|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:18 pm
Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:22 pm
sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. Glad you decided to join ^^. They don't have any right to decide the fate of another human being, which technically a fetus is. They speak out to us as if we were trying to control their bodies, but in fact they are turning around and doing the same thing to a fetus. Which is a more serious case? Invasion or killing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:31 pm
Master Kaiser sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. Glad you decided to join ^^. They don't have any right to decide the fate of another human being, which technically a fetus is. They speak out to us as if we were trying to control their bodies, but in fact they are turning around and doing the same thing to a fetus. Which is a more serious case? Invasion or killing? Thanks ^^ sounds hypocritcal to say that we're dictating them when like you said their doing the same. Killing is alot more serious. Yes they have a choice, but most think abortion is the only option when it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:41 pm
it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:53 pm
ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them.
It's not ABOUT her bodily conditions, it's about another person's life.
2 people's lives are based on the decision of one other person.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And abortion is NOT about women's rights. That's simply IT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:00 pm
Mcphee ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them.
It's not ABOUT her bodily conditions, it's about another person's life.
2 people's lives are based on the decision of one other person.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And abortion is NOT about women's rights. That's simply IT.It's about control, really. But no the fetus is not taking away the mother's nutrients. It is sucking away at the plants nutrients, and the animals nutrients which she took from them. So really, she isn't lossing anything, because she didn't provide the nourishment in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:44 am
ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them. I'm lookin gat it form your point of view. The mother has to do whats right to see that she stays in top physicle health...but, even lookign at it that way, it sound selfish, and like your saying pregancy is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:15 pm
ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them. Aborting it when your both fairly healthly is not making sure her bodily conditions are good, it's just that she don't want it and that to me is selfish. Now if her and the baby/fetus really were indanger then that is understandable but people don't die as often now and day like they did in the past. Sure it happens but I have some people say " every pregnancy has a risk so it's o.k. for them to abort". Yes there is a risk just like a risk of getting killed in a car accident every time you drive ( which happens alot more then someone dying which giving birth) but that doesn't it anything will happen either. There is just potental of something happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:49 am
ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:06 pm
the problem is...they don't view a fetus as a human being, but as, a fetus, a "feelingless organ". i must say, hell will not be hot enough for whoever told them that.
nero
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:30 pm
nero128 the problem is...they don't view a fetus as a human being, but as, a fetus, a "feelingless organ". i must say, hell will not be hot enough for whoever told them that. nero Actually they call it a lump of feelingless tissue...
but close enough lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:59 pm
nero128 the problem is...they don't view a fetus as a human being, but as, a fetus, a "feelingless organ". i must say, hell will not be hot enough for whoever told them that. nero Or big enough for all those people. If there was one, but since souls can't feel any pain I think that was mostly in peoples heads. I think earth is heaven or hell. Anyways I don't care if they can't feel right away or not that doesn't mean you should kill them but they just don't care, most admit that they care only about themselfs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:28 am
Beware the Jabberwock ka tana-bozu it's the mother's right because it's inside her, it sucks at her, it absorbs her food, if she wasn't alive it wouldn't be alive. the mother has the right to make sure her bodily conditions are good by doing what means nessecary to keep them. Hell, I'd be fine. Humanity does enough damage to the earth, it would deserve the chance to harm us. And Kais, you know that even though it's the PLANT'S nurishment and the OTHER animal's nurishment that you would die without it. So the idea of the fetus absorbing the food is the fact that what you take it would first go to the fetus and then to the woman. Yet another reason we need artificial wombs... I don't feel like spending nine months eating and sleeping (I eat 5 to 7 times already and I'm not pregnant... and I sleep 8 hours already not pregnant yet at times will STILL be exhausted. So that really isn't too far of a strech for me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:08 am
Actually, someone in the ED thread said, that pregnancy kills more often than AIDS. Which was a tad silly, I think. What is your opinion on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![]Kaiser['s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/45/d1/499e0b0716d145_flip.png?t=1230584771_6.00_00)
