Is The Fetus An Intruder Or An Invited Guest

[Hajman]

God said, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I therefore take it as self-evident that old women without relatives to care for and vouch for them should be dismembered and burned in public.

That has the logical strength of a soggy wet noodle..

-The Hajman-

[tallhappy]

It is just as reasonable to say the organism is the reason for the fetus.

No it is not.

I am talking pure biological science and theory.

[Steve0113]

The fetus qualifies as a parasite in every appreciable biological way if it is unwanted.

Wrong. Parasites feed off a different species, not their own.

[donh]

I don't think abortion should be done on rape.

Really? So you think that a tramautized 13 year old should be forced to bear a fetus inside her body which is intimately connected with the most fearfully traumatic and personally invasive brutalization one could imagine? What a refined moral compass.

And when was it legal to murder non-citizens? It's not.

Really? What were we doing in Afganistan when we targeted Muhammad Omar? What were we doing when we sentenced the nazi's?

A child doesn't have a driver's license. Can we kill it with impunity?

Depends--is it still in the womb, without a connected nerve cell to it's name?

Your arguments are logically weak, and not very consistent.

You can show that by showing it. Merely claiming it is rhetorical fluff.

[donh]

I am talking pure biological science and theory.

Irrelevant, this is not a biology classroom, it is a moral argument; unless you are ready to show how being a parasite deprives or enhances your entitlement to legal protections in a particular case, you are just avoiding the crux of the issue. Why is a bank robber not a parasite?

[Hajman]

Really? So you think that a tramautized 13 year old should be forced to bear a fetus inside her body which is intimately connected with the most fearfully traumatic and personally invasive brutalization one could imagine? What a refined moral compass.

Oh, what a liberal bleeding heart moment. The value of the life of the unborn is independent on how a girl feels. The girl can get over the tramautization. The fetus won't get over death.

Really? What were we doing in Afganistan when we targeted Muhammad Omar? What were we doing when we sentenced the nazi's?

You do know the difference between the innocent and the guilty, don't you?

Depends--is it still in the womb, without a connected nerve cell to it's name?

Is it human? How about we murder people in comas or vegitables (in the human sense), if brain activity is so important..

You can show that by showing it. Merely claiming it is rhetorical fluff.

You're correct. Your arguments can be applied to certain adults and the logical conclusion can be to murder them. (And yes, I pointed out where above. If you need help finding them again, just ask. If they arn't there, I'll tell you).

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

unless you are ready to show how being a parasite deprives or enhances your entitlement to legal protections in a particular case, you are just avoiding the crux of the issue.

A fetus isn't a parasite because it's in a parent-child relationship with the mother (biologically speaking, not mentally/emotionally speaking). A simular relationship is a symbiotic relationship.

-The Hajman-

[NC_Libertarian]

I'm not talking about the church, I am talking about basic respect for human life. The womb belongs more to the baby conceived in it then to the mother. The baby will die without the womb, the mother will not.

The baby's right to live superceedes the mother's selfish right to be free from "inconvienence".

[donh]

That has the logical strength of a soggy wet noodle..

It's problems lie elsewhere-- it's logic is just as good as the logic of your defense of the fetus' rights. It's logic was good enough to be a deciding issue in the law thru 400 years of witchburnings during the middle ages.

My point is that we should arrive at our laws through reasoning about things we understand fairly well and share fairly universally--they should not be derived from predicating them on inchoate feelings we might have the something may be taboo.

This is a bad idea with an terrible track record we have been trying to shake for 2000+ years.

[Jim Noble]

>>but it implies responsibility for your own behavior<<

Correct.

And, in our society, men are held responsible for their behavior.

Women are not.

[Equality 7-2521]

[Hajman]

It's problems lie elsewhere-- it's logic is just as good as the logic of your defense of the fetus' rights. It's logic was good enough to be a deciding issue in the law thru 400 years of witchburnings during the middle ages.

So if you're logic is bad, then that means our logic is bad? Uh, sure donh. At least we use a little logic in our arguments.

My point is that we should arrive at our laws through reasoning about things we understand fairly well and share fairly universally--they should not be derived from predicating them on inchoate feelings we might have the something may be taboo.

