wow. someone needs a hug…or a psyc eval. Either or.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?
Where do other unwanted babies go? What happens when an insured or uninsured mother gives birth prematurely?[/quote]
…the taxpayer carries the burden?
[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.
V
You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.
Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?
Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?
Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?
In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.
[/quote]
These compromises don’t elimintae the individual, they merely set a timeframe for activities they may do in the future. Clearly a newborn baby does not even have the physical capacity to shoot a gun, and obviously they do not have the mental capacity either. Since guns are a device used primarily for killing another living being, we err on the side of caution.
All of those examples are things that a newborn baby cannot do, and then later in life develops the physical and mental ability to do so. Most of the age limits are set up so that even the slowest developing of individuals should be able to safley handle those situations. Living does not require andy physical skill or mental capacity from a fetus, it is quite good at living all on it’s own.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.
V
You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.
Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?
Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?
Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?
In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.
These compromises don’t elimintae the individual, they merely set a timeframe for activities they may do in the future. Clearly a newborn baby does not even have the physical capacity to shoot a gun, and obviously they do not have the mental capacity either. Since guns are a device used primarily for killing another living being, we err on the side of caution.
All of those examples are things that a newborn baby cannot do, and then later in life develops the physical and mental ability to do so. Most of the age limits are set up so that even the slowest developing of individuals should be able to safley handle those situations. Living does not require andy physical skill or mental capacity from a fetus, it is quite good at living all on it’s own.
V[/quote]
All of these situations are examples of individuals acquiring the right to do something because of a certain age.
It is not too far fetched that the transition fetus - human being is as continuous as adolescent - adult and therefore calls for similar legal strategies.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:They cannot charge someone with a crime, when no crime has been commited. If it is legal to get an abortion, they cannot charge her with murder just because they didn’t want her to.
Here is where I’m getting at, when I pressed you earlier as to why the WOMAN got to choose, you said, Beacuse it is her womb. Now I give you a very real scenarion where it isn’t her womb, and I think you are leaning to the DNA PARENTS having the say, which brings up two more problems for me. You can’t use the womb as a reason for abortion, and if you say the DNA, then in a regular abortion, the father should have just as much say as the mother. This is where your ideas are not consistant. In reality, I do not think you like abortion at all, I think you would be happy if no child was aborted period. I mean if you had to choose I think you value life. But and trust me, I have been there before, society has had an impact on you, your surroundings your peers, your elders, people have discussed thier viewpoint with you on this topic and you really never cared all that much about it, you never thought long and hard about all the implications, so you accepted thier ideas because i’m sure they made good strong emotional arguments, much like some of the ones you have made in this very thread.
So whith all that being said, in our continuing ongoing scenarion, I cannot make somthing illegal via contract that is clearly legal. Like I said, I could not charge you with murder for eating my cookie. So either the 12 week old fetus is a human deserving of the right to life, or it is the property of the Womb it resides in or it is the property of the DNA parents, not just the mother. You know what my position is.
V
…it is legal in Holland, in most cases, to agree to something contractually that’s contrary to the law. [EDIT: i may have had a brainfart writing this, it was late and you’ve complicated things, so i can’t say without a shadow of a doubt this is the case] I’d want to know which exceptions the law makes in the US in regards to extraordinary cases like the one you made here, otherwise i’m shooting in the dark. As science advances the law has to advance aswell, and as these cases unfold precendence will be made. Please grant me the honor to let me think and decide for myself. I’m pigheaded enough, and dispassionate enough, not to be swayed by appeals to emotion first and foremost because i think laws should not be based on emotion, but on reason… [/quote]
Well it’s interesting that you would formulate your own argument using a highly emotional scenario. Like this one you put to us back on page 11 or 12 I think.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay, so we’re 10 years in the future, and abortion has been deemed illegal. A young woman is raped by her father and decides, when she finds herself pregnant, to have an abortion. During the procedure they are caught redhanded by the anti-abortion police, but it’s too late; the 10 week old fetus is no longer. Due to unrelenting lobbying by Vegita and his ilk, abortion is murder 1 by law, and punishable by death. The young woman is subsequently gassed.
