NationStates Jolt Archive

"Life is, 'the ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and grow.'"


so a sterile, paralyzed completely grown man is not alive according to your definition. for he cannot feel and thus cannot respond to stimuli, since he is sterile he can not reproduce, and since he is completely grown he is no longer growing and thus has noo ability to grow.

in repsonse to those who say that a fetus should be killed because it is forcing itself upon its mother, i say that the unborn child did not choose to be conceived in the mother's womb. The mother herslef chose this to happen when submitting to the act of sex so it was not the childs fault that it was concieved and so should not be killed.


And if somone has a life-threatening illness that could be cured by harvesting organs from healthy people, those people should be legally compelled to donate their organs, since the sick person didnt "choose" to be sick but the healthy person ate healthy and excercized and therefore "chose" to be healthy?

"Life is, 'the ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and grow.'"


so a sterile, paralyzed completely grown man is not alive according to your definition. for he cannot feel and thus cannot respond to stimuli, since he is sterile he can not reproduce, and since he is completely grown he is no longer growing and thus has noo ability to grow.

in repsonse to those who say that a fetus should be killed because it is forcing itself upon its mother, i say that the unborn child did not choose to be conceived in the mother's womb. The mother herslef chose this to happen when submitting to the act of sex so it was not the childs fault that it was concieved and so should not be killed.

He is still growing, because 'growth' does not refer to 'getting bigger'.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnency.

Again, read the thread, and read the accompaniments, or don't expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, regardless of that, the woman still cannot be forced to carry the child against her will.

Way to not actually contribute anything.

Make no mistake, outlawing abortion means that the government can chain a woman up and throw her in jail at gunpoint if she refuses to carry a pregnancy.
It Is Barbaric

That and outlawing abortions will just lead to a proliferation of backyard abortions, which are profoundly unsafe.

As I've said before. If you are opposed to abortions, don't have one. Making them illegal won't make them go away. It will just sweep them under the rug, and endanger many many women.

He is still growing, because 'growth' does not refer to 'getting bigger'.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnency.

Again, read the thread, and read the accompaniments, or don't expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, regardless of that, the woman still cannot be forced to carry the child against her will.

Way to not actually contribute anything.

pregnancy is caused by sex and every time a woman has sex she is placing herself in the postion to get pregnant. the only sure way not to become pregnant is to not have sex. in consenting to sex one also consents to the consequences that follow and one of these consequences is pregancy. okay the paralzed man may be growing but what about the first two requirements for life the paralyzed man does not meet these requirements. while im not saying pregnancy is easy but just because the mother is unwilling to care for the child for 9 months she can thus deprive the child of a long and happy life.
parents with children who are outside of the womb cannot kill their children merely because they do not wish to care for them so why should parents with children inside the womb be able to. and at the end of your post since you have nothing more to say you ridicule me. great way to prove your point.

pregnancy is caused by sex and every time a woman has sex she is placing herself in the postion to get pregnant. the only sure way not to become pregnant is to not have sex. in consenting to sex one also consents to the consequences that follow and one of these consequences is pregancy. okay the paralzed man may be growing but what about the first two requirements for life the paralyzed man does not meet these requirements. while im not saying pregnancy is easy but just because the mother is unwilling to care for the child for 9 months she can thus deprive the child of a long and happy life.
parents with children who are outside of the womb cannot kill their children merely because they do not wish to care for them so why should parents with children inside the womb be able to. and at the end of your post since you have nothing more to say you ridicule me. great way to prove your point.

He only ridiculed you because what you said is ridiculous.

Again assuming hypothetically that a fetus is indeed both 'alive' and 'human,' you suppose that the government has the authority to force people to give up control of their own bodies for the sake of another person.

Somone who eats healthy and works out has as a 'consequence' healthy organs. By your reasoning the decision to eat right and excercize robs somone of the right to determine what is done with their own body.

pregnancy is caused by sex and every time a woman has sex she is placing herself in the postion to get pregnant. the only sure way not to become pregnant is to not have sex. in consenting to sex one also consents to the consequences that follow and one of these consequences is pregancy. okay the paralzed man may be growing but what about the first two requirements for life the paralyzed man does not meet these requirements. while im not saying pregnancy is easy but just because the mother is unwilling to care for the child for 9 months she can thus deprive the child of a long and happy life.
parents with children who are outside of the womb cannot kill their children merely because they do not wish to care for them so why should parents with children inside the womb be able to. and at the end of your post since you have nothing more to say you ridicule me. great way to prove your point.

