Abortion

Originally posted by FeceMan

Except that parasites are harmful to their hosts, while reproduction is certainly not harmful in the long run.

The human fetus is often detected as a foriegn body by the mother's immune system. Many women cannot have children because the blood will clot, killing either the baby or themseves, or their immune system causes a miscarrage, or some other way that their body just does not physically support having a child.

Not harmful at all. Heh.

I'm very much Pro-Choice. I don't agree with women attempting to use it as their form of birth control, but if you are genuinely taking precautions, and they let you down, I believe it's better to abort a pregnancy than to bring yet another unwanted child into the world. There are too many unwanted kids out there, who aren't bought up in the way that they deserve. Pro-choice people!

Anyone here from China? Is abortion legal there? If not, too late!

Originally posted by botankus
Anyone here from China? Is abortion legal there? If not, too late!

(too late)

? 😕 ?

Well, the discussion was bringing in unwanted kids to the world, and they have over a billion.

oh

Abort the mission from missionary position.

I think abortion is encouraged in China.........

Well that's because they have 1/6th of the entire planet's population there.

Every family is encouraged to only have one child in China.

I'm for Pro-life!!! I think all babies should live.

Originally posted by Dr_Joshua_Keyes
I'm for Pro-life!!! I think all babies should live.

Cool...what about fetuses?

Originally posted by BabyGirl_23
i wouldnt just try id do it!!

Yeah, right!

Originally posted by Britrogue
I'm very much Pro-Choice. I don't agree with women attempting to use it as their form of birth control, but if you are genuinely taking precautions, and they let you down, I believe it's better to abort a pregnancy than to bring yet another unwanted child into the world. There are too many unwanted kids out there, who aren't bought up in the way that they deserve. Pro-choice people!

Exactly, Britrogue! What we’ve said a million times before here. Good to have it repeated in case… some… forget 🙂

Originally posted by botankus
Anyone here from China? Is abortion legal there? If not, too late!

They have a 1-child policy in China to prevent a population-explosion! So, yes, abortion is legal in China. I actually think India is overtaking China as the most populated nation in the world as we speak…

Originally posted by Dr_Joshua_Keyes
I'm for Pro-life!!! I think all babies should live.

Yes, born babies should live. So do you send a lot of money to charities to help starving babies in the 3rd world?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In this case, the method of termination of life, i.e. impalement affects whether or not termination of life is considered acceptable. It does not affect whether the termination of life is right or wrong.

Moreover, even if we presume that the termination of life is considered acceptable, it does not follow from this that one is not obligated to the life of another. Hence, why there is no relationship between the acceptability of the termination of life, and the moral obligation of one to the life of another.

My question to you is rhetorical. The moment you answer my question, you will have the answer to yours.

And, since Thomspon's violinist example is specifically about rape, you haven't answered my question.

You cannot have it both ways, or does one only have a moral obligation to the life another when it suites your argument?

To which I replied that an infant is definitionally not a parasite. Hence, why your analogy is false.

Either way, an infant has a parasitic relationship with its mother from a strictly biological sense. It takes and takes without giving anything in return.

No, this argument does not work in the case of an infant because an infant does not qualify as a parasite. In the case of a fetus, the argument is valid.

Whether or not the fetus is human is irrelevant.

The point is that your argument is that abortion is wrong even though in some instances, abortion can be characterized as a form of passive euthanasia which you consider to be acceptable.

Originally posted by The Omega
Yeah, right!

Exactly, Britrogue! What we’ve said a million times before here. Good to have it repeated in case… some… forget 🙂

They have a 1-child policy in China to prevent a population-explosion! So, yes, abortion is legal in China. I actually think India is overtaking China as the most populated nation in the world as we speak…

Yes, born babies should live. So do you send a lot of money to charities to help starving babies in the 3rd world?

exactly why do you think your all that?

Originally posted by troublemaker_23
exactly why do you think your all that?

Wow..a post that made no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow..a post that made no sense whatsoever.

she says rude things to BG i was just asking why she thought she was all that.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I never said that there was a relationship between it. All I said was that it overrode one's right to terminate life in that fashion.

If there is no relationship between the acceptability of the termination of life and the moral obligation of one to the life of another, then how does one supersede the other?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Still awaiting a suitable answer.

That makes two of us:

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then, yes, the woman has a moral obligation to the violinist. If she tries to conjure a violinist out of thin air and then have him attached to her so that he can live, she has a moral obligation to him. She can't just decide "Eh, I'm done with this" and kill the violinist because she got sick of having him attached to her.

And, since Thomspon's violinist example is specifically about rape, you haven't answered my question.

Does one have a moral obligation to the life of another, or does this principle only apply when it suites your argument?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah. We've been having a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about the fetus example.

Either way, an infant has a parasitic relationship with its mother from a strictly biological sense. It takes and takes without giving anything in return.[/quote

An infant is not a parasite because it is not sheltered inside another organism. Since an infant does not qualify as a parasite, a mother does not qualify as a host, and the relationship of one to the other does not qualify as a parasitic.

[quote]Originally posted by FeceMan
Simply because the fetus can be called a parasite does not give one the right to snuff out its life.

No, the fact that it is feeding, growing, and being sheltered inside another organism means that is dependent upon the will of the organism to allow it to live.

Originally posted by FeceMan
And, in those cases, I would consider it acceptable. However, in many cases, abortion would not be considered passive euthanasia and thus I would--and do--consider it unacceptable.

Who determines in what instances abortion is acceptable? How does one enforce that abortions only performed in these instances?

It's a matter of point of view, really. You could make good arguments for either case. It depends on how you view life and potential life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow..a post that made no sense whatsoever.

😆 Does senseless posts surprise you, Bardock. They... happen!