billvon 3,116 #76 August 17, 2004 Once again, no personal attacks, even if cleverly worded. Also, people should consider the option of not posting to a thread if it makes them so mad they can't respond without attacking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #77 August 17, 2004 Obtuse is not a personal attack, well it wasn't meant as one. It is a way of thinking - different from the norm - not meant to be insulting - just wanting to know if he was, like so many others, and, as I am guilty of, arguing just to argue - just to put it out there that there is an alternative to the way that any individual thinks. It was eddited - I see where it could have been construed that way.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #78 August 17, 2004 Quote . . . that cluster of cells . . . Really . . . Week 10 The embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands feet fingers and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function. 10 weeks - The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. Twenty tiny baby teeth are forming in the gums. But it's JUST a cluster of cells.QuoteI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #79 August 17, 2004 What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Does the mother still have carte blanc to abort the baby then? It is, after all, still her body, still her inconvenience. Right? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #80 August 17, 2004 another question might be - Even if the baby was severed from the umbilical cord - would the baby live only seconds, or minutes until death at ten weeks and removed from the womb. Is a still born baby - NOT a baby?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #81 August 17, 2004 >What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Personally, I think life begins when it starts to show signs of the one thing that truly makes us human - our minds. The first brain activity starts at around 12 weeks. Few people would think twice about stopping life support on someone without a mind (i.e. who had profound, irreparable brain damage) no matter how amazing its kidneys or hands were. The person is gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #82 August 17, 2004 Interesting. I didn't know about the brain activity at 12 weeks. So, that said, what is -your- personal opinion? Should the mother be allowed to abort the baby at > 12 weeks? Forget the law, we all know what says, what do -you- think? This is an open question to anyone, not directed specifically at you, Bill. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #83 August 18, 2004 Quotestill only cells until they become self sustaining....until then, without her potential it will never be more than that cluster of cells...SHE gave it the potential to develop as far as it has to week 10 it certainly wouldnt look like that if you'd put her egg in a petri dish while you came in it. she can take her potential away.. your potential in this biological function was added and done with when you ejaculated. what part dont you get? Zen, I don't see how you've ever carried this point to a logical conclusion. A fetus being dependent on it's mother for continued development does NOT preclude it from having its own existence, its own feelings, or its own life. What part of being able to exist while simultaneously being dependent on a host don't you get? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #84 August 18, 2004 QuoteThis is an open question to anyone, not directed specifically at you, Bill. I'm a woman, so my vote probably doesn't count , but I'll answer that. For all of the brain activity reasons (which I've also heard), I'd postulate that 12 weeks is pretty unequivocal. The chance of a viable birth before 20 weeks is, in all cases so far, zero. I'm less comfortable with that, but if there are extenuating circumstances. If there is a birth defect that is not compatible with life, or one that the parents could very reasonably decide not to take action on, then it should continue to be an option until after the birth defect can be confirmed; normally a little over 20 weeks if the birth defect was detected either via ultrasound or amniocentesis. I'm talking anencephaly and similar defects here -- not Down's syndrome. Can this be abused? Of course, just as women can take lousy care of themselves and not be penalized, just as men can bully women who are pregnant without being penalized (I'm not talking physical here). But I'd be very willing to help my son, and have helped him find the birth control, and given him instructions on how to take a series of birth control pills to simulate a morning-after effect. Not certain, but better than an unwanted pregnancy. To me, at least. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #85 August 18, 2004 Yes - Wendy we agree on several points here - as I said in one of the original posts here, there are humane reasons. But after a while - there is no turning back. At least moraly.