The woman is unwilling to donate an organ. She has the right to remove consent for the donation, and to have the infant removed. Parents with children outside of their womb can refuse to donate organs, even if the children will die as a result.

And you can get pregnant through various forms of foreplay as well, not just through sex. Anything that causes semen to come in contact with the vagina can lead to pregnancy, and that is not only caused by sex.

And, to bring out the old analogy, saying that a woman 'consents' to pregnancy by having sex because she knows there's a chance it might occur is like saying I 'consent' to have a broken leg if I go skiing, because I know it might occur.

Ie, it's stupid.

He only ridiculed you because what you said is ridiculous.

Again assuming hypothetically that a fetus is indeed both 'alive' and 'human,' you suppose that the government has the authority to force people to give up control of their own bodies for the sake of another person.

Somone who eats healthy and works out has as a 'consequence' healthy organs. By your reasoning the decision to eat right and excercize robs somone of the right to determine what is done with their own body.

'She' actually ;)

Oh wait, I shouldn't say that, because we all know that women who are pro-choice are 'feminazis' :rolleyes:

Your analogy is very good, might I add :D

It has everything to do with religion and a person's definition of when a human becomes a human. You oppose abortion because you say it kills a baby. However, pro-choice folks deny that the fetus is a human. Abortion is not murder, from their point of view, because the living tissue, with the potential to become human, is part of the mother and as such she has a right to control her body. Another, more extreme position considers contraception of any kind to be a sin because the sperm and/or egg are human.

The argument comes down to when you think that spark (or soul or spirit) that transforms us from our component organs and cellular structures into people actually takes place. When the sperm enters the egg? Before the sperm enters the egg? When the fetus can live independently of the mother? At a certain point in brain development? The Catholic Church used to refer to human life beginning when the baby "quickened" (they have since changed that position).

As I mentioned before the same debate is conducted at the other end of life's journey. When does a person cease to be human? If machines pump and filter my blood, bring oxygen into my lungs, and feed my digestive system involuntarily while I have no brain function am I me? State law says I am, but ultimately that too comes down to a religious definition of what human life is.

Look at most of the posts on this issue and you will see people arguing at cross purposes, because they are using facts to support an underlying premise their opponents don't believe. They can't really discuss the issue because they have different religious views on what is human life.

I haven't managed to read through this entire thread yet, but I felt a need to coment on this. Particularly on the bit about outlawing abortion giving presedence to religions that are pro-life. Dosen't it therefore give precetence to religions that belive that an embryo is not posese a soul until it is born?

Personally I belive that we should ignore the presense or absence of a soul intierly and look at the more basic mater of what makes us human. Is it inteligence obviously not or it would be perfectly aceptable to murder the mentaly challenged. Is it the ability to live without outside support, this is more debatable personaly I don't have as much of a problem with a person chosing for them selves either verbally or through a will that they don't want to be kept alive artificaly thats their decision. That said I wouldn't want to trust otheir with the decision of weither or not to pull the plug, because of issues such as inheritance and I just don't trust the fact that everyone will chose this option for the right reasons.

This leaves us pretty much with just biology. The ebryo is obviously genetically human the same as anyone else, they aren't going to develop itnto a dog or anything absured. Then we can also look at the understanding of what is life the primary means as I understand it Doctors use to determine life are a Heartbeat and and Brainwaves. It is my understanding, which I'm perfectly willing to admit might be incorrect I'm not a doctor, is that by the age of two monthes an embryo has already developed to the point of posesing these traits making them alive by the standereds of medicine as I understand them.

Also I have noticed somepeople arguing that embryos are nothing more than a colection of cells, but from a completly secular point of view isn't that all any of us are. Yes, I am a larger more developed collection of cells, but then I am also a larger more developed collection of cells than a two year old.

And before any one acuses me of being some religously fanatical nut job, I am willing to admit that I have been raised as a Catholic, which I am willing to admit my bias me a little to the pro-choice side. I am not however some fanatical bible thumber who claims to speak with the words of God, personaly I'm of the opinion at this time that if God exisets he is either a real asshole or not very responsible for allowing the world to reach the straits it is in. Nor am I a conservative by any means I have stated my support for the replacment of Civil marriage with civil unions avalible to anyone in another thread and I am open to abortion when absolutly medicaly nesecary, itis no different then batifield triage. I also tend to be rather Demorcaticaly Socialistic in my economic views. So any one who tries to refute me by calling me a right wing nut job dosen't know what they are talking about.

All that said I don't believe this issue will be resolve dby any thing les than a medical breakthrew alowwing doctors to safely remove a fetus and alowing it to develop artificialy, though some conservatives might still not like this, but then there is no pleasing some people.

