HOME | DD
Lazarus-D — Abortion Stops a Beating Heart
by-nc-nd
Published: 2007-01-15 22:16:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 21188; Favourites: 782; Downloads: 136
Redirect to original
Description
billboard in Villa Grove, IllinoisManip:
-Red added
Use as you wish, please comment first!
Related content
Comments: 1164
But still, theres no real reason to be against it in the first place, it's a CHOICE, it's not like every pregnant woman is going to have their child ripped out of them without their consent is it? I can feel the butt hurt "YOAR OPINIONN ISS RONG" comments coming nearer and nearer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well your choice is killing someone, if she had a baby she could put it on adoption or something rather than kill it like if it didn't have the least relationship with being a person. it's the baby's body, not her's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, the baby is in her. The baby is not techincally alive - it doesn't think, it relies on another person.
Also;
a. maybe she didn't want to risk dying during birth? or her baby dying that she wants to adopt out -- thus not aborting for no reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But if left it WILL be alive, taking it away like that is technically killing it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. It's not a thinking brain -- it isn't a person. Someone without a brain is dead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't have a brain yet, it's not a person....Yet! It's still technically killing something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How?
A fetus [or however you spell it] is a bunch of cells which aren't technically alive yet. If lets say a dog destroys a chair, have they killed the chair or destroyed it? There's a difference between destroying an un-alive thing or killing a human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A fetus is pretty much a human in formation, it's not like a chair, think rather like a seed, or at least one planted somewhere with a lot of nutrients, if it's left alone chances are it will turn into a tree, if you take it away then chances are that it won't, you're not chopping down a tree, but you're still destroying it, same with a fetus, it's not a person yet, but you're pretty much taking out a future person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What about fetus' with diseases? Would you rather the fetus to not be aborted and live in pain [if it is one of those diseases -- there are many] / be socially unaccepted / etc. or even rape victims? 12 year old rape victims would not like to become mothers, I mean, maybe a few, but oh well. 12 year olds aren't great at raising children or keeping money steady. ... so, abortion is an option. Of course, it's stupid if someone has an abortion because 'their baby was the wrong gender' or 'they didn't take medication pills'.
Basically, abortion isn't always a good choice, but in most circumstances, it's fair to the child and/or mother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If it's a disease then find means to improve it's quality of life, aborting because of that sounds like trying to "mercy kill".
Wat? Why would they be raped just like that?
Thing is, it's just as the lastest possible option, like in the case where it's already dead (in the sense that it won't develop into a person and do nothing there).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's happened. Young girls have been raped before -- in fact, they're... more likely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So does that mean one should abort because otherwise the kid is in danger of the possibility of being raped?.... Like pretty much everyone else?....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wtf? No, I never said that. Can you read?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Missed the point.
If it's a rape victim, I have no idea, though I lean to just putting it into adoption if it's that bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wouldn't risk giving birth to a child [the mother or infant may die during birth] just to adopt it out straight away, but oh well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's not the baby's body until the maggot gets out of her, since it can't survive on its own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course, is not a baby....yet! but if you leave it there it becomes one, is kind of the same thing if you think about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I will grow to become 18 so I can vote?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's a building in construction, just because it isn't complete does not mean it's okay to bomb it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not yet but you will be able to.
Laws work in a different way anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A fetus will grow to become a baby .
But it's not
So it's not alive.
I will grow to become 18.
But I'm not.
So I can't vote.
And bombing a half finished building would be ok.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's false.
The statement is non-sequitur, a fetus is a living being, as it's a multicelular construct AND a developing person to boot, it doesn't become "alive" after birth.
No it wouldn't, you're still destroying what's been built up, not because it's unfinished it's unimportant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay for me the objective is to become 18 and vote.
A matter of time.
For a fetus the objective is to be born and be alive.
Pretty much the same thing.
The fetus is developing , it's not alive, it's not independent of another organism yet.
On another note the fetus hasn't contributed to the world yet.
The mother however has.
Her needs should have priority over something that is currently useless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fetus is alive before being born, and the fact it isn't independent makes it even worse: you're killing a defenseless being who NEEDS to be there for 9 months.
It doesn't matter if they don't contribute to the world yet anyways, many people don't, yet you don't see people going around to kill them, that'd be social darwinism.
She does have priority, of course, in the case the fetus is just going to die anyways and it would risk the mother, she would have medication even if it has the fetus' abortion as a secondary effect because in that case it's just going to die without birth anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that it's not independent means it's not alive.
Sorry , that's it.
It would be better to get rid of people who don't contribute anyway.
She should have priority over the fetus anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope it does not mean that, there isn't a clear definition of being alive anyways, however, a fetus IS alive, considering it's a developing human AND it produces biological processes, a multicelular organism; dependence is irrelevant to being alive or not, as many organisms are not independent anyways.
So no, it's not it.
But not that way, in fact there's another fun thing: people try to get rid of their lack of contribution by finding ways they can contribute, similar to an alternative to abortion: adoption.
She does have priority, caprices involving killing it don't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Anything classified as alive in this world is independent.
A virus is not alive because it needs to bond with another cell to stay alive.
A fetus needs it's mothers nutrients to live and is therefore not alive.
Granted there is a point in the womb where it doesn't need the mothers nutrients anymore to survive.
Like the 24th week?
The adoption system is already over flowing with orphans.
Not near as much adopters as orphans.
She should.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, symbiontes are alive too, Spermatozoos and Eggs are so too, and they are quite dependent on the human being for sustenance. There are dependent organisms, so a fetus is alive.
Virus' case is different, no one has an idea if they're alive or not given how they're capable of doing some biological-like processes, but they're basically an encased chemical.
No it shouldn't, a life's more important than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If it's dependent on another's nutrients it's not alive.
It's the woman's life you're altering.
And the fetus isn't alive yet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And a fetus is a living being, it's an organism with biological processes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's without the characteristic of Independence and is therefore not alive.
Other things without this characteristic that are considered alive are not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I said, alive =/= independent, alive is being able to make biological processes.
So they are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No alive is having all seven of the characteristics.
Biological processes =/= alive.
7 characteristics = alive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Plus, looked for that "7 characteristics" thing, and it doesn't say they have to be independent from other organisms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nope, that's not the definition.
Biological processes = something's alive
And if one of the characteristics is independence, then defining life as having them all is wrong, given that there are living organisms (symbiotes, for example) that are not independent, yet are living beings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Independence is one of the 7 characteristics .
Atleast in all the books I've read.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh... Nope.
Seeing them from here [link]
And there's life in wikiepdia [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The funny thing is I'm looking at my old school books who all say that independence is a characteristic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That chances are it also could be outdated, since there is dependent life
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or perhaps european and american people differ on the seven characteristics?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No idea, they're out of the internet, but independence cannot be one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depending on who you ask.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which then would be a lack of consensus and objectification of what life is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People differ all the time anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But for a meaning to be consensual, it requires a large amount of likemindedness, and possibly an official being to approve it. In life's case, there are many differences, and there's no exact definition of what Life is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So technically in a paradoxial way we are both right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More like we don't know yet given the large amount of differences and that there are possible unknown factors that have to do with it too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Symbiotes can be, mutualism could be an example, and they're very much organisms, life =/= independence.
Over not ending a baby's.
A fetus is alive, already said why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Everyone has their own opinion and I respect yours 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>