|
Usual abortion topic rule of using baby to mean baby and foetus to mean foetus applies. These words have meaning. - KwarK |
wonder why she couldnt move to another country just to get an abortion
|
United States43403 Posts
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
|
On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
|
On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
|
Lalalaland34499 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What Kwark is getting at is that they're not called 'baby' until the moment they are born. Before they actually come out of the womb, they are a foetus, no matter how developed they are.
|
On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
|
Lalalaland34499 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that. I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
Irrelevant. In terms of official terminology, foetus before birth, baby after birth. End of story.
|
On November 15 2012 03:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that. I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
|
I guess I'm the only one here fascinated by the use of foetus over fetus, must be a Queens English distinction.
|
United States43403 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them.
If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
|
On November 15 2012 03:23 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:20 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that. I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being. You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
|
Lalalaland34499 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:24 semantics wrote:
I guess I'm the only one here fascinated by the use of foetus over fetus, must be a Queens English distinction.
UK English.
|
On November 15 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Fuck you religion. You once again failed to save a life of a woman because of the fetus inside of her but ended up killing both of them. Religion 1 Life 0
|
Lalalaland34499 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:23 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:20 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that. I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being. You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs? So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
It has chromosomes, yet. But is has not developed a heart, lungs, brain, liver, head, arms, legs, hair, whatever. If you would argue that it is a human because it has all 46 chromosomes then I would ask if you call a piece of dandruff off my head a human, because that technically has 46 chromosomes as well.
|
United States43403 Posts
On November 15 2012 03:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:23 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:20 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:18 nihlon wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that. I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being. You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs? So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
It is human genetic material but so are skin cells and tumours. It has a fundamentally parasitic existence until it is capable of existing outside of the womb, it is not capable of an independent life. The foetus does not have the right to impose upon the freedom of the mother, if you could take it out and let it develop in a test tube then I'd be fine with doing that but for as long as it depends upon the mother she should have control over her body.
|
On November 15 2012 03:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will. Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other. If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
Foetus is the British way of spelling the word. Fetus is American. Your ignorance is quite powerful
|
On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Your "real" point doesn't make much sense either since you are cherry picking: You can't say a million lifes vs a mother since you are picking one particular case of abortion against the entire history of abortions. To be more correct we are only talking about one mother and one possible aborting, not a million. If we are talking about the million abortions we also have to refer to the possible of amount of mothers which also could be a million mothers.
|
On November 15 2012 03:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 03:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote:
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe. Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide. You're trying to say fetus. A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being. Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever). What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will. Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other. If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
Your point is pure semantic reasoning, so to address your points is to dwell on semantics. Unless you have some other sort of argument, you've given no one any other option.
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
Closing - Knee-jerk reactionary tabloidesque article. Not that it may not be a good topic to discuss, but as pointed out since page 1, we don't have nearly enough information to make informed opinions, and the resulting pro life/pro abortion rabble rabble rabble doesn't really contribute much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