ephrem wrote:
…so to answer your question: if the surrogate mother decides to abort the pregnancy within the legal timeframe, she has the legal right to do so. The biological parents are within their rights to file a lawsuit for breach of contract, but not for murder because the abortion wasn’t illegal…
[/quote]
My scenario forced you to take this position, you did not choose it. For any of the other positions you took would have ruined earlier positions you took. But don’t get too happy with yourself yet, Now that I have painted you into the corner, I’ll be looking for the killing blow, figuratively of course.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…on the subject of who holds the property rights to the fetus in this case, that’s a legal quagmire i’m not willing venture in to. My knowledge is too limited to make a reasonable judgment what this case is concerned…
[/quote]
But see this is a very important aspect. I would even settle for you letting me know if in your eyes, SOMEONE holds the property rights on a fetus under 16 weeks old. At this point I can make my counter argument against that alone. And remember, I am only trying to use logic and science here, not emotions. I just want a clear cut and dry reason for abortion, not an arbitrary feeling that people just should be allowed abortions. So this is what I am trying to dig out of you.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
But see this is a very important aspect. I would even settle for you letting me know if in your eyes, SOMEONE holds the property rights on a fetus under 16 weeks old. At this point I can make my counter argument against that alone. And remember, I am only trying to use logic and science here, not emotions. I just want a clear cut and dry reason for abortion, not an arbitrary feeling that people just should be allowed abortions. So this is what I am trying to dig out of you.
V[/quote]
If they are definitely not human beings below a certain age what else would they be if not property.
Someone has to decide what happens with frozen embryos f.E. and for all practical reasons that means that he owns them.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?
Where do other unwanted babies go? What happens when an insured or uninsured mother gives birth prematurely?
…the taxpayer carries the burden?
[/quote]
Unwanted babies are put in foster care or are adopted every day in this country. Premature babies are kept alive every day in this country. So I ask agian, why do we have to kill babies that are aborted?
You can continue asking stupid questions in return or you can provide an honest answer.
[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.
V
You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.
Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?
Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?
Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?
In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.
These compromises don’t elimintae the individual, they merely set a timeframe for activities they may do in the future. Clearly a newborn baby does not even have the physical capacity to shoot a gun, and obviously they do not have the mental capacity either. Since guns are a device used primarily for killing another living being, we err on the side of caution.
All of those examples are things that a newborn baby cannot do, and then later in life develops the physical and mental ability to do so. Most of the age limits are set up so that even the slowest developing of individuals should be able to safley handle those situations. Living does not require andy physical skill or mental capacity from a fetus, it is quite good at living all on it’s own.
V
All of these situations are examples of individuals acquiring the right to do something because of a certain age.
It is not too far fetched that the transition fetus - human being is as continuous as adolescent - adult and therefore calls for similar legal strategies.
[/quote]
No, rights are something you are born with, they have always had the right to do those things, but due to thier inability to do them at a certain age, and the rate of development for humans not being an equal thing, Society had to set an arbitrary limit where conceivably all humans could safley perform that activity with some form of regularity. Living is not an inherintly dangerous act, for the most part it can be done without harming anyone else or infringing upon someone elses rights. The other activities you mentioned all can really infringe on anothers rights, so it is not uncommon for society to expect thier young to become responsible before giving them the ability to excercise those rights. Again, we need to look at the cause for those limitations, and then apply that logic to the act of living or continuing to exist. I think you will find that living needs no restrictions put on it, just as there is no restriction put on breathing, eating, pooping and peeing, etc… Just because some things are restricted does not mean that all things need to be restricted. Clearly life itself should not have restrictions put on it.
V
[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
But see this is a very important aspect. I would even settle for you letting me know if in your eyes, SOMEONE holds the property rights on a fetus under 16 weeks old. At this point I can make my counter argument against that alone. And remember, I am only trying to use logic and science here, not emotions. I just want a clear cut and dry reason for abortion, not an arbitrary feeling that people just should be allowed abortions. So this is what I am trying to dig out of you.
V
If they are definitely not human beings below a certain age what else would they be if not property.
Someone has to decide what happens with frozen embryos f.E. and for all practical reasons that means that he owns them.
