Abortion

[mordea]

Even your attempts at sarcasm fails Mordea.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that they are far superior to your reading comprehension.

So it's "every man for himself" except when it comes to abortion and a woman's right to choose either way?

Do you have any understanding as to what the phrase 'every man for himself' means? It's uttered when the shit hits the fan, and everyone is at the very real risk of death. In such a disaster, every individual is perfectly entitled to act in a fashion to preserve their own life.

When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate.

Why ever not?

After all, if you are going to say they are as human as you are and have as much as a right to life as you do, why shouldn't they have the same privileges as you do?

Because certain privileges, such as the privilege to drive and vote, would be wasted on a fetus. Note how I'm not denying privileges based on arbitrary justification (eg. the fetus isn't a 'person') but on functional capacity required to engage in the activities required by the privilege.

You are privileged in that no one can conduct medical experiments on you without your consent, for example. You say that a fetus should have a right to life, but you don't think it should have the same privilege in matters such as 'human experimentation'?

The fetus should be protected from human experimentation. I'm of the personal opinion that animals should also be protected from experimentation.

Can you see where it gets tricky Mordea?

No?

What if the mother does not believe that life begins at conception. Why should your beliefs that life begins at conception take precedence over her beliefs?

Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word.

Who are you to determine for her when life begins? Isn't that a personal belief?

No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line.

Really? So you extend the right to life to all humans, do you? So you are just as strenuously against the death penalty?

Yes.

There used to be a poster here, long ago

Don't know, don't care. Please focus on the present instead of obfuscating.

So when pro-lifer's are camped outside hospitals and family health centres with their placards and spitting and screaming "murderer" at any individual who dares enter, they are really protesting about the deaths of cows and sheep? Okay then.

Huh? What on earth are you gabbling about?

Tell me Mordea, which country deems it illegal for a woman to miscarry a child during the late term of her pregnancy?

Relevance?

What if the woman does not want the placenta or the child in her body? It is her body, remember?

Tough shit. Many deadbeat dads don't want Child Welfare's hand in their wallet, and we don't give a shit about their feelings of injustice.

How would you feel if one day a stranger approached you and told you that your blood had been identified as being a perfect match to another individual who was very ill and that they were going to take your blood and bone marrow, and you'd have no say or right to choose in the matter? That would be acceptable to you? Should you be allowed to choose when you donate blood or bone marrow to save another person's life or maintain their right to life? Or do you believe that believing in the right to life means that anyone can take your blood or bone marrow or even a kidney or a piece of your liver to provide or maintain "life" in another human?

You could apply a similar analogy to a born child and their parents.

However, I have slightly better analogy than your crappy one. What if one day I was driving in a dangerous fashion, and struck a pedestrian who was doing no wrong. When I woke up, I was told by the doctor that in order for the victim to survive, they required frequent rare blood transfusions from me for the next 9 months.

Do I have a moral obligation to help this pedestrian, who was harmed due to my actions? I think so. Should I have legal obligation to help him? Hell yes.

A fetus is conceived through the actions of the mother and father, therefore they owe it a 'duty of care', so to speak.

You don't know why a born baby has protection under the law? You can't figure that out?

I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however.

It isn't a misrepresentation.

I am asking you a valid question.

It is a misrepresentation. And I have corrected it *numerous* times. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read my previous posts before responding.

Think about it applying to every girl and woman who menstruate and you tell me whether it would be logistically possible or not?

Why would we do that?

So now you think that woman's right to choose and what she chose is foolish?

Yes. Surely you can distinguish between allowing someone the right to choose, and regarding a choice as foolish? The mother sacrificed her life for what you consider to be a non-person. The fact that you are being so evasive in directly addressing this conundrum is telling.

 

[mordea]

*sigh*

OK, mordea, let's take this real slow - do try to keep up...

Hahah, a mouth breathing pro-choicer asking me to 'keep up'. Hilarious. Ooh, careful, don't drool on the floor!

Since you and I have not personally engaged, let's start at the beginning, if we may.

Where else would we start?

Assuming it's not too taxing, perhaps you could enlighten me with a couple of simplistic answers?

