Your comment actually isnt a silly one. Almost the same concept really. The issue is just where is the cut off for life and non life. There really isnt one. I guess its more like alive and less-alive (like fatal and less-fatal weapons classifications).
If I jack off am I a murderer?
(I'm not trying to argue with you or anything Rugger. I'm not someone passionate about Prochoice by any means)
This is really almost a non-issue. Only 2-3% of rape cases actually lead to impregnation. So the justification of abortion based on rape is like legalizing the running of red lights, because you may have to run one someday to save someone who is about to commit suicide.
Armed to the teeth.
Your response to my 'question' makes no sense... It was a question.
Apparently I misunderstood your question, my apologies. Sometimes it is hard to tell the tone of the question over the internet.
Armed to the teeth.
Armed to the teeth.
lol..ooops. sorry dsade. I have a crap load of .pdf's. let me find my source for you....
Armed to the teeth.
Two human beings with healthy function reproductive systems cause the sperm of a male human being to fertilize the egg of a female human being.
It's would not be a leap of logic or reason to consider it a fact that if two human beings participate in the act of human reproduction that they are partaking in the process of human reprodcution. They are replicating - reproducing an other human being.
Let's further discuss the idea of when something is classified a human being. The physiological premise that you present is - at what state of development of this replication is IT considered a human being?
I proposed that it is qualified a human being first and foremost as it is a product of the process of human reproduction - replicating - a human being.
When human beings replicate there are several states of development in the process. As stated there is the fertilization process. Then comes the gestation period where the human fertilized egg of the human being becomes a human embryo. The human embryo progresses along the process of development as a human fetus and so on until it is considered full term gestation human.
Now lets consider further this process. A human fetus or human baby comes into the world through "human child birth". Yet it is only a human infant newborn. There are many phases that it will undergo in development...which I am not going to recite because I have not the medical knowledge to recite these in pediatric terminology.
But lets further follow the process. A human child spends most years in human development - human pre-adolescence, human puberty, human adulthood and so forth.
At what stage is the human development process complete that this IT can be considered a "human being". Is it before human puberty, when it's human reproductive organs are functional after human puberty, or does it take place later in life into it's a human teenager - early twenties when it's fully formed human body further process it's human development until it possess a fully developed human brain - integral part of the human CNS?
Human beings reproduce human beings. The process of human reproduction begins at the fertilization of a human egg where the process of human gestation begins. The human development processes only begins at fertilization and continued development of a human being takes place many years after gestation.
To qualify a time during the human gestation period that a fertilized human egg can be slaughtered is equal to suggesting that there is a time qualified at any other time after the human gestation period and the subsequent human development process that a human may be slaughtered.
Fact - human beings reproduce human beings.
For me as soon as there's a heart flicker, it's a living human.
My point is that marriage is reversible and there is a waiting period of 72 hours. Abortion is in no way reversible and there is no waiting period required.
I'm sure the justification for the marriage waiting is that you wouldn't want to do something you'd regret. It seems that an abortion should get at least the waiting period, as the potential for regret is greater since its an action that can't be undone.All three of you have experience as impregnated rape victims, correct? As I am quite sure none of you have, let us refrain, out of respect for those who do have experience in this particular field, from making objective statements on what is, and what is not an issue. Shall we?This is really almost a non-issue. Only 2-3% of rape cases actually lead to impregnation. So the justification of abortion based on rape is like legalizing the running of red lights, because you may have to run one someday to save someone who is about to commit suicide.
Now, the point which all three of you, and a few others in this thread are missing, is that Post-Viability Abortions are not a free-for-all kill order. They are to be used with the utmost discretion, in the most dire circumstances. I would hope those with especially stringent religious biases would provide better qualifications for justifying one life over another.
Again, I post this video:
One case sets president. One president sets motions. One motion can rectify or amend. One amendment...and so on.
Edit: BTW I am not looking at this through any religious or faith glasses. I'm looking at this procedurally - what's the process and procedure?
As far as the, "you've never been raped, so this is none of your business" argument, I think that's an attempt to circumvent a moral question that applies to society, not just the pregnant woman. Why do those who have never served care if there are gays in the military? Because it is a question of societal values and principles on both sides, its not merely a military policy.
Is a rape child worth less than a child conceived intentionally?
I also comically enjoy the manner in which regret is being synonymously interchanged with mistake in this instance. Is it not being considered that at times a woman regrets the situation as a whole, but undergoes the abortion as a deliberate act? Abortions are not as happy-go-lucky as they are being made to seem.
You were painting it as a non-issue, and I was merely circumventing your ignorance and pointing out it may (possibly, you think?) be an issue for those who are affected.
Abortion is a reality, not a moral abstraction. I am sure women heading into an Abortion Clinic are more than interested in your philosophical permutations on the subject, Rugger. I am quite sure, just as they are contemplating the severity of their actions and the ramifications therein, their first thought is the philosophical implications of worth vs., non-worth! A pragmatist you are, sir.