You are arguing that it is not genetically distinct?CameronPoe wrote:
Genetically distinct. Can it survive without a placenta? One entity until the placenta detaches and that cord gets snipped.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
I don't find your genetics argument very relevant or compelling.weamo8 wrote:
You are arguing that it is not genetically distinct?CameronPoe wrote:
Genetically distinct. Can it survive without a placenta? One entity until the placenta detaches and that cord gets snipped.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
I dont believe I have ever seen you argue anything but semantics topal.topal63 wrote:
No you're trying to use an argument against itself and it doesn't work. There is nothing semantic about the error (a word meaning indicated by context-use). It is an error of logic. Not semantics in this instance.weamo8 wrote:
But what if no one wants to take care of it? (<--- That is not relevant, and mere nonsense, asked and answered - it is internally self-evident - as it is probable that someone could be found: i.e. adoption.)topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.
It still feeds and is sheltered completely by the host, dies without the host and gives nothing back. That is why I said "basically." You are trying to argue the semantics instead of the argument.
You think I am arguing about whether a newborn is a parasite or not. I am not arguing about whether a baby is a parasite or not.
In general, do you believe a single organism capable of two sets of genetics? (I am not taking about people with Chimaera genetics)CameronPoe wrote:
I don't find your genetics argument very relevant or compelling.weamo8 wrote:
You are arguing that it is not genetically distinct?CameronPoe wrote:
Genetically distinct. Can it survive without a placenta? One entity until the placenta detaches and that cord gets snipped.
You never respond to a point, but you do reply.weamo8 wrote:
I dont believe I have ever seen you argue anything but semantics topal.topal63 wrote:
No you're trying to use an argument against itself and it doesn't work. There is nothing semantic about the error (a word meaning indicated by context-use). It is an error of logic. Not semantics in this instance.weamo8 wrote:
But what if no one wants to take care of it? (<--- That is not relevant, and mere nonsense, asked and answered - it is internally self-evident - as it is probable that someone could be found: i.e. adoption.)
It still feeds and is sheltered completely by the host, dies without the host and gives nothing back. That is why I said "basically." You are trying to argue the semantics instead of the argument.
You think I am arguing about whether a newborn is a parasite or not. I am not arguing about whether a baby is a parasite or not.
It is clear that you tried to extend this argument (of dependency upon the mother) as an argument against itself. I pointed out that you are wrong and in error (logically not semantically) and why.topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par•a•site (păr'ə-sīt')
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
Also I have given you a more extended opinion here (that has nothing to do with semantics):
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1392441
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-01 16:10:11)
abortion is murder, Women have trouble in childbirth for a reason.
Read Genesis.
Read Genesis.
this is what kills me with the abortion debate. the same people yelling pro-life are the same ones with yellow magnetic ribbons hanging on the back of their cars. the same people that look down on those of us who put more value on a current life than a potential life criticize islamic fundamentalist for their backwards, primitive way of thinking. those who are against abortion are for the death penalty and collateral damage. at least, a lot of "prolifers" sure are. it reminds me of how people are still trying to have me (and i take this personally since i am a living, breathing, member of our shared society) live in some kind christian faith based religiously fundamentalised daily regimen of giving penance to the church and to the super natural and saying grace before I eat. No Sir.
Im not afraid of the dark, I have no problem with a womans sexuality and I have dealt on several, several occasions with my own eventual demise and i have accepted it without a problem. those things right there make the religious argument null and void on me.
we could look at it pragmatically, although i believe its wrong to do that. How can the life of a current adult human be less important than an under developed fetus. how can the potential, not even the actual presence, but the potential of a human life weigh more in importance than the life of the mother who at least has fully developed mental capabilities and can leave a much bigger impact in the here and now than a child whom wed have to wait for years before the positiveness of their life can be gauged, but fuck, they might end up being god damn junkies or criminals or baby machines to continue the cycle.. its sick and stupid to think this way but this argument for abortion is no less valid than saying its against gods will to take the "life"
whenever i think about the those who are so fanatical against abortion, i think of the societies where its acceptable to slice off the clitoris of a little girl. i think of that 16 year girl hanging by her broken neck off of a fucking power line in Tehran because she decided she didn't want to get raped by two older men. it all boils to one person telling other people how they should live. not i said the cat.
i know a lot of yall people that im cool with are also very much against abortion. sorry if i offended anyone I dont intend to be offensive.
