No.
You seem to have confused abortion with a simple issue.
Can you think of any other situation where society grants the full unresticted right to kill a person, regardless of their absolute innocence, to basically never assist in survival?
I know, I know, poor baby. You can call me liar if it makes you feel good, go ahead.
Ají de Gallina
So’s cancer…
and key lime is needed for Peruvian ceviche.
Must it be Key lime?
So now we are picky about what kind of fruit we kill?
:dubious:
It’s gotta be, it opens the flavours.
Picky and fiddly as hell.
Ají,
Suppose there was a sect of people who believed that human life and soul was contained in the ovum. In order to survive this baby needed to be fertilized and implanted in a womb. Therefor those women who ovulate without getting pregnant mere committing infanticide. To end this barbaric practice they are advocating that all fertile women be foricibly inseminated. While there might be some inconvenience or invasion of privacy to the women in question, but that is of little consequence in comparison to the wonderful babies that will result.
I assume that you are appalled by this idea, but I challenge you to make any argument against it that can not in an analogous way be made against the pro-life position by pro choice advocates. And vis-versa any defense of the pro life stance that can’t in turn be used to defend the view above. The only difference is the further scaling back of an arbitrary line.
Sentient Tonsils… band name!
Life is like a Box O Fetuses…
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18uv0vq5k7vt3png/ku-medium.png
Spot on and highly relevant to the conversation. Thanks for sharing that amazing insight into your mental process.
Just curious Aji.
In your spare time, when you’re not providing evasive “answers” and making inappropriate comparisons here, do you still pass the time doodling on walls with your own shit?
Simple.
Ovum = Haploid cell. Once you understand the concept of a Haploid cell the discussion is over. If you don’t the discussion cannot begin. Ova are not persons, therefore, infanticide cannot occur, personal beliefs be damned*.
That’s it.
Thanks for the softball.
I’ll be here all week, tip your waiter.
*Unless, of course, science is considered a personal belief.
What a compelling argument. :rolleyes:
Fetus = pre-brain. Once you understand the concept of not having a brain the discussion is over. If you don’t the discussion cannot begin. fetuses are not persons, therefore, infanticide cannot occur, personal beliefs be damned.
Other than an arbitrary personal belief of a start point it appears we are in agreement.
It doesn’t matter anyway because no one is compelled to donate organs (let alone their whole body) for another person. No, not even your kid.
It’s true that the fetus isn’t a person, isn’t sentient, isn’t a baby, isn’t a child, isn’t an infant, and doesn’t have a brain. But it wouldn’t matter anyway because of bodily autonomy.
Every bit as compelling as Aji’s response to my original post.
Got any other one sided pissing and moaning to complete before your bladder runs out Carny, or are you good for a bit?
If a distinct DNA and self-regulation is not enough for, then an impasse has been reached between you and facts.
(Hint: Facts win)
I imagine, then, that with your definiton, people who have undegone hemispherectomies are only half human.
What do you mean with bodily autonomy? I mean, just to crush your argument the right way.
Is it
a) Cannot feed/protect itself?
or
b) It resides inside another person?
And here I was believing that you would pause and reflect.
:rolleyes:
What does it mean, “Carny”?
A little of both, mostly neither. The law cannot compel anyone to save the life of another person, even if they are able to do so. Even more relevant, individuals cannot be compelled to donate their organs or compromise their bodily integrity, even if it is to save the life of another person. This holds even if that person is “innocent” and even if that person is the individual’s child. If my son (the real one, not the pretend one you made up) needed a kidney to live, and I was the only match in the WHOLE WORLD, the law still cannot make me give him a kidney. Not even if the reason his kidneys are bad is because of something I did! I have bodily integrity; the state cannot compel me to use my body, even if it is to save the life of another person.
In other words, I ain’t gotta loan my uterus out to no one.
I’m in complete agreement with this. But obviously our correspondent isn’t going to be.
That’s what is so sad about this debate: it always come down to a total stand-still. They believe one thing, we believe another.
It’s at the meta-level, thus, that I think we’re strongest. They say, “We believe different things, thus we will compel you to act our way by force of law.” We say, “We believe different things, thus let’s just each go our own way and act according to our beliefs.”
That, and the bodily autonomy argument, which I find mighty damn convincing. Forcing someone to continue an unwanted pregnancy is even more invasive and intrusive than conscription. And conscription (thank God) is gone!
Wait a minute, here.
If I’m walking across the Broadway Bridge (over the Arkansas River) at midnight and see Rush Limbaugh hanging off by his finger tips, I can look down at him and say, “Rush, old buddy, I’m thinking of a number between one and five billion.”?
Cool!