Yeees. They think that their own values and preferences are not something they would have control over.
You have just described yourself perfectly ... A person who identifies himself or herself as a consumer is someone who thinks consuming is essential to who he or she is. Not all people define and understand themselves in terms of consuming, in terms of how their material needs and desires are met. you defined people that way, i dont identify myself in terms of what i buy. i dont even really own anything to begin with. first of all once again you are either assuming that the majority of people do this, or you are basing your premise on some small amount of people that you perceive to be doing it. that doesnt count as a shred of evidence that its really the case. i also disagree that you can really know in what terms any specific person defines themselves. just because you think that the girl down the street with the mercedes SUV who goes and gets a pedicure once a moth defines herself that way, doesnt mean that that is the case. you are looking at someone like that though and assuming ignorance, shallowness, and apparently an irrepresible desire to consume. just because you think that doesnt mean it has any basis in fact. you are replacing the unknown motives behind peoples actions with the ones that you think are really there. good argument. Do people must have so much sex that over one million abortions take place each year in the US? well let me see, the figure i gave was 1,293,000 abortions in 2004. if you consider how many people had sex to bring them about than it takes 2,586,000 people having sex to get that outcome. accoring to the 2000 US census there were about 281,000,000 people in the US so no i dont think thats a lot percentage wise. im sure a lot more people than that were having sex but who cares are you making the point that sex itself is an amoral or evil act by nature? I'm not denying the urge to have sex. But people usually don't have sex to procreate, do they? And this is the issue here, and why there are unwanted pregnancies. thats not an issue. are you saying that people should only have sex for the purpose of reproduction and never at any other time? are you saying sex for purposes other than reproduction is wrong? in your original statement you were asking if anyone ever questioned what you see as a culturally driven imperative to have sex. how does why people have sex even enter into it? if your assumption is that people are under pressure from society to have sex because its the norm, then the reason they do it should be apparent - to fit in. however i dont think thats the case. people are free to have sex if they want to or not the urge to have sex and the pleasure associated with it is as old as humanity, just because we can control the outcomes now and we couldnt in the neanderthal stage of development doesnt make wanting to have sex for pleasure wrong. plus i would submit to you that people had sex for the purposes of pleasuring themselves long before what you have dubbed "the consumer culture" ever came into existence in any important way, and they, like us, questioned the motives behind their actions. Why do they have sex if they don't want to have children? i dont know if youve ever had sex, but my guess in answer to that question would be because its pretty goddamn awesome. Sex per se isn't wrong or bad. Sex that leads to abortion or unwanted children is wrong. i dont agree with that. thats just your opinion. A woman faces the decision about whether she will have children or not, before she has sex. She might not make that decision though, and still have sex. It is clear, even BEFORE she will have sex, whether the sex she is about to have is wrong or not. The intentions about having children are potentially clear BEFORE sex. Contraceptives only lower the frequency of conception, but the situation is essentially the same with or without the contraceptives. In most cases, the contraceptives only help postponing the decision. Using contraceptives and not deciding whether you want children or not, is self-deceit. Self-deceit, of any kind, is harmful to a person's mental health. this may be the most poorly reasoned argument ive seen you make to date and that is really saying something. no one would use any form of contraception if it didnt significantly alter the possible outcomes of any particular sexual encounter, so sex is not "the same with or without contraceptives" where did you come up with an idea like that. the physical act itself may remain the same, but by using contraceptives, a man or woman has made a choice to use at least some amount of protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. how do you think a person makes that decision, yet somehow circumvents making a decision about whether or not they want children. that whole concept is irrational. when you say that contraceptives only help postpone the decision you are assuming that at some point the woman is going to have to have children because she cant have sex with contraceptives all of her life and not get pregnant. where is there evidence of that? that being said, i havent even entered into the idiocy of your first statement there: A woman faces the decision about whether she will have children or not, before she has sex. She might not make that decision though, and still have sex. so what? if someone engages in an act without attempting to forsee the consequences of it, they put themselves at risk of having an unwanted outcome. if someone sees potential negative consequences to their actions but goes through with them anyway, then they are doing something stupid and irresponsible. what we are talking about here isnt the same thing, by using contraception a woman has made an attempt to act responsibly to prevent the unwanted outcome. true not all contraceptives are 100% but if you were to factor in a low, say 90% success rate for condoms (its usually higher than that) and then also added to it any one persons chances of being infertile, and on top of that added the statistical chances of a woman who WANTS to get pregnant being inseminated on the first try, then you have yourself a much different percentage. i think you are oversimplifying the situation on moral grounds and assuming lots of things about people that you cant possibly know. go back to the drawing board.
