Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
And yet it's ok to pull the plug on someone who has become brain dead through an accident, because there is no chance of recovery..... the heart is still beating, they are still breathing, although by a machine..... but they are no longer there..... it's like keeping a heart pumping through a machine while it's detached from the body..... it functions, but it's not "alive."
And as soon as you turn off the machine that is keeping the brain dead person alive..... the body literally dies shortly after.
Same thing with a fetus.... take it from the womb and let it survive on it's own and you'll see it die shortly afterwards.
Big can o worms! OK, morality was the wrong word. The government has no business interfering in our private lives unless we are harming our partner or children. OK, know that brings up the old argument whether fetuses are human but, consider this: how many millions of children in Canada live below the poverty line? How many Canadian children are malnourished? Could we call child obesity child abuse?
We should be more concerned with making the children we have are treated with respect than with whether or not every time some guy knocks up some woman that the fetus is born. Because like it or not, a great number of women get knocked up by accident (ie: during a drunken indiscretion, forgot the pill, condom leaked, etc) Women who chose to get pregnant don't usually have second thoughts.
Unless a child is brought into the world by the choice of its parents, chances are too high that the child will be abused, neglected or abandoned. That is too high a price for that child to pay because some self righteous clowns decided that abortion is murder or immoral. The emotional and mental suffering that unwanted children go through is not justification for self righteousness. The woman should be the only one who has a say in whether or not she is ready to give that child a good life.
People with massive brain trauma who will be on life support for the rest of their lives have brain activity. If they didn't they'd be dead. That is a poor choice for the rationale of "life"
Stem cells have life. That means we should never through them out with the petrie dish?
I don't have solid proof that YOU reason. Cognition is not a concrete aspect of science, and there is no evidence that the brain suddenly turns on upon birth. I've seen studies that prove that fetuses dream, so one could conclude that their brains are functioning just as well as a new born's would. I have no more 'proof' that they have any more or less reasoning capacity, than you have.
It had nothing to do with gender.... if I had to squeeze a baby out of my penis hole, I'd be fighting for the same rights..... it just so happens this situaiton revolves around women.
My reasoning is based around those currently living, who currently have a life, who can function independantly on their own, who have their own consciousness.
Well be prepared to be blown away by this as well:
The brain, heart and limbs that move are not complete, they are in progress of development.... if they wernt, then they're ready to be born if fully developed. Just because it looks like a human and has all the parts of a human, doesn't mean it can survive like a human without the resources it takes from the mother.
See my life support example above.
By all means, show me the proof of "dreaming."
I know there will be electronic signals being transfered through the brain at a certain stage of development, because all these parts need to be biologically tested and developed in order to reach the point of a fully developed human. This can be related to muscle twitching and growth..... these signals all need to be active and functioning in order for development to continue.....
..... but that doesn't mean there is consciousness.
They won't go on to be anything else if left alone. If left alone without the outside interference of violence against the mother, a fetus will carry on living. Only the mother's rights should ever negate that fact. You've still not presented me any reason why a fetus is not alive and deserving of legal protection insofar as it does not violate the mother's right. Stem cells don't even figure in in the slightest.
Consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In regards to brain dead people and the activity in the brain of a fetus, when you are an adult (or born per say) your brain is developed about as far as it's going to get..... while in fetal mode, everything in the body is being developed, still growing, and in order for that to happen, activity in the brain and elsewhere in the body is required...... but that doesn't mean there is a consciousness in the respect that there is an individual in that fetus.
Another factor between brain dead patients and a fetus, is that the fetus is still directly connected to the mother..... her blood, her energy, her resources, everything is shared with the fetus...... who is to say that the brain activity within the fetus isn't also a part of the mother?
Once again, take the fetus away from those resources and it dies.
So you'd argue that a person fully functioning, fully grown, has more right to visit violence upon a woman and kill a fetus, than a fetus has a right to live? How does that work exactly Prax?
Your explanation about limb movement, etc., applies equally to newborns Prax. They're not fully developed, not fully in control, it's impulses and instincts and electrical impulses lining everything up.
