|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 7:42 pm
SLED:
Size (also known as sentience)
Level of Development
Evirement
Degree of Dependancy.
The four most common ways the pro-choice use to justify a fetus's non-personess. I'm about to go "Muy loco" on them, so please sit by and relax.
Size:
Lemme tell you a story about a beautiful painting called las Meinas. I believe the artist's name is Vasquez, and it is a painting, of Vasquez, painting the King and Queen of Spain I believe. It's beautiful, Picaso even did his own redition of the paiting. But anyone who takes a good look in it, might be confused. They'll see alot of things. They'll notice how the princess is in the front, the center of attention, the most ornate, she is not the subject. Or perhaps the shady character in the back standing in the doorway. Merely the butler. Only a careful observant will see the mirror in the back with the reflection of the King and Queen in it, and then you will know what this picture depicts. But upon further inspection, in the bottom right half of the portrait you will notice a "little person", or a person who has dwarfism. And you'll ask, as beautiful a paiting this was, what is the purpose of the person being put there? Was it a random act? No. It was not. "Little people" who I shall refer to as such for their own preference were usually killed upon birth. Why? Their size. In addition, they also began to look "deformed" as they grew, and back then, that was all the reason you needed to kill someone. As a result, you didn't see many people with the disease (is it even that?). But how did the young person make it into the portrait? The only way she could have been able to, she was allowed to live for the sake of befriending the princess, and instilling her with wisdom and insight no other play mate could.
Quite sad how that poor woman would have been killed any way else.
Size, moot. Why?
I fail to see how a five foot person and how a four foot person are any different. Sure perhaps one is a better basketball candidate, but what does that boast? Tell me, how does that possibly justify anything? Spiders. So small, so tiny. So insignificant. Right? Wrong. If not for those amazing aracnids the world would be covered in pestilence. If the world was viewed by an observer from space it would look black, perhaps even the ocean. The is the contrabution of a spider.
Or perhaps other seemingly "insignificant" things. Like mice and rats. Who would have known these annoying pests would wipe out a third of the world's population in a dark history of the Earth? Or maybe you've failed to realise how it takes a single cytochrome to attach to a poisonous body in your kidney, hydroxalyzing it, ultimately purifying you of disease and poison.
Yes size is so moot. Because it really boasts so much for itself. Jesus was a fetus. Einstein was a fetus. As was evil, for so to was Hitler, and Nero, and Stalin, and the guy who made the first projectile weapon. Size really doesn't matter, or so the Authur episode told me... (D.W. had to crawl into a pipe organ and get out the Bride's ring, why do I remember that?)
Level of Development.
How can something that cannot even think or survive outside the womb be allowed to be equal to I you ask? Well, holier then though no more!
Sentience. Why does it matter? Why just today in ED I met a young men, I infer him to be that I suppose, and he said we spoke American, and that English isn't important anymore, and went to talk in whatever horrible manner he was.
This man could think, not at all well though. In fact, his opinion really is moot in that case. Any well educated person knows communication is a deleicate process that takes a delicate instrument, speech. And if we destroy that how do we speak? How can I possibly tell you what Josh and William made last night underneath the alcove, if I can't even define that they both did it, where, what time, what tense, and subject verb agreement? Speech would be impossible. Agree, ok, you do? (Me using the auto-translation in FFXI : ???)
To no one who has experienced anything. You pose the question "to be or not to be" and they have the ablility to think for that once question. What will they pick? Nothingness? Or existence? And when asked for a definition the man will tell the child "Nothingness is just that, you will go into darkness, and never see life, while in life you will experience, joy, pain, sorrow, anger, love, and success. Which one do you choose?" Are you to tell me that a fetus would continue with nothigness? That seems highly absurd. Have you heard the women (and i'm pretty sure that they're all woman) who have survived abortion? All pro-life. All very sad about the decision their mother made.
While the cat is away, the mice are left to play. That is what I think of when I hear sentience. He won't know it, might as well do it while their in that stage. What you doesn't know doesn't hurt you right? What about a plan to kill your life? Answer that one.
Now, Development itself. Once again, you try to tell me that a four year old is great then a nine year old. Please do. Okay maybe one has boobies (you can giggle now, c'mon...) but do those milk bearing modules really mean one is better then the other? What are you to tell me next? The guy with the bigger male endowment is better? Wait don't answer that one...
That to is completely absurd. Development is a fact of life. Not something we can go around using to our advantage. You cannot conceieve children when you are born. You cannot speak (you can't think or remember, another reason why sentience is irrelevant), cannot walk, may even not be able to see in color! ANIMALS can walk hours after their born. They can communicate, think, and remember. So I suppose if it's Infant vs. Fawn, we know who's the favorite in this match!
Envirement.
Enter Cindy Maze. A quiet, loving child who grew up in a nowhere town, in Somewhere's Ville South of Canada. On her merry way to school a car comes down the road. Rather then slow it down she happily steps aside on to Mr. Smith's yard. There she is shot on contact. When later asked of these events Mr. Smith says "She was on my property! You can't be on my property and expect to live!". But sir, did you and your wife said she is welcome any time? "Hell no! I said she's welcome for my wife's cookies, not to go steppin on my lawn!"
And so rests Cindy Maze.
And her personhood was shredded to bits by stepping on that line. Tsk, tsk. What a sad story. Those poor blades of grass, they must be in so much pain, surely Cindy deserved his death?
Envirement, location, moot. I cannot cross from one town to another and still hope to be a person? I mean sure, the whole "Area 51 don't cross" is a matter of national security. They don't hate you, they just love the country. But Cindy, what had she done? This argument is moot. Pregnancy is natural. Be it painful or not. Breasts are painful, so i've heard, are you going to remove those when it gets a little pinchy up their?
The fact no human being is deworthed by their position makes this argument less then anything. It's unreasonable, insane, and just wrong. The fetus is techinically just plain strange. It isn't even standing, it's submerged in fluids, not even fully awake. In fact... the fetus was brought, their, against it's will. Tally-ho, now who's the victim and who's the victimizer?
Degree of Dependacy.
If you're using a computer, STOP. Someone else made it. If you're eating, STOP someone else grew it, deemed it edible, and shipped it. Like to draw? STOP. Paper came from some tree you didn't grow, take care of, cut down, and then refined into paper. That photo album, BURN IT. Not your camera, didn't make it. In fact those objects are made because you buy them. So they should STOP because they're depending on you.