I'll try, but I suspect that it will take you three years to develop even a rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts. It will take one year for you to find and read up on the biological definitions of 'life' and 'human' (ie. Homo sapiens). It will take you a second year because you're an idiot. And it will take you a third year because you are a retard.

Regards your "pro-life" stance - are you primarily arguing from a moral position or a legal one? Or both?

Both.

What, exactly, would you accept as proof that your position, while perhaps acceptable for you, is untenable for the rest of us?

A clear explaination as to why the fetus does not fit the biological definitions of 'life' and 'Homo sapien'.

Are you so arrogant (or confident, whichever you prefer) that if given a magic wand enabling you to force everyone else to conform to your POV... Would you exercise that power?

No. I wouldn't force people to believe what I do. But I would force them to act the way I want.

Thanking you ahead of time for your indulgence, especially considering you have your hands full dealing with greater lights. I'm sure Tiassa and Bells are already taxing your mental abilities, limited as they are.

Are you kidding? Sometimes I think that individuals such as Tiassa and Bells are on suicide watch, given how carelessly they march to total humiliation and defeat at the hands of their intellectual superiors (ie. pro-lifers).

 

[Bells]

Should she give up any activity that might endanger a potential fetus? Ya know...drinking, smoking, dangerous sports where she might get an impact injury? No excess caffeine in case it messes with her potential fetus?

We'd all have to go about treating ourselves as pre-pregnant...

Heh! If only if was just that.

Lori has answered yes to your question. But I have to wonder if Lori actually understands what that "yes" entails. Aside from the inevitable drugs and alcohol, if one is to treat one's self as if one were pregnant 'just in case', that "yes" she answered will make her life very interesting.

She would have to give up any products made from unpasturised milk (and even soft cheeses made from pasturised milk can be dangerous to a zygote or embryo or fetus). She would have to give up all processed foods like ham, salami, pastrami, corned beef unless it was cooked fresh.. ie.. no more deli food. She would have to stop consuming or watch her consumption of certain herbs (and believe me, the list is plentiful), as many herbs are abortificants, so that also means no more herbal teas or drinks. No more smoked foods either, so if you happen to like smoked salmon for example, you can scratch that off your list. Reason for the non-consumption of certain foods, as those I have listed, is that it is risky during pregnancy due to the listeria risk. It also means you shouldn't eat roast chicken unless you roasted it fresh yourself. The list goes on and on really.. Seafood is also very risky. And if you like sushi.. lol.. none of that either.

And that's just food wise. Now onto over the counter drugs and other medication.

Lori said yes.. So we can assume the only painkiller she ever takes is normal paracetamol as other types can damage a developing "child". As for other drugs, allergy drugs and even cold and flu tablets you buy over the counter is dangerous for the developing "child". So that's a no no. You can't have aspirin or ibruprofen either. So if you get sick or injured, if you're going to live as though you might be pregnant.. just in case.. you're going to be in a hell of a lot of pain.

Then of course we come to what she needs to consume. She will need to take folate every day. No amount of eating green vegetables is going to cut it. She can't take normal every day vitamins, as some contain things that can harm a developing "child". So she needs to watch what she consumes. She will need to take extra calcium tablets.

Then of course we come to even more fun stuff. She has said "yes" to your question, so she also cannot ever have x-rays. She also has to be careful going to the dentist and if she needs dental work done, she wont be able to have x-rays then as well, which will make life fun.. you know.. just in case.

And that's just the tip of the ice-berg.

One has to wonder if Lori does live that way all the time.. Interesting, isn't it?

 

[glaucon]

look it up. i'm not responsible for your education.

No. But apparently I am for yours...

logical capabilities are required for mathematical aptitude and problem solving.

Not necessarily.

Feel free to also look up the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.

i'm sorry you don't feel like you're important, but i think everyone is.

I'm sorry you can't read, as that's not what I said.

allowed by whom?

Illegitimate question.
You implied that to be "allowed" necessarily implies a legislative domain. This is incorrect.

