Political Crossfire Forums

[Plodder]

What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

the reversed question that all pro abortionists put to us.

[Revenant]

Maybe it's like cosmetic surgery, only with drills, syringes, and vacuums :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

the reversed question that all pro abortionists put to us.

The mother has the right to her own body (and to her own choice), the physician has the right to do his/her job. The unborn embryo is not a child, therefore it cannot die.

Pro-choice in a nut shell.

[LostSoul3412]

Let me ask you this question:

What right to do have to impose your morality on the mothers?

[Plodder]

I will answer thw auestion with another question: What right did the USA have to in vade the axis countries and impose their morality on those Nazis?

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: The mother has the right to her own body (and to her own choice), the physician has the right to do his/her job. The unborn embryo is not a child, therefore it cannot die.

Pro-choice in a nut shell. She has the right to use her body to engage in sexual reproduction. Once the embryo is fertalized, she has created a new developing body inside her as nature intended it to be protected there until further developed. She should have no more right to kill her unborn child than I do of killing you. The fertalized embryo is clearly an unborn child. Everyone knows conception begins the process of a new developing life. SOme just choose to conveniently overlook that fact. It is alive, and does die when the doctor terminates it.

Quote: Let me ask you this question:

What right to do have to impose your morality on the mothers? Our constitution dictates that everyone has the right to live. What right do we have to outlaw murder?

[/quote]

[Plodder]

Quote: Our constitution dictates that everyone has the right to live. What right do we have to outlaw murder? because its a moral descosion.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: I will answer thw auestion with another question: What right did the USA have to in vade the axis countries and impose their morality on those Nazis? They and their allies were attacked first by those NAZI. Didn't you know? How ignorant of you.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: She has the right to use her body to engage in sexual reproduction. Once the embryo is fertalized, she has created a new developing body inside her as nature intended it to be protected there until further developed. Fascinating claim. Could you provide evidence of "nature" being capable of having "intent," please? Or is your argument just pure nonsense?

And does that also mean that nature "intends" for us to die of diseases?

Quote: She should have no more right to kill her unborn child than I do of killing you. She has the full right to control the use of her bodily resources rather than being relegated to a second-class citizen as is the plan under your misogynistic plan for control and oppression of women.

Quote: The fertalized embryo is clearly an unborn child. You are clearly an undead corpse. :roll:

Quote: Everyone knows conception begins the process of a new developing life. More nonsense. The development starts even before conception.

Quote: SOme just choose to conveniently overlook that fact. It is alive, and does die when the doctor terminates it. So does a tumor. Whopetidoo.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Fascinating claim. Could you provide evidence of "nature" being capable of having "intent," please? Or is your argument just pure nonsense?

And does that also mean that nature "intends" for us to die of diseases Its quite obvious that things happen naturally (outside the realm of human interference) for logical reasons. For instance, evolution gives certain species different ways of reproducing and different means of protecting themselves against the environment around them.

Quote: She has the full right to control the use of her bodily resources rather than being relegated to a second-class citizen as is the plan under your misogynistic plan for control and oppression of women.
Unsubstantiated troll response.

Quote: You are clearly an undead corpse.

Another troll response.

Quote: More nonsense. The development starts even before conception Care to support that?


Quote: So does a tumor. Whopetidoo. Irrelevent, a tumor is not a newly conceived human life.

[name]

Plodder: What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

This would be a very good argument if an early fetus had any sentience, let alone morals, to be imposed upon. A fetus is not a sentient being until a certain stage of development when it begins to react to stimuli and learn about its environment. When is this? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But the point is, it has no rights to be infringed upon until it is sentient.

[Green]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The mother has the right to her own body (and to her own choice), the physician has the right to do his/her job. The unborn embryo is not a child, therefore it cannot die.

Pro-choice in a nut shell.

The embryo has a brain, liver, and is just like a human other than is is inside another person, and is at that person's whim. I am for stem cells because a single cell is sacrificed that does not look anything like a person. If you sit in the sun and fall asleep, chances are that a few skin cells will be roasted by the sun.

[name]

"The embryo has a brain, liver, and is just like a human other than is is inside another person, and is at that person's whim. I am for stem cells because a single cell is sacrificed that does not look anything like a person. If you sit in the sun and fall asleep, chances are that a few skin cells will be roasted by the sun."

