views on abortion and euthanasia

I believe that the government has not right to interfere with a woman's body. A fetus, until the time that it can live on its own, is nothing but a potential, a parasite living off the mother.

Personally......................I don't know if I could have had an abortion. I would not presume though, to tell another woman what to do with her body. I believe that partial birth abortion should not be illegal, but used only in extraordinary situations.

Euthanasia is tricky. I believe that a person has the right to their own lives, which includes the right to terminate it. I do believe though, that there are times where a person is going through a difficult situation, and sees death as the only way out. In that case, I would do my best to help the person find alternatives. Bottom line, the decision is his/hers.

One of the problems with euthanasia is the issue of whether the person really wants to die. I could see a scenario where greedy relatives would "move things along" so that they could get a hold of an elderly person's money. For this reason, I think that it is important that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the person requesting eithanasia really wants it. In the case of those with dementia, it gets even trickier.

For that reason, I think that each person, no matter what the age, while they are still cognizant, have a legal paper drawn up with his/her wishes specifically addressed.

As far as assisted suicide, I believe that it needs to be legalized with the same caveats that I described in the paragraph about euthanasia.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I believe that the government has not right to interfere with a woman's body. A fetus, until the time that it can live on its own, is nothing but a potential, a parasite living off the mother.

The unborn has it's own body including a beating heart and it's own blood (often a different type from the mother's) flowing thru it's veins, also a unique DNA signature showing that it is not 'part of the mother's body'.

Physicians regard mother and unborn as two distinct patients, as we've discussed before and I have posted links to relevant medical sources to prove.

What if the unborn goes to full term and still cannot 'live on it's own' ? Is it still OK to kill it then if it poses an inconvenience?

Your employment of the word 'parasite' is used to perpetrate a falsehood, but to be expected from the pro-abortion camp.

Quote:

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈper-ə-sə-ˌti-zəm, -ˌsī-, ˌpa-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1611
1: the behavior of a parasite
2: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds[/u]; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitism

0 Replies

Do we REALLY need another thread on this?

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Do we really need people posting on threads that they aren't interested in? Laughing

0 Replies

i'm not sure i agree. i always believed that a baby is a potential human being from the moment of conception, and as long as it is potential it should not be killed. if we moved to an example outside of the womb.

say that you have a gun to your head, you have the potential to survive this scenario, you are relying on the man with the gun to let you survive. the gun represents the willingness to abort, you are the baby. what your saying is because you only have the potential to survive, the man has every right to shoot.

0 Replies

Quote:

The unborn has it's own body including a beating heart and it's own blood (often a different type from the mother's) flowing thru it's veins, also a unique DNA signature showing that it is not 'part of the mother's body'.

Not at conception it doesn't. For quite a while, it has it's own DNA and a cluster of cells. That's it

Quote:

Physicians regard mother and unborn as two distinct patients, as we've discussed before and I have posted links to relevant medical sources to prove.

They also refer to it as "the fetus" and "it" rather than "the child" or "him/her". I also notice that you are doing the seem. Don't you think that is telling?

You note the definition of parasitism and its emphasis on different kinds, and then you go on to make a big point on the differences between the mother and the fetus. I was going to make the argument that adult and fetus are two different kinds; it looks like you pretty much made it for me.

A human fetus is not necessarily a human being, and when it is not it does not have the same rights.

Finally, nobody is pro-abortion. Find me a person who thinks we should always abort, and we can talk about pro-abortion. We're pro-choice. We don't say you are pro-takeawaythemother'srightstoherbody, because that is not what you are arguing for (well, that's not the intention anyway) . Stop coloring your language to bias people emotionally towards your side.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Quote:
The unborn has it's own body including a beating heart and it's own blood (often a different type from the mother's) flowing thru it's veins, also a unique DNA signature showing that it is not 'part of the mother's body'.

Not at conception it doesn't. For quite a while, it has it's own DNA and a cluster of cells. That's it.

The heartbeat pushes the unborn's own blood thru it's veins before the end of the first month.

Quote:

In fact, the heart actually begins beating by the 22nd day of life .....

from http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5287,00.html

fungotheclown wrote:

real life wrote:
Physicians regard mother and unborn as two distinct patients, as we've discussed before and I have posted links to relevant medical sources to prove.

They also refer to it as "the fetus" and "it" rather than "the child" or "him/her". I also notice that you are doing the seem. Don't you think that is telling?