P.S. sorry for any spelling errors it is rather late here.

parents with children who are outside of the womb cannot kill their children merely because they do not wish to care for them so why should parents with children inside the womb be able to.The woman is unwilling to donate an organ. She has the right to remove consent for the donation, and to have the infant removed. Parents with children outside of their womb can refuse to donate organs, even if the children will die as a result.
Perhaps, but then if she didn't save the life of her own child when she could have, we would have to question her sanity, morality and adherence to ethics.

while im not saying pregnancy is easy but just because the mother is unwilling to care for the child for 9 months she can thus deprive the child of a long and happy life.And, to bring out the old analogy, saying that a woman 'consents' to pregnancy by having sex because she knows there's a chance it might occur is like saying I 'consent' to have a broken leg if I go skiing, because I know it might occur.

Ie, it's stupid.
Accepting the consequences of our actions is not prior consent of the consequences, you are correct, but there is a type of consent inherent in acceptance of consequences. If a woman breaks her leg, she accepts that she's going to wear a cast for 9 months and submits to it. If she doesn't she is rejecting health, her leg won't heal properly and, again, we get to question her sanity.

But the analogy doesn't really address the question that was asked here. If a woman gets pregnant she must either accept that she is carrying new life within her, and all the responsibility that entails, or reject it. But then what she is rejecting is the responsibility of having a child. She is taking responsibility for herself, but rejecting being responsible for someone else. That's the issue that was raised.

Perhaps, but then if she didn't save the life of her own child when she could have, we would have to question her sanity, morality and adherence to ethics.


Accepting the consequences of our actions is not prior consent of the consequences, you are correct, but there is a type of consent inherent in acceptance of consequences. If a woman breaks her leg, she accepts that she's going to wear a cast for 9 months and submits to it. If she doesn't she is rejecting health, her leg won't heal properly and, again, we get to question her sanity.

But the analogy doesn't really address the question that was asked here. If a woman gets pregnant she must either accept that she is carrying new life within her, and all the responsibility that entails, or reject it. But then what she is rejecting is the responsibility of having a child. She is taking responsibility for herself, but rejecting being responsible for someone else. That's the issue that was raised.

She has the right to not consider the fate of the infant ('child' has overly emotional connantations; you may want to use 'infant' since you can thus avoid any of the more... rabid... pro-choicers calling you on over-emotive language). If I get in a car drunk with my child in the seat next to me, and then crash, and the child needs an organ, I have a legal right to refuse to donate. I guess it's not a direct parallel, since technically he comparison would be 'sex' - 'driving drunk'... but what you've said doesn't contradict my point that legally everyone has the right to remove consent to donate an organ, no matter what the context.

And no, you wouldn't have any legal reason to 'question her sanity, morality and adherence to ethics'. The issue ends when she refuses to donate the organ. There are no cases I'm aware of where the refusal to donate an organ has lead to any sort of pyschological or legal judgement forced on the person who refused.

Privately you can question her sanity, morality and 'adherence to ethics' but you can't legalise anything based on it, since she would merely be exercising a legal right.

She has the right to not consider the fate of the infant ('child' has overly emotional connantations; you may want to use 'infant' since you can thus avoid any of the more... rabid... pro-choicers calling you on over-emotive language). If I get in a car drunk with my child in the seat next to me, and then crash, and the child needs an organ, I have a legal right to refuse to donate. I guess it's not a direct parallel, since technically he comparison would be 'sex' - 'driving drunk'... but what you've said doesn't contradict my point that legally everyone has the right to remove consent to donate an organ, no matter what the context.

And no, you wouldn't have any legal reason to 'question her sanity, morality and adherence to ethics'. The issue ends when she refuses to donate the organ. There are no cases I'm aware of where the refusal to donate an organ has lead to any sort of pyschological or legal judgement forced on the person who refused.

Privately you can question her sanity, morality and 'adherence to ethics' but you can't legalise anything based on it, since she would merely be exercising a legal right.

That analogy dosn't quite work, because if a parent injured their child to the point that they then die they would be tried for murder, or manslaughter, the same as anyone else that killed someone in a drinking and driving accident.

She has the right to not consider the fate of the infant ('child' has overly emotional connantations; you may want to use 'infant' since you can thus avoid any of the more... rabid... pro-choicers calling you on over-emotive language). If I get in a car drunk with my child in the seat next to me, and then crash, and the child needs an organ, I have a legal right to refuse to donate. I guess it's not a direct parallel, since technically he comparison would be 'sex' - 'driving drunk'... but what you've said doesn't contradict my point that legally everyone has the right to remove consent to donate an organ, no matter what the context.

