Abortion

[Intellectual47]

I would talk about this in a different forum but I'm restricted. And proud of it.


So what do ya'll think of abortion? I personally find it murder for ethical reasons. Just because it is in the women's body doesn't make it her body.

[Intellectual47]

Wow, 5 minutes without a reply. In America you couldn't go 5 seconds without one.

[Whitten]

Abortion isnt a crime because its foolish, and frankly insulting, to compare a bundle of cells to a living, breathing, human being.

[Sentinel]

I would talk about this in a different forum but I'm restricted. And proud of it.


So what do ya'll think of abortion? I personally find it murder for ethical reasons. Just because it is in the women's body doesn't make it her body.

No-one is entitled to tell another person what should (or should not) be inside them. As women should have an absolute, undebatable authority over their own bodies and everything within them, the standard leftist position is definitely pro-choice under any circumstances.

As a matter of fact, we restrict all anti-choice people to Opposing Ideologies on this board, so there's one more reason you'll stay firmly in here. :)

And I'm proud of that.

[Intellectual47]

Yah, it's just a bundle of cells with a beating heart and voluntary muscle movements, two of the signs of life. If you have one sign of life, then it's a crime to not give them aid.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:48 pm
Yah, it's just a bundle of cells with a beating heart and voluntary muscle movements, two of the signs of life. If you have one sign of life, then it's a crime to not give them aid.
Cows, pigs and chickens have beating hearts and voluntary muscle movements.

Do you eat meat?

[Intellectual47]

Yes I eat meat (proud of that to) Because Animals are not human. A fetus is human. Therefore we should not kill it without asking it's opinion first.
Since you are so pro-choice, what about the child's choice to live? Since you say that a persons choice to live overides another person's choice to kill them, why doesn't this apply to fetuses.

[Jazzratt]

A foetus is not an indipendant organism. It could be in the womb doing a full on song and dance act in a funny straw hat, but if it was still a parasite on the mother's womb then it can be killed, should the mother so wish it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:58 pm
Yes I eat meat (proud of that to) Because Animals are not human. A fetus is human. Therefore we should not kill it without asking it's opinion first.
How do you propose we ask a bundle of cells with no self awareness its opinion?


Since you are so pro-choice, what about the child's choice to live? Since you say that a persons choice to live overides another person's choice to kill them, why doesn't this apply to fetuses. Because a foetus has no self awareness and is a parasite in the mother's womb, feeding off her energy.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:58 pm
Yes I eat meat (proud of that to) Because Animals are not human. A fetus is human. Therefore we should not kill it without asking it's opinion first.
Since you are so pro-choice, what about the child's choice to live? Since you say that a persons choice to live overides another person's choice to kill them, why doesn't this apply to fetuses.
Because fetuses arent developed human beings. They have no greater right to life than a sperm or egg cell.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by patton+December 14, 2006 10:05 pm--> (patton @ December 14, 2006 10:05 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 08:11 pm
I would talk about this in a different forum but I'm restricted. And proud of it.


So what do ya'll think of abortion? I personally find it murder for ethical reasons. Just because it is in the women's body doesn't make it her body.
I wish your mom had aborted you. [/b]
w3rd!, anyway to "intellectual" :rolleyes: 47

do you really think illegalizing abortions will help?, even if you are anti-choice you should realise that women will just go to alleys with clothhangers dooing it themselves, now i know that doesnt help anybody.

[Cryotank Screams]

I think it is simply the neutralization of a unwanted growth, and I am very much pro-choice, because there is no scientific or logic reason to be against it, and truly the only people that are religious idiots, that try to feed the public with arguments based on nothing, all in the name of a spectral tyrant; if your anti-choice, then I ask you, if you can't trust a woman with a choice, how could you expect to trust her with a baby?

It's easy to be against abortion when your not a pregnant teenage girl sobbing her eyes out, scared out of her mind, hating this alien life inside her, and wondering why must her life be over so soon.

[Mujer Libre]

I'm not sure how you can justify being anti-choice with "ethics." Perhaps you mean "morals." Ethics imply rationality, which your position clearly lacks.

