S/O unplanned pregnancy

[mommaduck]

It's a sad, sad day in humanity when a person views a CHILD as a Parasite. Absolutely disgusting. By that definition, then infanticide should also be legal...as a baby born is also a "parasite" in that it fully depends upon another. An infant cannot live completely on it's own and it's not completely through development until maturity.

Edited July 19, 2009 by mommaduck

[Marylou]

I saw this thread was back at the top (I had read the first few posts before). I just clicked on the last page to see what was being discussed. My stomach is churning and I am trying not to throw up right now. I have NEVER seen an unborn child called a parasite. Just makes me sick.

[Marylou]

.

 

Or should we be tolerant of cancer also because it's a poor living cells which just want to spread?

 

Wow, just wow.

[mommaduck]

Wow, just wow.

 

I agree. I'm feeling sorry for her kids right now to be quite honest.

[Marylou]

I agree. I'm feeling sorry for her kids right now to be quite honest.

 

 

Why are you assuming she has any?

[Peek a Boo]

yeah......

 

A potential human who is at the present point a bunk of cells parasting inside of you, and who'd have a miserable life if you were to borne him into an extreme poverty - absolutely.

 

factually wrong.

it is an individual, unique, diploid living human.

Basic human rights also include the freedom of choice regarding your body. As long as it's inside of you, and especially while it's not formed yet but is only a bunk of cells, it's as any other parasite.

 

back to my posts above about proportional use of force. If you don't recognize that concept, then you just made it ok for me to kill you if you accidentally bump into me.

 

It's always formed --the form it takes at different stages IS its form. Or do you mean "not what I would consider looking like a human"? in which case, you just allowed me to determine that i can kill you if I think you aren't "formed" completely or properly.

 

It does live - but dependently on you. Nice if you let him live on you for 9 months, but you don't have to. That's my point - not that abortion is "good", but that nobody should be able to legally force you to allow anyone or potential anyone to parasite on you for 9 months.

 

It's one thing to remove someone from your property --quite another to kill it outright. Back to proportional use of force.

 

By the way - ever read Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion? It's short and available online, basically I agree with it on most points.

yes I have. I basically addressed several of her points in my post about ectogenesis.

The problem is not in them being ALIVE.

The problem is in them being alive PARASITING ON YOU. The only reason why they're alive is because you're alive too - which is not the case of a young child, which may be dependent upon you in some other ways, but not in the fundamental way as being a parasite on your body.

 

Sure, you can help them become a full independent life for themselves - but you don't have to. And that's my point - nobody can oblige you to do that.

Because it's killing a certain independent individual life, not a possible one parasiting inside of you. A very different situation.

 

how is it so different? how independent is "independent"? It is still physically dependent on another person.

why can't i leave my newborn child on the livingroom floor and let it die? I certainly don't want it to be a burden on anyone else and it just might be a Hitler.

 

 

Language is arbitrary, how we "mark" things doesn't matter, essentially, you're making a logical mistake by connecting two things which may not be necessarily related one to another due to the language we use.

 

which is why I am depending on empirical, scientifically accurate terminology to make a completely unbiased determination

 

You're comparing two incomparable things.

(Slavery, by the way, is Biblically allowed, for all of you who use religion as an argument against abortion.)

 

It's not geography - it's a fundamental condition that can't be avoided by any means (while slavery can by restructuring the society). A life necessarily begins in a parasiting way; there is no necessity involved in slavery. Slavery is not a "natural" state of things, it's socially imposed.

 

Slavery does exist naturally --try researching ants.

I'm not making a Biblical argument.

It CAN be avoided by quite a few many means. Life can begin outside the womb, and may eventually be able to be continued outside a separate human's body. Again: rights are not determined by technology, since technology changes.

blacks were considered slaves in the south, free persons in the north.

That is geography.

A human fetus is considered killable in the womb, unkillable outside the womb. That's geography.

Don't go into ad hominems, or read into when there's nothing to read into in the first place.

 

It's not an ad hominem to recognize that you are basing your opinion on what you feel to be right, despite that facts have proven your assertion wrong. If you have something other than your feelings to back up your opinions that I mentioned, feel free to clarify them -- this IS a discussion. ;)

 

It's killing a bunch of cells which would most likely be going to become a human had you not done that. But when you did that, it was a bunch of parasiting cells which were starting to form a fetus.

