Live Baby thrown in Garbage at Abortion Clinic

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. donna2010 Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    ownership of your body okay good for you.. But um what ownership does that baby have just a ??? Oh right none cause you have the right to your body and that little ones body.. How fair.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    "Baby". "Little one". How rational of you.

    Before around 7 months, that "baby" is not a being, since it doesn't have a functioning neocortex.

    And in early stages, it's not even a baby, really.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    You refer to the 'baby', as if there was a woman

    here and a baby


    over here.

    But there is no independent baby. It is a part of the woman's body. They are one. If the woman makes a decision about her body it is not the same as pressing a button and some toddler

    somewhere outside her body

    dies.

    She is making a decision about a portion of herself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    HA....So what does the baby have to hit air first? Is that the criteria?
    :facepalm:
     
  8. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    What's your criterion?
    When do you think it is OK to abort a fetus?

    and note John: I never said anything about hitting air. I made it clear what my criterion was.
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    It isnt really ever 'ok'. After all we could have been aborted but we wouldn't think that was ok, would we?
     
  10. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    So you are against actions that one knows will kill the fetus?
     
  11. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Isn't ANYONE going to address the fact that until a certain point in pregnancy, it's not a "baby"?

    Seriously, you think it's immoral to get rid of something that was conceived 2 weeks ago?
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    You shouldn't answer a question with a question.
     
  13. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    I stated my position in the post you responded to, John. I am now asking you what your position is. I want to see if it is consistent.
     
  14. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    I did, see my post above.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    This is not a god criterion:

    Still, i said 'hit air' because the baby is still not independent after it comes out.

    I would try and avoid aborting. It is a sensitive subject but the fact is sometimes people end up regretting the decision. There is also the catch 22 and the earth is going to be overpopulated anyway. I think that if a person wants to have sex then they take precautions BEFORE the pregnancy. Perhaps medically altering the ability to something that can be reversed. I am somewhat flexible afa choices but lets face it, this is more the responsibility of the woman because she is the one getting pregnant.

    Edit: the last part is unfortunate but it is a fact.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  16. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    It has a separate bloodstream. It breathes on its own. It is not part of the mother. Now there are two organisms. We went from one biological unit to two biological units. One person to two people.

    Well, it actually sounds like you are pro-choice, but hope that women do not make that choice and take steps in advance - of sex - to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

    I think the anti-abortion stance is not an easy one. If you think it is wrong, period, for fetuses to be killed, you have to be against war - either Gulf War or the Afghanistan war, as examples where fetuses are killed both directly and indirectly (often along with their mothers) by Allied military actions. You would have to take a stand against, for example, the embargo against Iraq which led to untold fetal deaths, not to speak of deaths of babies and children. You would have to take a very stark stand against companies whose products have been shown to increase the liklihood of miscarriages. Of course some people do realize what it takes to be consistent on the issue, but they seem very rare.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    yes, but now you are setting your own criteria. What is the difference from the mother or someone else putting a spoon to the babies mouth?

    People make hard decisions, i keep out of their decisions and the person pregnant is a human being too. Abortion is not birth control though, i think that applies before the person gets pregnant. Sometimes a woman cannot get pregnant after an abortion but this usually is common after 3 or 4.

    Two very separate issues. An unborn child did not start a war, so that is a little bizarre. Countries do fine with embargoes, afa children anyway. Cuba has been in an embargo for decades and other countries too.
     
  18. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    that's the point John. In a sense none. The fetus is not part of the woman's body being fed by flesh that is both fetus and mother. A single organism is spreading nutrition throughout its body.

    I wouldn't want people to use abortion as birth control. Nor do I think men should assume it is (only) the woman's business to see to it there is no baby.

    Precisely. The fetuses killed in the Gulf war tended to never enter the minds of most anti-abortionists. Is an Iraqui fetus less innocent. And yet a large % of anti-abortionists think it is ok to kill fetuses in war, for some reason, despite precisely what you are saying - the fetuses did not start the war.
    Iraq did not, and this was seen very shortly after the embargo started. So people knew. And we are talking about thousands and thousands and thousands. Once these babies and fetuses started dying, I would have thought anti abortionists would have had a problem with the embargo, but the vast majority did not.

    Cuba has not done well under the embargo.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    ah, well then lets try breast feeding. take a few health education courses, did they have those in your school? i dont see much of a distinction afa a child ready to be born and one recently born because the baby is nowhere near independent.

     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,393
    No you don't.

    You don't think a human embryo six weeks after conception is a baby, any more than I do or anyone else does. The only time you get all worked about it is when talking about abortion.

    Besides: no one - not even an actual baby, five or six months along - has the right to live inside someone else.
     
  21. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    You are focusing on one sense of the word independent. The child is certainly dependent on adults, but not necessarily the woman OF WHOSE BODY HE OR SHE WAS A PART OF. I was focusing more on the fact that there are now two organisms. The fetus' existence was dependent on the mother because it was a part of the mother. After birth its sustenance adn survival are certainly dependent on adults, if not necessarily her. But it has an independent existence. there is a baby and there is a mother. Hell, I am dependent on farmers. No one is independent if we want to get fussy.

    i also notice what you do not respond to.

    See I think the anti abortion community in general likes to see themselves as more moral and they like to keep the focus on the choice position. But if you carefully look at the anti-abortion position and want to keep consistent, sacrifices will have to be made. I do not see many willing to make these and consistent. Which makes me think the issue is not fetuses, but the women and sex. BEcause when it comes to Iraqui fetuses, they just don't seem to give a damn.

    So how can one criticize women and sex without seeming judgmental. Ah, make it about the fetus. But only the fetuses in women we might want to control.
     
  22. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    1) The sovereign rights of a conscious self-aware individual over the entirety of his/her body and its contents shall not be infringed, including but not limited to the addition or removal of portions thereof.

    2) An entity without a conscious self-awareness (fetus) shall fall under the purview of a host (woman), and all decisions regarding said entity shall be subject to the judgment of said host per article 1).

    3) Upon birth (biologically independent existence) society shall deem the entity to be protected by the same laws that apply to the well being of any other member of society, while still under the stewardship of the host-cum-parent.

    4) Upon obtaining the ability to independently navigate said society and survive effectively and prosperously in said society, stewardship of said entity ends.

    (C) superlumnal, 2010
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Doreen,

    "You are focusing on one sense of the word independent"

    That is the basis of your criteria. To limit it to one world, while convenient for you, is disingenuous.

    "But it has an independent existence."

    And the sentence prior to that you said:

    "After birth its sustenance adn survival are certainly dependent on adults, if not necessarily her."

    The piont is that new born babies cannot survive, this nullifies your original (main) point.

    "No one is independent if we want to get fussy."

    You should not mix science with philosophy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page