Reminders: Things We All Know But Which Tend To Get Lost

[dgs49]

If one believes that there is even a remote possibility that a fetus is a person, then to kill it is morally unacceptable.

I personally don't understand how anyone who believes in "right" and "wrong" could possibly be "pro-choice." The only "moral" argument for abortion is that it prevents some greater evil, then satisfy yourself that there is a greater evil than killing a human being.

But as I've written before, just because you believe that abortion is immoral - or even gravely immoral - does not end the discussion. Bringing a child into the world is a huge undertaking and responsibility, not to be taken lightly.

[Joe Guy]

I personally don't understand how anyone who believes in "right" and "wrong" could possibly be "pro-choice."

People who believe in 'Pro-Choice' are people who understand the difference between right & wrong.

It is wrong to tell any woman that she should not be able to make her own decision on whether or not to have an abortion. It is her decision based on her own personal situation, not a decision that others should be allowed to make for others based on their own religious beliefs.

[BoSoxGal]

Andrew D:

[Scooter]

If one believes that there is even a remote possibility that a fetus is a person, then to kill it is morally unacceptable.

I believe that a fetus is a human being. I just don't happen to believe that a fetus has rights that exceed those of any human being that has already been born.

If any born human being were to wreak the kind of havoc on a woman's body that a fetus growing inside her does, that human being would be committing assault and battery, and the woman would be justified in taking any action, up to and including deadly force, to stop that human being from continuing his/her assault. A fetus that remains in a woman's uterus against her will is assaulting her, and aborting it is legitimate self-defense.

The fact that the fetus happens to be the woman's child and is completely dependent upon her for its own survival makes no difference. If one of the woman's born children needed a blood tranfusion in order to survive, and she was the only possible donor, there is no law that could compel her to provide that blood against her will. Since that is the case, it cannot possibly be justifiable under the law to compel a woman to devote her entire body, to incapacitate herself and to put her own life at risk, in order to save the life of her unborn child.

The problem with so called "pro-lifers" is not that they believe that life begins at conception. The problem is that they wish to ascribe rights to human fetuses that go far beyond any right to which a born human could possibly lay claim.

[Timster]

If one believes that there is even a remote possibility that a fetus is a person, then to kill it is morally unacceptable.

I believe that a fetus is a human being. I just don't happen to believe that a fetus has rights that exceed those of any human being that has already been born.

If any born human being were to wreak the kind of havoc on a woman's body that a fetus growing inside her does, that human being would be committing assault and battery, and the woman would be justified in taking any action, up to and including deadly force, to stop that human being from continuing his/her assault. A fetus that remains in a woman's uterus against her will is assaulting her, and aborting it is legitimate self-defense.

The fact that the fetus happens to be the woman's child and is completely dependent upon her for its own survival makes no difference. If one of the woman's born children needed a blood tranfusion in order to survive, and she was the only possible donor, there is no law that could compel her to provide that blood against her will. Since that is the case, it cannot possibly be justifiable under the law to compel a woman to devote her entire body, to incapacitate herself and to put her own life at risk, in order to save the life of her unborn child.

The problem with so called "pro-lifers" is not that they believe that life begins at conception. The problem is that they wish to ascribe rights to human fetuses that go far beyond any right to which a born human could possibly lay claim.

Very interesting Scooter. I have never seen that particular tact taken before. An unborn child developing in the womb as a terrorist, so to speak. And thank you for a reasoned response to a very volatile issue. However...

I remain unconvinced as to the efficacy of "abortion" used as a birth control method. I do understand that "shit happens" and that a child can be a huge inconvenience. Because once mitosis begins (cell division) a new life has begun. That Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue; whatever people want to call it to soothe their conscience is not going to

turn into anything else other than a little human being, not a carrot, not a Giraffe, a human being.

Perhaps people could just take some fucking responsibility for their actions? And maybe take the necessary precautions or live with their mistakes. Their are literally thousands of would be parents waiting to adopt at any given moment.

When I make a banking error; I just cannot go to my banker and say OOPS! My Bad! Just pretend that didn't happen and sneak out the back door because of a legal loophole. Not going to happen.

How much more important than is Life itself?

Just saying.

[Gob]

With free pre and post conception contraception available to all, the need for abortion should be optimised. However I accept that in some cases an unplanned pregnancy can go undetected for weeks. In these cases abortion should be available.

However, the lunatic catholic church would deny women any contraception, and any abortion. So fuck'em.

[Joe Guy]

Perhaps people could just take some fucking responsibility for their actions? And maybe take the necessary precautions or live with their mistakes. Their are literally thousands of would be parents waiting to adopt at any given moment.

And there are thousands of children in the foster care system that will never be adopted because they were born to parents who didn't want them and caused those children to be so messed up that they are, unfortunately, considered to be 'unadoptable'.

