I don't know why so many women feel horrible after an abortion as I am neither a women nor ever had an abortion. I am merely stating fact. You can argue the ethics and morality of abortion all you like but the fact remains that a fetus prior to 25 weeks of gestation cannot live outside of the womb even with the assistance of modern life support measures. To me that seems like a great place to draw the line.
I personally would never have an abortion, but that is my belief and it should not be forced upon another human being and since that fetus is not considered a human being, by scientific terms, it does not have the same rights as we do.
I use science to define my position because unlike ethics and morals, scietific facts do not vary between person to person. It is the only consistant in this debate. Your ethics and morals may not be the same as mine but neither of us can dispute the scientific facts.
you know what made my pro-choice position waver the most?
scientific facts do not vary between person to person. but they do vary. formerly, flat earth was scientific fact. you say the fetus cannot survive outside the womb using MODERN technology... what if in 10 years it can? does that change your view on when life "begins" if we can keep babies alive that are only 24 weeks old? 23? 20? 15? is that how you make your decision? science is NOT constant. it is always changing with new discoveries and what we think we know about fetal growth today could be completely altered tomorrow.
that's why i changed to a pretty neutral or ambivalent opinion on abortion. there is no "fact" here, only conjecture and best guesses. some appear more sound than others. but nobody has the "fact" of where life actually begins... not the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers.
you know what made my pro-choice position waver the most?
scientific facts do not vary between person to person. but they do vary. formerly, flat earth was scientific fact. you say the fetus cannot survive outside the womb using MODERN technology... what if in 10 years it can? does that change your view on when life "begins" if we can keep babies alive that are only 24 weeks old? 23? 20? 15? is that how you make your decision? science is NOT constant. it is always changing with new discoveries and what we think we know about fetal growth today could be completely altered tomorrow.
that's why i changed to a pretty neutral or ambivalent opinion on abortion. there is no "fact" here, only conjecture and best guesses. some appear more sound than others. but nobody has the "fact" of where life actually begins... not the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers.
Yes then my position on abortion will evolve along with modern medicine and science. I base my position on abortion on science that is not to say that everyone else should do the same. Everyone has a right to view this topic as they wish, in the end though this is a decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and their conscience.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
No more bold than it is to do anything on the basis of an opinion.
So based on YOUR opinion only, not laws or social tolerance, if a pregnant woman was injured by another person and her fetus died, would you stand behind your opinion that it is not viable anyways and not a human yet so thus the perpetrator should NOT be held accountable? After all, it is just cells and can be replaced in your opinion.
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
So based on YOUR opinion only, not laws or social tolerance, if a pregnant woman was injured by another person and her fetus died, would you stand behind your opinion that it is not viable anyways and not a human yet so thus the perpetrator should NOT be held accountable?
Anyone who willingly injures another person should be held accountable. But the person in your example is not a murderer.
After all, it is just cells and can be replaced in your opinion.
Ummm...that goes for all of us, fetus or otherwise. But that's also irrelevant.
A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.
"To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."
One condition being birth. Whether or not the fetus is an individual or not, unless the mother's right to proper survival is threatened the baby shall be born.
an adult dependent on machines is a different situation. A machine itself has no rights, has no life, cannot own anything and is a completely distinct object from the person attached to it. The human being held alive by machines still maintains his or her rights and should certainly be considered part of any existing social compacts. However, that person does not somehow gain new rights as part of their state. He has no right to enslave the doctors or family members providing those machines. So, as I stated, those people are free to let the man die. If they wish to disconnect him from those machines (assuming the absence of an agreement to do otherwise), they may certainly do so.
There's a case in Australia that was reported yesterday, where the Court ruled in favor of a hospital, who were seeking permission to turn off Paulo Melo's life support system against his familys wishes. He had been injured two weeks ago in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The hospital did turn off his life support system. He breathed for a while, but he has now passed away.
So i guess the Courts in Australia agree with you. According to them, he has no right to 'enslave the doctors providing these machines'. (your words).
