bickelz
BOINK
- MBTI
- infj
- Enneagram
- 4w5
and no I'm not an enfp.
Lol. What's wrong with enfp's?
and no I'm not an enfp.
stop calling it a fetus. that is a baby and now one has the right to kill it. would you kill a three year old child and call it ok just because it reminded you of someone you hate(like if you were raped) or your tired of taking care of it? its the same thing.
i know i'm getting to emotional, but i really don't understand the difference between an unborn 'fetus' and a new born baby. and if not being fully developed means its ok to discard the 'fetus', then why isn't it ok to kill mentally handicapped people, or blind people, or even a pre mature baby?
yes but how is the unborn different from the born? the born were at one time not yet born. so whats the difference besides that?
but there are handicapped people who would not survive on their own. and i don't see how just because it can't live on its own that makes it inhuman
i didn't say because of how it looks, i said because it reminds you of someone you don't like (that can actually be a reason why parents abuse their children, stupid as that seems).
i don't think its a fetus. it is alive, just not born yet. i don't see how it can go from fetus to baby.
i hate to argue..this is a touchy subject. i like to be open minded and hear other points of view, buts its hard to listen and not fight back when you feel strongly about something. i'm sure you know what i mean. i think i'm going to go cool off. no hard feelings?
Part of me wonders if the legislature is trying to make a point instead of actually getting passed.
I'm completely confused how someone could classify a fetus as not a human being. Humans continue to change in physical form and ability all their lives. The argument that a fetus is just a cluster of cells also kind of ridiculous, you at this very moment are a cluster of cells.
I don't think it is not a human being, if you're referring to me.
Part of me wonders if the legislature is trying to make a point instead of actually getting passed.
I'm completely confused how someone could classify a fetus as not a human being. Humans continue to change in physical form and ability all their lives. The argument that a fetus is just a cluster of cells also kind of ridiculous, you at this very moment are a cluster of cells.
I'm not directing this at you wifey, so don't freak out, this just kind of reminded me of my opinion on this.
I don't get how like what I was never very clear on is when the baby is a fetus who has custody of the kid? And like...I am so very confused about that.
no, no, I know I just haven't been in any debates on this forum for a while. I figured I'd jump on in.
Also,does anyone think this is less of a "I want to kill doctors"move and more of a "I want people's attention move"?(the bill that is)
No clue. I was just appalled at seeing that, I didn't understand how anyone could jump to that conclusion unless they were extremely emotionally affected by something, of which case, they shouldn't be creating bills in moments of such high emotions, they ought to let their head clear before making decisions like that.
i know i'm getting to emotional, but i really don't understand the difference between an unborn 'fetus' and a new born baby. and if not being fully developed means its ok to discard the 'fetus', then why isn't it ok to kill mentally handicapped people, or blind people, or even a pre mature baby?
but there are handicapped people who would not survive on their own. and i don't see how just because it can't live on its own that makes it inhuman
I don't think it is, at least not in the sense that a viable human being needs to be. you take away the mother and it doesn't have life. It's still human, it has all the necessary things in order to become a human. But at the exact same time, it's not the same as you, or me or whoever else is looking at this thread.i don't think its a fetus. it is alive, just not born yet. i don't see how it can go from fetus to baby.
I think that a child that is kept beyond the cut off point for an abortion should have rights. However when it comes down to who's rights are more important, the mother or the fetus, I believe that since the mother is most definitely a fully developed human by everyone's viewpoint, the law should protect her rights. It is her body, her body that is necessary for keeping the child alive, and it should be her choice if she wants to make that commitment.ot you specifically, it's just the most common argument I've heard. The logic being that if it isn't human yet it doesn't have rights.
I agree. There are just too many people who feel that abortions should be legal for this to pass. It's not a clear cut thing.ddly enough, this isn't the strangest/dumbest thing I've seen in the news recently... Like what seems to be the general consensus on this thread, I doubt the thing will get passed. If it does, it'll probably be ruled as unconstitutional and revoked from law fairly quickly...
Because we're not a fetus. By my own moral definition, I am a human being. a 3 month old fetus is not, at least not by my standards. it's a human fetus. there's a difference. I regard the act of abortion as a necessary part of society.
So it's human, but not a person, why?(by your definition, which isn) also why is it necessary?
you're moral definition may well be different. however this is just the point. Your moral standing says you're against abortions. fine. don't have one. I'm not forcing you. but the moment you force me not to have one, you're forcing me to subscribe to a set of beliefs and morals that are not mine.
I also force you adhere to my moral standards when you decide that you'd like to put an end to my life for some inconvenient reason why is that different?
it doesn't make it inhuman, that's a silly statement. It makes it a human fetus with the potential of becoming a fully developed human, at least by my beliefs it does. you believe differently, and that's fine, but don't force others into some form of moral standpoint that they don't hold.
Above, we live in a world were moral standpoints have to be enforced.
and...can we stop using blind people as an example? I keep looking over my shoulder to see if there's some guy in a uniform with an axe trying to assess if I'm human or not...lol!
Okay, how about someone under developed
I don't think it is, at least not in the sense that a viable human being needs to be. you take away the mother and it doesn't have life. It's still human, it has all the necessary things in order to become a human. But at the exact same time, it's not the same as you, or me or whoever else is looking at this thread.
you not the same as two year old child, which while if you take it's mother it ceases to have a life.
I think that a child that is kept beyond the cut off point for an abortion should have rights. However when it comes down to who's rights are more important, the mother or the fetus, I believe that since the mother is most definitely a fully developed human by everyone's viewpoint, the law should protect her rights. It is her body, her body that is necessary for keeping the child alive, and it should be her choice if she wants to make that commitment.
As far as I'm concerned if the mother committed to having sex that lead to her having the child, she is at that point responsible for the child.(this does not include abuse, rape, incest or any other form of trauma) If at some point during the pregnancy the mothers life is endangered medically, she then has the option to abort.
I agree. There are just too many people who feel that abortions should be legal for this to pass. It's not a clear cut thing.