I started life as a foetus, I am alive now. A foetus is a collection of living cells which will grow and eventually, inevitably become a separate living person. Scientific definitions of 'alive' are neither here nor there in this context.
I do object, but a foetus could not enforce it's own right to life as it is dependent, therefore it would be up to the parents to do so. Beyond that, it's nobody else's business.
Eventually is not a certainty. "The embryo MAY GROW to become...". But at the time it is not. You cannot live on eventuallys. Would you ban masturbation too? A waste of sperm cells that could one day form a child.
I believe rape victims are automatically offered the morning after pill. And since it is not a form of abortion but prevents ovulation I dont think it is a terrible moral dilemma.
Morning after pill only works within 72 hours of intercourse taking place. you are going on the presumption that most rape victims report the incident within that time. Also, the longer you leave it, the less effective the morning after pill is.
I believe the point of the original post was that it prevents ovulation so assuming you believe life begins at conception because it hasn't happened there is no debate. Assuming you are hung up on life starting from the point of conception the it would affect implantation and could 'technically' be viewed as an abortion........assuming you were hung up. :D
This is of course a non-question in Britain. Abortion became legalised, along wth a huge number of other social advances by the 1964 Labour Government in 1967.
There is absolutely no prospect at all of it being made illegal. Somebody has been watching too many Republican politicians trying to get the vote. of people who have nothing to live for except a twisted version of religion.
At the point of termination a foetus is not a life. That is a fact. It is simply a foreign invader of the woman's body and is medically hers to do with as she sees fit. Any attempt to control the woman here is an action towards the WOMAN and not the child, as there is no child.
Once the child is born, any actions (e.g. requests for financial support) are for the benefit of the child and thus both parents should then be equally responsible.
I agree, it sucks to be the man and have no choice, but that's the way it has to be.
It is not really a fact, it is an opinion, which I respect. It isn't a foreign invader it is 50% of her genetic material growing inside her to inevitably become a separate living person.
I started life as a foetus, I am alive now. A foetus is a collection of living cells which will grow and eventually, inevitably become a separate living person. Scientific definitions of 'alive' are neither here nor there in this context.
I do object, but a foetus could not enforce it's own right to life as it is dependent, therefore it would be up to the parents to do so. Beyond that, it's nobody else's business.
Potential for life does not = life. In this case the rights of the parents outweigh the rights of the non-living fetus
It is not really a fact, it is an opinion, which I respect. It isn't a foreign invader it is 50% of her genetic material growing inside her to inevitably become a separate living person.
It's a scientific, medically proven fact that a small feotus does not meet the criteria needed to class something as a living organism. A fact. Not a strong opinion. A fact. You can't make something an opinion by wishing it so.
Cancer is also genetic material that will inevitably grow. It's, in fact, more likely that cancer will grow than that a baby will grow to full term.
Human rights don't apparently apply to foetuses. Apparently they are not human beings even if they develop into humans. So by this logic they can be terminated. But rapists and murderers can't be terminated due to human rights. How does the liberal construct this train of thought?
Human rights don't apparently apply to foetuses. Apparently they are not human beings even if they develop into humans. So by this logic they can be terminated. But rapists and murderers can't be terminated due to human rights. How does the liberal construct this train of thought?
A foetus is not alive. That's a fact. Medically and scientifically proven. Until it's alive and can boast some genetic superiority to an amoeba, it doesn't get the rights of the living.
Human rights don't apparently apply to foetuses. Apparently they are not human beings even if they develop into humans. So by this logic they can be terminated. But rapists and murderers can't be terminated due to human rights. How does the liberal construct this train of thought?
It's simple.
You can't give rights to something that isn't alive, even if it has the potential to be so.
Human beings, yes even the scum, meet the scientific criteria for life and being humans are granted certain human rights.
And it isnt a liberal construct... its a legal and scientific fact.
I started life as a foetus, I am alive now. A foetus is a collection of living cells which will grow and eventually, inevitably become a separate living person. Scientific definitions of 'alive' are neither here nor there in this context.
I do object, but a foetus could not enforce it's own right to life as it is dependent, therefore it would be up to the parents to do so. Beyond that, it's nobody else's business.
Of course science is relevant, how odd that you would claim it isn't.
Do you believe that the fetus is living from the moment of conception or not? Is abortion murder in your mind?
It depends on the point in the cycle but does inhibit implantation if ovulation has occurred.
We were both correct then:D. I do think the morning after pill should be free over the counter and women who for whatever reasons should if concerned be able to take it asap. Thus reducing the numbers of abortion each year. Costly both financially and emotionally.
It is not really a fact, it is an opinion, which I respect. It isn't a foreign invader it is 50% of her genetic material growing inside her to inevitably become a separate living person.
I suggest you look up how many pregnancies result in miscarriage if you think it is inevitable that a fetus will become a separate living person if it isn't aborted.
Morning after pill only works within 72 hours of intercourse taking place. you are going on the presumption that most rape victims report the incident within that time. Also, the longer you leave it, the less effective the morning after pill is.
Again not correct. Pills since 2010 now work over 5 days.
A foetus is not alive. That's a fact. Medically and scientifically proven. Until it's alive and can boast some genetic superiority to an amoeba, it doesn't get the rights of the living.