An Australian car accident victim died Thursday after his family lost a legal battle to keep him on life support in a hospital, an official said.
Paulo Melo, 29, from Darwin on Australia's north coast, slipped into a coma after suffering brain and spinal injuries in a Dec. 5 accident.
His family gained a temporary injunction in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Tuesday preventing the Royal Darwin Hospital from switching off his life support system, which had kept him alive.
But a judge lifted the injunction Wednesday, describing the patient's medical condition as futile
"To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."
One condition being birth. Whether or not the fetus is an individual or not, unless the mother's right to proper survival is threatened the baby shall be born.
Hehe...I'd highly advise you not to quote pro-abortion philosophers in support of anti-abortion stances. Rand was staunchly pro-choice.
You are implying, in your inferrence, that a fetus, or anything else, has a right to survival. No such right exists, obviously. All of us, at some point, will cease to survive. Furthermore, each of us has the right to own our own bodies -- that is a primary axiom of Objectivism. To suggest that a fetus has a "right to survive" at the expense of another (as all fetuses do) is to suggest that a fetus owns rights that a mother does not.
The base nature of a fetus is an existence of dependence. And it is entirely up to the mother whether or not to allow the fetus to occupy and use her body.
There's a case in Australia that was reported yesterday, where the Court ruled in favor of a hospital, who were seeking permission to turn off Paulo Melo's life support system against his familys wishes. He had been injured two weeks ago in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The hospital did turn off his life support system. He breathed for a while, but he has now passed away.
So i guess the Courts in Australia agree with you. According to them, he has no right to 'enslave the doctors providing these machines'. (your words).
An Australian car accident victim died Thursday after his family lost a legal battle to keep him on life support in a hospital, an official said.
Paulo Melo, 29, from Darwin on Australia's north coast, slipped into a coma after suffering brain and spinal injuries in a Dec. 5 accident.
His family gained a temporary injunction in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Tuesday preventing the Royal Darwin Hospital from switching off his life support system, which had kept him alive.
But a judge lifted the injunction Wednesday, describing the patient's medical condition as futile
It sounds like the court does not completely agree with me. It sounds like the court only believes slavery is wrong if a "patient's medical condition [is] futile".
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
Well obviously. In states banning abortions but keeping the death penalty I guess you would get executed for having an abortion! So those having both would have a serious paradox to settle
I don't think anyone feels its right to kill an innocent child. And I find it funny that the only arguments coming out of pro death penalty-ers are all emotion based. I have yet to hear a sound, logical argument not all emotionnaly mixed up in favor of the death penalty.
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
The problem with your arguement, as I see it, is that it is not a child. It is a fetus and until that fetus has developed enough to live outside of the womb, even if temporary life support measures are required to assist it, it is not a viable life form.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
keeping abortions legal keeps children from getting thrown in garbage cans and stabbed.. are you aware of this??
and to the poor bastards who think the death penalty is somehow related to abortion (beyond me how this works) why not make slavery up the states?? so thos people with these god damned high morals can choose for themselves... and if the slaves dont like it..they can run to another state
Because there's a constitutional amendment to end slavery that was voted on by the states. See how that works?
you just learn this on sesame street...im sorry i missed the part on the board...that said..write in random things you know thats common knowledge...do you feel smarter now?
Comments
you know what made my pro-choice position waver the most?
scientific facts do not vary between person to person. but they do vary. formerly, flat earth was scientific fact. you say the fetus cannot survive outside the womb using MODERN technology... what if in 10 years it can? does that change your view on when life "begins" if we can keep babies alive that are only 24 weeks old? 23? 20? 15? is that how you make your decision? science is NOT constant. it is always changing with new discoveries and what we think we know about fetal growth today could be completely altered tomorrow.
that's why i changed to a pretty neutral or ambivalent opinion on abortion. there is no "fact" here, only conjecture and best guesses. some appear more sound than others. but nobody has the "fact" of where life actually begins... not the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers.
