::sigh:: I'm tired of hearing people say that a baby is…

I would do anything	to make the baby laugh

About this Entry
Posted by: Riftsong Original: 6/2/2009 10:45 PM Views: 48 Comments: 11 eProps: 10 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: mathematicalbagpiper MaxRebo NetworkingWitches demonsthenes13 Donegalbound

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

	::sigh:: I'm tired of hearing people say that a baby is not alive until it's born.
	Posted 6/2/2009 10:45 PM - 48 Views - 10 eProps - 11 comments recommend recs0 share email sent0 Give eProps or Post a Comment

11 Comments

Visit mathematicalbagpiper's Xanga Site!

I agree with that, however, I'm still pro-choice. Unfortunately I believe it's a necessary evil in this world.

Posted 6/2/2009 10:51 PM by

mathematicalbagpiper

- reply

I know, it gets to me, too.

@abilene_piper_lg - I'm pro-human. Do I understand you correctly: Abortion is a necessary evil, even though the baby is alive? I've heard that, in utero, the baby isn't alive, that it isn't a baby, or that it isn't human, but I don't think I've heard your particular angle stated quite like that before. Could you elaborate?

Posted 6/3/2009 9:31 AM by MaxRebo - reply

@MaxRebo -

Unfortunately catastrophic things do happen. Rape and incest come to mind. Also, ectopic pregnancies though rare are not unheard of. In the ideal world, abortion would never have to take place, and anyone will tell you that whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. However, women get raped. Eggs implant in the fallopian tube. It's a tough choice, mind you, however, I know what it's like to be an unwanted child. It's not a fun situation. I always also say this: if you're so pro-life, go out there and adopt every one of the millions of children waiting to be adopted. Lastly, this is a weak argument I know, but we have to be mindful of overpopulation. Of course, with reasonable limits on family size (which really need to be put into place), this situation wouldn't necessarily require abortion to enforce.

Posted 6/3/2009 9:40 AM by

mathematicalbagpiper

- reply

@abilene_piper_lg -

-

I hope we can agree that propagation of the human race is important and that the primary reason for sex is this propagation. And you already subscribe to the fact that an unborn baby is alive, so up to this point, I believe we're on the same page.

I would argue that conception is the beginning of a contract. The terms are for the parent to nurture and care for the new person until such time as that person is able to care for himself or is transferred to the care of another willing party. Conception is the direct result of a willful act. For millenia, people have been having sex and getting pregnant, so it is logical that it should happen again. To engage in sex is to open the door to possible pregnancy; it is to imply consent in entering such a contract. Do you believe in honoring contracts? Do you believe in the existence of human rights, and if so, is one of them the right to one's life (implying the right to not have one's life forcibly taken away)?

Granted, this gets muddy when you consider rape and incest; the act is still willful, but it may only be one party's will. In these cases, pregnancy is often treated as a malignancy, an unwanted byproduct. Even so, does one act against a person's rights (a person raped) justify another act against a person's rights (a person killed)? The whole thing appears quite unfair to everybody involved, but the question remains.

I'll withhold comment on some of your other statements for now. I hope my words don't sound sarcastic; I simply want to be clear and not assume things.

Posted 6/3/2009 10:54 PM by MaxRebo - reply

@MaxRebo -

I *slightly* disagree here, and this is probably because you've been taught by your religion to believe that sex is for procreation, not recreation. Since I don't adhere to religion nor do I believe in a deity, I have a little more flexibility here. I personally believe that sex serves that purpose and the purpose of pleasure. It's proven that sex is good for the heart, so it's also a healthy act when care is used. So to say those parts of sex are secondary is not an accurate statement in my eyes.

Truth of the matter is that MOST women who seek abortion were using some form of contraception at the time (most of which are about 99% effective). That's a slip through the crack type of thing. For the record, I would never advise someone to choose an abortion, however, ALL parasites are indeed living things, and effectively, a fetus is a parasite. Essentially, I as a man have no right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, or an extension of her body. Hence I'm pro-choice, though I do not advocate abortion. I think the large reason we have so many teenage abortions and teenage pregnancies is our poor sex education. Abstinence-only education fails.

Where life begins may be one thing, but where personhood begins is entirely another debate and one I do not wish to get involved in, so I stay out of that one. However, legal or not, a woman seeking an abortion will obtain one. I would prefer to keep it to where you're not putting a woman at too much risk. I don't want to go back to the days of coathangers and alleyways.

