Question Political Spectrum

[Harley]

Well, that wasn't the point, but... Fetuses/embreyos aren't born, they were never "Alive" in the breathing sense, whereas lung cancer victims/coma patients were born, were alive, are still alive (beating heart), and just need some medical assistance. They're not unborn. Of course they're people. You can't STOP being a person after you're born. Not until you die, anyway.

I guess I dont understand what youre saying. There are three states of existence - living, non-living, or dead. What is a fetus?
Posted via Mobile Device

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

So what do we do with the wave of (pre-)teens having sex? Obviously they don't know any better, I'd go as far as say there's even enough that have no idea that having unprotected sex can get you pregnant. What do we do with those? You can't tell me they're ready for children.

I understand that nothing is going to be ideal but ignorance is not justification to kill someone.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Wishing Oceans]

I guess I dont understand what youre saying. There are three states of existence - living, non-living, or dead. What is a fetus?

Sorry, that may have been a bit confusing. Fetuses are alive (as are embryos, as are the very first cells), but they're not human.

Let me change it a bit...

Newborns cant survive on their own. A lot of lung cancer victims and coma patients cant breathe on their own. Are they not people?

Being alive doesn't make you a person. The fetuses may be alive but they're not people. They were never BORN. Whereas lung cancer victims/coma patients were born, lived, and now just need some medical assistance. Once you become a person (at birth), you can't stop being a person until you're dead.

Did that make more sense?

 

[Harley]

Yes but now I dont understand why you dont think theyre human?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Old Master 3.0]

Alrighty folks. Nobody here is begrudging a member's right to their opinion, nor do we believe the BB members to be incapable of intelligent discussion.

But this thing is turning the corner towards un-civility and should be steered clear away from that. Right away, if you please. Only going to say that once. If it continues, I'm locking this up.

You may continue.





~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I've stayed out of this so far, but this issue always astonishes me. I just cannot comprehend how people can make the distinction between a foetus and a child so absolute. A foetus IS a child. It WILL be a child, 100%, barring any unnatural or outside influence. A foetus is naturally designed to grow into a child, just as a child is naturally designed to grow into an adult. People seem to be able to rationalise putting a woman's convenience over life by saying a foetus isn't alive. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I mean, of course, I get it as a legal fiction. I just don't see how that managed to work as a social norm.

 

[Harley]

I've stayed out of this so far, but this issue always astonishes me. I just cannot comprehend how people can make the distinction between a foetus and a child so absolute. A foetus IS a child. It WILL be a child, 100%, barring any unnatural or outside influence. A foetus is naturally designed to grow into a child, just as a child is naturally designed to grow into an adult. People seem to be able to rationalise putting a woman's convenience over life by saying a foetus isn't alive. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I mean, of course, I get it as a legal fiction. I just don't see how that managed to work as a social norm.

If I had karma ability on my phone I would give it to you. I agree with every last word.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[zobothehobo]

A foetus IS a child. It WILL be a child, 100%, barring any unnatural or outside influence. A foetus is naturally designed to grow into a child

Now you've just contradicted yourself. If something IS something, it cannot become that or grow into it. A fetus is not a child. A fetus can grow into a child. Think of it this way, a flower bulb is not a flower. It can grow into a flower.

 

[Harley]

But a fetus, a child, a teenager and an adult are all living and all human. Killing any of them is wrong.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Misty]

I've stayed out of this so far, but this issue always astonishes me. I just cannot comprehend how people can make the distinction between a foetus and a child so absolute. A foetus IS a child. It WILL be a child, 100%, barring any unnatural or outside influence. A foetus is naturally designed to grow into a child, just as a child is naturally designed to grow into an adult. People seem to be able to rationalise putting a woman's convenience over life by saying a foetus isn't alive. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I mean, of course, I get it as a legal fiction. I just don't see how that managed to work as a social norm.

Exactly. I'm very mixed about abortion because it's a touchy topic to discuss, but I will say that a fetus is a human being and a child. But to answer the original question, I find my self being in the Independent category because there are things that agree and disagree with the Republican party and the Democrat party.

Anyway, I'm staying out of this thread because I don't want to start an arguement over who's right and who's wrong.

