It's A BABY after all...

[ADigitalArtist]

The question under discussion is: should abortion for the sake of convenience be included under the definition of 'murder?"

My answer to that is pretty obvious, but that's not why I pointed out murder is a legal term. But because murder is often used incorrectly as an emotional call and snarl word.

I don't suppose that you would support someone going into rest homes and rehab centers and killing off all the coma patience and old, confused people, would you?

They aren't sentient and sapient either.

Yes they are. For the same reason you are still a sentient sapient being even while asleep. But we already have guidelines for taking people off life support in cases of comas or stopping treatment for the elderly. It's a decision to be made between caregivers, families and doctors, not random strangers walking through the doors. Ditto with abortion.

But enough bad faith arguments. This is clearly not an autonomy issue. If an elderly person or comatose person or anyone's life support relied directly on using someone's body against their will, yeah I would side with the donor to stop whenever they no longer wanted to go on. Even if they agreed to it at one point.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I would expend all my energy trying to save the five-year-old child. Trying to save the frozen embryos probably wouldn't even cross my mind.

This is a question which I rarely seen answered .... for some reason.

Same here. Any normal, humane, and empathetic person would agree with us.

Still waiting for @dianaiad to answer instead of replying with a wall of irrelevant text that ignores the question. Betting that he/she never will actually answer the question. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Shad]

Well.. the fetus does take all its needs from the host body in a truly parasitic way.

But that wasnt my argument, my concern was @KenS use of his event as a platform to promote his anti abortion rhetoric

Dehumanizing makes it easier to kill.

 

[dianaiad]

LOL you wrote another wall of text and yet still are dodging the question. Typical.

And you have just proven my point. You keep refining the question until you get the answer you want, not the answer that actually is.

I'm not dodging. I'm being very honest with you. You just don't like it.

 

[dianaiad]

Same here. Any normal, humane, and empathetic person would agree with us.

Still waiting for @dianaiad to answer instead of replying with a wall of irrelevant text that ignores the question. Betting that he/she never will actually answer the question. Gee, I wonder why.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Address the issue.

 

[dianaiad]

Same here. Any normal, humane, and empathetic person would agree with us.

Still waiting for @dianaiad to answer instead of replying with a wall of irrelevant text that ignores the question. Betting that he/she never will actually answer the question. Gee, I wonder why.

Your problem is that I did answer the question.

You just didn't like the answer.

 

[ChristineM]

Dehumanizing makes it easier to kill.

You would be surprised how difficult it is to kill

So you are saying that a fetus does not take its needs from the mothers body?

And of course the OP considered political point gaining such a must for a wonderful event

 

[Shad]

You would be surprised how difficult it is to kill

So you are saying that a fetus does not take its needs from the mothers body?

The mother provides for those needs via her own biology thus biological functions. Hence why a male isn't carrying a child to term.

And of course the OP considered political point gaining such a must for a wonderful event

Of course. It shows how subjective people are when it comes to this issue.

 

[ChristineM]

The mother provides for those needs via her own biology thus biological functions. Hence why a male isn't carrying a child to term.



Of course. It shows how subjective people are when it comes to this issue.

So you are saying the fetus is parasitically taking its needs from the mother. Thats what i said.

Who mentioned male?

Of course it shows how opportunistic people can get on persuit of a sound bite.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you're not interested in good faith discussion, why bother posting? Where has anyone here argued a 23 week foetus is "just a mass of brainless cells"?

Hmmm? Go on, show us a single example of anyone saying that?

And in a shock to no one, no example was forthcoming.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

And you have just proven my point. You keep refining the question until you get the answer you want, not the answer that actually is.

I'm not dodging. I'm being very honest with you. You just don't like it.

I'm giving you a hypothetical that will probably never occur in which BOTH THE CHILD AND THE EMBRYOS take the same time to save, and there is only time to save one of them. You didn't answer. If you did, I apologize, but I sure never saw a response.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm giving you a hypothetical that will probably never occur in which BOTH THE CHILD AND THE EMBRYOS take the same time to save, and there is only time to save one of them. You didn't answer. If you did, I apologize, but I sure never saw a response.