Crazee! The fetus needs nutrients (nutrients there just for itself as well... research, tocopherol). Big whoop. So do you. You might also need medication, made by a doctor. Oh no's! Your life, in the hands of... dare I say it... ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?! GASP! That man works over hours to see to it you don't die. He is stressed, maybe even underpaid, so you can go on living your greedy, uneeded life. The pain! Should he kill you? *ponder ponder*
Face it. Moot, moot, moot. We depend on others all the time! Not even phyiscally, mentally, emotionally, even spiritually! Without other human beings we'd die. You couldn't fend for yourself. So you're an eagle scout, a CIA agent. You're taught survival basics. You couldn't live years out there. Your life. You'd have no will to go on. All you've known, the material joy, gone. Can you bear the pain? The weight? Everything you use, things you speak of, all byproducts of humans. Your life is a net of dependancy. You'd die. And now you kill that innocent child because you are it's "God" and it need you to live? Take a good look in the mirror, you're so alike, it isn't even funny.
What a lovely fourty minutes of my life. I'm guessing this is a ten minute read. Maybe a little longer?
No-nos: Flames, stating your own opinion about personhood (not the issue here), sarcasm, quoting the whole first post, posting strange latin phrases without proper definition, saying i'm wrong (oh golly i've contradicted myself! Eh ignore that one)
Yes please: Compliments. Well thought out rebuttals, Grammer tweaks and fact correction. Focusing on the entire post rather then just parts you deem worthy.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:02 pm
As far as the dependency thing goes ...
If you take away my computer, I won't be dead in 10 minutes.
If you drop me out in the woods, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. Hell, if you dropped me in the California woods that I actually know, I could live for weeks. *actually has survival skills*
But if you take an embryo out of its mother's womb, it'll be dead in 10 minutes. It cannot breathe, metabolize, or even shield against the elements (read: oxygen is corrosive to body-bits not protected by skin). That is true dependence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:05 pm
ReiDuck As far as the dependency thing goes ... If you take away my computer, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. If you drop me out in the woods, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. Hell, if you dropped me in the California woods that I actually know, I could live for weeks. *actually has survival skills* But if you take an embryo out of its mother's womb, it'll be dead in 10 minutes. It cannot breathe, metabolize, or even shield against the elements (read: oxygen is corrosive to body-bits not protected by skin). That is true dependence. How long do you think you can go without protein? Can you sharpen a tool that is forged from materials in the forest? Can you manage to kill an animal, skin it, and cook the meat well enough so you don't die? The argument is not geared to life dependency, although that is where the medicine part comes in, it's just how little of your life you actually make for yourself (in terms of material objects).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:14 pm
kp606 ReiDuck As far as the dependency thing goes ... If you take away my computer, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. If you drop me out in the woods, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. Hell, if you dropped me in the California woods that I actually know, I could live for weeks. *actually has survival skills* But if you take an embryo out of its mother's womb, it'll be dead in 10 minutes. It cannot breathe, metabolize, or even shield against the elements (read: oxygen is corrosive to body-bits not protected by skin). That is true dependence. How long do you think you can go without protein? Can you sharpen a tool that is forged from materials in the forest? Can you manage to kill an animal, skin it, and cook the meat well enough so you don't die? The argument is not geared to life dependency, although that is where the medicine part comes in, it's just how little of your life you actually make for yourself (in terms of material objects). I've already made excellent spearheads out of deer bones. You can find deer bones really easily, if you know how to follow the mountain lion tracks to their feeding grounds. I've skinned animals in bio class and I don't see why a warm one should be any different; if I'm hungry enough, I'll do anything. Although I could probably hold off the worst of it for several weeks via my knowledge of edible plants while I honed my hunting skills at trapmaking skills. I don't *have* to make everything for myself, but I am fully capable of acquiring said skills. I'm not talking about long-term survival, in which skill is necessary; I am talking about short-term survival, in which your own body must be able to maintain homeostasis. I can maintain homeostasis. Remove me from my environment and my body will continue to metabolize, continue to maintain body temperature and pH, continue to process air. A self-sufficient creature can maintain homeostasis. An undeveloped creature cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:23 pm
ReiDuck kp606 ReiDuck As far as the dependency thing goes ... If you take away my computer, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. If you drop me out in the woods, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. Hell, if you dropped me in the California woods that I actually know, I could live for weeks. *actually has survival skills* But if you take an embryo out of its mother's womb, it'll be dead in 10 minutes. It cannot breathe, metabolize, or even shield against the elements (read: oxygen is corrosive to body-bits not protected by skin). That is true dependence. How long do you think you can go without protein? Can you sharpen a tool that is forged from materials in the forest? Can you manage to kill an animal, skin it, and cook the meat well enough so you don't die? The argument is not geared to life dependency, although that is where the medicine part comes in, it's just how little of your life you actually make for yourself (in terms of material objects). I've already made excellent spearheads out of deer bones. You can find deer bones really easily, if you know how to follow the mountain lion tracks to their feeding grounds. I've skinned animals in bio class and I don't see why a warm one should be any different; if I'm hungry enough, I'll do anything. Although I could probably hold off the worst of it for several weeks via my knowledge of edible plants while I honed my hunting skills at trapmaking skills. I don't *have* to make everything for myself, but I am fully capable of acquiring said skills. I'm not talking about long-term survival, in which skill is necessary; I am talking about short-term survival, in which your own body must be able to maintain homeostasis. I can maintain homeostasis. Remove me from my environment and my body will continue to metabolize, continue to maintain body temperature and pH, continue to process air. A self-sufficient creature can maintain homeostasis. An undeveloped creature cannot. Starting from the bottom: a fetus is undevoloped in comparison. Not to itself. Think of the equation 1/1. A blastocyte is 1/1. A fetus is 2/2. An infant is 4/4. Are you getting the idea now? If the fetus didn't maintain homeostasis, it would die, plain and simple. Small cells have homeostasis. The surivival point: that's you though. Can you talk for everyone else? With that, I wish you luck, finding, catching, and killing a deer. I wish you luck deeming what is healthy enough to eat or not. And I wish you luck with EVERYTHING else that comes with surviving in the wilderness. Let's also not forget that humans have far past urbanized themselves. Have we evolved under our own noses? Maybe surviving in the wilderness isn't as possible as we'd think it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:29 pm
