|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 9:41 pm
garra_eyes But if you want my opinion on why a fetus is a person because of or in spite of the these things, read on. What makes a fetus that it fits the following categories for what I consider necessary to be classified as a person. 1. It is human. It has human DNA. 2. It is unique. It has a unique DNA, different from that of the mother, and the father. Thus, it is not an appendage of either party. 3. It is growing into a fully functional human. There is nothing else in the world this can be said about, other than an embryo, a fetus, or a human at or past infancy. (I define "fully functioning human" as a human that has reached physical, sexual, and mental maturity, so somewhere around the late 20s, early 30s) I am seeing a flaw with this definition now. By this definition here, if we start cloning, a clone would not be considered a person because it fails to meet condition # 2 of your purposed definition. I think defining personhood is going to be trickery than we previously thought.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:56 am
rmcdra garra_eyes But if you want my opinion on why a fetus is a person because of or in spite of the these things, read on. What makes a fetus that it fits the following categories for what I consider necessary to be classified as a person. 1. It is human. It has human DNA. 2. It is unique. It has a unique DNA, different from that of the mother, and the father. Thus, it is not an appendage of either party. 3. It is growing into a fully functional human. There is nothing else in the world this can be said about, other than an embryo, a fetus, or a human at or past infancy. (I define "fully functioning human" as a human that has reached physical, sexual, and mental maturity, so somewhere around the late 20s, early 30s) I am seeing a flaw with this definition now. By this definition here, if we start cloning, a clone would not be considered a person because it fails to meet condition # 2 of your purposed definition. I think defining personhood is going to be trickery than we previously thought. #2 could be states as "It is growing independently of the parents"- Not meaning that it is not physically dependent on them for survival, but that it's a unique individual growing in an independent line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:17 am
divineseraph #2 could be states as "It is growing independently of the parents"- Not meaning that it is not physically dependent on them for survival, but that it's a unique individual growing in an independent line. But this change here denies the person status of a fetus does it not? A fetus is not growing independently of the parents, in fact it's growth it is physically dependent on it's mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:39 pm
I'll leave it short and sweet. I am all for population control. Too many idiots who can't financially take care of children are breeding. There should be a mandatory test and guideline in order to pro-create. Fossil fuels and natural resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate as well. Inevitably, mankind will eradicate itself. When it comes to abortion itself, allow the woman to choose its destiny. She is the one who has to bear the burden for nine months. If a baby where to put her life at risk, terminate. Before the fetus develops nerve endings enabling it to feel, I suggest it's more 'humane' to destroy it beforehand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:22 pm
rmcdra divineseraph #2 could be states as "It is growing independently of the parents"- Not meaning that it is not physically dependent on them for survival, but that it's a unique individual growing in an independent line. But this change here denies the person status of a fetus does it not? A fetus is not growing independently of the parents, in fact it's growth it is physically dependent on it's mother. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:24 pm
Azerate I'll leave it short and sweet. I am all for population control. Too many idiots who can't financially take care of children are breeding. There should be a mandatory test and guideline in order to pro-create. Fossil fuels and natural resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate as well. Inevitably, mankind will eradicate itself. When it comes to abortion itself, allow the woman to choose its destiny. She is the one who has to bear the burden for nine months. If a baby where to put her life at risk, terminate. Before the fetus develops nerve endings enabling it to feel, I suggest it's more 'humane' to destroy it beforehand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 10:03 pm
Captain_Shinzo I'm all for having a choice for someone to do with what they want to their fetus but it should also be the father's choice, not the mother's. Saying that both parents should have input in the decision is ideal, but it's also too vague to be useful unless specific weight is attributed to the opinions of each parent in a way that can be applied practically. Such a weight system can work one of two ways: the two people involved have equal input, or one has a greater input than the other. However, neither one of these options has the potential to work. For the first option, equal say sounds nice, but is logically impossible. For now I'm just going to repost something I wrote on another forum addressing this exact issue: Quote: The idea of "equal rights" to a child that has not been born is abstract nonsense.With a pregnancy, the absolute desires of each parent (not including "don't care" positions because they're irrelevant to demonstrating this point) can take one of four forms: (a) The mother wants an abortion. The father does not want an abortion. (b) The father wants an abortion. The mother does not want an abortion. (c) The mother wants an abortion. The father wants an abortion. (d) The mother does not want an abortion. The father does not want an abortion. For a moment, let's focus on (a) and (b) only. In either of these two scenarios, one of two outcomes can happen: The abortion happens, or it does not happen. If desire for an abortion supersedes no desire for an abortion, then in (a) the mother's say trumps the father's, because you cannot simultaneously have an abortion and not have an abortion. In (b), the father's say would trump the mother's say, once again, because you cannot simultaneously have an abortion and not have an abortion.If no desire for an abortion supersedes desire for an abortion, then in (a) the father's say trumps the mother's, because you cannot simultaneously have an abortion and not have an abortion. In (b), the mother's say would trump the father's, because, really hitting this home here, you cannot simultaneously have an abortion and not have an abortion."But what about c and d?" In these two scenarios, there is absolutely no way to prove that the parents had "equal say". Because only the mother is capable of obtaining an abortion or not obtaining an abortion (barring situations in which she is illegally restricted by the father, in which case he won't get what he wants if the mother decides to take it to the authorities anyway), assuming that the course of action follows what the parents agreed on, it's entirely possible that she had planned her decision before even hearing the father's input. And even if she didn't? For a moment, let's consider the idea that two agreeing parents implies equal say: That's great, but situational equality is not equality to begin with. So given that equal weight does not work, the idea falls back to assigning different weights to the opinions of each parent. However, since abortion is a binary decision (it can only either happen or not happen), such an approach is inapplicable. Say the mother's say was worth 60% and the father's was worth 40%, the decision would go to the mother anyway because you can't 60% abort something and 40% not abort it. It might seem unfair, but it just won't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:30 am
I just don't know.
