mdancin4theLord
Well-Known Member
Although you couldn't ask a lot of foetuses if they wanted to be aborted, because before the second trimester, they have the nervous system of a turnip.
Oh you love to push buttons dont you.
Upvote
0
Although you couldn't ask a lot of foetuses if they wanted to be aborted, because before the second trimester, they have the nervous system of a turnip.
Do you realise that ethics are subjective? Or do you fail to recognise anyone else's views other than your own?
Seriously...
Well if someone were to say, for instance, that all rugby players have the intelligence of a turnip, there are some that just might take exception.
You're right. Might as well legalize all murder since it won't all be enforceable. Might as well let people steal without fear of being busted since we are not able to stop all thieves. Might as well tear down the speed limits since they will never catch all the speeders...on and on and on and on.... Whatever. Of course laws cut down on illegal activity. That's the whole premise behind having a justice system, is because we believe we can cut donw on illegal activities by having laws and law enforcers in place to stop those caught in illegal activities.
In Christ, GB
I with prolifers would stop using the "abortion is murder" fallacy.
Because then you have already judged everyone who has had an abortion as murderers.
And you're taught not to judge.
Whats the definition of hypocrisy again?
No one is stopping you from taking exception, it would just be better for discussions if you were to recognise that your morality is not the only morality.
As Beechwell has said, a frontal lobotomy doesn't turn someone into a complete nonresponsive vegetable. And I think deliberately causing someone to become completely brain dead is pretty much as bad as murder.So doing a frontal lobotomy on someone would preclude them from being a human and therefore making their murder acceptable? Think about your reasoning. All a murderer would have to do is to cut off oxygen to the brain long enough to make a person brain dead, that would be like aggrevated assault. Then they could kill them after they were brain dead and say it wasn't murder because there was no brain activity. Thus, they would not be guilty of murder, just assault. They do a few years and are out and about to do it again.
And a sperm and an egg can become a newly-fertilized foetus, which can become a two week-old foetus, which can... The potential to become a person doesn't make something a person yet. You think a foetus becomes a person at the moment of conception, when it is just a cell. I say it becomes a person when those neurons start firing some time into the second trimester. Then, after the foetus can start to think to some degree, and feel pain, I believe it is immoral to terminate the pregnancy, the degree of immorality increasing the more advanced those brain functions become.What you fail to recognize is that an eight week old fetus will become a nine week old, then a ten week old, and eventually an adult. You are comparing someone who is permanently locked into a condition to someone who will increase their body weight and size and brain by millions of times by the time they travel though the birth canal.
Em... Go to anywhere, and destroy someone else's foetus without their permission will land you in jail. And it is illegal to destroy a bald eagle's egg not because it is considered immoral to destroy fertilized eggs, but because bald eagles were critically endangeredCome to America sometime and destroy a bald eagle's egg. You will get fined and jailed. Though you can come to this same country, get a gal pregnant and take her down to a local abortion clinic, and you will get gov't assistance to kill hers and your offspring. Where did we go so horribly astray?
So abortion = pulling up a turnip, to you. You fail to recognize this is the ethics sub-forum? Or you merely fail to have any?
Well if someone were to say, for instance, that all rugby players have the intelligence of a turnip, there are some that just might take exception.
Well I cant reply to your post......or I would be issued yet another warning. I think I am walking on thin ice.
But I am sure you get what I am thinking your way.
No one is stopping you from taking exception, it would just be better for discussions if you were to recognise that your morality is not the only morality.
Only a foetus in the first trimester with no nervous system actually does have the intelligence of a vegetable, i.e. none. It's not an insult, it's a fact that is germane to the discussion.
< staff edit >
< staff edit > < staff edit > I'll address one inconsistency in your line of questions. You asked if your sister should have been forced to risk her life in order to have her baby. Nowhere did you ever state that the doctors told her that her life was in jeopardy if she carried to term; only that the baby would have little chance of survival to term and no chance of any long-term survival outside of the womb. Just because the baby is in danger doesn't mean the mother's life is at risk, just as there are cases in which the mother's life is in danger when there is nothing wrong with the baby.
And these stories aren't even conducive to the abortion debate. You would have presented a much better case if your story was about a sister who was going to college, had a brief fling with a young man and he dumped her when she found out she was pregnant. So, she decides to have an abortion, because it's simply not a good time for her to have a kid. Or she can't afford it. Or she simply doesn't want the hassle of it at that point in her life.
In fact, according to an AGI survey among post-abortive women only 6% cited medical reasons (mother and/or baby) as the reason for termination. 1% was for rape or incest. The remaining 93% cited reasons such as, "partner or parents convinced me" and "not ready for the responsibility". In fact, a staggering 42% of women cited not ready for the responsibility or can't afford a child as the reason for termination. 12% said they got pregnant during a period of relationship problems and didn't want to be a single parent, if a break-up/divorce were a possibility. 16% of women surveyed said they were concerned about how a child would alter their lifestyle. And this wasn't some crazy, biased anti-abortion group conducted survey. This was the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Most pro-life individuals recognize that a small percentage a women face dire medical circumstances during the course of their pregnancy and, occasionally, are faced with a difficult decision. I don't know of many pro-life people who would tell a woman with a tubal pregnancy that she should simply bleed to death for an embryo that will never develop outside of the fallopian tube or a woman with a stillborn baby inside of her that it should just stay in her uterus and cause her womb to become infected. These women are the women who fall into the extremely rare 6% category of women who really wanted to have their babies, but medical complications prohibited that. Nobody blames these women or thinks they should be ashamed of themselves or feel badly about their decision.
We're talking about the 93% who casually decide a baby would just be too much of a hassle or it would cramp their lifestyle or because they have a crappy boyfriend who threatens to break up with them if they don't terminate, so they pick keeping their boyfriend over having the baby. That's treating human life with so little compassion, so little care, so little thought. Women who wanted their children, but couldn't carry to term for medical reasons, understand the gravity of having human life inside your body and having it ripped away in a single moment. The trauma of leaving a hospital with empty arms and an empty womb. There's nothing casual about that.
Pro-lifers just want to judge and criminalize others.
Sorry, but there is NO morality that will allow someone to seriously think your son is the equivalent of a turnip.
Sorry, but there is NO morality that will allow someone to seriously think your son is the equivalent of a turnip.
When my son was a one month old fetus, he had the intelligence of a turnip.
You don't see a problem with this statement? A need to re-think it, perhaps?