[/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa, I am calling them a human being from the time they are a single cell with unique DNA, who is agreeing to them being “definately not Human beings” Because some people say they aren’t does not mean that they aren’t. I can give you reasons why they ARE a human being, but no one here has yet to give me any scientific reason why they aren’t, so going foward, unless someone cares to challenge my previous scientific explanation of why a single cell human organism is exactly the same thing as a multi trillion cell human organism, then I am going to continue to refer to them as human beings. So while I am entertaining that HE may think someone owns them, I certainly do not think someone owns them.
V
[quote]dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?
Where do other unwanted babies go? What happens when an insured or uninsured mother gives birth prematurely?
…the taxpayer carries the burden?
Unwanted babies are put in foster care or are adopted every day in this country. Premature babies are kept alive every day in this country. So I ask agian, why do we have to kill babies that are aborted?
You can continue asking stupid questions in return or you can provide an honest answer.[/quote]
…i don’t know why someone who performs a late term abortion does not opt for a ceasarian instead. I do know that only after 24 weeks a fetus stands a chance of surviving outside of the womb. Maybe you should start a foundation that funds hospitals to care for babies older than 24 weeks who otherwise would’ve been aborted. How’s that for a stupid question?
[quote]Vegita wrote: ephrem wrote:
…on the subject of who holds the property rights to the fetus in this case, that’s a legal quagmire i’m not willing venture in to. My knowledge is too limited to make a reasonable judgment what this case is concerned…
But see this is a very important aspect. I would even settle for you letting me know if in your eyes, SOMEONE holds the property rights on a fetus under 16 weeks old. At this point I can make my counter argument against that alone. And remember, I am only trying to use logic and science here, not emotions. I just want a clear cut and dry reason for abortion, not an arbitrary feeling that people just should be allowed abortions. So this is what I am trying to dig out of you.
V[/quote]
…i don’t think it’s wise to make a blanket judgment call on abortion based on an [hypothetical] extraordinary example. In this case, when such a case is brought before the courts, an exception must be made in the law that provides an answer. I’m going to humor you anyway and commit to an opinion:
…in the case of who holds the fetal property rights when a surrogate mother wants an abortion it must be the biological parents of the fetus. The biological parents however can not claim the right to the surrogate mother’s body if the surrogate’s wishes no longer reflect what both parties initially agreed upon…
[this legal talk is really stretching my language skills to near breaking point]
…i fail to see how any of this has any relevance on ‘normal’ abortion issues V. I think you are reaching for straws here, or i simply fail to understand what you’re getting at. If you want to argue that the father must have the right to object to an abortion because his genetic code is part of the fetus, and he is therefore co-owner of the fetus, then a rapist could stop his victim from having an abortion, and that would be utterly callous, don’t you think?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.
V
You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.
Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?
Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?
Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?
In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.
These compromises don’t elimintae the individual, they merely set a timeframe for activities they may do in the future. Clearly a newborn baby does not even have the physical capacity to shoot a gun, and obviously they do not have the mental capacity either. Since guns are a device used primarily for killing another living being, we err on the side of caution.
All of those examples are things that a newborn baby cannot do, and then later in life develops the physical and mental ability to do so. Most of the age limits are set up so that even the slowest developing of individuals should be able to safley handle those situations. Living does not require andy physical skill or mental capacity from a fetus, it is quite good at living all on it’s own.
V
All of these situations are examples of individuals acquiring the right to do something because of a certain age.
It is not too far fetched that the transition fetus - human being is as continuous as adolescent - adult and therefore calls for similar legal strategies.
No, rights are something you are born with, they have always had the right to do those things, but due to thier inability to do them at a certain age, and the rate of development for humans not being an equal thing, Society had to set an arbitrary limit where conceivably all humans could safley perform that activity with some form of regularity. Living is not an inherintly dangerous act, for the most part it can be done without harming anyone else or infringing upon someone elses rights. The other activities you mentioned all can really infringe on anothers rights, so it is not uncommon for society to expect thier young to become responsible before giving them the ability to excercise those rights. Again, we need to look at the cause for those limitations, and then apply that logic to the act of living or continuing to exist. I think you will find that living needs no restrictions put on it, just as there is no restriction put on breathing, eating, pooping and peeing, etc… Just because some things are restricted does not mean that all things need to be restricted. Clearly life itself should not have restrictions put on it.