You're implying that something that can't exist independently, or think, has rights within our society, which it clearly does't. You're also then asserting that that is more important than the wellbeing and autonomy (two of the most fundamental ethical principles there are- especially in medical ethics, which is where abortion falls) of a fully developed, competent woman. It's just profoundly illogical.

Also, why the fuck are you proud of eating meat? That's among the most bizarre things I've ever seen on here.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:58 pm

Since you are so pro-choice, what about the child's choice to live? Since you say that a persons choice to live overides another person's choice to kill them, why doesn't this apply to fetuses.
Even if we indulge the reactionary anti-womens'/human-rights fantasy that a fetus is a 'child', a child still wouldn't have the choice to use another person's body against her will, even if its necessary for it to live, so the argument is irrelevent.


Human, person, child, or not a fetus has no rights to occupy someone's womb if she doesn't want it there anymore than a real person would.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:58 pm
Yes I eat meat (proud of that to) Because Animals are not human.
You say that as if it is some sort of accomplishment.


A fetus is human. Therefore we should not kill it without asking it's opinion first.

A foetus is not a human. It is a potential human.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 04:58 pm
Yes I eat meat (proud of that to) Because Animals are not human.
Humans are animals dumbass.

[anarchista666]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 14, 2006 10:14 pm
Also, why the fuck are you proud of eating meat? That's among the most bizarre things I've ever seen on here.
Yeah that is pretty bizarre haha god, that's funny.

Oh, oops! Sorry Intellectual47 did I use the lord's name in vain? ;)

[ShakeZula06]

Abortion isnt a crime because its foolish, and frankly insulting, to compare a bundle of cells to a living, breathing, human being.
Human beings are bundes of cells.

[Intellectual47]

Look people, it it has human DNA and a sign of life, how can you honestly tell me it's okay to kill it?
We have a law against murder because we determined that a person's right to live overode another person's choice to kill them. Why doesn't this apply to babies

I'm taking an exam so I won't be able to respond fro a while.

[RedAnarchist]

A foetus is not a baby, it is basically a parasite feeding off a woman. It was made in her body and what happens to it affects her most of all. Because it is her body, she has the right abort the parasite or to allow it to grow into a human. Noone elese has the right to say she cannot do so, and noone else has the right to restrict it to certain circumstances 9rape, when her life is in danger etc).

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 12:58 pm
Look people, it it has human DNA and a sign of life, how can you honestly tell me it's okay to kill it?

It's not killing it, because it's not alive. Furthermore, it's not part of our society, yet.

You said you objected to abortion on Ethical grounds. What ethical model are you using? Presumably, Natural law?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Love Underground+December 15, 2006 01:04 pm--> (Love Underground @ December 15, 2006 01:04 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 12:58 pm
Look people, it it has human DNA and a sign of life, how can you honestly tell me it's okay to kill it?

It's not killing it, because it's not alive. Furthermore, it's not part of our society, yet.

You said you objected to abortion on Ethical grounds. What ethical model are you using? Presumably, Natural law? [/b]
It IS alive.

Abortion kills an organism.

However, still, that doesn't makes abortion bad.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:17 am

Abortion isnt a crime because its foolish, and frankly insulting, to compare a bundle of cells to a living, breathing, human being.
Human beings are bundes of cells.
So are plants and animals. However it's only fully developed humans that are contributing to society. Unlike foetuses an adult human is not a literal parasite on its mother.

[Invader Zim]

I am pro-choice.

[Intellectual47]

You said you objected to abortion on Ethical grounds. What ethical model are you using? Presumably, Natural law?
Just the crazy ethical that we shouldn't kill people because we feel like it!

I am pro-choice
No, you are anti-choice. You are against the choice of the child to live.

However it's only fully developed humans that are contributing to society.
So what are genetically disabled people? I'm sure no one with a club foot has ever made a difference :rolleyes:. Or undevolped eyes. Which require glasses.

Humans are animals dumbass
No, we're human. This should be fairly obvious.

I think he is useing ass law cuz thats what he keeps talking out of his ass.
Yah, it must be ass law that says we should protect the weak and the helpless. Hey wait a second, isn't that what Communism trys to do? Communism trys to strengthen the weak(proleterliat), so why are yo now trying to kill the weak. This could be what they call, hypocrisy!

