0
   

When Does Life Begin?

 
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:11 pm
This was my point

real life wrote:

Why is depriving the unborn of a limb(s) any different than depriving him of a life?


I think they are different - neither is nice but most amputees I know would rather not be dead.

Thanks for the belligerence.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:23 pm
So, hingehead, do you think that a woman has the right to order an operation on her unborn child to remove his/her arms and legs in order that it may be born without?

Since the unborn is 'part of the woman's body' and 'her own property' and 'not a living human being', surely there could be no objection to her disposing of part or all (abortion) of the unborn in any way she sees fit, can there?

What do you think about it?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:58 pm
All I was saying is that there is a difference between being born with a limb missing and being dead. You implied there was no difference.

I didn't buy into any other point. Regardless of what you think.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:26 am
real life, you were strangely quiet on the circumcision issue. I think we can guess what that means ....

Laughing

So, do you think a woman has the right to mutilate the penis of a newborn?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:31 pm
Eorl,

I have no problem with circumcision.

The boy is born alive and a little skin is trimmed.

So what?

It is not the same as 'cutting of the end of the penis'. Where did you get that idea?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 05:38 pm
OK, so mutilation is OK in principle....it's the degree of mutilation that's important.

How about female circumcision? Just a little piece of skin.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:30 am
The so-called 'female circumcision' is not about a piece of skin. (And no I do not support female mutilation.)

Neither is the male circumcision 'cutting off the end of the penis'.

You are grossly misinformed on both counts, as you are on a number of other points.

Interesting how you are apparently obsessed with circumcision, but aborting a human child is OK with you, removing the arms and legs of an unborn child is OK with you and even when the child is born you still can't admit he is a human being.

I guess you'll jump to any wild subject to avoid the obvious reality of what abortion is.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 05:43 pm
Please explain how circumcision is NOT cutting the end off the penis. Is there cutting? Is it at the end? Is it from something other than the penis?

If you think parents should have the right to do this to children without their permission, then why don't they have the right to remove limbs? Just because you can't imagine a good reason? What if there's a religious reason to do so? It's certainly less extreme than refusing a baby a blood transfusion.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 08:19 pm
Eorl wrote:
Please explain how circumcision is NOT cutting the end off the penis. Is there cutting? Is it at the end? Is it from something other than the penis?


I'm embarrassed to have to explain this to you.

Eorl wrote:
If you think parents should have the right to do this to children without their permission, then why don't they have the right to remove limbs? Just because you can't imagine a good reason? What if there's a religious reason to do so?


I am sickened to have to explain this to you.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 09:50 pm
Nice dodge.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:16 pm
Perhaps you should learn more about circumcision before you make any more foolish statements about it.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:22 pm
Perhaps I haven't made any. What do you assume I don't know about it? More importantly, does the mother have the right to do it, and how does it differ from removing limbs, other than by degree or intent?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:44 pm
Perhaps someone with more patience than I will explain to you why circumcision is not the same as 'cutting off the end of the penis' and why it is not the same as cutting off an arm or leg.

Perhaps you will listen to them.

Perhaps pigs will fly.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:47 pm
So, no answers then real life....because you are suddenly impatient?

"I can't answer that" would have been sufficient.

(Why the implication that I don't listen? Maybe it's because of all those questions you keep handing out in lieu of answers.)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:58 pm
What makes you think circumcision is 'cutting off the end of the penis' ?

Where did you get such a strange idea , and how is the removal of the foreskin the same (in your view) as severing an arm or leg? (another strange idea)
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:07 am
How about you answer my question first? How is it not cutting off the end of a penis? OK, get technical with the semantics if you want, it's beside the point.

The facts are:

Male or female.....the baby is mutilated, without any choice. The degree of harm is relative. If you think nobody resents being circumcised, google it.

Removing a limb for religious reasons seems far less severe than preventing a blood transfusion for religious reasons, yet that is allowable. The only reason removing limbs is unnaceptable, is because no idiot has thought of a religious reason to do so. If the limb removal was for good health reasons (eg cancer) then there would only be support for it.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:15 am
Alright Eorl.

Let's make a deal.

I'll oppose legalization of circumcision, and you oppose legalization of abortion.

Fair?

Since circumcision is the same to you as severing a limb, and you support the mother's right to sever a limb for the same reason that you support abortion (it's her body, she can do with it as she wills), apparently all of these are morally equivalent to you.

So let's agree that the mother has no right to circumcise, or sever a limb or exterminate through abortion.

So, I'm with you. Let's ban circumcision.

Let's hear you oppose legalization of abortion.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:40 am
Well at least I feel like we are getting somewhere.

How about we agree that both things are bad, but that forcing either into backyard illegal practice would be worse?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:29 pm
real life wrote:
Should the woman have the right to do whatever she choses with the unborn?

What if she were to hire a doctor to remove the arms and legs of the unborn in an in-utero surgery (similar to the technique used in the pics that baddog1 posted) , because she wanted him/her to be born without limbs?

OK by you?

Since it's not a living human being at that point, are there any moral problems with that?

Why is depriving the unborn of a limb(s) any different than depriving him of a life?

If the fetus is non-sentient, IMO it is her property and she has the right to do whatever she likes with it, including having it cut up and the parts used for transplants or medical research. I doubt if any sane woman would do it, even if she could find a doctor willing to do such surgery or a market for fetal parts.

But if she plans on allowing it to reach sentience, she has a moral obligation to keep it intact and give it the best possible chance at life through good nutrition, avoiding smoke, drugs and alcohol, and getting prenatal medical care.

I read that some deaf parents refuse to allow cochlear implants for their profoundly deaf babies because they want them to grow up relying on sign language instead of hearing. Granted, they did not take a specific action like cutting off a limb to handicap their child, but if the implant is done later in life when the child can choose for himself it is not nearly as effective. Do they have a moral right to deny treatment?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 09:12 am
Terry wrote:
real life wrote:
Should the woman have the right to do whatever she choses with the unborn?

What if she were to hire a doctor to remove the arms and legs of the unborn in an in-utero surgery (similar to the technique used in the pics that baddog1 posted) , because she wanted him/her to be born without limbs?

OK by you?

Since it's not a living human being at that point, are there any moral problems with that?

Why is depriving the unborn of a limb(s) any different than depriving him of a life?

If the fetus is non-sentient, IMO it is her property and she has the right to do whatever she likes with it, including having it cut up and the parts used for transplants or medical research. I doubt if any sane woman would do it....


Why would she be 'not sane' for doing this if the unborn is just 'a part of her body' , a piece of property ?

So you have no problem with her having the arms and legs of the unborn removed in utero and allowing the child to be born without?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/08/2025 at 09:37:37