Tweet
Let us resume our beating of the dead horse...
While dogs do have definite personalities, and I love them in some ways just as much as people, dogs will never be human. Dogs can't dabble in philosophy, win Nobel prizes, invent things, make jokes, paint, or do anything but offer their hearts or teeth to humans and each other. That's why we love them so much, but a dog's life doesn't have the significant potential or meaning of a human's.
Is that a "for" or "against" argument?
Again, a cow will never be anything but a stupid cow, deliberately bred by the human race for no purpose but to supply meat, milk, and leather. Human beings, at the moment at least, are not bred for any specific agenda, but exist ostensibly on their own merit.
No argument here.
The MAP is generally accepted because it isn't abortion at all. It prevents the sperm and egg from fusing...I think. I don't know the specifics of it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't kill an existing embryo. If you're talking about the kind of pill that keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the endometrium, you're only referring to a VERY early abortion as far as I'm concerned.
Why? Is the child no more than the consequence of an undesirable action? Is its heredity somehow its fault? Only in Shakespeare are bastards intrinsically evil. The life-of-the-mother cases are analogous to shooting somebody in self-defense, and allowable if unpleasant.
Spiffor: what IS your exact reason for believing that a fetus cannot be classified as a person? That unwanted pregnancies are a problem, I can agree with. But I know of no situations other than LOTM wherein abortion is the *only* answer. If you assume the fetus deserves no rights, abortion is perfectly acceptable. How do you come to that assumption though?
And for others, why would termination be allowable at two months, but not at seven, or when it's sixty-eight years out of the womb for that matter? Granted, it doesn't have a heartbeat, little fingers, whatever, but the simple life terminated at two months is going to become the more complex life at seven months anyway. It's not a matter of probability or chance. We're talking birds and bees here. Barring miscarriage or abortion, which are the exception not the rule, the fetus develops into a baby. There is precisely zero chance that it will become an aardvark, or a slug, or anything else but a human being, if it is allowed to develop. The fact that we regularly turn into humans over the course of nine month is the whole reason we live to type this stuff right now. We're discussing the biological mechanism that determines our existence, not the hypothetical appearance of an alien invader in the womb.
A) I eat meat, therefore abortion ain't too bad.
To me it is as tragic as having to put a puppy to sleep. Sad, but sometimes necessary, perhaps even for economical reasons.
To me it is as tragic as having to put a puppy to sleep. Sad, but sometimes necessary, perhaps even for economical reasons.
B) An embryo is human with a unique genetic code:
It isn't just a blob of goo.
It isn't just a blob of goo.
C) Noticeable Brainwaves occur at about three months.
But cows have brainwaves too, does this mean we can't make them into steaks?
But cows have brainwaves too, does this mean we can't make them into steaks?
D) Adoption is a better option.
It is selfish of a woman not to carry a child to term instead of giving it up for adoption.
E) Abortion should not in any way be funded by taxpayer money.
That's just wrong.
It is selfish of a woman not to carry a child to term instead of giving it up for adoption.
E) Abortion should not in any way be funded by taxpayer money.
That's just wrong.
F) Zygotes.... who cares? I'm all for the morning after pill.
G) Rape incest, life of mother:
Destroy the spawn of a rapist if the mother desires. Life of mother, of course, it is up to the mother.
Destroy the spawn of a rapist if the mother desires. Life of mother, of course, it is up to the mother.
Spiffor: what IS your exact reason for believing that a fetus cannot be classified as a person? That unwanted pregnancies are a problem, I can agree with. But I know of no situations other than LOTM wherein abortion is the *only* answer. If you assume the fetus deserves no rights, abortion is perfectly acceptable. How do you come to that assumption though?
And for others, why would termination be allowable at two months, but not at seven, or when it's sixty-eight years out of the womb for that matter? Granted, it doesn't have a heartbeat, little fingers, whatever, but the simple life terminated at two months is going to become the more complex life at seven months anyway. It's not a matter of probability or chance. We're talking birds and bees here. Barring miscarriage or abortion, which are the exception not the rule, the fetus develops into a baby. There is precisely zero chance that it will become an aardvark, or a slug, or anything else but a human being, if it is allowed to develop. The fact that we regularly turn into humans over the course of nine month is the whole reason we live to type this stuff right now. We're discussing the biological mechanism that determines our existence, not the hypothetical appearance of an alien invader in the womb.
Comment