[Rollo]

Just the crazy ethical that we shouldn't kill people because we feel like it!

It isn't because we feel like it, maybe the mother can't financially maintan a child and is single so she hsa to give it up because she HAS to.


No, you are anti-choice. You are against the choice of the child to live.

Until you or someone else invent a machine to talk to unborn foetuses, don't put words in it's mouth.



No, we're human. This should be fairly obvious.

Yeah, and lions aren't animals either. They're lions.


Yah, it must be ass law that says we should protect the weak and the helpless. Hey wait a second, isn't that what Communism trys to do? Communism trys to strengthen the weak(proleterliat), so why are yo now trying to kill the weak. This could be what they call, hypocrisy!

The proleteriat isn't weak, they generally tend to be a majority among classes and tend to do a lot in numbers.

See: Hungary 1956.

[ATG]

Occasionally pregnancy can be a result of rape therefore the child is unwanted or sometimes giving birth to the child may cause the death of the mother until the fetus is at least 7-9 month old it got no mind therefore is not a living human

[Intellectual47]

It isn't because we feel like it, maybe the mother can't financially maintan a child and is single so she hsa to give it up because she HAS to.
So what, are you going to have a test to determine if the mother deserves an abortion? That's ridiculous. I've seen plenty of mother who were in a situation just like that and yet the raised a kid and he was good. Like Han Xin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Xin). Or Marilyn Monroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe). Or my friend Robby.

Until you or someone else invent a machine to talk to unborn foetuses, don't put words in it's mouth.
Hmmm. We could wait until it's born and see what the mother says then. Or we could assume that because it is alive that it would not wish death at any moment for no paticular reason other than it's existance. As I recall, Homer Simpson said his time in the womb was very pleasant.

The proleteriat isn't weak, they generally tend to be a majority among classes and tend to do a lot in numbers.
So if they're so powerful, why do they need you to lead them? I thought it was a tenent of communism that the proleteliat need their help. Of course I could be wrong about one of the most crucial tenents of communism.

[Rollo]

So what, are you going to have a test to determine if the mother deserves an abortion? That's ridiculous. I've seen plenty of mother who were in a situation just like that and yet the raised a kid and he was good. Like Han Xin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Xin). Or Marilyn Monroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe). Or my friend Robby.

No, they should just have the abortion. Shut up, seriously. Your friend robby is probably middle class. If you were an 18 year old girl and accidently got pregnant due to whatever reason and you were on your own and barely making minimum wage how are you going to afford to live?


Hmmm. We could wait until it's born and see what the mother says then. Or we could assume that because it is alive that it would not wish death at any moment for no paticular reason other than it's existance. As I recall, Homer Simpson said his time in the womb was very pleasant.

What if the mother dies during birth? Then you've sacrificed one life for another. Sounds kinda dumb. Homer simpson? Yeah because the simpsons is a great source for all things in life. I recall homer simpson taking his fathers communist party member card, you should do that too!


So if they're so powerful, why do they need you to lead them? I thought it was a tenent of communism that the proleteliat need their help. Of course I could be wrong about one of the most crucial tenents of communism.

They don't need me, or anybody to lead them. The proleteriat need who's help exactly? You are very unclear.

[dannie]

Your friend robby is probably middle class. If you were an 18 year old girl and accidently got pregnant due to whatever reason and you were on your own and barely making minimum wage how are you going to afford to live?

You really shouldn't make assumptions like that, but I do agree with your point.

@I47:

The problem I have with your opinion is that you place the "choice" of an UNBORN child, without it's own will (do you see the flaw yet?) above the choice of the woman carrying the child. Essentialy ou are restricting wom*ns freedom to choose how to live their lives and that's the problem with you pro-life lunatics.


Just the crazy ethical that we shouldn't kill people because we feel like it!

Foetuses and embryos aren't people, they are organisms developing into humans.

[Intellectual47]

What if the mother dies during birth? Then you've sacrificed one life for another. Sounds kinda dumb. Homer simpson? Yeah because the simpsons is a great source for all things in life. I recall homer simpson taking his fathers communist party member card, you should do that too!
You know I was kidding about the Simsons' thing? right?
How many abortions are actually to save the mothers life? Do you have a statistic for this?

