Code Project

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

This is a fucking disgrace

121 Posts 22 Posters 2 Views 1 Watching

M martin_hughes

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#13

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
M 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#14

So, wanking is killing life? I mean, a few million alive, moving sperm is life yes?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
O R 2 Replies Last reply

0
L Lost User

So, wanking is killing life? I mean, a few million alive, moving sperm is life yes?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
O Offline
O Offline
originSH

wrote on last edited by

#15

Yes! You spermicidal maniac :P
1 Reply Last reply

0
A Al Beback

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
M Offline
M Offline
Mike Gaskey

wrote on last edited by

#16

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.
L A M 3 Replies Last reply

0
L Lost User

So, wanking is killing life? I mean, a few million alive, moving sperm is life yes?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
R Offline
R Offline
Rob Graham

wrote on last edited by

#17

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...
L O 2 Replies Last reply

0
M Mike Gaskey

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#18

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
M L 2 Replies Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

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...
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#19

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
R 1 Reply Last reply

0
L Lost User

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
M Offline
M Offline
martin_hughes

wrote on last edited by

#20

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.
L 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

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.
H Offline
H Offline
hairy_hats

wrote on last edited by

#21

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.
L M R I 4 Replies Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

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...
O Offline
O Offline
originSH

wrote on last edited by

#22

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 ;)
R 1 Reply Last reply

0
L Lost User

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
M Offline
M Offline
Mike Gaskey

wrote on last edited by

#23

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.
1 Reply Last reply

0
L Lost User

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
R Offline
R Offline
Rob Graham

wrote on last edited by

#24

I question whether you are actually intelligent life...
L O 2 Replies Last reply

0
M martin_hughes

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#25

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
M 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

I question whether you are actually intelligent life...
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#26

So you are sterile then.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
R 1 Reply Last reply

0
O originSH

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 ;)
R Offline
R Offline
Rob Graham

wrote on last edited by

#27

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.
L 7 2 Replies Last reply

0
H hairy_hats

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#28

But WHEN is ti a human being. Clearly, after recent exploraiton of the life of a foetus via those internal camera thinggies. foetuses aparantly laugh, respond to external stimuli, etc, thus showing many traits of being aware.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
1 Reply Last reply

0
H hairy_hats

No, the potential for life begins at conception.
G Offline
G Offline
Gary Kirkham

wrote on last edited by

#29

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
O 1 Reply Last reply

0
L Lost User

So you are sterile then.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
R Offline
R Offline
Rob Graham

wrote on last edited by

#30

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?
L N 2 Replies Last reply

0
L Lost User

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
M Offline
M Offline
martin_hughes

wrote on last edited by

#31

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.]"
L 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

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.
L Offline
L Offline
Lost User

wrote on last edited by

#32

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
M R 2 Replies Last reply

0

Log in to reply

1
2
3
4
5
6
7