+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: My Question Which Keeps Getting Ignored...

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iolo View Post
    An unborn child is a potential human being but could not survive on its own, just as a woman is a potential slave or victim of back-street abortion if the bullies get power again but has choice meanwhile. We are all potentially saints, buddhas, I don't know what, but potential is not necessarily realised. Surely it is ludicrous to pretend that we are - say - the potential humans we might become under socialism and lock up the capitalists for preventing our natural development? I know this is not high on the tea-bag agenda, but it is surely equivalent?
    A baby is a potential human being. A child is a potential human being. Even a liberal is a potential human being, despite my better judgement.

  2. Default

    WARNING: I have sent a message to the mods about this thread and I have asked them to delete anything & everything that is off topic or trolling.

    I don't know what else to do here.

    Read the OP and discuss specifically what is in the OP. If you are incapable of doing that, then please don't post in this thread. This thread is not about choice, or viability.

    It's about answering this statement that a fetus is not a human being. I provided a specific, real world event and I would like those who claim a fetus is not a human being to explain what lays in ICU at 12 weeks premature (24 weeks of pregnancy) if not a human being. What is it then?

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by montra View Post
    Let me be blunt, the reason that the unborn can be rationally snuffed out is because they are not seen or heard. In fact, in society those without a voice are routinely tranpled over or ignored altogether.

    And yes, the back alley argument is outdated and tiresome. That is like saying you risk getting mugged to go kill your baby in a dark alley somewhere.
    Are you not conversely taking the power of choice away from the woman? The problem is a rights conflict. Who has more rights? The mother or the unborn child? It is a difficult question. People will do what they want regardless of what you say or your opinion is on the matter. The technology is out there and it is never going to go back to the way it was before. You can like it or hate it but it's the truth. A woman who is adamant about having an abortion is going to have one no matter what because she knows the technology to do so is out there. Now you can say yes but if it is illegal we can punish them for doing it and the fear of punishment will prevent it. Well how do you prove it? The woman might have only told the doctor that performed the operation and considering he/she would be participating in an illegal activity as well he/she isn't going to tell either. You would almost have to catch them in the act unless the woman tried to have a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion but even then she could just tell everyone she miscarried.

    I understand where you are coming from but abortion becoming illegal is never going to be reality. It is here to stay. It is similar to the anti gun people who fail to realize that criminals don't play by the rules and making guns illegal allows criminals to obtain black market weapons, and then the law abiding citizen is at a severe disadvantage because they can't legally own one. Making something illegal does not solve the problem. It creates a black market is all it does. Be it guns, drugs, or in this case a medical operation. The demand is there and someone will always be willing to fill the supply legal or not. Making it illegal simply allows the doctors who perform it to ask for more money because of added risk and will not stop a woman dead set on having an abortion from having one.
    Last edited by Samuel Democritus; Mar 29 2012 at 08:50 AM.
    The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry

  4. #24
    wales uk wales
    Location: UK, Cymru mostly, sometimes England.
    Posts: 8,759
    Blog Entries: 1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by montra View Post
    A baby is a potential human being. A child is a potential human being. Even a liberal is a potential human being, despite my better judgement.
    Republicans, in my better judgement, aren't. But what has that to do with anything? Potentiality is not actuality, as I say.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    WARNING: I have sent a message to the mods about this thread and I have asked them to delete anything & everything that is off topic or trolling.

    I don't know what else to do here.

    Read the OP and discuss specifically what is in the OP. If you are incapable of doing that, then please don't post in this thread. This thread is not about choice, or viability.

    It's about answering this statement that a fetus is not a human being. I provided a specific, real world event and I would like those who claim a fetus is not a human being to explain what lays in ICU at 12 weeks premature (24 weeks of pregnancy) if not a human being. What is it then?
    Elimination of poverty and crime, for me personally, but that doesn't speak for anyone that's pro-abortion.

    But yeah, I'd like you to show how a 24 week old fetus is self-aware.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeathStar View Post
    But yeah, I'd like you to show how a 24 week old fetus is self-aware.
    Brainwaves appear at 20 weeks. Thats where the line should be drawn IMHO.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
    Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39
    "Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."

    Charles Murray

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemer View Post
    Brainwaves appear at 20 weeks. Thats where the line should be drawn IMHO.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
    ha, brainwaves.

    You know what else has brainwaves?

    Dolphins..chimps..dogs..cats.. .

    And yet those creatures don't deserve rights.

    Now don't get me wrong; I don't think they should have rights simply because I don't wanna fund a massive police state that is needed to give them rights; but if they don't deserve rights, then only humans that have already been born deserve rights.

  8. #28
    wales uk wales
    Location: UK, Cymru mostly, sometimes England.
    Posts: 8,759
    Blog Entries: 1

    Default

    Traditionally human life starts at birth. I am a conservative in many ways, and believe it is silly to change such common-sense assumptions merely to serve extremist political ends amongst the peasantry.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeathStar View Post
    ha, brainwaves.

    You know what else has brainwaves?

    Dolphins..chimps..dogs..cats.. .

    And yet those creatures don't deserve rights.

    Now don't get me wrong; I don't think they should have rights simply because I don't wanna fund a massive police state that is needed to give them rights; but if they don't deserve rights, then only humans that have already been born deserve rights.
    Never heard about animal rights? The fact that higher animals have brainwaves is the reason why laws against animal abuse are common, yet laws against plant abuse are an absurd notion.

    The presence of simple mind, well correlated with brainwaves, is a prerequisite for ANY rights. Once that is established, we may talk about additional factors such as species. Yet without this basic prerequisite, there can be no rights, irregardless of species. We dont give rights to things.
    "Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."

    Charles Murray

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemer View Post
    Never heard about animal rights? The fact that higher animals have brainwaves is the reason why laws against animal abuse are common, yet laws against plant abuse are an absurd notion.
    I don't support that either. It's economically draining to have all the utilitarian animal rights and environmentalist insanity that so many people want. I don't want people destroying MY economy that I participate in with their idiotic regulatory ideas. I won't let it happen either.

    Edit: the above is actually quite relevant because poverty and crime being lowered are both reasons why I support abortion..again, it's all consequentialist.
    Last edited by DeathStar; Mar 29 2012 at 10:11 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PF Question
    By Phoebe Bump in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Nov 22 2011, 12:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks