Sorry JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) >>>>>>>>> minnesota citizens concerned for life in terms of legitimacy. Your quotations above reference the spinothalamic pathway which is completely different than the corticothalamic pathway in the conscious perception of pain. Please tell me that university students have better critical appraisal skills than this.
Quote:
THIS illustrates a very interesting point. The bottom line is that abortion is a euphemism for killing.
No. If you want to believe that life begins at conception, then don't have an abortion if you believe it is killing. For other people, life begins at birth and for them it is the termination of a pregnancy and not 'killing'.
Sorry JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) >>>>>>>>> minnesota citizens concerned for life in terms of legitimacy. Your quotations above reference the spinothalamic pathway which is completely different than the corticothalamic pathway in the conscious perception of pain. Please tell me that university students have better critical appraisal skills than this.
No. If you want to believe that life begins at conception, then don't have an abortion if you believe it is killing. For other people, life begins at birth and for them it is the termination of a pregnancy and not 'killing'.
i'm telling you were i got my point from i didn't associate it with your point, i was just verifying how i based my point. i'm not sure you fully understood my reply.
No. If you want to believe that life begins at conception, then don't have an abortion if you believe it is killing. For other people, life begins at birth and for them it is the termination of a pregnancy and not 'killing'.
No. It's not about what I believe. It's simply the truth. A pregnant woman carries a living creature. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not alive...
Ok, I was expecting to get a lot of hate for my comment since it was the first 'pro-life' argument to be made. It's alright, just thought I'd give a change for an actual debate.
First of all, a fetus is not a parasite. If it is a parasite then we were all at some point a parasite. When do we grow out of being a parasite? The term fetus simply describes an unborn human at a particular stage. Who has the right to determine when it is ok to end its life, and who can determine exactly when it is considered to be alive?
Secondly, how is it suicide? The woman is not killing herself. The fetus is not killing itself.
A large portion of women in third world countries don't have access to a doctor that will preform an abortion. Also, I never said anything about ignoring the children living in famine, disease, poverty, etc. The number of abortions if first world countries however is LARGE to say the least. Why should the more privileged women have a chance to avoid the consequences of their actions but the rest of the women have no choice but to face it while they are also facing such horrible living conditions?
How about providing better protection and more access to it in places of poverty? Why not teach the women of our society to think sensibly about their actions and the consequences of their actions.
I am not trying to place all women under the same umbrella. But maybe there should be more resources available to help women through unplanned pregnancies.
I didn't say abortion is suicide, what I mean that in the social context, abortion is viewed in the same light as suicide, but we don't outlaw suicide, why should we outlaw abortion? The fetus is part of the women's body, it her decision to ensure its safety. If she decides to terminate it, its her choice. Again goes back to the point, pro lifer's are more concerned about saving the 'unborn', then the born.
"Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host". Just cause you say a fetus is not a parasite, doesn't mean it isn't. As for the question when is it considered alive? Well, how about when it exits the human body?
"Why should the more privileged women have a chance to avoid the consequences of their actions but the rest of the women have no choice but to face it while they are also facing such horrible living conditions?"
To answer your question, I ask you another question: Why should more privileged women treatment for HIV, Chlamydia, or other STI's? They engaged in sex, they should suffer with the consequences. Virus, and bacteria are living creatures, we need to preserve the sanctity of life.
If a bacterial puts a strain on your life, then it is truly not worth it, you take antibiotic to eliminate the infection. If god created human, he surely created bacteria. Why are human more important than bacteria? When the was the last time you heard bacteria committing genocide, or throwing acid in female bacteria's face out of some misguided honor?
Again its not about teaching people about consequences, lives are at stake. If abortion and birth control techniques are not available in developing countries, doesn't mean that out of some stupid shame we don't have them in the developed world. If your a women living in the developed world and have to abort to preserve your quality of life, I say do it. Most of us would give up our life for our parent or children, but if we had the option to improve their life by not being born, wouldn't you? For your parent sake.
There is a reason why quality of life is better in developed nation than developing nations. We have resources, and money. I agree with you on the protection issue, we do need to educate, and provide protection, but if abortion is something they have to do, it is up to them and their doctor.
By the way this man change my mind on abortion RIP
02-04-2013 at 05:43 AM
#36
Silver
Elite Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,511
Thanked:
193 Times
Liked:
392 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animosity
Why do you care? What gives you the right to say whether or not a women can kill her baby?
oh so you were serious about letting a mother kill their child no matter their age? i care because that means my mother could kill me right now if things were the way you wanted lol. i never expected someone to say something like what you have
02-04-2013 at 07:23 AM
#37
starfish
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,062
Thanked:
505 Times
Liked:
572 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by *spark*
No. It's not about what I believe. It's simply the truth. A pregnant woman carries a living creature. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not alive...
No. This is a large part of the reason there is such a debate.
How do you define a living creature? For many people, it must be able to survive on its own.
Is a virus a living thing? People acknowledge that there is much debate over that, why is this any different?
Just because YOU believe something, that does NOT mean it is the universal truth. There are arguments both ways, and the lack of understanding that there are viewpoints other than your own is what leads to people gunning down doctors who are providing abortions or people who are picketing abortion clinics.
