No, its not. I never said it was. It is simply my understanding of an undeveloped fetus (unable to exist outside the womb).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.
No, it can't. Why would anyone advocate killing babies, even if they "take and take and give nothing back."weamo8 wrote:
This definition could easily be extended to a baby.
Did you read the article? This woman's baby WILL DIE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. Having a baby puts the mother at risk. Is it not your moral obligation to allow her to safely abort the child and protect herself from the physical and emotional trauma? Your analogy is jackshit.weamo8 wrote:
Is it morally wrong to let a baby drown in a swimming pool? I would go in after it, but adults have been known to drown too. I probably wont drown, but I better not take the chance. However, the baby drowning isnt my fault, the pool killed it, not me. I heartily disagree with your argument. I believe you are looking for a culprit that isnt there.jonsimon wrote:
Your argument is moot. In this case, the baby is going to die. PHYSICS is dictating it's death, not the mother. Is it not morally acceptable to allow the mother to prevent harm being done to her body in the form of a birth? Birthing can kill a person, it's not as common now, but it still can. Her baby is going to die regardless. Would you endanger the mother's life as well?weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.
I find the hypocrisy of some anti-abortion people astounding. It's fucking ridiculous that you are anti-abortion because, well, it's murder and then claim it's OK to have an abortion in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is at risk.weamo8 wrote:
The vast majority of people in the United States agree that people should have to right to get abortions when their life is at risk, rape, incest, and the like. That can be equated to taking another life in self defense.
I agree it is distasteful, especially with the modern contraception methods that are available today. But on the other hand, does it really matter? It would make no difference to me if I was not born, because I would not be aware of it.CameronPoe wrote:
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.
A fetus, should it survive, may contribute the continuation of the host's DNA legacy to future generations. I would hardly call that parasitic, in essence. More of an "IOU" sort of symbiotic relationship.Tromboner999 wrote:
Posts like yours are just asking for attention. Troll.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')Tromboner999 wrote:
Debate and serious talk?
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?
Good God, man, do you think that's why non-human mammalian females can sometimes have trouble or die from childbirth also? Are you even being serious?theelviscerator wrote:
abortion is murder, Women have trouble in childbirth for a reason.
Read Genesis.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-01 19:32:13)
i would live to see somebody counter this.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
I find the hypocrisy of some anti-abortion people astounding. It's fucking ridiculous that you are anti-abortion because, well, it's murder and then claim it's OK to have an abortion in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is at risk.weamo8 wrote:
The vast majority of people in the United States agree that people should have to right to get abortions when their life is at risk, rape, incest, and the like. That can be equated to taking another life in self defense.
Like EVieira said in the case of a rape, is it the child's fault? You argue against having an abortion for reasons like bad economic situation, still to young etc., in other words, because it is convenient. And yet is it any different in case of rape? Why would it be acceptable to have an abortion, so you don't see the child every day and be remembered of the rape? Out of sight, out of mind, right? What did the child do wrong? You think it is a perfect copy of the rapist, and will commit rape too? So punish the child for something the father did? Adoption is an option here too you know. Child need not know.
Next we come to incest. The child may have genetic disorders, may be retarded etc. But what gives you the right to kill it? It's a human being too. Is it perhaps inconvenient because the care costs too much in case of major disabilities? Is it because it is convenient for the parents, and they can avoid the embarrassment?
And then we come to the situation when the mother's life is at risk. So you are going to kill one human being to save another? What gives you the right to choose who lives and who dies? Because the mother is worth more? Because someone loves her and will have a hard time dealing with the loss of both the mother and the child? While it will be more acceptable to mourn just the child, and besides they can try again? Shouldn't we wait and see what happens instead, they might even both survive, no matter how slim the chances are? You are talking about killing the child after all.
If you are going to be anti-abortion, then be anti-abortion all the way. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite(not targeted at you weamo8, but at anti-abortionists in general, just to clarify).
Now, I am for abortion(as you might have surmised from my tone and wording if you are a careful reader), but I believe it should be capped at a point, while the fetus is not yet sufficiently developed(except in certain circumstances, where it could be aborted at a later time). I mean, how long does it take to decide to have an abortion anyway ffs?I agree it is distasteful, especially with the modern contraception methods that are available today. But on the other hand, does it really matter? It would make no difference to me if I was not born, because I would not be aware of it.CameronPoe wrote:
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.
As for the second part: see above. If the mother decides not to abort, that is not cruel at all. But it is the mother's choice. She takes all the risks, especially in the last instance.
And now we finally arrive to the case at hand. Not only should they allow her to travel to UK, they should change the retarded law. The child WILL NOT SURVIVE. Why endanger the mother, and make her suffer carrying that child for nine months, only to see it die. That IS cruel.
There are many things that I like about Ireland, but Catholicism isn't one of them.CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0501/abortion.html
What think ye of the story above? Abortion is illegal here in Ireland so when women want abortions they generally hop on a ferry to the UK to get the pregnancy terminated. This particular 17 year old girl has been legally forbidden by the Health Services Executive to leave the state for the intention of an abortion. It is known that the baby will die in childbirth or shortly thereafter. The 17 year old is taking the case to the High Court pleading 'intention to commit suicide' (basically the only thing that could possibly influence the court's decision). So, what think ye of this situation? What should be done? Is there anything wrong with our legal system? Should abortion be legalised?