 

[zobothehobo]

But a fetus, a child, a teenager and an adult are all living and all human. Killing any of them is wrong.
Posted via Mobile Device

a fetus is a parasite. Humans are not parasites. This fetus can become a human when it is born... but in the womb, it is a parasite.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Now you've just contradicted yourself. If something IS something, it cannot become that or grow into it. A fetus is not a child. A fetus can grow into a child. Think of it this way, a flower bulb is not a flower. It can grow into a flower.

Ok, semantics. I should have said a foetus is a "person". The better comparison is that a planted, fertilised, well fed flower bulb is like a foetus. Not it "can" grow into a flower, it will grow into a flower, barring any unnatural or outside influence. The difference is that a foetus isn't like an unfertilised egg, that has potential for life. The life cycle has started. Left uninterrupted (and this includes all kind of accident, illness, abortion, miscarriage, etc.) it will always result in a child. Like how a child will always result in an adult in the same circumstances. We don't say a child is not a person because it hasn't developed full physical or mental growth yet. But it will. Just like a foetus.

Edit: I looked back at my last post, and what I meant by a foetus being a child was that it is a child in the same way as a baby is a child, a toddler is a child. They grow into what we would usually call a "child". It was lazy terminology by me.

 

[Kean]

Now you've just contradicted yourself. If something IS something, it cannot become that or grow into it. A fetus is not a child. A fetus can grow into a child. Think of it this way, a flower bulb is not a flower. It can grow into a flower.

A fetus is human. A human that will grow into an infant, then a child, teenager etc etc. A fetus cannot turn into anything but an infant. A woman isn't going to get pregnant and suddenly deliver a litter of puppies or a bouquet of flowers. The fetus is the very beginning of a person being a person. The beginning of you, me and everyone else.

 

[Harley]

a fetus is a parasite. Humans are not parasites. This fetus can become a human when it is born... but in the womb, it is a parasite.

Are you serious?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[zobothehobo]

I am going to leave this thread because I'm on the edge of saying something really nasty. But I fell the need to clarify my last post

Lindsey McDonald agrees: By that logic a baby a day from being born is a parasite. Why does leaving the womb make a difference?

A fetus is inside a host body (the mother) making it a parasite. I know that this fetus is a human fetus... however... it cannot function without a host body. A host body means it must be INSIDE another body and it get's it's nutrients from that host body. An infant needs a parent to take care of it, feed it, protect it, etc... but it does not live inside a host body. In my opinion the host (the mother) has the right to make the decision if she'd like to carry this baby to term or not. Because like it or not, that baby is in HER body and cannot survive without it. It does not have a life yet because it has not been born. It is up to the mother.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I am going to leave this thread because I'm on the edge of saying something really nasty. But I fell the need to clarify my last post

A fetus is inside a host body (the mother) making it a parasite. I know that this fetus is a human fetus... however... it cannot function without a host body. A host body means it must be INSIDE another body and it get's it's nutrients from that host body. An infant needs a parent to take care of it, feed it, protect it, etc... but it does not live inside a host body. In my opinion the host (the mother) has the right to make the decision if she'd like to carry this baby to term or not. Because like it or not, that baby is in HER body and cannot survive without it. It does not have a life yet because it has not been born. It is up to the mother.

But it is inevitable that it will become born. In choosing not to bring it to term, you are extinguishing that inevitability. You're ending the "life", if you will, before it starts, but the problem is it will always start (barring complications). It's not like preventing conception, because there is absolutely no inevitability there. There is potential being blocked, but not an inevitable life at the end of it.

I just see no way to get away from that fact. A life is being ended. It doesn't matter if it isn't deemed to have started yet, but we know for sure (caveat etc.) that it will.

 

[Washburne]

Lets see if I can keep this civil enough since it's a sensitive matter to me.

My point was that something that can be (and is) used the proper way shouldnt be banned because it can be used the wrong way.

As said earlier, guns were made for killing. It's not all what it's used for now but it was what it was made for. So using it the way it was meant to be used (should) mean to kill something. Or what am I missing?

