20 Oct 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOne could argue the "life of the child" (as you put it..the life of the child raped, in your scenario, is not in danger) would be better off carrying the baby to term and not living with the guilt of having murdered a baby.
And what about the life of the child who was raped?
Also, based on your argument (that the government shouldn't force a child to carry a baby to term) the government should not force anyone to do what is in the best interest of another's life by not killing them? So you should just be able to kill someone because they inconvienence you? Is that what you are saying?
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by quackquackOf course it's alive. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's a live human being.
Once you decide a fetus is a life you have already decided the issue. When I clap my hands, I kill cells but I am not a murderer. I have no problem with aborting a fetus. It simply is not alive and does not get the protections of live humans.
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76An analogy for you which someone gave me once, i've posted it before but i'll do it again.
Of course it's alive. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's a live human being.
Your in a burning building and can save either
a) A five year old child
or
b) 1,000 ferilised eggs
Which would you do?
20 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenActually the life of the child IS in danger, and BEST case scenario is the experience would be very physically tramatic.
One could argue the "life of the child" (as you put it..the life of the child raped, in your scenario, is not in danger) would be better off carrying the baby to term and not living with the guilt of having murdered a baby.
Also, based on your argument (that the government shouldn't force a child to carry a baby to term) the government should not fo d just be able to kill someone because they inconvienence you? Is that what you are saying?
http://info.k4health.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml
When a woman is too young, pregnancy—wanted or unwanted—can be dangerous for both mother and infant. Complications of childbirth and unsafe abortion are among the main causes of death for women under age 20 (394, 439, 461). Even under optimal conditions, young mothers, especially those under age 17, are more likely than women in their 20s to suffer pregnancy-related complications and to die in childbirth (161, 327, 436, 490, 538). The risk of death may be two to four times higher, depending upon the woman's health and socioeconomic status (212, 275, 301, 329, 428). For example, in a retrospective study of nearly 11,000 pregnancies over a 5-year period, outcomes in a hospital in West Bengal, India, varied by age as follows:
Women's Age 12-19
Maternal Deaths/1,000 Births: 3.80
Average Birth Weight: 1.9 kg
Premature Births %: 20
Perinatal Deaths/1,000 Births: 29.6
And considering the huge difference in physical maturity between ages 12 and 19 it's reasonable to conclude that, at the lower end of this age range, the statistics are considerably worse.
So you would put the girl who recently got raped through great physical trama and even risk of death.... to avoid aborting clump of cells?
I also think it's absurd to suggest making an 11 or 12 year old girl carry the fetus for 9 month and give birth to the child of her rapist is less tramatic than immediately aborting the pregnancy. I suppose that (might) be true if you pound in her head that the clump of cells they removed was a bonafide human that she "murdered" - which woudln't surprise me.
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is an excellent question! I hope you don't mind if I begin using it. In fact, a group of the guys I work with love debating issues, and the next time abortion comes up I'll throw that at pro-lifers.
An analogy for you which someone gave me once, i've posted it before but i'll do it again.
Your in a burning building and can save either
a) A five year old child
or
b) 1,000 ferilised eggs
Which would you do?
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's not semantics, it's the crux of the question. If you consider a fetus a human being, then a coherent moral standard would not treat it differently than a normal baby. However, if you do not consider it a human being at certain stages of development then different rules may apply. This also may help in determining the developmental stage until when abortion should be allowed (if any).
Wrong, that's not the issue either. If you're going to decide morality by semantics you're doing something very, very wrong.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNo - if you consider a foetus at any stage a human being you can still use a coherent moral standard to defend abortion; as I have been saying all along in this thread, not every human being is of equal worth and in fact, having some coherent sense of morality requires one to accept this.
It's not semantics, it's the crux of the question. If you consider a fetus a human being, then a coherent moral standard would not treat it differently than a normal baby. However, if you do not consider it a human being at certain stages of development then different rules may apply. This also may help in determining the developmental stage until when abortion should be allowed (if any).
