Jump to content

Home

Abortion debate (older thread)


VanLingo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Kurgan

-I'm against Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

 

Saying a person is better off dead than poor is really saying a lot (what a depressing thought).

 

I'd go through more of your post, but it's late and I'm tired and sick, so this is all I've got in me.

 

I'm most against your stance on Euthenasia, because I honestly don't understand the logic. Why is it humane to force somebody to endure pain and suffering, when the end result is the same? There are diseases that we have no cure for, and are nowhere NEAR close to finding a cure. People with these diseases live the ends of their lives suffering through agony just because it is inhumane to let them decide whether they want to live or die? Isn't it THEIR choice? My life is my own, and I should have the right to choose what to do with it. I would hope that were I a terminally ill patient, and it was a disease that brought me nothing but pain, that I would get the choice of ending that suffering, since I was destined to die young anyways.

 

 

As for your second point, it's not that they're better off dead than poor, that was never my intent. My meaning is that they're better off never existing, and never KNOWING that they never existed than living the life of an unwanted child. Now I can't quote any statistics as I dont know any, but I am fairly certain that they are highly more likely to end up neglected or abused, which is no way for a person to live.

 

Now granted, eventually they will grow up, and some of them become well adjusted adults. But there are also the ones who go home and eat 20 sleeping pills, or the ones who grow up and abuse their own children.

 

It seems to me that terminating a conglomeration of cells that doesn't even have a central nervous system can hardly be called murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

he's right! In the big picture, EVERYONE is just a little blob of tissue, growing on a tiny planet! we are no "bigger" or more "important" than the unborn.

 

I assume that goes for animals and other lifeforms as well, right?

 

Should we treat the million of bacteria we kill each day as just as important as "human life"?

 

We kill stuff for food, for convenience. It's only human to classify lifeforms as we do with unborn fetii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kurgan

Is humanism a religion? It's got some of the hallmarks of religion, but anyway, it's based on beliefs we have about ourselves, so, that's another thought.

 

An interesting question, and one that is not easily anwered. The fundamental difference between a religion and a non-religious ideology (for lack of a better term), is that religion is dogmatic and claims to be justified a priori, whereas the non-religious idea accepts detractors. Thus Humanism is not a religion per se, but a lot of people are doing their level best to turn it into one. They have not quite succeded just yet, but there is a distinct possibility that they will.

 

eggs and sperm are already alive, but demonstratably incapable of "developing into a human being on their own." Likewise their DNA is identical to the contributor.

 

Now, that's not quite correct. The genetic make-up of sperm and eggs is actually quite distinct from that of the contributor (it has only one pair of chromosomes, for instance).

 

Sperm don't live in wild, and I have yet to see colonies of human eggs scampering around in the forest.

 

But the same thing goes for 9 weeks old fetuses.

 

What is this about "Fully grown" humans? Are we talking 18 years old? We're growing and developing our entire lives, really. So saying that a person is human only after birth or only after they can vote is really a an arbitrary distinction of society.

 

But so is the 'conception' line of argument. Artificial. And likewise, the conventions of human rights are artificial. And the Bible is artificial. Everything we use to justify certain moral standards is artificial.

 

Speaking of PETA earlier (only as a side note), why don't we give morphine to the fetus who is being aborted? We care about 'animal rights' but we don't care about a young vulnerable human?

 

Morphine doesn't really work on something that hasn't got a brain. But as a matter of fact, the fetus is quite dead when the actual extraction takes place.

 

Then there's the adoption issue. Granted, a woman has a big chance of becoming "attached" to her baby by carrying him/her in her womb for 9 months, but still, is it really more loving to have him/her killed than to give her up to some strangers?

 

But by adoption you can save a third-world child that's actually been born already. So, to save a four-week fetus you sacrifice a four-year child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Now, that's not quite correct. The genetic make-up of sperm and eggs is actually quite distinct from that of the contributor (it has only one pair of chromosomes, for instance).

 

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but I mean that the fetus is not just a hunk of the mother's body, as some claim in these debates. On the one hand you have dad's sperm and mom's egg, then you have "new thing" which is a combination of both.

 

But the same thing goes for 9 weeks old fetuses.

 

But so is the 'conception' line of argument. Artificial. And likewise, the conventions of human rights are artificial. And the Bible is artificial. Everything we use to justify certain moral standards is artificial.

