V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I’m not sure that scenario has worked yet.
- Status
E
Economist
Guest
I don’t. Because it is a totally different scenario, not even remotely similar to the original question. I prefer to follow up a line of thought before entertaining another one.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
In terms of analogies to pregnancy it’s as close as you’ll get imo.
Should the separation be done or not? It’s a yes/no question.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
The scale of the atrocity overwhelms any other social justice issue. St. Teresa of Calcutta once said, “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war,” but that actually understates the scale of the slaughter.
A
Annie
Guest
So?
What is a baby? You know medical personnel have a rule not to call them babies until it is clear the mothers have not decided to kill them. But those of the mothers who do not so decide are called babies throughout the pregnancy.
No one has ever said, we are having a zygote
And this is the main crux of the problem between those who think as you do and those who oppose that view.
Once conception has occurred, there is an individual, who is alive, and who is separate from his or her mother.
This entity will progress through all the normal stages of development that each of us went through. No one says, I used to have a 'tween but now there’s someone new in the house who’s a teen. We recognize that the teen is the same human, just a bit older.
There are over 7 billion people on the planet. One thing each and every one has in common is that he or she will eventually die.
And yet this provides no excuse for the person who deliberately kills just one of those 7 billion people.
First you say zygotes are no more than clumps of cells, then you posit their sneaking into their mothers’ wombs…
So let’s look at this. The barge owner gets drunk and invites someone to travel on the barge with him. Then they get marooned on a desert island and while there had been enough food for two for the trip, the barge owner doesn’t know how long the food will have to last on an island, so he kills his guest.
I do not assert that the unborn jave more rights than do their mothers, only that they do have the right not to be killed.
Last edited:
E
Economist
Guest
Let’s don’t. Before a new analogy is entertained, let’s solve the old one.
Actually, that is exactly what you do. The zygote, blastocyst, fetus is an intruder into the woman’s body. The woman is “supposed” to have her life interrupted if she does not want to accommodate the intruder. That means losing her right to self-determination, just to allow the gestation of the zygote.
But the question is even more problematic. Let’s analyze this scenario.
There is an accident, and someone (person “A”) is responsible for the accident. Not criminally responsible, because the accident was just an unlucky set of circumstances. The other party (person “B”) cannot survive unless they are connected and the bodily resources of person “A” are used to sustain person “B” for nine months. At the end of nine months they will be separated and person “A” will only be financially responsible for person “B”’-s life, for about 14 - 18 years. No sane court would accept this solution. The loss of person “B”-s life may be regrettable, but it does not justify the interruption of the life of person “A”.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Adoption is an option.
E
Economist
Guest
It does not solve the conundrum. But if that makes you happy, we can delete it from the hypothetical. The irreversible interruption of the life of person “A” is where we stop. Still inconceivable to find a rational set of people who would say: Well, person “A” is not criminally responsible for what happened, but he (it does not have to a she) was at the wrong place at the wrong time, so he will have to provide the necessary bodily resources for the next 9 months.
A
Annie
Guest
No, person A was not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Person A decided to engage in an act known to have that consequence.
It’s why we are so tough on drunk drivers, because driving drunk is known to have fearful consequences. It is reckless endangerment, as is engaging in heterosexual intercourse.
E
Economist
Guest
Let’s be clear: “Person A decided to engage in an act known that MIGHT have that consequence.”
Lots of things “might happen”. And if it happens, it is called an accident.
Well, this is the first time I saw sex being equaled to drunk driving.
Surprises never cease. 
But even if person “A” would be criminally negligent the sentence would not be to be hooked up to person “B” and provide the necessary bodily resources - for the next 9 months. If I am not mistaken, he could NOT even be compelled to donate blood or plasma to save the life of the victim. Our dominion over our body is so strong that even our corpses cannot be used without our prior consent - even if a transplant would save someone’s life.
B
Brendan
Guest
But it is biologically a new human. It does not change INTO a human, it starts out as a human and continues to develop as one. From embryo to fetus to infant to pre-adolescent to adolescent to adult.
But through out that process, from embryo to adult, it is biologically a human.
The life cycle of all the major species have been clearly mapped out, and that is no less true for humans.
And as a human, it is entitled to all the same human rights as any other human ( by the very definition of ‘human rights’)
B
Brendan
Guest
Is it any more rational to state that a person who is not responsible for an act should be subject to capital punishment for that act? Especially so since the subject is given no chance at a trial, no attorney to act on their behalf?
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
What is incorrect? Don’t force your values on us!Annie:
That is simply incorrect. When a conception occurs, a new being STARTS to develop. That is all.
And don’t be a science denier. Do you also believe in 6 day creationism?
Fact is:
Unique human dna at conception, species homo sapiens, distinct from the mother or father.
Same potential for growth as you or I
Which of those facts are you going to dispute without being a superstitious science denier?
Now, you are going to reflex to “not a person”, which in that case you should run and hide because neither are you or I are persons either, by your own criteria.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
Annie
Guest
I was grumbling.about false attributions when I looked it up and she actually did and said that 
Wow…
Wow…
I
IsaiahSpirit
Guest
July 1
“ May the Lord cause your love to increase and overflow for one another and for everyone else ” (1 Thessalonians 3:12).Reflection: The Pope and bishops have told us that we are not to “accommodate ourselves” to laws permitting abortion. This means much more than simply not having or participating in an abortion. It means not letting anything keep us from loving and defending the unborn. Laws permitting abortion try to “cap” our love for these children by telling us we cannot prohibit someone from killing them.
Prayer: Lord, let my love overflow all boundaries, that I may resist anyone’s effort to limit my love for those who are in danger of death . Amen.
source: Priests For Life, Pro Life Reflections For Everyday
G
goout
Guest
Not only is it a heinous thing to celebrate abortion, but if you read the quote twice, it is just truly stupid and circular logic. And maybe that’s the core of our problem.I was grumbling.about false attributions when I looked it up and she actually did and said that
Wow…
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
E
EXdrinker
Guest
Sorry, men have to deal with the results of these “accidents” for the next 18+ years by law. Do you want that to change? If one uses the power of the sexual faculties then one has already consented to the results of the union. We expect it of men and should expect it of women. It is time for us as a society to grow up.
S
Sbee0
Guest
And we are the ones often accused of being science deniers.
- Status