The problem I have with your opinion is that you place the "choice" of an UNBORN child, without it's own will (do you see the flaw yet?) above the choice of the woman carrying the child. Essentialy ou are restricting wom*ns freedom to choose how to live their lives and that's the problem with you pro-life lunatics.
Ok, I've figured out something. Neither of us is pro-choice or anti-choice. We just support different choices. I support the child's right to live, while you support the mother's right to get rid of him. And I think that the child would perfer to live. Just making a wild assumption.
Yes I restrict the women's right to kill the baby. Just like murder laws restrict people's right to kill other people. Maybe we should get rid of those next.

Foetuses and embryos aren't people, they are organisms developing into humans.
The definition of "human" is, if it has human DNA, it's human. And because embryos's have human DNA, they are human. Therefore you are killing humans.

Your friend robby is probably middle class.
Yah, he's middle class. But he was born under the exact circumstances that you say should qualify someone to have an abortion. And yet his mother had him and actually worked to achieve middle class. Now that I think about it, My mom was in the same circumstance you describe. Just add 2 years. Then she got married and worked hard to be upper class. Thanks to her work and effort I am alive and have the time to talk to you ignorant fools. As Mr. T says "I pity the fool"


EDIT: hmmm. where have I heard the term "parasite" used before when talking about humans? Oh yah, the Nazi's called the Jews parasites. Small world

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 02:38 am

What if the mother dies during birth? Then you've sacrificed one life for another. Sounds kinda dumb. Homer simpson? Yeah because the simpsons is a great source for all things in life. I recall homer simpson taking his fathers communist party member card, you should do that too!
You know I was kidding about the Simsons' thing? right?
How many abortions are actually to save the mothers life? Do you have a statistic for this?

The problem I have with your opinion is that you place the "choice" of an UNBORN child, without it's own will (do you see the flaw yet?) above the choice of the woman carrying the child. Essentialy ou are restricting wom*ns freedom to choose how to live their lives and that's the problem with you pro-life lunatics.
Ok, I've figured out something. Neither of us is pro-choice or anti-choice. We just support different choices. I support the child's right to live, while you support the mother's right to get rid of him. And I think that the child would perfer to live. Just making a wild assumption.
Yes I restrict the women's right to kill the baby. Just like murder laws restrict people's right to kill other people. Maybe we should get rid of those next.

Foetuses and embryos aren't people, they are organisms developing into humans.
The definition of "human" is, if it has human DNA, it's human. And because embryos's have human DNA, they are human. Therefore you are killing humans.

Your friend robby is probably middle class.
Yah, he's middle class. But he was born under the exact circumstances that you say should qualify someone to have an abortion. And yet his mother had him and actually worked to achieve middle class. Now that I think about it, My mom was in the same circumstance you describe. Just add 2 years. Then she got married and worked hard to be upper class. Thanks to her work and effort I am alive and have the time to talk to you ignorant fools. As Mr. T says "I pity the fool"


EDIT: hmmm. where have I heard the term "parasite" used before when talking about humans? Oh yah, the Nazi's called the Jews parasites. Small world
.... I'm speachless I truly am. I suggest you go join the germ and bacteria liberation front.

[Intellectual47]

whoops, wrong post.

[Intellectual47]

Hmmm. this is intresting. When I speak fact, you say nothing. Perhaps I should speak more fact.




Hey, if it works for me, maybe you guys should try it?

[dannie]

You are getting more and more hostile, you should stop it!



What if the mother dies during birth? Then you've sacrificed one life for another. Sounds kinda dumb. Homer simpson? Yeah because the simpsons is a great source for all things in life. I recall homer simpson taking his fathers communist party member card, you should do that too!
You know I was kidding about the Simsons' thing? right?
How many abortions are actually to save the mothers life? Do you have a statistic for this?

This is not the first time you use fictional work as an agrument, it makes you look foolish



The problem I have with your opinion is that you place the "choice" of an UNBORN child, without it's own will (do you see the flaw yet?) above the choice of the woman carrying the child. Essentialy ou are restricting wom*ns freedom to choose how to live their lives and that's the problem with you pro-life lunatics.
Ok, I've figured out something. Neither of us is pro-choice or anti-choice. We just support different choices. I support the child's right to live, while you support the mother's right to get rid of him. And I think that the child would perfer to live. Just making a wild assumption.
Yes I restrict the women's right to kill the baby. Just like murder laws restrict people's right to kill other people. Maybe we should get rid of those next.