It's not a child, it's human cells with a potential to become a child.

 

If something is in the early stages of development, it's not "complete" yet. It's complete when it can live independetnly, not parasiting on another body. And that's basically a little before it's born, definitely not in the first few months.

 

Again, I consider a fetus only potentially a child and a person.

I don't approve aborting it morally in all cases, but in some I do. Legally, I think the option should always exist because the law shouldn't interfere with what you can do to your own body.

 

Or should we be tolerant of cancer also because it's a poor living cells which just want to spread?

 

"which would most likely"??

what do you think it "might likely" become? a dog??

 

These statements show that you do not understand the process or scientific terminology used to describe the process as recognized by experts in the field [human embryologists].

 

there is an observable difference between human tissue/cells and a unique, individual, diploid human. Any scientist can look at a single cell human and a single cancer cell and tell the difference.

 

that "bunch of cells" wasn't starting to form a fetus -- it was at a specific stage of development that has other terms for it [just as we use child/ teen/ adult, there are names for the earliest stages of being a human too.]

 

the early stage of development IS the complete human at that specific time.

A born human isn't "complete" either -- human development isn't considered "complete" till about 25. So i should be able to kill any human that isn't "completely" developed??

 

"a little before it's born" it is still a parasite. So should the mother be able to use a partial birth abortion to remove it from HER body? and why?

[HRAAB]

:sad:

 

Hmmmm.... that's suppose to be sad. Guess I should add a few tears to it, too, cause that's how I'm feeling right now. What I'm really feeling like is going giving all my little parasites a big hug.

 

Janet

[mommaduck]

Why are you assuming she has any?

 

My apologies. I was presuming because this is a homeschooling board. But you are correct, I shouldn't presume, and I just noticed that she only has a 31 post count at the moment.

 

According to this thread http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1064677#post1064677 her "older daughter is 12".

Edited July 19, 2009 by mommaduck

[Ester Maria]

It's a sad, sad day in humanity when a person views a CHILD as a Parasite. Absolutely disgusting. By that definition, then infanticide should also be legal...as a baby born is also a "parasite" in that it fully depends upon another. An infant cannot live completely on it's own and it's not completely through development until maturity.

I actually made a clear difference between physical dependence on another body to be alive and other types of dependence. Please read my post, don't read into it things which aren't written - it's not about "general impression", which of course isn't nice due to the need to employ such terminology and due to the fact that I generally write in more "harsh" and less "sugarcoating" manner, but it's about what's actually written.

Parasite, a lack of any better term. Medically, though, it explains the situation of pregnancy - the problem is that we're trying to euphemize things to sound nicer. Medically speaking (using my aunt's words - she's a doctor actually), pregnancy is not a "regular" state of a body and IS comparable to a pathological state, i.e. to illness. It doesn't mean it's "bad", but it is a deviation from the "normal" state.

And again, medically speaking, my two beautiful daughters did start their lives parasiting on my body, feeding off it, basing all of their functioning on me and my energy. Does me openly saying that means that I don't love them? No, it just means that I'm able to separate the reason and the heart and that I won't deny the facts to make it sound "nicer".

 

Most of the pro-life argumentation I've heard was more ethnically-based than medically-based; and was based on vague concepts of "a person" or "a human being" (yes, those cells are human cells, just as any isolated human cell unable to function on its own is a human cell - but they're not yet a human body in the full sense of the word). I don't agree with those, from the very terminology I don't agree.

 

That being said - how to emphasize this enough?! - I don't think abortion is a good thing. As a matter of fact, I don't even think it's morally irrelevant. I just want to allow legal space for people to be in control of their bodies. I don't think a law should force anyone to undergo pregnancy, and making abortion illegal is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, especially in the cases I've already mentioned as the potentially problematic ones. I don't always like it as a choice, but I think it must remain a choice.

 

Personally I didn't do it, but I know women who did, one even among my family members. I wouldn't do the same in each individual situation, but then again, their bodies - their choice. I neither condemn it neither think they did an awesome thing. I think it's hardly ever a good thing (though sometimes the least of all evils), but I think it's a legitimite choice.

 

I love kids, by the way. :) Would have made sure not to have them if I didn't love them.

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I just don't understand what did I say that caused some of you to react as if I said a profoundly wrong and offensive thing?

