Until birth, it isn't a person; it's a seed of a person.
A seed isn't the same thing as a tree, sorry.
And honestly, for a party that supports killing people so off-handedly, you guys sure get up in arms about people who aren't even people yet.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo - You know my position here is pro choice.
Yet, explain premature births are "people" but a "fetus" being aborted at the same time of the "process" is not a person?
Until birth it isn't a person? Ok, deja vu here.
What would you call "it" two minutes before birth?
Life is the interval of time between birth and death. Prior to birth, what you have is the potential for life and nothing more. Once a fetus is viable--capable of living outside the womb--then the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE and may prohibit abortion EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Why the exception? Because we value EXISTING LIFE far more than we value POTENTIAL LIFE.
"Once a fetus is viable--capable of living outside the womb--then the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE and may prohibit abortion EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the mother."
then a late term abortion is something that would fall into the catagory of CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB? (except for health reason I accept)
woiyo wrote:"Once a fetus is viable--capable of living outside the womb--then the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE and may prohibit abortion EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the mother."
then a late term abortion is something that would fall into the catagory of CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB? (except for health reason I accept)
Exactly, woiyo.
I don't know of any state that allows late term abortions EXCEPT to save the life or health of the woman. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first few weeks of pregnancy--SOON after discovery of the pregnancy and LONG before viability of the fetus. And truthfully, I doubt there are very few women who have carried a pregnancy to the point of viability who would actually desire an abortion. Obviously, a medical crisis makes it an imperative rather than a choice.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Until birth, it isn't a person; it's a seed of a person.
A seed isn't the same thing as a tree, sorry.
And honestly, for a party that supports killing people so off-handedly, you guys sure get up in arms about people who aren't even people yet.
Cycloptichorn
So,5 seconds before it is born,a fetus doesnt qualify as a person and can be destroyed?
mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Until birth, it isn't a person; it's a seed of a person.
A seed isn't the same thing as a tree, sorry.
And honestly, for a party that supports killing people so off-handedly, you guys sure get up in arms about people who aren't even people yet.
Cycloptichorn
So,5 seconds before it is born,a fetus doesnt qualify as a person and can be destroyed?
Five seconds before birth, a fetus does not qualify as a person. It qualifies as potential life. That doesn't mean it can be destroyed.
A "potential life"? I don't understand what that means. It isn't a life yet, but it might become a life? How is this explained? Where is the evidence for it?
woiyo wrote:"Once a fetus is viable--capable of living outside the womb--then the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE and may prohibit abortion EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the mother."
then a late term abortion is something that would fall into the catagory of CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB? (except for health reason I accept)
Woiyo,
"CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB" ... Don't most preemies require an incubator? Would you say that meets your criteria??
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:woiyo wrote:"Once a fetus is viable--capable of living outside the womb--then the state has a compelling interest in protecting POTENTIAL LIFE and may prohibit abortion EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the mother."
then a late term abortion is something that would fall into the catagory of CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB? (except for health reason I accept)
Woiyo,
"CAPABLE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB" ... Don't most preemies require an incubator? Would you say that meets your criteria??
Anon
Sure, most do as do some full term births. Generally, would it be correct to say all new borns require assistance to continue to live? Without any assistance, all new borns would die? (yes...a very broad statement)
My issue is to point out the hypocracy of the pro abortion camp. My position is I am personally anti-abortion FOR ME. What others do is their choice and no concern of mine (except if I am paying for it). If a woman wannt to have an abortion, feel free.
Woiyo,
Who do you think is going to pay for all those extra babies no one wants. Finn is right, all the beautiful little white babies will be snapped up, but what about all those ugly little black babies and those with special needs that no one wants. Who do you think is going to support those??
Anon
I don't believe there are any babies that 'no one wants'. There are thousands of childless couples on long waiting lists to adopt an infant or several infants. And a fair number of these will happily take a less-than-perfect infant and give it love, opportunity, and a best chance to be all he or she can be. The worst possible reason to deny somebody a chance at life is that s/he isn't wanted.