And no, you wouldn't have any legal reason to 'question her sanity, morality and adherence to ethics'. The issue ends when she refuses to donate the organ. There are no cases I'm aware of where the refusal to donate an organ has lead to any sort of pyschological or legal judgement forced on the person who refused.

Privately you can question her sanity, morality and 'adherence to ethics' but you can't legalise anything based on it, since she would merely be exercising a legal right.
Not a legally bound ethical reason, but a common sense one, and I don't think the question as it was asked intended any more context than that (I could be wrong).

Life is good. Life thrives at the expense of other life, but only to a certain extent. Good is that which benefits life. We are not obligated by law to save other lives, but it makes sense to want to --this is the basis of most of our shared ethics, the prolonging of our lives and other's.

We are not obligated by law to save other lives...
I should add, "...at the expense of our own safety."

Yes, it makes sense to want to save someone you empathise with as human.

In the case of abortions, the humanity of the infant isn't to the point where a woman would necessarily empathise.

I personally would not empathise as greatly with a embryo with no present brain as much I would with a born child (or even a 3rd trimester one, before people start hitting me).

For me it's a combination. Late term abortions are already illegal except in certain circumstances, so I don't need to deal with the 'more human' end of the scale. I believe that before the infant has a brain, it doesn't deserve enough consideration to over-rule the common sense 'cannot be legally forced to donate part of your body' rule.


We are not obligated by law to save other lives...

I should add, "...at the expense of our own safety."

Does that include mental safety? If so, abortions should be allowed, since forcing a woman to bear a child against her will could pose very serious psychological risks.

Yes, it makes sense to want to save someone you empathise with as human.

In the case of abortions, the humanity of the infant isn't to the point where a woman would necessarily empathise.

I personally would not empathise as greatly with a embryo with no present brain as much I would with a born child (or even a 3rd trimester one, before people start hitting me).
Accepted. I personally could not conceive of a new life within me as anything less that its potential. I would not even give a thought to its physical form as anything other than human. But I can understand how others more influenced by science and medicine (biology class illustrations, ultrasounds, little fibre-optic cameras shoved into uncomfortable places) could think differently.

We are not obligated by law to save other lives...

I should add, "...at the expense of our own safety." Does that include mental safety? If so, abortions should be allowed, since forcing a woman to bear a child against her will could pose very serious psychological risks.
Where I live, it is a punishable crime to stand by and do nothing when life-saving assistance could have been rendered. I know this isn't the case everywhere, and where it is there are exceptions for the safety of the individual who would volunteer their aid.

Yes, I would include mental safety, absolutely, if it can be demonstrated that their problem is more than common stress, anxiety and fear of responsibility.

Accepted. I personally could not conceive of a new life within me as anything less that its potential. I would not even give a thought to its physical form as anything other than human. But I can understand how others more influenced by science and medicine (biology class illustrations, ultrasounds, little fibre-optic cameras shoved into uncomfortable places) could think differently.

I'm glad you're willing to admit this. The largest part of the problem here is that many people actively refuse to accept that the women themselves don't see the infant as 'a blessing', and can't understand that serious psychological damage can be done by forcing them to carry to term. The more people willing to admit that not everyone shares their views, the better :)

Where I live, it is a punishable crime to stand by and do nothing when life-saving assistance could have been rendered. I know this isn't the case everywhere, and where it is there are exceptions for the safety of the individual who would volunteer their aid.

Have you checked whether that covers donating your own organs - because I imagine it wouldn't, and is more closely connected to negligence cases. However, I don't know where you live, so I can't say anything for certain. If it does cover that, I'm not sure I agree with it (phrased in such broad terms as to force people to donate organs).

Yes, I would include mental safety, absolutely, if it can be demonstrated that their problem is more than common stress, anxiety and fear of responsibility.

Post Partum Depression and Post Natal (sp) Depression are scientifically recognised as serious depression associated with pregnancy and childbirth. They are contributors to suicide amongst women, and there are various cases of women not only killing themselves but also their offspring due to these forms of depression.

It occurs outside of the 'refused-abortion' scenario, but refused abortions highten the risk.

I would also suggest that you underestimate the effects caused by being forced to carry inside you something you don't want, without your own consent, and with zero recourse. I have absolutely no doubt it would cause serious psychological issues in a large percentage of cases (but then, I'm female, so I have to live with the very real threat of it happening to me, so I have great cause to be empathetic). I have no doubt that, if it came down to it, I would rather commit suicide than give birth before I was psychologically and physically prepared to. Either that or do some serious damage with codeine painkillers.

