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.
I]Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
If you've read my posts, you've realized that I don't feel that the fetus is a human being at conception either. My contention is that allowing the mother to make the choice, along with her chosen experts, simply because it is her body seems to allow her to make that same choice even after the baby is out of the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut, for ANY reason including sex selection and for the convenience of not wanting to raise a handicapped child[/i]
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
As I've said before I think that's two different issues. Working on the belief that a human being does not exist at the moment of conception I think the legal term for abortion should be determined medically, not politically. I'm not saying that term should be determined by each individual, simply that barring a life threatening condition they should make their personal decision within that term.
Do you not see my point though? By allowing the woman to make her own choice allows for this scenerio. Would you support her choice to end the pregnancy if she saw the baby was handicapped and had it killed before the umbilical cord was cut to prevent from being inconvenienced by raising a handicapped child?
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
If you've read my posts, you've realized that I don't feel that the fetus is a human being at conception either. My contention is that allowing the mother to make the choice, along with her chosen experts, simply because it is her body seems to allow her to make that same choice even after the baby is out of the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut, for ANY reason including sex selection and for the convenience of not wanting to raise a handicapped child
Do you not see my point though? By allowing the woman to make her own choice allows for this scenerio. Would you support her choice to end the pregnancy if she saw the baby was handicapped and had it killed before the umbilical cord was cut to prevent from being inconvenienced by raising a handicapped child?
Does that even happen regularly enough to merit making some kind of law about it, though? I would terminate in the case of a fetal anomaly incompatible with life; some would find that abhorrent and "playing God" and others would find it the responsible, sober thing to do, rather than adding a couple million dollars worth of unfunded hospital bills for Uncle Sam to pay.
(and, anyway, docs usually cut the cord within about a freakin' millisecond of delivery. I would tend to suspect any deformity serious enough to detect between the moment of birth and the cord-cutting thirty seconds later would result in stillbirth, anyway.)
Okay, maybe I'm wrong but to use the description "between her and that soul" would entail agreement on behalf of both partners. I hardly think that "that soul" would agree with being eliminated by means of a vacuum. So does the conversation b/t woman and young soul go something like this:
Mom: "I'm sorry soul, but you came at a bad time for daddy and I, so is it okay that we have you dismembered?"
Soul: "Sure mom, I don't mind. A little pain medicine would be nice though, but if you can't afford, I'll just suck it up- oops don't mind the pun."
Mom: "You silly soul, you! Thanks so much for the understanding. We'll catch up with you in the afterlife."
First of all.. you are speaking in a PHYSICAL sense..
Teh conversation between the "souls" doesn't happen in our physical realm. If you are spiritual, as I am, youknow that life decisions are made by our subcouncious minds ALL The time..
For example.. I truly believe that those born with diseases and such CHOSE to have those things in their life to learn and grow as a spirit.. it's the reason I believe life is so hard.. Now, our concious minds certainly wouldn't choose ANY of our ailments, challenges etc.
There is no actual conversation in the way of words!
And again .. you miss the point.. you believe what you believe.. and YOU believe that by what I believe I'm forcing MY beliefs onto the unborn child.. however.. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT!!! So.. therefore I make my choices on this physical level following my beliefs.. and have no right to tell someone how to make their own choices
If you got pregnant unexpectedly YOU wuold choose NOT to have an abortion because you feel that it's wrong. I would chose NOT to have an abortion because I would believe it was a blessing and I wouldn't want to abort the baby.. HOWEVER.. I have NO right , regardless of when or what I think of the fetus as..to force what I believe or what YOU believe on to anyoen else.
When someone makes thier choices.. they will live with their consequences.. wether it be guilt or what have you.. adn again.. I don't believe that the child will never be born.. not just now..
Also.. from a spiritual point of view, I believe when tragedy strikes a person.. say a horrible vehicle accident that would be painful, the soul leaves the body before that real pain is experienced.. and so as cruel as you make abortion sound with the "vaccuum" and all.. I feel taht once it is determined by the woman to abort the fetus the soul leaves permanately and will not feel any pain.
AGain.. my beliefs.. but I have no right to force YOU to make decisions based on what I believe.. nor do you have a right to force decisions on anyone based on what YOU believe...
Does that even happen regularly enough to merit making some kind of law about it, though? I would terminate in the case of a fetal anomaly incompatible with life; some would find that abhorrent and "playing God" and others would find it the responsible, sober thing to do, rather than adding a couple million dollars worth of unfunded hospital bills for Uncle Sam to pay.
(and, anyway, docs usually cut the cord within about a freakin' millisecond of delivery. I would tend to suspect any deformity serious enough to detect between the moment of birth and the cord-cutting thirty seconds later would result in stillbirth, anyway.)
It's the principle that counts. You really didn't answer the question, as far as I can tell. What if the child was simply "ugly" to the mother? Do you think she should have the right to have it put to death?
It's the principle that counts. You really didn't answer the question, as far as I can tell. What if the child was simply "ugly" to the mother? Do you think she should have the right to have it put to death?
I would find it thoroughly bizarre if such a case did present itself, but I'm quite practical enough not to make laws based on far-fetched tear-jerking hypothetical situations.
I would find it thoroughly bizarre if such a case did present itself, but I'm quite practical enough not to make laws based on far-fetched tear-jerking hypothetical situations.
Nice little side-step, but I believe I can read between the lines that you would indeed support the mother in this case by not supporting a law against it, but I could be wrong.
Let's look at something a bit more practical then. Do you support the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Acts"?
"... member of the species homo sapiens, [it] means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." 3
AGain.. my beliefs.. but I have no right to force YOU to make decisions based on what I believe.. nor do you have a right to force decisions on anyone based on what YOU believe...
Again, they're called laws... they're all forced decisions based upon what someone else believes. I may think that we all have communal property and that you have no right to own property, therefore I am just in taking ownership of what you deem is your property. Wouldn't a law prohibiting theft be you forcing your beliefs on me?
Again, they're called laws... they're all forced decisions based upon what someone else believes. I may think that we all have communal property and that you have no right to own property, therefore I am just in taking ownership of what you deem is your property. Wouldn't a law prohibiting theft be you forcing your beliefs on me?
Undocumented rep points to you.
IMO it boils down to property rights. When does the fetus/baby obtain rights as a human being? I say its when it is clearly distinguishable from other animals, when human brain waves are measured. I know this doesn't really sit well with the pro-lifers, but I am a pro-rights individual. At least the pro-lifers are consistent, most pro-choicers are not. (mouseketeer is one of the exceptions since he supports the mothers right to choose an abortion for any reason up until the umbilical cord is cut)
That is patently false. Capital punishment is the execution of a person for committing an act of murder for which the punishment is execution.
I disagree with your first sentence. The reason that I've seen many give for the existence of the institution is that they no longer view the criminal as a human being. Of course your second sentence is factual.
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.