All the comparisons I made are based on something; you may not like them aesthetically, but show me the logical mistake if you found one.

[Peek a Boo]

. What I'm really feeling like is going giving all my little parasites a big hug.

 

 

They aren't parasites anymore. ;)

 

 

strictly speaking, i thought i remembered one explanation for why "parasitic" wasn't actually the proper term for young developing in utero, but I'd have to go hunt that down before asserting that it isn't. close enough for now tho!

[mommaduck]

I actually made a clear difference between physical dependence on another body to be alive and other types of dependence. Please read my post, don't read into it things which aren't written - it's not about "general impression", which of course isn't nice due to the need to employ such terminology and due to the fact that I generally write in more "harsh" and less "sugarcoating" manner, but it's about what's actually written.

Parasite, a lack of any better term. Medically, though, it explains the situation of pregnancy - the problem is that we're trying to euphemize things to sound nicer. Medically speaking (using my aunt's words - she's a doctor actually), pregnancy is not a "regular" state of a body and IS comparable to a pathological state, i.e. to illness. It doesn't mean it's "bad", but it is a deviation from the "normal" state.

And again, medically speaking, my two beautiful daughters did start their lives parasiting on my body, feeding off it, basing all of their functioning on me and my energy. Does me openly saying that means that I don't love them? No, it just means that I'm able to separate the reason and the heart and that I won't deny the facts to make it sound "nicer".

 

Most of the pro-life argumentation I've heard was more ethnically-based than medically-based; and was based on vague concepts of "a person" or "a human being" (yes, those cells are human cells, just as any isolated human cell unable to function on its own is a human cell - but they're not yet a human body in the full sense of the word). I don't agree with those, from the very terminology I don't agree.

 

That being said - how to emphasize this enough?! - I don't think abortion is a good thing. As a matter of fact, I don't even think it's morally irrelevant. I just want to allow legal space for people to be in control of their bodies. I don't think a law should force anyone to undergo pregnancy, and making abortion illegal is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, especially in the cases I've already mentioned as the potentially problematic ones. I don't always like it as a choice, but I think it must remain a choice.

 

Personally I didn't do it, but I know women who did, one even among my family members. I wouldn't do the same in each individual situation, but then again, their bodies - their choice. I neither condemn it neither think they did an awesome thing. I think it's hardly ever a good thing (though sometimes the least of all evils), but I think it's a legitimite choice.

 

I love kids, by the way. :) Would have made sure not to have them if I didn't love them.

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I just don't understand what did I say that caused some of you to react as if I said a profoundly wrong and offensive thing?

All the comparisons I made are based on something; you may not like them aesthetically, but show me the logical mistake if you found one.

 

I am fully aware of the medical terminology and the technicalities. However, those terms are used for certain purposes than has been used here and that is to dehumanize a person and desensitize yourself or other to the fact that abortion is the killing/murder of a person, by calling him/her a parasite.

[Marylou]

I don't think abortion is a good thing.

 

Nevermind.

[Peek a Boo]

I actually made a clear difference between physical dependence on another body to be alive and other types of dependence. Please read my post, don't read into it things which aren't written - it's not about "general impression", which of course isn't nice due to the need to employ such terminology and due to the fact that I generally write in more "harsh" and less "sugarcoating" manner, but it's about what's actually written.

 

I don't think you made a very clear difference at all when it comes to whether one should be able to kill an organism that is not completely developed and still dependent on another person for basic sustenance.

 

Parasite, a lack of any better term. Medically, though, it explains the situation of pregnancy - the problem is that we're trying to euphemize things to sound nicer. Medically speaking (using my aunt's words - she's a doctor actually), pregnancy is not a "regular" state of a body and IS comparable to a pathological state, i.e. to illness. It doesn't mean it's "bad", but it is a deviation from the "normal" state.

who's euphemizing? I'm sticking with direct scientific terminology that you continue to ignore.

Medically speaking, Your Aunt is factually incorrect.

Human Embryologists [and many other biologists] have already observed all the natural things that are in place to promote reproduction. Nowhere is the reproductive process deemed "pathological."

 

And again, medically speaking, my two beautiful daughters did start their lives parasiting on my body, feeding off it, basing all of their functioning on me and my energy. Does me openly saying that means that I don't love them? No, it just means that I'm able to separate the reason and the heart and that I won't deny the facts to make it sound "nicer".

