Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
Ergo the mothers right to choose comes to an end.
Click to expand...
That is, unless the mother had attempted abortion but failed and the child was born away. The abortion laws in New York validate this. Some call it “choice” but I call it what it is: Infanticide. Pro-choicer’s are all about choice but what exactly is the choice of abortion accomplishing?
 
lagerald24 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Ergo the mothers right to choose comes to an end.
Click to expand...
That is, unless the mother had attempted abortion but failed and the child was born away. The abortion laws in New York validate this. Some call it “choice” but I call it what it is: Infanticide. Pro-choicer’s are all about choice but what exactly is the choice of abortion accomplishing?
Click to expand...
Liberation of the woman from a permanently life-altering consequence both physically and financially.

If you want something more specific, you’d have to ask the individual woman who has had one.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I see what you’re saying. Let me ask you a question, can a mother kill her toddler because she can’t afford to care for her toddler or if this toddler is too hard for her to care for?
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Liberation of the woman from a permanently life-altering consequence both physically and financially.
Click to expand...
Alternate view: forcibly liberating a baby from life.
Click to expand...
At that particular stage, it’s not a baby per most.

As most occur in the opening trimester, it’s a developing homosapien we call a fetus. Physically, “clump of cells” is pretty accurate.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Liberation of the woman from a permanently life-altering consequence both physically and financially.
Click to expand...
Alternate view: forcibly liberating a baby from life.
Click to expand...
At that particular stage, it’s not a baby per most.

As most occur in the opening trimester, it’s a developing homosapien we call a fetus. Physically, “clump of cells” is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
Oh goodness, not this ridiculous line of argument.
 
lagerald24 said:
Okay, I see what you’re saying. Let me ask you a question, can a mother kill her toddler because she can’t afford to care for her toddler or if this toddler is too hard for her to care for?
Click to expand...
No because the right that gives the mother the ability to terminate a pregnancy has to do with the fetus being an extension of her body, and thus part of “her”.

After the child is born, it’s separate from its mother in this way and protected by the laws of the state as an individual.
 
But the fetus is not part of a women’s body. It has its own, personal DNA and is a living being distinct from the mother.
 
Vonsalza said:
When the child is born, it is no longer physically dependent on the sacrifice of its mother for survival. At that point, it can be cared for by her, or by anyone else.

Ergo the mothers right to choose comes to an end.
Click to expand...
So a fetus isn’t a human being until it is physically separated from it’s mother? This means that a 6 month old fetus delivered and in NICU is a person but a 9 month old fetus on the way to the delivery room is not. This defines personhood by characteristics extrinsic to itself and certainly lends itself to an expanded definition. Why, for example, should we limit the distinction to direct physical dependency? Mothers taking care of little children can certainly speak to the physical dependency in the arrangement, which is a great deal more after birth than before.

Essentially your definition is a fetus isn’t human because it’s a fetus, which is not all that different than saying an infant isn’t human because it’s an infant.
 
lagerald24 said:
But the fetus is not part of a women’s body. It has its own, personal DNA and is a living being distinct from the mother.
Click to expand...
If you can find a way to separate a woman from a baby immediately after conception, then I’d be all for banning abortion.

For a woman that doesn’t want her child, it’s could be akin to a tumor or a parasite and she wants it removed from her body.
 
Huh, I think I recall someone else deciding another group of homo sapiens was akin to a parasite.

Bad word choice, hombre.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
For a woman that doesn’t want her child, it’s could be akin to a tumor or a parasite and she wants it removed from her body.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the uterus is meant for something other than holding a parasite that doesn’t belong there…
 
Ender said:
So a fetus isn’t a human being until it is physically separated from it’s mother?
Click to expand...
That’s the best we have. At that point, the physical sacrifice of the mothers very person has ended. Until then, they were very much intertwined.

At birth, the fetus obtains a critical degree of personhood. Present law reflects this.
 
lagerald24 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
For a woman that doesn’t want her child, it’s could be akin to a tumor or a parasite and she wants it removed from her body.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the uterus is meant for something other than holding a parasite that doesn’t belong there…
Click to expand...
Sure. But the point is that if a woman doesn’t want to carry a baby to term, no one has the right to force her to do it.
 
Take the example of a donated organism, for instance. When someone gets a donated organ, their personal white blood cells start to attack this foreign organ. However, NO blood cells try to get rid of the baby in the mother’s uterus. Just some food for thought…
 
lagerald24 said:
Take the example of a donated organism, for instance. When someone gets a donated organ, their personal white blood cells start to attack this foreign organ. However, NO blood cells try to get rid of the baby in the mother’s uterus. Just some food for thought…
Click to expand...
That’s just because the patriarchy has caused the white blood cells to identify with their oppressor.
 
lagerald24 said:
Take the example of a donated organism, for instance. When someone gets a donated organ, their personal white blood cells start to attack this foreign organ. However, NO blood cells try to get rid of the baby in the mother’s uterus. Just some food for thought…
Click to expand...
I understand. What you say is true (well… most of the time).

But she still shouldn’t be obligated to carry it if she doesn’t want to.
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
lagerald24:
Take the example of a donated organism, for instance. When someone gets a donated organ, their personal white blood cells start to attack this foreign organ. However, NO blood cells try to get rid of the baby in the mother’s uterus. Just some food for thought…
Click to expand...
That’s just because the patriarchy has caused the white blood cells to identify with their oppressor.
Click to expand...
??? There is no patriarchy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top