Well I believe the killing of babies is wrong, no matter what stage of life or conception they are in. In my mind, I still see it as murder.
But that's your mind yes? So if someone else, in their mind, didn't see it as murder, wouldn't the converse be true, and it'd be okay for them?
Give me a chance y'all. You don't see every single post here supported by fact or opinion.
Just ignore people if they try to flame you, although in Avorne's case he's saying that you shouldn't post short posts because it doesn't really add much to the thread. You don't have to have a source, but you should have more than, "I think this is wrong"
Foetuses =/= babies - there's a difference between the two. Also, we tend to define the end of the life cycle as the point at which any meaningful brain activity ceases which would mean that it would be right to define the start of the life cycle as the point at which this brain activity starts, this is thought to be around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Terminating a foetus before that point is not murder.
Are you saying that on purpose? Because the word is Fetus :P
Also, we tend to define the end of the life cycle as the point at which any meaningful brain activity ceases
Basically, my stance is, it's the mother's choice on whether or not she wants to have a kid. Even just keeping it until it's born is life changing, going through the whole process, the pain, social awkwardness (if not married) etc.
Both Foetus and Fetus are acceptable, but I prefer to use Foetus as Fetus sounds silly.
Of course Kasic, the arguments against yours are that she should of used protection if she didn't want a child or that she could just give it up for adoption after birth, how do you respond to those?
Foetuses =/= babies - there's a difference between the two. Also, we tend to define the end of the life cycle as the point at which any meaningful brain activity ceases which would mean that it would be right to define the start of the life cycle as the point at which this brain activity starts, this is thought to be around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Terminating a foetus before that point is not murder.
Well, no, this doesn't work as an argument because even IF technically life doesn't begin until the brain functions, it doesn't stop people from holding a value on a fetus.
If I think it's wrong to kill a fetus, it doesn't matter whether technically it's considered a living thing or not, because all you're doing is giving me a technical term that means nothing. If I think a fetus holds a value in which it's 'life' or whatever shouldn't be taken away, then your definition of life holds no value.
This is why we CAN'T argue technical terms, because they are just terms. Philosophy is the only way to argue. Good luck with that one.
Of course Kasic, the arguments against yours are that she should of used protection
While protection is quite effective when used right, it may not have been used right. Maybe she didn't have any, or forgot to take the pill, or maybe they were married but lost their job or something and thought it would be better to wait until they were on more stable footing, there could be a lot of reasons.
Both Foetus and Fetus are acceptable, but I prefer to use Foetus as Fetus sounds silly.
If she didn't have any protection with her and her sexual partner didn't either, assuming she didn't want a child, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.
assuming she didn't want a child, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.
People don't only have sex to reproduce you know. Also, it's not like I advocate getting a ton of abortions, but for those times when something does go wrong, there should be that option for those people. Of course there's always going to be irresponsible people, but there are those who would need it for legitimate reasons, like they were *****, or lost their jobs and can't support a child atm, or the protection did fail. I don't want every would-be-mother getting an abortion, and it shouldn't be "that" many, but as said previously, the option should be there.
There are other sexual acts that are pleasurable besides full-on intercourse. Getting *****, losing your job and failing protection are all things out of a persons control, that's true, but they could just have the baby and give it up for adoption instead of aborting the foetus.
but they could just have the baby and give it up for adoption instead of aborting the foetus.
They "could" but would you want to spend 9 months with all that goes with it, then actually give birth to it, you could possibly die, there's pain, it's scary, and it'd be socially awkward, for something you didn't want?
I just don't see why people have to intervene on abortion rights for parents. I mean, look up this Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade 401 US 113 (1973) In short, this case set precident stating that abortion is not considered illegal until viability of the fetus, with viability being defined as being "otentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Also, the case stated that abortion is a privacy matter, so attempting to prevent an abortion from happening is illegal.
One of the pillars of the abortion argument that I see over and over is the one that states that if it isn't the right time for the mother that she cannot stay in school... and that the mother will be poor for the rest of her life.. and that the mother's dreams will be destroyed.
I do not and cannot accept this. It is completely bogus.
what is "supporting oneself"...? truly... is it not being able to provide your own sustenance? a mentally retarded person may be able to physically feed him/herself(and sometimes not even that) but if they can't obtain the food on their own then they're not much different from the fetus. the fetus has its own sustenance brought to it... it then assimilates said sustenance into its being and grows.
the only other problem I have is that no1 from the other side admits to a fetus being human. personality and emotions do not a human make. Having the ~46 chromosome set unique to humanity and cells that continue to divide and differentiate are what make you an alive human. You could simply say that even tho its "human" it is an allowable death b/c it hasn't done anything... but you say that even tho its alive it is not human. I've never seen any hard science definition that says being human is to be an individual that can sustain itself... what of quadriplegics? they have a feeding tube and that if I'm not mistaken is akin to the umbilical cord. ...quadriplegics can't even move and may need a respirator. are they no longer individuals? if you gain your individuality by being able to stand alone then can't you lose it? What if they're still sentient?... like they can't move and are on life support and are still "at home"... say they broke their neck above C3 and can no longer breathe or move... at some point the fetus gets brain neurons that fire... just b/c that person's brain is more organized with its firing than the fetus means the fetus isn't human?
your dna predisposes and may even decide parts of your personality.... so axe personality off the brain wagon. You could very well look at a genetic code one day and say ..."he's aggressive"... "He's shy"... "he's going to be derpressed all the time"... "he's a risk taker"... (based off of knowing hormonal outputs and such...since all the brain apparently is is just chemistry) Or you could run the code through a computer simulation one day and get a representation of the fully developed human being... I mean twins come out looking the same so I'd think that if we could crack the code you could even see the little tumor's future face throughout a projected lifetime. how you come out in this world isn't really a choice you get to make. ...or that's what I hear from the homosexuals. thus... your dna determines a large portion of your "humanity"
the interpreted tone I get is that even a fetus w/ neurons would be acceptable given that its deemed so by the gov't. amirite?