 

Yeah, it's all artificial. On the one hand you have pro-life people claiming that it's God's will, that it's nature, that it's moral. Then you have pro-choice people claiming that it's nature, that it's women's rights, that it's religious freedom, etc.

 

So how do we decide which is the "right" answer to put into law? All issues related to human rights are artificial. But if we were to reduce it to some "universal" standard, and you don't want God in the picture, how about the Golden Rule? I wouldn't want to be aborted or killed, so I wouldn't want others to be aborted or killed (even if I can't ask them).

 

 

 

Morphine doesn't really work on something that hasn't got a brain. But as a matter of fact, the fetus is quite dead when the actual extraction takes place.

 

One would only need to use painkillers on something with a nervous system. When we "put animals to sleep" we don't rip them open with a knife, although that would do the job of killing them. The idea being that making a living being suffer while it's being killed is cruel and inhumane. So the same should apply to an unborn human that can feel pain (the same or even moreso than a St. Bernard or a kitty).

 

Abortion isn't only legal in the very earliest stages of pregnancy, if it were, then this wouldn't be an issue. I just think it's interesting that we don't do that, even admitting that it's human.

 

Granted, there are people out there who claim animals don't feel pain either, but I'm thinking that the scientists and doctors who have the hands on experience would know better.

 

 

But by adoption you can save a third-world child that's actually been born already. So, to save a four-week fetus you sacrifice a four-year child?

 

As I said before the lines for adoption are very long, and the process for adoption is very strict. Should we only adopt "third world children"? What about first world children? What if somebody wants to adopt one of them?

 

Anyway, when a person has a child, they're contributing another person into the "pool" of children out there.

 

The fact that there are already some who are up for adoption isn't that person's problem. The fact is by putting them up for adoption they're giving them a chance, one that they cannot provide for the child otherwise. This is better than choosing to take away that child's life. If it's so wrong to have children, then we can back up a step and say, "well they should have used protection" or "they shouldn't have been having sex if they knew they couldn't handle it." So sex education and contraception should be made more widely available.

 

BUT, that said, I'm not arguing that abortion should be an "escape valve" for unplanned pregnancy, as the pro-choice line of argument would have it.

 

As to Euthanasia, this is not "forcing a person to stay alive who has pain."

 

First off, we have medicines and treatments that can handle all sorts of pain, that includes depression (which fuels suicidal feelings). A person may feel like dying, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally kill them to "stop the pain." We can stop the pain other ways that don't involve killing. As to refusing treatment, that's something entirely.

 

Is there a moral difference between these two scenarios?

 

Let's say you're in a war and your buddy has been shot. He's crawling towards you with his guts hanging out. He's clearly near death and there's no medical attention within reach. He says "kill me..." weakly.

 

Do you take out your gun and shoot him in the head to "put him out of his misery" or is it equally moral to just run away, or hold his hand and try to comfort him until he dies? Or are you obligated to kill him because he asked you?

 

Granted, in war, people toss the rules of morality out the window (which I don't agree with), but let's just say it's something like that.

 

Now take the above scenario and instead of two soldiers in a warzone, say it's two police officers in a big city and you were in a big gangland style battle. Would it still be moral to waste your friend?

 

Now if a person is trying to take their own life, should we stop them? I say, yes. Suicidal feelings are usually (if not always) caused by mental illnesses, primarily depression. We have drugs that can treat depression and depression itself is not a permanent condition. Thus if we stop a person from committing suicide, we can treat them. They may wish to die now, but they may not wish to die later. Yes, we violated that person's freedom by stopping them, but on the other hand, we may have helped society by keeping that person alive, likewise they were not in their "right mind" and we helped them.

 

It's like when an animal has stitches in its head, we put one of those cones around his neck so he can't scratch out the stitches and give himself an infection. Sure, we're taking away some of his freedom but we're preventing a greater harm that he would do himself.

 

Likewise in a field hospital it may be necessary to amputate a person's limb, without doing so they may die. I'm sure the person doesn't want to lose the limb, but they may not realize the implications of that choice.

 

A depressed person may not realize the implications of their disease, thinking that the world really is better off without them, that they really are useless, that the pain really will never end and they are better off dead, etc. so are they really capable of making that choice?

