Posted on 09/03/2003 2:37:33 AM PDT by kattracks
Not ours.
Period.
A child is not an independent life form either. Babies require intensive and almost continuous care, and can't do zip for themselves. In no way are they "independent". They can't feed themselves, let alone provide their food, can't put their clothes on, let alone provide clothing, don't know enough to come in out of the rain, let alone providing for their shelter - babies are vastly more dependent than most young animals.
So if that's the criteria, infanticide is justifiable.
Before conception, the egg has no existence separate from its mothers. After conception, it can be removed and grown from without the mother. Not yet all the way to a baby, but that's not farr off.
Conception is the only bright line.
If Hill was trying to protect the unborn, then he should have shot the mother. The doctor was only doing his job. Much like HCI trying to blame handgun manufactures for a criminals actions. If the doctor was trying to FORCE the woman to have an abortion, I would agree with your statement.
I don't defend or condone Hill's actions. I do understand them. I think he was wrong, but it's not like he was a ripoff artist shooting a store clerk, or a sniper shooting people buying gas.
My points are - abortion is murder, and it should be illegal. I am saying nothing about Hill.
The religious Rights cry to kill abortion doctors, and the effeminazi view on abortion to the 16th trimester, are equally ludicrous.
I think both are wrong, but the latter is vastly more ludicrous.
Later term abortions should only be considered if the health of the mother is at stake and the child cannot be removed without killing her and/or the child. That kind of proceedure should be between the woman and her doctor. If she wants to give up her life for her child, that is her choice. Without the direct, biological connection to the child, the father kind gets left out in the cold on these decisions.
The major difference being that any other individual can take care of a child. It does not require its birth mother for its survival. At a certain point in gestation, a fetus can survive without being inside the mother it was concieved in.
So no, infanticide is most certainly NOT justifiable.
Before conception, the egg has no existence separate from its mothers. After conception, it can be removed and grown from without the mother. Not yet all the way to a baby, but that's not farr off.
When that Star Trek moment happens, the ethics of abortion becomes that much murkier. Any jsutification for terminating cellular replication would evaporate outside of eugenics arguments. Let's not go there yet. We aren't grown up enough.
I think both are wrong, but the latter is vastly more ludicrous.
How about the anti-onanites with their knickers in a bunch over the spilling of seed? There is plenty ludicrousness to go around.
Murderer. A martyr is one who gives their own life, not takes the life of another.
DC, are you a parent? If so, how can you tell me "any other individual" can take care of a child? A crack whore? A teenager? A person with Alzheimers? Even without the extreme examples, it takes more than just a bit of knowledge, and effort, to care for a baby. And it's irrefutable that a baby is not an "independent person".
The day when a baby (fertilized egg) can survive outside the mother's body is here today. It is medically possible to remove a fertilized ovum from one person and implant it in another. (I was surprised by this.) See here. So the Star Trek moment has arrived.
So no, infanticide is most certainly NOT justifiable.
And, if abortion is, pray tell why not?
When that Star Trek moment happens, the ethics of abortion becomes that much murkier. Any jsutification for terminating cellular replication would evaporate outside of eugenics arguments. Let's not go there yet. We aren't grown up enough.
There's nothing murky about abortion. It's murder, plain and simple.
How about the anti-onanites with their knickers in a bunch over the spilling of seed?
It makes your palms hairy and makes you go blind too, from what I've heard. Of course I'd know nothing about that !
Do not deliberately dodge the point. Yes, I AM a parent. You know damn well what I meant. There is a huge difference between being connected by an umbilicus, and being handfed by another human. Don't distort your point to where it breaks.
The day when a baby (fertilized egg) can survive outside the mother's body is here today. It is medically possible to remove a fertilized ovum from one person and implant it in another. (I was surprised by this.) See here. So the Star Trek moment has arrived.
It would have to be afewully early in the division cycle. Once it implants in the uterine wall, it's pretty much there for the duration. So no, unless you have a link to research saying otherwise, removing a fetus and implanting it in another mother is still a ways off.
There's nothing murky about abortion. It's murder, plain and simple.
If it were that plain and simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we? Nor would this wack-a-nut Hill have shot three people.
It makes your palms hairy and makes you go blind too, from what I've heard. Of course I'd know nothing about that
Oddly, a new study says that one of the ways for men to reduce their prostate cancer risk is to have four or more orgasms a week. Self service is optional for those with a healthy married life... ;-) Still, such practices are decried as evil by some of the very same extremists who advocate shooting abortion providers.
I think you at least get my point. Agreement is not required.
In about 25 more minutes, that will no longer be an issue.
But the simpletons who try to justify his actions will still be around.
Of course. I'm trying to win you to the other point of view because it's more logically consistent.
I'm arguing from the viewpoint of the right to life being supreme, with all others subordinate to it. It's obvious to everyone (except apparently Peter Singer and certain ethnic groups who want sons) that once a baby is born it has a separate existence and right to life.
Why is it different for an "embryo" or "fetus"? Where is the magical line that separates "fetal tissue" from "baby"?
Why isn't it obviously conception?
Yes, there were illegal abortions before Roe. Yes, some women died of them. By that reasoning, consider that women also commit infanticide. Should we allow them to kill any born infant up to, let's say, 3 months because they "do it anyway?" Why 3 months? Why not stop at 6 months? Two years? Seventeen years? For that matter, why shouldn't spouses who don't want the hassle of a divorce just be able to kill their inconvenient spouses legally, since they do it illegally right now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.