 

except they AREN't basing all their functioning off you -- they must be processing and doing many things or they would die, regardless of how much you contribute to their well being.

Most of the pro-life argumentation I've heard was more ethnically-based than medically-based; and was based on vague concepts of "a person" or "a human being" (yes, those cells are human cells, just as any isolated human cell unable to function on its own is a human cell - but they're not yet a human body in the full sense of the word). I don't agree with those, from the very terminology I don't agree.

 

i have tried to use only direct scientific terminology to explicitly remain logical and unemotional in this discussion --you continue to assert fallacies such as "potential" and "futuristic possiblities" that have no place in a discussion about observable medical facts and terminology. You are the one utilizing vague concepts and refusing to accept scientific terminology about the life cycle of a human.

 

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I just don't understand what did I say that caused some of you to react as if I said a profoundly wrong and offensive thing?

All the comparisons I made are based on something; you may not like them aesthetically, but show me the logical mistake if you found one.

It's not the cultural difference -- it's your continued fallacies about the human life cycle that are profoundly wrong.

Your comparisons are indeed based on something, but it's not science or medicine. i have already shown you the logical mistakes -- your use of killing a possible and "potential human" are two biggies that are easily corrected by your reading a quick run through of the human life cycle.

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryology

[lionfamily1999]

 

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I just don't understand what did I say that caused some of you to react as if I said a profoundly wrong and offensive thing?

All the comparisons I made are based on something; you may not like them aesthetically, but show me the logical mistake if you found one.

We're all just very attached to our children and to hear them referred to as parasites is chilling.

 

Perhaps it is a cultural thing. I see human life as an infinitely important thing. I think the taking of a human life is wrong, regardless of how you sugar coat it or hide it in pretty terminology.

 

For someone who doesn't like abortion, you find a plethora of reasons to use it.

 

I'll let Peek handle the logic, she does it so well.

[Marylou]

I'm off to bed, now. I'll try not to read too much into this

 

 

 

I love kids, by the way. :) Would have made sure not to have them if I didn't love them.

 

 

It's already gonna be hard to sleep :001_huh:

[Peek a Boo]

I am fully aware of the medical terminology and the technicalities. However, those terms are used for certain purposes than has been used here and that is to dehumanize a person and desensitize yourself or other to the fact that abortion is the killing/murder of a person, by calling him/her a parasite.

 

I don't think I'm dehumanizing the developing human or desensitized. :)

 

actually, the proper, correct medical terminology would be zygote, embryo, and fetus [and a host of other specific stages that don't last too long]. A parasite can apply to a wide range of behaviors and species. We must specify exactly what kind of "parasitic" relationship we are talking about: in this case, a parasitic relationship between two individual humans during the reproductive process. A parasitic relationship also demands there be an actual host and an actual parasite [no potentials]. And then you must define exactly what that parasite is: taxonomically speaking.

In this case, an individual human.

 

 

The proper medical/scientific terms actually reinforce the humanity of the individual: those vague terms listed above [zygote/embryo/fetus] can apply to ANY number of species. We have to specify that we are talking about a HUMAN zygote, a HUMAN embryo, and a HUMAN fetus.

 

Proper medical/scientific terminology also makes it painfully clear that there is a huge, HUGE difference between any ol' human cell and a developing individual.

[Lovedtodeath]

Doctors used to think that newborns could not feel pain. I was born at 29 weeks. I could feel pain my first three days of life, and I remember it.

 

How do you determine at what point ending the life of a conceived child would be okay? How does anyone really know what is going on in the mind of that small developing human?

 

The comparison of a baby to cancer cells? Really. That makes me sick.

[mommaduck]

I don't think I'm dehumanizing the developing human or desensitized. :)

 

actually, the proper, correct medical terminology would be zygote, embryo, and fetus [and a host of other specific stages that don't last too long]. A parasite can apply to a wide range of behaviors and species. We must specify exactly what kind of "parasitic" relationship we are talking about: in this case, a parasitic relationship between two individual humans during the reproductive process. A parasitic relationship also demands there be an actual host and an actual parasite [no potentials]. And then you must define exactly what that parasite is: taxonomically speaking.

In this case, an individual human.

