|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 13:18:31 GMT
I'm saying that at that point the baby is still essentially a fetus. It's developed enough that all it needs is an artificial womb rather than a real one, so to speak, but it's still a fetus. Hence you are simply saving the life of a fetus.
Way to be polite about asking, though.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 1, 2011 19:46:30 GMT
...but fetuses turn into babies, so wouldn't saving the life of a fetus save the life of a baby?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 2, 2011 3:54:34 GMT
Eggs turn into fetuses turn into babies. Is it morally wrong to go a menstrual cycle without getting pregnant?
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Sept 3, 2011 4:58:08 GMT
I was six weeks premature >.> Anyway, this is a topic I never like to discuss, but I'll just say I'm pro-life and end it there- I don't want to debate this. I just want to say it's funny hwo either side calls them pro-something, prolife or prochoice. They want to both look good XD
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 3, 2011 5:38:49 GMT
Yeah, just as it's ironic that so many pro-life people are for the death penalty and against gun control. Not all, just some. Seriously, political sides, can you please get more specific names? Pro-life can mean basically anything!
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 4, 2011 16:47:01 GMT
Con-abortion would make more sense. Pro-choice could mean just as many things as Pro-choice.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 4, 2011 16:58:53 GMT
I was six weeks premature >.> Anyway, this is a topic I never like to discuss, but I'll just say I'm pro-life and end it there- I don't want to debate this. I just want to say it's funny hwo either side calls them pro-something, prolife or prochoice. They want to both look good XD What was the point of this post? Please refrain from making completely off-topic posts.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 4, 2011 21:59:54 GMT
That's not offtopic at all. It's talking about abortion.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 5, 2011 2:07:54 GMT
That's not offtopic at all. It's talking about abortion. The discussion was about fetuses; he talked about how he didn't want to talk about it and how he thought the names of the two positions on abortion are dumb. That's off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 5, 2011 3:54:42 GMT
The discussion is about the debate surrounding abortion. He was talking about said debate.
Anyway, pro-choice could mean as many things as pro-life, so pro-abortion and con-abortion would indeed be better names. Of course, it doesn't actually resolve which side is "right".
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 5, 2011 14:02:10 GMT
There is no right side.
|
|
|
Post by ShiningSilver on Sept 5, 2011 14:45:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 5, 2011 18:03:13 GMT
Yes, hence "right". Of course, there'd have to be something off of which abortion-based legislation can be made.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 5, 2011 21:23:44 GMT
In general I'm pro-choice (in the loosest sense) as long as the choice isn't hurting anyone or the environment.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Sept 9, 2011 13:35:42 GMT
I don't see how a newborn can live outside the womb without help. What's the difference between helping a newborn to not die once it's born, and "Saving a fetus" to not die once it's born.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 9, 2011 15:50:00 GMT
I am of the same opinion. A newborn without help is just as "not alive" as a fetus without help, who is just as "not alive" as a severely mentally retarded individual without help, who is just as "not alive" as Stephen Hawking without help (sure, he's intelligent, but he's physically incapable of too many vital movements if I'm not mistaken). Of course, Stephen Hawking has family and technology to permit him to live and do science, many mentally retarded individuals have either family or community help, and a newborn is fended for while it is helpless. What makes a fetus any different?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 9, 2011 20:14:34 GMT
Self-awareness, for one thing. Babies aren't born with self-awareness, they gain it at a very young age.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 9, 2011 21:43:29 GMT
Alright, but that doesn't explain why it is alright to rid of a fetus, but it's murder to rid of a newborn, since one could argue that both are unaware...
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 9, 2011 22:14:04 GMT
Fetuses aren't alive because they don't breathe, process food, or pump their own blood. Slowly they start doing these things the closer they get to birth. There's a difference between medical care and life support. An aborted fetus (artificial, accidental, or through birth) can be called alive at the time of the abortion if it can do these things. At the time of most abortions, an aborted fetus cannot do these things, and would require extensive life support.
In essence, if you are against killing babies then: If it can support itself, don't abort it. If it can't support itself, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 10, 2011 1:56:19 GMT
I won't dispute that there is a difference between the two, but what (is|are) the difference(|s) between medical care and life support? Is life support a subset of medical care, or are the two different altogether, in which case I ask in what ways?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 10, 2011 3:16:58 GMT
Self-awareness, for one thing. Babies aren't born with self-awareness, they gain it at a very young age. You can't prove that. Fetuses aren't alive because they don't breathe, process food, or pump their own blood. Slowly they start doing these things the closer they get to birth. There's a difference between medical care and life support. An aborted fetus (artificial, accidental, or through birth) can be called alive at the time of the abortion if it can do these things. At the time of most abortions, an aborted fetus cannot do these things, and would require extensive life support. In essence, if you are against killing babies then: If it can support itself, don't abort it. If it can't support itself, go ahead. Wrong. The heart develops and starts functioning while the baby is an embryo, which is before its a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Sept 25, 2011 14:30:42 GMT
So, what's the actual moral/ethical standard that separates fetuses and newborns? It's obviously not about saving a potential life XD. Why is one wrong and not the other. Some have mentioned a fetus's inability to survive on its own (neither can a newborn). But what is the ethical reason why we can't kill something that can survive on its own and why we're allowed to kill something that can't survive on its own? It is an ethical question because without ethics/morals, it would be okay to just kill anybody, amirite?
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Sept 25, 2011 14:48:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Sept 25, 2011 22:26:33 GMT
Alright, but have we asked these fetuses if they experienced any pain during the abortion process? No, of course not, because they do not possess sentience. The same goes for animals other than the human race, and yet we have concluded that animals do feel pain. I do not see the topic of pain as the most prominent issue as compared to the moral/ethical standards. As far as I am concerned, we are not aware what happens to sentience or the [spiritual] human conscience before or after death. The removal of this developing conscious has unknown effects. I feel that every developing newborn has a right to life, unless there is a certain conclusion that the newborn and the bearer will die. Yet, situations where those occur are nearly nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 25, 2011 23:15:25 GMT
Most animals have sentience. The word your looking for is sapience. People misuse the term sentient all the time and its starting to piss me off. There is no reason for us to think that humans are conscience while other animals are not.
Also situations were both the mom and fetus will die are not nearly nonexistent. It happened to my mom once.
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Sept 26, 2011 17:04:33 GMT
ko: science, bro.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Sept 27, 2011 3:52:26 GMT
Painlessly abort fetus. Shoot newborn in head with shotgun. Difference, please.
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Sept 27, 2011 6:05:13 GMT
Sorry, couldn't resist posting that. On a more serious note, if the woman got raped and the child was completely unwanted, then she could have the right of abortion. However, if a woman was simply stupid and let herself go loose without using a condom, then she shouldn't have the right of abortion.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 27, 2011 15:32:21 GMT
Abortion is a case by case issue, that's why I hate laws, they try to draw hard lines when everything is a continuum and should be judged case by case.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 28, 2011 1:46:19 GMT
Judged by whom? Laws are impartial, but people are never impartial. If there's set laws, people can be treated equally. You don't have two people doing identical things and one gets prison time just cause they disagree with the judge.
|
|