Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The main difference is that the fetus needs the live off the body of the mother. Let's say for example, that one day you woke up to another person attached to you. They were half formed and in a vegetative state and relied solely on your body for survival. Would you be wrong in having them surgically removed? Even if they probably would be able to become a functional human being in due time?
2. And someone know needs a blood or bone marrow transplant to survive is a bit different. It is not like they will come up to you and suck the blood from your body in order to live.
3. You have the choice to donate blood or bone marrow, but you are not forced to.
4. I will admit there a definite gray area with abortion. Specifically the last stages when birth can be induced and there is little need for medical care for the fetus. In those cases, I think the comparisons between abortion and infanticide are not inappropriate. However, the majority of abortions are during the first trimester and very few "Partial-birth abortions" carried out on a healthy fetus in the third trimester.
1. It should probably depend on whether I was responsible for creating a situation with a dependent individual. If so, then Yes, I should (at least generally) help this individual out, including by letting this individual use my body. Else, No.
For instance, if this dependent individual was purely hypothetically created by me as a result of a science experiment or something, then Yes, I should either be forced to help this individual out or (perhaps more likely) have the option of "unplugging" this individual from my body but be prosecuted if I actually do this and if this results in this individual's death.
2. No, but they are still dependent on machines and/or on someone's body parts in order to survive (for more than a specific amount/period of time). I think that you previously said that part of the reason why you don't consider many embryos and/or fetuses to be persons is because they are not viable. If so, then individuals who are on dialysis and/or who need transfusions/transplants of other people's body parts in order to survive can also easily fit into this category.
If I am misunderstanding your argument here, please let me know.
3. Yes, you are currently legally correct. Of course, for the record, I don't think that one is able to reclaim one's body parts if they were already accidentally donated to someone else without his or her consent in a hospital mix-up or something like that.
That said, I don't agree with the current law in regards to this. I do think that individuals should have this choice, but if it is their fault that this other individual needs a new kidney/blood/bone marrow/et cetera in the first place, then they should be held responsible for this other individual's death if their refusal to donate leads to this outcome.
4. Yeah, I see where you are coming from here.
That said, which mental abilities do you think individuals should have in order for you to consider them to be persons? The debate over mental abilities is pretty interesting, IMHO. In fact, I think that individuals such as Peter Singer argue that since human infants have equal or lesser current mental abilities to certain animals, they shouldn't be given more rights and/or preferential treatment to these non-human animals. (In contrast, most other people probably place some value in future mental abilities in regards to justifying this preferential treatment and greater rights for human infants.)
Among the two is the only abortion clinic in the Rio Grande Valley, an area with over a million people.
So only 1 abortion clinic was there to serve over a million people ?
I guess they forgot about this place ?
Oh and there are others but I'm just posting this one to show you that there was more than 1 abortion clinic serving the Rio Grande Valley all along.
Nope. In terms of the law, life begins outside the womb when the first breath is taken by the newborn. Hence the term "newborn".
This thread is about abortion and abortion clinics. I'm saying that abortion is a woman's choice since it's her body.
Follow?
This isn't true either. There are plenty of feticide laws, and there are plenty of legal examples in which a person who kills a fetus can be held legally responsible for its death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