 

 

The proper medical/scientific terms actually reinforce the humanity of the individual: those vague terms listed above [zygote/embryo/fetus] can apply to ANY number of species. We have to specify that we are talking about a HUMAN zygote, a HUMAN embryo, and a HUMAN fetus.

 

Proper medical/scientific terminology also makes it painfully clear that there is a huge, HUGE difference between any ol' human cell and a developing individual.

 

Peek, I wasn't referring to you ;) I was referring to the manner in her statements.

[Lovedtodeath]

Peek, I love your examples of disproportionate use of force.

[Ester Maria]

back to my posts above about proportional use of force. If you don't recognize that concept, then you just made it ok for me to kill you if you accidentally bump into me.

I recognize the concept - just think that it's not applicable in this case, since I don't consider an abortion a murder.

 

It's always formed --the form it takes at different stages IS its form. Or do you mean "not what I would consider looking like a human"? in which case, you just allowed me to determine that i can kill you if I think you aren't "formed" completely or properly.

I don't mean visually - I meant formed to a point where it can continue to develop independently, in sense of a lack of physical dependence on another body.

 

how is it so different? how independent is "independent"? It is still physically dependent on another person.

How independent? When it can live on its own and function as a body on its own. Of course that it will have to be fed, clothed, etc... but it will be a body unrelated essentially to another body.

 

Slavery does exist naturally --try researching ants.

I'm not making a Biblical argument.

It CAN be avoided by quite a few many means. Life can begin outside the womb, and may eventually be able to be continued outside a separate human's body. Again: rights are not determined by technology, since technology changes.

blacks were considered slaves in the south, free persons in the north.

That is geography.

A human fetus is considered killable in the womb, unkillable outside the womb. That's geography.

I'll trust you on the ants - never dealt with that. Are you sure it's proper slavery, not labor division?

 

About life beginning out of the womb, of course it can. However, there's a slight difference there - out of the womb, it always exists intentionally, you consciously provoked its existence with a specific goal. When it's intentional, I do believe you have a kind of moral obligation towards it. Which is, again, why I said I don't ethically approve abortion in some cases which can fall into the "intentional" category, even if the pregnancy wasn't exactly planned.

 

It's not an ad hominem to recognize that you are basing your opinion on what you feel to be right, despite that facts have proven your assertion wrong. If you have something other than your feelings to back up your opinions that I mentioned, feel free to clarify them -- this IS a discussion. ;)

I don't see myself being proven right. Contrasted with a different opinion, sure. But we still don't agree on the premises, let alone about the conclusion.

"which would most likely"??

what do you think it "might likely" become? a dog??

It might not become at all. I had in mind miscarriages, various potential complications, etc.

 

These statements show that you do not understand the process or scientific terminology used to describe the process as recognized by experts in the field [human embryologists].

I do allow the possibility that I'm somewhere fundamentally wrong with the terminology, having undergone 90% of my total education (and 100% of my scientific education, not counting the science things I homeschooled bilingually) elsewhere and having acquired English as a de facto foreign language. In the case of which I offer my apology for creating unnecessary confusion.

 

I do, however, think that we're simply speaking of different things and therefore using different terminology in accordance with what we speak of.

 

Any scientist can look at a single cell human and a single cancer cell and tell the difference.

The comment I made is not based on the lack of difference between the two cells (there is a difference), but on the way they can both be perceived as a kind of "parasites" to a body.

 

that "bunch of cells" wasn't starting to form a fetus -- it was at a specific stage of development that has other terms for it [just as we use child/ teen/ adult, there are names for the earliest stages of being a human too.]

the early stage of development IS the complete human at that specific time.

You have a point here.

I should have been more clear and specify I had in mind the "completion" which comes at the point where an organism can live independently as an organism and naturally begins to (not in the terms of independence as we use it).

 

And again - if that process is happening inside of and in dependence of another person's body, I think that that other person should have the legal right to choose.

"a little before it's born" it is still a parasite. So should the mother be able to use a partial birth abortion to remove it from HER body? and why?

I used the term "a little before it's born" having in mind the "dependence" and a child born prematurely who may not have been born at the point where they'd normally start to function on their own outside of their mother's body, but still manage to. And yes - it's still a "parasite".

