Gam if the unborn baby has no rights then why is it a fellony if the same right free unborn baby is killed dureing the commission of a crime? Isn't that a double standard?
It has no rights if you want an abortion BUT if its killed dureing a hold up the guy gets charged with murder? Something isn't right here. If we want it to be that unborn babies are protected under law if they are hurt dureing a crime then how can we say they have no rights at all? I thought everyone had the same civil rights in this country but according to you guys there should be a difference. Ok then if we start allowing differences for unborn babies why not for children? I mean you all think its perfectly aceptable to kill an unborn baby and you won't bat an eye well what if the parents don't like the way their child looks or if it turns out it can walk ok? Should they be allowed to kill it to sighting it really doesn't have any rights because what it can't vote? So then children don't matter anymore so Michael Jackson is free to move back in and do as he pleases because hey they don't matter they have no rights.
Abortion should be allowed ONLY for cases such as rape, or medical reasons. NOT as a means of birth control. If the women doesn't want children and shes pregnant she should have to give up the baby and then be sterilized as she obviously can not be trusted with her own body. By the same token if a man says he refuses to raise the child or provide for it he too should be sterilized because he can not be trusted with his body.
Wake up people and start to take RESPONCIBILITY for you actions! I know its a hard concept to grasp but try and grow up and act like men and women rather then boys and girls.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
In a host / parasite relationship, there are two or more species as shown by the second definition. A parasite is not the same as an offspring. A parasite often damages the host and is always from some different species
The way you guys are lookign at it, any and all offspring are parasites and that's just plain wrong. All animals (plants too for that matter) must reproduce, that reproduction is not a parasitic relationship.
Read it again:
"an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures"
See the "two or more kinds" part? That's important.
GAM; I do not see how it would be possible to talk about pro-life vs. Pro-choice without getting into the moral issues. They are, after all, the only issues really.
So why is it that if you assult a pregnant lady and she loses the baby you are charged with murder, but a doctor (who cannot legally kill anyone, think assisted suicide) can kill a baby without legal penalty? Seems a little contradictory to me.
PAX
HAHA, Maybe they're all so used to babies being put their by aliens that thats why they think they are parasites. Or perhapps its just because they look at something and only read what they want to see. Forget the whole part about it being a "different kind or organism" that doesn't matter because they choose not to see it, or perhapps its that whole reading comprehension thing again. Either way please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't an unborn baby the SAME kind of organism as its mother? I mean I could understand if she's told she's gonna give birth to a giant slug or that a huge tick will crawl from her coot but last I checked that doesn't happen unless we're in HollyWood and there's a movie to make.
Gam HAHA raised a great point I missed. Assisted Suicide, Its illegal in this country so why is a doctor WHO swore to " DO NO HARM " should think it ok to kill an uborn baby? And what of the criminal charged with murder if the baby dies? Too many double standards out there so I say the hell with the double standards lets just kill whom ever we want to! We can figure a way out so they had no rights so it wouldn't matter anyway.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Okay both of you... I'll answer your question by posing and then answering another question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Simply put: The chicken... the egg is only the potential for life, while the chicken is in fact life.
Doctors that perform abortions can reason that they have not done harm, because, until a child breathes on its own, it is not a person, and still utterly dependant on the mother.
If you want to take the argument further, I'll ask this, and please, answer it before you continue: If a fetus is able to live on its own after X amount of time, why bother at all with the natural birthing process in the first place? Why not use Caesarian sections every time to deliver every baby that is ever born?
Okay.. now for the easy @!#$:
You both asked about the double homicide issue, and I for one, think its bull to begin with. The child isn't born, it's not breathing on its own, it's not alive as it's own person, it's not a homicide. Again: POTENTIAL FOR LIFE IS NOT LIFE.
You're also assigning a secular value on something that will happen as a matter of course... mother dies, fetus dies...
Answer me this while you're at it... A mother of a 2 week old fetus dies, one or 2 murders? If 2, why not every other ovum in her ovaries? They have just as much potential for life as a fertillised egg.... Why not assign a person that kills a baby with multiple thousands of murder charges? A female baby is born with all the ova she'll ever have, and if they all die at the same time, shouldn't the culprit be held accountable?
Hey, while we're at it.. let's charge every single woman on earth with multiple homicides while we're at it. Follow this reasoning: IF every woman loses roughly 66-75% of her ova while GROWING UP, not even to the point of puberty, then they, merely by living are serial killers.
If you're either tearing your hair out or wondering my mental state, you're in good company, because it's the same state of utter confusion that people that believe in choice have with those that have moral objections to abortion that enact moronic laws in the first place. Until the child is born, it's not alive, if it's not alive, it's not murdered in the act of aborting a pregnancy.
If you really press the issue, I'm going to keep referring to my, the biblical and numerous other theological and philosophical idealogies:
The potential for life is not life.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
hahaha: an organism is a separate entity, not a spearate specie. Like i said--the issue is greyed, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy it could be construed as parasitic, and in the case of a wanted pregnancy, it's a symbiosis.