 

So, that huge element of doubt prevents me from saying that it's okay. If a person kills themselves in some back alley, we can't stop them. But if somebody says "hey, I'm going to do it" the right thing to do is to stop them. And if they say "you do it to me" the right thing to do is to refuse.

 

 

And finally, as to saying a fetus is just like anything else, we aren't that stupid. We know that a random bacteria isn't going to form into a human being on its own. Likewise a sperm that's in a test tube won't spontaneously become a human being either. And a bunny rabbit, no matter how cute and how many tricks it learns won't become a human being.

 

The fact that we designate certain human beings as having fewer rights or no rights, etc. is artificial and unfortunate. Based on the Golden Rule, I'd say we should give unborn human beings at least the most basic rights that other humans enjoy. For now they don't have any, really, (though a couple of cases of manslaughter or double-homocide seem to have been discussed for those who murder pregnant women or cause them to have a misscarriage). As of now an unborn human is treated basically as property (of the mother) or as a part of her own body (so it's like if you had an amputation or a surgery). The reasons against abortion are philosophical, but then the reasons for abortion are also philosophical.

 

The question of whether or not to have an abortion is just solved. If you believe that it's okay, then there's nothing stopping you, if you believe it's not okay, then you don't have one (of course if an unborn human has rights, then you just violated them if you had an abortion).

 

The bigger question is if the rest of society should also be allowed to make that choice (ie: resulting in at least some abortions).

 

This could be compared to other instances of society injustice towards certain members, such as slavery, genocide, women's rights, etc. There have been other disenfranchised classes in society before. The decision to "give" them rights was philosophical, emotional, etc. legal one. Was it right? Well, who knows, right?

 

The only difference here is that the unborn humans can't say "yes, save me I don't want to be killed." Perhaps we could compare this to the rights of very young children, or mentally handicapped people, or deaf mutes. Ie: people who have great difficulty communicating philosophical ideas to "normal" adults (the ones who make the decisions for those people).

 

But that's a good argument for pro-life people continuing to oppose abortion, rather than some notion that they are "forcing their religion on everyone else."

 

Besides, if you think something is objectively moral and right, wouldn't you be fighting for it too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kurgan

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but I mean that the fetus is not just a hunk of the mother's body, as some claim in these debates. On the one hand you have dad's sperm and mom's egg, then you have "new thing" which is a combination of both.

 

That is intuitively obvious. Difference, however, is hardly the same as individuality. As someone (I believe that it was Tyrion) said earlier: A fetus has all the awareness of your average retarded fish. And the argument that the fetus 'could potentially develop into a full human' doesn't hold either. It is still wholly dependent on the mother. After birth this is not the case. After birth there has to be some caring adult, certainly, but not nessecarily the mother.

 

But if we were to reduce it to some "universal" standard, and you don't want God in the picture, how about the Golden Rule? I wouldn't want to be aborted or killed, so I wouldn't want others to be aborted or killed (even if I can't ask them).

 

Aha, but by the same token I wouldn't want to have to go through an unwanted pregnancy, and so should not force one on others.

 

One would only need to use painkillers on something with a nervous system.

 

My point exactly.

 

As I said before the lines for adoption are very long, and the process for adoption is very strict. Should we only adopt "third world children"? What about first world children? What if somebody wants to adopt one of them?

 

You're dodging the question. The point is that your would-be-adopted fetus removes an oppertunity for a born child to be spared starvation, illness and Emperor only knows what else.

 

The fact is by putting them up for adoption they're giving them a chance, one that they cannot provide for the child otherwise. This is better than choosing to take away that child's life.

 

Except that it's robbing a child of the chance of getting a happy life. You're trading a fetus for a born child.

 

If it's so wrong to have children, then we can back up a step and say, "well they should have used protection" or "they shouldn't have been having sex if they knew they couldn't handle it." So sex education and contraception should be made more widely available.

 

All well and fine, but if the fascists in the West Wing get it their way, those programs will be 'abstinence only'-biased, something that just doesn't work.

 

As to Euthanasia, this is not "forcing a person to stay alive who has pain."

 

First off, we have medicines and treatments that can handle all sorts of pain, that includes depression (which fuels suicidal feelings). A person may feel like dying, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally kill them to "stop the pain." We can stop the pain other ways that don't involve killing.

