At what stage does abortion become murder?

124678

Comments

  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,302
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    A one year old CAN'T live without the support of a mother. Simple concept really.

    You place a one year old kid on the street to fend for itself, it will die within days.

    Obviously not in Chester, England. One-year olds hold 40 hour a week jobs.
  • danmac
    danmac Posts: 387
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    A one year old CAN'T live without the support of a mother. Simple concept really.

    You place a one year old kid on the street to fend for itself, it will die within days.

    Hang on, kindergartens on recess.

    Does a one year old need its specific biological mother to survive?

    Does a one year old medically need its specific biological mother to eat or be clothed?

    Do all children whose mothers die in childbirth die?

    Do all children whose parents die at any time in their upbringing, survive?

    What are orphans, or adopted children? have they survived without biological mothers?

    Can a foetus survive without the woman who carries it?

    Simple, really.
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    There are people who can't live without certain medicines. Should we kill them because they can't live "on their own"?

    Heck, none of us can live without food. Should we kill everyone because they can't live "on their own"?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    know1 wrote:
    There are people who can't live without certain medicines. Should we kill them because they can't live "on their own"?

    Heck, none of us can live without food. Should we kill everyone because they can't live "on their own"?

    If they climb inside my uterus and start depending on ME for their survival, I should have the right to remove them. Again, very different concepts.
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • danmac
    danmac Posts: 387
    know1 wrote:
    There are people who can't live without certain medicines. Should we kill them because they can't live "on their own"?

    Heck, none of us can live without food. Should we kill everyone because they can't live "on their own"?


    Grasping at straws there i feel. What relavence do those comments have to the questions posed in this discussion?

    This is about restricting the choice, the freedoms of one specific person.

    ANYBODY, can provide you with medicine or food. Nobody can force a pharma company, or a restaurant to privide you with food or medicine.

    ONE SPECIFIC HUMAN being has to carry, nurture, and give birth to that foetus.

    Why should that person BE FORCED to provide food, and nourishment, and care to that foetus?
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    A one year old CAN'T live without the support of a mother. Simple concept really.

    You place a one year old kid on the street to fend for itself, it will die within days.


    Very different types of support. Otherwise, better start outlawing adoption too.
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    comebackgirl wrote:
    If they climb inside my uterus and start depending on ME for their survival, I should have the right to remove them. Again, very different concepts.
    What if you are responsible for putting them in your uterus?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    danmac wrote:
    Grasping at straws there i feel. What relavence do those comments have to the questions posed in this discussion?

    This is about restricting the choice, the freedoms of one specific person.

    Ahhhh...the "feel-good" rhetoric of "choice". Is there any choice available for the baby? Nah -that's why that argument is flawed as well.

    (and next you'll say that the baby isn't a human so it doesn't deserve a choice and then we'll be back 'round again at the start).
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    angelica wrote:
    What if you are responsible for putting them in your uterus?


    But we have to remember that many, many women do not actually consent to their sexual encounters. 1 in 3 girls are sexually abused/assaulted at some point in their lifetime. That's a lot of women not choosing to have sexual encounters. Until this changes, abortion must be an option. In addition, we need to make sure that 100% effective contraception is available to everyone and that 100% of the population is accurately educated about how to use it and has access to it. Then MAYBE we could reconsider.
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    know1 wrote:
    Ahhhh...the "feel-good" rhetoric of "choice". Is there any choice available for the baby? Nah -that's why that argument is flawed as well.

    (and next you'll say that the baby isn't a human so it doesn't deserve a choice and then we'll be back 'round again at the start).


    Ask the fetus what it wants and get back to me when you hear an answer.
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    know1 wrote:
    Ahhhh...the "feel-good" rhetoric of "choice". Is there any choice available for the baby? Nah -that's why that argument is flawed as well.

    (and next you'll say that the baby isn't a human so it doesn't deserve a choice and then we'll be back 'round again at the start).

    feotus vs. baby, make the distinction please...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    comebackgirl wrote:
    Ask the fetus what it wants and get back to me when you hear an answer.

    Ask a 6-month old baby what it wants and get back to me with an answer as well.

