sorry, you are correct, it was granule's statement, i was expecting a reply from him...
women's lives sacrificed in fight against abortion - planned parenthood
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
sorry, you are correct, it was granule's statement, i was expecting a reply from him...
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I was correct on the other two comments as well......
Socrtease
Verified User
So you disagree that after fertilization the zygote/fetus is alive? At 12-15 weeks gestation I head the hearts of all three of my children. They were alive. Since 90% of all abortions occur before 20 weeks, lives are being taken. The question is, at that point should it be illegal? I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. While I support the right of a woman to choose to seek an abortion, I will not lower myself into believing that what they are aborting is nothing more than a lump of cells. It is a living being, in its first most fragile status. To deny that is as intellectually dishonest as saying an abortion at 12 weeks gestation is the same as beheading a 2 year old.
i have four children and 6 grandchildren yet i still disagree with you
this is a subject that we will likely never agree on so end of our discussion or debate
just one question, what about fetuses that will not survive until birth or fetuses that will kill the mother?
i disagree, but neither of us is likely to change the others mind on this subject
or anyone else's mind...
How could it be "surviving" even a short period of time if it wasn't alive to begin with? As for "kill the mother", all creatures have a right to defend themselves, even from their own progeny.
,
i never said that it is not a living organism in that at some point it has a heartbeat but will not survive to be born because it has some lethal gene
as you know, most zygotes do not 'live' to become a fetus
a significant number of fetuses do not survive a week or two
zygotes and young fetuses do not have much of a brain until late in pregnancy i think about 4 to 5 months
modern science has found ways to keep progressively younger fetuses alive thereby pushing back the amount of gestation time required for a 'live' birth
with over 7 billion humans on this ball of mud, decisions about who shall live and who shall die will become even harsher than they are now
this nation is enormously lucky in that we grow more food than we consume - too many nations and more each decade cannot support their populations without assistance, hence we can debate the moral quandaries of life and living...for now
my wife and i have four children and six grandchildren from previous marriages all of whom we love, but not all children born are so fortunate
i never said that it is not a living organism in that at some point it has a heartbeat but will not survive to be born because it has some lethal gene
as you know, most zygotes do not 'live' to become a fetus
a significant number of fetuses do not survive a week or two
zygotes and young fetuses do not have much of a brain until late in pregnancy i think about 4 to 5 months
modern science has found ways to keep progressively younger fetuses alive thereby pushing back the amount of gestation time required for a 'live' birth
with over 7 billion humans on this ball of mud, decisions about who shall live and who shall die will become even harsher than they are now
this nation is enormously lucky in that we grow more food than we consume - too many nations and more each decade cannot support their populations without assistance, hence we can debate the moral quandaries of life and living...for now
my wife and i have four children and six grandchildren from previous marriages all of whom we love, but not all children born are so fortunate
I don't like liberals much.
oh well
apple0154
MEOW
So, we have a mother with her 10 year old son standing on a balcony of a burning building. As they wait for the fire truck to come and rescue them with a ladder the balcony is starting to fall away from the building due to the weight of herself and her 10 year old child. If she has a right to defend her life then she must have the right to push her child off the balcony.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
she might as well....he would have to suffer while climbing down the ladder and we know he wouldn't want to suffer......
apple0154
MEOW
On the other hand if the mother had aborted 10 years prior the matter would be moot. And if her mother had aborted her she might not have confronted being burned alive. Now, that's gotta hurt.
This is an inane scenario. However, some mothers choose to save the life of their progeny and continue a pregnancy that may kill them, some decide to kill the progeny and live to fight another day.
If it is either one or both, decisions must be made. Inaction will cause both to die, only action can save one life. Most mothers would jump themselves to save their child, in your scenario they choose to sacrifice differently.
In both scenarios they are choosing to kill something. How they choose can define them, but we have no right to choose for them.
