A question for pro choice advocates..

[George Costanza]

A fetus becomes the subject of murder at seven weeks. Prior to that time, it is considered in the embryonic stage, and not a human being for purposes of the homicide statutes. At least, that is the law in California. A number of other states make the fetus the subject of murder from the moment of conception on.

If you want to read up on it, try this:

http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/fetalhomicide.htm

 

[freedombecki]

A fetus becomes the subject of murder at seven weeks. Prior to that time, it is considered in the embryonic stage, and not a human being for purposes of the homicide statutes. At least, that is the law in California. A number of other states make the fetus the subject of murder from the moment of conception on.

If you want to read up on it, try this:

Fetal Homicide: A Question of When Do We Become Human

That sounds reasonable.

 

[syrenn]

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Bad metaphors.

If it is an "attack" you assume that consent is not given in any from. An abortion is done with consent.

 

[Avatar9]

A fetus becomes the subject of murder at seven weeks. Prior to that time, it is considered in the embryonic stage, and not a human being for purposes of the homicide statutes. At least, that is the law in California. A number of other states make the fetus the subject of murder from the moment of conception on.

If you want to read up on it, try this

'When we become human'?

Uh... what species are we before that?

We're human from our conception. How is there even a debate about this? The science couldn't be any more cut-and-dry. I mean, humans beget humans- how is that even being questioned with any seriousness?

 

[Avatar9]

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Bad metaphors.

If it is an "attack" you assume that consent is not given in any from. An abortion is done with consent.

Actually, the human being killed wasn't consulted in either scenario. In both cases, another human made the decision to kill it for their own reasons.

 

[syrenn]

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Bad metaphors.

If it is an "attack" you assume that consent is not given in any from. An abortion is done with consent.

Actually, the human being killed wasn't consulted in either scenario. In both cases, another human made the decision to kill it for their own reasons.

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

 

[Douger]

Is the question is or ought to be?

Personally, I'd say he's guilty if the child has reached the point where (s)he is recognized as having the right to exist (the same point at which the mother loses the right to terminate the pregnancy outside of medical necessity). Until that point, it's clearly okay to kill the child. It makes no sense for it to be okay for one person, but not another, to commit the same offense (killing the same child at the same point of development simply because they did not want the child to live and be born)

Good call.

 

[Avatar9]

Bad metaphors.

If it is an "attack" you assume that consent is not given in any from. An abortion is done with consent.

Actually, the human being killed wasn't consulted in either scenario. In both cases, another human made the decision to kill it for their own reasons.

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

 

[syrenn]

Actually, the human being killed wasn't consulted in either scenario. In both cases, another human made the decision to kill it for their own reasons.

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own. If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship... tough luck for the cells that require the corporation of the host.

 

[dilloduck]

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own. If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship... tough luck for the cells that require the corporation of the host.

Lame----a one month old cannot survive without a "host". Do we just tell it tough luck and let it die?
The argument is absurd.

 

[Avatar9]

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own.

'Life of its own'? You mean, like, over 18 and not dependent on parents?


You do realize that you remain dependent upon other organisms for your survival for the entirety of your life, right?

If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship...

I find your misogyny offensive. By referring to women as 'hosts', you dehumanize them and reduce them to something less than human beings, something to be used for your own purposes. It's highly demeaning to your own mother and all women who have ever had children. It reveals a deep hatred of women and womanhood that you really ought to deal with.

As for women not wanting to be mothers, there are far too many options available for you to bitch about it. You have plenty of opportunities to avoid pregnancy. You can use an IUD, take the pill, use the foam, use a condom, not have sex, have hysterectomy, use Plan B, use spermicidal lubricant, use a diaphram- and probably other options I've neglected to mention that someone else can point out. The helpless female card only degrades women by portraying them as all being too stupid to be responsible for themselves and take control of their own reproductive abilities using the means available and preferred. Not only do you clearly have a deep disdain for women and womanhood, but I find it very offensive that you insult the intelligence of all the women in the world by assuming they have no idea what sex is and are incapable of being responsible for their bodies and their decisions.

Also, for the record, all you are today is a collection of cells. That never changes. If you want to argue that killing an unborn child is okay, then make your argument, but don't lie about what we're discussing and don't insult and degrade all of womankind in order to do so.

 

[syrenn]

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own. If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship... tough luck for the cells that require the corporation of the host.

Lame----a one month old cannot survive without a "host". Do we just tell it tough luck and let it die?
The argument is absurd.