So you come up with arguments based on logic and not emotion, and come up with emotional arguments like So you think that a tramautized 13 year old should be forced to bear a fetus inside her body which is intimately connected with the most fearfully traumatic and personally invasive brutalization one could imagine? Thanks for the intermission laugh. :)

This is a bad idea with an terrible track record we have been trying to shake for 2000+ years.

And apparently some people that use tramautized little girls still haven't shaken it. But hey, it's for the children.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

The baby's right to live superceedes the mother's selfish right to be free from "inconvienence".

Having your womb inflated like a balloon for 1/2 a year, being anchor-chained to something that drains you for nourishment, followed by 18 years of indentured servitude is hardly an "inconvienence". If a stranger did that to you, it would be kidnapping, enslavement, battery and theft. The mother's rights in this regard are not so much used toilet paper, and there is not such thing as "inalienable right to life", any more than there is such a thing as "inalienable right to life and liberty" which the mother supposedly possesses. Rights come into conflict and have to be adjudicated in the real world. There is no right to life bulldozer that tramples all before it. The right to life of a blob of goo that might someday qualify as a citizen, without a nerve cell, does not outweigh the assault and enslavement of an existing citizen with full rights. The law exists to serve the existing citizens who are willing participants in it's social contract. It is both dangerous and stupid to extend those rights, willy-nilly, to anything else.

[Quester]

The typhoid bacilli is an INTRUDER in the human body. The human body was NOT designed to house and sustain the typhoid bacilli. The typhoid bacilli is an outsider, which, when successful in entering the body, TAKES what it needs from the body, in total disharmony with human bodily function. The human body responds to this invasion by mobilizing and commisioning its defenses against the invader. A battle is enjoined, and, either, the typhoid bacilli is overwhelmed, destroyed and eliminated by the body's defenses, or the body's functioning is compromised by the continued presence of its invader, even unto the point of its death.

OTOH, when the fetus implants itself on the especially prepared inner lining of the uterus, the woman's body responds by inducing bodily changes and marshalling resources to SUSTAIN and DEVELOP the fetus. The fetus TAKES NOTHING from it's host. All its needs are 'lovingly' GIVEN to it by the host, for the purpose of sheltering, nourishing, and developing the fetus to the point where the fetus is delivered, by it's host, to a new stage in its, now, approximately 9-month old life.

The fetus has not taken control of any measure of it's host's bodily function, as does a virus. The fetus is simply there, developing itself, while the host caters to its needs. It is a one-sided symbiosis ... one living organism nurturing and providing for another, in exactly the way it has been designed to do.

[Quester]

When was the last time a fetus was issued a driver's license?

When was the last time a four-year-old was issued a driver's license?

[donh]

So if you're logic is bad, then that means our logic is bad? Uh, sure donh. At least we use a little logic in our arguments.

Really? So it should be but a matter of a moment's notice to show me an example of a major and minor predicate, and the conclusion therefrom derived. Like biology, logic is largely irrelevant to most moral arguments, it is largely a creature of formal mathematical reasoning, and sees little use outside of circuit design and programming. To the extent that they do at all, people reason in chains of supporting evidence.

[Steve0113]

still in the womb, without a connected nerve cell to it's name?

When would that be?

Brainwaves have been measured at 43 days after conception. Brainwaves cannot exist without a complex network of "connected nerve cells" to produce them. Such a network would've had to begin assembling long before 43 days for it to be operating AT 43 days.

So at what point do you assert that there are no "connected nerve cells"? At conception?

[donh]

When was the last time a four-year-old was issued a driver's license?

So my point is made, yes? Clearly, if a four year old is not a full citizen, neither is a fetus, and to an appropriately greater degree. It is our job as a society to decide when the prudent time to grant rights is.

[tallhappy]

Irrelevant, this is not a biology classroom, it is a moral argument

It is irrelevant to moral argument, I agree completely.

But your initial comment was specifically about the biological perspective:

The fetus qualifies as a parasite in every appreciable biological way if it is unwanted.

You cannot even remember what you say from post to post.

[donh]

So at what point do you assert that there are no "connected nerve cells"? At conception?

Not that it's a terrible crucial point, but yes, there are no nerve cells at conception--that is what the hubbub about stem cell research is about. There are only stem cells at conception.

I do not agree that this should be the compelling criteria, I was just citing a particular issue, but if you think it is, than do you concur that a child may be aborted before it's 43rd day?