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #86 August 18, 2004 Quote What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Does the mother still have carte blanc to abort the baby then? by then it no longer requires the mothers womb. If it is a self sustaining life, then it's needs and rights as a human carry equal weight with those of the mothers. Before then, as a fetus, it's existence is completely dependent on the host. once it is 'viable' it is no longer a fetus, its a baby. viability is the point of no return QuoteA fetus being dependent on it's mother for continued development does NOT preclude it from having its own existence, its own feelings, or its own life. … being able to exist while simultaneously being dependent.. Your definition contains an obvious oxymoron. It has no existence apart from the host, it has no status apart from that granted by the host. Without the host, it dies. It cannot support the basic biological functions common to it’s species, it has never performed those functions on its [I]own[/I]. It is developing its own nervous system, so it may or may not ‘feel’ based on the speed of development, but it's 'life' depends completely on another. Without the host it exists as a clump of (dying) cells, nothing more.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #87 August 18, 2004 I've got a few thoughts to add, other than the joke above. ~In an extreme situation, if a baby is born but is not viable, the mother CANNOT choose to remove it from life support, CANNOT choose to DNR, CANNOT choose to remove it's organs to give to other recipients, and so on. There was a case here in CA about 15 years ago wherein a mother birthed a baby who was not viable (had no brain, a brain stem that barely functioned) and that was placed on life support. It entered the court prior to the birth, because an ultrasound showed the problem. The court ruled that the mother could not DNR, could not remove life support, and could not "harvest" organs BECAUSE the child was alive while in utero. Except, it couldn't survive outside the uterus. And, by the time the baby did finally die naturally, there was so much damage to the previously perfect organs that the only thing which could be used was the cornea from each eye. ~My position on abortion is that it's not a choice for me personally, but I am no one to say what another person should choose regarding carrying a pregnancy to term. A father should have a say-so. The termination of a pregnancy can affect the man just as much as a woman. The father should be at least notified PRIOR to any termination of the pregnancy so as to be able to make his wishes known. Do I believe they should be able to force a woman to bear the child? NO. But neither do I think that they have no choice. The fine line there disappears when the opinions disagree with each other, and I have no way to make it reappear. And it's terribly sad. In a perfect world, couples would talk about pregnancy and choices, but most don't...at least, not until the pregnancy occurs. That is the best option, but not one many employ. So, what would someone suggest? What sort of middle ground can be reached? Some would say there is NO middle ground. But I think there might be. I just don't know what it is. Just my thoughts on the matter... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #88 August 18, 2004 you do realize the implications of that ridiculous ruling? that is why the definition of human needs to be strictly expressed, based on consistent scientific evidence instead religion and emotion. What purpose was served in requiring that pregnancy to continue?? what is the point in continuing artificial support when it will never become viable? proof that the courts can be equally ignorant and in california no less... via·bili·ty n. Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Main Entry: vi·a·ble Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l Function: adjective 1 : capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus —often used of a human fetus at seven months but may be interpreted according to the state of the art of medicine viable \Vi"a*ble\, a. [F., from vie life, L. vita. See Vital.] (Law) Capable of living; born alive and with such form and development of organs as to be capable of living; -- said of a newborn, or a prematurely born, infant. Note: Unless he [an infant] is born viable, he acquires no rights, and can not transmit them to his heirs, and is considered as if he had never been born. --Bouvier. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #89 August 18, 2004 QuoteDo I believe they should be able to force a woman to bear the child? NO. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that a woman should be forced to bear a child. She made that decision, knowingly or not, as soon as she decided to have sex. A woman isn’t forced to bear a child unless she is raped and consequently gets pregnant. Whether she chooses to face up to the consequences of her actions (i.e. responsibility) (as well as that of her partner) and give birth to the child is a different story. Most reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason. Very sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #90 August 18, 2004 Most reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason*** Having a child is usually (at least originally) a pretty selfish act in itself. Unless one's wife/partner is having another man's child... