Pyrian on 1/6/2009 at 23:25
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Or maybe when you turn 10. Makes just about as much sense.
Quote Posted by DDL
Why? What massively significant physiological dependency event happens at 10?
Maybe he meant puberty? I have a friend who firmly maintains that abortion should be legal until 18. His reasoning is that if you can't convince your own mom your life is worthwhile, the rest of society doesn't want you, either. :p
Singing Dancing Moose on 1/6/2009 at 23:32
maybe we should abort everybody so they don't have to read this thread
Displacer on 1/6/2009 at 23:39
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Stop being a pedant. The foetus is totally dependent on the mother and that is what it boils down to.
I see you don't dare say what you really think about forcing pregnancy to term eh? No surprises.
Oh come on now. By using that logic if I'm crossing a bridge with a baby in my arm, since its totally dependent on me there should be no problem with me dropping it over the edge if I so choose.
Who said anything about force? Again using that logic by making murder illegal that's "forcing" a serial killer to not go on a killing rampage.
Chimpy Chompy on 1/6/2009 at 23:43
Birth.... no. Remove the baby via c-section 3 days early and... what difference is there than if it had been born naturally? It's exactly the same entity. So how can it be ok to kill one and not the other?
(I'm setting aside cases like threats to mother's life \ awful disabilities discovered at last minute etc... )
Low Moral Fiber on 1/6/2009 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Singing Dancing Moose
maybe we should abort everybody so they don't have to read this thread
nt
Displacer on 1/6/2009 at 23:48
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Personally I think Displacer shouldn't have been allowed to donate that kidney. It was an unnecessary risk to his life, and continues to be so now that he has 50% less renal reserve. I wonder if he smokes or has diabetes or even a family history of diabetes.
Don't you bring that into this. The only reason I brought it up is because you were suggesting I couldn't argue about choosing to end a life to save your own.
Besides that's detrimental to your argument, pointing out I chose to risk my very being in order to save another instead of sitting on my ass and letting him die in order to preserve my own life.
Dia on 2/6/2009 at 01:54
Quote Posted by Displacer
Well I suggest you pick up a good book on anatomy. There is no direct connection between the mother and child. The blood streams are completely separate. The only thing close is the placenta. It is embedded in the uterine wall and gas, waste, and nutrients are passed back and forth through osmotic activity.
You're right; techinically there is no
direct connection between the mother and fetus. You can split hairs all you'd like, but by your own standard, the fetus is pretty much nothing more than a parasite living inside the mother's body and deriving oxygen & nutrition from
her system. Until the latter part of the third trimester it (usually) cannot survive outside the mother's uterus.
I wonder if you're of the Roman Catholic faith; since I know that at one time it was common practice for expectant fathers to be counselled by their parish priests that if a choice had to be made between the lives of the mother and infant, the father had to choose that the mother's life be sacrificed in order to save the infant. (Never made much sense to me.) I also wonder if it was your wife on the delivery table and the doctor told you to choose, if you could so easily sentence your wife to death to save the infant. My personal opinion has always been that you can always make another baby (or adopt if you can't procreate).
Emotional reactions aside, one of the
worst pollution problems we have today is overpopulation. Since birth control isn't retroactive (though I firmly believe certain exeptions should be made :p ), how can you justify bringing more people into a world in which the natural resources are already being taxed to their limits? More
unwanted children? Don't tell me, let me guess; you'd say the unwanted child should be put up for adoption, right?
Adoption seems to be the hue & cry of pro-lifers; unfortunately those pro-lifers aren't up on the very real facts of adoption rate statistics. Here's an example (from the Adoption History Project):
'Estimates suggest that adoptive families are atypical as well as few in number. Approximately 5 million Americans alive today are adoptees, 2-4 percent of all families have adopted, and 2.5 percent of all children under 18 are adopted.' Oh, well
that's encouraging, isn't it?
Also:
'The percentage of premarital births placed for adoption has decreased since the 1970s. Analyses of three cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth show the following trend:in Illinois
From 1952 to 1972, 8.7% of all premarital births were placed for adoption.
From 1973 to 1981, this percentage fell to 4.1%.
From 1982 to 1988, it fell further to 2%. (Bachrach, Stolley, London, 1992)'(From (
http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html) )
I firmly believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she'll have an abortion. Especially if said abortion will save her life. After all, that woman is
already considered a sentient human being.
Displacer on 2/6/2009 at 02:32
Dia, thank you for a intelligent debate on the subject. My entire point about no connection to the mother was when people stated "its her body" blah, blah. They are 2 separate entities, my only point on that matter. No splitting hairs at all.
No I am not Catholic, I'm just your average Joe. I'm trying to keep God and religion out of this, which I have so far. (For the record I'm christian, but not a holier than thou type. I haven't been near a church in years)
It would not be my decision for life or death for either, it would be hers. My problem with it is someone would sacrifice their own child to save their own life. I'm sorry but I just can't understand that at all.
That being said the rest of it is too much of a grey area. For instance about overpopulation. One could argue "Is that your decision to make?" or "Who made you God to decide there's too many people?" On the flip side you could argue its mankind's duty to keep things under control, etc. etc.
The thing that makes the rest of the debate a grey area is the definition of human life. Like I said before I cannot in any sense of the word look at a live ultrasound and justify saying that is not a person, that what I'm seeing is not alive. I cannot look at a small baby in the womb sucking its thumb, moving around and such and say "Meh, I'll get rid of it. I can always make another" I'm sorry but I just can't see it as a piece of property to discard as you please. I see a human life the same as you and I.
And with that I bow out of this unwinnable argument.
Pyrian on 2/6/2009 at 04:13
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
(I'm setting aside cases like threats to mother's life \ awful disabilities discovered at last minute etc... )
It's hard to set those cases aside when the subject is late term abortion, because those are some of the primary reasons why people choose to get late term abortions.
Quote Posted by Displacer
My entire point about no connection to the mother was when people stated "its her body" blah, blah. They are 2 separate entities, my only point on that matter. No splitting hairs at all.
It's not really
true, though. Fetal cells are found in the mother long after childbirth, and vice-versa. The placental barrier
exists, but it really doesn't qualify as "separate" any more than the blood/brain barrier makes you and your brain different people.
Quote Posted by Displacer
"Who made you God to decide there's too many people?"
...I would have said that God - or at least nature - already made that decision, and we trespass it at our peril.
Koki on 2/6/2009 at 05:49
Quote Posted by van HellSing
So what, you and Hitler boarded the same train at different stations, the destination is the same.
Healthier humanity?
