03-13-2004, 12:24 AM | #61 |
lobber of scimitars
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
|
Actually, I think the last time that happened it was the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wasn't it?
Heart and lungs, if memory serves. People wait months or years on a transplant list ... Gov. Bob somehow ended up with a perfect match donor within a couple weeks ...
__________________
wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis |
03-13-2004, 01:02 AM | #62 | |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
Quote:
Are you saying that an unborn child has no rights? So five minutes before birth a fetus has no rights. Five minutes after, it has all the rights of a US citizen? (Pardon my US centricity to those elsewhere.) BTW, I think there's a difference between "someone trying to save the life of your unborn child" and "anybody who wants to cut you". |
|
03-13-2004, 01:07 AM | #63 |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:
A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case? If you think this is different, please state how. |
03-13-2004, 01:17 AM | #64 | |
lobber of scimitars
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
|
Quote:
__________________
wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis |
|
03-13-2004, 07:16 AM | #65 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Quote:
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
03-13-2004, 08:29 AM | #66 | |
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
|
Quote:
That's one thing that always cracks me up. Suicide bombers who don't take anyone with them. I mean come on people! If you're going to be stupid enough to be a suicide bomber, make sure you take some one else out too! Run up and give some one a hug or something. Shit. At least get one! Otherwise all your other heroic friends in wherever it is suicide bombers go are all going to laugh at you: SB1: I got forty five! Ten were children! I love busses! SB2: I got 11, and maimed 15! YOU: I got shit. I made a hell of a mess though! That blood stain won't be coming out of that carpet any time soon! SB1: Pathetic! SB2: HAHAH No one? You are a disgrace! Quzah. |
|
03-13-2004, 08:35 AM | #67 | |||||
The urban Jane Goodall
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,012
|
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, when the fetus goes from being a parasite, in the clinical sense, to being able to survive if it was outside of the womb it should be given the considerations of a person. Before that it should fall under prosecution other than murder. I know that that may seem a bit arbitrary, but until someone actually hands down a solid standard by which to measure and/or prosecute people there are going to be people who escape prosecution who deserve it and people who get the hammer dropped on them when a lesser punishment was deserved. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle |
|||||
03-13-2004, 01:14 PM | #68 | |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
Quote:
As I see it there are two main questions involved here (along with some ancillary issues) : 1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on? 2) If you think a fetus has rights, how do you balance that with the rights of the mother? Do the needs of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother because it's life is at stake? I'd rather hear whether you think this woman was morally correct. The issue of legality I don't find very interesting. These are difficult moral questions. If you can't answer these, then admit (at least to yourself) that you're just emoting and not thinking. |
|
03-13-2004, 02:16 PM | #69 |
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?
No, I don't think a fetus should have rights. But, I don't think that's what you're really asking here anyway. It seems to me the real question is; do doctors have the right to determin the best interest of someone's fetus or child, and act on it without regard for the parents rights. Again my answer is no. The woman did a lot of things, which are you referring to? Was it morally correct to refuse surgery... I'd say yes. Was it morally correct to knowingly use drugs that caused harm the the fetus.... I'd say no.
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good. |
03-13-2004, 03:37 PM | #70 | |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
Quote:
Your answer to your question was 'no'. Why was it no? How did you come to that conclusion? If not by the questions I posed above, what other criteria did you use? |
|
03-13-2004, 03:54 PM | #71 | |
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
Quote:
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good. |
|
03-13-2004, 03:58 PM | #72 | |
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
|
Quote:
Quzah. |
|
03-13-2004, 04:14 PM | #73 | |
stays crispy in milk
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: A strange planet called Utah
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
I don't think a fetus should have rights. Do I think this woman was morally correct in what she did? Hell no, she made a choice that directly resulted in one of her children being born dead. She could have prevented it but she let vanity get in the way. As a parent we make a silent pledge to protect our children at all costs. If you are not willing to protect your child from danger and yes, even death then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with. I know people will disagree with that statement but its how I feel. We are responsible for the life we bring into this world and knowingly putting that life in danger makes that woman lower then scum in my eyes, but given all the articles I have read about her, it looks like she wasn't all together there to begin with.
__________________
I cant think of anything to put here so this is all I am going to write. |
|
03-13-2004, 06:36 PM | #74 | |
|-0-| <-0-> |-0-|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 516
|
Quote:
When does a human actualize its potential? When it developes a brain? When it is born? When it can speak? When it graduated from high school, or college? What if it is born retarded and will never get above a three year old's capabilities. Will that child ever stop being just a potential human, or is has it achieved humanity yet? Is it less of a human because of the mental abilities it lacks, and will never achieve? When we start defining a human being as human material that has achieved certain goals or milestones of physical or mental development, I think we are missing something. Humans are humans because of what they are, not because of what they have done or how far along they have developed. A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth. Is one more human than the other? A three day old zygot (or whatever it is called, I can't quite remember) is an individual of unique characteristics, and it is human (not potentially human). We can argue about if is a 'person' whatever that is, but not about if it is human or unique. The question of abortion is does a mother's choice of what happens to her body have precidence over the right to life of a human being growing inside of her. Take the argument where you will from there. |
|
03-13-2004, 08:06 PM | #75 |
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth.
I disagree. One day before birth it is a fetus with an obligatory dependant relationship with it's mother. They day after it is a person, a living individual, a men created equal. In granting the fetus the right to be born surgically, aren't you assuming that the fetus even wants that? Why wouldn't it be assumed that the desires of the fetus are exactly the same as the desires of the mother?
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|