So how does a non-living thing turn into a human? It must happen because I see humans every day of the week. Which of course has been medically and scientifically proven.
It's a scientific, medically proven fact that a small feotus does not meet the criteria needed to class something as a living organism. A fact. Not a strong opinion. A fact. You can't make something an opinion by wishing it so.
Cancer is also genetic material that will inevitably grow. It's, in fact, more likely that cancer will grow than that a baby will grow to full term.
Don't talk about criteria, it's pointless - I started life as a foetus and I am alive today. Fact. At what point did we become scientifically 'alive'? I don't know and imo it's irrelevant, but premature babies can survive after being born as early as 22 weeks.
A foetus should be given rights regardless as to whether or not it is scientifically alive, and those rights should be held on trust by it's genetic mother and father. Let's make people take responsibility and bring down those abortion numbers.
I suggest you look up how many pregnancies result in miscarriage if you think it is inevitable that a fetus will become a separate living person if it isn't aborted.
I could die tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm not alive today.
Human rights don't apparently apply to foetuses. Apparently they are not human beings even if they develop into humans. So by this logic they can be terminated. But rapists and murderers can't be terminated due to human rights. How does the liberal construct this train of thought?
Abortion as a mean of contraception is just way beyond my understanding. We have contraception and the morning after pill. There is no need. However, the thought of returning to back street abortions makes me physically sick. The choice is in the hands of women and more responsible choices should be made. The unborn child is part of the womans body and doesnt have a mind or choice. Having said this a woman/child doesnt ask to be raped and this is a good reason why abortion should be allowed.
Comments
Doh you're absolutely right - apologies.... didn't realise that it operated on a joint mechanism
Eventually is not a certainty. "The embryo MAY GROW to become...". But at the time it is not. You cannot live on eventuallys. Would you ban masturbation too? A waste of sperm cells that could one day form a child.
Not correct.
Morning after pill only works within 72 hours of intercourse taking place. you are going on the presumption that most rape victims report the incident within that time. Also, the longer you leave it, the less effective the morning after pill is.
I believe the point of the original post was that it prevents ovulation so assuming you believe life begins at conception because it hasn't happened there is no debate. Assuming you are hung up on life starting from the point of conception the it would affect implantation and could 'technically' be viewed as an abortion........assuming you were hung up.
There is absolutely no prospect at all of it being made illegal. Somebody has been watching too many Republican politicians trying to get the vote. of people who have nothing to live for except a twisted version of religion.
It is not really a fact, it is an opinion, which I respect. It isn't a foreign invader it is 50% of her genetic material growing inside her to inevitably become a separate living person.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
It depends on the point in the cycle but does inhibit implantation if ovulation has occurred.
Potential for life does not = life. In this case the rights of the parents outweigh the rights of the non-living fetus
It's a scientific, medically proven fact that a small feotus does not meet the criteria needed to class something as a living organism. A fact. Not a strong opinion. A fact. You can't make something an opinion by wishing it so.
Cancer is also genetic material that will inevitably grow. It's, in fact, more likely that cancer will grow than that a baby will grow to full term.
A foetus is not alive. That's a fact. Medically and scientifically proven. Until it's alive and can boast some genetic superiority to an amoeba, it doesn't get the rights of the living.
It's simple.
You can't give rights to something that isn't alive, even if it has the potential to be so.
Human beings, yes even the scum, meet the scientific criteria for life and being humans are granted certain human rights.
And it isnt a liberal construct... its a legal and scientific fact.
Of course science is relevant, how odd that you would claim it isn't.
Do you believe that the fetus is living from the moment of conception or not? Is abortion murder in your mind?
We were both correct then:D. I do think the morning after pill should be free over the counter and women who for whatever reasons should if concerned be able to take it asap. Thus reducing the numbers of abortion each year. Costly both financially and emotionally.
I suggest you look up how many pregnancies result in miscarriage if you think it is inevitable that a fetus will become a separate living person if it isn't aborted.
Thanks, its not often I am tho:o
I asked you that (or similar), and got a snooty reply. I'll leave you to await yours, hopefully.
I answered. I said that I didn't think a fetus should have rights from the moment of conception.
I wasn't snooty, I answered you as best I could.
Again not correct. Pills since 2010 now work over 5 days.
So how does a non-living thing turn into a human? It must happen because I see humans every day of the week. Which of course has been medically and scientifically proven.
three days or five days, my point still stands.
Don't talk about criteria, it's pointless - I started life as a foetus and I am alive today. Fact. At what point did we become scientifically 'alive'? I don't know and imo it's irrelevant, but premature babies can survive after being born as early as 22 weeks.
A foetus should be given rights regardless as to whether or not it is scientifically alive, and those rights should be held on trust by it's genetic mother and father. Let's make people take responsibility and bring down those abortion numbers.
I could die tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm not alive today.
Abortion as a mean of contraception is just way beyond my understanding. We have contraception and the morning after pill. There is no need. However, the thought of returning to back street abortions makes me physically sick. The choice is in the hands of women and more responsible choices should be made. The unborn child is part of the womans body and doesnt have a mind or choice. Having said this a woman/child doesnt ask to be raped and this is a good reason why abortion should be allowed.