true, what we dont know we dont know. the natural process though is a very interesting premise, because an extreme view of that then is against any form of birth control. The day after pill which prevents pregnancy (does not end it) is also stopping a natural process..or a potential natural process.
I am not disagreeing, but this is a very interesting conversation if people just look at different viewpoints on their merits.
good discussion, enjoying it.
yep an extreme view would lean towards no birth control for eventually it might stop a potential birth. however that extreme view, i think, would allow for a difference on stopping a process that has begun and a process that might take place. similarily there is a difference between aborting between a 20 weeks feotus and 1 week.
do married ppl also abort their child?
if so what is their ratio?
cuz if the other ratio is higher then i believe its better if ppl should be stop in being in illegitimate relationships rather than worrying about the aftermath.
I once read an article about a family that gave their child up for adoption b/c they just couldn't afford it. It was written from the POV of the childless couple who adopted. It went into the emotional aspect of it; the birth family was already poor, already had children--the adopting family was willing to pay alot of $$ (their care, hospital stay whatever). win-win situation for htem i guess.
Another one... a lady SUED a doctor b/c he did not perform the abortion correctly. This while her child was a young toddler.
I used to be a pro-choice in that i am against abortion itself, but it should be up to the person to decide what they want to do. I guess i still am, but I think we need to address the root of hte problem, that's sexual irresponsibility. I wonder how many abortions are performed b/c of rape/mother's life being in danger VERSUS abortions done for teenagers or someone just being irresponsible.
Until the fetus comes out, it’s a parasite by definition. A person carrying the parasite has all the right whether to kill the parasite or allow it to detach itself from the host’s body. It may make us uncomfortable to think about it but in a free society one should have all the right to do whatever with one own's body.
As for euthanasia yes a terminally ill patient should have the right to ease his or her pain. Letting the nature takes it course is not a valid argument because with all the medical advancement we are interfering with nature in every step. If nature had its way the average life expectancy would be around 50 years.
Until the fetus comes out, it’s a parasite by definition. A person carrying the parasite has all the right whether to kill the parasite or allow it to detach itself from the host’s body. It may make us uncomfortable to think about it but in a free society one should have all the right to do whatever with one own's body.
As for euthanasia yes a terminally ill patient should have the right to ease his or her pain. Letting the nature takes it course is not a valid argument because with all the medical advancement we are interfering with nature in every step. If nature had its way the average life expectancy would be around 50 years.
By whose definition? i thinj in some cases lmurderers of late term pregnant women were charged with double homicide if memory serves me well.
By that example, if someone beats up a pregnant woman to an extent that the fetus dies (whatever the correct term is for parasites ceasing to be) then that person can only be charged with battery and nothing more? even if the woman was about to give birth or was in labour..
Unt
As for euthanasia yes a terminally ill patient should have the right to ease his or her pain.
can someone else make that decision though, like lets say an alzheimers patients grandchild?
It’s a parasite by the functional definition. The human fetus is wanted and that separates it from all the other parasites. As I have mentioned, only the host have the right to do whatever with it. If the fetus gets killed without the consent of the person carrying it then yes it should be a punishable crime.
Alzheimer is a degenerative disease and the life quality of patient suffering from it get decreased but I think it is not painful, I have not ever been in contact with a person with Alzheimer so can't say about the physical pain part. However, in my opinion if a person is in a vegitative condition then yes close relatives should be allowed to make a decision. Its is not an easy decision...my father still blam himself for convincing my grandpa to have the operation for his cancer. It was a fifty fity chance and my grand father was in pain beyond words. He did'nt survive , he would have died even with out the operation, a much painful death... but my father still feels its somehow his fault.
is the child not human 24 hours before it is out of the womb?
what soemone does with their body is their business, but in this unique case, is the child not a living being.. a sentient being..
and in doing so, are you making a decision ntot o just do something to your body but also to someone else's body.
just food for thought, and for discussion :)
I'd call it nibbles but then supermodels eat ice and cotton when they feast.
As much as the mother doesn't have rights over the baby. You have even lesser rights over the mother. The mother has been around longer and pays taxes. And that Kachingggggggggg my friend is what they call the trump card.
I'd call it nibbles but then supermodels eat ice and cotton when they feast.
As much as the mother doesn't have rights over the baby. You have even lesser rights over the mother. The mother has been around longer and pays taxes. And that Kachingggggggggg my friend is what they call the trump card.
I personally am niether pro-choice nor pro-life.
so whether "i" have rights on mother is irrelevent
or for that matter anyone.
so others dont have right on the mother
and mother has no right on the baby, is that what you are saying?
PS: what is she does not pay taxes, does that change anything
So that'll be about 8 in Spartan years and about 32 for everybody else.
My point was that a child can be born at 26 weeks and actually survive, but with serious medical help, steroids to help lings develop faster, incubators, breathing equipment.
I personally am niether pro-choice nor pro-life.
so whether "i" have rights on mother is irrelevent
or for that matter anyone.
so others dont have right on the mother
and mother has no right on the baby, is that what you are saying?
PS: what is she does not pay taxes, does that change anything
The you is proverbial. The You is society. Society is the Ocean we live in. We follow its rules and it throws us a lifeboat. We subject people to rules. Kant talks about people being wild by nature and needing discipline. Thank you Mr. Government. In exchange for forgoing our right to be free and like a bird, we are given a vote, we are made to believe we matter. Extra rights are added to our God-ordained ones.
So: I am saying, she is a contributing member of society. She is giving. She is voting. She has rights she has earnt as well as the rights she was born with.
If you do the maths in english a magic fairy appears, sits on the scales of justice and the mothers right to choose prevails.
i am very pro choice
if there is a case of rape or incest then why should the woman be forced to care for the baby
millions of babies every day are dumped in dumpsters from women who arent ready for children those kids are killed why not just stop the kid from ever comming to life those kids lives are tormented and in these days adoption is very difficult due to the trafficking of todays world