Ideally, we'd work to restrengthen our crumbling family values rather than merely teach kids how to wear condoms.Turquoise wrote:
There are many things that I like about Ireland, but Catholicism isn't one of them.CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0501/abortion.html
What think ye of the story above? Abortion is illegal here in Ireland so when women want abortions they generally hop on a ferry to the UK to get the pregnancy terminated. This particular 17 year old girl has been legally forbidden by the Health Services Executive to leave the state for the intention of an abortion. It is known that the baby will die in childbirth or shortly thereafter. The 17 year old is taking the case to the High Court pleading 'intention to commit suicide' (basically the only thing that could possibly influence the court's decision). So, what think ye of this situation? What should be done? Is there anything wrong with our legal system? Should abortion be legalised?
Abortions are generally a necessary evil in America, but the only realistic alternative is to seriously beef up our adoption and childcare programs. If we had adequate social systems to handle the additional children that would be born into society without abortion being legal, then the pro-life movement would make more sense.
Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have no intention of supporting better programs, and so, abortion remains necessary.
Well, I'll quote an old school conservative on this one.... "You can't legislate morality."unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ideally, we'd work to restrengthen our crumbling family values rather than merely teach kids how to wear condoms.Turquoise wrote:
There are many things that I like about Ireland, but Catholicism isn't one of them.CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0501/abortion.html
What think ye of the story above? Abortion is illegal here in Ireland so when women want abortions they generally hop on a ferry to the UK to get the pregnancy terminated. This particular 17 year old girl has been legally forbidden by the Health Services Executive to leave the state for the intention of an abortion. It is known that the baby will die in childbirth or shortly thereafter. The 17 year old is taking the case to the High Court pleading 'intention to commit suicide' (basically the only thing that could possibly influence the court's decision). So, what think ye of this situation? What should be done? Is there anything wrong with our legal system? Should abortion be legalised?
Abortions are generally a necessary evil in America, but the only realistic alternative is to seriously beef up our adoption and childcare programs. If we had adequate social systems to handle the additional children that would be born into society without abortion being legal, then the pro-life movement would make more sense.
Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have no intention of supporting better programs, and so, abortion remains necessary.
There's a difference between a fetus and a child. One might just as well argue against eating plants because they have rights.EVieira wrote:
What about the rights of the child? If a mother kills her child after it is born, she will be thrown in prison and called a monster by most of you. But if the baby is still inside her, its ok?
CameronPoe wrote:
Update>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontp … 07370.html
Can you spell hypocrites? If this is true(don't know how trustworthy The Irish Times is) I fail to see the logic of it.The Irish Times wrote:
Meanwhile, The Irish Times has learned that the HSE has funded the cost of an abortion in the UK for a woman whose baby had serious congenital abnormalities that were incompatible with life outside the womb.
It is understood approximately six other abortions for women in similar circumstances have been funded by the HSE in the last year.
I can see it now...Bubbalo wrote:
There's a difference between a fetus and a child. One might just as well argue against eating plants because they have rights.EVieira wrote:
What about the rights of the child? If a mother kills her child after it is born, she will be thrown in prison and called a monster by most of you. But if the baby is still inside her, its ok?
<*wibbly wayne's world effect*>your local newspaper wrote:
Plant Rights Activists Attack Greengrocer.
Today the highstreet greengrocer was attacked by a gang of armed animal rights activists.
They burst into the shop shouting "Carrots have rights too!" and "Vegetable Torturers!". One member of the gang then proceeded to hold the shop staff and customers at gunpoint, whilst the rest of the group gathered up all the local organic carrots and placed them into an assortment of grow bags in the back of a white transit van, in which they escaped before the alarm could be raised.
The gang were dressed in plain dark hooded tops, combat trousers and wore balaclavas to disguise their identity.
The carrots were later found planted in the local, isolated, field in the middle of other identical isolated fields.
Police are appealing for anybody that was in the area of the highstreet between 13:00 and 13:30 to come forward with any information they may have.
That was kinda the point I was making earlier, I wonder how all the anti-abortionists "morals" change when we talk about animals.Bubbalo wrote:
Lol..............reminds me of a response to a writing exercise by someone in the year below me at high school. It was a practice POV essay from a past exam, about a group of animal liberationists who "saved" some chickens from a truck. The opening?
"Chickens are people too............"
I wish I knew who wrote it.
Don't worry, I wasn't critisising. Besides none of them answered me anyway.....Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, I can't be stuffed reading through 5 pages on abortion, sorry.
I stated long ago in other threads that if abortion is banned, I'll become an animal right activist. The pro-abortion side is in a much worse position of defending animal life, but refusing to stand up for helpless infants in the womb.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
That was kinda the point I was making earlier, I wonder how all the anti-abortionists "morals" change when we talk about animals.Bubbalo wrote:
Lol..............reminds me of a response to a writing exercise by someone in the year below me at high school. It was a practice POV essay from a past exam, about a group of animal liberationists who "saved" some chickens from a truck. The opening?
"Chickens are people too............"
I wish I knew who wrote it.
And if we did have the technology to keep them alive what then? 100 years ago we couldn't save the lives of premature babys as early as we can today.CameronPoe wrote:
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.