Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 7 of 26
Careful Rue, Finn might show how mature he is and call you a Nazi again 
.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don’t think I argued that a fetus is a child. I think I argued that it is a fetus. And they are both human.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think it's that people do not consider the unborn life as significant. It's more that they assign an equal or greater importance to the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother who is essentially the host to this unborn life, which comes with pain and discomfort and risks to physical well-being even under the best of circumstances (i.e. a wanted, uncomplicated pregnancy).
This is a common argument, but I don’t know that it is a particularly strong one. Essentially the argument boils down to responsibility. Yes, it is true that an unexpected pregnancy can result in considerable changes in a woman’s and often a man’s life, and sometimes these changes are not positive ones, but perhaps often these individuals shouldn’t have been having unprotected sex (or sex at all) if they weren’t prepared for this eventuality? Basically, this argument implies that we are pushing the parent’s responsibility off on to an unborn child.
Well, it really depends on your personal assignment of priority, doesn't it? I was just explaining that in my POV it's a matter of importance being assigned in a relative manner, not an absolute manner, for pro-choice people.
Not "the life of the fetus is unimportant" but "the concerns of the mother are more important".
Women can't walk away. They become human hosts for 9 months and take another 9 months until their bodies are about back to normal after giving birth (which is, by the way, very painful). That's a pretty darn big thing, not even counting the actual baby.
To me, that's something - no matter how she got pregnant - a woman should be allowed to choose when it happens. Or choose not to do.
People are going to have sex, it's a fact. It's a human urge that has never been possible to repress in the entirety of history. You will never be able to tell people to stop having sex, even when they aren't ready to have children. It's sad but true.
No, the fetus did not ask to be conceived, but life isn't fair when you depend on the physical body of another person to survive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That actually hadn't occurred to me. Well, I guess I'll just pound him on the head with his requirement that the fetus be "fully developed" to be human .... 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Not today. The science of Roe is from case studies from the '60s and '70s. Viability now is much different, certainly more then a week, and depending on the access to medical care, it could be more then a month. If viability is the standard the Court used to decide Roe, its a changing standard and also subjective since a wealthy person's fetus has a different viability then a poverty stricken one if for no other reason then access to proper medical care. Roe needs revision to reflect this reality or its meaningless.
H
But what about all the abortions performs between the 7th and 10th week, which are the majority. Can a fetus actually survive outside the mother at that stage? Without functioning lungs?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
You said: "I don’t think I argued that a fetus is a child. I think I argued that it is a fetus. And they are both human."
You also said: "Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human ..."
You require it to be fully developed to be human, whether a fetus or a child.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then logically expanding that, surely Finn's answer to "What's the difference between a Zygot and a tissue culture" Would be nothing, and that the tissue culture is a distinct human?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Some people are going to take illicit drugs too. That doesn’t really make it okay does it? Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible, whether people are going to do it or not. I don’t think we should whitewash it.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
People are going to have sex, it's a fact. It's a human urge that has never been possible to repress in the entirety of history. You will never be able to tell people to stop having sex, even when they aren't ready to have children. It's sad but true.
But you’re right, it does have to do with priorities, or the importance that someone places on a human fetus. That's the reason why some people want to dismiss the human nature of a human fetus. That was sort of my point in my original post, the cavalier nature with which we regard abortion. Maybe we should put more importance on the human fetus and more importance on responsible behavior, and then women could still seek their dreams without the millions of abortions.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or maybe the other way around. A zygote is a tissue culture.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No because that would be denying the Human nature of the child. Like denying a sperm is a potential human, so don't let your seed spill on the ground guys, that's murder.
Originally posted by rue:
Or maybe the other way around. A zygote is a tissue culture.
Every sperm is sacred, and to say otherwise is merely a rehtorical attempt to deny the Human nature of these potential humans and to support irresponcible behaviour.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME