- This topic has 94 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vicelin said: In that sense of “right to life”, as it is defined by the law, then yes, I think that it should apply to unborn children who have developed the nervous system, unless there are circumstances discovered at that point which threaten the life of the mother, or of the fetus and mother simultaneously.Chameleon said: But what about before the embryo develops a nervous system? Is it then alright to have an abortion done at that early stage, because by our assumed definition of a “human being”, that stage of development would not be included?
In my definition, yes, it is fine to abort a fetus prior to a functioning, developed nervous system.
As for that “gray area”, we’ve pretty much agreed that there is no way to -exactly- know when a fetus becomes a human being, so we’ve mostly just been debating based on a hypothetical situation (my definition of when a fetus becomes a “person” becoming the law).
So I think we can agree that in regards to abortion in a simple case where the mother wants to get rid of the baby, it should be legal before the point where fetus becomes a human and illegal after wards. I think everyone can agree to that. Legal precedent is going to disagree with your definition (people in a vegetative state still have rights, and their life can’t be taken without their permission according to the Supreme Court), so, realistically, if ever the government was to get around to defining such a thing, it’d probably be a bit before where you draw the line. That is not to say that you don’t have a case (or that the Supreme Court was absolutely right in their earlier decision).
The much more difficult issues are the ones you brought up. 1) When the mother’s life is in danger and 2) when both lives are in danger. In situation (1), you’ve essentially got 2 people who effectively have to kill the other to live. The only other comparable situations I can think of legally generally decides on person the aggressor and one person the defender, with the aggressor’s actions being illegal and the defender’s positions being legal. However, both people are legally equal in this situation.
In situation (2), it’s similar to situation (1), except one party has the potential to die no matter what. Again, though the same situation arises. Both of these issues are complicated by the fact that it’s only a chance of danger/death, not certain death.
K so… this might just be because my class has been studying utilitarianism, but what about children that have defects (genetic or whatever) that would significantly reduce the quality of life for both the child and the parents? Just… putting that question out there. ^^”
Chameleon said: K so… this might just be because my class has been studying utilitarianism, but what about children that have defects (genetic or whatever) that would significantly reduce the quality of life for both the child and the parents? Just… putting that question out there. ^^”It’s kind of hard to call that before birth. Plus, that’s very similar in logic to euthanasia which isn’t allowed.
tarheel91 said:Chameleon said: K so… this might just be because my class has been studying utilitarianism, but what about children that have defects (genetic or whatever) that would significantly reduce the quality of life for both the child and the parents? Just… putting that question out there. ^^”It’s kind of hard to call that before birth. Plus, that’s very similar in logic to euthanasia which isn’t allowed.
In what sense? Genetics affect pretty much in the phase of formation, and we then have premature babies. Most of them result in abnormal, with mental or physical problems.
Most, but not all.
Zat, my frens, iz vy vee must not legalize ze source of all eveel.
Besides, more babies is a good thing. More people to provide labor is better.
The underlying problem is how well Government can deal with so many people. You really gotta reform society to accomodate all of this. Abortions being illegal isn’t the problem tbh, there just needs to be a whole lot of reform in programs like the whole aid for disabled Americans, patent law, litigation law, all of that stuff is becoming outdated and abused. Well, maybe not for rape. Rape is just meh. Should get abortion for that -nods-
But nothing’s gonna change anyway.
Until NK nukes us.
Teehee. <3
Btw, I just thought of something.
If NK nukes SK = No more MapleStory? Combat Arms? Vindictus? Mabinogi?
…
epic MMORPGS?
D:
Well, I guess they can just continue with global operations..
But those teams are tiny.
T_T
EDIT:
I just realized how stupid that sounded.
If they started nuclear war, I doubt MMORPGs are the most important thing ever to consider. lol.
Dest1 said: abortion = very hawt to watchSometimes I wonder, and then I realize it’s Desticles…I support abortion.
tarheel91 said: Why the hell would you bump a 9 month old thread, Joaco?Seriously? What’s the problem with that?
It’s a topic that I care about and desire to discuss further, and creating a new thread seems useless.That’s why there’s a comment section for it. You write a blog with your opinion and then a debate occurs in the comment section.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.