|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 61 of 331:
| 
Feb 26 02:39 UTC 2006 |
kingjon said:
"And the idea that an infant is only a human being that has been born
is a falsehood put about by the pro-choice side."
It is not a falsehood. An infant is by definition one who is
in "infancy", as in one who's life has just started. A fetus is not an
infant, because when a fetus is in the woman's womb, it is not part of
its own life, it is part of its mother's life. The mother is not an
infant and the fetus is part of the mother's body. When a human being
breathes on its own, that is when its life starts, and when it starts
the "infancy" or beginning of its own life. A fetus CANNOT be an
infant in the womb because it has not begun its infancy.
|
slynne
|
|
response 62 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:42 UTC 2006 |
I agree that a fetus is not an infant. But I think it is a bit of a
stretch to say that a viable fetus isnt alive.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 63 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:43 UTC 2006 |
That is what is called "petitio principii", or "begging the question." You
define life (or infancy) as beginning at the first breath, and then say that by
definition a fetus cannot be a living human being (or an infant). I can use my
own definition and say that "by definition" anything at all, but I'm choosing
not to.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 64 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:44 UTC 2006 |
#62 slipped.
|
keesan
|
|
response 65 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:52 UTC 2006 |
Infant has several definitions, the most common one being early childhood,
not yet capable of speech, coming from the French meaning incapable of speech.
Child - an unborn or recently born person. So a child can be unborn but I
have never heard of infant being used that way. Child is related to a Gothic
word for womb. Life does not start at conception because the egg and sperm
are already alive. A fertilized egg can become two embryos up to about 2
weeks. Towards the end of the 2 weeks it is more likely to become conjoined
twins. 90% of pairs of identical twins do not get born - one or both die in
the womb due to competition. Is a fertilized egg that splits into two embryos
one or two independent lives, before it splits?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 66 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:55 UTC 2006 |
Re 59: I am aware of the technical procedure of a D&X as well as a D&E,
but have not found a lot of information on the statistics regarding the
situations where those procedures are undertaken. I don't disagree with
you that if the mother's health is at risk and the child won't live
anyway, an abortion might be the best decision. Just please do me one
favor...in ending the life of a late-term fetus (thank you Richard, i'll
stop calling it an infant) please at least give it the same
consideration you would a livestock animal being butchered. As these
procedures are practiced currently, they are barbaric and inhumane.
|
keesan
|
|
response 67 of 331:
|
Feb 26 02:57 UTC 2006 |
Let's ban butchering of livestock, which is inhumane and unnecessary, and
kills life.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 68 of 331:
|
Feb 26 03:02 UTC 2006 |
There are a lot of different opinions on when life actually begins. Here
is a good article that I found which explains them:
http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
The Neurological view, which states "the beginning of human life should
be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG
pattern", makes the most sense to me.
|
scholar
|
|
response 69 of 331:
|
Feb 26 03:18 UTC 2006 |
We must go with the MORAL view, which states that a parent may, without
reprecussion, kill their child up to a month after they are born.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 70 of 331:
|
Feb 26 03:23 UTC 2006 |
I have no problem with considering human life *continuous* before and through
the reproductive process. But that is irrelevant to the question. The question
is when does the woman have authority over her own body and its functions,
and when does she lose that authority. All this quibbling over "when human
life begins" is beside the point and biological nonsense.
I support the Supreme Court's division of the question into the three
trimesters and right of the woman to not have her health jeopardized.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 331:
|
Feb 26 03:29 UTC 2006 |
I agree. Questions of "when does life begin?" or "when does an embryo
become human?" are red herrings which are not particularly relevant to the
legal questions; people like to bring them up as a distraction so they
can debate how many zygotes can dance on the head of a pin.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 72 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:00 UTC 2006 |
Do you consider it wrong for a parent to neglect a child?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 73 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:23 UTC 2006 |
Depends who gets to define "wrong", "neglect" and "child."
|
nharmon
|
|
response 74 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:27 UTC 2006 |
My point is that defining the point at which life reaches personhood is
important for defining the responsibilities that people have as a result
of their own choices.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 75 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:28 UTC 2006 |
FWIW, the Constitution confers citizenship ONLY on those who were BORN or
naturalized. Obviously, the law also protects non-citizens against things like
murder. Still, it's a point worth considering, especially for "originalists."
|
crimson
|
|
response 76 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:29 UTC 2006 |
#70: "The question is when does the woman have authority over her own body
and its functions, and when does she lose that authority." It seems to me
that the question is really whether a pregnancy *is* "her body and its
functions" more than incidentally, or rather the body and functions of
someone else.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 77 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:37 UTC 2006 |
Re #74: I'm only talking about the legal issues, not vague issues like
what is "wrong" and what "responsibilities" exist. Lots of pro-choice
people personally believe that abortion is "wrong" or "irresponsible"
but never the less believe that making it illegal (or "legal but
unavailable") would not be a good idea.
|
slynne
|
|
response 78 of 331:
|
Feb 26 05:25 UTC 2006 |
resp:70 A pregnancy might not BE a woman's body but it certainly
involves it considerably. I have an idea. Let's pass a law that makes it
legal for a fetus to jump down the birth canal and stop mooching anytime
they would like (within reason of course, I know some people who would
stay in until they were 35)
|
bru
|
|
response 79 of 331:
|
Feb 26 12:54 UTC 2006 |
apparently there is a bible verse which states that life is in the blood.
Thus a feotus is considered alive by soe as soon as it begins to make its own
blood, around 10 days.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 80 of 331:
|
Feb 26 15:59 UTC 2006 |
That would be Genesis 9:4, which actually says nothing of the sort.
|
cross
|
|
response 81 of 331:
|
Feb 26 17:53 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 82 of 331:
|
Feb 26 18:12 UTC 2006 |
It's actually 9:6, which is much more relevant. 9:4 forbids the eating of
blood; 9:6 says (in the NIV) "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:51 UTC 2006 |
The bible is not a legal reference for our laws. It is just the opinion of
some people that lived a few millenia ago.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 84 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:55 UTC 2006 |
And the Constitution is just the opinion of some people who lived a few
centuries ago. Are you proposing we discard it too?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:58 UTC 2006 |
The Constitution, even though the opinion of people that lived a few centuries
ago, is still our established law. The bible has never had that status in the
USA. We do change the Constitution when it becomes to be believed necessary.
It would probably be a good thing if the bible were also changed when a change
is needed.
|