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.
Certainly does when I deal with not only adoptive parents, who are required to recieve a certain amount of training as well as time with the child before they are realeased, or visiting parents who cannot care for the child at home.
I am very familiar with the type of adoptive parent who adopts merely so they can show the world "how good they are, look we adopted a special need child, aren't we soooo Christian?"
wow....a bit arrogant I see. The type of *work* you describe above doesn't give you the ability to get to know people. Merely your opinion only.
We're all 'bundles of cells'..every last one of us. An embryo isn't a 'stand-alone human being'....but neither is a one-year old. It's a slippery slope, in my opinion, trying to offer 'proof' that that which is NOT human at some point BECOMES human...it just sounds too 'convenient' to me. It's all right to 'terminate' it, because it's not human. Pretty nifty, if you can wrap your mind around that. What about 'partial birth' abortion? It's OK there to 'abort' a fetus in the 9th month...but NOT OK, one would presume, to strangle a premature infant after he was born in the 8th month. Pretty convenient, indeed.
We obviously disagree Yes, we are all a bundle of cells however the difference is viability. An embryo requires the womb to survive. Women do not have the option of giving up a 12 week fetus for adoption without carrying to term. An infant however, requires assistance to live but does not require a womb or even a mother.
Partial birth abortions are illegal, but even if they weren't, it refers to a technique, not the age of the fetus. I'm not clear from your comments if your problem is with the technique involved in a partial birth abortion, the ability of a woman to obtain a late-term abortion or both. Regardless, your argument requires others to share your position of affording the same rights to an unborn fetus as we do to an infant and obviously that's not the case for all those who are pro-choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
"A fetus isn't a person"?...Nope, I'm afraid that just sounds too 'convenient' to me....sorry if that offends you.
Doesn't offend me at all, I just don't agree with you. A non-viable fetus is 100% reliant on the mother for every aspect of life. If the mother dies, the fetus dies as well. As awful as it sounds to people, a non-viable fetus is little more than a parasite and the mother it's host.
However, I cannot agree to the death penality for a number of reasons, chief among them our inherently flawed justice system which has developed the mentality of "innocent as long as you can afford the better lawyer". And two, I see no benefit to society in the death penalty as there is no real punishment in the death penalty IMHO. I advocate life imprisonment in supermax with no hope of parol. Let them live a good long life stewing in their own insanity.
Sorry to get off the OP, but I couldn't let this one slip by. The benefit to society is that taxpayers no longer foot the bill for them to eat three meals a day, lift weights and watch television, which is a better life than some of them lead on their own.
I have little pity for those who find themselves in the penal system. What were they doing putting themselves in a position where they could be possibly wrongly accused? Accidentally putting to death one innocent person out of a hundred useless idiots is a mathematical formula I can live with. I don't care how this sounds.
We obviously disagree Yes, we are all a bundle of cells however the difference is viability. An embryo requires the womb to survive. Women do not have the option of giving up a 12 week fetus for adoption without carrying to term. An infant however, requires assistance to live but does not require a womb or even a mother.
Partial birth abortions are illegal, but even if they weren't, it refers to a technique, not the age of the fetus. I'm not clear from your comments if your problem is with the technique involved in a partial birth abortion, the ability of a woman to obtain a late-term abortion or both. Regardless, your argument requires others to share your position of affording the same rights to an unborn fetus as we do to an infant and obviously that's not the case for all those who are pro-choice.
Doesn't offend me at all, I just don't agree with you. A non-viable fetus is 100% reliant on the mother for every aspect of life. If the mother dies, the fetus dies as well. As awful as it sounds to people, a non-viable fetus is little more than a parasite and the mother it's host.
Thanks for your polite reply. Seems we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd say there's a stronger case for the special 'human' quality of the fetus, at whatever stage it's at, than there's a case against it. Beyond that, there are so many 'fine points' that I'd be at a loss to offer 'proof'. Admittedly, the fact that the fetus is in 'somebody else's' womb puts it in a category all its own. However, I remind you that there are a NUMBER of people whose lives, and their very continued existence, is entirely in the hands of others. So far, we're reluctant to 'euthanize' them. I see this as a perfectly logical extension of the status of the fetus...you, apparently, do not.
I'll conclude by reminding everyone that virtually ALL 'pro-choice' people conclude their remarks by stating that, while it should be a mother's option to abort her fetus at will, and that NO ONE has the right to 'pressure' her or intimidate her, or invoke a 'guilt trip', at the same time, these folks almost all agree that "Abortion is not the best option; it's a profound decision, and it IS NOT SOMETHING to be ENTERED INTO LIGHTLY". I can only wonder, if abortion is 'perfectly OK', in the manner of an appendectomy or removing a wart, why then is it 'not to be taken lightly'? If, on the other hand, it's not the "best" option, then why NOT? That's my problem here...it seems that for many people, abortion both "IS" a moral decision, and "IS NOT" one, at the same time.
So, is there any 'moral' dimension to the abortion process, beyond that of a tummy-tuck, or an outpatient hernia repair.....or is there not? Anyone have any comments on this?
Sorry to get off the OP, but I couldn't let this one slip by. The benefit to society is that taxpayers no longer foot the bill for them to eat three meals a day, lift weights and watch television, which is a better life than some of them lead on their own.
I have little pity for those who find themselves in the penal system. What were they doing putting themselves in a position where they could be possibly wrongly accused? Accidentally putting to death one innocent person out of a hundred useless idiots is a mathematical formula I can live with. I don't care how this sounds.
