|
Post by fretslider on Dec 19, 2010 17:21:01 GMT -5
I hate to point the obvious out, so I ask... How could there be a genetic difference between a newly formed foetus, when it is a new born baby and when it becomes an adult? The genes are there from the moment the spermatazoa fertilises the ovum. Its a rather pointless statement. Why would you need to prove that kindness and consideration are preferable to hatred and cruelty? I think most of us have worked that out for ourselves. Deontology was never my bag. Why? Typically in any deontological system, the duties, rules, and obligations are determined by God. Nuff said. The point is that a feotus IS a human being in embryo. As such, there is NO moral difference between abortion and infanticide and the only practical difference is timing. To assume that it's OK to kill unborn babies and not to kill once that have been born just strikes me as really weird. Its an embryonic Homo sapiens. You know, there are times when it is kinder to the child. Its not compassionate to inflict pain and suffering to satisfy an irrational belief. If we take your logic to its conclusion, every sperm is sacred. To assume its ok to subject a child to an horrendous life simply because a figment of the imagination is said to demand it, well man, that's really weird.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 20, 2010 1:08:15 GMT -5
and if sperm is sacred then nature has blundered in making so many of them expendable and if we go down that road..we go down the road that life should not be prevented via contraception and women should return to nothing more than breeding machines...no thankyou
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 20, 2010 1:15:44 GMT -5
the criteria is the ability to live independently of the womb and most[not all] but most abortions happen before there is an ability to live independently.. in any case it should be down to the mother who has to bear the child..the mothers wishes should be paramount for what ever reason
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 20, 2010 1:25:45 GMT -5
the feotus is unfinished....it is incomplete..hence the ruling on the timing of abortions....and the proof of the incompletness are the prem baby units..and the many disabilities connected with prem babies both mental and physical...
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Dec 20, 2010 21:23:08 GMT -5
Your arguments apply to any child before it is weaned and mostly thereafter. I see the problem as not one of where to draw the line, but of believing there is a line to be drawn. It's like vegans or ultra-strict vegetarians saying you should not eat bread because yeast is an animal, not a plant. At that level, 'animal' and 'plant' no longer have the simple meanings that our ancestors gave them.
I'd like to turn the abortion argument on its head: abortion is 'killing babies' - alright, why should we not kill babies like our ancestors when they are not fully-formed and show no intellectual capacity? I'm happy to call abortion 'infanticide' - until somebody can give me a convincing argument as to why to treat a tadpole as frog, an egg as a bird, or a baby as a human being.
What I object to is not that at all, but the way abortion is used to constrict women into traditionally masculine values and ideals that make money for the bosses instead of expanding men's life and social values to equality with and support of women's right to bear children if they wish, of value with any choice men might make but exclude women from because that is the one choice women can make that men cannot.
A woman can be equal to the man feminism and male chauvinism define as her superior by conformity to the demands upon men and suppressing her own differences. She may not challenge that feminist belief in masculine (really industrialist)supremacy by claiming her own prerogatives superior, or even equal or worth anything except shameful suppression as making her inferior to the masculine ideal that feminists tell her is traditionally superior, even that too is part of their macho-worshiping contempt for their own sex with no historical backing beyond some of the most backward United States.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 21, 2010 3:49:18 GMT -5
Your arguments apply to any child before it is weaned and mostly thereafter. I . the ability to live OUTSIDE the womb is quite a different scenario for those before full term births...and needs medical intervention in many areas..breathing,,digestion..mental abilities etc etc
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 21, 2010 3:54:34 GMT -5
What I object to is not that at all, but the way abortion is used to constrict women into traditionally masculine values and ideals that make money for the bosses instead of expanding men's life and social values to equality with and support of women's right to bear children if they wish, of value with any choice men might make but exclude women from because that is the one choice women can make that men cannot. A woman can be equal to the man feminism and male chauvinism define as her superior by conformity to the demands upon men and suppressing her own differences. She may not challenge that feminist belief in masculine (really industrialist)supremacy by claiming her own prerogatives superior, or even equal or worth anything except shameful suppression as making her inferior to the masculine ideal that feminists tell her is traditionally superior, even that too is part of their macho-worshiping contempt for their own sex with no historical backing beyond some of the most backward United States. i doubt any women give the above and credence when deciding whether to abort or proceed with a pregnancy and usually go with the more down to earth reasons of finance,,numbers,,health etc etc some times the simplest reasons are the most compelling
|
|