so when it's born, it's still just as dependant upon you. if you left it alone, it would die. Should you be allowed to kill it?
what about premature births, there have been cases as early as 23 weeks, just under 6 months, still not a body? then what the hell is it?
Wow, miserable fail! Premies generally meed medical intervention, babies born after a full gestation generally do not need medical intervention.
As for infanticide due to PPD, I have no issues with that either.
No. When a neonate is born it is not solely dependent on its former "host", is it. As such, obligatory dependency on the former host, is removed.
Premies... more so removed from the former "host" and usually kept alive by hospital machinery and hospital staff. As such, obligatory dependency on the former host is removed.
Prior to birth however at all stages, whether it be zygote/ blastocyst/embryo or foetus, it is entirely dependent on the host, even to the hosts detriment.
I appreciate full well that self-assumed "pro-lifers" don't like the coming terminology, but prior to birth, at all stages of gestation, that foetus is (medically/scientifically speaking) nothing more than an obligate parasite.
Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
1 an organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism.
obligate parasite one that is entirely dependent upon a host for its survival.
The fact that some people want to bring emotional pleading into their argument against abortion and call it a "baby" from zygote stage and on through gestation, is irrelevant. It is NOT a baby and IS not until it takes its own... first ...post birth... breath.
From now on I am going to call my kids OG1 and OG2!
Nah... if they are post birth, call them PP1 and PP2. ;P
Definition of Parasite, which strikes me as more in line with common usage:
"(A)n organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." (source)
I'm for letting women decide what to do.
This issue won't be settled by definitions. It'll be settled when the consensus of the electorate is that women should have the right to decide for themselves when they want to have a child with interference from no one else, least of all the state.
50 years ago it would be dead.
100 years ago it would be dead.
1000 years ago it would be dead.
2000 years ago it would be, you guessed it dead.
Why all of a sudden did god decide to save (via human medical science, mind you) all of these premies and allow them to live? Must be he had a purpose for them that is beyond our comprehension.
Marc (born at 31 weeks gestation in 1965, perhaps that explains the current level of development of my feeble brain)
Apparently you consider "god" to be a "given" hence you giving he/she/it kudos for medical advancement.
As it seems you DO considering this god to be a "given" why is it then that over 70% of post conception zygotes spontaneously abort before a pregnancy read can even be done? Apparently he/she/it STILL has not got his whole "perfect creation" things down pat.
On the other hand, your comment may well have been dripping with sarcasm... *shrug*
Which is it?
LOL, it was definitely drippy enough :)
LOL... well at least I gave some benefit of the doubt? I am new here and all...*kickin dust*
I have heard pro-lifers use the same sort of wording though.. so...erm... yeah....
I will remember in the future...:D