Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (53 users) | |
|
Please attempt to distinguish between a child and a foetus so that both sides of this debate can attempt to communicate in a common language. You may argue that a child and a foetus have the same rights, that both have souls, that the potential of a foetus to become a child makes it have the same value or whatever but please, please understand that they are two different words which refer to two separate and distinct parts of human development. This is not opinion, this is just what the words mean. People who use child when they mean foetus will be moderated for being lazy/stupid. | NrG.Bamboo United States. June 01 2012 09:14. Posts 2432 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:46 Mastermyth wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 06:36 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 06:31 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 01 2012 06:29 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 06:25 Heavenlee wrote:
One, people who have never had sex in their life should probably not give their opinions on celibacy and sex in general. You're arguing out of a deep well of ignorance and you aren't going to convince anyway.
Second, a fetus is not a person. It's a blank slate that has some basic organic functions. They do not experience any emotions beyond some basic animal ones at a certain point. Reacting to noises is not a sign of sentience. It has no to very little frontal lobe development. No experiences, thoughts, grasp of language, nothing besides basic reflexes and growth. Look at the development of a fetus and its brain, they are not "sentient" beings. You may as well consider an animal more human than a fetus if you're going to base life on its ability to grow and react to certain stimuli. Even a plant can do the same thing. The possibility of sentience in the future is not current sentience.
People who have never had sex in their life should probably not give their opinions on celibacy? Then who should? Porn stars? It is the people who have the least sex who value it the most.
People with an understanding of sex and its biological and social function. You are arguing from a deep well of ignorance bud, stop with the exaggerations. How do the people who have the least sex value it the most? The people who have no sex have no understanding of it except as a concept of something they don't have. They have no personal experience with the matter to base their opinion, and their opinion definitely should not be applied to anyone else. You have the right to your opinion but that doesn't mean it's not ridiculous for you to argue in favor of it. As for celibacy, look at the states that teach abstinence as the only way of preventing sex, and how they have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Live in your fantasy land where that works all you want, but other people live in the real world.
They are obviously not teaching abstinence because they do have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. If they really taught abstinence then it would stand that they have the lowest rates.
A quick google on teen pregnancy stats proves you wrong. My country (the Netherlands) has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, and we have sex education starting from age 12. The problem with teaching abstinence is that it's made up by adults who don't realise how teenage minds work. It's in their nature to rebel against their parents and explore their limits. Telling a teenager that something is wrong will only encourage them to try it. But if they are taught it is natural and actually know more about its downsides, they can at least prevent mistakes.
I like this point, and it also draws a pretty good parallel to how a lot of countries try (fail) to eliminate drug usage. If we simply say "drugs are bad" and "just say no", should we really expect teenagers to listen or believe in what we say? If we do, on the other hand, just be straight up with them and genuinely educate them on harm reduction and the real downsides and horrible things that can come from drug abuse, we can help actually protect our children, knowing that they know the pros and cons of such risky actions.
Just like with drugs, sex is just going to happen at the teenage level. Back on to the point of abortion, however, the same concept remains: young people make bad decisions. That's just a fact; teenage humans are not fully developed mentally and are susceptible to making mistakes. Should we make a 16 year old girl who got knocked up (not even getting into rape here) throw her entire life away caring for a child? Now we have 1 broken life and 1 life born into a broken home, when we could have 1 life which learns a valuable lesson about the consequences of sex, as abortion is incredibly emotionally and somewhat financially damaging. |
| | The poster formerly known as Valentine | I need to protect all your life you can enjoy the vibrant life of your battery |
|
|
| Ghostcom Denmark. June 01 2012 09:15. Posts 2477 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Please refrain from intellectual dishonest in an attempt to make your argument. It isn't underdeveloped, it is UNdeveloped meaning it hardly belongs to our species any more than the indivdual sperm cell does. For the rest I'll refer you to the link posted by dAPHREak as the view isn't as rare nor ludicrous as you try to make it seem (though not a view I share).
My personal view is that it doesn't make sense to talk about life until we have reaction to exterior stimuli - i.e. pain, which isn't present before the development of some sort of nervous system (week 30 is the generally accepted time in the medical society - in almost all cases abortions are done before week 25, and in most countries you need a permit from an ethics commitee after week 20 - which is retarded but also another discussion, so let us not go there for now). |
|
|
| Doomwish June 01 2012 09:16. Posts 434 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 08:52 darthfoley wrote:+ Show Spoiler +food for thought. obviously they aren't exactly parallel but the concept of a clump of cells = baby is pretty dumb. abortion should be legal. it doesn't matter whether you'd get one. It should be the woman's choice. You're killing hundreds of thousands of potential babies every time you jack off, therefore we should ban masturbation!