In summation, your objection to abortion is supported by nothing but belief, which itself is supported by an unsubstantiated belief in a non-recognizable, ineffable, undetermined something or other. In other words, your position is based upon mere opinion.

 

[Lori_7]

No. But apparently I am for yours...

no offense but, no, not necessarily. thanks though.

Not necessarily.

Feel free to also look up the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.

or, having experienced mathematical aptitude and instruction, i could just know that mathematics require the application of logic and problem solving skills.

I'm sorry you can't read, as that's not what I said.

we're all responsible for that. if, then, logic. see?

Illegitimate question.
You implied that to be "allowed" necessarily implies a legislative domain. This is incorrect.

answer the question. to whom were you referring to?

In summation, your objection to abortion is supported by nothing but belief, which itself is supported by an unsubstantiated belief in a non-recognizable, ineffable, undetermined something or other. In other words, your position is based upon mere opinion.

of course it is. what else would it be based on? an opinion that is founded in my own experience and my perception which is determined by my knowledge. what else would you base it on?

 

[Lori_7]

Heh! If only if was just that.

Lori has answered yes to your question. But I have to wonder if Lori actually understands what that "yes" entails. Aside from the inevitable drugs and alcohol, if one is to treat one's self as if one were pregnant 'just in case', that "yes" she answered will make her life very interesting.

She would have to give up any products made from unpasturised milk (and even soft cheeses made from pasturised milk can be dangerous to a zygote or embryo or fetus). She would have to give up all processed foods like ham, salami, pastrami, corned beef unless it was cooked fresh.. ie.. no more deli food. She would have to stop consuming or watch her consumption of certain herbs (and believe me, the list is plentiful), as many herbs are abortificants, so that also means no more herbal teas or drinks. No more smoked foods either, so if you happen to like smoked salmon for example, you can scratch that off your list. Reason for the non-consumption of certain foods, as those I have listed, is that it is risky during pregnancy due to the listeria risk. It also means you shouldn't eat roast chicken unless you roasted it fresh yourself. The list goes on and on really.. Seafood is also very risky. And if you like sushi.. lol.. none of that either.

And that's just food wise. Now onto over the counter drugs and other medication.

Lori said yes.. So we can assume the only painkiller she ever takes is normal paracetamol as other types can damage a developing "child". As for other drugs, allergy drugs and even cold and flu tablets you buy over the counter is dangerous for the developing "child". So that's a no no. You can't have aspirin or ibruprofen either. So if you get sick or injured, if you're going to live as though you might be pregnant.. just in case.. you're going to be in a hell of a lot of pain.

Then of course we come to what she needs to consume. She will need to take folate every day. No amount of eating green vegetables is going to cut it. She can't take normal every day vitamins, as some contain things that can harm a developing "child". So she needs to watch what she consumes. She will need to take extra calcium tablets.

Then of course we come to even more fun stuff. She has said "yes" to your question, so she also cannot ever have x-rays. She also has to be careful going to the dentist and if she needs dental work done, she wont be able to have x-rays then as well, which will make life fun.. you know.. just in case.

And that's just the tip of the ice-berg.

One has to wonder if Lori does live that way all the time.. Interesting, isn't it?

i'm a vegetarian, preferably raw, and primarily vegan, and i don't take pharmaceuticals. x-rays aren't good for you either. did you know that a raw whole foods diet virtually eliminates tooth decay? it does, along with a whole host of other diseases.

you know, we could all live much healthier lives than we do, and it would be good for all of us. wouldn't it?

 

[Lori_7]

oh, and i also eat a primarily organic diet as well. the amount of toxins that we spew into our environment in the name of greed and sloth is disgusting and murderous, and i try to avoid as many in my food as possible. but honestly, in this day and age, no matter where you are or how you live, you're contaminated as fuck. it's global...pandemic.

 

[Bells]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that they are far superior to your reading comprehension.

Mmm hmm. I love watching you jump through hoops. It's funny as hell.

Do you have any understanding as to what the phrase 'every man for himself' means? It's uttered when the shit hits the fan, and everyone is at the very real risk of death. In such a disaster, every individual is perfectly entitled to act in a fashion to preserve their own life.