Yes, it's telling you I don't know if it is a boy or girl. Would you prefer I use he/she? Would that prove to you that the unborn is worthy of protection?

fungotheclown wrote:

You note the definition of parasitism and its emphasis on different kinds, and then you go on to make a big point on the differences between the mother and the fetus. I was going to make the argument that adult and fetus are two different kinds; it looks like you pretty much made it for me.

If you can prove that mother and unborn are two different kinds of organism, do so. They both have human DNA though. Give it up. They are both human.

fungotheclown wrote:

A human fetus is not necessarily a human being, and when it is not it does not have the same rights.

If the unborn is not human, pray tell what species is he/she?

fungotheclown wrote:

Finally, nobody is pro-abortion. Find me a person who thinks we should always abort, and we can talk about pro-abortion. We're pro-choice. We don't say you are pro-takeawaythemother'srightstoherbody, because that is not what you are arguing for (well, that's not the intention anyway) . Stop coloring your language to bias people emotionally towards your side.

Learn the language.

Quote:

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌprō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən\
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proabortion

Prove to me that nobody is proabortion. You are.

0 Replies

Quote:

The heartbeat pushes the unborn's own blood thru it's veins before the end of the first month.

Tumors pass blood through them and metabolize resources as soon as they are created. Is it wrong to remove them? I'm not granting human status based on a heartbeat. Show me an advanced nervous system. Show me sentience. Show me cognitive ability.

Quote:

If you can prove that mother and unborn are two different kinds of organism, do so. They both have human DNA though. Give it up. They are both human.

I never said that the fetus wasn't human, I said it wasn't a human being. Pay attention to the language we've all agreed upon. My hair is human, doesn't make it a human being.

As far as your definition is concerned, Webster picks its definitions based upon popular usage. You have successfully shown that pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers. Regardless of its dictionary definition, the etymology of the word pro-abortion supports my definition, and implies a support of the act of abortion. I, for one, do not support abortion, but respect the woman's right to choose. In fact, I strongly discourage abortion, but I don't think we have the right to take away a woman's right to chose, and ultimately, it is her choice. Abortion shouldn't be illegal any more than alcohol or tobacco should be illegal.

0 Replies

A seed is not a tree. They may be both of the same species, but not the same.

The mother is the custodian of the unborns rights. If she elects to abort is not anybody elses issue.

No matter what happens a choice is being made. I am far more comfortable with the woman making that choice rather than the government.

As for adoption, I'm all for it, but I think that it's ridiculous to add to that pool without being able to handle the number of orphans we already have.

During the time I have typed this message, several abortions have taken place, and in no way has social order been jeopardized.

T
K
O

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Quote:
The heartbeat pushes the unborn's own blood thru it's veins before the end of the first month.

I'm not granting human status based on a heartbeat. Show me an advanced nervous system. Show me sentience. Show me cognitive ability.

That's the issue.

When does the unborn become a human being?

You named three things.

Which one of them are you saying makes the difference between a living human being and a mass of tissue that can be indiscriminately destroyed?

Is it an 'advanced nervous system' ? Exactly how 'advanced' ?

Is it 'sentience' ? What EXACTLY do you mean by sentience, and EXACTLY when is it achieved?

Is it 'cognitive ability' ? EXACTLY what kind of ability must one demonstrate? And EXACTLY when in the gestational period does the unborn demonstrate this to your satisfaction?

Pick your poison, fungo.

Define your terms precisely.

And we'll talk. Cool

0 Replies

The issue is not when it becomes a human being. The issue is when it inherits life rights.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Unless you are saying that some human beings do not have a right to life, then you are arguing a distinction without a difference.

0 Replies

The stardard ratio of brain mass to lean body weight (ie, without including body fat) is around 30-40% on average.

Sentience is the abililty to feel or peceive subjectively.

Cognitive ability is the sum total of psychological processes, and is sufficiently complex to be considered human when the fetus demonstrates an understanding of and attempt to make sense of the world around them.

It is a combination of these three traits that define humanity to me outside of the mere concept of species, and it is these traits that, to me, warrant a respect above that of other organisms. Once those traits are demonstrated, it becomes unacceptable to terminate the pregnancy in my eyes. Until then, it is something to be frowned upon, but ultimately the choice belongs to the mother.

Oh, and this may be on topic, but I'm still waiting on that evidence of a god. Just wanted you to know that you are still in my thought.

0 Replies

I don't base my opposition to abortion on a religious argument, but on medical grounds.

If you don't believe that man has a 'soul' or 'spirit' , then the body is all there is, and the unborn is as human as he/she is ever going to be.

