the most active abortionist of all, you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
You dont suggest abortions up to 8 months and three weeks?
No, did you read my entire post?
- 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.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
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 f***ing irritating - "adults" should have the right to snuff out the lil f***ers.
You certainly have the right to have that person removed from your home, don't you? That's what abortion is.
- 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
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as I understand it
You don't. I don't know why you skipped all your highschool biology classes, but between this and your views on evolution, I wonder why they gave you a diploma -- wait! Was it a church school???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
As if the fetus could somehow ask for and obtain permission...or had any choice whatsoever in the matter.
Oh so the fetus' innocence makes all the difference. Is that your contorted thinking?
- 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
-
fat_boy wrote:
When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so.
Then loan them yours.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Fat_Boy: When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so. Oakman: Then loan them yours.
It is a well known fact that infants cannot survive without the extensive (and adult-quality-of-life-ruining) "life support" supplied by adults. Therefore, IF a set of parents, so-called, choose to terminate their neonate because it's a bummer being at the constant beck-and-call of such a demanding (and unthankful!) individual, THEN no one else has the right to object that this is a wrong act ... unless these hypothetical objectors are *personally* able and willing to take on the unwelcome task. Brilliant! :rolleyes:
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
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 f***ing irritating - "adults" should have the right to snuff out the lil f***ers.
You certainly have the right to have that person removed from your home, don't you? That's what abortion is.
- 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:
You certainly have the right to have that person removed from your home, don't you? That's what abortion is.
You have absolutely no right to kill (or have someone else kill) that person before or after removing them from your home. That's is what abortion is, too.