DDL on 1/6/2009 at 22:50
Also, the placenta is essentially in a constant state of OMG HAEMORRHAGE (which it needs to be, to effectively do it's job): it takes massive constant localised release of hormones to stop everything clotting and both parties dying.
Pregnancy is fucking SCARY.
Vivian on 1/6/2009 at 22:50
well, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are situations when it's better for a child not to be born, especially if the mother doesn't want to give birth to it. If that gives you some kind of raging hitler hardon, that says more about you.
Renzatic on 1/6/2009 at 22:51
My opinion on abortion is you can't argue a topic that has no wrong answers, and thusly has no right one. Yeah, you can all toss up the righteous indignation flags and paint your oppositions with vague, broad brushes (SD IS BACK!). But you all can't escape the fact that abortion topics, much like religion topics, all boil down to one gigantic circle jerk involving a bunch of angry people shouting at walls of deaf opposition. AIN'T FUN! AIN'T EDUCATIONAL!
So what's my stance? Legalize abortions. There are always gonna be extenuating circumstances and desperate people. If it's made illegal, you're gonna end up with a ton of scared pregnant teenagers going into back alleys and coming back with staph infections. It isn't right to force anyone to take that path. It just makes a hard choice even worse. That said, I think the late term ban needs to stay intact, and it should always be implied as a last resort option by the doctor.
As what a few other people have stated already, Demagogue's post are about the best thing going on here. If the aborted foetus has all it's fingers, toes, organs, heartbeat, all that good stuff, and can potentially linger a couple of days outside the womb before dying, then it's no longer a choice, it's a responsibility. Usually all that comes about during the third trimester, and it seems as good a place as any to draw the line.
So yeah...there. I've pretty much repeated everything everyone else has said, but with a slightly more flippant attitude. My job is done!
SD on 1/6/2009 at 22:55
Quote Posted by Brethren
I also think that the argument that "women shouldn't be told what to do with their bodies" is faulty. That's like saying, "I should be able to pump heroin or cocaine into it, it's not hurting anyone else." Or, "why can't I sell my kidney on ebay?" Sorry, that's just not the way it works (nor should it be).
Why shouldn't it work like that? Don't people have ownership over their own bodies?
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
So I'm guess Demagogue's posts (which I should really sit down and read properly) are the most interesting thing going on here. As in, trying to pin down when that fetus does become a person. Conception seems an unsatisfactory answer but so does birth.
Birth seems an entirely satisfactory point to me. Until that moment, you're no more than a potential person.
metal dawn on 1/6/2009 at 23:00
If you still want my opinion, Van, I personally think heavy drinkers and drug users should be castrated. That could curb the problem and keep it from getting to the issue of whether or not to kill the whatever.
Or something like that.
But I guess I'm avoiding again.
I don't really have a rock-solid stance, but I "wonder" a lot, if that's any excuse.
If a mother doesn't want the child. I more inclined toward the mother having the decision, but I also wonder if choosing for someone or something that can't decide for itself is justifiable.
I can see how the argument "if the mother doesn't want it, it can be adopted" is logical, but is it practical?
I mean, a lot of foster care systems (or at least the one in my state) are really ass and kids in it can have a real rough time growing up, many become criminals or homeless. Many are abused or mistreated by their foster families. What if they never get adopted?
Is living really better if living itself is hell? I know that sounds presumptive, but I'm having a bit of trouble wording it better.
I'd probably lean more to pro-life if the foster system were more competent. But in my state, it's about bureaucracy, not the people/kids behind it.
Did I make any sense there?
van HellSing on 1/6/2009 at 23:01
Quote Posted by SD
Birth seems an entirely satisfactory point to me. Until that moment, you're no more than a potential person.
Or maybe when you turn 10. Makes just about as much sense.
DDL on 1/6/2009 at 23:03
Why? What massively significant physiological dependency event happens at 10?
SubJeff on 1/6/2009 at 23:04
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.
van HellSing on 1/6/2009 at 23:07
What does physiological dependency have to do with being a person?
Renault on 1/6/2009 at 23:14
Quote Posted by SD
Why shouldn't it work like that? Don't people have ownership over their own bodies?
Mostly, but not completely, no. At least, not if they want to live amongst others in a civilized world.
(we can add prostitution to that list too, btw).