kp606 ReiDuck kp606 ReiDuck As far as the dependency thing goes ... If you take away my computer, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. If you drop me out in the woods, I won't be dead in 10 minutes. Hell, if you dropped me in the California woods that I actually know, I could live for weeks. *actually has survival skills* But if you take an embryo out of its mother's womb, it'll be dead in 10 minutes. It cannot breathe, metabolize, or even shield against the elements (read: oxygen is corrosive to body-bits not protected by skin). That is true dependence. How long do you think you can go without protein? Can you sharpen a tool that is forged from materials in the forest? Can you manage to kill an animal, skin it, and cook the meat well enough so you don't die? The argument is not geared to life dependency, although that is where the medicine part comes in, it's just how little of your life you actually make for yourself (in terms of material objects). I've already made excellent spearheads out of deer bones. You can find deer bones really easily, if you know how to follow the mountain lion tracks to their feeding grounds. I've skinned animals in bio class and I don't see why a warm one should be any different; if I'm hungry enough, I'll do anything. Although I could probably hold off the worst of it for several weeks via my knowledge of edible plants while I honed my hunting skills at trapmaking skills. I don't *have* to make everything for myself, but I am fully capable of acquiring said skills. I'm not talking about long-term survival, in which skill is necessary; I am talking about short-term survival, in which your own body must be able to maintain homeostasis. I can maintain homeostasis. Remove me from my environment and my body will continue to metabolize, continue to maintain body temperature and pH, continue to process air. A self-sufficient creature can maintain homeostasis. An undeveloped creature cannot. Starting from the bottom: a fetus is undevoloped in comparison. Not to itself. Think of the equation 1/1. A blastocyte is 1/1. A fetus is 2/2. An infant is 4/4. Are you getting the idea now? If the fetus didn't maintain homeostasis, it would die, plain and simple. Small cells have homeostasis. The surivival point: that's you though. Can you talk for everyone else? With that, I wish you luck, finding, catching, and killing a deer. I wish you luck deeming what is healthy enough to eat or not. And I wish you luck with EVERYTHING else that comes with surviving in the wilderness. Let's also not forget that humans have far past urbanized themselves. Have we evolved under our own noses? Maybe surviving in the wilderness isn't as possible as we'd think it to be. The embryo (not fetus) does not maintain homeostasis. The womb maintains homeostasis for the embryo. The embryo cannot control its body heat, it cannot breathe, it cannot process nutrients, etc. All must come from the mother. By the time the fetus can maintain homeostasis, that's something around the 7th month, at which point abortions are illegal in case of medical emergency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 11:30 pm
kp606 The four most common ways the pro-choice use to justify a fetus's non-personess. I'm about to go "Muy loco" on them, so please sit by and relax. Funness. Well, size is also pretty irrelevant to me. I only really see fit to bring it into the equation when others start throwing around innacurate pictures and stats. Quote: Level of Development. How can something that cannot even think or survive outside the womb be allowed to be equal to I you ask? Well, holier then though no more! hrmm. Quote: Sentience. Why does it matter? Because it is the one single trait that seperates humanity above the rest. I'm sure you're not going to go on to argue that all meat consumption and use of plant products should cease. If "sentience" is not one of the qualites of being a person, then what qualities do you suppose we use? moving on... Quote: Why just today in ED I met a young men, I infer him to be that I suppose, and he said we spoke American, and that English isn't important anymore, and went to talk in whatever horrible manner he was. This man could think, not at all well though. In fact, his opinion really is moot in that case. Any well educated person knows communication is a deleicate process that takes a delicate instrument, speech. And if we destroy that how do we speak? How can I possibly tell you what Josh and William made last night underneath the alcove, if I can't even define that they both did it, where, what time, what tense, and subject verb agreement? Speech would be impossible. Agree, ok, you do? (Me using the auto-translation in FFXI : ???) Do you know when you put a bunch of deaf children together and don't teach them anything, they develop their own sign language to communicate? This phenomena has been studied in those countries which lack the resources to deal with these children and just segregate them together. Quote: To no one who has experienced anything. You pose the question "to be or not to be" and they have the ablility to think for that once question. What will they pick? Nothingness? Or existence? And when asked for a definition the man will tell the child "Nothingness is just that, you will go into darkness, and never see life, while in life you will experience, joy, pain, sorrow, anger, love, and success. Which one do you choose?" Are you to tell me that a fetus would continue with nothigness? I would certainly choose to continue nothingness. The correct question would be more like. "to be or not to be... If you choose not to be, then everything you percieve will simply continue to be the same as it is now. If you choose to be, you may have a chance to experience more things (which the fetus couldn't possibly comprehend anyway), but the being you reside in will be put through enormous pain and suffering, and perhaps be left scarred for life" Designing polls, kp, It's all in phrasing the query to get the desired response. And since there is really no neutral way to pose this specific quesion, and since it is entirely moot at any rate, I vote we drop the issue. Quote: That seems highly absurd. Have you heard the women (and i'm pretty sure that they're all woman) who have survived abortion? All pro-life. All very sad about the decision their mother made. ... Yeah, because most of these women lead difficult lives from horrible debilitating disabilities from the botched abortions. Try asking a malpractice survivor what they think of the procedure that maimed them. I'm sure you'll get very positive opinions. Quote: While the cat is away, the mice are left to play. That is what I think of when I hear sentience. He won't know it, might as well do it while their in that stage. What you doesn't know doesn't hurt you right? What about a plan to kill your life? Answer that one. A plot to kill me, hmm...? Quote: Now, Development itself. Once again, you try to tell me that a four year old is great then a nine year old. Please do. Okay maybe one has boobies (you can giggle now, c'mon...) but do those milk bearing modules really mean one is better then the other? What are you to tell me next? The guy with the bigger male endowment is better? Wait don't answer that one... Again, in my mind, you've torpedoed yourself with the analogy. [difference in development between 4years and 9years] Is