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #91 August 18, 2004 QuoteMost reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason*** Having a child is usually (at least originally) a pretty selfish act in itself. Unless one's wife/partner is having another man's child... Maybe for some. I, however, wanted to have children to teach and share experiences with. I wanted to be able to give my children more than I had so they could lead a better and more productive life. I wanted to be able to see my own kids become morally upstanding and successful individuals. When it comes right down to it, not much else matters. In the end, they’re all you really have that means anything. Material things are useless. Don’t get me wrong. I like material things too. I’ve got a brand new custom Mirage G-4 on the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #92 August 18, 2004 Teaching, sharing, giving, etc... These involve you as the initiator. Nothing wrong with it, but having a kid is a selfish thing to do (definitely NOT a bad thing). And I'll trade you 2 8 year olds (not mine, found them on EBay) for the G4 "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #93 August 18, 2004 QuoteTeaching, sharing, giving, etc... These involve you as the initiator. Nothing wrong with it, but having a kid is a selfish thing to do (definitely NOT a bad thing). And I'll trade you 2 8 year olds (not mine, found them on EBay) for the G4 Maybe I'm not following you to the point you're trying to make. I guess you're right in the most basic sense. That you "want" to have kids even if also for other unselfish reasons. I don't really put 2 & 2 together with what we're talking about, however, in reference to aborting a pregnancy. As for the deal with the 8 year olds...no way!!! [:P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #94 August 18, 2004 > Should the mother be allowed to abort the baby at > 12 weeks? < 12 weeks - abortion is still evil, but is not the moral equivalent of infanticide. > 20 weeks - the child is viable at that point; the only reason (IMO) that abortion should be permissible beyond that point should be for serious health risks to the mother or other child. In between - I don't know the answer. If someone said the magic dividing line was 14 weeks, that might be reasonable. I would tend to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt beyond 12 weeks if it were up to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #95 August 18, 2004 Don't bother to argue with Zen on this... He has a strong opinion which is his right. He can't defend that position very well, but he is allowed his opinion. But in truth most can't decide where life starts. He takes the "It can live on it's own" stance. (In that case I'd say we can abort till about 18 ) Others take the stance at conception. I don't have a problem with abortion based on I think to many children are born into families that don't want/can't handle kids. There should be a test before you can have kids."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LivingLegend 0 #96 August 18, 2004 Damned right you dont! You got 100% control over the decision until you decide to donate your sperm Then she got 100% control over what she choses to do with it. Make your mind uo before you dump boyz coz after that you is a spectator! ________________________________________ 1.618 ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #97 August 18, 2004 actually i can defend my position very well, much to the chagrin of naysayers such as your self. It's based on accepted definitions and can be tested, repeatedly demonstrated, unlike the majority of other 'standards' that have been offered. Ron has issues with simple definitions, he cant define what the basic biological functions common to all humans are, or recognize that a fetus becomes an independent life form (it was always alive, sperm is alive, the egg is alive, life comes from life. Where life starts has never been the question) once it can perform those basic biological functions on its own... check the definition of viable as applied to a fetus/baby. we agree on the testing part....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #98 August 18, 2004 Quoteactually i can defend my position very well, much to the chagrin of naysayers such as your self. It's based on accepted definitions and can be tested, repeatedly demonstrated, unlike the majority of other 'standards' that have been offered. Ron has issues with simple definitions, he cant define what the basic biological functions common to all humans are, or recognize that a fetus becomes an independent life form (it was always alive, sperm is alive, the egg is alive, life comes from life. Where life starts has never been the question) once it can perform those basic biological functions on its own... check the definition of viable as applied to a fetus/baby. we agree on the testing part.... Just because it can be statistically proven that “viability” isn’t likely until 24 weeks doesn’t “scientifically” prove that the development prior, at any stage, isn’t human. It doesn’t make your argument stronger just because of the accepted definition of viability. I’m quite sure that Ron can recite most of the basic biological functions common to all humans just like you can. You’re just putting quotas on just how many must be present and how well they must perform before allowing it to be categorized with the rest of us. I don’t think that’s very “scientifically” prudent. Of course sperm and the egg are alive. I agree that “Where life starts” isn’t in question. I think we’re arguing “when it becomes a human life” and, therefore, have a right to live just like you and me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #99 August 18, 2004 QuoteOnce again, no personal attacks, even if cleverly worded. Also, people should consider the option of not posting to a thread if it makes them so mad they can't respond without attacking.