Lately there has been so many horrifying stories about children being abused, starved, killed, sexually abused. It's just heart breaking to heart them, and I don't understand how a parent can treat their child so cruelly, their own flesh and blood!
I used to think that I would be able to have an abortion, that I could handle that. But lately I've become so broody (especially for my age o____0) that I'm not sure I could. But if I were to have a child, it would completely disrupt my life and all my dreams, and i probably would resent it (not hate, that's too strong, but feel disappointed) that I had to cut my life for it.
I think the issue of 'aborition: right or wrong?' has gone so much further in 50 years. Now we should think about what is fair to the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:44 pm
Captain_Shinzo Azerate I'll leave it short and sweet. I am all for population control. Too many idiots who can't financially take care of children are breeding. There should be a mandatory test and guideline in order to pro-create. Fossil fuels and natural resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate as well. Inevitably, mankind will eradicate itself. When it comes to abortion itself, allow the woman to choose its destiny. She is the one who has to bear the burden for nine months. If a baby where to put her life at risk, terminate. Before the fetus develops nerve endings enabling it to feel, I suggest it's more 'humane' to destroy it beforehand. I pretty much agree with Azerate. 3nodding To me, it's female's body, so she should be the one that has the right to make the decision. (make it quick) I can understand why the "father" should have a say so in this situation, but still why would you force someone to suffer for 9 months and stuck with a child she doesn't want? If your woman doesn't wanna keep it, then move on to be with someone that's ready to have your baby. Anything that lives in the a body and consider unwanted is = to parasite. If you really love her and want to be with her, you should be able to respect her body and her decision. Support her even you don't agree with her. If males were to get be the one to get pregnant, then males should have the say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 2:35 pm
ZeRgII Captain_Shinzo Azerate I'll leave it short and sweet. I am all for population control. Too many idiots who can't financially take care of children are breeding. There should be a mandatory test and guideline in order to pro-create. Fossil fuels and natural resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate as well. Inevitably, mankind will eradicate itself. When it comes to abortion itself, allow the woman to choose its destiny. She is the one who has to bear the burden for nine months. If a baby where to put her life at risk, terminate. Before the fetus develops nerve endings enabling it to feel, I suggest it's more 'humane' to destroy it beforehand. I pretty much agree with Azerate. 3nodding To me, it's female's body, so she should be the one that has the right to make the decision. (make it quick) I can understand why the "father" should have a say so in this situation, but still why would you force someone to suffer for 9 months and stuck with a child she doesn't want? If your woman doesn't wanna keep it, then move on to be with someone that's ready to have your baby. Anything that lives in the a body and consider unwanted is = to parasite. If you really love her and want to be with her, you should be able to respect her body and her decision. Support her even you don't agree with her. If males were to get be the one to get pregnant, then males should have the say so. I agree with respecting her right to do with her body as she sees fit. However, this right ends when it harms someone else. A fetus is a human being, and it is therefore not anyone's right to kill it. It is in her body, sure- But because of (most usually) her own consensual actions. This said, she has already made a choice, and now there is a human being in existence- She has never had the right to kill another human being, and therefore she should not have that right in this case, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 3:19 pm
I believe abortion is more of a choice issue. I believe the male in the situation has a say but ultimately, it is the girlfriend's decision to go along with it.
It's either you rather not or go ahead if you really need to.