Those examples are unfertilized. No jacking off is not killing babies nor is it similar to abortion, its just sperm and those pics are just eggs, damn dude.
Anyway my take-
Womens rights are well represented, those of unborn children are not (guess it has to do with one having developed language), personally I'm glad my mom didn't "chose" to abort me as I was an unwanted pregnancy. kudos to her and kudos to all your parents as well.
Having a baby is a very difficult process, for certain. But I am guessing that 90% or more of abortions are not rape related, which is funny because that is the most common used defense for pro-choice.
And as far as baby vs fetus, its semantics really. Talk to any expecting couple , they don't call it a fetus. They call it a baby, during all stages of the pregnancy. terms such as these just make it psychologically/politically easier to accept.
I think abortion should only be allowed in extreme cases where the mother is in physical danger, rape, or extreme deformity of the child. Or even very, very early on after fertilization occurs, first few weeks. Again, just my opinion.
Last edit: 2012-06-01 09:17:24 |
|
|
| MichaelDonovan United States. June 01 2012 09:17. Posts 1053 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:15 Ghostcom wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Please refrain from intellectual dishonest in an attempt to make your argument. It isn't underdeveloped, it is UNdeveloped meaning it hardly belongs to our species any more than the indivdual sperm cell does. For the rest I'll refer you to the link posted by dAPHREak as the view isn't as rare nor ludicrous as you try to make it seem (though not a view I share). My personal view is that it doesn't make sense to talk about life until we have reaction to exterior stimuli - i.e. pain, which isn't present before the development of some sort of nervous system (week 30 is the generally accepted time in the medical society - in almost all cases abortions are done before week 25, and in most countries you need a permit from an ethics commitee after week 20 - which is retarded but also another discussion, so let us not go there for now).
Yeah I like this too. |
|
|
| Bigtony United States. June 01 2012 09:17. Posts 892 | Profile Blog # |
Bottom line it's about how they decide to define personhood. No sober minded abortion opponent is against women's rights, etc. simply that the right to life is supreme above all others. If their society decides that personhood begins before 10 weeks gestation OR that they cannot know for sure and would rather err to protecting life, that's what their society is more than empowered to do. Don't like it, don't live there. Not every country has to be the same.
It's not backward, illogical, or stupid to want to protect life as you define it. Last edit: 2012-06-01 09:19:12 |
| |
|
 NeMeSiS3 Canada. June 01 2012 09:17. Posts 2969 | Profile Blog # |
| -.- Everyone keeps saying feotus, isn't it fetus? |
| |
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 01 2012 09:18. Posts 8698 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 09:13 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Most people are fine with killing farm animals for food. Why is this? The answer is because we don't like to kill intelligent things. We don't kill monkeys. We don't kill dolphins. We are fine with killing pigs. I think that this is a decent measuring stick for deciding what is acceptable as far as killing goes. So we have to ask: Is a fetus intelligent? The answer is most definitely "no." unless you are religious and believe that it has a soul or something. I guess I could understand a vegetarian being against abortion by this argument, but I think vegetarians are pretty stupid as well, unless they don't like meat for health reasons, which is understandable I suppose.
babies are pretty stupid too. and people do kill monkeys/apes and dolphins. the latter mostly unintentionally. |
| |
|
| Demonhunter04 June 01 2012 09:18. Posts 1470 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:04 architecture wrote:
If you try to reason about things with morality, you will find yourself trapped into all sorts of loops and caveats.
The fundamentally logical way to look at this issue is with these considerations:
1. Murder is sometimes condoned and sometimes condemned by society. For instance, killing another person during war is OK. Or capital punishment is acceptable in some states. There is no universal law - only consequences.
To state that murder is always wrong, that's just not the reality of society.
2. If murder is to be committed, then we should evaluate our laws based on the consequences we would like to impose. The truth is that this murder of an unborn infant is almost a complete utilitarian positive for the individual and society.
Indeed. Though people often separate science and logic from morality, the decision that ultimately brings the most happiness to the most people can, at least in theory if not always in practice, be empirically determined, and we should not shy away from doing so. When making decisions about morality, people normally refer to arguments derived from religion, whether they realize it or not. If you were raised to believe that abortion in all forms is terrible, you will likely feel that strongly as an adult. However, that feeling doesn't make it any more right or wrong. The only way to know is by asking, objectively, what benefits the most people.