by the way here is some info on the bot fly. it lays its eggs on mosquitos and then the eggs ar dropped off on a person. tell me what part of this sounds like pregnancy to you because it sounds completely different to me. long stretch. http://www.ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/botfly.html Bot flies (Order Diptera, Family Cuterebridae) are large, stout bodied, hairy flies that resemble bumblebees. The botfly egg is deposited by a mosquito or sometimes by another insect. The larva grows in the host's body until it is fairly large. The botfly larva can easily be killed by taking away its air supply -- by putting vaseline or similar on the skin where the lump is, but then you still have to extract the larva. Adult botflies have nonfunctional mouthparts and do not feed. Larvae of this species parasitize wild and domestic rabbits. Females deposit their eggs in or near the entrance of their host's burrow. Bot fly larvae penetrate their host through the skin or natural body openings after hatching. The larvae form a tumor (called a warble) in the subdermal zones of their host and remain at this location until larval development is complete. Larval development varies among species, ranging from 20 to 60 days. Before pupating, the larvae leave the host's skin and drop to the soil. Generally, the host is not severely damaged by this parasite. The majority of the injury occurs when the larvae exit the host through the warble. Parasitism by the botfly does not affect the edibility of the rabbit (assuming you eat rabbit), generally the area adjacent to the warble is trimmed away, and the rest of the rabbit is suitable to eat. Is there such a thing as a human bot fly? Yes, we're sorry to say there is. Called the torsalo, Dermatobia hominis, occurs in Mexico and Central America. Fortunately, getting one is an extremely unlikely occurrence for the average visitor. 2nd instar torsalo larva, note the hooks to hold it in place! One of the really cool things about this insect is that it lays its eggs on a mosquito and the eggs hatch when the mosquito feeds on a host. Do humans get warbles? Yes, (are you disgusted yet)? A torsalo warble While the maggot feeds on its host (you) it has to have a hole in the skin so it can continue to breath. It takes about 6 weeks to complete development on its host. There are stories of entomologists rearing torsalos on themselves in order to get a good specimen of an adult (which are rarely captured), but we regard this as taking your profession a little too far. Camphorated snake oil -- a product of Mr. Peter Singfield of Xaibe Village, is an excellent solution. Also good is his highly camphorated virgin coconut oil
charles cure: A doctor has an obligation to life, and cannot opt to sacrifice someone else for the benefit of another. If such were allowed, we'd have people coming in for routine checkups, then butchered for their organs. It is the same principle. Moreover, it would depend on the circumstance as to whether or not to perform the caesarian. She is in labour all ready, yes? And the certainty of her death is not 100 percent, yes? As far as my knowledge of the law extends, one is only legally permitted to intentionally kill another if that person is wielding a deadly weapon with the to harm or kill, or if one is being approached by a group. Charities can be contacted via phone, churches often provide many services, and specifically in a metropolitan area, there are a lot of other resources. If one cannot talk with one's family, then yes, don't talk, but the option still remains for a great many people. Ontop of this, the notion of "life-threatening" is not necessarily so. Homelessness is not, in and of itself, a "life-threatening" experience, specifically when she not only has a job, but presumably would be able to get another apartment soon after she didn't have her own. And as the law would not allow me to shoot a man who was coming towards me without malicious intent, one cannot murder a child simply for the sake of "conveinence" as would be the case here. There is also the notion of personal responsibility, as this girl consensually engaged in sexuasl intercourse. The system, like all organic ones, is not perfect. Kidneys do not cease to be filtration organs, despite the fact that kidneys also fail. Moreover, "connected" does not equate to "a part of". It might be a good usage for wards of the state and just another one of the ideas. Moreover, "err on the side of choice"? So ought that become the means whereby we always choose? Then we ought to allow murder, rape, theft, arson, tax evasion, treason, pedophilia, et cetera, to go unpunished, because it is a choice and would "violate the freedom for those who are alive"? And what of people who think that not even 21 years olds are alive? Ought we to listen to them? The idea is that many such buildings could comprise a massive metropolis which could house billions and, with improvements, each building could house more people comfortably. (Q): 4 percent of DNA makes us human, Q, so what is so "irrational" about that? We share 90 percent of our genes with cows. Ought we to consider ourselves no different from they? Living in NYC, and having been involved with charities around my area, I can assure you that many exist about here. I could give you the address of one, if you'd like. I can also give you the address of about 10 churches off the top of my head, as well as a synagogue, a mosque, and a Buddhist temple/centre.
