Abortion

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 19:42

How's this for culpability:

-Every child that is born represents an added burden to the world. If the child is unwanted, or a product of rape, that is an added burden.

-As expensive as abortion is, raising a child is far more expensive, and can potentially ruin someone's life.

-You may argue that by simply abstaining from sex, there is no need to abort unwanted children- but try never having sex with someone you love, just because you are not allowed to have children. Also, contraceptives (besides abortion) do not work 100% of the time, and the more effective methods- the birth control pill, etc.- have some inherent risks involved, such as a higher risk of heart attack.

Rape, by the way, is a severe infringement on the victim's rights, so there is no way it could be justified, as opposed to the death penalty, or abortion.

**Don Corleone** · 09-01-2005, 19:49

Originally Posted by meatwad

How's this for culpability:

-Every child that is born represents an added burden to the world. If the child is unwanted, or a product of rape, that is an added burden.

-As expensive as abortion is, raising a child is far more expensive, and can potentially ruin someone's life.

-You may argue that by simply abstaining from sex, there is no need to abort unwanted children- but try never having sex with someone you love, just because you are not allowed to have children. Also, contraceptives (besides abortion) do not work 100% of the time, and the more effective methods- the birth control pill, etc.- have some inherent risks involved, such as a higher risk of heart attack.

Rape, by the way, is a severe infringement on the victim's rights, so there is no way it could be justified, as opposed to the death penalty, or abortion.

If you really feel that way, you should do the only moral thing and go get yourself sterilized today. If economic needs are grounds for termination, maybe instead of retirement, we should start up some concentration camps. Wow, you're really hard over on babies, aren't you amigo?

In your answer to my rape point, you sidestepped the fundamental issue of abortion... is the fetus a victim with rights or not? According to you, no. So, I'd be interested in hearing from you, what is the difference between a fetus one hour before birth and a baby, one hour after? Is being attached to a placenta grounds for abortion? I'm not baiting, I seriously want to know from somebody in the '3rd trimester is okay' camp, what the basis for their decision is. If you're not in that camp, I apologize in advance for mislabeling you, but you might want to re-tailor your arguments to highlight that.

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 20:03

This might kinda freak/creep you out, so be warned...

According to my scientific learning, viruses are nto alive because they are (1) incapable of independant reproduction and (2) incapable of life without directly feeding off of a living being's metabolic processes. This definition also includes highly evolved parasites, such as tapeworms, etc. Because gross parasites (meaning large, not grotesque) are completely dependant uopn another living organism for their metabolic and reproductive processes to operate, they are not technically alive.

You can probably see where this is going, but I am going to go ahead and put it in writing.

Obviously, feti and babies are not naturally designed to reproduce from birth, so that's a moot point; however, they are entirely dependant upon the placenta as a feeding tube. Even when they are removed prematurely, they still require an artificial feeding tube and a womb-like environment until they reach the natural state of independance. Therefore, feti are not technically alive, because they are not human yet- they are protohumanoid parasites.

I do understand your argumant against an economic grounds for abortion... there might have to be some limits on that.

**Ser Clegane** · 09-01-2005, 20:11

Originally Posted by meatwad

Actually, if you want to be really strict about the living organism definition, you could probably say that a baby is not "alive" until it can walk and find its own food, since it is still dependant upon the mother for direct nourishment

Whose definition is that supposed to be?

I think you are seriously mixing something up here.

**Don Corleone** · 09-01-2005, 20:12

^^^^ WOW ^^^^

Well, thank you for your honesty. We're coming from 2 very different places, but I respect your right to your views. Just out of curiousity... isn't everything that's not capable of photosynthesis a parasite? What's the difference between a tapeworm eating an intenstine and a wolf eating a deer, or the deer eating leaves for that matter?

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 20:16

The difference is that the wolf has its own digestive system, and can consume outside food without it having to be processed by the deer, or without having to use the deer's digestive system for nourishment. The same goes for the deer eating the leaves, though admittedly the deer is closer to being a parasite, because the nutrients it is eating are almost digested in the leaf already. Still, the point is that the wolf does not have to attach itself to the deer's belly and siphon off its digested food.

The abortion at age two, by the way, was supposed to be a morbid joke (and a hook-line-and-sinker comment) but I can see that it won't strike too many people as funny. Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-01-2005, 20:19

The difference is that the wolf has its own digestive system, and can consume outside food without it having to be processed by the deer, or without having to use the deer's digestive system for nourishment

So baby birds are not alive then? Also isnt most human baby food processed by humans?

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 20:23

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So baby birds are not alive then? Also isnt most human baby food processed by humans?

I forgot about that- you are right; a baby bird is not technically alive, because its food has to be digested by the mother first. And baby food is processed by a machine, not a living system; besides, the baby is not eating food that is pouring directly into it from a digestive system; it performs some basic digestion of its own. However, babies are very close to being parasites.

Go ahead and say it- I'm a sick bastard. But I am using cold hard facts and as little emotion as possible.

**Ser Clegane** · 09-01-2005, 20:21

Originally Posted by meatwad

Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

By that definition (which seems to be your own, personal definition) any person who is - even temporarily - on a feeding tube or other life support would not be a living being.

Interesting approach...

**Don Corleone** · 09-01-2005, 20:21

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food. I'm not trying to split hairs here, it seems to me that you see a fundamental difference between parasites & other creatures and I'm afraid I'm not getting it. In my mind, parasite is a relative term, as it's most basic defintion "that which feeds off of other living things" applies to anything that's alive that doesn't possess the capability for photosynthesis. Nothing else makes its own food.

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 20:26

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food.

The main difference is that the vegetable matter has been digested fully and transformed into materials that are being used by the deer. If the wolf was a parasite, it would never give the deer a chance to use this material to grow. The same applies to the placenta; the baby is not eating part of the mother; it is using preprocessed material that was never used by the mother.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-01-2005, 20:29

So now its the ability to process and digest your own food that determines whether anything is alive or not. And of course only accordding to your definition of what prepartion is.
Never heard this one before.

**Soulforged** · 09-02-2005, 10:01

Originally Posted by meatwad

This might kinda freak/creep you out, so be warned...

According to my scientific learning, viruses are nto alive because they are (1) incapable of independant reproduction and (2) incapable of life without directly feeding off of a living being's metabolic processes. This definition also includes highly evolved parasites, such as tapeworms, etc. Because gross parasites (meaning large, not grotesque) are completely dependant uopn another living organism for their metabolic and reproductive processes to operate, they are not technically alive.

Then this post confirms my guesses, at least for now. This will also permit the harvesting of fetus and many aplications on medical science. Why not clonation? I'm all for pro-evolution, of course while the fetus don't present any human factions. Then the fetus is only considered alive, or like an human being when it's out of the belly, when it's born, that's interesting.