\ I thought that suggesting Clint was an accomplice to an act that Clint considers murder over the top also. Perhaps you were addressing both of them in the little series of posts? If so, it didn't come across that way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #100 August 18, 2004 QuoteI, however, wanted to have children to teach and share experiences with. I wanted to be able to give my children more than I had so they could lead a better and more productive life. I wanted to be able to see my own kids become morally upstanding and successful individuals. I wanted......I wanted........I wanted. Sounds fairly selfish. I agree though. I wanted children, my wife wanted children, something we wanted in our lives. Off course it is selfish and there is nothing worng with it. having a child is the most beautiful thing in the world, with absolutely no exception for me. However, being raised knowing and feeling unwanted is absolute hell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Jimbo 0 #79 August 17, 2004 What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Does the mother still have carte blanc to abort the baby then? It is, after all, still her body, still her inconvenience. Right? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #80 August 17, 2004 another question might be - Even if the baby was severed from the umbilical cord - would the baby live only seconds, or minutes until death at ten weeks and removed from the womb. Is a still born baby - NOT a baby?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #81 August 17, 2004 >What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Personally, I think life begins when it starts to show signs of the one thing that truly makes us human - our minds. The first brain activity starts at around 12 weeks. Few people would think twice about stopping life support on someone without a mind (i.e. who had profound, irreparable brain damage) no matter how amazing its kidneys or hands were. The person is gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #82 August 17, 2004 Interesting. I didn't know about the brain activity at 12 weeks. So, that said, what is -your- personal opinion? Should the mother be allowed to abort the baby at > 12 weeks? Forget the law, we all know what says, what do -you- think? This is an open question to anyone, not directed specifically at you, Bill. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #83 August 18, 2004 Quotestill only cells until they become self sustaining....until then, without her potential it will never be more than that cluster of cells...SHE gave it the potential to develop as far as it has to week 10 it certainly wouldnt look like that if you'd put her egg in a petri dish while you came in it. she can take her potential away.. your potential in this biological function was added and done with when you ejaculated. what part dont you get? Zen, I don't see how you've ever carried this point to a logical conclusion. A fetus being dependent on it's mother for continued development does NOT preclude it from having its own existence, its own feelings, or its own life. What part of being able to exist while simultaneously being dependent on a host don't you get? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #84 August 18, 2004 QuoteThis is an open question to anyone, not directed specifically at you, Bill. I'm a woman, so my vote probably doesn't count , but I'll answer that. For all of the brain activity reasons (which I've also heard), I'd postulate that 12 weeks is pretty unequivocal. The chance of a viable birth before 20 weeks is, in all cases so far, zero. I'm less comfortable with that, but if there are extenuating circumstances. If there is a birth defect that is not compatible with life, or one that the parents could very reasonably decide not to take action on, then it should continue to be an option until after the birth defect can be confirmed; normally a little over 20 weeks if the birth defect was detected either via ultrasound or amniocentesis. I'm talking anencephaly and similar defects here -- not Down's syndrome. Can this be abused? Of course, just as women can take lousy care of themselves and not be penalized, just as men can bully women who are pregnant without being penalized (I'm not talking physical here). But I'd be very willing to help my son, and have helped him find the birth control, and given him instructions on how to take a series of birth control pills to simulate a morning-after effect. Not certain, but better than an unwanted pregnancy. To me, at least. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #85 August 18, 2004 Yes - Wendy we agree on several points here - as I said in one of the original posts here, there are humane reasons. But after a while - there is no turning back. At least moraly.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #86 August 18, 2004 Quote What happens at 7 months, or 8 or 9? Does the mother still have carte blanc to abort the baby then? by then it no longer requires the mothers womb. If it is a self sustaining life, then it's needs and rights as a human carry equal weight with those of the mothers. Before then, as a fetus, it's existence is completely dependent on the host. once it is 'viable' it is no longer a fetus, its a baby. viability is the point of no return QuoteA fetus being dependent on it's mother for continued development does NOT preclude it from having its own existence, its own feelings, or its own life. … being able to exist while simultaneously being dependent.. Your definition contains an obvious oxymoron. It has no existence apart from the host, it has no status apart from that granted by the host. Without the host, it dies. It cannot support the basic biological functions common to it’s species, it has never performed those functions on its [I]own[/I]. It is developing its own nervous system, so it may or may not ‘feel’ based on the speed of development, but it's 'life' depends completely on another. Without the host it exists as a clump of (dying) cells, nothing more.