Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is abortion considered murder?

Page 11 of 12 [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

It is the killing of an unborn chld
It is not considered murder 68%  68%  [ 40 ]
It is somewhat considered murder 32%  32%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 59

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age:25
Posts: 1,983

18 Jan 2012, 5:25 pm

abacacus wrote:

Do you deny peoples right to get rid of tapeworms?

Same thing. It is a parasite inside the woman's body. What right do YOU have to say that she can't get rid of the parasite if she so chooses?

What right do you have at all to try and tell people what they can and can't do when it will never matter in your life?


Again, you're begging the question. I mean, damn, a newborn is a parasite because they breastfeed. Are they thus equal to a tapeworm and hence, we should legalize infanticide?



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age:23
Posts: 3,380

18 Jan 2012, 5:29 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
abacacus wrote:

Do you deny peoples right to get rid of tapeworms?

Same thing. It is a parasite inside the woman's body. What right do YOU have to say that she can't get rid of the parasite if she so chooses?

What right do you have at all to try and tell people what they can and can't do when it will never matter in your life?


Again, you're begging the question. I mean, damn, a newborn is a parasite because they breastfeed. Are they thus equal to a tapeworm and hence, we should legalize infanticide?


After it has been born it is capable of surviving without it's mother, whether it be through formula or any other means. It is no longer a parasite, it will not die simply because it is not in the womb. At that point it's more akin to a tic or a mosquito :lol:


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age:25
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Jan 2012, 5:30 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
abacacus wrote:

Do you deny peoples right to get rid of tapeworms?

Same thing. It is a parasite inside the woman's body. What right do YOU have to say that she can't get rid of the parasite if she so chooses?

What right do you have at all to try and tell people what they can and can't do when it will never matter in your life?


Again, you're begging the question. I mean, damn, a newborn is a parasite because they breastfeed. Are they thus equal to a tapeworm and hence, we should legalize infanticide?


no you dont understand the definition of a parasite,

it mayb be prasitic in is existence but a prasite relies directly on its host as an enviroment, a baby could be breastfed or fed a substitute no problem and at that point the mother trictly isnt neccesary


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age:25
Posts: 1,983

18 Jan 2012, 5:32 pm

Oodain wrote:

it mayb be prasitic in is existence but a prasite relies directly on its host as an enviroment, a baby could be breastfed or fed a substitute no problem and at that point the mother trictly isnt neccesary


Formula is a relatively recent invention though, most of history it didn't exist. And in theory, you could transplant an embryo into a fake uterus or something. So a newborn is just as much fitting the definition as a fetus.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age:23
Posts: 3,380

18 Jan 2012, 5:36 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Oodain wrote:

it mayb be prasitic in is existence but a prasite relies directly on its host as an enviroment, a baby could be breastfed or fed a substitute no problem and at that point the mother trictly isnt neccesary


Formula is a relatively recent invention though, most of history it didn't exist. And in theory, you could transplant an embryo into a fake uterus or something. So a newborn is just as much fitting the definition as a fetus.


The fetus requires a certain environment just to survive. It is a parasite.

An infant just needs a certain kind of food.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Jan 2012, 12:06 am

abacacus wrote:
snapcap wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Technicalities aside, what's the difference? A baby at the fetal stage can't survive outside of the womb (or a simulation of such).


I don't think babies were meant to survive outside of the womb or a simulation of such. It's just a fragile part of being human. What about people that live on life support? Are they parasitic tapeworms too?

Calling babies parasites not in a negative manner is like calling someone an imbecile because that is what they scored on an IQ test.


People on life support is a whole different issue.

Personally I think they should be removed. If they can't survive without life support, they are already dead and taking up space in a hospital that the living could use.

Life support does not equal brain death. People with severe lung problems might need a breathing machine to help them breathe, and occasionally they might remain conscious or partially conscious for the duration (most people are medically sedated because it's really unpleasant to be on a breathing machine). People may experience temporary or permanent kidney failure, and require dialysis to remain alive, but otherwise have relatively normal lives.
The life support given by the mother to the fetus is as much like organ donation as it is like artificial life support.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age:33
Posts: 2,328

19 Jan 2012, 12:16 am

LKL wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


What if they still don't survive, can I take it back?

Actually, no I don't think it should be a requirement. I might for my kid. Depends on how well they did on their report card.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Jan 2012, 12:29 am

snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


What if they still don't survive, can I take it back?

Actually, no I don't think it should be a requirement. I might for my kid. Depends on how well they did on their report card.

If a child doesn't survive past birth, can the mother take gestation back?

Why should life-saving organ support be required of gestating mothers, but not of parents after the child is born?



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age:23
Posts: 3,380

19 Jan 2012, 12:36 am

LKL wrote:
abacacus wrote:
snapcap wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Technicalities aside, what's the difference? A baby at the fetal stage can't survive outside of the womb (or a simulation of such).


I don't think babies were meant to survive outside of the womb or a simulation of such. It's just a fragile part of being human. What about people that live on life support? Are they parasitic tapeworms too?

Calling babies parasites not in a negative manner is like calling someone an imbecile because that is what they scored on an IQ test.


People on life support is a whole different issue.

Personally I think they should be removed. If they can't survive without life support, they are already dead and taking up space in a hospital that the living could use.