    I think the fact that it's growing, developing, etc., could be taken as proof that it wants to live.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    comebackgirl wrote:
    But we have to remember that many, many women do not actually consent to their sexual encounters. 1 in 3 girls are sexually abused/assaulted at some point in their lifetime. That's a lot of women not choosing to have sexual encounters. Until this changes, abortion must be an option. In addition, we need to make sure that 100% effective contraception is available to everyone and that 100% of the population is accurately educated about how to use it and has access to it. Then MAYBE we could reconsider.

    Blah, blah, blah. What percentage of abortions occur due to rape or sexual assault? It's not real, real high.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    comebackgirl wrote:
    But we have to remember that many, many women do not actually consent to their sexual encounters. 1 in 3 girls are sexually abused/assaulted at some point in their lifetime. That's a lot of women not choosing to have sexual encounters. Until this changes, abortion must be an option. In addition, we need to make sure that 100% effective contraception is available to everyone and that 100% of the population is accurately educated about how to use it and has access to it. Then MAYBE we could reconsider.
    I'm not disputing abortion being an option.

    You said you should have the right to remove others if they were to climb inside your uterus. I ask what if you are 100% responsible for your actions that put another unique life in your uterus? Do you still have the moral/ethical right to end the path of this unique never-before-created entity when you put them there to begin with?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    know1 wrote:
    Ask a 6-month old baby what it wants and get back to me with an answer as well.

    I think the fact that it's growing, developing, etc., could be taken as proof that it wants to live.


    We don't ask 6 month old babies if they want to be adopted. That's typically another decision that is made by the parent.

    Let the fetus develop. I"m fine with that - just not in my body if I don't choose it. We'll transplant it into your uterus and we're all set! Problem solved. :)
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    comebackgirl wrote:
    We don't ask 6 month old babies if they want to be adopted. That's typically another decision that is made by the parent.

    Let the fetus develop. I"m fine with that - just not in my body if I don't choose it. We'll transplant it into your uterus and we're all set! Problem solved. :)

    You're right. We don't ask babies a lot of things that we make them do. In my mind, there's a big difference between decisions that affect their life and decisions that END them.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    i am amazed at how we as a group can continue to debate the same subject, over and over, and come back for more. :p i was actually thinking just the other day...wow.....been awhile since there's been an abortion thread here and how unusual. damn you LAO. ;)

    that said, i completely agree with all comebackgirl's points and i'll leave it at that. thank you so for eloquently speaking my views too. :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    comebackgirl wrote:
    We don't ask 6 month old babies if they want to be adopted. That's typically another decision that is made by the parent.
    We are still 100% accountable for any and all decisions we make on behalf of the 6 month old. Or the newborn, or any others in our charge. We're 100% responsible for our actions, whether we accept or face our responsibility or not.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    angelica wrote:
    I'm not disputing abortion being an option.

    You said you should have the right to remove others if they were to climb inside your uterus. I ask what if you are 100% responsible for your actions that put another unique life in your uterus? Do you still have the moral/ethical right to end the path of this unique never-before-created entity when you put them there to begin with?


    I do. I think as long as it's inside my body and depending on me for nourisment, that I should have the right to remove it. Ideally, people would take proper precautions (and have the information and resources to do so), so they can avoid the pregnancy in the first place. Unfortunately, few options are 100% effective (other than abstinence, which isn't the right option for everone. Major respect for your decision, though. Impressive). People don't know that antibiotics or some natural rememdies affect their pill. Condoms break or are defective. Some people throw caution to the wind and do make the really stupid decision to forgo protection. That's the type of situation that irks me the most. It is definitely and ethical dilemma. Ultimately, however, I don't believe a woman should have to carry a fetus to term in her body if she doesn't want to.
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)
  • comebackwoman
    comebackwoman Posts: 7,271
    know1 wrote:
    You're right. We don't ask babies a lot of things that we make them do. In my mind, there's a big difference between decisions that affect their life and decisions that END them.


    In my mind there is also a huge difference between a fetus and a baby. Again, I'm all for preventing the unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Let's focus on that!!!!
    There's a light when my baby's in my arms :)

Categories