On June 01 2012 09:13 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Most people are fine with killing farm animals for food. Why is this? The answer is because we don't like to kill intelligent things. We don't kill monkeys. We don't kill dolphins. We are fine with killing pigs. I think that this is a decent measuring stick for deciding what is acceptable as far as killing goes. So we have to ask: Is a fetus intelligent? The answer is most definitely "no." unless you are religious and believe that it has a soul or something. I guess I could understand a vegetarian being against abortion by this argument, but I think vegetarians are pretty stupid as well, unless they don't like meat for health reasons, which is understandable I suppose.
Pigs are smarter than dogs, cats, and the average 3 year old human, yet most people are completely fine with killing pigs. Socialization can do stuff like that.
It's true that fetuses are underdeveloped humans, but then again, sperm and eggs are halves of underdeveloped humans, and they are wasted in huge quantities. The point beyond which a developing human can really be considered human is, in my opinion, after they start having thoughts. Before that point, they are basically like a set of robots executing the instructions carried in DNA.
Vegetarians also feed on living things; the difference is that plants are sufficiently genetically different from us as to not invoke our altruistic instincts, and plants also don't scream in pain lol. I wouldn't understand a vegetarian being against abortion of unintelligent fetuses.Last edit: 2012-06-01 09:39:20 |
| | "If you don't drop sweat today, you will drop tears tomorrow" - SlayerSMMA |
|
|
| Rassy Netherlands. June 01 2012 09:20. Posts 1499 | Profile # |
quote:
"Having a baby is a very difficult process, for certain. But I am guessing that 90% or more of abortions are not rape related, which is funny because that is the most common used defense for pro-choice."
2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion: [44]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Can’t afford a baby now
48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
Abortus is not a means of anticonception btw though that should be obvious.
Last edit: 2012-06-01 09:24:16 |
|
|
| MichaelDonovan United States. June 01 2012 09:20. Posts 1053 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 09:13 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Most people are fine with killing farm animals for food. Why is this? The answer is because we don't like to kill intelligent things. We don't kill monkeys. We don't kill dolphins. We are fine with killing pigs. I think that this is a decent measuring stick for deciding what is acceptable as far as killing goes. So we have to ask: Is a fetus intelligent? The answer is most definitely "no." unless you are religious and believe that it has a soul or something. I guess I could understand a vegetarian being against abortion by this argument, but I think vegetarians are pretty stupid as well, unless they don't like meat for health reasons, which is understandable I suppose.
babies are pretty stupid too. and people do kill monkeys/apes and dolphins. the latter mostly unintentionally.
I think you misunderstand the definition of intelligent that I am using. Don't worry about it, though. And as far as people killing monkeys and dolphins, I would say that most people object to that. People kill people too, and we aren't really fine with that either. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. |
|
|
 Falling Canada. June 01 2012 09:21. Posts 6367 | Profile Blog # |
"Ok, so why shouldn't birth control be used? I don't know if you've been following ElizarTringov's arguments through this thread, but he says that the only form of birth control that should be used is abstinence."
I don't think I said that and I certainly don't believe it. I said that these abortion arguments make it sound like abortion is the only readily available form of birth control whereas that is patently false. Most contraception is much more widely available and far less medically intrusive. I certainly would not argue that abstinence is the only acceptable method of birth control amongst committed couples.
I would like to hear your arguments against abortion when the pregnant woman was not raped, though.
I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole I want to go with this thread, but when there is no rape in the equation, what exactly is the reason for the abortion? If unwanted pregnancy, then there were other preventative measures. If it's the issue of disabilities... I find the entire idea repugnant. Selection of life or death aborting/not aborting? based on desirable traits or undesirable traits.
On June 01 2012 08:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Show nested quote +The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
Show nested quote +They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
I find this rather interesting particularly as a lot of the debate centers around the fetuses inability to survive on its own... which is more less the same with an infant. Nil. |
| | If any man says he hates war more than I do, he had better have a knife, that is all I have to say. Jack Handey. (Passafist/ sGs.Passafist- sporadic member of sGs on iCCup) |
|
|
| NrG.Bamboo United States. June 01 2012 09:25. Posts 2432 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 07:36 ThePhan2m wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 07:24 mikkmagro wrote:
Pro-life posters, consider that by legislating against an abortion, the only thing a country would do, would be restricting abortion to the richer people, because they'd have the money to travel to another country to get the procedure done there, but poorer people would not. And guess what? Unwanted, mentally ill, physically disabled children will suffer more under poorer families, for obvious reasons.