When I make a banking error; I just cannot go to my banker and say OOPS! My Bad! Just pretend that didn't happen and sneak out the back door because of a legal loophole. Not going to happen.

But you can make a payment adjustment and correct the error.

[Scooter]

An unborn child developing in the womb as a terrorist, so to speak.

I wouldn't put it that way, because the fetus has absolutely no consciousness of the harm it is inflicting. It would be akin to a severely retarded or deranged person beating someone up without any realization that they are hurting him/her; it doesn't negate the right to defend oneself against the attack, even to the point of deadly force if necessary.

[Big RR]

That Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue; whatever people want to call it to soothe their conscience is not going to

turn into anything else other than a little human being, not a carrot, not a Giraffe, a human being.

Left unimpeded? No, properly nourished and cared for fetuses may grow into human beings; quite a bit more than being "left alone" is required.

[Sean]

Because once mitosis begins (cell division) a new life has begun. That Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue; whatever people want to call it to soothe their conscience is not going to

turn into anything else other than a little human being, not a carrot, not a Giraffe, a human being.

Just for clarity Timster, you stated that the Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue will turn into a human being? At what stage of development do you see this as happening?

[Timster]

Because once mitosis begins (cell division) a new life has begun. That Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue; whatever people want to call it to soothe their conscience is not going to

turn into anything else other than a little human being, not a carrot, not a Giraffe, a human being.

Just for clarity Timster, you stated that the Protoplasm/Glob of fetal tissue will turn into a human being? At what stage of development do you see this as happening?

Right then. Off to the new Flames Forum with you mate...

And BigRR it is unbecoming to mince words like that. "Unimpeded" would simply imply that the mother is taking the usual nutrition and not jabbing surgical instruments up her twat.

... Off to the new Flames Forum with you also.

Excellent points Joe and Scooter and Gob!

Scooter, the 'un-conscious' harm has its merits. But don't we end up with Two victims in the end? That's why I say have a little self dignity and practice some responsibility. I know, easier said than done. Leading to gob's comment about religious morons that cannot see the forest for the trees. *sigh*

Joe, agreed. And that's a sad fact.

[Sean]

I ask Timbo because you did contradict yourself in that paragraph. The first sentence states that a new life has begun at the formation of the proroplasm but the second states that said life is not yet a human being. I just wanted to know which part of the paragraph was the real Timster's view so that I could then proceed to demolish you once and for all with my amazing intellect and superior debating skills...

So there!

[Timster]

AH! I see now.

Still, bugger off. I thought I was pretty clear. Demolish "this" [grabs crotch] you ungrateful scouser~

[Sean]

LMAO - You know which buttons to push you bastard!

Well played sir.

[Big RR]

And BigRR it is unbecoming to mince words like that. "Unimpeded" would simply imply that the mother is taking the usual nutrition and not jabbing surgical instruments up her twat.

Unbecoming? I'll tell you what is unbecoming, thinking that a pregnancy and carrying a fetus to birth is no more difficult than

aking the usual nutrition and not jabbing surgical instruments up her twat

. You can say the rights of the fetus, prebron human or whatever should predominate, but let's not pretend this is a glorious 9 months of pampering and good food.

[Timster]

And BigRR it is unbecoming to mince words like that. "Unimpeded" would simply imply that the mother is taking the usual nutrition and not jabbing surgical instruments up her twat.

I may have come off a bit too glib with that observation. It should be fairly clear that I don't think that abortion should be used as the first method of birth control. See above. I did however advocate personal responsibility.

Unbecoming? I'll tell you what is unbecoming, thinking that a pregnancy and carrying a fetus to birth is no more difficult than

aking the usual nutrition and not jabbing surgical instruments up her twat

. You can say the rights of the fetus, prebron human or whatever should predominate, but let's not pretend this is a glorious 9 months of pampering and good food.

Speaking of unbecoming: I must take exception to that last as I wrote nothing of the sort. And I am not pretending anything. Again; see above.

As the father of Five that has proactively, personally had a hand in (literally) the delivery of all my children; (without going into details) I feel qualified to state unequivocally that that is most definitely not the case.

[quaddriver]

but let's not pretend this is a glorious 9 months of pampering and good food.

Its so cute when people who cannot have children, chime in how it is.

Timster, is gloriously right on this issue.

[Big RR]

As the father of Five that has proactively, personally had a hand in (literally) the delivery of all my children; (without going into details) I feel qualified to state unequivocally that that is most definitely not the case.

fine, then I guess we're in agreement.

Its so cute when people who cannot have children, chime in how it is.

?????????????

[Timster]

Indeed. But which part are we in agreement, BigRR?

BTW~ I thought that you had several daughters...

[rubato]

Life began a long time ago and reproduces itself. It does not 'begin' at conception; a living sperm is united with a living ovum.

yrs,
rubato