Anon-Voter wrote:Woiyo,
Who do you think is going to pay for all those extra babies no one wants. Finn is right, all the beautiful little white babies will be snapped up, but what about all those ugly little black babies and those with special needs that no one wants. Who do you think is going to support those??
Anon
You and me a/k/a taxpayers. From and invesment prospective, at least we have a shot at getting the child to become a taxpayer, as opposed to paying to kill it and have no shot at all.
But , it is not my decision to make....just the mothers.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't believe there are any babies that 'no one wants'. There are thousands of childless couples on long waiting lists to adopt an infant or several infants. And a fair number of these will happily take a less-than-perfect infant and give it love, opportunity, and a best chance to be all he or she can be. The worst possible reason to deny somebody a chance at life is that s/he isn't wanted.
You have no idea what you're talking about ... Finn and I have already been through this ... you might try reading it.
Anon
On the 'seed theory' and 'potential life' theory, I refer to the acorn. An acorn is not an oak tree nor is the human egg or the human sperm a human being.
Once the acorn sprouts and the first twig of the sapling pushes above the ground, however, nobody refers to it as an acorn any more. It is now an oak tree.
And once the egg and sperm get together and a new human being begins to form, it is no longer referred to as a sperm and egg or 'seed of life'. It is a brand new human being in its earliest stage of life. This is why a woman is pronounced 'pregnant' whether conception took place a week or two before all the way to the second before birth.
I think that viewing it as anything else stretches intellectual honesty to the limit.
There is room to debate whether an abortion should be legal, and the original intent of Roe v Wade is a reasonably good guideline. There are also laws governing how and when people can give away their born kids.
There is also room to debate whether giving away your born kid because you can't be bothered or whether an abortion is ethical. We debate all sorts of ethics involving people's legal rights. Surely the choice to allow or deny life is deserving of a place in those discussions.
To those who say an unborn child is not a 'life' but is only a 'potential life', I simply cannot reconcile that in my mind as I see no difference between the baby in the womb and the baby in the incubator or the baby going home with mom and dad. Viability is perhaps a reasonable consideration or rule of thumb, but in truth no infant, born or unborn, can live without been fed and hydrated, kept warm and well by others.
This is the difference between the vast majority of prolifers and pro abortion rights people. Prolifers see two lives involved in a choice. Most pro abortion rights people see only one.
"This is the difference between the vast majority of prolifers and pro abortion rights people. Prolifers see two lives involved in a choice. Most pro abortion rights people see only one. "
You're right. But what business does the govt or other people have in telling someone what to do with their body (short of taxpayer funding of the process).
To me, this is the baseline issue. I am personally against abortion, but I have no business telling others what to do or force my "morals" on anyone else (unless they want me to pay for it).
Foxfyre wrote:This is the difference between the vast majority of prolifers and pro abortion rights people. Prolifers see two lives involved in a choice. Most pro abortion rights people see only one.
I disagree. Anti-abortionists are almost myopically focused on the unborn life form to the exclusion of the host life, the future father, and any existing siblings who all have a stake in the outcome. They don't see the many lives involved in the choice. They also think almost exclusively in terms of babies and not of the total lifecycle, never stopping to consider the adults they will become, and what kind of adults they will become if raised by parents who would have preferred not to have them.
Everybody loves puppies, but nobody likes what they turn into if they are not properly cared for and trained up.
Quote:You're right. But what business does the govt or other people have in telling someone what to do with their body (short of taxpayer funding of the process).
Its done all the time.
Prostitution is illegal,drugs are illegal,suicide is illegal,public nudity is illegal in most places,etc.
Do you have a problem with any of those laws?
Or is only where abortion is concerned that the govt has no right to tell you what you can do with your body?
It has been explained that (regardless of whether we agree) the state has a legitimate interest in legislating and/or regulating those things you listed. It does not have a legitimate interest to regulate or legislate reproduction.