And he may never be adopted and live in poverty, and we know that killing them is more compassionate than allowing them to live in poverty...
apple0154
MEOW
My scenario is not inane. It was given to show laws have to be consistent.
Let's go ahead a few years. Medical technology increases. A wealthy man marries and his wife becomes pregnant. Shortly after discovering she's pregnant she also receives news she has cancer. Treatment will harm or kill the fetus. How can anyone possibly say the woman has a right to treatment which may seriously damage or kill the fetus IF a fetus is a human being? It would be ludicrous to say the defective human being, the woman, has the right to jeopardize the life of a healthy human being.
While the doctors argue she may succumb to the fast growing cancer before she delivers the wealthy man's lawyer stipulates he will have a body guard accompany her 24 hours a day until delivery. Should she succumb to the cancer the body guard is trained in life-saving techniques and will get her to the hospital in time to hook her up to life-saving equipment and keep her alive until she delivers. The man's lawyer argues that statistics show she has less than a 50/50 chance of living another five years whereas his client's "unborn son" has a full life ahead of him. Who, morally or ethically, can choose the almost guaranteed temporary extension of the woman's life over the full life of the healthy fetus?
As for the woman on the balcony should she be prevented from killing her offspring because he's 10 years old but is permitted to kill an "unborn" child one has to conclude that birth does make a difference. The point is IF a fetus is classified as a human being then the laws governing the killing of that human being must apply to all human beings. Otherwise, we go down that familiar road where some human beings are considered a little less human and I don't think anyone wants to travel that road again.
No ones life is more important than another person's life (at least not in theory) so the idea the woman's life comes first can not stand. The reason it did stand, in the past, was due to the lack of medical knowledge/opportunity to keep the woman alive long enough to deliver the fetus. Those days are gone or quickly ending. The life of the mother, in the usual sense, will be or already is no longer necessary to the safety of the fetus. Machines and technology will delegate her to little more than an incubator and she will be promptly disposed of, albeit ceremoniously, shortly after delivery.
No one needs a crystal ball to see where it's all heading. Designating a fetus as a human being opens up many cans of worms. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to know the time will come when pregnant women will be "monitored". Some States prohibit smoking in cars with children. Schools are already checking children's lunches. Is society going to sit by while an obese, pregnant woman devours a Big Mac? A woman strenuously exercises?
Who would have imagined 50 short years ago people could be arrested and jailed for smoking in a bar room? When push comes to shove the pregnant woman will be obliged to capitulate to the fetus. Women must remain vigilant.
apple0154
MEOW
It's obvious certain folks know little about orphanages of the past or how placement children were treated. Then, again, we can always have them clean toilets. It's for their own good, of course.
Whether it is a "human being" or not has little to do with whether it is alive and, however dependent on the mother it may be, a separate life than that of the mother. The question of "human being" is not one of science, it is one of philosophy.
apple0154
MEOW
It's one of science and common sense. DNA is only one way to classify something. While my coffee table may be composed of virtually identical material to the tree in my back yard I do not have a tree in my living room, DNA notwithstanding. Nor do I have a coffee table in my back yard although the thought does cross my mind on hot summer days while holding a cold beer.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
this.....
It's one of science and common sense. DNA is only one way to classify something. While my coffee table may be composed of virtually identical material to the tree in my back yard I do not have a tree in my living room, DNA notwithstanding. Nor do I have a coffee table in my back yard although the thought does cross my mind on hot summer days while holding a cold beer.
"Common sense" is not science, it's so uncommon that it is a superpower. And science simply tells us that it is both alive and a separate life from the mother though dependent. It can never tell us when it becomes "a being", that is decided by philosophy. Science can tell us that you coffee table is not alive, while the tree in your back yard is. The DNA can tell us what kind of life it is. Just like science can tell us that the progeny is alive, human, and a separate life from the mother. Science is not equipped to tell us whether it is a "being"... That is a matter for philosophers and religions.