Im not afraid of the dark, I have no problem with a womans sexuality and I have dealt on several, several occasions with my own eventual demise and i have accepted it without a problem. those things right there make the religious argument null and void on me.
we could look at it pragmatically, although i believe its wrong to do that. How can the life of a current adult human be less important than an under developed fetus. how can the potential, not even the actual presence, but the potential of a human life weigh more in importance than the life of the mother who at least has fully developed mental capabilities and can leave a much bigger impact in the here and now than a child whom wed have to wait for years before the positiveness of their life can be gauged, but fuck, they might end up being god damn junkies or criminals or baby machines to continue the cycle.. its sick and stupid to think this way but this argument for abortion is no less valid than saying its against gods will to take the "life"
whenever i think about the those who are so fanatical against abortion, i think of the societies where its acceptable to slice off the clitoris of a little girl. i think of that 16 year girl hanging by her broken neck off of a fucking power line in Tehran because she decided she didn't want to get raped by two older men. it all boils to one person telling other people how they should live. not i said the cat.
i know a lot of yall people that im cool with are also very much against abortion. sorry if i offended anyone I dont intend to be offensive.
I'm not debating the fact they're genetically distinct. I'm of the opinion that your argument is irrelevant.weamo8 wrote:
In general, do you believe a single organism capable of two sets of genetics? (I am not taking about people with Chimaera genetics)CameronPoe wrote:
I don't find your genetics argument very relevant or compelling.weamo8 wrote:
You are arguing that it is not genetically distinct?
The parasite argument is based on the idea that it is okay to kill something if it needs a host to survive, takes and takes and gives nothing back. It is okay to kill such a being.topal63 wrote:
You never respond to a point, but you do reply.weamo8 wrote:
I dont believe I have ever seen you argue anything but semantics topal.topal63 wrote:
No you're trying to use an argument against itself and it doesn't work. There is nothing semantic about the error (a word meaning indicated by context-use). It is an error of logic. Not semantics in this instance.weamo8 wrote:
But what if no one wants to take care of it? (<--- That is not relevant, and mere nonsense, asked and answered - it is internally self-evident - as it is probable that someone could be found: i.e. adoption.)
It still feeds and is sheltered completely by the host, dies without the host and gives nothing back. That is why I said "basically." You are trying to argue the semantics instead of the argument.
You think I am arguing about whether a newborn is a parasite or not. I am not arguing about whether a baby is a parasite or not.It is clear that you tried to extend this argument (of dependency upon the mother) as an argument against itself. I pointed out that you are wrong and in error (logically not semantically) and why.topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.
Also I have given you a more extended opinion here (that has nothing to do with semantics):
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1392441
This definition could easily be extended to a baby.
You seem to be arguing that there are orphanages and foster parents who are able to keep such a thing alive so it is unethical to kill it.
The mother is able to keep such a thing alive. Is it ethical to kill it?
Is that the book that talks about how the giant fairy in the sky created the earth before it invented light itself, meaning that, in actual fact, it created the earth in the dark?theelviscerator wrote:
abortion is murder, Women have trouble in childbirth for a reason.
Read Genesis.
Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-01 16:29:54)
1) Read my posts, I advocate a 4 month limit.Stingray24 wrote:
EstebanRey: Your position that we are not human until born contradicts every biology text ever written. Human life is not classified by having passed through the vagina. That's the lie that keeps the abortion industry rolling the money of murdered babies. According to you, the doctors shouldn’t have taken emergency measures to deliver my son when he was 33.5 weeks old because he wasn’t human yet. He’s now a healthy boy almost 4 years old and at the top of the growth charts.