V[/quote]
The rights that they are born with?
Exactly.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote: ephrem wrote:
…on the subject of who holds the property rights to the fetus in this case, that’s a legal quagmire i’m not willing venture in to. My knowledge is too limited to make a reasonable judgment what this case is concerned…
But see this is a very important aspect. I would even settle for you letting me know if in your eyes, SOMEONE holds the property rights on a fetus under 16 weeks old. At this point I can make my counter argument against that alone. And remember, I am only trying to use logic and science here, not emotions. I just want a clear cut and dry reason for abortion, not an arbitrary feeling that people just should be allowed abortions. So this is what I am trying to dig out of you.
V
…i don’t think it’s wise to make a blanket judgment call on abortion based on an [hypothetical] extraordinary example. In this case, when such a case is brought before the courts, an exception must be made in the law that provides an answer. I’m going to humor you anyway and commit to an opinion:
…in the case of who holds the fetal property rights when a surrogate mother wants an abortion it must be the biological parents of the fetus. The biological parents however can not claim the right to the surrogate mother’s body if the surrogate’s wishes no longer reflect what both parties initially agreed upon…
[this legal talk is really stretching my language skills to near breaking point]
…i fail to see how any of this has any relevance on ‘normal’ abortion issues V. I think you are reaching for straws here, or i simply fail to understand what you’re getting at. If you want to argue that the father must have the right to object to an abortion because his genetic code is part of the fetus, and he is therefore co-owner of the fetus, then a rapist could stop his victim from having an abortion, and that would be utterly callous, don’t you think?
[/quote]
You claim legal exception for my exraordinary case and yet you present me with one in defense of your position. Can we then agree that based upon your definition of a 16 week or younger fetus being property, in a normal pregnancy, where two parties engaged in consentual sex, the father should have the right to oppose the abortion, I mean legally speaking. I am not totally opposed to having a set of laws that cover the routine, and then have certain exceptions to the law for extraordinary circumstances, this is far better in my opinion than blanketing all pregnancies so that women who get raped have a legal option to abort thier babies. Again, this would be my position if I were forced to believe as you do that the fetus is not a human being until after 16 weeks.
Now, on to decisions and thier effect on peoples rights. If I come into your house and steal your TV, I will go to prison. The act of putting me in prison is taking away some of my rights as an individual. But I don’t hear any outcrying that my rights are being taken away, it is expected, I have free will and made a choice which put me into the situation I am in, so I must live with the consequences of my decisions and actions, even if they result in my rights being taken away. And in the case of stealing your TV, they would only be taken away temporarily, say for a year.
So Since the woman made a choice to have consentual sex, why is it wrong for society to force her to live with the temporary loss of her rights to her body, to prevent a crime from being committed, the murder that would take place should she abort the fetus. In my view, this follows precise logic, and is justifiable according to our current societal standards. This would be my basic position should we view the human fetus as an individual human being, who has by the mere fact of it’s existance, been granted the right to life. So I’m going to hold to my position now that no abortions should be legal until someone can explain to me a scientific reason why a fetus at any stage they want, is not a human being. But for your amusement, I will contend that if that notion is never accepted, I feel that at the very least, A father should have the right to oppose an abortion at any stage, and by law, his word should hold as much weight as the mothers.
V
[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.
V
You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.
Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?
Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?
Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?
In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.
These compromises don’t elimintae the individual, they merely set a timeframe for activities they may do in the future. Clearly a newborn baby does not even have the physical capacity to shoot a gun, and obviously they do not have the mental capacity either. Since guns are a device used primarily for killing another living being, we err on the side of caution.
All of those examples are things that a newborn baby cannot do, and then later in life develops the physical and mental ability to do so. Most of the age limits are set up so that even the slowest developing of individuals should be able to safley handle those situations. Living does not require andy physical skill or mental capacity from a fetus, it is quite good at living all on it’s own.
V
All of these situations are examples of individuals acquiring the right to do something because of a certain age.
It is not too far fetched that the transition fetus - human being is as continuous as adolescent - adult and therefore calls for similar legal strategies.
