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

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

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

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

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

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

19 Jan 2012, 12:59 am

LKL wrote:

snapcap wrote:

LKL wrote:

snapcap wrote:

LKL wrote:

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

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
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

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
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.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 Jan 2012, 4:07 pm

So is killing a lamb the same as killing a human?

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

19 Jan 2012, 4:46 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

So is killing a lamb the same as killing a human?

A person can shoot back at me so no the challenge just isn't the same.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Jan 2012, 5:08 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

So is killing a lamb the same as killing a human?

killing a lamb is probably similar to killing a late-gestation fetus, before its circuitry has developed to the point that it can learn at the rate that human infants can learn.

In sentience a newborn human and a newborn lamb are probably equivalent; in sapience, the human infant has greater capacity. Of course, there's also the greater emotional weight attached to a newborn human to consider.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

21 Jan 2012, 3:49 am

Oodain wrote:

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.

It's better a chance at a good life, than no life at all.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

21 Jan 2012, 3:51 am

Personally I don't think the abortion debate will ever be solved, because each side uses language that demonizes the other side. Essentially, pro-abortion and anti-abortion people speak two different languages.

The only way I could see it being solved one way or the other is if there was a very reliable, eye-opening study done that concluded more or less how sentient fetuses are.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

21 Jan 2012, 3:52 am

As it is, I'm pro-life because I believe the chance fetuses have a fairly high degree of consciousness, at least comparable to that of a newborn is quite high, but if it was found that sentience is virtually non-existent until the baby comes out of the woman's vagina, I would probably turn pro-choice. I mean why not if that was the case?

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

21 Jan 2012, 4:28 am

Mr. Darko, I suggest that you look at the neurological evidence that already exists before spouting off about how we need more studies, and I suggest that you learn to differentiate based on gestational age.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

21 Jan 2012, 4:43 pm

LKL wrote:

I have looked at it. I still think it's far from being conclusive or complete.

RandomNickname
Raven
Raven

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

21 Jan 2012, 5:26 pm

I'm pro-abortion. I really don't see the big deal, they don't have thoughts or feelings at that age.

_________________
Dx; OCD, AS
AQ: 41
EQ: 23

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

21 Jan 2012, 6:32 pm

donnie_darko wrote:

LKL wrote:

I have looked at it. I still think it's far from being conclusive or complete.

do you have enough of a biology backing to understand it? Do you understand the significance of neocortical development and hypothalamic linkages?
Do you just want it to be inconclusive so that you don't have to face the truth?

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

22 Jan 2012, 3:16 pm

LKL wrote:

donnie_darko wrote:

LKL wrote:

I have looked at it. I still think it's far from being conclusive or complete.

What truth? Are you telling me it's been PROVEN consciousness begins at birth?

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

Jump to:

Is abortion considered murder? Post Reply New Topic

Is abortion considered murder?