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own. I have no problem with aborting them. If there is a problem with aborting them...c section them out ...give it birth and let it have its own life.

 

[dilloduck]

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own. If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship... tough luck for the cells that require the corporation of the host.

Lame----a one month old cannot survive without a "host". Do we just tell it tough luck and let it die?
The argument is absurd.

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own. I have no problem with aborting them. If there is a problem with aborting them...c section them out ...give it birth and let it have its own life.

Same deal for one month (10 month old cells) old kids ? If the hosts decide it's too much work they can just walk away from it ?

 

[syrenn]

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own.

'Life of its own'? You mean, like, over 18 and not dependent on parents?


You do realize that you remain dependent upon other organisms for your survival for the entirety of your life, right?

If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship...

I find your misogyny offensive. By referring to women as 'hosts', you dehumanize them and reduce them to something less than human beings, something to be used for your own purposes. It's highly demeaning to your own mother and all women who have ever had children. It reveals a deep hatred of women and womanhood that you really ought to deal with.

As for women not wanting to be mothers, there are far too many options available for you to bitch about it. You have plenty of opportunities to avoid pregnancy. You can use an IUD, take the pill, use the foam, use a condom, not have sex, have hysterectomy, use Plan B, use spermicidal lubricant, use a diaphram- and probably other options I've neglected to mention that someone else can point out. The helpless female card only degrades women by portraying them as all being too stupid to be responsible for themselves and take control of their own reproductive abilities using the means available and preferred. Not only do you clearly have a deep disdain for women and womanhood, but I find it very offensive that you insult the intelligence of all the women in the world by assuming they have no idea what sex is and are incapable of being responsible for their bodies and their decisions.

Also, for the record, all you are today is a collection of cells. That never changes. If you want to argue that killing an unborn child is okay, then make your argument, but don't lie about what we're discussing and don't insult and degrade all of womankind in order to do so.

Boiled down to its basic elements...it is a parasite and a host. Deal with it.

A baby has a life of its own. Being dependent on others to nurture and being it up is a totally different.

Trust me... i am all for every method of birth control being use. I just do not rule out abortion as a choice. Nor do i consider it murder.

 

[Avatar9]

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own.

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

 

[syrenn]

Lame----a one month old cannot survive without a "host". Do we just tell it tough luck and let it die?
The argument is absurd.

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own. I have no problem with aborting them. If there is a problem with aborting them...c section them out ...give it birth and let it have its own life.

Same deal for one month old kids ? If the hosts decide it's too much work they can just walk away from it ?

If it is born and living...it is a life of its own once outside the host. Killing it would be murder.

A one month old baby is not 4 week old cells

 

[dilloduck]

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own.

'Life of its own'? You mean, like, over 18 and not dependent on parents?


You do realize that you remain dependent upon other organisms for your survival for the entirety of your life, right?

If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship...

I find your misogyny offensive. By referring to women as 'hosts', you dehumanize them and reduce them to something less than human beings, something to be used for your own purposes. It's highly demeaning to your own mother and all women who have ever had children. It reveals a deep hatred of women and womanhood that you really ought to deal with.

As for women not wanting to be mothers, there are far too many options available for you to bitch about it. You have plenty of opportunities to avoid pregnancy. You can use an IUD, take the pill, use the foam, use a condom, not have sex, have hysterectomy, use Plan B, use spermicidal lubricant, use a diaphram- and probably other options I've neglected to mention that someone else can point out. The helpless female card only degrades women by portraying them as all being too stupid to be responsible for themselves and take control of their own reproductive abilities using the means available and preferred. Not only do you clearly have a deep disdain for women and womanhood, but I find it very offensive that you insult the intelligence of all the women in the world by assuming they have no idea what sex is and are incapable of being responsible for their bodies and their decisions.

Also, for the record, all you are today is a collection of cells. That never changes. If you want to argue that killing an unborn child is okay, then make your argument, but don't lie about what we're discussing and don't insult and degrade all of womankind in order to do so.

Boiled down to its basic elements...it is a parasite and a host. Deal with it.

A baby has a life of its own. Being dependent on others to nurture and being it up is a totally different.

Trust me... i am all for every method of birth control being use. I just do not rule out abortion as a choice. Nor do i consider it murder.

Pick and choose as you will but your analogy sucks. Young humans are dependent on others even after they are born. Dependency shouldn't be a death sentence.

 

[syrenn]

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own.

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

 

[Kat]

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own.

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

So? So it's okay to kill the BABY, right?

 

[dilloduck]

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own.

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

How long has that rationalization been working for ya ?