Nezdragon
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Over there.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There are no babies in an abortion.Nez Dragon said:I keep thinking about abortion, and the idea just popped in my head.
Why not, instead of just kill aborted babies, use them for stem cell research?
shuamort said:[Mod Note]
I've updated the title of this thread to be more descriptive.
[/Mod Note]
There are no babies in an abortion.
An embryo or a fetus (mostly embryos). "Baby" is a developmental stage that begins at birth, not before birth.Nez Dragon said:Could you please, then, specify what is in an abortion?
steen said:An embryo or a fetus (mostly embryos). "Baby" is a developmental stage that begins at birth, not before birth.
steen said:There are no babies in an abortion.
And stemcells come from in-vitro-fertilization. The stem cells are extracted long before the developmental stages that are present from an abortion.
I don't. It is not my decision any more than it is my decision when people get any other medical procedure. It is up to the patient and the physician, not anybody else.Nez Dragon said:So then, when is it considered wrong to abort? At what time do you draw the line and say "this cannot be aborted"?
Well, a human 'being" doesn' exist until the umbilical cord is clamped. Again, that has nothing to do with the right to an abortion anyway.When can you make the distinction between a mass of cells and a thinking, living human being?
All of which are reflexes and thus irrelevant to the issue of sentiense, which presumably you are driving at here.Do you stop when the 'fetus' starts moving in the womb? When he/she starts responding to sounds (such as familiar voices) & light changes outside the womb? When it starts sucking its thumb? Hiccuping? Or when it kicks?
Your claim fails to make sense. Its status, its level of being "alive" has nothing to do with what you call it. Calling it a fetus or an embryo doesn't make it any less "alive." I am not sure where you got that bizzare idea from?Or do you just ignore this and call it a fetus so it sounds less alive.
Agreed. Politics have no business in people's personal health care.kal-el said:It is indeed a crime against humanity to allow children to be born who will suffer all their lives, whose life expectancy is real short, and whose care places an enormous burden on society. All this pain could have been easily avoided- abortion. I think that the real danger is that research such as stem cells, with enormous potential benefits are supressed mostly because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. These same objections were raised against autopsies, anesteasia, artificial insemination, and the whole gentetic revolution of our day, but big time benefits have come from each of these.
A view of human nature rooted in our mystical past should not be our first criteria for making decisions about these things.
Well, a human 'being" doesn' exist until the umbilical cord is clamped. Again, that has nothing to do with the right to an abortion anyway.
Your claim fails to make sense. Its status, its level of being "alive" has nothing to do with what you call it. Calling it a fetus or an embryo doesn't make it any less "alive." I am not sure where you got that bizzare idea from?
To me, it simply is just another medical procedure, nothing else. And that is so regardless of whether you call it an embryo, fetus, baby, child, person, or uncle. It is all the same non-sentient tissue. And it still doesn't have the right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will. YOU certainly doesn't have such a right, so obviously the non-sentient tissue should have even less rights.
kal-el said:It is indeed a crime against humanity to allow children to be born who will suffer all their lives, whose life expectancy is real short, and whose care places an enormous burden on society. All this pain could have been easily avoided- abortion. I think that the real danger is that research such as stem cells, with enormous potential benefits are supressed mostly because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. These same objections were raised against autopsies, anesteasia, artificial insemination, and the whole gentetic revolution of our day, but big time benefits have come from each of these.
A view of human nature rooted in our mystical past should not be our first criteria for making decisions about these things.
That has nothing to do with abortions. Your emotional propaganda doesn't match reality. So don't claim that it has "everything to do with it." It still isn't a baby or a person until it is born. It still isn't an individual until the umbilical cord is clamped/cut. (Oh, and as for your STUPID analogy, per being born, it is a person, and therefore it would be murder. Now stupid hypotheticals without foundation in reality are just that, STUPID!!)Nez Dragon said:It has everything to do with it. If a man were to chop the head off of a born baby whose cord had not been severed yet, would it be murder?
But that is the problem. It DOESN'T sound less alive. YOU may have decided that it sounds less alive if you use the proper descriptor of "fetus" instead of the emotional hyperbole of calling it "baby." But REALITY is that there is no difference in how "alive" it "sounds."I said "sounds", not "is". I was saying that calling it a fetus just makes it sound less alive.
Well, it wouldn't be. If there was a medical indication for me as a patient to have my brain removed, then that is indeed what it it would be, just a medical procedure. Why would you think it was any different.I could say that removing your brains right now is a medical procedure, nothing else.
Ah, more hyperbole. Nice try of making stupid claims about what is typical. Couldn't you at least be honest when making claims?It's what we do to fetuses anyway, so what's the difference?
The exact moment is unknown. But we know for sure that it is not happening before the 26th week of pregnancy.When does it become sentient then?
"invented"? More hyperbole. women are having sex for the purpose they are having sex, not for the purpose YOU ascribe them. If they are having sex just to have sex, thent hat is the purpose. You have no business telling them why they ought to be doing things. They have their life to live, it is not your life to live through them.If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway?
And maybe they should. It is not your business to tell people why they should be having sex.If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex.
And people shopuld just stop doing all the things that are bad for them and we wouldn't have to treat them for it. NEWSFLASH: It is noen of your business how others live their lives. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
Nez Dragon said:What pain? Who are these children being born who will suffer all their lives?
Nez Dragon said:If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway? If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex. Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?