21 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI find it telling that people who proport to defend abortion, only do so if it is presented in such a way. Another way to present it might be, what if an astoid was coming to wipe away a world with one five year old on it or one million fertilized eggs. Which world would you save? You see, no one wants either world to disappear, therefore, the arguement never is that aboriton is "good", rather, the arguement is always that there are worse alternatives. You are never presented with the scerio of saving both worlds. So if the world with a million fertilized eggs were the ONLY one in danger, would it be worth saving? That is the question.
An analogy for you which someone gave me once, i've posted it before but i'll do it again.
Your in a burning building and can save either
a) A five year old child
or
b) 1,000 ferilised eggs
Which would you do?
So lets list the scenrios that are far worse than giving birth
1. Money and the lack thereof.
2. Parental abuse. Should abusive parents abort their offspring?
3. Back alley abortions
4. Rape
5 Over population
6. Emotional trauma
7. Saving five year old children from burning buildings and astroids.
Have I missed any? Of course, no one wants to consider bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption. God forbid. Especially in a world in which there are so many people wishing they could be parents.
21 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs I have already said, using this logic then the 99 year old is worth less than a 20 year old. In fact, according to the Nazis Jews were worth far less than those who were not. You see, these labels of worth are purely subjective to the eye of the beholder. In fact, the Nazis used to take the sick and elderly to hospital basements and kill them simply because they had no more worth to society. In fact, they were just the opposite, they were a drain on society. In short, who made you pr they God? So what if the 99 year old or Jew later came up with the cure for cancer? Then again, who the hell cares if they give society any more "contributions"? Its not all about you is it?
No - if you consider a foetus at any stage a human being you can still use a coherent moral standard to defend abortion; as I have been saying all along in this thread, not every human being is of equal worth and in fact, having some coherent sense of morality requires one to accept this.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperagain, pro-choice supporters use the most extreme/rare examples to support their position, but the pregnant "10-11 yr old" happens how often? But if it did i have no problem with this person taking the "morning after pill" in these extreme cases.
Actually the life of the child IS in danger, and BEST case scenario is the experience would be very physically tramatic.
http://info.k4health.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml
When a woman is too young, pregnancy—wanted or unwanted—can be dangerous for both mother and infant. Complications of childbirth and unsafe abortion are among the main causes ...[text shortened]... cells they removed was a bonafide human that she "murdered" - which woudln't surprise me.
The other side to the extreme agrument is the fact that legalizing abortions opens the door to late term abortions. Are you going to say a baby at 35 weeks is not a living human?
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf the 1000 fertilized eggs are all living human fertilized eggs and will be human baby newborns in 9 months than you obvisiouly go with the 1000 fertilized eggs as you are talking about 1000 babies as opposed to 1 child. Of course your hypothetical is absurd because it allows you to say "see you want to kill a 5 yr old".. as both outcomes suck. On the other hand if you pick the 5 yr old, one could say that makes you a mass murderer.
An analogy for you which someone gave me once, i've posted it before but i'll do it again.
Your in a burning building and can save either
a) A five year old child
or
b) 1,000 ferilised eggs
Which would you do?
If the "fertilized eggs" in question are of another type..say chicken eggs or something that would be much different, of course, but your hypothetical doesn't specify..
21 Oct 09
A hypothetical for the pro-choice people:
To have an abotion you must wait 30 weeks (to think it over). After 30 weeks you can have the abortion which involves removal of the baby (to which you can say goodbye), and then you can watch it put to death, or not. The last part is up to you. Is the abortion at that point ok to you? Do you still rationalize it by callin it a "lump of cells"?
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRidiculous. So refresh me and inform me what the supposed human being in question did to forfeit its right to life, as defended by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
No - if you consider a foetus at any stage a human being you can still use a coherent moral standard to defend abortion; as I have been saying all along in this thread, not every human being is of equal worth and in fact, having some coherent sense of morality requires one to accept this.