When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate.

So she can kill a "life" for selfish reasons?

How delightfully hypocritical of you.

I understand what the term means Mordea. But how you apply it is hypocritical. I am sure a man of your great intelligence, it's not hard for you to figure out why.

Because certain privileges, such as the privilege to drive and vote, would be wasted on a fetus. Note how I'm not denying privileges based on arbitrary justification (eg. the fetus isn't a 'person') but on functional capacity required to engage in the activities required by the privilege.

So it's a human. But just less so in your opinion in that it shouldn't have the privileges you have?

The fetus should be protected from human experimentation. I'm of the personal opinion that animals should also be protected from experimentation.

Are you against IVF?

No?

*Snort*

Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word.

But when does it become viable?

When can it "live"?

No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line.

But we do determine it. Pre-natal life and whether one aborts or not is a personal thing. That's what you're not grasping.

Yes.

Because of the sanctity of human life?

Don't know, don't care. Please focus on the present instead of obfuscating.

*Chuckle*

Huh? What on earth are you gabbling about?

It's quite obvious. It's not my problem if you can't comprehend..

Relevance?

You said it was illegal for some women to miscarry during their late term. I am asking you which country deems it illegal to miscarry during the late term of their pregnancy.

Tough shit. Many deadbeat dads don't want Child Welfare's hand in their wallet, and we don't give a shit about their feelings of injustice.

So you're equating a guy's wallet as being the same as a woman's womb?

Okay then.

Do I have a moral obligation to help this pedestrian, who was harmed due to my actions? I think so. Should I have legal obligation to help him? Hell yes.

But here's the thing. They wouldn't do it without your consent. In that you would have to agree to them doing it. You would also have the right to say no. Get it?

Why would we do that?

If you demand that every single zygote through to embryo has a right to protection.. You'd have to ensure that they are protected and you'd have to make sure that in giving them that protection, that no action be taken to end their "lives", so you'd need to test to make sure that every time a woman bled, that she did not terminate a pregnancy on purpose.

Yes. Surely you can distinguish between allowing someone the right to choose, and regarding a choice as foolish? The mother sacrificed her life for what you consider to be a non-person. The fact that you are being so evasive in directly addressing this conundrum is telling.

You still don't get it do you? It's her choice. Not mine and it's certainly not mine to judge.

 

[Lori_7]

Heh! If only if was just that.

Lori has answered yes to your question. But I have to wonder if Lori actually understands what that "yes" entails. Aside from the inevitable drugs and alcohol, if one is to treat one's self as if one were pregnant 'just in case', that "yes" she answered will make her life very interesting.

She would have to give up any products made from unpasturised milk (and even soft cheeses made from pasturised milk can be dangerous to a zygote or embryo or fetus). She would have to give up all processed foods like ham, salami, pastrami, corned beef unless it was cooked fresh.. ie.. no more deli food. She would have to stop consuming or watch her consumption of certain herbs (and believe me, the list is plentiful), as many herbs are abortificants, so that also means no more herbal teas or drinks. No more smoked foods either, so if you happen to like smoked salmon for example, you can scratch that off your list. Reason for the non-consumption of certain foods, as those I have listed, is that it is risky during pregnancy due to the listeria risk. It also means you shouldn't eat roast chicken unless you roasted it fresh yourself. The list goes on and on really.. Seafood is also very risky. And if you like sushi.. lol.. none of that either.

And that's just food wise. Now onto over the counter drugs and other medication.

Lori said yes.. So we can assume the only painkiller she ever takes is normal paracetamol as other types can damage a developing "child". As for other drugs, allergy drugs and even cold and flu tablets you buy over the counter is dangerous for the developing "child". So that's a no no. You can't have aspirin or ibruprofen either. So if you get sick or injured, if you're going to live as though you might be pregnant.. just in case.. you're going to be in a hell of a lot of pain.

Then of course we come to what she needs to consume. She will need to take folate every day. No amount of eating green vegetables is going to cut it. She can't take normal every day vitamins, as some contain things that can harm a developing "child". So she needs to watch what she consumes. She will need to take extra calcium tablets.