4 percent of DNA makes us human, Q, so what is so "irrational" about that? We share 90 percent of our genes with cows. Ought we to consider ourselves no different from they? From a biological standpoint, we must. If so much of a percentage of DNA is shared with other animals and that which is gestating within a womb is literally unrecognizable from each other, your argument is based on very little scientific evidence. In other words, we farm and slaughter cattle yet we (you) are aghast with the concept of killing that which is only insignificantly different in its trimester state, from a scientific perspective. Living in NYC, and having been involved with charities around my area, I can assure you that many exist about here. I could give you the address of one, if you'd like. I can also give you the address of about 10 churches off the top of my head, as well as a synagogue, a mosque, and a Buddhist temple/centre. That is exactly my point. You are not looking past your own neighborhood, nay, your nose in your thinking process. Problems of unwanted pregnancies exist outside of NYC where such charities don't exist. As well, you're demanding someone hand over their very subsistence to charities for the good part, if not the rest of their lives, simply because you feel they shouldn't abort a zygote, most likely initiated by rape. Absurd in the extreme.
In the US the words "burden of proof" can be used in informal non-legal conversation. right, in the US i can use the word "touchdown" outside of the context of a football game. it doesnt mean it has any relevance to the conversation. a burden of proof is an onus placed on one side in an argument of legality versus illegality, otherwise there is no "mandatory" burden of proof in any sense. especially not in an informal conversation. To a degree, yes. The people's representatives make law. right and in the US the concept of government is based on the majority will being done for them by proxy through representatives who have the ability to make law. it may not work that way in every single case, but it does overwhelmingly, and when it doesnt, usually it is in the interest of protecting the minority population from what has been dubbed "the tyranny of the majority". The decision wasn't decided based upon the public desire. If public majority were to decide, the US would never fully legalize abortion but would instead rely on each state's citizens to vote for pro-abortion representatives. Abortion was legalized in the US because the court found illegalization of abortion against the constitution. right, but in order for the US supreme court to rule on an issue, it must have jurisdiction. Federal Jurisdiction. so what youre saying isnt right. the states dont make the laws on abortion individually because the federal goverments jurisdiction in the matter trumps theirs. set down in the constitution is a 200 year old majoritarian desire to seperate the functions and spheres of influence of the state and federal governments. the constitution itself was ratified by a majority of the representatives from the states themselves. if you were to say what you just said about the right to abort about slavery, then there would be no need for the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because each state could have made its own laws about slavery according to the majority will of their state. that however, in terms of a national issue, does not represent a true majority. if the issue is before the entire country, then what counts is the federal majority will and not the state majority will. and based on that abortion law is what it is today. the court found the state of Texas to be acting outside of its power when illegalizing abortion. the rationale for a legally impenetrable "right to choice" is based on constitutional assertions of privacy. the issue the supreme court was deciding in roe v wade was whether or not a state has a right to restrict a persons implied right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. the theory is that a person has a certain inalienable sphere of privacy that consists of at least their own body (in other cases in Texas it has also been construed to mean a persons home as well) and that they have the right to make decisions about what to do within that private sphere. the federal governments law, as laid out in the constitution forbade Texas from entering into that sphere and illegalizing freedom of action for people if they were acting totallyinside that protected area. from the roe v wade decision: 3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. the right to privacy asserted in this decision comes from an amendment to the constittution, which was ratified by a larger than normal majority vote. it IS the public will in a much more material and all-encompassing way than the majority of people in texas represent "the public will". theres this: Well, euthanasia is separate from a coma. Someone in a coma, baring other complications, has a pretty good chance of commng out alive, I think. then theres this: Well, you cannot conclusively prove a man in a comma will have the same abliity to think. Perhaps five years later he will wake up and lack this ability. make up your mind. youre making assumptions with no factual basis. The fetus five years or so after being born will probably also have this abliity and will probably have a greater chance of having this abliity. Life history, me being so forgetful, doesn't seem that important For all we could know, that man in comma could be a murder with life imprisonment. In any case, I hold my future to have greater importance than my past. thats what you hold. theres no fact there. you made an assertion about the likelihood of a person in a coma coming out of it with the ability to think, and a child of five years having not been damaged beyond the point of thought by either birth defect or accident. you have not even attempted an analysis based on real data of what the likelihood of either one of those things is. you are making assertions based on perception and not information.