A hypothetical situation that cannot actually exist is stupid. I hate them.

In fact, I hate Socratic questions in all their forms.

There is no such thing as a simple hypothetical situation. In ALL of 'em, you have stuff that goes on.

The person who is facing your dilemma who is pro-abortion will not only grab the child, he'd probably TAKE the time to destroy the embryos.

The person who is pro life will probably save the child, too. Not because he thinks that the child is 'more valuable,' but because there IS no way that embryos would be equally savable, and no guarantee that those embryos would still be viable. Fire, remember? Power almost certainly out? Not to mention that if they were viable, the odds of them remaining that way upon getting them to the sidewalk is pretty slim.

So...knowing this, I would save the child I knew I could, and mourn the deaths of the others, because I KNOW that those others were human beings too.

This is too complicated a hypothetical question to be of any use whatsoever. It might work for you IF the pro-lifer you were talking to opposed abortion for any reason, but I don't.

 

[Shad]

So you are saying the fetus is parasitically taking its needs from the mother. Thats what i said.

Nope. The mother via her biology is providing those needs. Ergo not a parasite.

Who mentioned male?

I did. A true parasite does not need a female. An offspring does. Ergo not a parasite.

Of course it shows how opportunistic people can get on persuit of a sound bite.

Like your parasite comments?

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. The mother via her biology is providing those needs. Ergo not a parasite.



I did. A true parasite does not need a female. An offspring does. Ergo not a parasite.



Like your parasite comments?

So the fetus is not taking its needs from the mother?

I didnt,you introduced the straw man

Nope, no comparison between biology and politics but some will attempt to introduce comparison on emotional grounds

 

[The Reverend Bob]

That's amazing! I'll have to check out the article. Is the baby healthy?

It is on a respirator in an incubation tank and you are asking if it is healthy?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Congrats anti-abortion people, we now have a preemie existing in extreme pain and suffering just so you can make some sort of ideological point that doesn't mean squat to that child's health. That poor child is going to suffer for the rest of it's life. I hope you are happy. Are you happy now?

 

[Koldo]

Of course I would save a baby, because a baby is a fully sentient human being. But answer me this. If a building was burning down and a 5 year old child was screaming in a room that happened to contain a box of 1000 viable frozen embryos that was about to go up in flames, would you save the child, or the embryos? If you would save the child, then you've acknowledged the obvious fact that humans who have been born are worth more than the unborn. If you would save the embryos instead, then congrats, you are a "pro-life" psychopath.

I find this reasoning a bit troublesome.
If you had to choose between saving a random woman or a random man, which one would you choose ?
If you choose the random man, does that mean that men are worth more than women ?
If you choose the random woman, does that mean that women are worth more than men ?

 

[Shad]

So the fetus is not taking its needs from the mother?

Nope. The mother is providing it via her biology. That is why females have specific organs males do not.

I didnt,you introduced the straw man

Nope.

Nope, no comparison between biology and politics but some will attempt to introduce comparison on emotional grounds

Just like your parasite comment as it was a farce and against biology itself. Hilarious. After all it isn't a human you do not have to worry about emotions nor principles involved. Just like when other people called a group sub-human so they could do what they wanted without issues of emotions. The only difference is one is designed to cause emotions while the other suppress emotions via dehumanization which is your MO at this point.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. The mother is providing it via her biology. That is why females have specific organs males do not.



Nope.



Just like your parasite comment as it was a farce and against biology itself. Hilarious. After all it isn't a human you do not have to worry about emotions nor principles involved. Just like when other people called a group sub-human so they could do what they wanted without issues of emotions. The only difference is one is designed to cause emotions while the other suppress emotions via dehumanization which is your MO at this point.

Yes any parasite will take nutrition provided by the hosts biology.

Again with the males, what is it with you and males?

Yup

So you confuse biology and politics, fair enough

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A hypothetical situation that cannot actually exist is stupid. I hate them.

Thanks for letting everyone know you won't answer the question.