I would explain more but I have been through so many abortion arguments that it kind of drains me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:16 pm
divineseraph ZeRgII Captain_Shinzo Azerate I'll leave it short and sweet. I am all for population control. Too many idiots who can't financially take care of children are breeding. There should be a mandatory test and guideline in order to pro-create. Fossil fuels and natural resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate as well. Inevitably, mankind will eradicate itself. When it comes to abortion itself, allow the woman to choose its destiny. She is the one who has to bear the burden for nine months. If a baby where to put her life at risk, terminate. Before the fetus develops nerve endings enabling it to feel, I suggest it's more 'humane' to destroy it beforehand. I pretty much agree with Azerate. 3nodding To me, it's female's body, so she should be the one that has the right to make the decision. (make it quick) I can understand why the "father" should have a say so in this situation, but still why would you force someone to suffer for 9 months and stuck with a child she doesn't want? If your woman doesn't wanna keep it, then move on to be with someone that's ready to have your baby. Anything that lives in the a body and consider unwanted is = to parasite. If you really love her and want to be with her, you should be able to respect her body and her decision. Support her even you don't agree with her. If males were to get be the one to get pregnant, then males should have the say so. I agree with respecting her right to do with her body as she sees fit. However, this right ends when it harms someone else. A fetus is a human being, and it is therefore not anyone's right to kill it. It is in her body, sure- But because of (most usually) her own consensual actions. This said, she has already made a choice, and now there is a human being in existence- She has never had the right to kill another human being, and therefore she should not have that right in this case, either. So are you saying that if it's still a zygote or an embryo, it's fine with you to get a pregnancy terminated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain. Right, but many people don't think they can get to college- Living paycheck to paycheck on even double minimum wage makes it nearly impossible to save enough money to get through college within 10 years. So if what you've got is the best you're probably going to get, and you still have the dream of the nice family with the nice home, you might settle for just kids at the moment, or what have you. Really? Where is it you live, because that is a one in a million opportunity. Many people are forced to join the military for a deal that is not even half of that. Do you have your own place and pay for your own utilities? If so, you will be very lucky to get the money to get through college within 10 years, unless you managed to get a job for more than roughly 20,000 a year (that's about 10 dollars an hour) or you are married and your spouse is working as well, and you're both making over 10 dollars an hour working full time. This is not an issue of kids being lazy, this is an issue of kids needing to work fresh out of high school (or drop out of highschool) to survive, and because of the low wage job they have the education for, never getting the money and time to get a higher education. Even if college gets paid for, the other bills don't stop coming.
Not all kids are so responsible to have a job. I know two people who are over 20, they are engaged and live with the "in-laws", they mooch off of their parent's and don't pay for a single thing. Neither of them have money of their own because neither of them have jobs. That pisses me off. I've had a job since I was 15. And I just lost where I was going with that O.o Good job me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:36 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain. Right, but many people don't think they can get to college- Living paycheck to paycheck on even double minimum wage makes it nearly impossible to save enough money to get through college within 10 years. So if what you've got is the best you're probably going to get, and you still have the dream of the nice family with the nice home, you might settle for just kids at the moment, or what have you. Really? Where is it you live, because that is a one in a million opportunity. Many people are forced to join the military for a deal that is not even half of that. Do you have your own place and pay for your own utilities? If so, you will be very lucky to get the money to get through college within 10 years, unless you managed to get a job for more than roughly 20,000 a year (that's about 10 dollars an hour) or you are married and your spouse is working as well, and you're both making over 10 dollars an hour working full time. This is not an issue of kids being lazy, this is an issue of kids needing to work fresh out of high school (or drop out of highschool) to survive, and because of the low wage job they have the education for, never getting the money and time to get a higher education. Even if college gets paid for, the other bills don't stop coming.
Not all kids are so responsible to have a job. I know two people who are over 20, they are engaged and live with the "in-laws", they mooch off of their parent's and don't pay for a single thing. Neither of them have money of their own because neither of them have jobs. That pisses me off. I've had a job since I was 15. And I just lost where I was going with that O.o Good job meWhoever you work for has a nice deal. Again, even the military isn't that good. You got lucky. Most people don't get that kind of treatment. What I'm saying is, imagine getting to college without that free ride from your work- Imagine just surviving if you didn't have those safety nets. It's terrifying, and many people can never escape. I believe the point I was making is that we see a whole lot of factors based heavily on how our economic system works, and how hard it is for the workers to survive. I think I was arguing (It's been a while) that people who are poor will have sex for dumb reasons (due to lack of education, hoping for a child who will help work or what have you, for tradition which is strong in lower income families [they need something to hold on to] things of the likes), thereby increasing the population in low income situations. Since this economic squeeze exists because of our economic system, our economic system is the problem. It is a force larger than people just bumping uglies. And Paris Hilton got a free ride. I'm not talking about the upper class, or even the middle class. I'm talking that millions of people who live in low income situations, with large families, scraping by on what they can. They exist, and the problem stems from how our economic system pushes them into this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