 

While I myself am sceptical of 'assisted suicide', you do paint a very monochromatic picture here. Most painkillers dull your senses and slow your brain (and are addictive to boot) - living on them for prolonged periods of time carries its own distinct problems. I for one would rather not live at all than live permanently in a drug-induced stupor.

 

As to refusing treatment, that's something entirely.

 

Agreed.

 

Now if a person is trying to take their own life, should we stop them?

 

You cannot quite compare the two. People who try to commit suicide by themselves can usually recover from whatever caused them to attempt to take their own lives - primarily because most of those that can be saved are not all that determined. If they are, then you'll have a really hard time saving them.

 

And finally, as to saying a fetus is just like anything else, we aren't that stupid. We know that a random bacteria isn't going to form into a human being on its own. Likewise a sperm that's in a test tube won't spontaneously become a human being either. And a bunny rabbit, no matter how cute and how many tricks it learns won't become a human being.

 

That's beside the point. The point is that it's a part of the mother's body. I've yet to see a 4 weeks old fetus exist in anything but a symbiotic relationship with its "host".

 

This could be compared to other instances of society injustice towards certain members, such as slavery, genocide, women's rights, etc. There have been other disenfranchised classes in society before. The decision to "give" them rights was philosophical, emotional, etc. legal one. Was it right? Well, who knows, right?

 

However, in none of the above cases did the addition of rights hurt other people as gravely as in this.

 

But that's a good argument for pro-life people continuing to oppose abortion, rather than some notion that they are "forcing their religion on everyone else."

 

The only thing wrong witht that is that it's a rationalisation.

 

Besides, if you think something is objectively moral and right, wouldn't you be fighting for it too?

 

That hardly justifies fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when do u have to be born to be considered living ? Yu know whats funny is that I was born 3 months early ,my fathers wedding ring fit around my elbow and I wouldnt have survived had it been for a ventilator . I came out to early, does it still mean I wasnt human because I wasnt 9 months ? I was 7 months and had I not come out early enough I would have still been a "fetus" ,so technically I wasnt living was I ? Oh yeah ,my mothers life was in danger they didnt know if either she or I would live ,gee ,Im glad my parents didnt decide to abort me . Thank God for that .

 

God Bless ,

Reelguy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmmmm, the heated discussion. Well, i beleive abortion is wrong no matter what. It should be the responsibility of those ingaged in sexual activity to be safe. Now that doesn't mean that they won't get pregnant but they should keep this in mind before having sex. So if you look at it one way, no matter what type of birthcontrol you use, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. Therefor the two should know that there is a chance of getting pregnant. And that would negate any unexpected pregnancies. Seeing how there is a chance to get pregnant every time you have sex. And the mistake that two individuals had should not be the fault of the unborn child. abortion is taking away a life that someone could've had. Who knows what that person could've done for the world. But we'll never know, cause it was killed before they had a chance to live.

 

Now when rape comes into play, i have no idea what to do. I can understand how one would feel if they got pregnant because they were raped. And that they wouldn't want that child. So in that case i wouldn't know what one should do. But i would hope they would keep the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kurgan

As to Euthanasia, this is not "forcing a person to stay alive who has pain."

 

First off, we have medicines and treatments that can handle all sorts of pain, that includes depression (which fuels suicidal feelings). A person may feel like dying, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally kill them to "stop the pain." We can stop the pain other ways that don't involve killing. As to refusing treatment, that's something entirely.

I'm not really talking about suicide here so much as accelerated processing. There are a LOT of diseases that we have NO cures for, and they are almost ALWAYS fatal. Not only are they fatal, they're amazingly painful. All you're doing by not offering them the right to choose life or death is saying that it's more important that YOU fulfil YOUR sense of morality than THEY get to live or die how they choose.

Originally posted by Kurgan

Let's say you're in a war and your buddy has been shot. He's crawling towards you with his guts hanging out. He's clearly near death and there's no medical attention within reach. He says "kill me..." weakly.

 

Do you take out your gun and shoot him in the head to "put him out of his misery" or is it equally moral to just run away, or hold his hand and try to comfort him until he dies? Or are you obligated to kill him because he asked you?