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #87 August 18, 2004 I've got a few thoughts to add, other than the joke above. ~In an extreme situation, if a baby is born but is not viable, the mother CANNOT choose to remove it from life support, CANNOT choose to DNR, CANNOT choose to remove it's organs to give to other recipients, and so on. There was a case here in CA about 15 years ago wherein a mother birthed a baby who was not viable (had no brain, a brain stem that barely functioned) and that was placed on life support. It entered the court prior to the birth, because an ultrasound showed the problem. The court ruled that the mother could not DNR, could not remove life support, and could not "harvest" organs BECAUSE the child was alive while in utero. Except, it couldn't survive outside the uterus. And, by the time the baby did finally die naturally, there was so much damage to the previously perfect organs that the only thing which could be used was the cornea from each eye. ~My position on abortion is that it's not a choice for me personally, but I am no one to say what another person should choose regarding carrying a pregnancy to term. A father should have a say-so. The termination of a pregnancy can affect the man just as much as a woman. The father should be at least notified PRIOR to any termination of the pregnancy so as to be able to make his wishes known. Do I believe they should be able to force a woman to bear the child? NO. But neither do I think that they have no choice. The fine line there disappears when the opinions disagree with each other, and I have no way to make it reappear. And it's terribly sad. In a perfect world, couples would talk about pregnancy and choices, but most don't...at least, not until the pregnancy occurs. That is the best option, but not one many employ. So, what would someone suggest? What sort of middle ground can be reached? Some would say there is NO middle ground. But I think there might be. I just don't know what it is. Just my thoughts on the matter... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #88 August 18, 2004 you do realize the implications of that ridiculous ruling? that is why the definition of human needs to be strictly expressed, based on consistent scientific evidence instead religion and emotion. What purpose was served in requiring that pregnancy to continue?? what is the point in continuing artificial support when it will never become viable? proof that the courts can be equally ignorant and in california no less... via·bili·ty n. Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Main Entry: vi·a·ble Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l Function: adjective 1 : capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus —often used of a human fetus at seven months but may be interpreted according to the state of the art of medicine viable \Vi"a*ble\, a. [F., from vie life, L. vita. See Vital.] (Law) Capable of living; born alive and with such form and development of organs as to be capable of living; -- said of a newborn, or a prematurely born, infant. Note: Unless he [an infant] is born viable, he acquires no rights, and can not transmit them to his heirs, and is considered as if he had never been born. --Bouvier. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #89 August 18, 2004 QuoteDo I believe they should be able to force a woman to bear the child? NO. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that a woman should be forced to bear a child. She made that decision, knowingly or not, as soon as she decided to have sex. A woman isn’t forced to bear a child unless she is raped and consequently gets pregnant. Whether she chooses to face up to the consequences of her actions (i.e. responsibility) (as well as that of her partner) and give birth to the child is a different story. Most reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason. Very sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #90 August 18, 2004 Most reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason*** Having a child is usually (at least originally) a pretty selfish act in itself. Unless one's wife/partner is having another man's child... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #91 August 18, 2004 QuoteMost reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason*** Having a child is usually (at least originally) a pretty selfish act in itself. Unless one's wife/partner is having another man's child... Maybe for some. I, however, wanted to have children to teach and share experiences with. I wanted to be able to give my children more than I had so they could lead a better and more productive life. I wanted to be able to see my own kids become morally upstanding and successful individuals. When it comes right down to it, not much else matters. In the end, they’re all you really have that means anything. Material things are useless. Don’t get me wrong. I like material things too. I’ve got a brand new custom Mirage G-4 on the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #92 August 18, 2004 Teaching, sharing, giving, etc... These involve you as the initiator. Nothing wrong with it, but having a kid is a selfish thing to do (definitely NOT a bad thing). And I'll trade you 2 8 year olds (not mine, found them on EBay) for the G4 "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #93 August 18, 2004 QuoteTeaching, sharing, giving, etc... These involve you as the initiator. Nothing wrong with it, but having a kid is a selfish thing to do (definitely NOT a bad