Don't know much about Death Row I take it?
Or how much it costs for appeals and the actual execution?
Hint, it costs more to put an inmate to death than to house them for life.
BTW, your "collateral damage" mentality is quite medieval. Time to catch up to the times.
I advocate a supermax style prison across the board. Combined with legalizing pot, which would empty out over half of the non-violent prison population, plus returning to the idea of punishment over the failed rehabilitation model, in the long run it would be cheaper to run and should be more effective at detering crime, not to mention providing an actual punishment to help ease the victimes mind.
If a zygote is considered a human, then women should never be allowed to drink.
Think about it, zygotes aren't attached to the mother, but she is carrying what you call a child. If a mother is carrying a child and has a drink, then she should be charged with child abuse. Since a woman can't possibly know she has a zygote in her, then she should never be allowed to drink for a week after having sexual intercourse.
If a zygote is considered a human, then women should never be allowed to drink.
Think about it, zygotes aren't attached to the mother, but she is carrying what you call a child. If a mother is carrying a child and has a drink, then she should be charged with child abuse. Since a woman can't possibly know she has a zygote in her, then she should never be allowed to drink for a week after having sexual intercourse.
Lets see how well that blows over.
Cute...but not a good analogy. You're equating "maybe" harming a 'potential' fetus (one which may or may not actually exist), with intentionally killing an EXISTING one. Big difference.
We don't prosecute pregnant women who drink..even though we know this PROBABLY endangers the fetus, in a number of ways. We don't punish people who smoke, get drunk, or engage in 'bad behavior' in front of their kids...even though most of us realize this diminishes the child's chance for a happy, healthy life. The law just can't address such 'theoretical' matters.
There HAVE been occasions when, for example, a drunk driver has been criminally charged for killing a fetus in a car accident involving a pregnant driver...and I recall one case in which a distraught, suicidal lady shot herself in the stomach, and was charged with murder (or manslaughter) for 'killing her baby' (in Florida, I believe).
This "fetus" business gets complicated. You can 'kill' it in a doctor's office, and you're home free. Kill it in a car wreck, and you're a criminal. Immerse it in alcohol while you're pregnant, and you're 'OK'...even though if you gave a 2-week old baby alcohol, you'd be charged with a crime.
Fetuses are WAY more complicated than 'tumors', it appears...
Cute...but not a good analogy. You're equating "maybe" harming a 'potential' fetus (one which may or may not actually exist), with intentionally killing an EXISTING one. Big difference.
We don't prosecute pregnant women who drink..even though we know this PROBABLY endangers the fetus, in a number of ways. We don't punish people who smoke, get drunk, or engage in 'bad behavior' in front of their kids...even though most of us realize this diminishes the child's chance for a happy, healthy life. The law just can't address such 'theoretical' matters.
There HAVE been occasions when, for example, a drunk driver has been criminally charged for killing a fetus in a car accident involving a pregnant driver...and I recall one case in which a distraught, suicidal lady shot herself in the stomach, and was charged with murder (or manslaughter) for 'killing her baby' (in Florida, I believe).
This "fetus" business gets complicated. You can 'kill' it in a doctor's office, and you're home free. Kill it in a car wreck, and you're a criminal. Immerse it in alcohol while you're pregnant, and you're 'OK'...even though if you gave a 2-week old baby alcohol, you'd be charged with a crime.
Fetuses are WAY more complicated than 'tumors', it appears...
I also believe that targeted aducation, including Sex Ed, will help drive abortion numbers down. I'm sure you agree that, even should RvW be overturned (as unlikely as that is) abortions will still occur.
However, I cannot agree to the death penality for a number of reasons, chief among them our inherently flawed justice system which has developed the mentality of "innocent as long as you can afford the better lawyer". And two, I see no benefit to society in the death penalty as there is no real punishment in the death penalty IMHO. I advocate life imprisonment in supermax with no hope of parol. Let them live a good long life stewing in their own insanity.
You're absolutely right about the flaws with the justice system. As I said, I think that the death penalty should exist but should be reserved for very extreme cases (I'm sorry, but I think that Manson should have gotten it.) IMHO, it is used too frequently.
Let them live a good long life stewing in their own insanity.[/quote]
OMG, this made me laugh so much! Although, if they are technically insane, they don't go to prison (do they?) However, prisons--and prisoners--seem to sort things out themselves. Honestly, I would probably prefer death to prison in this country. And I can't even imagine what prisons are like in a third-world country.
And re: abortion, yeah, they would continue, which is why RvW was passed in the first place--so that women would undergo safe abortions rather than the unsafe kind. However, even with RvW, there is still an inordinate number of young women birthing children then leaving them to die (or even worse, killing them.) How is that preferable to an abortion, and what is compelling these women to choose this alternative rather than an abortion? Do they--and the communities in which they grow up and live--actually believe this to be a preferable alternative to an abortion? How do you consider an abortion so evil that you would avoid having one but then turn around, birth and leave a child to die? Seriously, it's as if [in some areas] RvW were never passed and thus these women are feeling as if they must resort to these desparate measures. It's very sad. However, it does reveal why RvW was passed in the first place.
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.
Yes, we are all a bundle of cells however the difference is viability. An embryo requires the womb to survive. Women do not have the option of giving up a 12 week fetus for adoption without carrying to term. An infant however, requires assistance to live but does not require a womb or even a mother. 
