Animal rights people out of controll
- 09-02-2005, 09:27 AM
You missed my point. If we need a reference date for the beginning of a life (i.e., on a tombstone), and we can't be sure of the date of conception, the only date we can use is the date of birth. I never said anything listed the date of conception; quite the opposite. I said that we can't list the date of conception, because we usually don't know it. The DOB is a known reference date.
Not to mention that there is no explicit statement that the date of birth is being used as "the start of life" instead of simply being the "date of birth." No tombstone that I've ever seen lists "Start of life" over the birthdate. Furthermore, every form that I've ever filled out said "date of birth," never "start of life."
I should also point out that the tradition of using date of birth as the first date in someone's life span is centuries old (and perhaps older). If, back when that tradition began, there were some means of determining date of conception, it is very possible that we'd use that as the reference, not the date of birth.
From a legal standpoint, using the centuries-old tradition of what date is listed on tombstones and such to justify abortion up until the moment of natural childbirth is fallacious. The current abortion laws don't base the second trimester rule on some idea of when life begins; they base it on the approaching point at which the fetus would be capable of living if born prematurely.
I can point out the biology of why a fetus is alive and why it is a separate (parasitic) organism, but in the context of abortion arguments science has little place.
Your point is taken, in any case. My personal belief on abortion is that it is killing of an innocent human being, that it is unbelievably absurd to suggest that the constitution contains some kind of privacy right that guarantees women access to abortions, and that abortion is an evil that we must live with, because at this point banning it completely would do more harm than good.
- 09-02-2005, 09:48 AM
No I didn't miss the point. I've seen myriads of tombstones that do not say "born XXXX, died XXXX". They say "Lived XXXX-XXXX".
In reality, law typically has little care for science. Law actually only cares about existing legal presidence. Since a person is alive from the moment of birth according to law, then they should be able to be terminated at any time leading up to that date. Personally I think it would be great. You'd have plenty of extra infant organs that could be in perfectly good shape for harvesting for other infants that need it.
Actually there's a lot more we could do with aborted fetuses that we aren't. For example, I here fetus meat is very tasty and quite tender. I bet fetus-burgers and fetus-steaks would be quite a tasty meal indeed.
09-02-2005, 10:17 AM
Exactly. I wonder if laws and tombstones may change if dates of conception can be accurately found out.Originally Posted by jrkarp
Aborted fetus are the big secret for raw material in medical research. I think the commercial implications are such that if an aborted fetus is taken out alive, it is typically killed since its worth more as a spare parts container than a viable living baby.
09-02-2005, 10:30 AM
I'm telling you, not just spare parts. MEAT! Although, you can strip the organs and still be left with plenty of muscle and tender juicy fat to cook. Mmmmmm, fetuses ....Originally Posted by MarcusG
09-02-2005, 10:47 AM
I've actually never seen a tombstone that said "Lived." I've seen many that simply included dates with no explanation of what they were. This could be a regional thing; most of the cemetaries I've seen have been in Upstate New York and Florida.
The law typically uses things called "legal fictions." Just because the law says something is a certain way doesn't actually mean that it is that way. As an example, even though adoptive parents are not "natural parents" (i.e. they are not biologically related to the child), they are considered "natural parents" under the law because the laws that govern adoption say that they are.
Again, the abortion laws do not define when life begins. The limitations that are placed on abortion have to do with viability. Also, I am not aware of any law that says a human is "alive" when born; they say that a "person" is a "human being that has been born alive" (or sometimes say that a "human being" is a "person that has been born alive"). "Person" under the law has historically had a different meaning than in everyday usage. For example, when we had slavery, even though slaves were very much alive, and were human beings, they were not "persons" under the law.
You should also note that the law in many states considers the illegal killing of an unborn child to be murder (so killing a pregnant woman can be double homicide), and allow children born alive to sue for injuries they suffered before born. That kinda throws a wrench into your argument, don't you think?
09-02-2005, 10:53 AM
I have no doubt its tender but how much meat can you harvest?Originally Posted by Nullifidian
Plus stripping the fetus for blood, tissue, bone, skin is probably alot more than a good meal. Eat a puppy instead..now puppies mmmmmmmm slurp!
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and a joke is a joke, and meant to make people laugh. I personally dont think this is funny...and you are out of line.
IMO - youre offending more people than you are making laugh.
If you truly believe what youre saying here...I only wish your mother and father felt the same way you do. This is not a flame here. Personally I have 4 children of my own, and I would die on the spot for any one of them. But thats just my choice.
no reply to this is needed. and to flame each other would be a waste of time. we can just agree to disagree.
09-02-2005, 11:54 AM
Oh now who's being silly.Originally Posted by AGELESS
Not everyone laughs at dark humor so you are entitled to your distaste. This was something along the lines of "A Modest Proposal." A lot of folks mistakenly thought that Swift was actually being truthful. Then again, a lot of people thought Gulliver's Travels was a factual account as well.
To clarify because some didn't get the sarcasm, it would absolutely ridiculous to say babies should be "abortable" up until birth. My real opinion is that once a baby reaches the point where it could actually be delivered (prematurely) and survive, it should only be legal to abort it under these circumstances:
1) It is dead or dieing anyway
2) It is risking the life of the mother
09-02-2005, 12:13 PM
I didn't really find your humor funny, so I chose to ignore it. For those unfamiliar with A Modest Proposal, here's a little info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
As for the other argument, I saw that you were being sarcastic, particularly when you mentioned aborting already born children (which I would call retroactive abortion). I just love to argue.
09-02-2005, 01:41 PM
It's an interesting issue. For me it always comes down to self sovereingty. Not just for women, but for anyone their body is their property and they are the final word on wha goes on in there, whether it's to carry a baby to term, to use recreational drugs, to get implants, to use steroids, whatever. The issue of abortion is more charged because it's very arguable that an innocent life is about to be harmed by the actions of another. It really comes down to whether or not a woman should have the option to essentially evict the fetus from her body even if it means certain death for the fetus. Some people are hardcore property rights people who would say yes, some are more swayed by the moral, ethical and legal problems they see in the situation because, whether the mother has the right or not is basically contingent on whether or not her exercising that right will adversly affect someone else's right to do the same. To put it another way, suppose the kid 'wants' to live and we just have no way of asking him. It all hinges on the legal status of the fetus it seems. Personally I find abortion disgusting, especially late term abortions, but I wouldn't interfere with most current laws as they seem to strike a happy medium between both points of view: choice to a reasonable point.
Similar Forum Threads
- By IronMarc in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 28Last Post: 06-14-2013, 06:45 PM
- By freqfly in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 10-18-2007, 04:43 PM
- By BigJimCalhoun in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 51Last Post: 07-18-2007, 02:14 PM
- By bigSMokey in forum PoliticsReplies: 2Last Post: 05-03-2007, 06:29 PM
- By Fun2Train in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 8Last Post: 01-29-2007, 05:27 PM