james. A doctor has an obligation to life, and cannot opt to sacrifice someone else for the benefit of another. If such were allowed, we'd have people coming in for routine checkups, then butchered for their organs. It is the same principle. Moreover, it would depend on the circumstance as to whether or not to perform the caesarian. She is in labour all ready, yes? And the certainty of her death is not 100 percent, yes? a doctor takes an oath and has an obligation to "do no harm", this is NOT an obligation to preserve life at all costs. there is a big grey area between your assertion and the actuality. and i seriously doubt that if someone got butchered for their organs at a routine checkup that anyone would go to that doctor again. that idea is ridiculous and extreme. i gave you the circumstances shes in labor, and the probability of her death, from the doctors point of view is high enough to have he or she convinced that the mother will die. it doesnt have to be 100% because the death of the fetus isnt 100% either. nothing in a situation like that has 100% certainty. As far as my knowledge of the law extends, one is only legally permitted to intentionally kill another if that person is wielding a deadly weapon with the to harm or kill, or if one is being approached by a group. then your knowledge of the law is inadequate or incomplete. the definition of deadly weapon is a cause for wide range of interpretation based on the circumstances of the situation. what is deadly? an axe? a gun? a pocketknife? a rock? a car? a fire extinguisher? what constitutes a big enough group of people is subject to debate based on situational circumstances, what constitutes a big enough group to be life-threatening? two people? twenty five? these are the factors that are in play and they represent different threats to different people based on a number of situational and experiential circumstances. the person whose life is threatened is an essential characterizer of the events and circumstances in which they felt threatened, because often enough, the concept of threat itself is subjective even within "reasonable" boundaries. Charities can be contacted via phone, churches often provide many services, and specifically in a metropolitan area, there are a lot of other resources. If one cannot talk with one's family, then yes, don't talk, but the option still remains for a great many people. Ontop of this, the notion of "life-threatening" is not necessarily so. Homelessness is not, in and of itself, a "life-threatening" experience, specifically when she not only has a job, but presumably would be able to get another apartment soon after she didn't have her own. And as the law would not allow me to shoot a man who was coming towards me without malicious intent, one cannot murder a child simply for the sake of "conveinence" as would be the case here. There is also the notion of personal responsibility, as this girl consensually engaged in sexuasl intercourse. the key here is that you said church charity or charity in general is accessible often and not always. what you are positing here is undoubtedly true for some people. i wasnt asking you to factor the probability of something like this happening i said you must accept that it is possible even if not probable. i never said the girl consented to sexual intercourse either. i just said the father could not be found. and maybe you should go try being homeless on the streets of new york city for a month in the middle of winter to see if homelessness itself is not a "life threatening situation". i see you have a lot of empathy for the assumed suffering of the unborn, but not a lot for poor people. in addition to this, i would encourage you to read the book called: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich this is a synopsis of it: Essayist and cultural critic Barbara Ehrenreich has always specialized in turning received wisdom on its head with intelligence, clarity, and verve. With some 12 million women being pushed into the labor market by welfare reform, she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to $7 an hour, only half of what is considered a living wage. So she did what millions of Americans do, she looked for a job and a place to live, worked that job, and tried to make ends meet. As a waitress in Florida, where her name is suddenly transposed to "girl," trailer trash becomes a demographic category to aspire to with rent at $675 per month. In Maine, where she ends up working as both a cleaning woman and a nursing home assistant, she must first fill out endless pre-employment tests with trick questions such as "Some people work better when they're a little bit high." In Minnesota, she works at Wal-Mart under the repressive surveillance of men and women whose job it is to monitor her behavior for signs of sloth, theft, drug abuse, or worse. She even gets