As for guns being banned? To me personally there's a huge difference on hunting guns/riffles, sport guns, collector guns and a gun you keep at home or on the street to protect yourself. The first three I don't have trouble with as long as it's controlled. I don't disagree that a lot of gunowners are incredibly responsible. But I don't see the point of the last one. I get that you want to protect yourself but since I live in a relatively none gun society I don't get how knowing that a lot of the people I see or know are having guns would make me feel any safer. Maybe I'd think differently if I was born and/or lived in the US but from my point of view of my own life I just can't see the logic.

Maybe guns should be allowed but bullets banned? 😉

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

zobothehobo agrees: Obviously it's not inevivitable because there is a choice to be made.

But this is what I'm saying. It's inevitable that a child will grow into an adult. You can make a choice to stop it, but you are ending a life. It's inevitable that a foetus will grow into an adult. You can make a choice to stop it, but you are ending a life. I really, truly don't see the difference.

And obviously, I don't mean you in the personal sense. I know I'm being persistent, but I seriously want to understand. To me there is absolutely no distinction.

 

[Harley]

Lets see if I can keep this civil enough since it's a sensitive matter to me.



As said earlier, guns were made for killing. It's not all what it's used for now but it was what it was made for. So using it the way it was meant to be used (should) mean to kill something. Or what am I missing?

As for guns being banned? To me personally there's a huge difference on hunting guns/riffles, sport guns, collector guns and a gun you keep at home or on the street to protect yourself. The first three I don't have trouble with as long as it's controlled. I don't disagree that a lot of gunowners are incredibly responsible...

When I said used in a proper way, I meant in a way that wasnt harmful to a person (other than in self defense) and improper being murder or robbery, for example. Where Im from, the rifle used to deer hunt is the same one you use if someone is breaking into your house.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Let the discussion begin.

(Don't hate me because I happen to be more conservative *hides head*)

This is a delicate topic, and I honestly applaud you for having the courage to start it. I hope we can all respect each other's opinions and not take it personally. But I know this won't end well.

That said....

As for me, I'm probobly a complete opposite of you, lol. I identify as a liberal, bordering on radical. I'm not pariticularily active in the political sense, but there are issues I feel very strongly about and would be willing to fight for if it came down to it, including a woman's right to choose and gay marriage. I think it's absolutely unfair that gays can not get married. It's discrimination is its worst form. Really, I believe in individual liberty and equal rights for all men, women and children. Everyone deserves equal respect and consideration. I also feel very strongly that there should be a seperation of church and state, and that religion has no place in public schools. I do believe that the government should take more responsibilty for funding public and social programs such as education, while spending less on wars and special interests. I vote straight Democrat but only because it's the best of two evils. I believe it's not only our right, but our responsibility to vote.

Really, though, I'm not interested in debating. I know what I believe in and I respect others viewpoints even if I don't agree. Nothing is going to change mine, though.

For what it's worth, I believe that people should have the right to own guns. Many of my liberal friends think they should be banned, but I disagree. What I'd vote for is more education surrounding responsible gun use and better regulations of who can get a gun license. Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill each other using them. I think a responsible adult should have the right to own a gun for his or her own purposes without getting judged for it.

 

[VisionGirl]

Human, child, baby- these are not legal terms. Person & personhood are legal terms, & that's what's up for debate. Unfortunately, we can never "prove" when a embryo/fetus becomes a "person". If it's the moment of conception, think of all the legal ramifications of that. Like I said earlier (& no one has addressed) if that is the case, then oral contraceptives & IUDs would have to be outlawed. What about mothers who do drugs? Would they be culpable under the law? What about mothers who smoke? Drink alcohol? Engage in risky behavior (motorcycle riding, sky diving etc)? Take OTC or prescription meds that may injure the fetus? Ingest too much caffeine? Have a poor diet? Refuse a cesarean section or any other intervention they disagree with? Plan a homebirth? Would every miscarriage and stillbirth have to be investigated?

I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks gestation; my good friend delivered a stillborn baby at 6.5 mos gestation. I can tell you that even though I grieved my baby, it was 2 totally different things. I probably grieved more for my friend than for me.

I'm kind of surprised to see Europeans defending a pro-life position, I had always assumed that abortion rights were more accepted in Europe. Is abortion legal in the various UK countries?