Then of course we come to even more fun stuff. She has said "yes" to your question, so she also cannot ever have x-rays. She also has to be careful going to the dentist and if she needs dental work done, she wont be able to have x-rays then as well, which will make life fun.. you know.. just in case.

And that's just the tip of the ice-berg.

One has to wonder if Lori does live that way all the time.. Interesting, isn't it?

also bells, the question VI posed included the word "should", not "do". we are all cogs in the murder machine. there were a lot of decisions made without my consent, long before i was ever born, that i have to live with every day, and that have an enormous affect on my life. and i didn't always know what i know now, and i'll know more tomorrow. you don't seem to be able to distinguish intent in all of this. are we perpetuating life or extinguishing it? well, both, and in a lot of ways...all of us. but do you distinguish intent? why we're doing what we're doing? does that even matter to you?

you know what my perception is. that an individual human being's rights begin at conception. so what kind of person would i be if i advocated abortion? it's a non-issue to me whether it's legal or not. i just think it's wrong. don't you think that's right given my perception? i've explained the basis of my perception and it's more logical than the crazy shit i've heard from the pro-choicer's here.

 

[Bells]

i'm a vegetarian, preferably raw, and primarily vegan, and i don't take pharmaceuticals. x-rays aren't good for you either. did you know that a raw whole foods diet virtually eliminates tooth decay? it does, along with a whole host of other diseases.

you know, we could all live much healthier lives than we do, and it would be good for all of us. wouldn't it?

Did you know that when you get pregnant, the child will take everything from your body, so you will need supplements to make up for the fact that your mostly vegan diet won't satisfy the calcium, protein, iron, etc, that a child will need and you will lose. If you do not have or maintain sufficient levels, you will end up anaemic and you will lose teeth and you will suffer from osteoporosis later on in life amongst other things. And that my dear is a certainty not a 'maybe'..

So if you want to live your life on a daily basis just incase you are pregnant, then I'd suggest you read up on what you'd have to be doing on your vegan diet to ensure your safety and that of your child's. You know, "just in case"..

 

[Lori_7]

Did you know that when you get pregnant, the child will take everything from your body, so you will need supplements to make up for the fact that your mostly vegan diet won't satisfy the calcium, protein, iron, etc, that a child will need and you will lose. If you do not have or maintain sufficient levels, you will end up anaemic and you will lose teeth and you will suffer from osteoporosis later on in life amongst other things. And that my dear is a certainty not a 'maybe'..

So if you want to live your life on a daily basis just incase you are pregnant, then I'd suggest you read up on what you'd have to be doing on your vegan diet to ensure your safety and that of your child's. You know, "just in case"..

what you fail to realize is that i have every intention of ensuring the health of my potential child. you know, as opposed to intentionally paying someone to stick a vacuum cleaner up my twat to suck out my baby and kill it because i don't want to bother to try to feed it at all. i know this is real heady shit, but try...

don't you think it's weird that we have to take supplements for optimal health? i would argue that it's the sin in the world that has depleted our soil and virtually nullified the nutritional content of our food.

 

[iceaura]

I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however.

None of you prolifer types have addressed the obvious gap between the centuries of your walk and the last few years of your talk.

On the evidence, and there is a lot of it, you don't believe a three month embryo is a person, a human child, any more than anyone else does. Unless some woman wants to abort, you are content to treat embryos as embryos, not people, just like everyone else treats them and always has.

It's too late to fix all of the history and custom and current practice of every church, hospital, census form, medical statistic, emergency ambulance, government agency, funeral home, cemetery layout, and political deliberative body in the country for the past few centuries. It's time, instead, to shelve the bogus "its a child, not a choice" rhetorical bull, and come up with an honest basis for discussion.

The one being asserted so far is not respectable any more.

 

[John99]

i would argue that it's the sin in the world that has depleted our soil and virtually nullified the nutritional content of our food.

I heard about that a long time ago, yet fruits and vegetables still grow, look and taste exactly like they always did.

doesnt that tell you the theory is wrong?