to experience the humiliation of the urine test. So, do the poor have survival strategies unknown to the middle class? And did Ehrenreich feel the "bracing psychological effects of getting out of the house, as promised by the wonks who brought us welfare reform?" Nah. Even in her best-case scenario, with all the advantages of education, health, a car, and money for first month's rent, she has to work two jobs, seven days a week, and still almost winds up in a shelter. As Ehrenreich points out with her potent combination of humor and outrage, the laws of supply and demand have been reversed. Rental prices skyrocket, but wages never rise. Rather, jobs are so cheap as measured by the pay that workers are encouraged to take as many as they can. Behind those trademark Wal-Mart vests, it turns out, are the borderline homeless. With her characteristic wry wit and her unabashedly liberal bent, Ehrenreich brings the invisible poor out of hiding and, in the process, the world they inhabit--where civil liberties are often ignored and hard work fails to live up to its reputation as the ticket out of poverty. maybe this would help you get some insight into the realities of the lives of poorer people. The system, like all organic ones, is not perfect. Kidneys do not cease to be filtration organs, despite the fact that kidneys also fail. Moreover, "connected" does not equate to "a part of". no, but here is how i view that situation. the fetus is made out of the mothers egg, which existed inside her body before the fetus, and the fathers sperm, which he put there with the mothers permission (in every case that is not rape). now since it is made out of her and is connected to her in a significant way, a significant enough way that it can become diseased through as a result of this connection, or alternatively would starve to death without the connection, it is a part of her body. for me its that simple. maybe not for you. thats ok. im not trying to say that what i think about it is a fact, even though my opinion is supported with facts. i am making a persuasive argument advocating something. you are attemting to tear down my argument using your perception that so far i have not seen you support in a factual way that a fetus is alive from conception. It might be a good usage for wards of the state and just another one of the ideas. Moreover, "err on the side of choice"? So ought that become the means whereby we always choose? Then we ought to allow murder, rape, theft, arson, tax evasion, treason, pedophilia, et cetera, to go unpunished, because it is a choice and would "violate the freedom for those who are alive"? And what of people who think that not even 21 years olds are alive? Ought we to listen to them? you have misunderstood me. i said this: right, neither of us can say what may happen with any kind of provability. thats why in my opinion we must err on the side of choice and freedom for those who are alive and i do not think that a child is alive from the moment of conception. my arguement in this context was that because we could not say what the childs life would be like after birth i felt we must err on the side of choice for the already living mother who can make a judgement about quality of life. while i did not spell it out in that much detail, i did not make an argument for murder, rape, theft, tax evasion, or anything else unless you take the statement out of context. i said i support freedom of choice for people as long as their choices do not negatively impact someone elses freedom of choice. that being said i also wrote that my opinion is that a fetus is not alive from conception so i do not think it is accorded the same rights. thats what i said and what i meant. it is not a means by which you could support legalized arson, rape , or murder on the basis of freedom of choice. understand that. The idea is that many such buildings could comprise a massive metropolis which could house billions and, with improvements, each building could house more people comfortably. sure, i'd like to see the plans for those buildings and the public or private funding system that would allow for us to both demolish our current cities, clean them up, and rebuild them in this new, more sustainable form. i would like to be able to see how that is possible, even over a gradual period of say five or six decades, and then i would be able to make a judgement on whether or not i think that thats a realistic alternative or a more practical alternative than controlling our own population instead of letting it run rampant causing us to have to build these kind of structures in the first place.
No, that wasn't my intention. Suit yourself, no one said that you had to read it. Time exists only in the thoughts. My time is eternal.
Nothing is a waste of time. It is only possible to waste time if we create such a thing with our thoughts.