02-04-2013 at 10:29 AM
#38
Animosity
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 47
Thanked:
2 Times
Liked:
46 Times
I think a mother should be able to kill her child so long as it is under 18, until then it is not it's just a parasite, taking up her time and money. I wouldn't call a young child a human being. By its very nature a young child is a parasite, dependent on its host, and until its able to live on its own, it is up to that said host. In ancient Rome mothers used to be able to throw their babies on a pile of crap when they didn't want them, leaving them to die, this was called 'exposing'. But others used more aggresive methods, to each their own. A famous papyrus letter from husband to wife in Roman Egypt, asks her to "let the baby live, if it is male; if it is female, expose it'." This is the kind of female empowerment we need to see in today's soeciety.
I think a mother should be able to kill her child so long as it is under 18, until then it is not it's just a parasite, taking up her time and money.
[/url]
This is a ridiculous position to hold. You're comparing a baby being financially dependent to a fetus being dependent on every aspect of its life.
Also, there are circumstances where a fetus poses a threat to the mother's life. Conversely, a baby (already born) cannot under any circumstances pose a threat to the mother's life.
You're not comparing apples to apples here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animosity
I wouldn't call a young child a human being. By its very nature a young child is a parasite, dependent on its host, and until its able to live on its own, it is up to that said host.
[/url]
parasite
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in another organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
The first definition can only apply to a fetus, while the second can only apply to a child. Therefore, you can't invalidate the destruction of a fetus based solely on invalidating the destruction of a child, claiming they are both parasites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animosity
In ancient Rome mothers used to be able to throw their babies on a pile of crap when they didn't want them, leaving them to die, this was called 'exposing'. But others used more aggresive methods, to each their own. A famous papyrus letter from husband to wife in Roman Egypt, asks her to "let the baby live, if it is male; if it is female, expose it'." This is the kind of female empowerment we need to see in today's soeciety.
[/url]
So what? In ancient Rome, it was also socially acceptable to own slaves and have sex with 12 year old boys. What the ancient Romans did or didn't do is completely irrelevant and adds nothing further to this discussion.
__________________ A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station...
Last edited by Eternal Fire : 02-04-2013 at 02:28 PM.
A baby is much more then just financially dependant. Motherhood is a 24/7 thing for the first years of a babies life, the baby is dependent on the mother in every aspect of the babies life. That's why exposing worked, just don't tend to the baby and it dies. " circumstances where a fetus poses a threat to the mother's life" are you trying to dictate when a mother HAS to keep her child? Only if there is no health threat? Or are you just saying that you think the age should be lower, say 4?
A baby is much more then just financially dependant. Motherhood is a 24/7 thing for the first years of a babies life, the baby is dependent on the mother in every aspect of the babies life. That's why exposing worked, just don't tend to the baby and it dies. " circumstances where a fetus poses a threat to the mother's life" are you trying to dictate when a mother HAS to keep her child? Only if there is no health threat? Or are you just saying that you think the age should be lower, say 4?
The options aren't only "keep the child" or "let the child die through exposure/actively killing it".
There is also adoption. Adoption isn't perfect, but if you have a living child (unlike a fetus where the mother's life could be at risk by carrying the pregnancy to term), and you are unable or unwilling to care for that child, then I think that adoption is a better option, because it respects both the choice/right of the mother to not be forced to care for a child and also respects the child's right to live.
People have issues with adoption DURING a pregnancy because it involves carrying the pregnancy to term, which may not be an ideal situation for the parents for a number of reasons. If the kid is already born, those issues cease to exist.
02-04-2013 at 09:23 PM
#43
*spark*
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 147
Thanked:
21 Times
Liked:
55 Times
There is no doubt that the fetus is alive. It is moving, has a heart beat early on, can eventually sense pain. You're not growing a plastic doll in there.
Also, I'm not defending all living things. Abortion is about human life. Humans don't give birth to parasites or viruses. They give birth to humans so the only thing that can be living in there is a human...
It sounds to me like all of a sudden you're all starting to care about whether or not a baby and fetus are different, and if the mother's safety is an issue. All I did to make most of my posts was copy and paste quotes from this thread, mostly. Saying that this issue is a 'non-issue' or that it is entirely up to the mother completely ignores the fact that we live in a country with laws. Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and we have decided that murder is wrong. If you aren't okay with killing a baby right after birth, are you okay with killing it right before birth? Aren't you taking away the same potential life that the baby could have had? I'm not saying that I know the answer either, I'm just saying that their is an answer, and that it matters.
Everyone seems to be against killing the baby after birth, but is it just because the hard part is over? What if the hard part came after somehow, and you could either go through pregnancy or just kill your 3 year old son, how would people feel about this?
In Canadian law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a fetus is a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed."
Abortion isn't murder by the criminal code as fetuses are terminated in utero. So yes, legally fetuses and living children are different things.
Morally, you can believe that life starts whenever you wish. However, these beliefs are not universal truths that can be forced upon other people who do disagree with when life begins.
McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.