You are wrong, you are anti-choice, as stated above, a foetus cannot make concious deciscions untill some time before birth altough they do react to "stimulants". So it's not a question of choice for the fetus, but choice for a concious human being on how to live her life.
Moreover, we have to respect a persons right to self determination.



Foetuses and embryos aren't people, they are organisms developing into humans.
The definition of "human" is, if it has human DNA, it's human. And because embryos's have human DNA, they are human. Therefore you are killing humans.

Semantics, you used the word people in a sense where it applied to, well, people, as in persons walking around the streets. That's what anti-homicide laws are all about. Not about unborn babies



Your friend robby is probably middle class.
Yah, he's middle class. But he was born under the exact circumstances that you say should qualify someone to have an abortion. And yet his mother had him and actually worked to achieve middle class. Now that I think about it, My mom was in the same circumstance you describe. Just add 2 years. Then she got married and worked hard to be upper class. Thanks to her work and effort I am alive and have the time to talk to you ignorant fools. As Mr. T says "I pity the fool"

I had a feeling this was coming, the same old "I worked hard, got rich and you can too if you really want to" story. Guess what, your mother was lucky! Millions of people work and worker harder than your momma and didn't became upper class.


EDIT: hmmm. where have I heard the term "parasite" used before when talking about humans? Oh yah, the Nazi's called the Jews parasites.
Small world

Firstly, don't compare leftism to nazism, it makes you look foolish ... again. The differences are huge. In fact represent opposites.
Secondly, you can't compare a human being that is able to live for itself, to a bunch of cells that drain another person's energy for it's growth.
Thirdly, comparing a religious group to an unborn baby is even more stupid, it's not like a religious group as a whole can act as parasites.
Again, your argument is not valid.

[Intellectual47]

You are wrong, you are anti-choice, as stated above, a foetus cannot make concious deciscions untill some time before birth altough they do react to "stimulants". So it's not a question of choice for the fetus, but choice for a concious human being on how to live her life.
There's a simple solution to this, ask the fetus when it's born if it wants to live. A wait, I forgot. When the baby comes out of the mother a magical bolt of lightning hits it that makes it human.



I was just noticing something with the parasite thing. Maybe you should use a different term.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I love abortions. They are delicious. Sadly, this response is more intelligent than anything you ever post, I47.

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:54 pm

You are wrong, you are anti-choice, as stated above, a foetus cannot make concious deciscions untill some time before birth altough they do react to "stimulants". So it's not a question of choice for the fetus, but choice for a concious human being on how to live her life.
There's a simple solution to this, ask the fetus when it's born if it wants to live. A wait, I forgot. When the baby comes out of the mother a magical bolt of lightning hits it that makes it human.



I was just noticing something with the parasite thing. Maybe you should use a different term.
I think you are a bit confused about my reply, fact is abortions are performed before the fetus is concious.

[Rollo]

My family worked hard, and are still poor. What the hell happened there intellectual?

[EwokUtopia]

All Embryo's who oppose abortion say "Aye"

None?

Well, there you have it.

[Raisa]

This is a stupid debate.

If motherfuckers got payed enough money and had LIVING situations maybe there would be way less abortions.
Most women dont want htem...they just dont want to send their kids to foster care to get fucked in the ass by 15 different guardians and wonder if their mothers love them. Most women might just have the baby if we could support it.

This is another reason why your system aint shit....

Your against abortion but you dont want to give a person a life so they can have a damn baby....

so fuck you, cause your beleifs are idealistic and rediculous kid.

[Rollo]

Here in Australia we give people 3K to have a baby, which encouraged many young ladies to have children early so they could get the three thousand but it costs more then that to raise a kid for a year.

Fix this please.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Raisa
Most women might just have the baby if we could support it.

You shouldn't speak for most women.