I think that if they ask you to kill them then it's being selfish not to. If they are obviously going to be dead within minutes and they're just as obviously going to suffer tremendously for those last several minutes of life, why keep them alive? I understand maybe if you can't kill them just because you're mentally incapable of shooting your own friend, but if you made the concious decision to force your friends painful end to be as long as possible, then I think you are being selfish and cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Feanaro

Who knows what that person could've done for the world. But we'll never know, cause it was killed before they had a chance to live.

 

But, had they chosen NOT to have sex in the first place, the kid would never have been CONCIEVED before it had a chance to live, so the end result is the same, and terminating a fetus before it has the physical capabilities of being aware of anything is not cruel, since it is not aware of pain or death or even it's own existance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, had they chosen NOT to have sex in the first place, the kid would never have been CONCIEVED before it had a chance to live, so the end result is the same, and terminating a fetus before it has the physical capabilities of being aware of anything is not cruel, since it is not aware of pain or death or even it's own existance.

Well, then you have the discussion coming back to beleifs. Whether the fact that a new baby is being made changes the outcome of certain things. You know like it's a wonderful life kind of thing. Had he not been born, You know what i'm trying to say? It's really hard to type what i'm thinking.

Also, do you KNOW that the fetus doesn't have feelings of pain? Or knows that it exists? (just for arguments sake)

But, had they chosen NOT to have sex in the first place, the kid would never have been CONCIEVED before it had a chance to live, so the end result is the same,

Weak. It's an excuse to make abortion *seem* right. And make themselves feel better about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official Press Release from the Roman Catholic Church

 

The answer: "Every Sperm Is Sacred", Lyrics by Michael Palin and Terry Jones.

 

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddists,

There are Hindus and Mormons and then

There are those that follow Mohammad, but

I've never been one of them.

 

I'm a Roman Catholic,

And have been since before I was born,

And the one thing they say about Catholics is

They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

 

You don't have to be a six footer,

You don't have to have a great brain,

You don't have to have any clothes on,

You're a Catholic the moment Dad came, because

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great,

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great,

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

 

Let the heathen spill theirs,

On the dusty ground,

God shall make them pay for

Each sperm that can't be found.

 

Every sperm is wanted,

Every sperm is good,

Every sperm is needed,

In your neighborhood.

 

Hindu, Taoist, Morman,

Spill theirs just anywhere,

But God loves those who treat their

Semen with more care.

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great,

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is good,

Every sperm is needed,

In your neighborhood.

 

Every sperm is useful,

Every sperm is fine,

God needs everybody's,

Mine, and mine, and mine.

 

Let the pagans spill theirs,

O'er mountain, hill and plain.

God shall strike them down for

Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is good,

Every sperm is needed,

In your neighborhood.

 

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great,

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Feanaro

Also, do you KNOW that the fetus doesn't have feelings of pain? Or knows that it exists? (just for arguments sake)

 

Weak. It's an excuse to make abortion *seem* right. And make themselves feel better about it.

 

My stance on Abortion is that I feel it's okay before the fetus has developed a nervous system, and without a nervous system there is no way for pain to be percieved, since pain is something our brain tells us after nerve endings send messages through the nervous system.

 

 

And it's not an excuse, what is the difference in outcome between having sex then aborting the baby or not having sex and never conveiving the baby? Either way it would never have come to be, since the sperm and egg that went into it wouldn't be the ones combining the next time you chose to engage in intercourse. Sure, the baby aborted may have been a true genius who cured cancer, but he also may have become another Unibomber. Or perhaps one of those eggs that a random woman lost to menstruation could have negotiated world peace, but we'll never know because she didn't turn it into a baby.

 

There are a lot of unkowns, but we can't live our lives by them.

 

I was 7 months and had I not come out early enough I would have still been a "fetus" ,so technically I wasnt living was I ? Oh yeah ,my mothers life was in danger they didnt know if either she or I would live ,gee ,Im glad my parents didnt decide to abort me . Thank God for that .

Your anechdote has no real bearing on this discussion, because we're not talking about murdering babies who were born premature. It's obvious that your parents wanted you and wouldn't have aborted you or they would have done it well before 7 months. The argument here isn't that it takes 9 months to make a fetus a person, we're stating that it takes a certain level of development, that an early stage fetus does not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by reelguy227

Feanro what are you talking about ? The "fetus" feels pain .

