"You're saying the baby doesn't have the same rights to life as any other human being"


Frods...it is NOT a fucking baby. It is a fetus which cannot survive except attached to the mother. In NY, iirc, it had to draw a breath in order to be considered a human being. A fetus is little more than a parasite.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:55 am)Thor Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 11:45 am)corndog36 Wrote: The unborn baby is a unique human individual that will only have one opportunity to live. That's why it's right to live is equal to that of every other human being.

But this isn't true, is it? If it were true, then if a pregnancy endangered the life of the mother we should flip a coin to decide if the pregnancy should continue or not. But any right headed person would agree that the mother's life takes precedence and the pregnancy should be terminated.

Unfortunately there are always going to be situations where we are going to have to decide if it is morally right to take a human life. I believe that terminating the pregnancy would have been the right choice in this situation because the child was going to die anyway. I also believe the decision should have been up to the patient and doctor. Similarly, I think that when the mother's life is at stake the mother should decided. Some mothers would choose to risk their own life for their child, others would not.

---

(March 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "You're saying the baby doesn't have the same rights to life as any other human being"


Frods...it is NOT a fucking baby. It is a fetus which cannot survive except attached to the mother. In NY, iirc, it had to draw a breath in order to be considered a human being. A fetus is little more than a parasite.

If you want to stretch the definition of parasite, then we are all little more than parasites. I find this point of view revolting.

(March 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm)corndog36 Wrote: If you want to stretch the definition of parasite, then we are all little more than parasites. I find this point of view revolting.

He did not stretch the view as far as you. That you find it revolting is nice to know in a polite sort of way but immaterial as a basis for anything. You need to specify why you choose to define the boundary of parasite the way you do. Otherwise this degenerates into an argument motivated by preferences and carried on by assertions.

I think people attach all the negative connotations the word "parasite" brings then get all emotional. While it fulfils most of the criteria of parasite when looking at the strict definition it does vary on one key point of it being the same species, and if im not mistaken, the technical definition of a parasite dictates the parasite is of another species to that of the host.

I get where Min is going though, and he has a point. It isn't a baby while in the womb and therefore should not have the automatic right to life a fully formed baby living outside of the womb should have.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:55 am)Thor Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 11:45 am)corndog36 Wrote: The unborn baby is a unique human individual that will only have one opportunity to live. That's why it's right to live is equal to that of every other human being.

But this isn't true, is it? If it were true, then if a pregnancy endangered the life of the mother we should flip a coin to decide if the pregnancy should continue or not. But any right headed person would agree that the mother's life takes precedence and the pregnancy should be terminated.

That's no contest. The mother is already alive and demonstrably has rights. There's no debate about whether we should let her die for the fetus.

(March 9, 2011 at 6:37 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Pathetic argument fr0d0. The baby has (you are arguing) the RIGHT to suffer for a solid 15 minutes for the sake of YOUR godboy??

Just another ignorant disgusting faith based law from christianity... so hateful and hurtful.

And YES you give the parents the "privilege" to WATCH the life of this poor child drain away. Well done ...you did the same with tadpoles and fish when you were younger???

It make my blood boil too at the patriarchal stupidity

You seem to have no idea at all what I'm arguing Kichie, so I won't bother addressing that hateful post. It certainly addresses nothing I ever said.

---

(March 9, 2011 at 7:01 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Explain to me how a merciful death is worse than the possibility of going through 2% functionality and maybe I'll see why you're defending the need for this baby to have been born.

I like the way you call a 'merciful death' something that might cause great pain to the baby. I'm not defending the need for the baby to be born.

(March 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I like the way you call a 'merciful death' something that might cause great pain to the baby. I'm not defending the need for the baby to be born.

Because we haven't come up with ways other than the ones the anti-abortionists like to use to scare people to terminate pregnancies that minimize pain?

(March 9, 2011 at 11:28 am)Ubermensch Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Like it isn't an independent life.

It's not.

It is dependant on the mother to come to term. Maybe that's the wrong word. It's a life separate from the mother. It isn't the mother's life. It is a life form all of it's own.

---

(March 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Because we haven't come up with ways other than the ones the anti-abortionists like to use to scare people to terminate pregnancies that minimize pain?

I'm simply taking the article as factual. That's what it said.

(March 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I like the way you call a 'merciful death' something that might cause great pain to the baby. I'm not defending the need for the baby to be born.

I like the tactical indignation you affect as you float the red herring of a minimal nervous system of a redimentary fetus sensing and appreciating pain in order to minimize the significance of the relatively greater certainty of a considerably more developed nervous system of a full term fetus sensing and appreciating pain.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:55 am)Thor Wrote: But any right headed person would agree that the mother's life takes precedence and the pregnancy should be terminated.

That decision can and does go either way.

(March 9, 2011 at 2:41 pm)Skipper Wrote: [,...] It isn't a baby while in the womb and therefore should not have the automatic right to life a fully formed baby living outside of the womb should have.

That's an emotive response rather than a rational one I think. Both are human.

---

(March 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm)Chuck Wrote: I like the tactical indignation you affect as you float the red herring of a minimal nervous system of a redimentary fetus sensing and appreciating pain in order to minimize the significance of the relatively greater certainty of a considerably more developed nervous system of a full term fetus sensing and appreciating pain.

Really? 10 days before birth = a fetus with a rudimentary nervous system?!?