It's weird how they claim to be Pro life but are against universal healthcare and support a capital society where the invisible hand kills off the poor and and they obviously don't wanna help me homeless or ban the death penalty
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.
I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.
I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?
There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.
My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.
Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.
Maybe a life form which is reliant on another life form isn't an independent life form and is therefore the property of the person keeping it alive, or, the mother. You dolt.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
A baby is reliant on its mother but do we see them as property that can be disposed of at will?
Why the insult, tho? I feel the OP made a post to maturely discuss this topic like adults. You don't need the little attack to bait me into posting, I'm bored so I'm willing to discuss my point. So pls lets be a bit more mature here.
Well, no. Once the umbilical cord is cut, anything which provides milk is sufficient, but with the umbilical cord still attached, it doesn't have an independent sustainable way of survival.
It's biologically dependent on the diet of its mother.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
Before we proceed, I would need you to clarify: are you saying that one's attachment to the umbillical cord determines its classification to whether it is human life or inhuman property? Or are you saying that human life IS property for as long as it is attached to the cord? OR is there a third interpretation I am missing here?
And what makes its dependency on the umbilical cord different from its dependencies on things like: food/shelter/etc while it is a newborn?
It has one source of nutrition, the placenta, and one way of excretion, the placenta. Her placenta, her rules.
Once the umbilical cord is cut, it's anyone's business... Best to give it back to the mother, you know...
I get that we're born prematurely naturally compared to other mammals, but the fact is before it's born it only has one primary source of survival, it's mother. It's her choice of what to do with it.
Most keep the child anyway, but I find it abhorrent for anyone to think they should overrule the decision she makes of what to do with something growing inside her. It's not your ****ing placenta, is it?
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
I see what you saying but I unfortunately cannot proceed with a reply until my question is answered: Does this "special" dependency mean that for X time, the child is inhuman property or that the ownership of human life becomes acceptable as long as special conditions (such as the above) is met?
You can certainly correct my use of words if it is inaccurate.
Going back to my question: By “it” do you mean a human that becomes property because of the above condition or do you mean inhuman property because of the above condition?
Again, I apologize for sticking to this, but I feel that my reply would be entirely dependent on this (to avoid wasting both our time and to avoid misunderstandings, I would need to know how you see it).
So, it’s not “property” but “responsibility”? That would certainly change the context of this discussion. Because I DO agree with that wording. The mother becomes responsible for the child once that child is concieved thru her choices. Heck, that was in my very first post in this thread.
However, wouldn’t that word run counter to the entire abortion argument? The word “responsible” implies a duty to decide for something, but not the right of absolute authority. For me, anyway. Ex: Parents are responsible for their children but they can’t suddenly kill them when they become inconvenient after all.
Well, no of course you can’t. But there is a huge difference between dictating perfection to parents from expecting them not to outright kill their kids when they become inconvenient.
Somehow I feel like we’ve drifted a bit from the abortion discussion. XD
The foetus is reliant on her placenta, sorry, she's in charge. A baby is different: no umbilical cord.
I'm sorry, I've heard stories of babies being aborted with coat hangers in America. That's what happens when you restrict someone of control of their body.
Are they horrible people? Yes! Shall we make the situation better? Yes! If she's willing to kill her foetus, she probably shouldn't have a child in the first place.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
KMC Community Forums
Feb 19th, 2021 12:36 AM