I think at this jucnture we have to focus more at the root of the problem, and that is something along the lines of, unless it's rape or a medical emergency, if you have an abortion, bot you and the father of the chiold are sterilized.
but that would never fly because personal responsibility is so last millenia.
And GAM, i will argue about the potential for new live vs. new life on a simple ground. The egg cell was alive, the sperm cell was alive--where does the "new" come in to play? it's a transmogrification of existing life. Thus, there is no new life.
This both justifies the pro choice and pro life. the pro lifers can rest assured that everything from a fetus to an embry is alive, and the pro-choicers by saying that since we kill life anyway--including humans, that it's okay.
Still, a slippery slope.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Get back to work Keeper
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Gam, relax man I wasn't attacking you. I'm sure HAHA wasn't either. We were simply asking how can there be such clear double standards in the law? And untill the law can be made clear then we're going to continue to have this moral debate in our country ( Yours too guys
) It does after all boil down to moral values and when we each believe life begins. I believe it begins at conception and its clear you belive it begins when Jr. is smacked on the ass by the doctor in the delivery room. Thats why I strongly disagree with abortion so much as I look at it is that the mother is killing her baby plain and simple.
It would seem that while abortion is OK an unborn baby dieing during a crime will get you life in prison. I think this needs to be re-evaluated some as if the bad guy gets life why doesn't the mother who choses death?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
OK.. I'll keep it short.
A fertilized egg has the potential to grow into an adult, no other reproductive component does. IE: one handed surfing is not murder (genocide really).
A baby born prematurly can survive outside the womb.
Many humans are dependant on their parents well into adulthood. are they not persons?
What about the severely handcapped (totally dependant on caregivers and often machines), are they not persons?
PAX
Jack: I understand that, and I apologise if it was taken out of context.
The last question you ask is yet another in a long line of dichotomy's that make the Jury system of jurisprudence a mockery of itself.. there's no clear definitive line. Canada has a dual system (Jury & Civil law) which adds some sanity in there, as there is a clear definition of what constitutes murder in our criminal code (as well as definitions of Person in our common law, and that doesn't include fetuses).
Hahahaha:
- Potential to live is not life. (Jack, pay attention here as well) What happens when an egg is fertilized, yet the zygote never implants because the mother is either incapable, or she's on a birth control pill that makes it impossible for implantation? That's pretty clear cut in that the ova is alive per pro-life dogma... I don't buy that, obviously, and, neither does the bible from what I've seen.
- I'll requote myself, because I addressed this in the form of a question:
GAM (The Kilted & Omniscient One) wrote:
If you want to take the argument further, I'll ask this, and please, answer it before you continue: If a fetus is able to live on its own after X amount of time, why bother at all with the natural birthing process in the first place? Why not use Caesarian sections every time to deliver every baby that is ever born?
You're already removing a woman's choice to undergo a pregnancy, or not... Why not move up to the next level?
- See the definition of Parasite. It's still applicable
Seriously, these are people that are able to breathe on their own, so they're people, no question. Don't confuse the issue though, a fetus is not a person (by my imperical reasoning) until it is, in fact born.
- See above, minus parasitism... they didn't choose to be disabled, I suspect. They were quite obivously born. Again, lets not confuse the issue.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Again, GAM, you're pressing the belief that matter which is capable of metabolism is not alive. It is. The thing is, there's no "new" life there.
However, from an embryo to about 6 months down the line, the embryo/fetus is in a parasitic (or symbiotic) condition. If the mother dies without SERIOUS medical equipment, the embryo/fetus will die as well.
Still, I don't consider an abortion murder, just like i don't consider euthanasia or capital punishment murder. People and things die--it sucks, but better get used to it.
For me, the greater crime is that people aren't responsible reproductively, and yet for some reason we still give them the priveledge to reproduce.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Keeper, seriously man.. work!
Okay... I see what you're saying, I'm talking about independant life. Personally, I'd like to see reproduction licensed (I've talked about it before, take parental classes, give regular physical and dental checkups and early education till 6 or so, and back it up with tax breaks. Don't follow the plan, no tax breaks for you!) so you eventually weed out irresponsible parents and those that are not ready to have kids.
I totally agree with the idea that its worse that people don't take responsibility for their actions BEFORE hand, but I don't think that reproduction is a priveledge... it'd be like licensing breathing.
Also, if it were symbiosis, the mother would gain from the child as much as the child gains from the mother.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The same could be said about you GAM
, GET BACK TO WORK!!!! <j/k>
anyhow, the symbiosis, if you read one of my preceding posts, states that if you count the intangible happiness of an expectant mother that wants her baby, then it could be considered symbiosis--she's getting something out of it (albeit intabgible). It's why i don't degate the parasitic nature of it, nor do i negate the symbiosis of it.
And the easiest way to make reproduction a priveledge is overturn all laws protecting people from themselves. that way, if you live to see adulthood, they you have that right. If junior doesn't know by the age of, say 4, to look both ways before crossing the street and becomes a permanent part of a Mack truck, then too bad, Junior. I don't think that Mack trusk or the truck company should make the mother of the dead kid independently wealthy
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Dude, I'm 3 hrs ahead of you, and I start work @ 4:00am PST.
And I can't really argue with the logic.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