You must be referring to the fetus at about 2 months, at which stage the primitive hindbrain- the same sort that reptiles have, and the structure on top of which our higher lobes are built in later months- is beginning to develop. As for the liver, I don't know when that develops but I don't see how a liver is a requirement for personhood. If a brain is your qualifier for humanity, do you support abortions before the 2nd month?
Also, this stage happens to be about where the embryo starts 'looking like a person,' as you mentioned. Before this stage, the embryo has a tail and is not easily distinguishable from the embryos of other species. Is this a reason why you would support abortion?
Just wondering.

[LostSoul3412]

Green wrote: The embryo has a brain, liver, and is just like a human other than is is inside another person, and is at that person's whim. I am for stem cells because a single cell is sacrificed that does not look anything like a person. If you sit in the sun and fall asleep, chances are that a few skin cells will be roasted by the sun.

So life is determined by what we look like?

[Plodder]

Quote: This would be a very good argument if an early fetus had any sentience, let alone morals, to be imposed upon. A fetus is not a sentient being until a certain stage of development when it begins to react to stimuli and learn about its environment. When is this? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But the point is, it has no rights to be infringed upon until it is sentient. sentiance is not life.

[politikill]

Green wrote:

The embryo has a brain, liver, and is just like a human other than is is inside another person, and is at that person's whim. I am for stem cells because a single cell is sacrificed that does not look anything like a person. If you sit in the sun and fall asleep, chances are that a few skin cells will be roasted by the sun.

a fertalized embryo in the second week does not have a liver, does not have a brain, and therefore is unlike any other human.

Your are for stem cell research, well, cells are alive, and they die, is that not taking a life then?

[name]

"sentiance is not life."

Exactly. Sentience is more than the simple cellular life of a blastocyte. A blastocyte is genetically human and alive, but it is no more a person than a bacterium until it develops brain waves at 2-3 months and achieves cognition, whereas the mother is sapient, self-aware, and fully capable of making her own decision according to her beliefs and circumstances.

[WsTxRedRaider06]

name wrote: Plodder: What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

This would be a very good argument if an early fetus had any sentience, let alone morals, to be imposed upon. A fetus is not a sentient being until a certain stage of development when it begins to react to stimuli and learn about its environment. When is this? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But the point is, it has no rights to be infringed upon until it is sentient.

What morals does a 1 day old baby hold? What rights does a 1 day old baby exercises. Must something exhibit these rights and morals, and reason in order to receive human rights, and be a person? No. One day, the 1 day old baby will be able to reason, make moral decisions, and exercises its rights, but for the time being, it cannot, for it is only a day old, yet we afford it the right to live. One need not be currently functioning as a person, to actually be a "person". The cognitive abilities of the human organism are an inherent property, an inherent property that is arguably never fully expressed. That is, unless some outside force magically puts these things there at some point in development. It is the unborns nature to one day be able to reason, make moral decisions, and exercise its rights. The potential for this, is present at the time the blueprints for human development are put into place, when it is conceived. The human organism at the stage of development when the brain begins to form , at the stage where it becomes a sentient being, and even an hour after it is born, does not fully act as a person by some peoples definition of a person. The potential however, IS there, as it has been ever since conception.

[name]

"What morals does a 1 day old baby hold? What rights does a 1 day old baby exercises. Must something exhibit these rights and morals, and reason in order to receive human rights, and be a person?"

Sorry, I used the wrong word; yes, very young babies have not yet developed morals. What I meant was, the baby- and highly developed fetuses late in pregnancy- have functioning minds and are therefore sentient.

"One day, the 1 day old baby will be able to reason, make moral decisions, and exercises its rights, but for the time being, it cannot,"

And currently the mother is fully capable of reasoning, making moral decisions, and exercising her rights, yet anti-abortionist argument states that she is not allowed to use these faculties to determine the fate of her own body. Morality and liberty are not applicable to a group of simple cells the way they are to a fully functioning human being with the individual capacity to create his own morals and appreciate his liberty.

"One need not be currently functioning as a person, to actually be a "person"."

A collection of cells that cannot think has no personhood.


"The human organism at the stage of development when the brain begins to form , at the stage where it becomes a sentient being, and even an hour after it is born, does not fully act as a person by some peoples definition of a person."

Exactly. And according to some other people's definition of a person, the baby does not fully act as a person when it is a tiny embryo. Which all leads to the point of the pro-choice stance: the personhood of the embryo is subjective to individual morals, none of which should directly affect abortion law; the mother should decide.

[steen]

Green wrote: The embryo has a brain, False. The brain really doesn't start to be fully developed until much closer to birth, MUCH later than when the embryonic stage transitions into the fetal stage.