vastly, vastly, vastly inferior to [difference in development between conception and birth] Quote: That to is completely absurd. Development is a fact of life. Not something we can go around using to our advantage. You cannot conceieve children when you are born. You cannot speak (you can't think or remember, another reason why sentience is irrelevant), cannot walk, may even not be able to see in color! ANIMALS can walk hours after their born. They can communicate, think, and remember. So I suppose if it's Infant vs. Fawn, we know who's the favorite in this match! False information, first of all. Infants are quite able to think and remember. Conditioning experiments have been successfully conducted on infants and memory is essential for conditioning to work. Children can certainly also communicate after they are born. Quite loudly, persistantly, and annoyingly, actually. If you want to tell me a newborn fawn can give the deer equivlent of "What I did on my summer vacation" right after birth, then it's a different story, but human infants can communicate. Quote: Envirement. Enter Cindy Maze. A quiet, loving child who grew up in a nowhere town, in Somewhere's Ville South of Canada. On her merry way to school a car comes down the road. Rather then slow it down she happily steps aside on to Mr. Smith's yard. There she is shot on contact. When later asked of these events Mr. Smith says "She was on my property! You can't be on my property and expect to live!". But sir, did you and your wife said she is welcome any time? "Hell no! I said she's welcome for my wife's cookies, not to go steppin on my lawn!" Once again, Bad Analogy. If a fetus caused a woman as much discomfort during pregnancy and birth as a child does from stepping on someones lawn, then there probably wouldn't even BE an abortion debate. Quote: And so rests Cindy Maze. And her personhood was shredded to bits by stepping on that line. Tsk, tsk. What a sad story. Those poor blades of grass, they must be in so much pain, surely Cindy deserved his death? Cindy was a trannsexual? Quote: Breasts are painful, so i've heard, are you going to remove those when it gets a little pinchy up their? What are you talking about? Breasts are great. I thank God every day that I was born a woman. Seriously. Hours of fun, man. Hours of fun. Quote: The fact no human being is deworthed by their position makes this argument less then anything. It's unreasonable, insane, and just wrong. The fetus is techinically just plain strange. It isn't even standing, it's submerged in fluids, not even fully awake. In fact... the fetus was brought, their, against it's will. Tally-ho, now who's the victim and who's the victimizer? Well, if it was forced into existance against it's will, it should be glad to have that unfortunate condition remedied.' Bottom line on "environment" is, that you can go wherever you damn well please and not deserve to be killed for it, but the inside of someone's body is another story. And speaking of stories, I have a story, too. Poor little Gunther Bo lived in a quaint little town in colorado. One day he was walking down the street, and had to suddenly pee. Instead of waiting to get home he stopped where he was. Suddenly a shot was heard. Poor little Bo fell down dead. The enraged Mrs. Smith was quoted as saying, "His d**k was on my property! You can't be on my property without my permission and hope to live!" Poor little Gunther Bo never did anything wrong, except a little innocent tresspassing. I'm sure the blades of grass weep. Wait... that wasn't how it happed at all. What really happened was that Mrs. Smith was returning from Salsa classes at night, when Gunther Bo dragged her into the bushes of the park and raped her. Luckily Mrs. Smith had a handgun in her purse, and managed to kill Bo, stopping the assault. The shaken Mrs. Smith was quoted as saying, "His d**k was in my body! You can't be in my body without my permission and hope to live!" Poor little Gunther Bo never did anything wrong, except a little innocent tresspassing. (after all, someone's c**t is a location of equal protected status to a front lawn) And so rests Gunther Bo. The angels weep along with the blades of grass over the loss of innocence. Quote: Degree of Dependacy. If you're using a computer, STOP. Someone else made it. If you're eating, STOP someone else grew it, deemed it edible, and shipped it. Like to draw? STOP. Paper came from some tree you didn't grow, take care of, cut down, and then refined into paper. That photo album, BURN IT. Not your camera, didn't make it. In fact those objects are made because you buy them. So they should STOP because they're depending on you. Just... Gah. Intracommunal reliance is once again, many levels below ABJECT dependency. Even a leech can be taken off my skin and suckered onto someone else to live. A fetus cannot. Quote: Crazee! The fetus needs nutrients (nutrients there just for itself as well... research, tocopherol). Big whoop. So do you. I, however, am not compelled to accquire my nutrients from sucking them out of unwilling people. Quote: You might also need medication, made by a doctor. Oh no's! Your life, in the hands of... dare I say it... ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?! GASP! That man works over hours to see to it you don't die. He is stressed, maybe even underpaid, so you can go on living your greedy, uneeded life. The pain! Should he kill you? *ponder ponder* The doctor chose to write me scripts. The farmer chose to grow my food. And they are all being comphensated in kind by my support, and the support of the various institutions which run a well oiled society. I did not choose to give my body to the fetus, and it is not comphensating me for my trouble. We help each other, everyone in society, I mean. It is consesual, and we're not doing it for free. You could even say those people who were supporting me were just supporting there own needs by doing it. Hell, nobody even forces you to support a child if you don't want to. I certainly don't see my birth mother around here anywhere. (unless you are male, and I do not support "child support," ) Quote: Face it. Moot, moot, moot. We depend on others all the time! Not even phyiscally, mentally, emotionally, even spiritually! Without other human beings we'd die. You couldn't fend for yourself. So you're an eagle scout, a CIA agent. You're taught survival basics. You couldn't live years out there. Your life. You'd have no will to go on. All you've known, the material joy, gone. Can you bear the pain? The weight? Everything you use, things you speak of, all byproducts of humans. Your life is a net of dependancy. You'd die. And now you kill that innocent child because you are it's "God" and it need you to live? Take a good look in the mirror, you're so alike, it isn't even funny. I'd die. Sure. I guess I would. But I would not find some hapless schmoe, knock them out, keep them tied up, and drink their blood to survive. I wouldn't do that to someone else. I'm quite different from a fetus. Quote: No-nos: Flames, stating your own opinion about personhood (not the issue here), I think I stayed away from that... Quote: posting strange latin phrases without proper definition, sphereludium nomismate actum. (pinball machine) Golly, I just don't know where to begin.... Quote: Focusing on the entire post rather then just parts you deem worthy. Well, I did compartmentalize most of it, but I think I covered everything. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 1:52 pm
ReiDuck The embryo (not fetus) does not maintain homeostasis. The womb maintains homeostasis for the embryo. The embryo cannot control its body heat, it cannot breathe, it cannot process nutrients, etc. All must come from the mother. That's actually very interesting. But it seems like nothing that important. If someone dropped you off in the Artic, think you'd be around for much longer? We have homeostasis to a point, then, it's just human invention keeping us alive. cactuar tamer Because it is the one single trait that seperates humanity above the rest. I'm sure you're not going to go on to argue that all meat consumption and use of plant products should cease. If "sentience" is not one of the qualites of being a person, then what qualities do you suppose we use? moving on... I'd like to point out that hasn't stopped people before. Young woman scream to their rapist as he carries out his torture on her, and then even kills her later. Yet he disrespects her sentience. The same goes with genocide and eugenics. Why the fact that prejudice exists makes this point very unstable. How does sentience boast anything if people are constantly disreguarding it? Sentience is in itself what brings a woman to have sex, and to have an abortion. It's a double edged sword. It is the cause and the reason. With that being said, it really doesn't mean alot. People disreguard it all the time, and believe they are right. Also, can you take the person out of the human? If that doesn't exist to born humans why do fetal humans have this strange phenomena of "human but not person", that doesn't seem to make anysense. It's unplausible, if it can't happen now why at all? Quote: Do you know when you put a bunch of deaf children together and don't teach them anything, they develop their own sign language to communicate? This phenomena has been studied in those countries which lack the resources to deal with these children and just segregate them together. And if you put a bunch of people on a planet with no language together, they to will deveolop communication. We've seen it before. I'm sure even the death children have a way of doing it, otherwise they'd confuse the hell out of one another. Quote: I would certainly choose to continue nothingness. The correct question would be more like. "to be or not to be... If you choose not to be, then everything you percieve will simply continue to be the same as it is now. If you choose to be, you may have a chance to experience more things (which the fetus couldn't possibly comprehend anyway), but the being you reside in will be put through enormous pain and suffering, and perhaps be left scarred for life" The situation went, if they had enough capacity to understand the question in its fullest. But ask yourself, to cease to know anything, or a chance to know what this phenomena of life is? In my example I cited good and bad, you just cited bad. Bad example. Suffering, pain to. But in life comes many joys. Many. Quote: Designing polls, kp, It's all in phrasing the query to get the desired response. And since there is really no neutral way to pose this specific quesion, and since it is entirely moot at any rate, I vote we drop the issue. The forbidden fruit is tempting. I believe it'd choose life and I think you're dropping it because maybe that's what is true. Perhaps there is nothing more to say on the subject however. Quote: ... Yeah, because most of these women lead difficult lives from horrible debilitating disabilities from the botched abortions. Try asking a malpractice survivor what they think of the procedure that maimed them. I'm sure you'll get very positive opinions. http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/survivors.html Two of the survivors mention no disfunction what so ever. But let's ask this. Holocaust. No we won't even go there. Let's take some random event, like China's birth control laws. To a foreigner good. Less people means less problems. To person in China, mixed. What if Mei wants to have three children? But if you're going to tell me that if you survived an abortion scratch free and would tell your mother "I support your decision to almost have me killed" cactuar I will make sure you get the help you need. Under no circumstance had you done anything wrong (and at that point in your life to tell her, you'd have known it) and the fact she almost killed you. It's enough to want to plot murder. I mean I can see if you murdered your father at age 21 and she wanted to kill you and in the final dramatic scene you said "I understand mother," but this is not even near the situation. Abortion isn't provoked. And to say it is, would be a confliction of ideas. Quote: Again, in my mind, you've torpedoed yourself with the analogy. [difference in development between 4years and 9years] Is vastly, vastly, vastly inferior to [difference in development between conception and birth] It is. The principle is you wouldn't discreminate for deveolpment any other time. Quote: False information, first of all. Infants are quite able to think and remember. Conditioning experiments have been successfully conducted on infants and memory is essential for conditioning to work. Children can certainly also communicate after they are born. Quite loudly, persistantly, and annoyingly, actually. If you want to tell me a newborn fawn can give the deer equivlent of "What I did on my summer vacation" right after birth, then it's a different story, but human infants can communicate. You've drawn the blade the wrong way my dear. Going from that angle, it's proven that infants will actually be able to hear and interpret sounds of a their mother's womb. In addition, conditioning isn't simple. We're all conditioned, as hard as it is to believe. And we can't possibly remember the adverse affects. It's a sign of instinct, not human intelligence, that is the cause of the conditionings success. You could reach for a cookie, and feel a pinch from your mother that means no. You'll never remember those many times it happened, but you'll stutter as you reach for a cookie when you grow older, maybe you'll even feel a tingle in your arm. It's psychological. Instinct doesn't signify higher thought though. A cat has it. A bird has it. A fetus has it. Quote: Once again, Bad Analogy. If a fetus caused a woman as much discomfort during pregnancy and birth as a child does from stepping on someones lawn, then there probably wouldn't even BE an abortion debate. Answer this: you can have an abortion off of disatisfaction with the child. But will you have an abortion with disatisfaction of the pain? Do you know anyone that throws in the towel from the pain? And pain isn't reason alone to kill a human being. I'm looking for more "I can because" rather then "I should because". See what grass does to you? Tsk tsk Cindy Maze! Quote: What are you talking about? Breasts are great. I thank God every day that I was born a woman. Seriously. Hours of fun, man. Hours of fun. I'm jealous now... Actually no I meant when they are developing sweatdrop Quote: Well, if it was forced into existance against it's will, it should be glad to have that unfortunate condition remedied.' When life gives you life get killed? Quote: Bottom line on "environment" is, that you can go wherever you damn well please and not deserve to be killed for it, but the inside of someone's body is another story. Then you really can't go anywhere you please... Quote: Wait... that wasn't how it happed at all. What really happened was that Mrs. Smith was returning from Salsa classes at night, when Gunther Bo dragged her into the bushes of the park and raped her. Luckily Mrs. Smith had a handgun in her purse, and managed to kill Bo, stopping the assault. The shaken Mrs. Smith was quoted as saying, "His d**k was in my body! You can't be in my body without my permission and hope to live!" Poor little Gunther Bo never did anything wrong, except a little innocent tresspassing. (after all, someone's c**t is a location of equal protected status to a front lawn) The first thing I should say is how strange it is for a woman