Infanticide

[OzzyKP]

Right, and 16 year old teens cannot vote either. Not everyone who is a person can vote.

Not yet anyways.

https://www.youthrights.org

https://www.youthrightscanada.org

https://www.votesat16.org.uk

Give me some time, I'll make it happen.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Give me some time, I'll make it happen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
And the fetus can't? Hey, it's using those organs too!

You got it backwards. The mother is not using the placenta, it merely is there for the embryo. It is only a one way relationship. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is only a one way relationship.

Then a woman is entirely unaffected and unchanged by her pregnancy?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
And we do not kill animals unless we want their meat (and it only applies to non-vegetarians), skin or whatever, do we?

My point was there's nothing uniquely human about these actions, so they cannot be used to support the point that these foetuses are human beings.

[Sava]

wow that was some rant I went on...

anyways, sorry for personal stuff, I got carried away...

my last point: pro-lifers = fascists... they don't care about finding an effective solution to stop abortions, they just want the government to break down doors and arrest good doctors.

have a nice discussion

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Any efforts to lower the voting age in France?

I hear a lot out of Germany and the UK, but nothing from France. Maybe we just aren't hearing about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

anyways, sorry for personal stuff, I got carried away...

No prob...

Spice of life and all that.

[Spiffor]

Ozzy:
The only efforts I'm aware of come from the Green Party, as it is part of their suggested institutional reform (and they mostly target the youth). I don't know if there is any lobby about it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then a woman is entirely unaffected and unchanged by her pregnancy?

I think you have misconstrued my point. The foetus depends on the mother, the mother does not depend on the foetus.

[Ben Kenobi]

the mother does not depend on the foetus.

Thank you. That is a much better clarification.

However, the infant does depend on her mother, so it is useless to argue independency as a basis for personhood.

[Drogue]

I have to admit, I agree somewhat with Professor Harris. In an overcrowded world, I don't see it as being necessarily wrong to remove newborn babies with genetic defects. What is the difference between that, and the couple not having conceived? In the end, the result is the same, there is no new baby.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, the infant does depend on her mother, so it is useless to argue independency as a basis for personhood.

Personally, I think the mother has a right to remove her support. If the baby is born, it goes up for adoption, if the baby is not born, then it is either induced, or aborted, depending on it's feasability in the outside world. I disagree with the professor in that I do see a difference between in and out of the birth canal. In the mother, it is part of the mother. It is a parasite, it feeds of the mother, using up her resources. Therefore while it is part of her, it is her decision what to do with it. If she wishes to withdraw support, then she may. However, if the baby survives on the outside, whether born normally or induced because the mother wishes to withdraw support, then the baby goes into state care, and it is the states decision what happens. If the state decides it does not wish to support those with genetic disorders, then the state can withdraw support, and the baby dies. I don't see a difference between killing it and letting it die, since the result is the same. Indeed, the former can be far more humane. I also don't see a difference between conceiving and not giving birth and not conceiving. The result is the same - there is no baby.

I have a question. What would a pro-lifer think of a women who does something to herself, such as smoke, starve herself, or anything like that, while pregnant, with the intent of having a miscarriage? Is that abortion, and is it wrong? She is harming herself, and that is having an effect on the foetus, but she is not harming the foetus directly (the foetus is never touched). IMHO, if the mother can harm herself, and in doing so kill the foetus, then the foetus is part of the mothers body. She is not harming the foetus directly, but it dies because she harms herself, as the vessel.

[Elok]

No, the woman is not symbiotically dependent on the child, but to drag up my already-tired analogy, I don't need a siamese twin either. He'd just be using my organs to keep his stupid brain alive.

And deliberate omission of action that you know would save someone's life, especially when omitted for the express purpose of terminating that life, is hardly different from deliberate killing in my book, Drogue. If some slow old lady is crossing the street in front of my tow truck, the "walk" sign wasn't on, I'm running behind, and it'd be much easier to keep going, why should I alter my planned course of action, i.e. slam on the brakes, to maintain the life of an organism that has linked its life to my actions without my consent? If she cannot adapt to live in an environment without my assistance, how is that my fault? Huh?

As to your second argument, secondhand smoke kills plenty of people every year, as do drunk drivers, crackheads, and suicidal poets with kids who decide to be good mothers and take their precious little ones to heaven with them via their cars' exhaust pipes. The fates of two people can be linked in many ways, but that doesn't mean one is part of the other. See my point? And yeah, it's an abortion all the same. I know it'll probably happen anyway should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Slavery still happens in America too. The important thing is that the government not legitimize such behavior by making it legal, and get rid of it as much as possible.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


My point was there's nothing uniquely human about these actions, so they cannot be used to support the point that these foetuses are human beings.

If it's not human, what is it? An animal? An allien?
It's actions don't have to indicate it's human. They indicate it is a life form, it takes actions of its own, it is not a part of its mother's body. Have You seen a liver do that?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drogue
I have to admit, I agree somewhat with Professor Harris. In an overcrowded world, I don't see it as being necessarily wrong to remove newborn babies with genetic defects. What is the difference between that, and the couple not having conceived? In the end, the result is the same, there is no new baby.

but we don't live on an overcrowded world

there are just some places where the infrastructure is bad or capitalism occurs

I mean, wouldn't it be a lot better to take care of overcrowding issues be killing the old instead of the young?

Jon Miller