Yes, but I have heard the words "burden of proof" spoken so much by Americans that I'm fairly certain that it can be used informally in American English. I would parse the phrase to mean the one who must take the burden to prove. This definition be fairly consistent with my usage. To prove, I take it, is quite different from backing up an argument with supporting evidence. Because to prove(non-mathematically at least) is to show completely, almost without doubt. ( Webster doesn't even have the legal defintiion but says this: "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge") No, I meant one side must show an attribute or quality to greater degree. It would be like me saying "it's their duty to show". No, the majority's will isn't quite the representative's job. The representative must represent his people: he must make decisions that he believes benefits his people. And this vein, in some cases, the majority's will isn't what's best for his people, in some case it is. But in the cases the majority's will isn't what's best, the representative must go against the majority's will. Well, I think because the Roe alledged her consitutional rights were violated by Texas anti-abortion laws the Supreme Court, after the case was appealled through lower courts, eventually took up the case. Yes, following a strict adherance to state majority's will may have allowed slavery back then. But if the majority will at a national level trumps state majority on each issue, then the states effectively have no power. You said before only if an issue is national, but whether such an issue is national quite arbitrary. I disagree. Issues such as pollution are a national issue, and are decided in part by the nation, but also by the state. For example, places such as New York City have more smog than places in the country. Maybe the gasoline sold there has stricter pollution standards than in the country. Well, I can't follow such an argument. If the fetus is a human being, then clearly, despite being with the mother, the fetus is not a part of the mother. So the issue of the right to privacy hedges on the fetus being a human being. Following other laws, such as laws against reckless driving or use of a firearm, these laws usually side on caution. Even without proving that a human being is directly injured, these laws prohibit reckless activity. Someone in a coma might not have the same reasoning abilties as before. I've observed it. But euthanasia is a different issue Most patients who'll seek assisted suicide are either brain dead(they've written beforehand they've wanted to die in such a state) or severe pain(they agree to allow the doctor kill them). OK, to address both people, it's possible for the child of five years to become brain dead while the man in the comma awakes normally. But it's also possible for the man in a comma to mental damage while child doesn't. My point was, both are possibliities in the future. The observable signs of thinking such as speech and communication aren't present in both fetus and the man in the comma(though brain waves might be uesed). Ability can be questioned as well. The fetus, given sufficient time to grow, will eventually think and communicate. He or she has this abliity if sufficient time is given.
I understand my post was lengthy, and I can understand someone not really wanting to read it all, or indeed having the time to post a response to all of it, but this is just the weak way out. I said a lot more then you imply I said, which you'd know if you read it. There were also several questions - none of which received an answer - and yet you then go on to ask me questions, which I personally consider quite rude. However, I shall answer your question and then condense my entire post into just a couple of questions, and perhaps add one or two more, in the hopes that an answer will be forthcoming. The mass majority of my post was based upon things you had stated, and yet when you say: " try facts next time", you're seemingly having an issue with my rebuttals to your assumptions and claims - which are rooted in fact. You spoke of definition of "living being". I provided the definition to that - and showed that a fetus is a "living being" by definition. You have yet to even remotely debate that. So, here are some questions: You argue that a fetus is part of the woman's body - because she 'owned' the egg, (much like a tumor - your own words). So.. let's say a woman's egg is implanted in another woman, and then fertilised using another man's sperm. 1) Does the woman who is carrying the fetus have the right to kill it? 2) Does the original owner of the egg and sperm have the right to kill it? 3) Does the husband of the woman who is carrying the fetus have any say over whether it can be aborted? 4) Please explain your yes and no's. It's hard to judge because since I showed you a fetus is classifiable as a living being, you've spent more time debating that the woman owns the child. It would also be nice if you could get round to my points regarding your 'it can't walk or think' comments, and why it is then any different for a mentally ill cripple. You would probably argue that it's "just a bunch of cells", to which I would then argue that so are you. You would then argue that it's 'desire to survive' is not really a choice on it's part, to which I would then argue that the same is true with you. The only real difference is whether the mother wants the child or not. If she doesn't, it's just a fetus, just a bunch of cells - if she does it's a baby, a human. My answer would be yes. I suppose it is worth asking at what stage of pregnancy, (if at all), you would consider the fetus to be human. At what stage would you consider abortion as wrong - and why? Seemingly rather silly of you. You specifically asked me for my opinion and then have a pop at me for using my opinion? Fact: It is a 'living being', Fact: It is human, (just a very very small version. What more do you need? I await so much as one 'fact' from you. Let's not be silly Charles, there isn't much need for it. Your entire argument has been so pointless, with the old; "the child can't live if left in a field", "a fetus is like a tumor", and other such nonsense based on your own personal little opinion, and then you dare try and talk to me like this? I consider such tactics as weak.