But wait, maybe I shouldn't admit that, or else I'll get tried for manslaugter (nevermind definitions! We have a witch to burn!)

Have you checked whether that covers donating your own organs - because I imagine it wouldn't, and is more closely connected to negligence cases. However, I don't know where you live, so I can't say anything for certain. If it does cover that, I'm not sure I agree with it (phrased in such broad terms as to force people to donate organs).
I don't think I have to check. Donating organs that are removed from the body through surgery would certainly fall as a risk to the donator. Donating one's womb to nurture another's child/fetus/tissue mass would also (I imagine) be risky. However, becoming a mother of your own child/fetus/tissue mass is a different thing (I don't buy the arguments that suggest that the tissue mass is anything other than a part of its mother).

Post Partum Depression and Post Natal (sp) Depression are scientifically recognised as serious depression associated with pregnancy and childbirth. They are contributors to suicide amongst women, and there are various cases of women not only killing themselves but also their offspring due to these forms of depression.

It occurs outside of the 'refused-abortion' scenario, but refused abortions highten the risk.
Yes, lots of "diseases" have fancy names these days (most in promotion of the drug industry, but that's another story) and depression is no laughing matter. Wait... I take that back, because I have been depressed and laughed. Depression is a chemical imbalance, not a psychological one, and easily treated with proper nutrition. It is also, through poor diet, one of the most common "diseases" amongst human beings in our Western civilization. We are all at risk for it just going through our everyday lives; so, no, it would not be one of the "mental health" safety reasons, in my opinion. Something more along the lines of a phobia would.

I would also suggest that you underestimate the effects caused by being forced to carry inside you something you don't want, without your own consent, and with zero recourse. I have absolutely no doubt it would cause serious psychological issues in a large percentage of cases (but then, I'm female, so I have to live with the very real threat of it happening to me, so I have great cause to be empathetic). I have no doubt that, if it came down to it, I would rather commit suicide than give birth before I was psychologically and physically prepared to. Either that or do some serious damage with codeine painkillers.

But wait, maybe I shouldn't admit that, or else I'll get tried for manslaugter (nevermind definitions! We have a witch to burn!)
I have no doubt, too, that it would cause psychological problems, and I would support abortion for those women who have them. Waiting until you have properly prepared yourself "psychologically and physically" is best. However, the possibility of developing a psychological problem is not a valid reason for abortion, in my opinion --let me be clear on that. For the person who goes that route, I would feel justified in questioning their sanity (as I do for George Bush's pre-emptive strike).

This leaves us pretty much with just biology. The ebryo is obviously genetically human the same as anyone else, they aren't going to develop itnto a dog or anything absured. Then we can also look at the understanding of what is life the primary means as I understand it Doctors use to determine life are a Heartbeat and and Brainwaves. It is my understanding, which I'm perfectly willing to admit might be incorrect I'm not a doctor, is that by the age of two monthes an embryo has already developed to the point of posesing these traits making them alive by the standereds of medicine as I understand them.

You might want to reread your biology book and check up on the pregnancy timelines on a website like WebMD. Heartbeats and brainwaves are not criteria for life, only human life (since not all living creatures have either brains or hearts). Brainwaves are not detectable until around the 20th week. The fetus doesn't start moving in anything beyond a 'muscle-spasm' way until the 18th or so week. It's all a little different every time but that's the generality.

Also I have noticed somepeople arguing that embryos are nothing more than a colection of cells, but from a completly secular point of view isn't that all any of us are. Yes, I am a larger more developed collection of cells, but then I am also a larger more developed collection of cells than a two year old.

You are correct. I am just a clump of cells. I am also more developped than a 2 year old. Why is it that I, legally, can vote, buy alcohol, donate blood, drive, and kill for my country if I am the same as that 2 year old only more develloped?

All that said I don't believe this issue will be resolve dby any thing les than a medical breakthrew alowwing doctors to safely remove a fetus and alowing it to develop artificialy, though some conservatives might still not like this, but then there is no pleasing some people.

If there were a science breakthrough allowing such removals with survival of the fetus AND there were enough parents willing to adopt said embryos (which there currently aren't), and enough resources and space for said embryos, then I too would support such a process as a mandatory alternative to abortion.

That analogy dosn't quite work, because if a parent injured their child to the point that they then die they would be tried for murder, or manslaughter, the same as anyone else that killed someone in a drinking and driving accident.

But they wouldn't be legally required to donate blood or organs in order to save that child's life any more than you or I would.