I just realized something about abortion...

[November Adam]

Sava, a lot of this has to do with the parents as well. Sure the fetus would go to heaven, but then what's the difference if someone drowns infants? They would go to heaven... sorry that argument doesn't work for me.

Actually Sava, wouldn't the natural definition of a human be when the human organism is created, and the begginig state in which it will continue to develope.

I agree death isn't a bad thing, but at the same time one should not rush to embrace it, nor bring it to another person. It comes to us all regardless.

Sava not all people believe that using machines goes against God's will.

[Sava]

I know about the machine thing, I was just playing devil's advocate. The difference between drowning and abortion is that the parents had ample opprotunity to abort the pregnancy. Plus, holding a baby underwater and draining the life from it is a more direct and brutal way. I doubt that many people who get abortions could in fact go through with drowning a baby. As often as I think about how brutal and evil I could be against Nazis and terrorists, there is no way on Earth that I could kill a baby. And I sometimes have some very cruel thought .

For me, it just boils down to the idea that nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body. For me, that right supercedes any right to life for a fetus, which BTW, has more in common with an unfertilized egg or sperm cell than a fully mature adult human. That's why I prefer to take the approach of education, birth control, and just a better overall quality of life for society to curb the amount of abortions as opposed to a religious/moral legislative approach. Nobody knows what God wants. As hard as this might seem to believe, he didn't write the bible. No human has had any contact with him or what's beyond death. We're on our own. We've got to make the best decisions for what's good for society, and not worry about God wants. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to do that when we die.

[November Adam]

Sava I'm sure your aware that infact fetus' really have more in common with an infant than a sperm or egg.

Hell by the 8th week the fetus is allready developing a nervous system.

By the 24th week it has pretty much every organ that it is going to require as an adult.

Sava you are trying to justify your argument with a fallacy.

"For me, it just boils down to the idea that nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body. For me, that right supercedes any right to life for a fetus, which BTW, has more in common with an unfertilized egg or sperm cell than a fully mature adult human."

You are trying to dehumanize the fetal stage of our life, to make it seem as if there is nothing "wrong" with the act of abortion.

[Sava]

You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use.

Abortion is very similar to euthenasia, IMO. I'm not sure about your stance on that issue, but Ashcroft and other ultra-righties believe that terminally ill people don't even have the right to die.

But I leave it up to you Nov. Adam... convince me why an undeveloped mass of cells has more rights than a mother.

For the record, I am morally against partial birth abortions, but I still don't think it is an issue that should be legislated. Unless it is life-threatening to the mother, I don't see how education can't eliminate partial birth abortions. I doubt many people get to 9 months and simply say, "Oh, we don't want this baby."

A human fetus does not become an individual with rights until it can live independent of the mother. Until then, it is simply a part of her. Every single cell in its body is created from the mother. It does not grow or consume any resources (food, oxygen, water) on its own.

[Akka]

A person someone able to feel and think.
An embryo isn't able to do one or the other.
Hence an embryo can be get rid of as a simple pack of cells.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use.

The fetus is not part of the mother's body, it is genetically distinct.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Sava
You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use.

Abortion is very similar to euthenasia, IMO. I'm not sure about your stance on that issue, but Ashcroft and other ultra-righties believe that terminally ill people don't even have the right to die.

But I leave it up to you Nov. Adam... convince me why an undeveloped mass of cells has more rights than a mother.

For the record, I am morally against partial birth abortions, but I still don't think it is an issue that should be legislated. Unless it is life-threatening to the mother, I don't see how education can't eliminate partial birth abortions. I doubt many people get to 9 months and simply say, "Oh, we don't want this baby."

A human fetus does not become an individual with rights until it can live independent of the mother. Until then, it is simply a part of her. Every single cell in its body is created from the mother. It does not grow or consume any resources (food, oxygen, water) on its own.

First off, a fetus' cells are created by it's own body. You are cofusing the environment in which it lives, with what it is. The fetus' food supply comes from it's mother, but the cellular growth is its own. As to your comment "every single cell in its body is created from its mother." I'm sorry but this shows a lack of understanding. he mother provided half a DNA strand, the father the other half. From that point on the zygote will continue to split, the cells will modify to distinct uses. Although I believe the mother does supply the baby with hormones as it develops.

So you leave it up to me to persuade you, do you. Well how do you figure the human developing in the mother has more rights than the mother? I can really think of only one right that I am arguing the fetus to have, and that is the right to continue to develope. You will probably say that this right violates the mothers right to her body. At which point I would say that the right of a human to continue to develope superseds the mothers right to her body, when it is by an action of the mothers that put the new human there to begin with.

[Alexander's Horse]

Look you people are never going to get to the bottom of this. It goes to the heart of the mystery of life. Who knows when God creates souls? That is the real issue for the religious. I suspect God doesn't waste souls on tissue that will never draw breath.

Having fathered 4 children and been through the whole process I don't hold black and white views any more but I do tend to be much much more sympathetic to the woman's interests than I was before and to the pro choice arguments. Maybe you'll find the same.

I'm just glad to have come through the whole process with 4 healthy bouncing baby boys

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The fetus is not part of the mother's body, it is genetically distinct.

So are sex cells.

[November Adam]

Sex cells have half of your own DNA.

An embryo has 2 halves of other DNA to call its own.

So a sex cell is not distinct, as it is comprised wholly of your own DNA, not someone else's

Alexander's Horse, I am personally not able to accept the termination of a human in their embryotic, or fetal stages.

[November Adam]

Sava, you say that children should be educated so abortions can be avoided.

What would you have them be taught? You are defending abortions in this thread yet have said they are undesirable, why are they undesireable?

[chequita guevara]

How can a fetus have rights? It has no capacity to claim or defend those so-called rights. Rights only exist if you calim and defend them. This is why animals do not have rights. This is why children do not have fully formed rights. A fetus simply does not have any right what so ever. It is mindless.

[November Adam]

Chegitz, have you ever heard of an advocate?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How can a fetus have rights? It has no capacity to claim or defend those so-called rights. Rights only exist if you calim and defend them. This is why animals do not have rights. This is why children do not have fully formed rights. A fetus simply does not have any right what so ever. It is mindless.

It would seem you are saying the more powerful you are the more rights you have as you have a greater capacity to claim and defend them. Doesn't society have a duty to protect those who are unable to calim and defend their rights

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Frogger


So are sex cells.

No they are not. They may be haploid vs. the diploid number of other sex cells, but every gene in your spermatozoa also exists in all the other genes in your body. Unlike the other cells in your body your gametes don't carry the duplicated complimentary strands.