Abortion Debate - Page 2

lookout123 · 08-24-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

One who is no longer a parasite to another person.

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

Clodfobble · 08-24-2004, 01:06 PM

Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.

Troubleshooter · 08-24-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.

And that is why you'll never rule the world.

Troubleshooter · 08-24-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

Maybe only certain ones.

Troubleshooter · 08-24-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.

Unless you're a Haliburton executive.

jinx · 08-24-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

You mean lifestyle, not survival, right?

Trilby · 08-24-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Unless you're a Haliburton executive.

well, touche! (no one thinks of that....... )

lookout123 · 08-24-2004, 01:15 PM

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

Kitsune · 08-24-2004, 01:17 PM

One who is no longer a parasite to another person.

But what about Siamese twins?

Troubleshooter · 08-24-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

A rather thin argument, depending on who you are talking to.

jinx · 08-24-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

The argument? Not my argument...

Undertoad · 08-24-2004, 01:19 PM

I'll take SM's bait with a serious answer to the consciousness question. Consciousness seems to occur with the development of the neocortical brain activity. This happens at about the same time as viability, 5th or 6th month. IMO, consciousness is the best possible answer to when person-dom occurs because conscious thought is what makes us unique amongst the world of all the beings we know.

This is the best scientific answer and I believe that the law should have a scientific basis with a cultural bias rather than the other way around.

glatt · 08-24-2004, 01:22 PM

A legal definition is very hard to do. You need a clear cut-off point like conception or birth. Even something like first trimester, second trimester is a little too vague in my opinion. Laws have to be black and white.

I would never dream of killing actual newborn children, but with my own, I didn't think that they were "people" until they were around four to six months old or so. That's when I noticed a spark in the eye. Some sort of reaction to the world around them that was more than just simple reflex. Before that, they were just blobs of flesh. Eating, pooping and crying. The mice I killed in traps in my crawlspace were more conscious and aware than they were.

garnet · 08-24-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.

The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth).

I agree 100%. While I am rabidly pro-choice, I personally think around 5 months after conception there's a bit of a line that shouldn't be crossed. I don't think abortion should be illegal after that point, but there's something unsettling to me about performing an abortion at that point. I personally wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Every woman should be able to make the decision for herself.

Cyber Wolf · 08-24-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

There's a bit of a difference. The welfare recipient is already a born and likely fully grown person who is surviving outside of the womb. A fetus generally cannot.

08-24-2004, 01:15 PM	#23
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle". __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin Last edited by lookout123; 08-24-2004 at 01:16 PM. Reason: i before e except after c...

08-24-2004, 01:06 PM	#17
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.

08-24-2004, 01:17 PM	#24
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	One who is no longer a parasite to another person. But what about Siamese twins?

08-24-2004, 01:19 PM	#27
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I'll take SM's bait with a serious answer to the consciousness question. Consciousness seems to occur with the development of the neocortical brain activity. This happens at about the same time as viability, 5th or 6th month. IMO, consciousness is the best possible answer to when person-dom occurs because conscious thought is what makes us unique amongst the world of all the beings we know. This is the best scientific answer and I believe that the law should have a scientific basis with a cultural bias rather than the other way around.

08-24-2004, 01:22 PM	#28
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	A legal definition is very hard to do. You need a clear cut-off point like conception or birth. Even something like first trimester, second trimester is a little too vague in my opinion. Laws have to be black and white. I would never dream of killing actual newborn children, but with my own, I didn't think that they were "people" until they were around four to six months old or so. That's when I noticed a spark in the eye. Some sort of reaction to the world around them that was more than just simple reflex. Before that, they were just blobs of flesh. Eating, pooping and crying. The mice I killed in traps in my crawlspace were more conscious and aware than they were.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)