to be using c**t. Whatever rocks your socks, floats your boat, and yeah... See little Gunther was a fully living thinking concious entity. No one askes to be ejaculated. And that's the sad truth. A fetus is brought into existence against it's will "Come," you say (to the child! Ugh, such dirty minded individuals! Children these days... 3nodding ) "come into my womb so that I can blame of you of tresspassing and then have you killed" that is exactly what it is. Mrs. Smith had a right, to do what she needed to secure her safetly from a man who probably was not sane that night. But what any woman does with her child is basically killing someone who even though is not welcome, we pushed into their with no intention of being. Wait isn't it many levels above? It's once again a point to be made. Also, even in abject dependency, think of animals that you need to kill for their parts and food. You can go out their and be wilderness girl all you like, but that isn't today's world. We aren't nomadic, buffalo hunting people anymore. We really do rely on others alot. Quote: I, however, am not compelled to accquire my nutrients from sucking them out of unwilling people. Making my most pompous statement here, I will assume, and stand by the belief, that really doesn't bother you. Do you realize how much enamel of your teeth goes with every can of Coke? Quote: The doctor chose to write me scripts. The farmer chose to grow my food. And they are all being comphensated in kind by my support, and the support of the various institutions which run a well oiled society. I did not choose to give my body to the fetus, and it is not comphensating me for my trouble. The doctor went into that field for the sake of others. The concept of choosing to help others on a case by case basis is completely besides the point. They went to med school, learned their trade to help others. And you need many of them everyday to keep on tickin'. Quote: I'd die. Sure. I guess I would. But I would not find some hapless schmoe, knock them out, keep them tied up, and drink their blood to survive. I wouldn't do that to someone else. I'm quite different from a fetus. Give Titanic a once watch again, please. (Boobies in that movie to!) Quote: sphereludium nomismate actum. (pinball machine) Pax Romana!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:13 pm
cactuar tamer ... Yeah, because most of these women lead difficult lives from horrible debilitating disabilities from the botched abortions. Try asking a malpractice survivor what they think of the procedure that maimed them. I'm sure you'll get very positive opinions. A brief story: Ilya Baykin, a young teenager had just hit another growth spurt. He discovered that there was a hole in his ribcage and he seemed unsually chickenchested - and in fact, as he grew more and more, that it was becoming increasingly difficult to breathe. He had a rare medical condition in which the ribs curve in excessively, one that is usually fatal by adulthood as the organs are constricted unless there is medical intervention. So, he and his family consulted with a physician who scheduled the life-saving surgery in which Ilya's sternum would be cut away, then repositioned and suspended on wires so that his ribs would regrow normally. During this process, Ilya would spend a few months in the hospital and a few years recovering. The surgery was delayed and delayed while Ilya found it harder and harder to breathe - and he stopped growing. When the surgery finally took place, all seemed to be well - until the check-up a year later when they discovered that the wires had been improperly attached so his sternum was not centered, and there was now a massive and permanent hole in his chest. An impact to this unprotected area could be fatal. Since the operation had been delayed until Ilya was done growing, instead of the ribs growing all the way across to the misplaced sternum, they instead stopped at their natural position. Ilya then learned that at the time of his operaton, the doctor had knowledge of a newer technique in which a simple metal clip would be inserted in a simple in-and-out-the-same-day operation, and the clip would be removed a year and a half later for a complete success and zero pain or hospital bills. However, the doctor himself did not have the skill to complete this operation, and instead of referring Ilya to a doctor who did, he wanted to collect the bills for himself. Not only was Ilya a victim of gross malpractice, but he only learned that he could sue for damages (he was a Russian immigrant) after the statute of limitations had expired. So yes, he's deeply bitter over this operation. However, there are countless others on whom this same operation has been flawlessly performed who feel no bitterness, only gratitude to their doctors for saving their lives. kp606 That's actually very interesting. But it seems like nothing that important. If someone dropped you off in the Artic, think you'd be around for much longer? We have homeostasis to a point, then, it's just human invention keeping us alive. That's not the same type of homeostasis. Have you studied biology beyond freshman bio? kp606 I'd like to point out that hasn't stopped people before. Young woman scream to their rapist as he carries out his torture on her, and then even kills her later. Yet he disrespects her sentience. Ahem. Do not speak of that which you do not know. The bolded sentence, for starters, is so grammatically mangled I'm not sure what you meant to say, but I'm assuming you are referring to the most extreme of rape scenarios, as opposed to plain-old-harmless rape. I'd like to point out that a rapist is most certainly NOT disrespecting a woman's sentience, which has absolutely nothing to do with power-rape; he is disrespecting her rights to her own body and her integrity. By raping her, he is basically saying that her body is not her own, that he is stealing the power every person has over themselves. This is why I compare unwilling pregnancy to rape. A p***s has no more right to be inside me than an embryo does unless I give my consent. And consenting to have a p***s inside me most certainly does NOT mean I consent to have an embryo inside me, any more than consenting to a p***s means I am also consenting to sex toys, flashlights, table legs, etc. kp606 How does sentience boast anything if people are constantly disreguarding it? Sentience is in itself what brings a woman to have sex, and to have an abortion. It's a double edged sword. It is the cause and the reason. Dude, I could have sworn that it was my hormones that brought me to have sex. Because it's my hormones that put me in the mood, and if I'm not in the mood, then I shouldn't be having sex, right? If a woman is having sex when she doesn't want to, there's probably something sick and twisted and definitely unhealthy going on. Whereas if you're having sex because your hormones say "Have sex!" and your mind agrees that it is a good time for sex, then you're just acting on your instincts - the exact same way any other animal has sex. Hormones. kp606 The situation went, if they had enough capacity to understand the question in its fullest. But ask yourself, to cease to know anything, or a chance to know what this phenomena of life is? In my example I cited good and bad, you just cited bad. Bad example. Suffering, pain to. But in life comes many joys. Many. Well, see, for msot people, no matter how badly they're abused, they eventually pull out of it and do find happiness. However, sometimes these unwanted babies never do find happiness and commit suicide. The end result is the same: the kid is dead. The only difference is that one way the mother has an unpleasant abortion versus the incredible pain and horror of losing a beloved child. (Note: it is not