We're talking about children who, if allowed to live by their parents, would grow to adulthood. Not a blob that can be scalded to death by a saline abortion. Not a blob who can be torn limb from limb in excrutiating pain by a vacuum. Not a fetus whose head can have scissors plunged into the back of the head and it's brain suctioned out. IT IS A BABY. A HUMAN LIFE. WAKE UP.
2) Your personifying, an argueing technique straight from the anti-abortion handbook.
3) Answer me one question, can you remember one thing from the womb?
My last point isn't saying there isn't a limt (as pointed out by 1) but you have to draw the line somewhere. Are you saying the second a sperm fertalising an egg it is a human being? What does this say for the "morning after" pill? And will you answer my earlier question about whether you eat lamb?
Good for you.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm not debating the fact they're genetically distinct. I'm of the opinion that your argument is irrelevant.weamo8 wrote:
In general, do you believe a single organism capable of two sets of genetics? (I am not taking about people with Chimaera genetics)CameronPoe wrote:
I don't find your genetics argument very relevant or compelling.
I work with a guy who thinks that black people are monkeys. If there were no repercusions, I truly believe he would be running around killing them. Why cant he? Because they are human beings. What makes them individual human beings?
Two arms? No, (monkeys). Two legs? What about war vets? Can I kill someone with an artificial heart?
If someone is knocked out, unconscious, or in a coma do I have the right to kill them? Are they still human beings? What is a good way to classify human beings? Why not genetics? (Can run into trouble with some twins, but is still better than most other classifications.)
We give human beings rights. What classifies something as a human being? If a fetus is a genetically distinct individual from its mother, shouldnt it have its own rights?
I hope this doesnt come off as a racially charged post. The guy I work with is a dumbass.
(Damn this post has a lot of questions)
If you literally interpret it that way, yes. Depending on your godly powers of creation as well, does it matter if you are in the dark?CameronPoe wrote:
Is that the book that talks about how the giant fairy in the sky created the earth before it invented light itself, meaning that, in actual fact, it created the earth in the dark?
Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I've already told what is wrong with over-extending the idea, and I have also told you in another post (you probably did not read) that I DON'T AGREE with late-trimester abortions. Often a fetus (baby) is fully formed and capable of survival outside (or assisted survival outside) the womb. The parasite argument ENDS when the baby is outside the mother. End of story already.weamo8 wrote:
The parasite argument is based on the idea that it is okay to kill something if it needs a host to survive, takes and takes and gives nothing back. It is okay to kill such a being.topal63 wrote:
You never respond to a point, but you do reply.weamo8 wrote:
I dont believe I have ever seen you argue anything but semantics topal.
You think I am arguing about whether a newborn is a parasite or not. I am not arguing about whether a baby is a parasite or not.It is clear that you tried to extend this argument (of dependency upon the mother) as an argument against itself. I pointed out that you are wrong and in error (logically not semantically) and why.topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.
Also I have given you a more extended opinion here (that has nothing to do with semantics):
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1392441
This definition could easily be extended to a baby.
You seem to be arguing that there are orphanages and foster parents who are able to keep such a thing alive so it is unethical to kill it.
The mother is able to keep such a thing alive. Is it ethical to kill it?
Could this be a bigger duh?
You said:
"You seem to be arguing that there are orphanages and foster parents who are able to keep such a thing alive so it is unethical to kill it."
Add natural parents, doctors, nurses, etc to that list as well. And no I am not arguing the obvious - that people who want/have children take care of them.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-01 16:38:03)
I'd be of the opinion that if a foetus cannot survive unaided in the outside world then it doesn't qualify for human rights. All of the things you mention, aided or unaided, can survive in the outside world. Take a 1 month old baby out of a womb and stick it in an incubator and get back to me on how long it lasts, if it is even visible to the naked eye that is.weamo8 wrote:
Good for you.
I work with a guy who thinks that black people are monkeys. If there were no repercusions, I truly believe he would be running around killing them. Why cant he? Because they are human beings. What makes them individual human beings?
Two arms? No, (monkeys). Two legs? What about war vets? Can I kill someone with an artificial heart?
