|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:55 pm
Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:47 pm
Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. I guess I disagree...entirly. Both with the life support, and their being a diffrence between a fetus and a baby. The only diffrence between a viable fetus and a baby is location, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:55 pm
Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. But why should someone (a fetus) suffer and be punished with death when it can't help it that they have to be dependent on someones body? It doesn't have a choice about beening dependent on someone. Please give a real good reason why and how it justify abortion, not just "because it's the womans body". (sorry this is just for debate, i'm not trying to be rude or anything)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:52 pm
Tiger of the Fire Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. I guess I disagree...entirly. Both with the life support, and their being a diffrence between a fetus and a baby. The only diffrence between a viable fetus and a baby is location, nothing more. And because of that location, the fetus is dependent on a person's body instead of being indirectly dependent on the person's actions.
That difference in views on fetus vs baby is what makes one of us pro-life and the other pro-choice. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:57 pm
sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. But why should someone (a fetus) suffer and be punished with death when it can't help it that they have to be dependent on someones body? It doesn't have a choice about beening dependent on someone. Please give a real good reason why and how it justify abortion, not just "because it's the womans body". (sorry this is just for debate, i'm not trying to be rude or anything) Please give a good reason to justify making a woman relinquish her body, not just that an underdeveloped organism won't get to develop all the way.
You don't view "the woman's body" argument as a good enough reason; that's why you're pro-life. I don't view the "it deserves life" argument as good enough; that's why I'm pro-choice.
But really, those are the backbones of each side. Saying you want a better reason isn't going to produce a better reason. All arguments from either side can be tied or traced to both of those ideas. (At least all of the ones I've heard. Can someone present one that can't?)
I know, no harm. biggrin I'm not trying to be mean either, so sorry if I sound it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:50 pm
Looking at it time-wise, the woman sacrafices 9 months, 6 of which she will notice, while on the converse, the fetus sacrafices up to 90 years of life. I see the 90 years of experiences as more important, and worth the while of the few months of difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:29 pm
Tyshia2 sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. But why should someone (a fetus) suffer and be punished with death when it can't help it that they have to be dependent on someones body? It doesn't have a choice about beening dependent on someone. Please give a real good reason why and how it justify abortion, not just "because it's the womans body". (sorry this is just for debate, i'm not trying to be rude or anything) Please give a good reason to justify making a woman relinquish her body, not just that an underdeveloped organism won't get to develop all the way.
You don't view "the woman's body" argument as a good enough reason; that's why you're pro-life. I don't view the "it deserves life" argument as good enough; that's why I'm pro-choice.
But really, those are the backbones of each side. Saying you want a better reason isn't going to produce a better reason. All arguments from either side can be tied or traced to both of those ideas. (At least all of the ones I've heard. Can someone present one that can't?)
I know, no harm. biggrin I'm not trying to be mean either, so sorry if I sound it. Because it's an innocent living being and aborting will being taking it's life away for good (now I believe is a very good reason). I think putting up with nine months of possible discomfert and complications is worth it if the unborn child is able to actually life and to live a healthy life as well. Live and death situation is different but if the mother and child are both healthy then why abort it? So why should it suffer cause it was temperarly using her body (I don't anyone really answeared that yet)? All human life starts out as a fetus (well zyogates or whatever, then embryos and then a fetus but you get the point). We can't have rights if we weren't alive and born first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:05 pm
