Would the alternative be that you could stop her?
The Riddler_ said:
I've had many discussions with him in past years. I know his position well enough.
Abortion
- Thread starter AtomicBabe
- Start date
Would the alternative be that you could stop her?
I've had many discussions with him in past years. I know his position well enough.
I think anyone can find out that if it's your body, you can do as you wish. Not too hard to comprehend.
So if I was just someone who was there, I could stop her also?
I don't think you understand: I have already questioned Finniscool endlessly - I can't be bothered questioning him again.
The Riddler_ said:
I did not say that.
So what do you think?
I wouldn't question him from what he says on the fourms, so far, all I've seen him say is a repeating of what you've said or "It's her body, she can do as she wishes" - Not saying I don't like you Finn, just saying leave more information.
Edit is in Bold.
You said something about a lady with $50 burning herself. I asked if you thought that you had the right to stop her. That's all.
I wouldn't MAKE her not, but i'd strongly encourage not, and if she did i'd leave her.
I don't see why you or anybody would have the right to stop her.
Law, i have a right if it's my child.
I'd assume you'd answer like this.
Basically, your saying "Why should Anyone have the right to do Anything?"
Well, it's another person's money. It's their item inside someone else's body. Which triumphs? The lady, is trying to destroy something that of which is not hers.
It should be allowed because the embryo is a part of the woman's body. For those of you who say it should not be allowed, it is similar to saying "Don't masturbate! Save the sperm!" The baby will simply die, and if your argument is that they have to suffer pain, then you're an idiot because they'll have to suffer even more pain if they live, and I highly doubt they'll remember the pain once they're dead.
The baby is 99.99999% hers. All the father gave was a puny sperm cell, which isn't even 0.0001% of the baby when it is completed. She provided it food, and "shelter". Also, if you put it that way, then the woman's body isn't hers either, so she can't commit suicide, but her parents can kill her since it's theirs, right?
Everyone go and read a Biology book. We're simply atoms arranged in a certain way, and once we die the atoms are re-used, so you're saying that future generations aren't allowed to use your atoms either?
The baby is 99.99999% hers. All the father gave was a puny sperm cell, which isn't even 0.0001% of the baby when it is completed. She provided it food, and "shelter". Also, if you put it that way, then the woman's body isn't hers either, so she can't commit suicide, but her parents can kill her since it's theirs, right?
Everyone go and read a Biology book. We're simply atoms arranged in a certain way, and once we die the atoms are re-used, so you're saying that future generations aren't allowed to use your atoms either?
You originally said if it were your wife or girlfriend.
It depends on how the $50 got into her body. If a surgeon put it in there, then that's his own fault. If she stole $50 from another person and ate it, presumably when her estate gets divided up the victim would be repaid.
Sperm isn't a fully developed human. If you masterbate, your not doing anything to anything. Even once you have sex, only one from the millions of sperm that can be ejaculated can be successful into making it to the egg.
Just because you helped it doesn't mean it's yours, or the person who helped it the most. It has it's one life at a certain point in developement and at that point, it is murder to kill it.
We're dead, how can something be of someone's when that someone isn't even alive? It's whom ever stumbles upon it after they die.
The $50 bill was a bad scenario, if I think of another, I will say it. Forget I even mentioned it.
You walk INSIDE my house.
I control my house
I can do as I please with my house.
I have the right to kill you.
/failed logic
You keep going back to what I already have said. And keep asking the same questions.
Here is what I believe.
1. Murder is something only humans can commit.
2. Murder is the killing of another human being.
3. A growing human embryo is classified as a human.
4. Killing that embryo is murder.
The difference is, a fetus isn't rational thus the law doesn't apply to it.
You did not refute his logic, you only showed that it might have unpleasant consequences.
hashslinger said:
I question premise three. A human embryo is biologically human, but then again, so is a brain-dead car-crash victim. Is it the fact that they are biologically human that grants them rights, or is it some other attributes that humans generally possess?
Also, you agreed earlier that if there were to be another sentient race, killing one of them would be murder.
I completely agree with this. Except, a growing human embryo IS A HUMAN.
Then all creatures that are biologically human have rights? On what basis do you choose humans as opposed to any other animal?
We're trying to find out when the baby receives it's human rights. A brain-dead car-crash victim has long had it's rights.
Do you believe the baby recieves the rights within or outside the mother.
Similar threads
