Abortion as art

Originally posted by mrstabby
I was going by your equating of a soul to consciousness (as it was the only evidence you provided). Are souls involved any more or are we going from the angle that it's human life that's sacred, not the soul.
Are reflex actions evidence of consciousness? You can program a machine to do that. Consciousness would be the point where the fetus can experienc ...[text shortened]... he body. Inducing a miscarriage is an exercise of the right to be free from a parasite.

Parasites have little parasites, humans have little humans. Once a parasite always a parasite. If we were once parasites when unborn, we are parasites to this day.

The responsibilty of an adult is to avoid pregnancy if they need to, but if they conceive, the "invasion" was one of choice. If pregnant, a woman is morally accountable to bring the human life to term.

What do you get when you cross a fetus with a feminist? A fetus who desparately wants to survive to inform you later it should her mother's choice to abort a fetus.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Parasites have little parasites, humans have little humans. Once a parasite always a parasite. If we were once parasites when unborn, we are parasites to this day.

The responsibilty of an adult is to avoid pregnancy if they need to, but if they conceive, the "invasion" was one of choice. If pregnant, a woman is morally accountable to bring the human l ...[text shortened]... parately wants to survive to inform you later it should her mother's choice to abort a fetus.

If a woman uses contraception she is explicitly choosing not to get pregnant. What the woman is doing is choosing to engage in an activity that has slim chance of resulting in pregnancy. Then again, going out alone at night can result in rape which can result in getting pregnant, and only a monster would claim that a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape is obligated to carry the resultant child to term. So, I doubt that the woman consenting to engage in an activity that can result in pregnancy has anything to do with the permissibility of abortion.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Parasites have little parasites, humans have little humans. Once a parasite always a parasite. If we were once parasites when unborn, we are parasites to this day.

The responsibilty of an adult is to avoid pregnancy if they need to, but if they conceive, the "invasion" was one of choice."

What do you get when you cross a fetus with a feminist? A fe ...[text shortened]... arately wants to survive to inform you later it should her mother's choice to abort a fetus.

The relationship between a fetus and a human is a parasite - host one, so yes, we are parasitic for a period of our lives.
Contraception is never 100% effective. Why should women have to be pregnant by chance? You seem to be obsessed with making the world the children are born into worse for them when they grow up.
"If pregnant, a woman is morally accountable to bring the human life to term."
That's your opinion, nothing more. Don't force it on other people's actions.

Originally posted by mrstabby
That's your opinion, nothing more. Don't force it on other people's actions.[/b]

I think this is the main defense of those who favor abortion on demand. They usually don't make the moral claim that abortion is "good" rather, they simply say we can't make the moral claim that it is "bad" because there is no proof that the unborn are, in fact, human beings. Therefore, let them do as they plaese.

OF course the decision of Roe vs. Wade did not try to take a moral stance either by saying it was either good or bad. They simply said that it was beyond the scope of the court to venture into such moral quesitons that involved both science and theology. However, that did not prevent them from legalizing it. At least they seemed to indicate that the issue was a little over their respective heads. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
I think this is the main defense of those who favor abortion on demand. They usually don't make the moral claim that abortion is "good" rather, they simply say we can't make the moral claim that it is "bad" because there is no proof that the unborn are, in fact, human beings. Therefore, let them do as they plaese.

OF course the decision of Roe vs. Wade d ...[text shortened]... nvolved both science and theology. However, that did not prevent them from legalizing it.

The Supreme Court did not "legalize abortion"; they decided that criminal laws banning it were unconstitutional invasions of privacy and liberty. That issue was not "over their heads" though it seems to be way over yours.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Supreme Court did not "legalize abortion"; they decided that criminal laws banning it were unconstitutional invasions of privacy and liberty.

OK, lets put it another way. They did not make it a crime to allow women to have abortions. Does that make you feel any better? LOL.

Originally posted by whodey
OK, lets put it another way. They did not make it a crime to allow women to have abortions. Does that make you feel any better? LOL.

Laugh like an imbecile if you want. The Supreme Court has NEVER made ANYTHING a crime. The facts are these:

Indeed, the legal status of abortion has passed through several distinct phases in American history. Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most circumstances in most states beginning in the mid-1800s. In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

So 1/3 of the nation had already legalized abortion at least to some degree.