physiologically possible to "love" a fetus you carry; the mother-child bond is triggered by the release of oxytocin at birth.) kp606 Two of the survivors mention no disfunction what so ever. But let's ask this. Holocaust. No we won't even go there. Let's take some random event, like China's birth control laws. To a foreigner good. Less people means less problems. To person in China, mixed. What if Mei wants to have three children? Forcing someone to have an abortion is just as barbaric as forcing someone to carry the child. kp606 You've drawn the blade the wrong way my dear. Going from that angle, it's proven that infants will actually be able to hear and interpret sounds of a their mother's womb. A baby is conscious. A prenatal baby (even at eight and a half months) is not. Whereas a loud sound will awaken a sleeping baby, a prenatal baby is not capable of becoming conscious in the womb due to strict hormone regulation. Imagine the disaster if a mostly-formed baby was conscious! It could pull on the umbilical cord enough to kill itself or injure the mother, it could try to breathe and only fill its lungs with amniotic fluid, it could go insane from the near-total sensory deprivation. kp606 I'm jealous now... Actually no I meant when they are developing sweatdrop Mine are still developing. I'm a C-cup and counting. And I was enjoying my breasts when I was an A-cup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:48 pm
That story has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The doctor didn't just screw up when it comes to failed abortions, his aim was to kill the human being. Straw man agument deluded and thrown out. So they have debalitiating issues. "It's the fact I don't have a left arm that bothers me, not the whole abortion part. I'm down with that!" Pah-shaw, seriously, that is a complete point beside the point. Quote: That's not the same type of homeostasis. Have you studied biology beyond freshman bio? I wasn't that smart, I took Sophomore Bio (seriously, who puts Chem on the Science Evaluation Test for Eath Science? REALLY!) Perpahs I was wrong in my example. But you've actually helped me to better prove my point. Going back to the artic example, a human couldn't survive the artic. Homeostasis goes out the window. What could is the Thalmus when the temperature drops to below zero from an envirement where the temperature is livable? Like the fetus, you are no different. You need an environment to survive. Homeostasis can only go so far, as all other bodily functions, no human body is that capable. Quote: Ahem. Do not speak of that which you do not know. The bolded sentence, for starters, is so grammatically mangled I'm not sure what you meant to say, but I'm assuming you are referring to the most extreme of rape scenarios, as opposed to plain-old-harmless rape. I'd like to point out that a rapist is most certainly NOT disrespecting a woman's sentience, which has absolutely nothing to do with power-rape; he is disrespecting her rights to her own body and her integrity. By raping her, he is basically saying that her body is not her own, that he is stealing the power every person has over themselves. Ahem. Please do not be a grammar Nazi. My life isn't so perfect as to being able to grammatically proofread things as slowly as I would like to. Sentience = Conciousness. Conciousness = Choice. He rapes her because it is not her choice. He's still getting his power. You can't rape the willing remember? Quote: This is why I compare unwilling pregnancy to rape. A p***s has no more right to be inside me than an embryo does unless I give my consent. And consenting to have a p***s inside me most certainly does NOT mean I consent to have an embryo inside me, any more than consenting to a p***s means I am also consenting to sex toys, flashlights, table legs, etc. Delusional thinking. Consenting to an activity with said risks means consenting to have all of those risks played out upon you. It may not mean keeping the baby, but you do infact consent to pregnancy. And i'm sure if you smoke you tell yourself and friends that it's consenting to a cigarette but not Lung Cancer, am I correct? That is your school of thought, you'd be contradictory to think otherwise. Quote: Dude, I could have sworn that it was my hormones that brought me to have sex. Because it's my hormones that put me in the mood, and if I'm not in the mood, then I shouldn't be having sex, right? If a woman is having sex when she doesn't want to, there's probably something sick and twisted and definitely unhealthy going on. And what're hormones gonna do for a comatose person? Make them get up and have sex, then go back to the hospital bed to remain comatose? And if you're underlying sex is spontaneous and and an undeniable urge, you are horribly misguided. And many troubled woman have sex even though they're unhappy with themselves. Don't ask me what the condition is called, i've long since forgotten. Quote: Well, see, for msot people, no matter how badly they're abused, they eventually pull out of it and do find happiness. However, sometimes these unwanted babies never do find happiness and commit suicide. The end result is the same: the kid is dead. The only difference is that one way the mother has an unpleasant abortion versus the incredible pain and horror of losing a beloved child. (Note: it is not physiologically possible to "love" a fetus you carry; the mother-child bond is triggered by the release of oxytocin at birth.) This situation has been contorted to your own benefit. This is not the case in every individual with that type of history behind them and you know it. Child suicide cases can be stimulated by depression, a completely genetic condition that can spawn in the most wholesome and loving families. The suicide demographics are spread out over a large scale amount of people with a number of domestic statuses. You're being unrealistic and pessimistic. Your "fact", I wouldn't believe that even if you had a link. Debates rage on about what true love is and so on, and you're here to tell me, beyond right and wrong, that fetal love from the mother is "impossible"? So are you telling me a brother can't love his unborn sister? Quote: Forcing someone to have an abortion is just as barbaric as forcing someone to carry the child. Killing a person because you find them inconvenient and unworthy is Spartan and Barbaric. Quote: A baby is conscious. A prenatal baby (even at eight and a half months) is not. Whereas a loud sound will awaken a sleeping baby, a prenatal baby is not capable of becoming conscious in the womb due to strict hormone regulation. Imagine the disaster if a mostly-formed baby was conscious! It could pull on the umbilical cord enough to kill itself or injure the mother, it could try to breathe and only fill its lungs with amniotic fluid, it could go insane from the near-total sensory deprivation. Since WHEN has conciousness signified complete mobility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 3:16 pm