basically what you are saying is that living as a poor is worse than living. And that being ritch is better than being poor. The fact is, everyone lives in their enviroment as they are used to, because they always have. To say that they suffer more, from something they have never had is very subjective. For instance, a ritch man would say that a poor man is suffering, but the poor man could be at the peak of his life. You dont need money to be happy. Even if they are born into a poor family/world they have the right to live life. who are we to say, they are better off not living?? who are we to say they suffer when that is how they always lived? and lastly, could you say to a unwanted, mentally ill, physically disabled child that you would be better of if you werent born? What if someone told you that, how would that feel? Do you have any more right to life just because you are ritch?
It doesn't really look like that's what he's "basically" saying. It looks like what he is "basically" saying is that if you ban abortion, the only people who are going to actually be forced to obey the ban are those who don't have the capital to outsource their procedure to a place which allows it. The ones left with the, as harsh as it may sound, burdensome life of caring for an unwanted or possibly genetically defected human are those who are poor. And even the resourceful poor people will end up scraping the cells out with a wire hangar.
I'd rather it just be legal than force women through that hell. |
| | The poster formerly known as Valentine | I need to protect all your life you can enjoy the vibrant life of your battery |
|
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 01 2012 09:25. Posts 8698 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 09:20 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 09:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 09:13 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
[quote]
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Most people are fine with killing farm animals for food. Why is this? The answer is because we don't like to kill intelligent things. We don't kill monkeys. We don't kill dolphins. We are fine with killing pigs. I think that this is a decent measuring stick for deciding what is acceptable as far as killing goes. So we have to ask: Is a fetus intelligent? The answer is most definitely "no." unless you are religious and believe that it has a soul or something. I guess I could understand a vegetarian being against abortion by this argument, but I think vegetarians are pretty stupid as well, unless they don't like meat for health reasons, which is understandable I suppose.
babies are pretty stupid too. and people do kill monkeys/apes and dolphins. the latter mostly unintentionally.
I think you misunderstand the definition of intelligent that I am using. Don't worry about it, though. And as far as people killing monkeys and dolphins, I would say that most people object to that. People kill people too, and we aren't really fine with that either. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
people eat monkey/ape and dolphins regularly, so your example makes no sense. |
| |
|
| mcc Czech Republic. June 01 2012 09:25. Posts 3751 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 07:52 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:27 Vain wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:17 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:11 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 07:03 Heavenlee wrote:
[quote]
Your first statement does not merit a response, and makes no sense.
Your second statement, they have the ability to create the law, but in a progressive society they should not have the right to. There is a difference between having the basic right to do something, and having power. Power does not make everything right.
Third, I have the right to post my opinion on an internet forum. I am not telling them what laws they should or not pass because I don't have any power over them. Is this supposed to be pointing out some hypocrisy of mine or something? Because it isn't.
you understand that your second paragraph assumes that your opinion is correct and their opinion is wrong, and that you dictate what is "progressive," right? because not everyone agrees with you, especially not Turkey.
My second paragraph assumes that progressive societies do not pass laws which restrict women from having abortions.with no exception. Which they don't. Of course not everyone agrees with me, but the countries that tend to disagree with that are some African countries and places like Turkey. M
i'm just pointing out that your argument is basically "i am right, therefore, i am right." i am sure turkey thinks progressive does not mean allowing abortions.
No, my argument is not "i am right, therefore I am right", my argument is that people should be able to make deeply personal choices on their own without having the government interfere with their life. In the case of a country like Turkey, I also think it's ridiculous to either push women to give birth to children from rape or with severe mental conditions and raise them, or put them through an adoption system that is probably far worse than America's which is already pretty iffy in many cases. Almost every first world country agrees with this sentiment.
you were saying that progressive societies do X, and thus, X is right. then you said what progressive means based on your own opinion. i won't belabor the point. keep referring to "first world countries" as the arbiters of morals though because that works out real well, right? you know, the USA (accused warmongers), Russia (lol, Georgia anyone), China (best human rights record), etc.
If you're going to nitpick stuff from him at least get your facts straight. Out of the 3 examples of first world countries you named only 1 is valid. Moreover as an example of a progressive first world country the usa would be somewhere at the bottom of my list Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are first world in my opinion. the idea that china and russia are not first world countries is just stupid. but thats beside the point.
