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.
So, the woman can kill a fetus/baby for any reason, as long as the umbilical cord has not been cut?
A healthy newborn baby does not need the cord to be cut to survive. It's heart already beats on its own and it also can breath and eat extraveniously, instead of via the cord.
Cutting the cord is only so it can move freely, but newborns aren't able to crawl away anyway.
No, the enemy is a threat to others. A criminal is a threat to others. Unwanted is in reference to "not needed" or seen to be of use.
Your premise is invalid and is based on a straw man. I suggest trying another approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander Who determines "unwanted"? Thats a dangerous factor to be considering who lives and who dies.
And no, we do not factor "unwanted" into wartime. Where did you get that idea? Maybe you can explain a situation where we do use "unwanted" as a factor, because I can think of none.
Originally posted by Me (in reply): Apparently, the enemy is the "unwanted" whether they're in uniform or not.
I guess I was specifically speaking about your question about "wartime" activities. We kill the enemy, but we are not particularly concerned about "collateral damage". Because those people aren't important to us either.
Who determines "unwanted"? How about the mother? Maybe she has the child, and as it's growing up, the father or mother abuses it repeatedly. Wouldn't it have been better if the child had never been born in the first place?
Last edited by TKramar; 03-05-2008 at 05:56 AM..
Reason: clarification
It is a woman's decision. It is her body. On the other hand I think there should be some qualification procedures to deem a woman qualified to have a baby. I am against teen pregnancies. Perhaps there should be a pregnancy minimum age limit just like there is for driving and voting and drinking.
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn A healthy newborn baby does not need the cord to be cut to survive. It's heart already beats on its own and it also can breath and eat extraveniously, instead of via the cord.
Cutting the cord is only so it can move freely, but newborns aren't able to crawl away anyway.
What if the baby can fly?
But, you stated that the baby is part of the mother until "it is cut off", like your nail analogy. You stated that your government's policy is to allow abortions until the baby is no longer part of the mother's body. So, simple logic would conclude that your government's policy is that the mother can abort/kill her baby, for any reason including sex selection and/or convenience, until the umbilical cord is cut. However, it seems that you feel the mother should be able to abort/kill her baby until it is sentient, which you consider about 2 months after it is born. Are these conclusions correct? If not, please explain.
So, simple logic would conclude that your government's policy is that the mother can abort/kill her baby, for any reason including sex selection and/or convenience, until the umbilical cord is cut.
Simple? Yes. Logical? No. A nail is not sentient nor will it ever develop an ego simply because a nail, unlike babies, has no brain.
Neither is a clipped nail alive.
It is a woman's decision. It is her body. On the other hand I think there should be some qualification procedures to deem a woman qualified to have a baby. I am against teen pregnancies. Perhaps there should be a pregnancy minimum age limit just like there is for driving and voting and drinking.
Are you off your rocker? What is your solution then...mandatory birth control for all whom the government deems a woman "ok" to have a child? What about a woman who has an unauthorized pregnancy...I guess the government will force her to have an abortion?
A nail is not sentient nor will it ever develop an ego simply because a nail, unlike babies, has no brain. Neither is a clipped nail alive.
Anyone, who even vainly attempts to equate a human life to a clipped nail is, IMO, deranged and in need of immediate mental intervention.
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.
A healthy newborn baby does not need the cord to be cut to survive. It's heart already beats on its own and it also can breath and eat extraveniously, instead of via the cord.
What if the baby can fly?