kp606 That story has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The doctor didn't just screw up when it comes to failed abortions, his aim was to kill the human being. Straw man agument deluded and thrown out. So they have debalitiating issues. "It's the fact I don't have a left arm that bothers me, not the whole abortion part. I'm down with that!" Pah-shaw, seriously, that is a complete point beside the point. I told that little story in an attempt to illustrate a point about malpractice ... but never mind. I would like to add that the vast majority of abortions go off without a hitch, and in most of the botched abortions the baby still dies, but the mother gets injured as well. This is why you should have the common sense to patronize a skilled doctor. kp606 I wasn't that smart, I took Sophomore Bio (seriously, who puts Chem on the Science Evaluation Test for Eath Science? REALLY!) Perpahs I was wrong in my example. But you've actually helped me to better prove my point. Going back to the artic example, a human couldn't survive the artic. Homeostasis goes out the window. What could is the Thalmus when the temperature drops to below zero from an envirement where the temperature is livable? Like the fetus, you are no different. You need an environment to survive. Homeostasis can only go so far, as all other bodily functions, no human body is that capable. Let me try this once again. It's not the same kind of homeostasis. The kind to which I refer is purely internal, your body's ability to take care of its most basic needs. The second kind is survival in an extreme situation. Survival - I'll use that as an example. Short-term survival, such as escaping the pack of wolves attempting to devour you, is significantly different from long-term survival, such as getting enough vitamin C so you don't get scurvy. kp606 Ahem. Please do not be a grammar Nazi. My life isn't so perfect as to being able to grammatically proofread things as slowly as I would like to. Sentience = Conciousness. Conciousness = Choice. He rapes her because it is not her choice. He's still getting his power. You can't rape the willing remember? I'm not being a grammar Nazi, but I do request that you maintain enough grammar so I can understand what the hell you're saying. Those two assumptions are incorrect. A butterfly is conscious of its surroundings, but it's hardly sentience. And being aware of your surroundings does not mean you can control your surroundings. Rape isn't about choice. I don't choose to experience a rainstorm, but it'll just get me cold, not traumatize me. Rape is about power. Not choice. kp606 Quote: This is why I compare unwilling pregnancy to rape. A p***s has no more right to be inside me than an embryo does unless I give my consent. And consenting to have a p***s inside me most certainly does NOT mean I consent to have an embryo inside me, any more than consenting to a p***s means I am also consenting to sex toys, flashlights, table legs, etc. Delusional thinking. Consenting to an activity with said risks means consenting to have all of those risks played out upon you. It may not mean keeping the baby, but you do infact consent to pregnancy. And i'm sure if you smoke you tell yourself and friends that it's consenting to a cigarette but not Lung Cancer, am I correct? That is your school of thought, you'd be contradictory to think otherwise. So if I get behind the wheel of a car to drive to the supermarket, I have consented to die of internal bleeding when some drunken jackass slams into the driver side door? Don't you tell me what consent is. I think I'd know by now. Just because I have consented to have one thing inside me does NOT mean I have consented to have anything (or anyone) else in there, as illustrated by the post above left up for your benefit. kp606 And what're hormones gonna do for a comatose person? Make them get up and have sex, then go back to the hospital bed to remain comatose? And if you're underlying sex is spontaneous and and an undeniable urge, you are horribly misguided. And many troubled woman have sex even though they're unhappy with themselves. Don't ask me what the condition is called, i've long since forgotten. So you didn't take advanced biology, then. A hormone doesn't "make" you do anything. Take adrenaline, for example - it prepares you for combat. So if someone surprises me and adrenaline is released from the renal glands, does that mean that the hormone makes me bust out my mad karate moves and I kill my assailant? No. It just means I am more alert. If the comatose person gets horny-hormones, they'll have a wet dream. Well, there are many different circumstances in which women will have sex they don't want, and none of them are healthy. Ranging from low self-esteem to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, none of those situations in which a woman has sex when she does not feel sexual desire (aka she is pressured to), none are healthy and ideally none would occur. kp606 This situation has been contorted to your own benefit. This is not the case in every individual with that type of history behind them and you know it. Child suicide cases can be stimulated by depression, a completely genetic condition that can spawn in the most wholesome and loving families. The suicide demographics are spread out over a large scale amount of people with a number of domestic statuses. You're being unrealistic and pessimistic. Your "fact", I wouldn't believe that even if you had a link. Debates rage on about what true love is and so on, and you're here to tell me, beyond right and wrong, that fetal love from the mother is "impossible"? So are you telling me a brother can't love his unborn sister? Do a Google search on "oxytocin" and find a reputable website. I learned this in AP Biology, not off the net, so I don't have any links on me right now. My main point, however, is there the potential for something to go wrong, anything from as mild as insecurity to as extreme as suicide, is increased in cases of unwanted children. kp606 Killing a person because you find them inconvenient and unworthy is Spartan and Barbaric. What's wrong with being spartan? Embryos aren't people. Here is an embryo:  Here is a person: See the difference? kp606 Since WHEN has conciousness signified complete mobility? Since always? There's a reason that babies don't sleepwalk, y'know. The most an unconscious fetus can do is suck on its thumb or kick. Very rarely, the most active of fetuses will wrap the umbilical cord around their necks and usually die. You've seen how much an awake and alert baby can move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:01 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:22 pm
Just for clarity here, when you say argument, you mean your argument against it, not that it's an actual logical fallacy, don't you? 'Cause if you aren't, you're wrong, there's no sled. Though there is a slippery slope. (Sorry, brain's kinda fuzzy.)
One thing I wanted to bring up about the dependency- yeah, yeah, "address the whole post", but I've been itching to say this for a while now and haven't gotten the chance. It's called interdependency, what society has. The farmers grow the food who sell it to the factories who send it out to consumers who pay for it which provides the factory workers with pay. Everyone needs everyone. Fetuses are just plain dependent. Let me explain something first- technically, they could be part of interdependency- if wanted. For instance, say a woman needs someone to take care of her in her old age. The fetus gets to develop and grow, the woman gets someone to provide for her. 'Course, that's hypothetical (or theoretical, one of those, I forget which), considering the kid could then just say "******** you, b***h" and leave her in a nursing home anyway, so the woman may not get anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:28 am
Excuse me for seeming ignorant, but how does any of this support pro-life or pro-choice?
I'm not any argument for both sides, just scientific factual debate.
How does this belong on this board, precisely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:53 pm
Sorcerer Kata Samoes Excuse me for seeming ignorant, but how does any of this support pro-life or pro-choice? I'm not any argument for both sides, just scientific factual debate. How does this belong on this board, precisely? The four points above all are used commonly to prove that a fetus isn't a respectable person. This would fall under the catergory of being a pro-life post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