Sorry, but this was just to juicy to resist. Now you're using what you argued against, namely "I am right, therefore I am right". You're saying that all permanent members of the UNSC are 1st world members, but there's nothing saying that, it's just your personal opinion. (I know, this was stupid to bring up, but still)
no, i am saying my opinion is right because the United Nations has determined them to be the most influential countries in the world (at least as of 1940s). plus, U.S. and China are economic powerhouses, and Russia at least is the lion you dont want to poke while its sleeping.
No they are not first world nations. Original meaning of the term is : 1st world - countries aligned with US (so obviosuly China and USSR/Russia are not), 2nd world - countries aligned with USSR, 3rd world - the rest (India, ...). The meaning changed and now first world means highly developed countries (by quality of life) and third world are countries far from being highly developed. So China is definitely not 1st world country and Russia also hardly is one. |
|
|
| mikkmagro Malta. June 01 2012 09:26. Posts 866 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 08:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Show nested quote +The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
Show nested quote +They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
The Telegraph is perhaps one of the crappiest sources in the world. It's a tabloid at best. |
| | SaSe / Stephano / NaNiwa / MorroW / ThorZaIN / Kas / HasuObs / Socke / VortiX / LucifroN / Ret / SortOf | |
|
|
| MichaelDonovan United States. June 01 2012 09:26. Posts 1053 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 09:20 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 09:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 01 2012 09:13 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:55 Omegalisk wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:45 MichaelDonovan wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:39 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 Zvenn3n wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
[quote]
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
Right back at you. How do you know they will do that? What the Turkish government (in my eyes) is trying to to, is to force women to have children, no matter the method of conception. Now think about military using rape as a tactic to break their opponents will in Africa. If this happens in Turkey, should this law pass, the women will have no other choice but to give birth to a child conceived as a result of perhaps hour-long rape sessions. What if she would remember that torture and torment every day she saw the children? While you could argue that she could give it up to adoption, I'd personally say abortion would be the easier option for the woman. P.s Using "What ifs" usually never tends to give a clear answer, which is, in my opinion, the greatest problem of philosophy, that there's never a clear answer. Therefore we should consider other things such as: Every person's right to free will, which the Turkish government takes from the women there. And if you think women can "choose" not to be raped, you're just being ignorant.
So the would be child is not considered a person with free will?
No, it is not. Only if you are religious would you believe so. Thankfully, we see that religion is slowly fading away, so maybe this whole abortion issue won't even be a topic for discussion in the future.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not religious, but I still believe that abortion is too close to murder for comfort. I don't want to outlaw it (as it probably wouldn't help the issue), but I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. It's not only the religious institutions that are against it (though people who would be religious probably would be more likely to dislike abortion). Edit:
On June 01 2012 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:43 sc2fan007 wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:40 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:35 sc2fan007 wrote:
Why can't the mother just put the child up for adoption when he/she is born?
Can they not spend 9 months of being limited physically to give life and then not have to worry about it ever again?
It's not that easy. First of all, getting your child adopted is not easy in some countries - hard to impossible in others. Secondly, once the child is born, the mother would invariably be emotionally attached to it and wouldn't want to give him/her away. Thirdly, those 9 months might be a huge burden on someone, particularly if they're following a career. Also, if its the case of complications (certain forms of disability etc), the mother might be put at risk, health-wise, on delivery.
But what gives the mother the choice to kill the fetus or not? It is obviously alive.
Seeing how it can't sustain itself it isn't any more alive than any other parasite - of which we kill in the trillions on a daily basis by washing our hands.
Again, not so simple. We aren't talking about some bug, but rather an underdeveloped organism of our own species. If your argument is true, then it shouldn't be wrong to kill anything else that can't support itself, such as the disabled or elderly. Stretching the argument, you could even say that no modern person can truly support themselves, as they are reliant on the rest of society. As such, independent ability to survive is not a good way to judge whether somebody is a person or not.
Most people are fine with killing farm animals for food. Why is this? The answer is because we don't like to kill intelligent things. We don't kill monkeys. We don't kill dolphins. We are fine with killing pigs. I think that this is a decent measuring stick for deciding what is acceptable as far as killing goes. So we have to ask: Is a fetus intelligent? The answer is most definitely "no." unless you are religious and believe that it has a soul or something. I guess I could understand a vegetarian being against abortion by this argument, but I think vegetarians are pretty stupid as well, unless they don't like meat for health reasons, which is understandable I suppose.
babies are pretty stupid too. and people do kill monkeys/apes and dolphins. the latter mostly unintentionally.
