Originally Posted by DrHax
Oracle I'm challenging your point of view not because I disagree with your stance, because we both believe a fetus isn't life, but because I think your initial definition of life is in my opinion not strong and can be deconstructed quickly.
You said "if it can't live outside the womb without medical assistance, it isn't life". You went on to think "Okay well if a human is in a vegetative state, that's not really life either" in a way to support that definition. But what about someone who simply cannot breath on their own for the moment, so they are put on a ventilator? They can't survive outside the womb without medical assistance, but they're obviously functioning human beings with complex thoughts, feelings, etc. Let's go even more absurd- what about someone who has been shot. If they don't have surgery to stop the bleeding and remove the bullet, they die. Certainly that person isn't at that point able to maintain homeostasis, he or she will die without medical assistance, he or she is outside the womb, but they also could be walking, talking, thinking, feeling pain, etc. Unless you're arguing that someone who's been shot isn't living they just have the potential for life once the patient nurses off the doctor's work like a baby fetus acts off the womb.
My point is I think we need to do better on our definition than what's been previously stated by you. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent your post though.
No, it's a reasonable counter to my initial statement. However, there's a difference between a fetus that needs medical assistance to stay alive and a 5 year old that needs medical assistance to stay alive. First, the fetus has yet to experience living, while the 5 year old has lived. The mere fact that it has been alive before means that it has rights that are still guaranteed upon it. Somebody dying is still alive and with rights. Those rights end when, beyond reasonable doubt, the individual is unable to return to a stable, living, state. A person who is in a medical coma is still alive because there's a reasonable expectation that they will regain consciousness. A person who is brain dead is not alive since there is no chance at regaining consciousness. Similarly, a fetus has no expectation to survive outside of the womb, even when treated, while a 5 year old with meningitis has a reasonable expectation to survive if treated.
It's like if you dissect a frog and, an hour after death, you artificially stimulate the heart to beat using electricity. It has a pulse, but it's still dead. It will not regain consciousness. It would be foolish to call this corpse of a frog alive. But if you stop the heart of a frog, then resume it's heart within a minute, there's reasonable expectation that the frog will recover and resume normal frog life. The frog, in that minute of no heartbeat, is dying, but it is not yet dead.
If you need a spelling out of my stance, I believe abortion should be legal and readily accessible through to the third trimester, exceptions being instances of rape, incest, and risk to the mother's health. If you carry it to third trimester when abortion is easily accessible, I have less sympathy for your case.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by jmo1999
Now i'm not trying to diss animals but they are here for one reason and one reason only and as i said earlier that is to further human growth and prosperity.
And how the hell did you come to that conclusion?
"I don't believe animals have any rights to life because... um, well... uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
Going on from what oracle said, I believe that life begins at the stage when the foetus can survive outside the womb. Obviously, there are quite a few factors that you have to take into account here, such as the number of medical supplies available at the particular location, the state of medical science and the overall competence of the mother. A being's right to life being determined by these factors is somewhat unsatisfactory, but they are crucial to determining the future of the child.
However, I think we can all agree that the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy we are when abortion is considered. I used to think that brain activity in the foetus was the first sign of life, but this doesn't demonstrate actual consciousness.
Originally Posted by jmo1999
i do not agree with that.
There is a reason that animals are on earth and that is ONLY for the use of by humans. Now does that mean we can't be humane and respectful? Of course not!! But it does mean that we have many more rights than them. Now i'm not trying to diss animals but they are here for one reason and one reason only and as i said earlier that is to further human growth and prosperity.
Ok on to the current subject of abortion. I don't agree ATOL i don't care about taking rights away (atm) but we do not have the right (lol) to take the life of a child just because we don"t believe we are "ready". There are other options foster care, adoption, living with a parent until you are "ready" But the last thing that should be considered is abortion that kid could and probably will turn into the best thing that happened to you and the best way to ensure that is to keep her/him in my opinion. So thats my two cents do with them as you want.
Originally Posted by CloudFair3
How would you feel if you wanted go out on a Friday night instead of study for some huge test tomorrow but was told you can't under any circumstances, "This is something beautiful if you let it be, you just have to put in effort and time into it". I say that because, while yes it may be a huge choice for you, you should have full responsibility and right to do so. Noone can take that away from you.
Like I said, I dont like abortion and wont force anyone to do it but taking away that choice from anyone is just idk, bullshit. It's all a matter of choice really. Say your religion prohibits eating of meat, politicians have no obligation to ban meat on the market. A single group of people should not be a basis for any law. Applies to any law.
Religious argument for animals are put here for us to benefit from:
We were put on earth to be stewards, heralds of God's creation, not benefactors of it. Any religion class, atleast ones I've been it, teaches that.
Secular (right term) argument:
We aren't the center of the universe, animals weren't put for our use. If so then why were there "animals" even before our time? (Dinosaurs, sea creatures, things of that nature) We are here to coexist with them, we aren't here to make use of them. What's your basis for saying that anyway? Curious.
Originally Posted by Zelda
Oh and as a side note: Could people please stop confusing clinical abortion with infanticide? This is not killing a baby and it is certainly not killing a child. At least no more than any form of contraception including abstinence. Thanks.
I'm not confusing that with anything, I just use the terms synonymous to taking a life since most arguments that are against abortion seem to say an unborn baby, fetus or embryo, has life already. So I have my posts mainly focused on them. Sorry if I didnt clarify it before.
Last edited by CloudFair3; Jul 14, 2015 at 05:28 PM.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It is questionable whether or not the fetus can be considered a baby or a child while it is still in the womb, especially if it is during the first trimester when most abortions are performed. And even if you argue that everyone has a soul like most religious people do, then you must also ask whether the fetus has a soul as soon as it is conceived, or if it gains one after a certain point in the pregnancy.
Regardless if it is considered a baby or not, it is living and growing non-stop.
Life is meant to be lived not cut short because the mother is unfit to care for it.
Adoption is still there, regardless if they get adopted or not they have lived and once the become an adult they have a chance to live more and enjoy the values of life.
Originally Posted by Bayless
Regardless if it is considered a baby or not, it is living and growing non-stop.
Life is meant to be lived not cut short because the mother is unfit to care for it.
Adoption is still there, regardless if they get adopted or not they have lived and once the become an adult they have a chance to live more and enjoy the values of life.
A fetus that has no conciousness or feeling is arguably not a human being. It is just a living thing. Are you to propose that there is no reason to kill any living thing? That was adressed by cowmeat with the "Killing a tree" argument. Both the tree and the fetus that is getting aborted have no conciousness or feeling, but are living. Are you saying that cutting down trees is also murder?
And adoption, as I quoted previously, hawke has already commented on that:
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Adoption is not nearly as effective as it seems to be. I don't have the numbers available, but a good chunk of children that parents put up for adoption, either through the hospital or afterwards, go into either orphanages or group homes. And many of those children do not get adopted, or if they do, they do not stay in the foster homes. In 2012 (latest available statistics) 23,000 children aged out of the US foster care system. Of those 23,000, only 48% were employed, and I imagine that most had trouble holding that job.
Last edited by duck; Jul 15, 2015 at 08:27 AM.
h
