Originally Posted by Scrum "Someone" meaning anyone that can take care of an infant. The mother is tethered to the child when it's in the womb. There is not option that I know of to take the fetus out and place it in someone else. She is the one running ...
06-07-2008, 01:41 PM
| #41 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma 
| Originally Posted by Scrum But it still requires emphasis on the word requires someone else in order to live. The parasite argument holds little weight with me, it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If its alive and its obviously human that why shouldn't it have rights? If its not alive then I can understand the argument for the fetus not having rights. Which is why, liek I said earlier, I'm pro life but am not for taking away abortion rights especially for first trimester abortions. Prior to 7 weeks a fetus has no heartbeat so scientifically I can understand the argument that it is not yet human life... 
| ||||
     |
|
06-07-2008, 03:20 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death!  libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by motivez No. If you believe it's a life, making it illegal protects the life the same as laws against homicide protect life. It really irritates the shit out of me that so many pro choice people can't wrap their minds around this.
I realize that if you don't believe it's a life, and thus think it's part of the woman's body that is her choice to do with as she please, then there is no problem protecting its right to life. What people seem to have a hard time grasping is that if you do believe it's a human life, then we MUST protect it's right to life just like we protect yours or mine. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:33 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people  Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by motivez
Not everyone believed that blacks had human rights. That is a false belief and is wrong. Likewise, those that don't believe that fetuses don't have human rights are wrong. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:35 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by motivez
I am against morning after pills morally, but not legally. I don't want the government to regulate any drug. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:36 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by 7960 How is that possible?
 | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:37 PM
| #46 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby
Is not the abortionist doctor an assailant? | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:39 PM
| #47 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Scrum
Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite 1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.) b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. 2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being. 3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother. 4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta. 5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being. 6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.) b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship. 7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce. b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother. 8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives). b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus. A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species). A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 03:41 PM
| #48 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Scrum
So when science gets to the point (and it will) where people can transplant fetuses between hosts (mothers), then abortion should be made illegal? | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 04:01 PM
| #49 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by thewise1 This is a gross misunderstanding of the, "She can do with her body as she pleases," argument. It's not that the fetus is part of the woman's body. It's that the woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases, including the right to decide if her nutrients ought to go toward the development of another human being. The fetus, whether it has rights or not, is effectively posing a direct threat to the woman's survival if it stealing the sustenance required in order for her to survive. Thus it is obvious that she ought to have the right to break free from her assailant (the fetus). As it just so happens, the fetus perishes as an end result.
Does an individual on life support (fetus) have a right to be on life support? Or does the hospital (woman) have a right to do with its medical equipment (her body) as it pleases?
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 04:02 PM
| #50 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by lew No more than a nurse, family member, or doctor is an assailant when they take an individual off of life support.
| ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 04:17 PM
| #51 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by lew It's a condition known as hydracephaly in which cerebral hemispheres are absent. The inner part of the skull is lined with a membrane that acts as the brain. It's pretty rare, but it's quite remarkable imo. Another condition is anencephaly, wherein the child is missing the top half of their head (and subsequently the forebrain).
While doing a Google search for information on the former, I found a pretty informative PDF on it. Last edited by Dumpy Dooby; 06-07-2008 at 04:28 PM. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 05:13 PM
| #52 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by lew Sure, but only if all "pro-life" people agree to be surrogates or face punishment by law.
 | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 06:28 PM
| #53 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by 7960 Not similar.
Originally Posted by 7960 Not being a maternity doctor I don't know when the line is, but certainly there must be one at viability outside the womb.
Originally Posted by 7960 Tricky question, without knowing more about the actual condition.. if it doesn't have a brain I don't see how it's any different from people in persistent vegetative states, so I'd be okay with the parents deciding to end its life just like I would be if someone didn't want to be kept alive under artificial conditions
| ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 06:30 PM
| #54 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby Well, you're in an odd group with not too many people I'd imagine..
| ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 06:32 PM
| #55 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by JaJae No, I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I'm saying, make a choice for yourself whatever your position, based on whatever evidence you decide is correct.
Forcing people into one decision (ie: the anti-abortion-for-everyone position, or "pro-life"), and one decision only is the only stance that requires someone else to abide by your beliefs. And, no, you couldn't do that because it's not your choice to make.. it's not your body the fetus is growing inside, that choice has to be left up to the individual in question. | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 06:33 PM
| #56 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by lew I'm not sure how you reconcile that with your stated opinion that abortion should be illegal.
| ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 06:36 PM
| #57 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by lew
 red herring | ||||
| |
|
06-07-2008, 07:00 PM
| #58 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by lew Anencephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you don't know the meaning of sad. | ||||
| |