 

[mordea]

Mmm hmm. I love watching you jump through hoops. It's funny as hell.

You love watching me repeatedly respond to the same misrepresentations, over and over again? Clearly you are not interested in a genuine discussion.

So she can kill a "life" for selfish reasons?

She can abort if it is necessary to avert her death. I've stated this many times, but you continue to repeat the same tired old questions, worded in a slightly different manner. Do you think so little of my time?

How delightfully hypocritical of you.

No, not at all. I suggest that you actually present a valid argument, instead of just squealing 'hypocrisy' after you have misrepresented another's views.

I understand what the term means Mordea.

Clearly not.

But how you apply it is hypocritical.

No. When it's life vs life, then anything goes. When it's life vs convenience, then I err on the side of life. I've explained this many times, and you continue to repeat the same tired old bullshit. Stop wasting my time.

So it's a human. But just less so in your opinion in that it shouldn't have the privileges you have?

I've explained this many times, and you continue to repeat the same tired old bullshit. Stop wasting my time.

Are you against IVF?

Don't care. We are talking about abortion. Stick to the subject.

But when does it become viable?

I've already explained that viability outside the womb has no bearing on whether an organism is considered alive and human. Yet you continue to trot out the same shit.

You said it was illegal for some women to miscarry during their late term.

Where? I could swear that I said that it is illegal to hate a late-term *abortion*, not miscarriage.

So you're equating a guy's wallet as being the same as a woman's womb?

Why not? One must use their body to perform labour in order to obtain money.

But here's the thing. They wouldn't do it without your consent.

I know. I don't agree with that.

 

[mordea]

By the way, I just received a warning:

Dear mordea,

You have received a warning at SciForums.com.

Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)

It appears you have had no interaction with Randwolf in the thread prior to this reply of yours, and yet here you are calling him a "retard" etc. etc.

I know this issue gets you all emotional, but this is an extreme reaction to somebody who has asked you a few civil questions.

This time it's just a warning. Next time it will be a ban.
-------

Original Post:
[post]2541011[/post]

*sigh*

OK, mordea, let's take this real slow - do try to keep up...

Hahah, a mouth breathing pro-choicer asking me to 'keep up'. Hilarious. Ooh, careful, don't drool on the floor!

Since you and I have not personally engaged, let's start at the beginning, if we may.

Where else would we start?

Assuming it's not too taxing, perhaps you could enlighten me with a couple of simplistic answers?

I'll try, but I suspect that it will take you three years to develop even a rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts. It will take one year for you to find and read up on the biological definitions of 'life' and 'human' (ie. Homo sapiens). It will take you a second year because you're an idiot. And it will take you a third year because you are a retard.

Regards your "pro-life" stance - are you primarily arguing from a moral position or a legal one? Or both?

Both.

What, exactly, would you accept as proof that your position, while perhaps acceptable for you, is untenable for the rest of us?

A clear explaination as to why the fetus does not fit the biological definitions of 'life' and 'Homo sapien'.

Are you so arrogant (or confident, whichever you prefer) that if given a magic wand enabling you to force everyone else to conform to your POV... Would you exercise that power?

No. I wouldn't force people to believe what I do. But I would force them to act the way I want.

Thanking you ahead of time for your indulgence, especially considering you have your hands full dealing with greater lights. I'm sure Tiassa and Bells are already taxing your mental abilities, limited as they are.

Are you kidding? Sometimes I think that individuals such as Tiassa and Bells are on suicide watch, given how carelessly they march to total humiliation and defeat at the hands of their intellectual superiors (ie. pro-lifers).

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
SciForums.com

Civil questions? I was belittled and labelled as slow.

Here is the response I sent back to James:

Civil questions? Are you fucking kidding me? You dumb motherfucker.

It should be interesting to see whether pro-choice fucks can take honest criticism.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: mordea has been banned from sciforums for 3 days after continuing to insult members following a specific warning not to do so.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, again, I would have to disagree...

do you think by disagreeing you are vouching for a superior POV?