(Q): It is not "unrecognizable", precisely because of that four percent. If something has a measurable difference, there is a difference. This ought to be self-evident. "Insignificantly different"? Even a matter of a few genes radically changes the organism. We are 99.5 percent similar to chimpanzees, yet look at the vast difference it makes. The specific circumstance was being addressed. Moreover, there is no place in the first world where there are not charities within reasonable distance, or outside one's capacity to contact. "Absurd"? Sorry, but inconveinence does not sanction murder. Claim conveinence for murdering a 21 year old and one would be sent to the chair. There is no "self-defense" to be had here. charles cure: "a doctor takes an oath and has an obligation to "do no harm", this is NOT an obligation to preserve life at all costs. there is a big grey area between your assertion and the actuality. and i seriously doubt that if someone got butchered for their organs at a routine checkup that anyone would go to that doctor again. that idea is ridiculous and extreme. i gave you the circumstances shes in labor, and the probability of her death, from the doctors point of view is high enough to have he or she convinced that the mother will die. it doesnt have to be 100% because the death of the fetus isnt 100% either. nothing in a situation like that has 100% certainty." To do no harm includes all life which is human. To engage in any operation that kills one person to save another, and that is the intent of that operation, is to violate that principle. Now, as regards the situation, I've come to a more definite decision: There is no certainty that the mother will die from a Caesarian, but there is 100 percent certainty that the child shall die from being asphyxiated, and thus the doctor ought to do all he can to save the person with one hundred percent certainty of death. Subjective though it may be, I would strongly doubt that any court would say that malicious intent could be found within any child in any womb to warrant lethal force against it. This is not Rosemary's Baby. It is remotely, remotely possible, that no charity would help her. I shall not say it isn't. But it is the farthest, most remote possibility as pertains to this. You're right, I had assumed consensual intercourse, as the father cannot be found, and it is not normal that a girl depends on her rapist for aid. However, even if she were raped, that would only take away from the personal responsibility of an action of sex, which does not justify the murdering of her child. As to the poor: People can, and do, survive homeless all over the world. In the first world, there are numerous shelters. That's capitalism for you. Raise their wages and prices for everything would go up, which would force them into the same situation. The best thing to do is simply not be unskilled. But, as you noted, it is not made solely from her, and thus simply on a common-sense level, we cannot conclude that it is part of her body. Ontop of this, as I have noted numerous times before, genetics proves that the child is not part of the mother. Will you argue the simple scientific fact that a child shares 50 percent of its genes with its mother, 50 percent of its genes with its father? Can something which shares only fifty percent of its genes with something be "part of that person's body"? Yet what about those people who assert that 21 year olds are not alive? But again: Is this opinion based in fact? Unless you will refute the genetic foundation for life itself then your view is invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_1000 Although I am not sure if they'd replace the cities for quite a great deal, or whether or not they'd simply be built in lieu of other construction. I will, however, note that I got the amount of permanent residents wrong, as it is only 35,000. Still, 35,000 people in one building is a significant amount and would do wonders for space-usage.
So when you had your abortion then it was ok since it was for a noble cause? Even better... now you are supplying heaven with fresh souls. The drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket would be impressed. Who's the real hypocrite here? I get it... it was right only when you needed to have one in your dire situation... but it was ok because you found Jesus in the process. Well here is my question... who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? Yeah... lets quickly examine the odds of this occurrence. Most abortions are performed on young (often teen) mothers in underprivileged areas. So let's just assume that mom decides to keep said child and raises this poor soul in poverty and of course on the welfare system (our tax dollars). What are the chances this child is going to actually make it to #1 Adulthood, #2 Out of the Hood, #3 To College??? My money rests on him or her on the street, in our prison system... or of course raising other illegitimate kids on welfare. I choose ABORTION!
Only 19% of abortions are performed on teenage mothers. First of all, the mother has a choice whether to put the child up for adoption or to try the raise the child. Second, I would rather the mother or family try to raise the child. Poverty isn't really the problem you're making it to be. It's the parent's disfunctional behavior is what causes their children to have problems. If you think those in "Hood" are so bad, then why don't you take your agenda a step further and advocate murdering those in the "Hood".