 

God Bless,

Ricky.

 

A fetus isn't physically able to feel pain before the nerves has connected with the brain, which happens around the 30th week, long after time of abortion. And it most likely also requires a minimum of mental awareness to be able to feel pain like we do, which comes even later.

 

I'll probably write a longer post about the abortion issue in near future, but right now I don't feel like it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kurgan

-I'm against Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

!?!?!!?,:eek: euthanasia is not like suicide, euthanasia is when you are just a vegetal and you decide to die instead of life like a sponge which cant move.

That is freedom.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

My beliefs are based on religion and also on philosophy.

It seems you are american (i just say this bcuz americans are super religious [maybe im wrong])so your beliefs are based on religion about the euthanasia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fetus isn't physically able to feel pain before the nerves has connected with the brain, which happens around the 30th week, long after time of abortion. And it most likely also requires a minimum of mental awareness to be able to feel pain like we do, which comes even later.

But, how do we know that the fetus can't feel anything, though. We cant ask it if this hurts. Couldn't there be a possibility that it feels before the 30th week.

My stance on Abortion is that I feel it's okay before the fetus has developed a nervous system, and without a nervous system there is no way for pain to be percieved, since pain is something our brain tells us after nerve endings send messages through the nervous system.

I know you're not saying this as a means of birthcontrol, but if you allow abortion up to the point of the nervous system being developed. People will use abortion as a birthcontrol method. So basically it's a lose lose situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Breton

A fetus isn't physically able to feel pain before the nerves has connected with the brain, which happens around the 30th week, long after time of abortion. And it most likely also requires a minimum of mental awareness to be able to feel pain like we do, which comes even later.

 

I'll probably write a longer post about the abortion issue in near future, but right now I don't feel like it :)

 

My mother works in an NICU and when they start IV's on 23 weekers ,they cry . How can that not feel pain ? Where do you get your info Breton ? About my argument about me being 7 months was that they deliver babies ,like me ,who are 6 months or more all the time and yet they kill the ones who are the same age through abortion ,why save one life and kill the other ? So just because its not wanted , its not living ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Breton

A fetus isn't physically able to feel pain before the nerves has connected with the brain, which happens around the 30th week, long after time of abortion. And it most likely also requires a minimum of mental awareness to be able to feel pain like we do, which comes even later.

 

I'll probably write a longer post about the abortion issue in near future, but right now I don't feel like it :)

 

My mother works in an NICU and when they start IV's on 23 weekers ,they cry . How can that not feel pain ? Where do you get your info Breton ? About my argument about me being 7 months was that they deliver babies ,like me ,who are 6 months or more all the time and yet they kill the ones who are the same age through abortion ,why save one life and kill the other ? So just because its not wanted , its not living ?

 

God Bless,

Ricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Feanaro

But, how do we know that the fetus can't feel anything, though. We cant ask it if this hurts. Couldn't there be a possibility that it feels before the 30th week.

 

No, I don't believe so. There is honestly no possible way to interpret and recognize pain without a central nervous system. If you went in and had the nerves connecting your arm to your central nervous system deadened then you wouldn't be able to feel ANYTHING in your arm, unless you felt some form of phantom pain (similar to a phantom limb) but the only reason you would feel that is because you KNOW what you SHOULD be feeling it. An unborn fetus would not have that kind of knowledge and therefore would have no sense of pain OR awareness.

 

My mother works in an NICU and when they start IV's on 23 weekers ,they cry

 

That's 23 weeks old Reelguy, almost 6 months. I'm not, and I think MOST of us are not advocating abortion THAT late into the term. I'm not certain exactly what point the nervous system develops in a fetus, but I don't agree with abortion past the 2nd to 3rd month, if that long, and I'm almost certain that the nervous system doesn't develop until at least the 4th - 6th month of pregnancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by InsaneSith

no kidding. I freaked out when I broke one.

 

I pulled out:p

 

Anyways, don't know why I'm doing this my stance is very simple:

 

1: Sex good

2: Fetus good

3: Baby good

4: Rape bad

5: Rape child aborted

6: Birth cause mother death bad

7: Birth cause mother death aborted

8: Accidents bad

9: Accident baby good

 

I like surprises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...