Saying things like this plays into the hands of the anti-abortion crowd because it makes abortions seem undesirable, a 'necessary evil', where in reality there shouldn't be any judgement attached. Women shouldn't feel the need to justify having an abortion by proving that they couldn't support a child. (I know that's not what you're saying, but this kind of reasoning oftne leads that way)

[An archist]

You know 47, talking about the fetusses choice really doesn't make any sense, a fetus doesn't have any choice, it wasn't asked if it wanted to live, none of us were. We were thrown into life, without being given the choice, and don't say that you can allways kill yourself, it's really not that easy.
A fetus doesn't have a choice, neither does it have an opinion, a woman does.

[Cryotank Screams]

Look people, it it has human DNA and a sign of life, how can you honestly tell me it's okay to kill it?

Can it maintain life? Can it support itself by and on it's own? No, therefore it does not have this alleged "sign of life."


We have a law against murder because we determined that a person's right to live overode another person's choice to kill them.

It isn't living, it can not maintain itself, or support itself, it's a parasitic growth totally dependent on the mother.


Why doesn't this apply to babies

It is not a baby yet.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 11:48 am
No, we're human. This should be fairly obvious.

Humans are animals, just like all the other beasts of the earth, only we have given up through evolution various other high senses, for higher brain power, that is how we have become what we are, and it is highly stupid and spits directly in the eye of science to deny the fact that humans are indeed animals; this should have been fairly obvious if you were the least bit familiar with actual science.


No, you are anti-choice. You are against the choice of the child to live.

It is not a child, but an unwanted growth of cells, inside of a living, thinking person, it is you that is anti-choice because you are a dillusional fool.

[LSD]

Look people, it it has human DNA

So does every other cell in your body.

Tell me, if women have a "noble" duty to protect a zygote, do they have that same "duty" to their unfertalized eggs? After all, genetically and organically speaking, they are virtually identical.

Both are potential human societal actors and both are genetically distinct; should every period be a "tragedy" then? Should a "noble" woman save her flushed eggs, perhaps in cryogenic storage so that their "chance to live" is not wasted? :lol:

There is nothing "special" about a foetus. One day it may become a baby, but until it is born it is nothing but a collection of cells inside a uterus. It's genetically unique, yes, but so's a cancer cell. Strangely, though, no one's suggesting that chemotherapy is murder... :rolleyes:

Look, the "begining of human life" stretches back millions of years, there is no special "demakation" where "life begins" and any attempt to "find" such a "line" is idealist nonsense.

There is however a very concrete begining of social participation, and that comes, rather intuitively, when one enters society. Upon that point one becomes a de facto societal actor and, even more important, a realised potential rational moral agent.

As such, one is entitled to all the basic social protections in preparation for full social rights.

A feotus, however, is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells developing towards social potentiality. And the social status of "potential potentials" is far to indirect for them to be comsidered a protected class of "creature".


how can you honestly tell me it's okay to kill it?

Because "life" is irrelevent.

Cows are "alive", bacteria are "alive, cancer calls are "alive". That doesn't grant them any special societal status. All that matters in terms of societal protection is societal membership, something which foetuses do not and cannot have.

On this subject, there is, interestingly enough, an implicit reciprocity between "animal" and "unborn" rights, although many in both movements refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is, though, that if "animals" have "rights", so must foetuses and vice versa.

And that both of these movments ("animal liberation" and "pro-life") are dominated by petty-bourgeois idealists is no coincidence. People who tend to think based on emotion and "what feels right" are always drawn into these kind of idealist faux politics.


So what are genetically disabled people?

That's called the "argument from marginal cases" and while it's an interesting philisophical question, it is ultimately a moot political issue.

There are number of reasons for affording protections (note that's protections, not rights) to so-called "marginal" humans, none of which apply to foetuses in utero. If a foetus were to be removed from a mother and were living independently then, as a social entity, it too would qualify as a "marginal case", but not otherwise.

Some people call this the "location distinction", but it actually has less to do with location than with standing.

An infant which exists independently is a de facto responsibility of society. Accordingly it is deserving of all basic social protections until it becomes an active social participant.

When a foetus is in the womb, however, it cannot interact with society at any level; rather it exists solely through the body that carries it. That body is its subsistance, and by extension "social", paradigm.

Accordingly any interference "in the name" of that foetus is an unjustified intrusion into the existant social rights of another.