As for consciousness and dreaming, I've posted links before to assorted sites on fetal development. Feel free to google more, but here's one on the senses and brain, but it doesn't go into dreaming specifically... Life Before Birth: The Fetal Senses
This one does go into dreaming... Fetal Psychology
Like I said, feel free to google.
so what you're really saying, is that you have hopes and dreams based on something you read somewhere at sometime. But no concrete proof.
My concrete proof? If you put the collection of cells (you call a fetus), out into the big bad world without any support, will it survive? For how long? 3-4 minutes?
Hence, it can't possible be called "living"
Take a newly plucked carrott, plug a positive and negative electrode into it and then cut it. It will register a reaction. Is that alive? I had some last night. Is that cannibalism?
You argument at best is weak and that's why far greater minds than ours have determined that abortion is legal.
Take a three month old baby away from resources and it dies too. That does nothing to define whether it is alive, conscious, or deserving of protection.
The fetus does literally breath within the womb, although those are reflexes through development that occurs in the womb, as it inhales and exhales fluid..... the oxygen comes directly from the mother.
The baby doesn't scream, it doesn't cry, it doesn't start reaching out and grabbing or looking around with awareness until after it is born and smacked on its arse to induce breathing on its own..... we can all speculate when life starts..... I speculate it occurs once you are born.
You should read more about fetal development Prax. There is a lot more going on in the womb than you seem to want to realize.
BTW, the lack of voice in a fetus is proof of nothing, merely evidence that its vocal cords are immersed in fluid, and don't have air passing through them to make any noise. Just thought I might point that out.
Alright. Since there seems to be some confusion I'm gonna have my last say and leave.
1. Canada's abortion law, or lack thereof as has been pointed out, is not based on the non-status of a fetus. It's based on the rights of the mother to not have her security of person violated by an unwanted pregnancy.
2. A fetus is a living human being. By all scientific definitions. Legal definitions may be one thing, but science proves it is both HUMAN and ALIVE. There's simply no argument.
3. There is no reason, aside from unfounded fear, why law can not be written to grant a fetus protection and rights INSOFAR AS THOSE RIGHTS DO NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF ITS MOTHER... exactly the same way that I have rights but can not interfere with yours.
Plain and simple. Those are my points, my opinions, plain and simple. But my appetite for talking in circles while people switch their discussion from violence against a mother, to abortion, has been lost. Have a good day guys, and thanks for the convo.
1. Canada's abortion law, or lack thereof as has been pointed out, is not based on the non-status of a fetus. It's based on the rights of the mother to not have her security of person violated by an unwanted pregnancy.
2. A fetus is a living human being. By all scientific definitions. Legal definitions may be one thing, but science proves it is both HUMAN and ALIVE. There's simply no argument.
3. There is no reason, aside from unfounded fear, why law can not be written to grant a fetus protection and rights INSOFAR AS THOSE RIGHTS DO NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF ITS MOTHER... exactly the same way that I have rights but can not interfere with yours.
Plain and simple. Those are my points, my opinions, plain and simple. But my appetite for talking in circles while people switch their discussion from violence against a mother, to abortion, has been lost. Have a good day guys, and thanks for the convo.
I disagree with you. Life begins when a body? can breath on its own. I do agree that abortion is a very poor method of birth control. The problem is that the ones who are opposed to abortion are mostly opposed to birth control as well and many are even opposed to sex education as well. There are far too many unwanted pregnancies that result in unwanted kids that wind up costing taxpayers huge sums every year. If you are opposed to abortion then you should adopt an unwanted child every year.
Can anyone explain why there are so many men that think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies? And what makes them think they can dictate their religious views to the rest of us.
Can anyone explain why there are so many men that think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies? And what makes them think they can dictate their religious views to the rest of us.
taxslave,
It is beyond me. Maybe it is a throw back to when men still thought they were kings of the castle and women were chattel. Kind of a left over mind set from the 18th century. Makes me wonder if Darwin made a mistake or if they have a recessive gene or two.
taxslave,
It is beyond me. Maybe it is a throw back to when men still thought they were kings of the castle and women were chattel. Kind of a left over mind set from the 18th century. Makes me wonder if Darwin made a mistake or if they have a recessive gene or two.