Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are many other choices as well, such as contraception or abortion. Why are you jumping all the way to forced sterilization?
There are many other choices as well, such as contraception or abortion. Why are you jumping all the way to forced sterilization?
Lol it's a bit disconcerting, isn't it?
It's almost as if he thinks if your born with a vagina and womb you don't get any say in how they're used.
No, but I do think that if you create a child, the father should have some say in the matter. As it is, men have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
You probably right that in reality there may be a lot of unhappy and mixed up men out there who have been pushed aside or at least feel they have been excluded from something they felt a part of.I don't disagree...I'm just not sure how that would play out in reality. Ultimately, someone has to make the decision.
I do not believe morality depends on it but I have zero doubts that a newborn is capable of thought. It really isn't a difficult question at all. Babies are not born "brain dead".
It would seem your definition is becoming more narrow. Why did you go from not wanting to use person to define a fetus because
But immediately invoke it when dealing with the other end of the spectrum?
It's a tricky subject, and any decisions about it are going to involve at least some arbitrary lines being drawn. But the discussion still needs to be had, we can't just throw up pur hands and say "slippery slope" and ignore it. Like many things, consciousness, mind, sentience all exist on a spectrum. And like on a spectrum, it's impossible to say where red ends and green begins. That does not, however, meanthat one end of the spectrum isn't green while the other is red.
Basing the law upon it is something we already do though...isn't it?
Don't we examine the mentally diminished and decide whether they can do things like serve on a jury or in the armed forces?
Don't we look at those in a vegetative state and have someone else determine if they are to remain upon life support or not?
This is the heart of the issue for me...because those who think abortion immoral want it illegal because they've conflated morality and law. Laws shouldn't serve morality necessarily...they should serve the good of society. IMO the benefits to society of keeping abortion legal greatly outweigh making it illegal.
You didn't seem to address the points made in my post.
The definition is no more narrow. A brain dead person is a dead person. They have no more potential. The whole basis of Tree of Life's OP (which I agree with) is that death is wrong because it robs human being of future potential experiences.
I never used personhood in my argument. I simply reiterated the OP's argument.
leftrightleftrightleft said:A brain dead human being is fundamentally different from a fetus for two reasons:
1) A brain dead person has no potential to become a fully functioning, thinking, conscious person. So, from the perspective of the OP's arguments, killing a brain dead person does not deprive them of any future experiences because it is impossible for them to have such experiences anyway. Thus, the premises of the OP's argument are not fulfilled and it can be reasonable to suggest that a brain dead person can be killed amorally.
What is "viable"? Viable independent of the mother or a viable fetus meaning that everything is function correct to develop into an independent baby.
Correct. Which is what we have seen in the time since Roe V Wade.If we are talking about the chance of the baby surviving if born, do we just keep changing the age as technology finds a way to keep these babies alive? 24 weeks is the accepted age now...but it may be moving toward 22 weeks.
Is a baby really defined as becoming a baby by the status of our technology and in a constant flux?
Does a third world baby become "human" later than a first world one that has access to the finest technology since they are most likely further along gestationally before they do survive premature births?
You didn't seem to address the points made in my post.
Not sure if you've read my other posts. I am pro-choice. I don't want abortion to be made illegal. The negative impacts of it being illegal are too great and I don't think making it illegal will really solve the problems.
However, you are correct, we do base the law upon consciousness when it comes to consent. With regards to a mentally handicapped person, we do not want them to serve in the armed forces because we are concerned that, due to their mental state, they are not fully aware of what they are doing. The same argument is made for the case of having certain individuals serve on a jury. In the case of a person being in a vegetative state, the default position of medical personnel is to keep that person alive unless prior consent was given by family members or the now-unconscious patient.
Do you see? The default position is to keep human beings alive. Exceptions need to be justified.
In the case of a mentally handicapped person joining the army, we are protecting that person from being killed doing something they weren't fully consenting to. If you are unable to give consent (for whatever reason), then the default position is: protect that human being and keep them alive.
Fetuses can't give consent to anything. Killing them robs them of future human experiences and personhood.
Now, why do you think a fetus is the exception?
The onus is on you to explain why killing fetuses are exceptions to the rule. The rule is: keep human beings alive.
if not taking the medication will end your life and taking it to save your life will result in possible disability for a child (if you do not miscarry) you must take your medication because if you die obviously you both die. if the medication is not necessary to keep you alive the responsible thing to do is to stop taking your medication because a human life is developing and if it is possible to stop taking medications then you should it might have a negative effect on your life or it might have a positive effect on your life you dont know the future or what the result will be but if you know that you can survive without it and another human life is at stake fear for the future is not a good reason to end another persons life what you predict and worry might happen is the same as the people who get abortions for financial reasons because of fear for the future . you may find that you really dont need that medication after all if you take a break from it you might meet caring compassionate people that you never wouldve met had you not stopped taking this medication that will change your life for the better .Of course, although it is important to note that some medications interfere with birth control pills. I was conceived despite such measures. If I relied on that to resolve the issue, it would be the equivalent of a self-performed abortion. Besides, while the medication is highly toxic to a developing infant, I have taken it for so long that my liver will clear it out of my system within a week or so, beyond slight traces at levels too low to do anything. Unfortunately, the medication does its worst in the first month of development, which is where the heart defects come in. For some background information, it is an extremely strong stimulant medication. The pregnancy class is C, but I know what it does to the animals, even if human studies have not been performed extensively. That is irrelevant to the situation. What would you have me do if I found out that I was pregnant? This is why my situation, weirdly enough, is the ultimate test of the blurry line where most people divide allowable abortions and inexcusable ones. If I was pregnant and didn't take my medication, my life would be wrecked and unlikely to recover enough to support a child properly, or myself for that matter. If I did take my medication, I would knowingly be endangering my child. If I get an abortion, well, it's an abortion. Yet, my medication in and of itself does not keep me alive, so the argument that abortions should only be allowed if the mother will die should she take it to term does not apply here. Where do you draw the line?
Because people are paranoid about being pregnant, and would rather find out as soon as possible. Why wait that long to test yourself if you know you performed risky activities?
Sure, some people believe they have the right to behead others also. Or that we should legalize pedophilia.And you are completely entitled to that view and the actions it informs. For you.
Other people have other views.
Good question. I've spoke to women who've regretted the decision or decisions later-women who weren't necessarily believers. Eventually this will occur IMO. But in any case, if no life is involved, or if human life has no value, why should the decision entail any deep consideration anyway? What difference should it make?Fair enough. How many of those woman that you talked to expressed feelings of grief or remorse for what they did?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?