Society can only interfere as far as the outside of our bodies, it has no right to intrude beyond that. And as long as a foetus composes a part of a preexisting acting societal participant, any rights that it could have as a potentiary potential agent are entirely subjugated to the interests of the actual participant; namely the woman carrying it.


Just the crazy ethical that we shouldn't kill people because we feel like it!

And that "ethical" is based on...what?

Rights do not merely "exist", they stem from society and social relationships. Unless one is a part of a society, one cannot have rights. That's why chickens don't have rights; that's why cancer cells don't have rights.

Remember, a bacterium is far more "alve" than any foetus will ever be. Unlike an "unborn child" a bacterium is actually fully developed. Even more than that, it is capable of a complete and independent life.

If "life" grants some sort of special status and killing a feotus for the convenience of the mother is "unethical" then, logically, so must be using antibiotics.

After all, it's "killing life"! :o


The definition of "human" is, if it has human DNA, it's human. And because embryos's have human DNA, they are human.

That's your definition, not anyone else's. And it's a rather awful one at that. Lots of things have human DNA, including things that we routinely kill, like cancer cells or inflamed organs.


Therefore you are killing humans.

Again, "human life" is a nebulous and, ultimately, meaningless term.

An egg is just as "alive" as a zygote. Sure, alone, it won't turn into a baby; but neither will a foetus.

Both require very specific circumstances to actualize their potential. I suppose that, if you define your terms very carefuly, you could qualify one as slightly "more" "potential" than that other, but this kind of semantic quibbling is completely irrelevent to practical issues of societal rights.

Societal members enjoy societal rights, no one else. Period.


EDIT: hmmm. where have I heard the term "parasite" used before when talking about humans?

Again though, it's not the "parasitism" of a foetus which makes it not deserving of human societal rights. You are absolutely correct, many members of society are arguably parasites, and far more are,in some way or another dependent on others for their survival.

But that's the inate nature of an interdependent society, it has absolutely nothing to do with the relevent issue of when human societal membership begins.

Again, an unfertilized egg, by any reasonably definition, is just as alive as a fertilized one. It is also a "potential life". Given the right circumstances, it too will become a human child and eventually a human societal actor.

I will accept that, statistically speaking, a randomly selected fertalized egg has a higher chance of becoming a baby than a randomly selected unfertalized one. But the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to be contending.

Even more importantly, however, despite your bizarre idealist assertions to the contrary, there is nothing "especially" or "distinctly" "alive" about the latter as compared to the former.

"Life" is a rather vague term to begin with and when it comes to the "begining" or "demarkation line" of life, there's really very little constructive to be said.

That's why, again, no "moral" or political system can rely upon "life" as any kind of significant attribute. "Life" is merely a state of organization/biology, it has no "spiritual" or "metaphysical" significance.

Now, that said, living humans make up the entirety of human society, so insofar as that society is concerned, living humans matter a great deal; but only because of their status as particpatory social actors.

A "living" organism that does not meet that critera -- like a cow, e. coli bacterium, or human foetus -- cannot be afforded "rights". To do so would undermine the entire foundation of organized civilized society.

That's why the "animal rights movement" is romantic nonsense and the anti-abortion movement is oppresive sexism.

[Ahazmaksya]

I am completely for abortion, so long as it is done within the first 2 months. I believe that the embyro is a cluster of cells, that has no more rights then my sperm that I kill off daily. A sperm is a potential human being, should I be accused of murder everytime I bat off?

That said the argument saying that the fetus is merely a parasite is RIDICULOUS. You think once you are born you are human since you can survive on your own? Nice, yeh, take a baby away from its mother for 2 days and see how it goes.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 07:47 am
That said the argument saying that the fetus is merely a parasite is RIDICULOUS. You think once you are born you are human since you can survive on your own? Nice, yeh, take a baby away from its mother for 2 days and see how it goes.
Parasitic in the sense that it can not maintain homeostasis on or by itself, it feeds of the mother's food supply, and every other living biological function is dependent on the mother, it grows in the mother and is protected by the mothers body, hence it fills all the boxes of being what we would call a parasite see definition below.


par·a·site -n.
I. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Therefore I say your argument seems ridiculous.