Originally posted by whodey
I think this is the main defense of those who favor abortion on demand. They usually don't make the moral claim that abortion is "good" rather, they simply say we can't make the moral claim that it is "bad" because there is no proof that the unborn are, in fact, human beings. Therefore, let them do as they plaese.

OF course the decision of Roe vs. Wade d ...[text shortened]... least they seemed to indicate that the issue was a little over their respective heads. 😉

It is morally the right thing to do if you do not see yourself as fit to raise a child and no-one is willing to raise it or you do not want someone else raising your own flesh and blood. I'm sure you can agree with that on the lines of personal responsibility.

Originally posted by mrstabby
It is morally the right thing to do if you do not see yourself as fit to raise a child and no-one is willing to raise it or you do not want someone else raising your own flesh and blood. I'm sure you can agree with that on the lines of personal responsibility.

The question is not if one is "fit" to raise a child, whatever that means. The question is are they HUMAN BEINGS. It would be akin to an infant that was just born and then sitting around asking if the parents are "fit" to raise him or her. Then if they decide they are unfit they put a pillow over their face and be done with it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Laugh like an imbecile if you want. The Supreme Court has NEVER made ANYTHING a crime. The facts are these:

Indeed, the legal status of abortion has passed through several distinct phases in American history. [b]Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most ...[text shortened]... .html

So 1/3 of the nation had already legalized abortion at least to some degree.[/b]

Silly me, I thought we were talking about abortion on demand and not in relaiton to abortion regarding other circumstances like saving the mothers life. My bad.

Originally posted by whodey
The question is not if one is "fit" to raise a child, whatever that means. The question is are they HUMAN BEINGS. It would be akin to an infant that was just born and then sitting around asking if the parents are "fit" to raise him or her. Then if they decide they are unfit they put a pillow over their face and be done with it.

If they are human beings with rights then they also have the same responsibilities as others, otherwise we're living in a very double standard world. If I'm fairly sure that would imply that you'd need consent in order to live inside someone. I can't think of anything much more invasive. If you do not consent then you may remove them from your inside.

Originally posted by whodey
Silly me, I thought we were talking about abortion on demand and not in relaiton to abortion regarding other circumstances like saving the mothers life. My bad.

What is there about reading that you find soooooooooooo difficult?

BTW, If a fetus is just as much of a person as the woman why would abortion be allowed to save her life? Her life isn't worth anymore than the fetus' to you, is it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is there about reading that you find soooooooooooo difficult?

BTW, If a fetus is just as much of a person as the woman why would abortion be allowed to save her life? Her life isn't worth anymore than the fetus' to you, is it?

Well of coure that is a good question. It has been my experience from watching similar occurances that the woman's life is held in higher regard than her unborn. However, the moment the infant is born this sentiment swings the other way rather quickly. I would say it has to do with emotional bonding etc. I would say that once the mother/father has the chance to bond for any length of time the sentiment would be that either parent would lay down their respective lives for their child.

Of course, I don't make a judgement call either way here, rather it is just an observation. To pick and choose who lives and who dies, assuming you MUST give your life for another, is a highly difficult one no matter the situation.

Originally posted by mrstabby
If they are human beings with rights then they also have the same responsibilities as others, otherwise we're living in a very double standard world. If I'm fairly sure that would imply that you'd need consent in order to live inside someone. I can't think of anything much more invasive. If you do not consent then you may remove them from your inside.

So you are saying that mentally challenged individuals, for example, who have no responsibilities have no rights?

Originally posted by whodey
Well of coure that is a good question. It has been my experience from watching similar occurances that the woman's life is held in higher regard than her unborn. However, the moment the infant is born this sentiment swings the other way rather quickly. I would say it has to do with emotional bonding etc. I would say that once the mother/father has the cha ...[text shortened]... suming you MUST give your life for another, is a highly difficult one no matter the situation.

What does any of that have to do with my question?

We can assume that a woman who wishes to have an abortion to save her life has already decided not to give her life for "another". The question is why should the law allow her to make that choice IF the fetus' life is just as important as hers?

Suppose there was a case where the woman was definitely going to die unless she had an abortion. But by having the abortion, there is a 100% chance the fetus will die and, according to you, the fetus is a human being of equal worth as the woman. Why should the law let her decide to "kill" the fetus just to save her life? Should a parent be legally allowed to kill their 5 year old child to save their own life?