Life support does not equal brain death. People with severe lung problems might need a breathing machine to help them breathe, and occasionally they might remain conscious or partially conscious for the duration (most people are medically sedated because it's really unpleasant to be on a breathing machine). People may experience temporary or permanent kidney failure, and require dialysis to remain alive, but otherwise have relatively normal lives.
The life support given by the mother to the fetus is as much like organ donation as it is like artificial life support.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


Dialyses isn't also a constant thing I thought?

Anything that requires you to be permanently bedridden connected to machines to survive means you are already effectively dead. You can no longer sustain your own life. If you need to be connected to machine for a few hours a week, or a transplant can save you, that's one thing. It is another if the machine must always be there and will be needed for the foreseeable future, it is a waste of a hospital bed that could go to the use of saving someones life who actually has a chance of recovery.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age:33
Posts: 2,328

19 Jan 2012, 12:38 am

LKL wrote:
snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


What if they still don't survive, can I take it back?

Actually, no I don't think it should be a requirement. I might for my kid. Depends on how well they did on their report card.

If a child doesn't survive past birth, can the mother take gestation back?

Why should life-saving organ support be required of gestating mothers, but not of parents after the child is born?


It's a choice, they don't have to support the child in gestation or after.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Jan 2012, 12:51 am

abacacus wrote:
LKL wrote:
abacacus wrote:
snapcap wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Technicalities aside, what's the difference? A baby at the fetal stage can't survive outside of the womb (or a simulation of such).


I don't think babies were meant to survive outside of the womb or a simulation of such. It's just a fragile part of being human. What about people that live on life support? Are they parasitic tapeworms too?

Calling babies parasites not in a negative manner is like calling someone an imbecile because that is what they scored on an IQ test.


People on life support is a whole different issue.

Personally I think they should be removed. If they can't survive without life support, they are already dead and taking up space in a hospital that the living could use.

Life support does not equal brain death. People with severe lung problems might need a breathing machine to help them breathe, and occasionally they might remain conscious or partially conscious for the duration (most people are medically sedated because it's really unpleasant to be on a breathing machine). People may experience temporary or permanent kidney failure, and require dialysis to remain alive, but otherwise have relatively normal lives.
The life support given by the mother to the fetus is as much like organ donation as it is like artificial life support.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


Dialyses isn't also a constant thing I thought?

Anything that requires you to be permanently bedridden connected to machines to survive means you are already effectively dead. You can no longer sustain your own life. If you need to be connected to machine for a few hours a week, or a transplant can save you, that's one thing. It is another if the machine must always be there and will be needed for the foreseeable future, it is a waste of a hospital bed that could go to the use of saving someones life who actually has a chance of recovery.

I'm sorry, but you are factually wrong. People sometimes require temporary life support, and go on to have perfectly normal lives later. You are correct that dialysis is not constant, but it can be permanent; other forms of life support are constant, but temporary.

The criterion for disconnecting someone from life support is the absence of brain activity, or multiple organ failure that cannot be supported by mechanical means: in either case, no hope for recovery.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Jan 2012, 12:52 am

snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


What if they still don't survive, can I take it back?

Actually, no I don't think it should be a requirement. I might for my kid. Depends on how well they did on their report card.

If a child doesn't survive past birth, can the mother take gestation back?

Why should life-saving organ support be required of gestating mothers, but not of parents after the child is born?


It's a choice, they don't have to support the child in gestation or after.

that is an internally consistent position to take. :)



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age:33
Posts: 2,328

19 Jan 2012, 12:59 am

LKL wrote:
snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
snapcap wrote:
LKL wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that parents (of either gender) should be legaly required to donate marrow, kidneys, or sections of lung or liver to their children, should the child need it to survive?


What if they still don't survive, can I take it back?

Actually, no I don't think it should be a requirement. I might for my kid. Depends on how well they did on their report card.

If a child doesn't survive past birth, can the mother take gestation back?

Why should life-saving organ support be required of gestating mothers, but not of parents after the child is born?


It's a choice, they don't have to support the child in gestation or after.

that is an internally consistent position to take. :)


I'm pro-Choice but, I don't have to dehumanize fetuses to justify my position.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age:25
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Jan 2012, 2:06 am

donnie_darko wrote:
Oodain wrote:

it mayb be prasitic in is existence but a prasite relies directly on its host as an enviroment, a baby could be breastfed or fed a substitute no problem and at that point the mother trictly isnt neccesary


Formula is a relatively recent invention though, most of history it didn't exist. And in theory, you could transplant an embryo into a fake uterus or something. So a newborn is just as much fitting the definition as a fetus.


and before that we used various forms of animal milk,

goats milk in particular is said to do the trick.

but it is still completely irrelevant as it has a body that can survive on its own in the world, parasites cannot, they need a host to survive, a host is not a caretaker, before that argument is tried again.

as for a theoretical fake uterus, sure that might work, who will take care of the baby afterwards?
adoption can take years if the exactly right conditions arent found, even then they run a much highwer risk of abuse and a host of other deterrent factors.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 3,729
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

19 Jan 2012, 4:01 pm

I think the parasite argument is crap. Stick to the sentience thing, it makes a lot more sense.