If someone is knocked out, unconscious, or in a coma do I have the right to kill them? Are they still human beings? What is a good way to classify human beings? Why not genetics? (Can run into trouble with some twins, but is still better than most other classifications.)
We give human beings rights. What classifies something as a human being? If a fetus is a genetically distinct individual from its mother, shouldnt it have its own rights?
I hope this doesnt come off as a racially charged post. The guy I work with is a dumbass.
(Damn this post has a lot of questions)
FTR When it can survive in an incubator should be the cut-off point for whether an abortion should be permitted.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-01 16:38:09)
Here's some interesting medical facts from paternityangel.com. These are the facts about development.
22 days - the heart is already beating, though it is still forming.
7th week - The muscles and nerves function. Your baby now has reflexes, so can move spontaneously. The thorax and abdomen are entirely formed. The lungs begin their slow development.
8th week - All of the vital organs are in place: heart, lungs, brain, intestines.
9th week - The eyes are completely formed.
12th week - Muscles respond to the brain. This is only a reflex for now because the brain is not yet sufficiently mature to control things yet. This simultaneous development of the brain and muscles allows baby to bend arms, twist wrists and elbows and to clench and open the fists. The face becomes animated, allowing for pinching of the eyebrows or pursing of the lips.
14th week - The bending of fingers and the clenching of the fists is now possible.
15th week - Your baby begins to hear! The surrounding amniotic liquid helps the external sounds to travel through from you to him/her. It can hear mother's heart, stomach and especially the voice. Some external sounds can also be heard.
16th week - Baby reacts to visual stimulations and will use his/her hands to protect the eyes from violent external light. Your baby is moving around a lot. It has more space now and will spin around and around and around... the mother can feel it stronger now.
17th week - Your baby's sex can be determined.
18th week - Baby can now hear sounds coming from outside the womb, but of course in a muffled manner. If a loud noise is made near the mother, the baby will raise its hands to cover it's ears. He/she can even jump in the stomach or bury itself to hide from the noise. He/she moves most of the time now and gives lots of punches and kicks with the hands and feet...
24th week - Auditory functions are completely formed.
25th week - Baby can put the thumb in the mouth. This week he/she acquires a vital function: he/she can cry. The bones begin to harden.
33rd week (my son born at this stage) - The lungs are nearly mature. If born now, a short stay in an incubator would still be needed. Baby is a little weak, but is perfectly formed with almost the same proportions as he will have at birth.
34th week - Most of your baby's organs are mature except for the lungs. He trains for breathing in a frenzy, but as there is no air available, he breathes in the liquid, thus leading to many bouts of hiccups. Head hair is growing. Tries to blink the eyes. Strong reactions to familiar voices.
22 days - the heart is already beating, though it is still forming.
7th week - The muscles and nerves function. Your baby now has reflexes, so can move spontaneously. The thorax and abdomen are entirely formed. The lungs begin their slow development.
8th week - All of the vital organs are in place: heart, lungs, brain, intestines.
9th week - The eyes are completely formed.
12th week - Muscles respond to the brain. This is only a reflex for now because the brain is not yet sufficiently mature to control things yet. This simultaneous development of the brain and muscles allows baby to bend arms, twist wrists and elbows and to clench and open the fists. The face becomes animated, allowing for pinching of the eyebrows or pursing of the lips.
14th week - The bending of fingers and the clenching of the fists is now possible.
15th week - Your baby begins to hear! The surrounding amniotic liquid helps the external sounds to travel through from you to him/her. It can hear mother's heart, stomach and especially the voice. Some external sounds can also be heard.
16th week - Baby reacts to visual stimulations and will use his/her hands to protect the eyes from violent external light. Your baby is moving around a lot. It has more space now and will spin around and around and around... the mother can feel it stronger now.
17th week - Your baby's sex can be determined.
18th week - Baby can now hear sounds coming from outside the womb, but of course in a muffled manner. If a loud noise is made near the mother, the baby will raise its hands to cover it's ears. He/she can even jump in the stomach or bury itself to hide from the noise. He/she moves most of the time now and gives lots of punches and kicks with the hands and feet...
