Asimov Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 A pregnant woman is readily asserting her rights that are being violated through unwanted pregnancy. Yes, because you know how often those unborn babies parasites magically and maliciously turn up in innocent women's bodies. Is this facetious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Is this facetious? Extremely. The fact that you have to ask should speak volumes about your argument. There are many good arguments in favor of abortion. Many of them have been made earlier in this thread. But to compare a fetus to a parasite is way out of line, IMO. BTW, I seem to recall that many places (states?) that make killing a fetus during the commission of a crime a murder or manslaughter crime (i.e. shooting a pregnant woman who lives, but killing the fetus). I've got a couple of beers in me right now so I don't care to look up the references, but those kind of laws contradict your earlier statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 One way that I look at it is like this. What if you're placed in a situation where you have to take the life of someone who threatens your own even though you don't want to? Like if someone wants to kill you but the only way out of the situation is to kill in self-defense? If taking a life is always wrong in every situation even when there's been no universally decided definition of when "life" begins yet, should we then make killing in self-defense a crime? If someone kills in self-defense, should we then punish them with the death penalty even though they were the ones about to be murdered? I know this might not be a very good analogy, but the point is even if we can't agree when "life" begins, is ending it always immoral when the other person might cause the end of your life? If a fetus is considered a life and we wouldn't criminalize someone for killing in self-defense, why should we criminalize a woman for having an abortion if the abortion is necessary? Even if we made abortion is illegal, how should the woman be punished? By taking her life through the death penalty? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the "pro-life" movement? I don't think most people in general actually like abortion, but sometimes there are things in life that happen that we don't like but are necessary for us to do even though nobody ever really "likes" it. This is why I hate the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" even though I support legalizing abortion because it implies that people who support it don't value life and are just immoral cold-blooded killers and that everyone against it are automatically some sort of sacred savior of humanity just because they support it yet they might then turn around and contradict themselves by supporting the death penalty. Also, even if I wasn't pro-choice, I would still rather have abortion legalized to insure that women have the best medical support available to them instead of forcing women to turn to shady doctors on the streets with coat hangers or something like that that might make the situation even worse and only reinforce the more extreme views of the pro-life movement when such situations could have been avoided if women just had more legal access to better actually professional doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Babies as parasites… what a romantic metaphor. Are you kidding Asimov? If you were to discover that your cat was pregnant would you think of it as having fleas or worms? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecker Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 Is this facetious? Extremely. The fact that you have to ask should speak volumes about your argument. There are many good arguments in favor of abortion. Many of them have been made earlier in this thread. But to compare a fetus to a parasite is way out of line, IMO. BTW, I seem to recall that many places (states?) that make killing a fetus during the commission of a crime a murder or manslaughter crime (i.e. shooting a pregnant woman who lives, but killing the fetus). I've got a couple of beers in me right now so I don't care to look up the references, but those kind of laws contradict your earlier statement. This is where I first heard the fetus parasite argument. I love the show House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eP-PoIwpOg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I love the show House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eP-PoIwpOg Yeah, I love that show too. Hell, I even like watching reruns of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Now to twist the subject a little more. Hehehe... I will bring up a question we recently had in Psychology class. Nicotine and alcohol are teratogens, which means, if used during pregnancy they can cause malformation of the embryo. If a mother does this, and give birth to a deformed baby, did she do anything wrong while drinking and smoking? Is there an argument for child-abuse in this case, or is it a new form of abuse (fetus-abuse), or is it totally okay? If it's okay, what about barbiturates, illegal drugs, or anything else that could also cause defects? (And House MD, is one of the best shows on TV, besides Burn Notice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Nicotine and alcohol are teratogens, which means, if used during pregnancy they can cause malformation of the embryo. But...But...I was told by a Publican in jolly old England that Guinness is recommended for pregnant women. Because of the iron or something. Surely he couldn't be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I don't think most people in general actually like abortion Very true. I mean, it's not like it's fun to have have a sharp thing poked up your insides and wiggled around, and then to bleed and have severe stomach cramps for several days. If abortion were such a picnic, no one would ever have babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Man, only humans. If we were to witness dolphins giving themselves abortions we might think it maladaptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I love the show House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eP-PoIwpOg Yeah, I love that show too. Hell, I even like watching reruns of it! Admitted House junkie here. But for being a TV drama, it's technically right. A fetus is an organism with DNA different from the host that is using the host for room and board. It's not a nice way to refer to a fetus, certainly, but it's correct, especially in light of the fact that male fetuses (which require an in utero testosterone bath to develop properly), can often cause a more difficult pregnancy due the presence of so much testosterone in the woman's system that would not be there naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Man, only humans. If we were to witness dolphins giving themselves abortions we might think it maladaptive. Not quite abortions, but definately murder. Perhaps retroactive abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Man, only humans. If we were to witness dolphins giving themselves abortions we might think it maladaptive. Rabbits can "abort" by reaborbing fetuses into the doe's body if there are not nutrients to support bearing a litter. Not sure how relevant a fact that is, b/c I'm still a wee bit tipsy. edit for grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 A fetus is an organism with DNA different from the host that is using the host for room and board. Gradstu, are you really going to call an unborn child at 8 months a parasite? Of course it's going to have different DNA. The only exception to this rule I can think of would be asexual reproduction (simple worms and such). According to Wikipedia "Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you believe in the sanctity of human life then how do you get to decide who "deserves" to be alive? How do we decide who has forfeited their right to life? The question of when "life" begins is a tricky one for me. And what constitutes "life"? Will the child with brittle bones or a child with Trisomy 18 who will likely die at birth really have a life? And at the other end of life, does the senior with advanced dementia, no control over their bodily functions and a reliance on a feeding tube really have a life? These are not simple questions, but they are questions that people should have the right to answer for themselves. I for one would like to be able to give someone permission to end my life when certain criteria are fulfilled. I have no trouble defining life when it's MY life I'm talking about. I'm kind of rambling... there's a lot of distraction here tonight. But I do think these "moral" questions are all linked. Heather I am one of those people who is pro-life and for the death penalty. It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless. The one on death row has made his (her) decision and path in life, the unborn child can't yet make decisions. It relies totally on someone else for it's care. Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice. It is the unborn's body that is killed. I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 ShackledNoMore, Thank you very much for sharing your story. I can't imagine how difficult that situation must have been! I assume you and your wife decided to carry the pregnancy to term? Can I ask how your son is doing today? We did complete the pregnancy, although it didn't last to full term. At seven months the doctors decided he would be better off outside the womb than in. He was 2 pounds 6 ounces. He had a rough start, but he ended up doing fine. He has just turned 5 and in my biased opinion he's the most amazing kid ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Jenna you're from Alabama. We here in the South can't think properly. Everyone knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I dunno; we could argue semantics for a while b/c Merriam-Webster has no clause about the parasite being a different species or having different DNA...that was a lapse on my part to be overly specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you believe in the sanctity of human life then how do you get to decide who "deserves" to be alive? How do we decide who has forfeited their right to life? The question of when "life" begins is a tricky one for me. And what constitutes "life"? Will the child with brittle bones or a child with Trisomy 18 who will likely die at birth really have a life? And at the other end of life, does the senior with advanced dementia, no control over their bodily functions and a reliance on a feeding tube really have a life? These are not simple questions, but they are questions that people should have the right to answer for themselves. I for one would like to be able to give someone permission to end my life when certain criteria are fulfilled. I have no trouble defining life when it's MY life I'm talking about. I'm kind of rambling... there's a lot of distraction here tonight. But I do think these "moral" questions are all linked. Heather I am one of those people who is pro-life and for the death penalty. It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless. The one on death row has made his (her) decision and path in life, the unborn child can't yet make decisions. It relies totally on someone else for it's care. Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice. It is the unborn's body that is killed. I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option. Check again--Han mentioned this. It was your choice to do as you did but not all women should be forced to make the same choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Jenna you're from Alabama. We here in the South can't think properly. Everyone knows that. Now wait a minute here! Ok, you can go now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I just want to take this opportunity to say how much I like you guys. You're all just great people in my opinion. And I'm not even drunk at the moment. That is all. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you believe in the sanctity of human life then how do you get to decide who "deserves" to be alive? How do we decide who has forfeited their right to life? The question of when "life" begins is a tricky one for me. And what constitutes "life"? Will the child with brittle bones or a child with Trisomy 18 who will likely die at birth really have a life? And at the other end of life, does the senior with advanced dementia, no control over their bodily functions and a reliance on a feeding tube really have a life? These are not simple questions, but they are questions that people should have the right to answer for themselves. I for one would like to be able to give someone permission to end my life when certain criteria are fulfilled. I have no trouble defining life when it's MY life I'm talking about. I'm kind of rambling... there's a lot of distraction here tonight. But I do think these "moral" questions are all linked. Heather I am one of those people who is pro-life and for the death penalty. It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless. The one on death row has made his (her) decision and path in life, the unborn child can't yet make decisions. It relies totally on someone else for it's care. Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice. It is the unborn's body that is killed. I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option. Check again--Han mentioned this. It was your choice to do as you did but not all women should be forced to make the same choice. Check again-- where did I say they should? I made a comment, like it or lump it. And whether or not they make the same choice, it's still murder, no matter how you (or anyone) sugar-coat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I dunno; we could argue semantics for a while b/c Merriam-Webster has no clause about the parasite being a different species or having different DNA...that was a lapse on my part to be overly specific. (Mwhahaha! I'm kinda drunk too, so you can't that as an excuse!) I followed you link. The second option links to parasitism. It says "an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds". But you're right about he semantics. I just find that describing an unborn baby a 'parasite' just so you can kill it for no good reason* rather repuslive. *See my specific personal opinions here. ETA: WTF is this 'kinds' shit. I thought that kind of ambiguity went out with the buy-bull! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I just want to take this opportunity to say how much I like you guys. You're all just great people in my opinion. And I'm not even drunk at the moment. That is all. Carry on. Hey are you making a comment as to my sobriety?!?! Dem's fightin' words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradstu09 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you believe in the sanctity of human life then how do you get to decide who "deserves" to be alive? How do we decide who has forfeited their right to life? The question of when "life" begins is a tricky one for me. And what constitutes "life"? Will the child with brittle bones or a child with Trisomy 18 who will likely die at birth really have a life? And at the other end of life, does the senior with advanced dementia, no control over their bodily functions and a reliance on a feeding tube really have a life? These are not simple questions, but they are questions that people should have the right to answer for themselves. I for one would like to be able to give someone permission to end my life when certain criteria are fulfilled. I have no trouble defining life when it's MY life I'm talking about. I'm kind of rambling... there's a lot of distraction here tonight. But I do think these "moral" questions are all linked. Heather I am one of those people who is pro-life and for the death penalty. It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless. The one on death row has made his (her) decision and path in life, the unborn child can't yet make decisions. It relies totally on someone else for it's care. Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice. It is the unborn's body that is killed. I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option. Check again--Han mentioned this. It was your choice to do as you did but not all women should be forced to make the same choice. Check again-- where did I say they should? I made a comment, like it or lump it. And whether or not they make the same choice, it's still murder, no matter how you (or anyone) sugar-coat it. You said, I noticed no one has mentioned this option. I was only pointing out that someone, in fact, did. This thread has been remarkably civil so far given the topic. Please don't ruin it with moral absolutism. Why is abortion murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts