Seems like you're trying to insinuate a point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
When you have to run to a dictionary to prove your point, you've already conceded your point.
People cannot give rights in the USA. You're thinking of Europe where humans grant rights. Heroin is not good. That's what I think.
If you don't love the baby you aren't taking care of it properly. With babies its not simple feeding or diapering or napping. Love is required, not only because of the "many responsibilities" but because of the baby intrinsically needing actual love. Adults need love, but babies need it for survival and mental development.
Is it right to take a baby away from the mother? I think you want to talk about it in the special condition you provide about mothers strung out on heroin. It doesn't change that a baby needs love, and it can come from another caregiver. Babies will also stimulate us to love them, so its not that hard to do. If a parent is difficult a baby will learn how best to obtain loving responses. Babies do this instinctively which psychologists call it a survival strategy often resulting in CPTSD. That's why some are against Ferberizing babies (a method of helping them learn to self sooth).
Mothers strung out on heroin are probably going to cause problems for the baby.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Pawpatrol
Active Member
But you don't think that the baby has any "right" to not have it at that time.
Love is an emotion. A caregiver can certainly care for a person without loving them. Usually love comes along when it comes to babies but there is no reason to think that love is necessary in order to take care of a baby. Not loving a baby doesn't mean the caregiver doesn't fulfill the baby's basic needs (unless love is counted as one).
Sure love is important, but lack of it doesn't automatically mean game over. And there are plenty of terrible mothers who do love their children.
If she doesn't take care of her baby's basic needs, then yes. Of course.
McBell
Unbound
When you refuse to provide a definition you have lost yours.
Now I can not help but wonder what the general consensus will be as to who is the biggest loser here:
your off the wall definition that you flat refuse to support
or
my definition that was supported in the very post it was presented in.
McBell
Unbound
McBell
Unbound
Define right.
I ask because you seem to be thinking that your rights are to be forced upon you whether you want them or not.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
What makes it a human being?
Your definition says that a human being is an individual. That isn't an individual. It has no consciousness. It has no identity.
McBell
Unbound
It is not an individual?
Just how many do you think it is?
And why did you use "that" instead of "those" and "it" instead of "them"?
Seems that an unfertilized egg and a sperm cell on their own both also meet your definition of "person".
Both are not only individuals, but unique individuals. Both are human.
... and both are alive (though this wasn't explicitly in your definition).
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
If you track individual -> person -> the personality of a human being : self
So is that a self as in the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person?
McBell
Unbound
Interesting how you completely ignore my replies except to use them as launching points for more tomfoolery.
Is this a person?
So no more replies to you until AFTER you get caught up.
McBell
Unbound
My presented definition does do that.
So you agree that an embryo is a "person" in a similar sense to an unfertilized egg... but you aren't arguing for rights for the egg (or are you?).
This seems inconsistent.
McBell
Unbound
If you were being consistent, you would be arguing for similar treatment - legal or ethical - of unfertilized eggs, sperm, and embryos.
... unless you don't consider your definition of "personhood" to have a bearing on treatment of a thing. Is that the case?
I'm with the majority here. The issue isn't whether one should have an abortion or not, but who makes that decision - the pregnant woman (some add "and her doctor," but I don't agree with that) or the church using the power of the state to force an unwanted birth. That's pretty easy for me. B.
Also, the ethics of abortion don't change with language. You can call a fetus a person, a human being, a baby, a child, or anything else. Those words don't make it go from unethical to ethical for me. Just the stage of gestation.
Nor does calling legal abortion murder change anything.
And I'm not "for abortion." I'm for freedom of choice. I would prefer that nobody ever wanted or had an elective abortion (one not for medical reasons) or an unwanted pregnancy, but that doesn't matter and that won't happen. I prefer that when that happens, the woman charts her course, not Christian theocrats.
I've never been the father in an unwanted pregnancy and so never recommended or tried to talk somebody out of an abortion or had a fetus I helped conceive be aborted.
I was a physician, but never participated in or witnessed an abortion, and wouldn't want to.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Its a medical procedure and why she got it is absolutely none of our business.
It's her body and her body alone that must do it, with the risk of permanent injury and death.
Parenthood should be forced on no one.