Attack at Planned Parenthood Clinic

[GrandizerII]

I don't agree with the argument that a fetus has no right to be in his/her mom's womb. If he/she was conceived there, that is exactly where they are supposed to be. That is how nature was designed to work, that is how it was all intended to be.

But speaking of nature, miscarriages naturally occur as well. So it is wrong to think fetuses have inherent rights.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't agree with the argument that a fetus has no right to be in his/her mom's womb. If he/she was conceived there, that is exactly where they are supposed to be. That is how nature was designed to work, that is how it was all intended to be.  

I know I'm just reiterating what Tib already said, but talking like a baby has no business being in his/her mom's womb just sounds silly to me, so I figured I'd comment.

I don't agree with the argument that a cancerous tumor has no right to be in a smoker's lung. If it grew there, that is exactly where it's supposed to be. That is how nature was designed to work, that is how it was all intended to be.

I know I'm just restating what Cathy already said, but talking like a cancerous tumor has no business being in a smoker's lungs just sounds silly to me, so I figured I'd comment.



(This is also known as the naturalistic fallacy, in case you didn't know.)

... This was good, actually. This shows the fundamental difference between our thinking, and really, the root of the argument. 

That argument being this: is an unborn entity with human DNA a human being? Since you are putting him/her on the same level as a cancerous tumor, I'd say you probably don't think so. I do. And so if we wanted to have a well organized, thorough debate on abortion, we'd have to start there.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't agree with the argument that a cancerous tumor has no right to be in a smoker's lung. If it grew there, that is exactly where it's supposed to be. That is how nature was designed to work, that is how it was all intended to be.

I know I'm just restating what Cathy already said, but talking like a cancerous tumor has no business being in a smoker's lungs just sounds silly to me, so I figured I'd comment.



(This is also known as the naturalistic fallacy, in case you didn't know.)

... This was good, actually. This shows the fundamental difference between our thinking, and really, the root of the argument. 

That argument being this: is an unborn entity with human DNA a human being? Since you are comparing him/her to a cancerous tumor, I'd say you probably don't think so. I do. And so if we wanted to have a well organized, thorough debate on abortion, we'd have to start there.

No No No, the argument is about a person having a choice about what goes on within their own body, the choice is the persons regardless of if its a tumor or a fetus.

[Clueless Morgan]

is an unborn entity with human DNA a human being?

If having human DNA is all it takes to be a human being then no one should ever cut their toenails, exfoliate their skin or pluck their facial hair.

But even if I grant that an unborn entity with human DNA is a human being, it still has no inherent right to use my body against my will and without my consent. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy just like consent to smoking is not consent to getting lung cancer.

[Catholic_Lady]

... This was good, actually. This shows the fundamental difference between our thinking, and really, the root of the argument. 

That argument being this: is an unborn entity with human DNA a human being? Since you are comparing him/her to a cancerous tumor, I'd say you probably don't think so. I do. And so if we wanted to have a well organized, thorough debate on abortion, we'd have to start there.

No No No, the argument is about a person having a choice about what goes on within their own body, the choice is the persons regardless of if its a tumor or a fetus.

But then again, I think there is enough difference surrounding the circumstances and nature of a tumor vs that of a fetus, to make all the difference.

[Catholic_Lady]

is an unborn entity with human DNA a human being?

If having human DNA is all it takes to be a human being then no one should ever cut their toenails, exfoliate their skin or pluck their facial hair.

But even if I grant that an unborn entity with human DNA is a human being, it still has no inherent right to use my body against my will and without my consent.  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy just like consent to smoking is not consent to getting lung cancer.

I don't understand your argument about toe nails/skin/hair?

[Thumpalumpacus]

All cancer cells have the DNA of the animal carrying the tumor.

[Catholic_Lady]

All cancer cells have the DNA of the animal carrying the tumor.

Exactly. It is not it's own, separate entity.

[vorlon13]

All cancer cells have the DNA of the animal carrying the tumor.

Um, not quite.

Tasmanian Devils spring to mind.

[Mr.wizard]

No No No, the argument is about a person having a choice about what goes on within their own body, the choice is the persons regardless of if its a tumor or a fetus.

But then again, I think there is enough difference surrounding the circumstances and nature of a tumor vs that of a fetus, to make all the difference.

I don't see why in regards to the woman's right to her own body a naturally occurring tumor or a naturally occurring fetus would make a difference? The woman still has a right to decide what happens inside of her own body.