Page two loves dead babies.

6/28/2007 4:32:55 PM

i'm not gonna repeat what I've said before on this subject and in these circumstances.

6/28/2007 4:37:29 PM

Quote :

"Just curious, do any of the pro-choice people here think that in the case of the woman from Ohio who was kidnapped and murdered, last seen June 19th with a due date of July 9 (I think the dates are right, anyway it was around 2-3 weeks before her due date), that the murderer should be charged for two murders? A child is certainly viable 2-3 weeks before the due date. None of the arguments of it doesn't have a heart beat, etc apply. Or does that "fetus" dying not bother you at all, no different than if the mother hadn't been pregnant. When do you consider it a human life.... the moment it is outside the mother, no sooner? Since premature babies can't survive without machines are they still not human? Because normally I hear the, it's not a human because it can't survive outside the mother argument, but then in the cases where they are 8-9 months pregnant that doesn't seem to matter anymore, its still not a human life and the mother should be allowed to kill it. "

I would draw the line somewhere around 8-9 months. At the point when a birth could be staged by the doctor.

That being said, this particular case it should not matter. The guy should be getting life without parole for murdering the woman alone.

7/5/2007 8:25:00 PM

There is a difference between a slut that doesn't use protection and gets knocked up and a rape victim or a baby thats seriously deformed among other development problems. Abortion should be used depending on the situation

7/5/2007 11:52:25 PM

there may be a difference in how the conception happens, but the child ends up with the same opportunity regardless. whether the girl didn't use protection cuz she didn't care or whether she did and it didn't work or whether she was raped. if it was unintended, then the child is going to be raised like an unwanted child more often than not

7/6/2007 12:50:48 PM

Quote :

"I would draw the line somewhere around 8-9 months. At the point when a birth could be staged by the doctor."

yeah thats about right. a baby at that stage could physically survive independant of the mother's body. when a fetus is able to perform all human bodily functions that allow it to survive as a host rather than a parasite, then it is considered a full person.

the whole 2 murders thing is just a bunch of bs.

7/6/2007 12:55:18 PM

a baby is a gift not a parasite.

7/6/2007 4:22:32 PM

Quote :

"a baby at that stage could physically survive independant of the mother's body."

I'm sure you know it's coming, but...

There are a fair number of sentient people in this country who cannot live without the intervention of something other than their bodies -- pacemakers, oxygen tanks, transfusions from other people, the use of other peoples' organs, etc. Obviously nobody is saying that we should get to off them because of their dependence on other things, but I've never fully understood the relevant moral difference between them and a fetus.

And frankly I think the use of "parasite" has more ground in trying to elicit an emotional response than it does in any proper use of biological vocabulary.

7/6/2007 4:56:49 PM

Quote :

"But again, most of this argument is when you define the embryo/fetus as "alive." "

exactly. i say that you are WAY off base if you make this simply an issue of choice, rights, etc. Furthermore, drawing the "alive" line at when the baby is viable outside the body is kinda dumb, in my opinion. I'm not of the mindset that human life begins at conception--i'm generally ok with RU-486 type abortions in the very early stages--but i think we're clearly dealing with a human life at some point WELL before birth, and probably significantly before the baby would be realistically viable outside the mother's body.

99% of the argument, excluding cases involving the medical safety of the mother, should be centered around the difficult question of where to define the beginning of human life, and I think a lot of people rationalize what they WANT to believe when answering that question. defining that point at 8-9 months is completely absurd.

7/6/2007 6:27:46 PM

well, you just cant expect a 5-month old fetus to have any realistic chance outside the womb, even with reasonable ntervention.

do i think a 5-month old should be aborted, no. abortions, when at all possible, should occur in the first trimester. but it "could" occur that late if necessary.

of course the best option is not to have an abortion, which means not to be in a position where the choice has to be made. im glad i dont have to make these decisions for myself, or for anyone else.

RU482 will make this whole argument mostly irrelevant, anyhow, thank god.



[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 5:23 AM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 5:21:42 AM