sachiko_sohma Because it's an innocent living being and aborting will being taking it's life away for good (now I believe is a very good reason). I think putting up with nine months of possible discomfert and complications is worth it if the unborn child is able to actually life and to live a healthy life as well. Live and death situation is different but if the mother and child are both healthy then why abort it? Life is uncertain, that unborn human might have lived to be 120 years old or it might have been miscarried two days later. Sorry, I'm a bit apathetic at the moment. My aunt, who is just about the nicest person I've ever met, is dying of cancer in a hospice in Delaware, too sick to even travel back to her home. Life isn't fair, and death always is horrible. sachiko_sohma So why should it suffer cause it was temperarly using her body? Because it's her body. Because, even though you might believe her reasons to be selfish, even though the "trade off" might not seem fair, it is her body and her life. You might not like the argument, but that is the reason. sachiko_sohma All human life starts out as a fetus (well zyogates or whatever, then embryos and then a fetus but you get the point). We can't have rights if we weren't alive and born first. I think fertilized ovum come a few seconds before zygotes, and really there are the particular sperm and egg that could be considered the start of one's life (since they are going to be one's genetic sequence). But at that point one can get all philosophical, and start talking about one's parents and their parents, all the way back to the first humans. *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:45 am
WatersMoon110 sachiko_sohma Because it's an innocent living being and aborting will being taking it's life away for good (now I believe is a very good reason). I think putting up with nine months of possible discomfert and complications is worth it if the unborn child is able to actually life and to live a healthy life as well. Live and death situation is different but if the mother and child are both healthy then why abort it? Life is uncertain, that unborn human might have lived to be 120 years old or it might have been miscarried two days later. Sorry, I'm a bit apathetic at the moment. My aunt, who is just about the nicest person I've ever met, is dying of cancer in a hospice in Delaware, too sick to even travel back to her home. Life isn't fair, and death always is horrible. sachiko_sohma So why should it suffer cause it was temperarly using her body? Because it's her body. Because, even though you might believe her reasons to be selfish, even though the "trade off" might not seem fair, it is her body and her life. You might not like the argument, but that is the reason. sachiko_sohma All human life starts out as a fetus (well zyogates or whatever, then embryos and then a fetus but you get the point). We can't have rights if we weren't alive and born first. I think fertilized ovum come a few seconds before zygotes, and really there are the particular sperm and egg that could be considered the start of one's life (since they are going to be one's genetic sequence). But at that point one can get all philosophical, and start talking about one's parents and their parents, all the way back to the first humans. *grin* Yes, life IS uncertain. But if this is an excuse to end a life, why not legalize murder too? If they could jsut as easily be run down by a bus tomorrow, why not legalize shooting them today? Agruing that the fetus could die anyway is a larger example of arguing from potential than the fact that in 9 months the fetus will be a born human. Statistically speaking, most feti are born, unless acted upon by an outside source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:29 pm
divineseraph Agruing that the fetus could die anyway is a larger example of arguing from potential than the fact that in 9 months the fetus will be a born human. Everyone dies. Why bother letting anyone live? Because...life can be fun. If someone came at you with a knife, you'd try to get away. You wouldn't be weighing the possibility of being raped tomorrow, having your partner leave you or sitting in wet paint. Likewise, we don't say to people "Man, you have a 30% risk of dying from a painful heart attack. Why don't I just do you a favour and end it quickly with this .44?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:24 pm
divineseraph WatersMoon110 sachiko_sohma Because it's an innocent living being and aborting will being taking it's life away for good (now I believe is a very good reason). I think putting up with nine months of possible discomfert and complications is worth it if the unborn child is able to actually life and to live a healthy life as well. Live and death situation is different but if the mother and child are both healthy then why abort it? Life is uncertain, that unborn human might have lived to be 120 years old or it might have been miscarried two days later. Sorry, I'm a bit apathetic at the moment. My aunt, who is just about the nicest person I've ever met, is dying of cancer in a hospice in Delaware, too sick to even travel back to her home. Life isn't fair, and death always is horrible. sachiko_sohma So why should it suffer cause it was temperarly using her body? Because it's her body. Because, even though you might believe her reasons to be selfish, even though the "trade off" might not seem fair, it is her body and her life. You might not like the argument, but that is the reason. sachiko_sohma All human life starts out as a fetus (well zyogates or whatever, then embryos and then a fetus but you get the point). We can't have rights if we weren't alive and born first. I think fertilized ovum come a few seconds before zygotes, and really there are the particular sperm and egg that could be considered the start of one's life (since they are going to be one's genetic sequence). But at that point one can get all philosophical, and start talking about one's parents and their parents, all the way back to the first humans. *grin* Yes, life IS uncertain. But if this is an excuse to end a life, why not legalize murder too? If they could jsut as easily be run down by a bus tomorrow, why not legalize shooting them today? Agruing that the fetus could die anyway is a larger example of arguing from potential than the fact that in 9 months the fetus will be a born human. Statistically