24th week - Auditory functions are completely formed.
25th week - Baby can put the thumb in the mouth. This week he/she acquires a vital function: he/she can cry. The bones begin to harden.
33rd week (my son born at this stage) - The lungs are nearly mature. If born now, a short stay in an incubator would still be needed. Baby is a little weak, but is perfectly formed with almost the same proportions as he will have at birth.
34th week - Most of your baby's organs are mature except for the lungs. He trains for breathing in a frenzy, but as there is no air available, he breathes in the liquid, thus leading to many bouts of hiccups. Head hair is growing. Tries to blink the eyes. Strong reactions to familiar voices.
If we still had a negative karma button, this would be a great time to use it. Do not even try to start an argument on religion right now. The bible has very little credibility in it's literal sense, and while I do agree with some of what is in it, I am not going to follow it by the word.theelviscerator wrote:
abortion is murder, Women have trouble in childbirth for a reason.
Read Genesis.
God is not an excuse, a justification or a reason. God is not the answer if you want to make a valid argument. Try structuring your arguments more, elviscerator, because people really don't appreciate one liners - especially not ones without any logic behind them.
As to the arguments - I can remember nothing from the womb, but I can faintly recall being born (I swear) - I can just about remember seeing white and feeling uncomfortable... that's all. I also agree on the 4 month limit.
And @Stingray's argument: Caps aren't going to get you any further. If you haven't made your point across without them, you certainly won't with them. EstebanRey and I both think that a fetus isn't human until it's at least 4 months old. That is our opinion. It may be what will one day be a baby, but at that stage it is a 4-month old fetus. Nothing more, nothing less.
edit:
That is 4 months, and that is where I set the limit. Before the sex can be determined. Up until then it's - well, it's an "it". Up until then I don't see it as a full human.Stingray24 wrote:
16th week - Baby reacts to visual stimulations and will use his/her hands to protect the eyes from violent external light. Your baby is moving around a lot. It has more space now and will spin around and around and around... the mother can feel it stronger now.
17th week - Your baby's sex can be determined.
-konfusion
Last edited by konfusion (2007-05-01 16:43:43)
There is not flawed logic in either of our arguments. We simply disagree.
This has nothing to do with parasites. It seems to me that you think letting a fetus die, and killing a baby are different. I disagree.
This has nothing to do with parasites. It seems to me that you think letting a fetus die, and killing a baby are different. I disagree.
You're right. I can understand your position, I just don't agree with it. For the record I think abortion on demand is distasteful but my views on personal choice overshadow that. For rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother I think to not abort would be cruel though.weamo8 wrote:
There is not flawed logic in either of our arguments. We simply disagree.
This has nothing to do with parasites. It seems to me that you think letting a fetus die, and killing a baby are different. I disagree.
1) Well that's a start=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
1) Read my posts, I advocate a 4 month limit.Stingray24 wrote:
EstebanRey: Your position that we are not human until born contradicts every biology text ever written. Human life is not classified by having passed through the vagina. That's the lie that keeps the abortion industry rolling the money of murdered babies. According to you, the doctors shouldn’t have taken emergency measures to deliver my son when he was 33.5 weeks old because he wasn’t human yet. He’s now a healthy boy almost 4 years old and at the top of the growth charts.
We're talking about children who, if allowed to live by their parents, would grow to adulthood. Not a blob that can be scalded to death by a saline abortion. Not a blob who can be torn limb from limb in excrutiating pain by a vacuum. Not a fetus whose head can have scissors plunged into the back of the head and it's brain suctioned out. IT IS A BABY. A HUMAN LIFE. WAKE UP.
2) Your personifying, an argueing technique straight from the anti-abortion handbook.
3) Answer me one question, can you remember one thing from the womb?
My last point isn't saying there isn't a limt (as pointed out by 1) but you have to draw the line somewhere. Are you saying the second a sperm fertalising an egg it is a human being? What does this say for the "morning after" pill? And will you answer my earlier question about whether you eat lamb?