thing). And I'll trade you 2 8 year olds (not mine, found them on EBay) for the G4 Maybe I'm not following you to the point you're trying to make. I guess you're right in the most basic sense. That you "want" to have kids even if also for other unselfish reasons. I don't really put 2 & 2 together with what we're talking about, however, in reference to aborting a pregnancy. As for the deal with the 8 year olds...no way!!! [:P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #94 August 18, 2004 > Should the mother be allowed to abort the baby at > 12 weeks? < 12 weeks - abortion is still evil, but is not the moral equivalent of infanticide. > 20 weeks - the child is viable at that point; the only reason (IMO) that abortion should be permissible beyond that point should be for serious health risks to the mother or other child. In between - I don't know the answer. If someone said the magic dividing line was 14 weeks, that might be reasonable. I would tend to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt beyond 12 weeks if it were up to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #95 August 18, 2004 Don't bother to argue with Zen on this... He has a strong opinion which is his right. He can't defend that position very well, but he is allowed his opinion. But in truth most can't decide where life starts. He takes the "It can live on it's own" stance. (In that case I'd say we can abort till about 18 ) Others take the stance at conception. I don't have a problem with abortion based on I think to many children are born into families that don't want/can't handle kids. There should be a test before you can have kids."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LivingLegend 0 #96 August 18, 2004 Damned right you dont! You got 100% control over the decision until you decide to donate your sperm Then she got 100% control over what she choses to do with it. Make your mind uo before you dump boyz coz after that you is a spectator! ________________________________________ 1.618 ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #97 August 18, 2004 actually i can defend my position very well, much to the chagrin of naysayers such as your self. It's based on accepted definitions and can be tested, repeatedly demonstrated, unlike the majority of other 'standards' that have been offered. Ron has issues with simple definitions, he cant define what the basic biological functions common to all humans are, or recognize that a fetus becomes an independent life form (it was always alive, sperm is alive, the egg is alive, life comes from life. Where life starts has never been the question) once it can perform those basic biological functions on its own... check the definition of viable as applied to a fetus/baby. we agree on the testing part....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #98 August 18, 2004 Quoteactually i can defend my position very well, much to the chagrin of naysayers such as your self. It's based on accepted definitions and can be tested, repeatedly demonstrated, unlike the majority of other 'standards' that have been offered. Ron has issues with simple definitions, he cant define what the basic biological functions common to all humans are, or recognize that a fetus becomes an independent life form (it was always alive, sperm is alive, the egg is alive, life comes from life. Where life starts has never been the question) once it can perform those basic biological functions on its own... check the definition of viable as applied to a fetus/baby. we agree on the testing part.... Just because it can be statistically proven that “viability” isn’t likely until 24 weeks doesn’t “scientifically” prove that the development prior, at any stage, isn’t human. It doesn’t make your argument stronger just because of the accepted definition of viability. I’m quite sure that Ron can recite most of the basic biological functions common to all humans just like you can. You’re just putting quotas on just how many must be present and how well they must perform before allowing it to be categorized with the rest of us. I don’t think that’s very “scientifically” prudent. Of course sperm and the egg are alive. I agree that “Where life starts” isn’t in question. I think we’re arguing “when it becomes a human life” and, therefore, have a right to live just like you and me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 August 18, 2004 QuoteOnce again, no personal attacks, even if cleverly worded. Also, people should consider the option of not posting to a thread if it makes them so mad they can't respond without attacking.\ I thought that suggesting Clint was an accomplice to an act that Clint considers murder over the top also. Perhaps you were addressing both of them in the little series of posts? If so, it didn't come across that way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #100 August 18, 2004 QuoteI, however, wanted to have children to teach and share experiences with. I wanted to be able to give my children more than I had so they could lead a better and more productive life. I wanted to be able to see my own kids become morally upstanding and successful individuals. I wanted......I wanted........I wanted. Sounds fairly selfish. I agree though. I wanted children, my wife wanted children, something we wanted in our lives. Off course it is selfish and there is nothing worng with it. having a child is the most beautiful thing in the world, with absolutely no exception for me. However, being raised knowing and feeling unwanted is absolute hell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