If man is just another animal, then the same criteria for determining if an organism is a living member of it's species should apply to the unborn.

You've given very general definitions of 'sentience' and 'cognitive ability'.

HOW MUCH cognitive ability, measured in what way is required for the unborn to qualify as a 'living human being'? Exactly how must an unborn child 'demonstrate' cognitive ability to you?

How would a newborn 'demonstrate' cognitive ability to you to insure that he/she also qualifies as a living human being? This is important because the slippery slope that is abortion has led us to the views of Peter Singer and others who argue that newborns do NOT yet qualify as living human beings, on much the same grounds as you propose.

EXACTLY when does the unborn qualify , in your opinion? Please be specific , because the date you choose will determine whether a living human being is killed, or just a mass of tissue is disposed of .

Name your date.

0 Replies

Well, cognitive ability has yet to be quantized in a way that can be administered to a fetus, so I can't give you an EXACTLY. Sorry, you'll just have to go without. As far as a date, I'm not going to do that either, because it's artificially setting up a chronological milestone. I don't care how old the fetus is, I care about its development. The best way I can offer at this point to see if the fetus has developed this ability is by whether or not it demonstrates an attempt to understand it's world, but this is far from objective, and a way to establish this not my concern. I'm arguing against prohibiting abortion, so I am not responsible for determining the parameters of such a law.

As far as the religious belief part is concerned, I specifically stated that the question was off topic. I just want an answer to a questions I posed in a different thread, and which you conspicuously stopped participating in.

I have a question; if abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be far a 17 year old who aborts a child? Will the punishment differ between minors and adults? If so, how?

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Well, cognitive ability has yet to be quantized in a way that can be administered to a fetus, so I can't give you an EXACTLY. Sorry, you'll just have to go without. As far as a date, I'm not going to do that either, because it's artificially setting up a chronological milestone. I don't care how old the fetus is, I care about its development. The best way I can offer at this point to see if the fetus has developed this ability is by whether or not it demonstrates an attempt to understand it's world, but this is far from objective, and a way to establish this not my concern. I'm arguing against prohibiting abortion, so I am not responsible for determining the parameters of such a law.

You say 'show me cognitive ability', but admit that there is no way to test or demonstrate same.

Seriously..............

..........'whether the fetus is attempting to understand it's world' ?

You offer this as any kind of thoughtful reply to a life or death issue?

This is worse than pathetic.

In other words, you have no objective or scientific basis on which to support abortion, just your subjective opinion that it should be allowed because you say so.

This is so typical of the proabortion crowd.

Your arguments fail miserably.

You cannot even begin to name a time when the unborn deserves protection.

Let me help you.

Is the unborn sufficiently developed 1 minute before birth to qualify him/her for protection under law?

How about 1 day before birth?

1 week?

0 Replies

Fetuses only develop at approximately the same rate. Therefore, setting a date on when they are developed would be a misnomer. I proposed a milestone I wanted reached, and you rejected it out of hand because it doesn't agree with your world view.

You claim that my basis is unscientific, but you don't explain how or why. You mock my statement as being unthoughtful, and then try to force me to oversimplify the complicated development of a fetus by placing a arbitrary date rather than looking for specific developmental cues. Once again, you are showing intellectual cowardice, reallife. Your agitated rantings lack substance, because you have none, and thus have resorted to frustrated noises like a pissed off teenager who doesn't want to be grounded.

Once again, you fail to even acknowledge questions that you don't have an answer to; maybe you should refrain from mocking the answers of others until you can provide some of your own.

Quote:

I have a question; if abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be far a 17 year old who aborts a child? Will the punishment differ between minors and adults? If so, how?

Without an answer to this question, you can't effectively prohibit abortion.

0 Replies

RL - If you can't identify and articulate how society is jeopardized by aboriton in a practical sense, you can't make the case you are making for it to be ilegal.

You are however in a ripe position to argue that is it not in line with your beliefs or the beliefs of Christianity in general. Just know that there are Christians that will disagree with you on this as well.

Your views on morality don't translate in to law well.

T
K
O

0 Replies

fungo,

Your 'proposed milestone' as you term it, is untestable and unverifiable, as you admitted.

So why do you object to it when I point out that it is therefore unscientific?

Again, let's make it easy.

Is the unborn sufficiently developed 1 minute before birth[/u][/i] to qualify him for protection in your view?

If you cannot quickly and without qualification answer YES, then you fully deserve the label 'ProAbortion' that you so strenuously objected to.

0 Replies

views on abortion and euthanasia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know