2) I don't need a handbook, I'm a parent and I've been through the journey of pregnancy with my wife two times. My son and daughter were human from the moment they were conceived and I love them dearly.
3) No, I can't remember. I'm glad my mother can remember when she carried me and chose to nurture me instead of kill me.
4) Yes, the second a sperm fertilizes and egg, it is a human being. That's what biology tells us.
5) I don't eat lamb. What that has to do with human development is beyond me.
But then, were you a planned child? Was your mother 17 at the time?Stingray24 wrote:
3) No, I can't remember. I'm glad my mother can remember when she carried me and chose to nurture me instead of kill me.
-konfusion
I had to go through an abortion with my girlfriend in late september of 06'. . . . .
It wasnt fun at all, and was actually really shitty, a totally aweful experience I hope I never have to go through again. I cannot imagine how she felt having to go through the procedure (her procedure was a series of pills taken over a few days, not the other method)
But a women has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body!! Who is the government to say, or anyone else for that matter. . . .what she can and cannot do to her body.
The bottom line is a women's natural feeling when pregant, is to have the child. Women are bred to breed, and that natural instinct is hard to supress. She was torn because her body was telling her to have the child, as its her instincts taking over inside her. However, she knew at the time that having the child wasnt in her best interest, and I agreed and supported her. Thankfully here in America you have that option to CHOOSE whether or not you can have the child. I think its even worse to bring up a child too young, or in a position in which it wouldnt be adaquetly taken care of!
The Irish are stubborn catholics who choose faith over reality! The real reality is that a women shouldnt be told to have the kid, just cause some red faced drunk Irish priest tells her she is going to hell if she doesnt!!
If Ireland is so progressive and liberal, then it should change its laws accordingly with the wishes of its population (especially with its female pop.).
It wasnt fun at all, and was actually really shitty, a totally aweful experience I hope I never have to go through again. I cannot imagine how she felt having to go through the procedure (her procedure was a series of pills taken over a few days, not the other method)
But a women has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body!! Who is the government to say, or anyone else for that matter. . . .what she can and cannot do to her body.
The bottom line is a women's natural feeling when pregant, is to have the child. Women are bred to breed, and that natural instinct is hard to supress. She was torn because her body was telling her to have the child, as its her instincts taking over inside her. However, she knew at the time that having the child wasnt in her best interest, and I agreed and supported her. Thankfully here in America you have that option to CHOOSE whether or not you can have the child. I think its even worse to bring up a child too young, or in a position in which it wouldnt be adaquetly taken care of!
The Irish are stubborn catholics who choose faith over reality! The real reality is that a women shouldnt be told to have the kid, just cause some red faced drunk Irish priest tells her she is going to hell if she doesnt!!
If Ireland is so progressive and liberal, then it should change its laws accordingly with the wishes of its population (especially with its female pop.).
Neither of my children were planned. Did they deserve to die if I felt they were inconvenient? I say no.konfusion wrote:
But then, were you a planned child? Was your mother 17 at the time?Stingray24 wrote:
3) No, I can't remember. I'm glad my mother can remember when she carried me and chose to nurture me instead of kill me.
-konfusion
I would say the biggest disagreement we would have would be under government interaction. I think that one of the primary purposes of any good government is to protect those in their juristiction... particularly the innocent that are completely unable to protect themselves. I think fetuses fall into this catergory. You all obviously dont, but that is an argument for another thread.CameronPoe wrote:
You're right. I can understand your position, I just don't agree with it. For the record I think abortion on demand is distasteful but my views on personal choice overshadow that. For rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother I think to not abort would be cruel though.weamo8 wrote:
There is not flawed logic in either of our arguments. We simply disagree.
This has nothing to do with parasites. It seems to me that you think letting a fetus die, and killing a baby are different. I disagree.
I do, of course, believe the mother should have 100% choice in the matters of rape, incest, danger to her life etc. Pure self-defense justifies killing another being.
Good thread. Check you all later.
This is a baby. She was a baby in the womb and is a baby now. Good day to you all.