No, rights are something you are born with, they have always had the right to do those things, but due to thier inability to do them at a certain age, and the rate of development for humans not being an equal thing, Society had to set an arbitrary limit where conceivably all humans could safley perform that activity with some form of regularity. Living is not an inherintly dangerous act, for the most part it can be done without harming anyone else or infringing upon someone elses rights. The other activities you mentioned all can really infringe on anothers rights, so it is not uncommon for society to expect thier young to become responsible before giving them the ability to excercise those rights. Again, we need to look at the cause for those limitations, and then apply that logic to the act of living or continuing to exist. I think you will find that living needs no restrictions put on it, just as there is no restriction put on breathing, eating, pooping and peeing, etc… Just because some things are restricted does not mean that all things need to be restricted. Clearly life itself should not have restrictions put on it.
V
The rights that they are born with?
Exactly.
[/quote]
And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?
V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]
Oh and for the record, I commend both of you for going through this dance with me in a civil and polite manner. I am having quite a bit of fun and getting a real good brain workout in the process. If only all discussions could be so.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?
V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol][/quote]
Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.
Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.
[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?
V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]
Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.
Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.
[/quote]
As science advances is it not uncommon for words to be updated to have a better representation of thier true meaning? If Birth Literally means coming out of a mothers womb, then if I grew a baby in a test tube, and nurtured him to infancy through artificial means, much like a life support system would, he would technically have no birth if we used the old definition, and would you say this human has no birth rights? Or do we update the word birth to accomodate this new human so that he has rights from the moment he exists? And if we do not extend these rights to him, why? what are the downsides? That we cannot legally kill him now if he has rights?
And with regard to the power to exercise a right, a fetus has all the power it needs to execute it’s right to life. If it no longer posessed that power, it would die on it’s own accord. The fact that it continues to live proves it is excercising that right.
V
Keine Sonne die mir scheint
keine Brust hat Milch geweint
in meiner Kehle steckt ein Schlauch
hab keinen Nabel auf dem Bauch
Mutter…
Ich durfte keine Nippel lecken
und keine Falte zum verstecken
niemand gab mir einen Namen
gezeugt in Hast und ohne Samen
Rammstein - Mutter
Just an association, carry on.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?
V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]
Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.
Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.
As science advances is it not uncommon for words to be updated to have a better representation of thier true meaning? If Birth Literally means coming out of a mothers womb, then if I grew a baby in a test tube, and nurtured him to infancy through artificial means, much like a life support system would, he would technically have no birth if we used the old definition, and would you say this human has no birth rights? Or do we update the word birth to accomodate this new human so that he has rights from the moment he exists? And if we do not extend these rights to him, why? what are the downsides? That we cannot legally kill him now if he has rights?
And with regard to the power to exercise a right, a fetus has all the power it needs to execute it’s right to life. If it no longer posessed that power, it would die on it’s own accord. The fact that it continues to live proves it is excercising that right.
V[/quote]
The first one is an interesting question. Yes, we would have to decide when someone like that was born. To think that that would automatically be the moment of fertilization is a stretch though.
A fetus has no power to live on its own. Remove it, however gently, from its live support system and it dies.
As well as you have no right to make me pay for someone elses live support you have no right to force a mother to support a fetus because that would mean violating the rights of someone who most definitely a human being in order to protect the rights of a fetus that is arguably not.
The most you could do is make her get the fetus out as gently as possible and see if it lives.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.
If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?
A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.
None of the pro-choicers want to address this?
…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?
Where do other unwanted babies go? What happens when an insured or uninsured mother gives birth prematurely?
…the taxpayer carries the burden?
Unwanted babies are put in foster care or are adopted every day in this country. Premature babies are kept alive every day in this country. So I ask agian, why do we have to kill babies that are aborted?
You can continue asking stupid questions in return or you can provide an honest answer.
…i don’t know why someone who performs a late term abortion does not opt for a ceasarian instead. I do know that only after 24 weeks a fetus stands a chance of surviving outside of the womb. Maybe you should start a foundation that funds hospitals to care for babies older than 24 weeks who otherwise would’ve been aborted. How’s that for a stupid question?
[/quote]
very stupid. not relavent to the question I asked.