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.
In Rome (the nation, not the city) it was acceptable and not uncommon to throw out unwanted newborn babies. That is a good illustration of the arbitrariness of our definitions of life and viability. The only thing that matters is what the law says. So whatever the law decides I am fine with. In the final analysis it is law that defines morality.
Ah, so if you were alive back in 1802 and the law said the black child you saw in town was property and not a person, you'd agree with that.
Ouch. The fact that you believe a government can declare who is a person and who deserves basic rights is scary. We saw what happened in Germany when people believed that.
Basically, here is the argument: Since, by causing an embryo to exist, you created a need where there was no need before. Specifically, before coming into existence, the embryo had no needs; however, now, as a result of coming into existence, it needs to use your body to survive (and for nourishment). Thus, you should be forced to take responsibility for your actions by helping the embryo out--specifically by letting this embryo continue to use your body in order to survive and to acquire nourishment.
How exactly would you respond to this pro-life argument? Basically, while I myself previously looked at both abortion and child support from the perspective of tort law (indeed, I still consider child support to be government-sanctioned swindling if there was a prior agreement *not* to seek child support), I have to admit that that I didn't place as much emphasis on the *need* aspect of the equation before.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
There is no argument if you say:
A pro-choice law allows you to be pro-choice or pro-life depending on your views.
A pro-life law does not allow anyone to be pro-choice regardless of their views.
Pro-life law, excludes a group of people and limits freedom, pro-choice does not period. The correct way to implement is pro-choice law. /EndofDiscussion
Ah, so if you were alive back in 1802 and the law said the black child you saw in town was property and not a person, you'd agree with that.
Ouch. The fact that you believe a government can declare who is a person and who deserves basic rights is scary. We saw what happened in Germany when people believed that.
people born and living are not the same as a developing fetus in the womb. no correlation at all.
So, if your kids were born prematurely, were you going to wait until they turned into humans at some point to name them and ask the nurse how your blob of cells were doing in the NICU until that point?
If my kids were born prematurely they would receive standard care based upon the gestational age they were at birth. I also never said anything about a fetus being a "blob of cells." You are inferring some sort of ridiculous POV that you think all pro-choice supporters possess on me it seems.
I didn't name my oldest until he was a week old and he was born at 40 weeks exactly. I don't "name" a child during pregnancy at all because you can always miscarry and my family is just superstitious about that and it is one of a few superstitutious things I've held onto from my childhood.
I stated, I did have a miscarriage and may have had others too soon to tell. Women have lots of early miscarriages that they don't know about. I didn't cry over that miscarriage or feel sad about it as I was not looking to get pregnant and was even on birth control (an IUD) at the time it occurred. Some women get torn up over miscarriages. Everyone is different and has different experiences.
My only point in the exchange is the OP is not a valid argument. Your POV about zygotes, cells, and pregnancy is not relevant. The only people's opinions who are relevant is the mother, her family and her medical provider. She should have the ultimate choice in matters of pregnancy. Not you. People should stay out of other people's businesses.
people born and living are not the same as a developing fetus in the womb. no correlation at all.
Sorry, but the poster clearly said the government makes the decision as to who a human is. I can't help if that opinion was shared by Nazis and racist slave owners.
Btw, do you feel the other poster's grandchild in the NICU wasn't a human yet or that location magically changes biology?
If my kids were born prematurely they would receive standard care based upon the gestational age they were at birth. I also never said anything about a fetus being a "blob of cells." You are inferring some sort of ridiculous POV that you think all pro-choice supporters possess on me it seems.
I didn't name my oldest until he was a week old and he was born at 40 weeks exactly. I don't "name" a child during pregnancy at all because you can always miscarry and my family is just superstitious about that and it is one of a few superstitutious things I've held onto from my childhood.
I stated, I did have a miscarriage and may have had others too soon to tell. Women have lots of early miscarriages that they don't know about. I didn't cry over that miscarriage or feel sad about it as I was not looking to get pregnant and was even on birth control (an IUD) at the time it occurred. Some women get torn up over miscarriages. Everyone is different and has different experiences.
My only point in the exchange is the OP is not a valid argument. Your POV about zygotes, cells, and pregnancy is not relevant. The only people's opinions who are relevant is the mother, her family and her medical provider. She should have the ultimate choice in matters of pregnancy. Not you. People should stay out of other people's businesses.
How many weeks passed until your grandson was named?
Was your grandson not a human until that point?
Oh, and what magic made your grandson a human due to the location of the NICU?
Ah, so if you were alive back in 1802 and the law said the black child you saw in town was property and not a person, you'd agree with that.
Ouch. The fact that you believe a government can declare who is a person and who deserves basic rights is scary. We saw what happened in Germany when people believed that.
You can hold yourself to a higher standard but you cannot force others to that higher standard. All you can force them to is whatever the law proscribes. That is how civilization has always worked. That is why we have laws. It is a slippery slope when you allow there to be two standards: The law and a moral code outside of the law. People can make up all kinds of "codes", like it is immoral to pay taxes.
If you believe the law is immoral, use the democratic process to change it. It has happened many times in the US - the Civil Rights Acts, Roe vs. Wade, etc.
Basically, here is the argument: Since, by causing an embryo to exist, you created a need where there was no need before. Specifically, before coming into existence, the embryo had no needs; however, now, as a result of coming into existence, it needs to use your body to survive (and for nourishment). Thus, you should be forced to take responsibility for your actions by helping the embryo out--specifically by letting this embryo continue to use your body in order to survive and to acquire nourishment.
How exactly would you respond to this pro-life argument? Basically, while I myself previously looked at both abortion and child support from the perspective of tort law (indeed, I still consider child support to be government-sanctioned swindling if there was a prior agreement *not* to seek child support), I have to admit that that I didn't place as much emphasis on the *need* aspect of the equation before.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
I'm personally against abortion/however, it isn't anyone else's decision...least of all the government's.
It is between the woman and her God....or should be.
But I will say this, my maternal mother told me over and over again, she almost went for a coat hanger abortion....and I thank God, I'm alive.
Sorry, but the poster clearly said the government makes the decision as to who a human is. I can't help if that opinion was shared by Nazis and racist slave owners.
Btw, do you feel the other poster's grandchild in the NICU wasn't a human yet or that location magically changes biology?
it seems to be your argument in the thread. you want to compare people born and living to be the same. they clearly are not. what a woman thinks about her pregnancy and how she characterizes it, is her business.
yes, babies in the NICU are human just as a woman who is pregnant is pregnant with a human.
so what? she has the right to decide if she wants to take the pregnancy to term or not.
people born and living are not the same as a developing fetus in the womb. no correlation at all.
So, a baby born after 32 weeks is completely different than the baby in still in the womb at 32 weeks?
You obviously don't believe in science.
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.