 

Partial birth abortion is an interesting question, though - it didn't cross my mind even as I had in mind only the standard abortion techniques, done only in the legally allowed period.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Ester Maria

[Blessedfamily]

"Scientists generally agree that living things have certain characteristics that distinguish them from non-living things. Among them are: living things are composed of one or more cells; they metabolize (produce and use energy); they can grow; they can respond to external stimuli; they can adapt to their environment; and they can reproduce.

 

Obviously, a human, a plant, or even a bacterium can do all of these things,..."

 

 

If it's living one minute and not living the next, it died. The only ways I can think of to die are:

 

1)sickness/disease

2)accident (which is an unintentional injury)

3)murder

Edited July 19, 2009 by Blessedfamily

[Katrina]

Please please please please please don't turn this into an abortion topic and get this thread closed down. I think we can agree that opinions probably wont be changed, and even though I have gotten into the abortion and other political topics on these boards before, this particular thread was really making me to think how I would deal with a teen pregnancy. There was a lot of food for thought here and I'd like to see it continue.

 

Anyway...back to the OP. With my dd, I would absolutely help her out. I'd consider her job going to school. Having her drop out would in no way prepare her to take care of her baby in the long run. I'm already a SAHM, so staying home while she went to school would be fine by me. Although I must say it was intersting that in all my mental planning I was assuming she'd be in public school. Duh...we homeschool, and currently plan to during highschool, so that really wouldn't be an issue for us. Although as most others mentioned, she wouldn't be participating in extra curric regardless. I think if she were homeschooled then it would be easier to get a job and not feel like she was leaving her baby all the time. That's what kept going through my head...how do teen moms go to school, work, and take care of baby without help?

 

I'm kinda agreeing with the "no party" idea. At least to some degree. My sister got pregnant at 17. Yes, at first my mom freaked out, but then tried to do what she could to be supportive of my sister. (My mom was pro-life so the topic of abortion never came into play.) She had a small baby shower, helped get things ready as much as she could. (She was a quadriplegic so it was mostly giving advice type of stuff.) Within a year of getting pregnant, both her best friends got pregnant on purpose. They though it would be fun to be moms together. I wouldn't mind a show of support from older women type of thing, but I disagree with glamorizing teen pregnancy.

 

Now...if my son got a girl pregnant and she kept the baby...most of the same rules would apply. He'd have to at least offer to watch the baby to help the mother out. Since I know we would have little control over the mom's decisions, it's harder to speculate, but he'd be stepping up as much as he needs to. He'd have to drop out of all extra currics as well and work as much as possible to help support that baby.

[Peek a Boo]

I do allow the possibility that I'm somewhere fundamentally wrong with the terminology, having undergone 90% of my total education (and 100% of my scientific education, not counting the science things I homeschooled bilingually) elsewhere and having acquired English as a de facto foreign language. In the case of which I offer my apology for creating unnecessary confusion.

 

I do, however, think that we're simply speaking of different things and therefore using different terminology in accordance with what we speak of.

 

The comment I made is not based on the lack of difference between the two cells (there is a difference), but on the way they can both be perceived as a kind of "parasites" to a body.

 

Thanks you -- this explains a lot. :D

However, I would suggest you read up a bit more about the reproductive process -- your aunt has given you completely incorrect information.

 

I don't see myself being proven right. Contrasted with a different opinion, sure. But we still don't agree on the premises, let alone about the conclusion.

 

you have been empirically proven wrong by the entire field of human embryology that the single cell zygote is an individual, actual human distinctly different from any other "bunk" of human cells.

according to medical and scientific terms, there is no such thing as a "potential human." I am not sure if you consider this one of those terminology confusions or a premise disagreement.

are you saying that you disagree with human embryologists?

with the observations of the medical and scientific field??

I recognize the concept - just think that it's not applicable in this case, since I don't consider an abortion a murder.

abortion ISN't considered murder yet. murder is a legal term.

Killing a black slave WASN't considered murder either.

My entire point is that our cultural and legislative history has perpetuated laws based on subjective, arbitrary opinion-- not solidly scientific fact.

Are you saying that you would have considered the killing of a black slave as NOT a murder, because it was legal and they were considered property? Or would you have considered it murder even tho others didn't, regardless the law at the time?

Or --being educated elsewhere-- are you not that familiar w/ the pre-Civil War era of United States history?