speaking, most feti are born, unless acted upon by an outside source. Except you completely ignore the whole "it's in her body" part of that post. There is a difference between murdering a viable, separate, born person and aborting an unborn human, even if you happen to believe that both are unethical things that should be avoided. Look, we can continually go around in circles (with, "her body" versus "death of unborn human"), or you can just admit to knowing that murder is different than abortion because murder victims aren't living in the body of the murderer. And I will admit to knowing that both murder and abortion end a human life, most of the time for reasons that many people don't believe justified, and often because of situations that could have been avoided or dealt with better. Deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:09 am
Yes, it is different. But I never called it murder, I called it killing. And although murder is wrong, killing is also wrong. be the victim born and 20 years old or still in the womb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:30 am
divineseraph Yes, it is different. But I never called it murder, I called it killing. You said "why don't we make murder legal too" which at least implies that abortion and murder are comparable (which they are, in many, but not all, ways). divineseraph And although murder is wrong, killing is also wrong. be the victim born and 20 years old or still in the womb. I think I can, mostly, see and understand your perspective on this (that no human should have the right to kill another human, unless there really is no other option). But I do feel that there is more involved in this than just "right" and "wrong". I guess that's why I'm still Pro-Choice, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:30 am
divineseraph Yes, it is different. But I never called it murder, I called it killing. And although murder is wrong, killing is also wrong. be the victim born and 20 years old or still in the womb. Killing can sometimes be good and necessary.
Murder is always wrong, but with killing it depends on the cricumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:34 am
sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. It's not that I don't understand your comparisson or that I don't want to. I understand it and the reasoning behind it perfectly. But it's not close enough to abortion to be comparable in the way you're trying to compare it.
A main issue in abortion is bodily domain, and the fetus is not just relying on another person's actions to survive, it's relying on their body. A body is entriely different from a life-support machine. They are in no way comparable in regards to abortion vs someone on life-support.
Someone can be dependent on another person, but not dependent on their body. That's your example.
A fetus however cannot be dependent on someone and not their body. (Before you say it, a viable fetus doesn't count because it's still in the womb and thus still a fetus, and a premie doesn't count because it's already born and thus no longer a fetus.)
Everyone is dependent on another person in some way or another. But just being dependent on another is not anywhere near the same as being dependent on their body. But why should someone (a fetus) suffer and be punished with death when it can't help it that they have to be dependent on someones body? It doesn't have a choice about beening dependent on someone. Please give a real good reason why and how it justify abortion, not just "because it's the womans body". (sorry this is just for debate, i'm not trying to be rude or anything) Please give a good reason to justify making a woman relinquish her body, not just that an underdeveloped organism won't get to develop all the way.
You don't view "the woman's body" argument as a good enough reason; that's why you're pro-life. I don't view the "it deserves life" argument as good enough; that's why I'm pro-choice.
But really, those are the backbones of each side. Saying you want a better reason isn't going to produce a better reason. All arguments from either side can be tied or traced to both of those ideas. (At least all of the ones I've heard. Can someone present one that can't?)
I know, no harm. biggrin I'm not trying to be mean either, so sorry if I sound it. Because it's an innocent living being and aborting will being taking it's life away for good (now I believe is a very good reason). I think putting up with nine months of possible discomfert and complications is worth it if the unborn child is able to actually life and to live a healthy life as well. Live and death situation is different but if the mother and child are both healthy then why abort it? So why should it suffer cause it was temperarly using her body (I don't anyone really answeared that yet)? All human life starts out as a fetus (well zyogates or whatever, then embryos and then a fetus but you get the point). We can't have rights if we weren't alive and born first. That still comes from the "it deserves life" arguement. I don't believe that's a very good reason. I believe the woman's "rights/body/choice" arguement is a very good reason.
What now? The debate isn't going to go anywhere. All we've each basically said now is, "Your side sucks. I'm right, you're wrong. The end."
It won't suffer. It physically can't suffer.
Why should the woman, who can suffer and is suffering, continue to suffer and possibly suffer well into the future for the sake of an underdeveloped organism merely because that organism is comprised of human cells and DNA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
