But they are still NOT PERSONS by the criteria commonly listed! Why in the name of heaven and hell should location matter if you're human?

actually they are because people are BORN and able to sustain life without being inside of another person. and location does matter because the fetus pre-viability is living off the woman. without the woman, the fetus dies. NOTHING and NO ONE has the right to use another's body without their consent or against their will. would you like it if you were forced to be hooked up to another person for nine months? or forced to give a pint of blood every month for nine months? it's not just about the fact that the fetus is not a PERSON. it's also bodily domain.

And is there any GREATER violation of bodily domain than to have your body ripped to shreds because someone else finds you an inconvenience? Any at all? Especially when the person having you ripped to shreds is the one responsible, by her own actions and her own choices, for you being in her body in the first place? Admit the truth here, women who engage in consentual sex who get pregnant aren't kidnap victims. They aren't VICTIMS at all. They are people who took a chance and LOST and want someone else to pay the price for it.

Mind you, the law defined blacks as property and I do believe there were people back there who morally thought they were human. The defining factor of your choice seems to depend on not what the law defines as murder, but what the individual defines as murder.

A lot of people seem to want to justify the killing of a fetus with the fact that it cannot feel pain. Very well. A person that's knocked out also cannot feel pain. So would it be okay if I knocked someone out before I killed him or her?

Others also say that fetus aren't human. I don't think that we should be defining a human by how complete it is. As soon as it starts developing, its a human. The beginning of a human. But this is just another thing people can argue until their blue in the face. Its not a matter of facts, its a matter of morals.

I don't think its fair for two people to expriance pleasure at the expense of what I believe is a human. My personal belief is that the woman should go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption.

Its not like a virus that's forced on you for nine months. Its something you bring on yourself by not using protection, making a mistake, ect. You wanted the pleasure, you knew the risk, you did it anyways. You had your pleasure, now go deal with the risks. I don't believe someone else should miss out on life on the account of another person.

Although that brings me to the position of rape. I'm not quite yet sure where I stand on this, but if I ever figure it out, I'll come and tell everyone.

No, because for that being to be a someone means it must be living off of someone and requires it to be sentient and able to live and sustain for it's self. Not requiring the living life of someone else. It i not a sentient creature with it's own bodily domain, it's is a parasite that has to drag and take nutrients and life force from another living being. It's no worse than removing a tape worm from my system. Both of which is using my body with out my consent.

Untill it can survive on it's own, without the need of someone else body, until it is sentient and have nureons firing, and not in a womb, it's a parasite.

There's a difference because you didn't know that a tapeworm would be in your food at that moment. When having sex, you know that there's a good chance that you're going to have a baby. You knew about it, and you took the risk. Its like gambling. Just because you don't want to give your permission to your poker partner to take your money, you don't want to give your permission to the fetus to borrow your body. In both situations, you were aware of the good points and the bad points. You went for it, you got the bad part. You took the risk, you pay for it.

Not to mention that from my experience, babies don't endanger your life as much as tapeworms. >o>;

So people who have been in car accidents also don't deserve help, right? Because they knew the risk when they got in the car and of course they didn't consent to the accident, but they knew the risk, they do not require any help.

Just because there can be a chance of losing money/pregnancy/accident, and you take the nesscary precatuions condoms/BC/insurance/seat belts does not mean you should be denied help.

Sex is not consent to a pregnancy and having a parasite live off of my body for 9 months. Like a car accident, I may have chosen to get in the car/have sex, but I did not choose to get in a car accident/get pregnant.

And turning a pregnancy into a punishment, by making someone "pay for it" in you words, is not that way i wish to view, ever beign pregnant. it's a choice to be, and it should be a loving one, not to have to "pay for assuming a risk".

Eh, that would be a big fat no, Akasha. Fetuses don't even come close to the biological definition of parasite, as they are the same species as the host. http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

No, because people in car accidents have a rather large risk of losing their lives. And from the many successful babies and mothers out there I see, I'm afraid I can't believe that having a baby has a significant chance of killing you, unless you have a specific illness of some sort that may endanger the mother and/or child. Another situation where I haven't really found a standpoint.

I morally believe that one shouldn't have sex before one's ready to have a child. I've heard that it feels pretty damn good, but there's something so big attached to it. If you're really that desperate to have something up 'that area' use a coke bottle. (I didn't mean for this to sound offensive or vulgar, so I apologize ahead of time if it did.)

And yes. Pregnancy should be a loving choice for a couple. And if people could stand not having sex before being ready, it wouldn't have to be a 'punishment'.

So, according to you, one conjoined twin has the right to kill the other if the first can live without the second. Brilliant logic.

Also, for those you you citing all the ways carrying a baby to birth can hurt the woman, you forget the serious heath risks abortion gives women. The abortion itself poses a serious threat to her life, and if all the pieces of severed human life aren't removed, the woman can get a uterine infection that could kill her. Also, due to the fact that her body will continue to experience the normal pregnancy changes, such as lactation, even after the baby is long dead and gone, there is a very high risk of getting breast cancer and other health problems.