Yes then my position on abortion will evolve along with modern medicine and science. I base my position on abortion on science that is not to say that everyone else should do the same. Everyone has a right to view this topic as they wish, in the end though this is a decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and their conscience.
Whenever the infant has vacated its mother. Typically, that means birth.
Not on a single individual it can't. Anyone can feed an infant.
Anyone who willingly injures another person should be held accountable. But the person in your example is not a murderer.
Ummm...that goes for all of us, fetus or otherwise. But that's also irrelevant.
Ok...please tell me how a fetus is a "distinct human being" and tell me what rights it has.
I'll give you that, but the ramifications of this act are a bit more severe than other actions undertaken on the basis of an opinion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That would be an opnion, wouldn't it
"To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."
One condition being birth. Whether or not the fetus is an individual or not, unless the mother's right to proper survival is threatened the baby shall be born.
You got to spend it all
So i guess the Courts in Australia agree with you. According to them, he has no right to 'enslave the doctors providing these machines'. (your words).
An Australian car accident victim died Thursday after his family lost a legal battle to keep him on life support in a hospital, an official said.
Paulo Melo, 29, from Darwin on Australia's north coast, slipped into a coma after suffering brain and spinal injuries in a Dec. 5 accident.
His family gained a temporary injunction in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Tuesday preventing the Royal Darwin Hospital from switching off his life support system, which had kept him alive.
But a judge lifted the injunction Wednesday, describing the patient's medical condition as futile
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Life-Support.php
Hehe...I'd highly advise you not to quote pro-abortion philosophers in support of anti-abortion stances. Rand was staunchly pro-choice.
You are implying, in your inferrence, that a fetus, or anything else, has a right to survival. No such right exists, obviously. All of us, at some point, will cease to survive. Furthermore, each of us has the right to own our own bodies -- that is a primary axiom of Objectivism. To suggest that a fetus has a "right to survive" at the expense of another (as all fetuses do) is to suggest that a fetus owns rights that a mother does not.
The base nature of a fetus is an existence of dependence. And it is entirely up to the mother whether or not to allow the fetus to occupy and use her body.
It sounds like the court does not completely agree with me. It sounds like the court only believes slavery is wrong if a "patient's medical condition [is] futile".
yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
Well obviously. In states banning abortions but keeping the death penalty I guess you would get executed for having an abortion! So those having both would have a serious paradox to settle
I don't think anyone feels its right to kill an innocent child. And I find it funny that the only arguments coming out of pro death penalty-ers are all emotion based. I have yet to hear a sound, logical argument not all emotionnaly mixed up in favor of the death penalty.
The problem with your arguement, as I see it, is that it is not a child. It is a fetus and until that fetus has developed enough to live outside of the womb, even if temporary life support measures are required to assist it, it is not a viable life form.
Really?
If states have the power to decide whether the death penalty can be administered I see no reason why the abortion decision isn't also theirs.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
insane and uneducated. congratulations.
keeping abortions legal keeps children from getting thrown in garbage cans and stabbed.. are you aware of this??
Hmmm....
hmm what...something to say... or are you looking up something
I'm trying to consider what went through your mind when you made that second post.
hows that for a ridiculous comparison
Because there's a constitutional amendment to end slavery that was voted on by the states. See how that works?
And keeping drugs illegal keeps kids from being raped by crack heads.
What's your point?
Just because a policy has real benefits, doesn't necesarily make it GOOD policy.
Cutting the interest rate to 0 would make the markets skyrocket too.
Snorting cocaine helps me stay awake.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you dont agree with me that people who feel pressured and outcasts throw their newborn babies away sometimes?
No.
can you explain that again?
So if the state representatives all get togeather to ammend the constitution, they can overule the states?
I thought you just let the courts make policy?
Isn't that what they are there for?
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you just learn this on sesame street...im sorry i missed the part on the board...that said..write in random things you know thats common knowledge...do you feel smarter now?