I think you misunderstand the definition of intelligent that I am using. Don't worry about it, though. And as far as people killing monkeys and dolphins, I would say that most people object to that. People kill people too, and we aren't really fine with that either. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
people eat monkey/ape and dolphins regularly, so your example makes no sense.
Which people? |
|
|
| ZasZ. United States. June 01 2012 09:26. Posts 1747 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:20 Rassy wrote:quote: "Having a baby is a very difficult process, for certain. But I am guessing that 90% or more of abortions are not rape related, which is funny because that is the most common used defense for pro-choice." 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion: [44] 74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life 73% Can’t afford a baby now 48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 38% Have completed my childbearing 32% Not ready for a(nother) child 25% Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 22% Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 12% Concerns about my health 6% Parents want me to have an abortion 1% Was a victim of rape less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
Rape is used as the most common defense for why abortion should be legal, and for good reason. If abortion was suddenly made illegal in the U.S., people would be inconvenienced in their sex lives, that's for sure, but the only people that would immediately suffer would be impregnated rape victims.
Rape is a good defense for the legality of abortion. It doesn't necessarily matter that not all abortions are because of rape, and countries/states are perfectly capable of regulating when you can and can't get an abortion if they really wanted to, but it's just not practical.
Not surprised at all at the top two responses, and you know what? Those are fabulous reasons for not wanting a child. In those cases, terminating the multicellular parasite growing within you makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 01 2012 09:28. Posts 8698 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 09:26 mikkmagro wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
The Telegraph is perhaps one of the crappiest sources in the world. It's a tabloid at best.
how about the Journal of Medical Ethics? |
| |
|
| Yoshi Kirishima United States. June 01 2012 09:29. Posts 9002 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 09:16 Doomwish wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 08:52 darthfoley wrote:+ Show Spoiler +food for thought. obviously they aren't exactly parallel but the concept of a clump of cells = baby is pretty dumb. abortion should be legal. it doesn't matter whether you'd get one. It should be the woman's choice. You're killing hundreds of thousands of potential babies every time you jack off, therefore we should ban masturbation!
Those examples are unfertilized. No jacking off is not killing babies nor is it similar to abortion, its just sperm and those pics are just eggs, damn dude. Anyway my take- Womens rights are well represented, those of unborn children are not (guess it has to do with one having developed language), personally I'm glad my mom didn't "chose" to abort me as I was an unwanted pregnancy. kudos to her and kudos to all your parents as well. Having a baby is a very difficult process, for certain. But I am guessing that 90% or more of abortions are not rape related, which is funny because that is the most common used defense for pro-choice. And as far as baby vs fetus, its semantics really. Talk to any expecting couple , they don't call it a fetus. They call it a baby, during all stages of the pregnancy. terms such as these just make it psychologically/politically easier to accept. I think abortion should only be allowed in extreme cases where the mother is in physical danger, rape, or extreme deformity of the child. Or even very, very early on after fertilization occurs, first few weeks. Again, just my opinion.
Well said doomwish. Whoever made that picture better be feeling silly.
A clump of cells is not a baby, indeed -- but it is still an organism of our species; a "baby" is simply a human in a stage of life. Many people regard the clump of cells to be alive immediately after fertilization.
On June 01 2012 08:02 Redox wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 07:55 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Well there is a way to get around that, without conflicting with religious beliefs. For example, in christianity it is basically when you are conceived is when the sperm reaches the egg. But there was another method I learned about where doctors can take some eggs out, then examine their DNA to look for anything wrong. Then they can fertilize it with the sperm and then insert it back into the woman. Well maybe i'm wrong and some christians are against it, idk. But it's a way to avoid disabled children.
This is not only the Christian POV. The moment the egg is fertilized is also biological the moment new life begins.
Yes, when I said "in christianity" i meant for that definition of "alive" to be exclusive to other perspectives. Thanks for clearing that up tho  Last edit: 2012-06-01 09:31:39 |
| | Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again." | |
|
|
| MichaelDonovan United States. June 01 2012 09:30. Posts 1053 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 09:26 mikkmagro wrote:
On June 01 2012 08:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
The Telegraph is perhaps one of the crappiest sources in the world. It's a tabloid at best.
how about the Journal of Medical Ethics?
Doesn't matter if you didn't quote directly from the Journal of Medical Ethics. At least that's how it works in academic writing. That may be irrelevant here, though. |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
![[image loading]](http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/563121_397610083605238_268192306547017_1227093_1943561640_n.jpg)