Akasha, the car accident analogy simply won't work when compared with pregnancy. If you're in a car accident and you have a broken leg or internal injuries, OF COURSE you're going to need medical attention! But unless something goes majorly wrong, you don't need medical attention during a pregnancy. An injury simply does not equal a pregnancy, no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way.

the only time the fetus is "ripped to shreds", is during a D&E, which is a late term abortion, which is also RARE. and is it the woman's fault her birth control failed or the condom broke? is it her fault she was raped? i don't think so. consent to sex IS NOT consent to motherhood. sorry.

when there are conjoined twins born, the parents have the right to have them separated. if they're not separated and survive and are able to make that choice, then they have that right as well. if one twin is sucking the life out of the other, that twin has the right to get separated. conjoined twins have nothing to do with abortion though. nice try. and pregnancy poses FAR more risks than abortion. here's proof

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

way to NOT get it. the car is the woman, the accident is the pregnancy. the treatment is the abortion. get it now?

See, evil kitten gets it.

As long as something is using my body without my concent, it's a parasite, regardless if it is the same genetic material as me or not.

Untill it has it's own body that will live and sustain it, the fetus rights do not superceed the womans right. Until the day comes where you can remove a fetus at any point and have it survive and come to full term, will an abortion be murder, till then it's not.

Also, sex is not just for procreating. There are millions of reason for human to have sex with each other, and not all of them for making children. In adult relationships, you can not have a long term and successful one without sex. One of the biggest downfalls in marriages later because lack of sex and intamacy. Sorry, but sex is needed and is not just for making babies.

And yes, children do not need to be punishments, but by saying one should have to pay for the risk's of sex makes them punishments Dystopia. Glad to know you hate these fetus's.

What is so hard about distinguishing a person from a fetus? A person does not lose their status as a person because they're in a coma. A fetus is not a person YET. You're comparing apples to oranges here.


The fetus is leeching nutrients off the mother and giving nothing in return. Last I checked, that's parasitism. It's obviously not LITERALLY a parasite.


In addition, the car analogy DOES work. It's just as Evil Kitten says. Say I was driving around without my seat belt, and I get injured in a crash. Was it stupid to be driving around without a seat belt? Yeah. But you're sure as hell not going to deny me medical treatment because I wasn't, were you?


@General Lee-- Yes, actually. If the second twin is leeching off the first and cannot live on its own, the parents can and will remove it. The twin is probably a newborn in this case, so they can't really decide for themselves.
If the twins can be completely separated, then there's no reason at all to kill the second.

I know. That's what I meant. It can't survive so it's not a murder.
I could never have an abortion but if I EVER found myself in that situatuon, I would use the magic moment theory. It think it's a way for some women to justify their abortion or just to keep them sane.

In the picture you can see just how "human" our little maggots are compered to other animals:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/text...embryo%201.jpg

The picture is quite big so just added the link.

I'm not that educated on pregnancy, so I'm not going to argue with you about fetal lung development. Instead I'm just going to ask, when are the lungs fully developed?

Btw, you tone isn't nice. Don't take me wrong, I'm here aswell to discuss about the matter at hand in a mature way. You seem to try to make others agree with you instead of giving them another point of view. Everybody has an opinion about this matter and we should all respect them not try to plant our way of thinking into their brain.

Studies have shown that human are not the only animal to have sex for other reasons than procreation. Dolphins have sex for pleasure just like us and there is a monkey species(can't remember the name) that says hello by havng sex. So we're not alone in this;)

So do flys.
Sperm is alive too! Should we ban jerking off so men don't kill millions of little maybe-babies? They swim and have a goal they got to be alive...:P

You guys are doing well with the discussion but let's make sure it doesn't get hostile, ok? Just a reminder.. :)

EvilKitten, I understood the analogy you were trying to make. I still must point out that it does not work, because injury =/= pregnancy. I'm not saying that being pregnant is a breeze, but unless you have a really severe complication (pre-eclampsia or ectopic pregnancy for example) you are NOT going to need medical treatment during a pregnancy. Therefore the analogy simply doesn't hold up. Look at it this way. If you broke your leg in an accident, would your first course of treatment be to amputate it?

I think that what Kitten ment wasn't staright forward. Pregnancy isn't a broken bone. When it's not planned, if you were raped, it's worse than a broken bone. In this case you should think of pregnancy the worst possible thing that could happen to you. If your father raped you and you got pregnant, I don't think you'd be so happy:shock: the point was bad=bad! Not good=bad, like you are thinking it.

Doubledaisy, the analogy still won't hold up. Okay, let's say you were in a car accident and were totally uninjured, but you were trapped inside the car (which is much more in line with the average pregnancy). The emergency crew shows up and they can get you immediately with the Jaws of Life or you can wait for an hour until a locksmith shows up that can jimmy the lock, or you can break a window and get out yourself. BUT! If you choose to have the crew get you out or break the window, an innocent bystander will die, no exceptions. What will you do?

A fetus isn't an innocent by staner, it's not even a human. That analogy would work Red Calypso if the fetus was developed into a full term baby and was alive. It's more like, a few hundred bacteria die. Not a living, breathing, function without a human body for support, creature. Not a parasite that will one day, maybe, be a human. Not the potiental to be a human.

I mean you kill more lifes when you use eythonal fuel and buy a pair of nike shoes.