Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:25pm

It is also from its father's sperm. That's how sexual reproduction works: 50% mom, 50% dad, 100% child.

I'm not sure you understand how abortion works. Abortion is an active act who's goal is a dead fetus, not just an "unplugging". The child is burned chemically, or dismembered, or his brains are sucked out. If he survives, he is often killed after birth (a practice Obama supports).

By your logic, abortion after viability is immoral.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chelle on May 12, 2009 at 6:40pm

By my logic you do not have the right to tell me how to make this decision. Let's be clear about this. It may genetically be half mom, half dad, but physically it is way more mom and I think this is the point you are missing. Mom must give a great deal of her blood sweat and tears to the production of this baby than dear old dad in the first nine months. You seem to think it is a simple process and moms are just being stubborn and uncooperative if they don't go through those 'few inconvenient months'.

If a woman is an uncooperative host than she has a right to do whatever she want to the growing child inside her. This may sound awful and I know what I am saying when I say this. But the host has the rights in my opinion, if the woman does not want anything in her body she can remove it. If it is viable the other people can if they are willing try to save it. But this is up to the other people. You see as much as we like living, living is NOT a right it is something we all allow each other to do

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:54pm

Living, exactly, is something we let each other do. You are not required to give life, but you may not take it away. The right to live is a negative right.

No matter how inconvenient the first nine months are, it does not outweigh the right to not be killed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chelle on May 12, 2009 at 7:11pm

Yes it does because if the mother is unwilling to sustain that life and society is unable to sustain it without her, that that life cannot survive.

If society as a whole wants to protect unborn children they need the cooperation of individual women. If they don't want to give that cooperation and the society cannot keep that child alive without that woman's cooperation well society loses. With murder the society can stop the person from killing because they can kill them first or otherwise disarm them or with live babies simply remove them from the mother. You see homicide and abortion are completely different.

Permalink Reply by Kristy on May 18, 2009 at 6:50pm

3: THE FETUS IS NOT A PART OF YOUR BODY! You have every right to control your body, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Until you have a way to incubate said "fetus" without my body, it is in fact part of my body

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 5:52pm

If you Roebots use the same bullshit arguments, do you really expect a different rebuttal?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:49pm

The evolutionary advantage we have is that the baby is inside and protected by the mother, sure, but not part of the mother. RTFM

Placental mammals all bear live young, which are nourished before birth in the mother's uterus through a specialized embryonic organ attached to the uterus wall, the placenta.

Also, what about lotus birth? :P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 5:49pm

1: What? The majority of abused and neglected children are wanted, and child abuse went up after 1973. But, let's see... would I rather 4400 children die brutally daily with absolutely nothing we can do about it, or have significantly fewer die from neglect when we can actually hope for retribution? Hmmm...
2: child (n):
1. a human between birth and puberty
2. a son or daughter; and offspring
3: So I guess being on life support makes you a piece of life support machinery, and being in a spacesuit makes you part of a spacesuit, and being in a submarine makes you... you get the point. Being dependent on an entity does not make you part of that entity.
4: There is not yet sufficient evidence to determine if the pill can actually kill.
4b: I'm not saying the system is perfect, but that doesn't make homicide ethical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:17pm

Placental mammals reproduce as follows:

1: Mom and dad do the naughty.
2: Sperm fertilizes egg, creating new organism with distinct genome.
3: Offspring implants in uterine wall, beginning a symbiotic relationship.
4: Offspring matures and develops.
5: Offspring emerges from parent offspring, ending said symbiotic relationship.

Now where you get the "they occupy the same space" comment baffles me. The mother takes up the space around the child. Look in the attachment Untitled.jpg. See any purple?

Even if we're to accept that the offspring is a "parasite" (it isn't), a tapeworm is a separate organism. Moss is not part of a tree and so on.
I think you're thinking of asexual reproduction, sweetie.

The fetus is in no way a "ball of cells". See attachment g.bmp (ignore the Santa hat, bunny ears, pirate eyepatch, clown nose, and Cupid outfit).

Attachments:

• untitled.JPG, 32 KB
• g.bmp, 1.4 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:46pm

The woman hasn't even missed a period at the zygotic stage, so abortion isn't even worth discussing here.
As for a "more complex ball of cells", I'm not sure you understand what the word " ball means here.
Let's think of a simpler analogy. Imagine a plastic egg. Inside it is a chocolate. One entity inside another entity. Now move the egg. The chocolate moves too! But do they take up the same space? NO! The egg takes up a thin shell of space around the chocolate, which takes up a small cube of space. This is true even if I glue them together.

The mother contributing half a genome does not make him/her part of the mother before birth any more than after birth.

And that first comma in the last paragraph should be a semicolon. :P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chelle on May 12, 2009 at 7:27pm

Except for the whole umbilical cord thing where:
You know the baby actually lives off the mothers nutrients for nine months.
And erm completely changes the mothers body and makes her sick and sore and gives her a list of various ailments. In some cases death.
Oh and then after growing off the woman for nine mothers and getting rather bigger than her vagina, pushes it's way out rather excruciatingly into the world.

And then at this point the mother's physical hormones and emotional connection causes her to transform from mere woman to mother in an instant (this is physiological not just emotional by the way). At which point her experience of life will never be the same again.

But yeah apart from all that it's just like a plastic egg.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 12, 2009 at 6:30pm

1a: There are many abortion techniques. Some are chemically burning, some are dismemberment, et cetera. But murdering by poison is no more ethical than murdering be stabbing.
1b: Abuse rates, of course.
2: Fetus is a stage the offspring go through, but it doesn't encompass the embryonic stage.
3: It makes perfect sense. You claimed being dependent upon an entity makes you part of the entity. Separate entities can depend on one another.
4: And this is killing. Just like removing a tumor kills it. There was life and now there isn't.
4b: Homicide is the killing of a human being. Human beings are made of cells. So, yes.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• Next ›
• Page