I don't mean visually - I meant formed to a point where it can continue to develop independently, in sense of a lack of physical dependence on another body.

 

How independent? When it can live on its own and function as a body on its own. Of course that it will have to be fed, clothed, etc... but it will be a body unrelated essentially to another body.

 

but even a born baby can't function as a body independently. it still relies on your energy to protect it from the elements as well as basic sustenance.

it still latches physically onto you and sucks milk out of you.

 

even a zygote is formed to a point where it can continue to develop independently: it hasn't even implanted yet. It simply needs to be fed and "clothed" --protected from the elements around it.

 

I should have been more clear and specify I had in mind the "completion" which comes at the point where an organism can live independently as an organism and naturally begins to (not in the terms of independence as we use it).

i don't think this is more clear. :)

A zygote IS living independently as an organism -- it hasn't even implanted in the woman's uterus yet. The natural state of a born human is to physically latch onto the woman's breast and continue the parasitic relationship.

If being able to safely remove the born human from the suction power of suckling [as opposed to ripping off its legs, then arms, then scraping its head away] and transfer it to another person is ok with a born human, why not with an unborn human??

 

 

About life beginning out of the womb, of course it can. However, there's a slight difference there - out of the womb, it always exists intentionally, you consciously provoked its existence with a specific goal. When it's intentional, I do believe you have a kind of moral obligation towards it. Which is, again, why I said I don't ethically approve abortion in some cases which can fall into the "intentional" category, even if the pregnancy wasn't exactly planned.

 

So moral obligations [recognition of rights] to a human [even a Z/E/F] are based on another's actions? You might want to take a moment and define what you think rights are, and their source.

 

 

It might not become at all. I had in mind miscarriages, various potential complications, etc.

It already IS --this is one of those areas you have been proven wrong on.

If the single cell human zygote dies, then a human has died.

If a human embryo dies, then a human has died.

If a woman miscarries, that means that the human inside her has DIED.

Those are statements of fact that are not disputed in the medical and scientific community.

 

 

And again - if that process is happening inside of and in dependence of another person's body, I think that that other person should have the legal right to choose.

 

to choose to remove, yes.

But not to intentionally kill it by dismembering it or chemically burning it.

back to my ectogenesis post....

 

I used the term "a little before it's born" having in mind the "dependence" and a child born prematurely who may not have been born at the point where they'd normally start to function on their own outside of their mother's body, but still manage to. And yes - it's still a "parasite".

except humans that are born prematurely are being saved earlier and earlier as technology increases. So a baby being taken care of outside the mother's body is still a parasite? ok -- that contradicts your previous assertion that it being outside the woman's body makes a lot of difference: but it will be a body unrelated essentially to another body.

 

Partial birth abortion is an interesting question, though - it didn't cross my mind even as I had in mind only the standard abortion techniques, done only in the legally allowed period.

it's not an interesting question --it's a horrific medical procedure.

partial birth abortion IS legally allowed.

 

 

I'll trust you on the ants - never dealt with that. Are you sure it's proper slavery, not labor division?

ayup --definite slavery. google "slavery in ants." :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

Please please please please please don't turn this into an abortion topic and get this thread closed down.

just discussing abortion doesn't get a thread closed. :)

 

I think we're just now starting to make progress in the discussion --sometimes it's slow going to establish a foundation for discussion.

 

just let those of us who are comfortable discussing it..... discuss it. :D

[Katrina]

just discussing abortion doesn't get a thread closed. :)

 

I think we're just now starting to make progress in the discussion --sometimes it's slow going to establish a foundation for discussion.

 

just let those of us who are comfortable discussing it..... discuss it. :D

 

Well, I'm not a moderator, so discuss away. :lol: I was just enjoying this thread as it was causing me to do some internal examination about how I'd handle that situation, and I think internal examinations are good for the soul. ;)

 

As much as I wish we could discuss a wider range of topics on these forums, emotions do tend to run high on certain topics and things get out of hand. But, your right, as long as it is just a discussion then have at it. :D

[Peek a Boo]

I was just enjoying this thread as it was causing me to do some internal examination about how I'd handle that situation, and I think internal examinations are good for the soul. ;)

 

 

i agree.

I'm not sure how the specifics would necessarily play out [party/ other parents, circumstances, etc] but it is beneficial to consider our responses on a foundational level.