 

[lightgigantic]

In reverse engineering reproduction much of the prior mystery that seemed to suggest the hand of G_d has been unravelled and de-mystified. Thus where you may see a visible (but not really) and divine hand, I may see the freckly gnarly (and visible) hand of a scientist.

So, regarding the sanctity of life relating to abortion, is relegating a 10 day old lab grown fetus to the incinerator considered to be murder?

In one sense, the marvels of scientific advancement is like a person becoming an entertainer because they can bark like a dog on stage ... despite there already being thousands of dogs barking on the street.

For instance there are thousands of people being conceived everyday, yet the notion of conceiving one artificially (for a less than average result with a greater expenditure of time, money and energy, mind you) is seen as marvelous.

IOW my point is that even if you want to talk of cloning, there is still no question of generating life from anything but life, or any question of mortals allocating a particular body to a particular individual

 

[lightgigantic]

None of you prolifer types have addressed the obvious gap between the centuries of your walk and the last few years of your talk.

On the evidence, and there is a lot of it, you don't believe a three month embryo is a person, a human child, any more than anyone else does. Unless some woman wants to abort, you are content to treat embryos as embryos, not people, just like everyone else treats them and always has.

Sorry to hear that you have no comprehension or experience of a culture that treats three month embreyos as people

whenever you want to drop out of the comfort zone of your third class culture, drop me a line

 

[visceral_instinct]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that they are far superior to your reading comprehension.



Do you have any understanding as to what the phrase 'every man for himself' means? It's uttered when the shit hits the fan, and everyone is at the very real risk of death. In such a disaster, every individual is perfectly entitled to act in a fashion to preserve their own life.

When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate.



Because certain privileges, such as the privilege to drive and vote, would be wasted on a fetus. Note how I'm not denying privileges based on arbitrary justification (eg. the fetus isn't a 'person') but on functional capacity required to engage in the activities required by the privilege.



The fetus should be protected from human experimentation. I'm of the personal opinion that animals should also be protected from experimentation.



No?



Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word.



No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line.



Yes.



Don't know, don't care. Please focus on the present instead of obfuscating.



Huh? What on earth are you gabbling about?



Relevance?



Tough shit. Many deadbeat dads don't want Child Welfare's hand in their wallet, and we don't give a shit about their feelings of injustice.



You could apply a similar analogy to a born child and their parents.

However, I have slightly better analogy than your crappy one. What if one day I was driving in a dangerous fashion, and struck a pedestrian who was doing no wrong. When I woke up, I was told by the doctor that in order for the victim to survive, they required frequent rare blood transfusions from me for the next 9 months.

Do I have a moral obligation to help this pedestrian, who was harmed due to my actions? I think so. Should I have legal obligation to help him? Hell yes.

A fetus is conceived through the actions of the mother and father, therefore they owe it a 'duty of care', so to speak.



I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however.



It is a misrepresentation. And I have corrected it *numerous* times. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read my previous posts before responding.



Why would we do that?



Yes. Surely you can distinguish between allowing someone the right to choose, and regarding a choice as foolish? The mother sacrificed her life for what you consider to be a non-person. The fact that you are being so evasive in directly addressing this conundrum is telling.

When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate.

So if her health was at stake but not actually her life, tough shit, she has to suck it up and suffer damage for that little lump of gelatine?

Tell me, what if she's severely epileptic? Should she be denied the proper antiseizure drugs in case they harm her fetus that she doesn't want??

Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word.

Alive yes, in that their cells are dividing, they metabolize, etc. They're not people.

However, I have slightly better analogy than your crappy one. What if one day I was driving in a dangerous fashion, and struck a pedestrian who was doing no wrong. When I woke up, I was told by the doctor that in order for the victim to survive, they required frequent rare blood transfusions from me for the next 9 months.

That person did nothing to you.

A fetus is living inside your body therefore getting rid of it would be more akin to self defence.

I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however.

Wrong. Born babies are not convenient. They scream, and poop, and pee, and need feeding, and mess up your routines and deprive you of sleep.

No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line.

Nope, but they can give them up for adoption if they want to.

It's kinda hard to do that when the so-called 'child' is still inside you.