Posted 6/3/2009 11:17 PM by

mathematicalbagpiper

- reply

@abilene_piper_lg - Sex for procreation has nothing inherently to do with religion. It's indisputable biology. But, yes, recreation and health are also factors, though I would say recreation is more of a purpose whereas health is more of a benefit. Recreation can be obtained in many ways, even sensually without the sexual act itself. And health can also be promoted in many ways completely separate from sex. But procreation can happen through no other natural means. Hence, procreation must be the primary reason. Everything else is secondary (however close recreation might be as a second).

I'm confused from your statements as to whether 99%-effective contraception or abstinence-only education is to blame for teenage pregnancy and abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute's report of 2005 data (the most recent available), 22% of pregnancies ended in abortion (specific methods not specified), and that's 1.2 million abortions. Isn't that on the same order of fatalities as an epidemic? And yet abortion -- ending of human life, even if we don't call that life a person -- is predominantly by choice. If MOST women seeking abortion used contraception, MOST of which is 99% effective, how does that lead to such widespread abortion?

I'd still like to hear what you think about human rights, since obviously the fetus (however parasitic it may be temporarily) is human.

Posted 6/4/2009 9:36 AM by MaxRebo - reply

@MaxRebo -

At the same time, half of all fertilized eggs (zygotes) never implant, and even more end in miscarriage, so over half of TOTAL pregnancies are aborted by natural means. Can't argue with those facts now can you? So now what are you going to do, blame your "God" for those "natural abortions?"

Yes, abortion is widespread and contraception is not 100% effective. I think of abortion as sort of a safety net in that regard, however, please note that I don't ever advocate it. Being pro-choice does NOT mean I support the procedure. I believe you're confusing the terms pro-choice and pro-abortion. They do NOT mean the same thing.

I told you I'm not getting in on when a fetus becomes human. I'm not so sure as even I know where I stand on that. However, the tadpole-looking thing that's normally aborted (i.e. early term abortion when a vast majority of abortions take place) I don't think is quite human yet. Where life begins is one thing, where humanity begins is a totally different thing.

Posted 6/4/2009 9:45 AM by

mathematicalbagpiper

- reply

@abilene_piper_lg - I never said I recognize a deity. Death by accidental (unexpected trauma) or natural (failure to implant) means can hardly be classified with a conscious decision to abort.

I have to agree abortion may be necessary in the case of ectopic pregnancies as you mentioned previously. But even that is not simply termination of a life. That is a matter of one life that's going to die anyway and whether the mother will suffer or even die as well. In Confined Space training where I work, they teach us that when a coworker is overcome by oxygen-deficiency in such a space, you don't go in after him unless you are specially trained and equipped with apparatus to do so. It is senseless for a second person to die. Though I would have to defer to the mother's right to refuse treatment if she so choose, because it is her life that is in question, not the child's.

There may be a hair-splitting distinction between "human" and "person," and I'm not clear on that myself. But I can say that "human" is a species. To say even a zygote is not human is inaccurate, because it can't be anything else but human. Without asking you to decide whether a zygote is human or not, may I ask you this hypothetical: If the new life that exists from the moment of conception (which you haven't denied) were human, would it deserve the basic rights we attribute to humans living outside the womb? Maybe this way we can separate the question of "what is human" from the question of "what a human's right is."

And, by the way, I appreciate the discussion. I don't want to beat things into the ground just because. Rather, I think this is a very important topic that warrants the attention.

Posted 6/4/2009 11:06 AM by MaxRebo - reply

ditto, I'm pro life and I'm tired of people saying the pro lifers wanted Dr. Tiller dead. If you are pro life you are pro live and that means to doctors as well.

Posted 6/4/2009 9:50 PM by NetworkingWitches - reply

@NetworkingWitches -

Considering Dr. Tiller's usual work included abortions after 26 weeks, and quite a few of those abortions were partial birth abortions (smash the head, chop off the arms and legs, pull dismembered carcass from vagina and get rid of evidence) those who killed him didn't do it right. It would've been just to smash in his head, chop off his arms and legs, and throw his dismembered carcass in a trash can as well.

Posted 6/5/2009 5:16 AM by demonsthenes13 - reply

This is a great discussion. I appreciate the presentation of facts without the emotional rantings that normally accompany them. It seems to me that a fertilized human egg is clearly of the human species from conception and the real question is whether, as such, he/she has any human rights. If not, at what point do these rights apply?

Posted 6/9/2009 7:25 AM by Donegalbound - reply

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)