Politics And Breast Cancer - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**151** 02-03-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

It's a ploy. Those 'defenseless' 4 cells are an excuse for men imposing control on women.

If you look at abortion, birth control and homosexuality, there is a common trait. NO OFFSPRING. That means fewer suckers for the religion. Do you wonder why religion forbids them? Smaller group = less clout.

davidmash · #**152** 02-03-2012, 07:36 PM

Killing to maintain a life style? A bit simplistic but what ever floats your boat. What does that have to do with animal rights verses reproductive rights?

Animal rihts the ay I see it is the position that animals should not be used for testing (especially when other more reliable methods are available) because they are sentient living (born) beings. This especially applies to high life forms such as primates and mammals.

Reproductive rights as I see it is the position of whether or not a woman should have absolute control over her body and what she does with it.

I do not see any over lap. Perhaps you have different definitions.

Dubyagee · #**153** 02-03-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

So you are OK with abortion prior to a heart beat?

I don't claim to know when life starts. No one on the planet knows this. I personally consider stopping a beating heart an issue.

Here comes the "What about Comas and brain dead patients?" I believe that's up to each individual situation. It really has nothing to do with this issue.

aklim · #**154** 02-03-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I agree! She can do whatever she wants with HER body. It's the murder of her unborn child that concerns me.

Fine, you host the fetus then. Sorry but if it is her house, it is her rules.

aklim · #**155** 02-03-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Yes, that's correct. I also have a problem with murdering a defenseless being. Whether it is legal or not is up to the voting public. Whether it is right or not is a persons personal opinion. I'm sure it's not difficult to figure out my opinion on the subject.

Whether it is more than a blob of cells is unproven at this time so it is an opinion not fact.

davidmash · #**156** 02-03-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

I don't claim to know when life starts. No one on the planet knows this. I personally consider stopping a beating heart an issue.

Here comes the "What about Comas and brain dead patients?" I believe that's up to each individual situation. It really has nothing to do with this issue.

You said you had an issue with stopping a beating heart. Why make that distinction if it does not matter to you? I think it is fairly obvious to most here that life starts at conception. The difference is some say so what and others do not.

You made the distinction. Does it matter or not? If not why did you make it?

aklim · #**157** 02-03-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

When it has a heartbeat I have a problem. But bingo with minimizing the obvious.

What sort of heartbeat? From a 2 chamber heart or 4? Why a heartbeat? When you die, they do all kinds of things still. The heart is an old standard.

kerry · #**158** 02-03-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

I don't claim to know when life starts. No one on the planet knows this. I personally consider stopping a beating heart an issue.

Here comes the "What about Comas and brain dead patients?" I believe that's up to each individual situation. It really has nothing to do with this issue.

Why doesn't the same criteria apply to a fetus--no heartbeat, abortion ok? And why wouldn't it be up to each situation when it comes to abortion?

MTI · #**159** 02-03-2012, 07:41 PM

"killing to maintain a lifestyle" . . . sweet. Sums up what drives those women, in your mind, I take it. Of course it conjurs up a cavalier, selfish, negative portait of another human being . . . convenient, effective.

davidmash · #**160** 02-03-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

"killing to maintain a lifestyle" . . . sweet. Sums up what drives those women, in your mind, I take it. Of course it conjurs up a cavalier, selfish, negative portait of another human being . . . convenient, effective.

I certainly know my wife did not fall into that category.

aklim · #**161** 02-03-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

I don't claim to know when life starts. No one on the planet knows this. I personally consider stopping a beating heart an issue.

Here comes the "What about Comas and brain dead patients?" I believe that's up to each individual situation. It really has nothing to do with this issue.

Fair enough but are you saying that I can destroy your brain and keep your heart beating and therefore you are alive?

How so?

Dubyagee · #**162** 02-03-2012, 07:52 PM

It is a personal opinion of mine I thought i made clear. I, myself, associate a heartbeat with life. Some believe in brain activity, others in cell division.

But back on track, if life begins at conception how can another decide to end it?

kerry · #**163** 02-03-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

It is a personal opinion of mine I thought i made clear. I, myself, associate a heartbeat with life. Some believe in brain activity, others in cell division.

But back on track, if life begins at conception how can another decide to end it?

Now you're changing your tune. A few posts ago life meant having a heartbeat, now it just means being conceived. Which is it?

davidmash · #**164** 02-03-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

It is a personal opinion of mine I thought i made clear. I, myself, associate a heartbeat with life. Some believe in brain activity, others in cell division.

But back on track, if life begins at conception how can another decide to end it?

You made the distinction. If you do not agree with abortion prior to a heart beat then why make the distinction?

Just because life begins at some point or another does not negate the fact that the 'life' cannot sustain it's self out side of the mother up until a certain point. That point is a moving target related to the advancement of medical technology. At this point though, I think we are still looking at anything prior to 4 months being not viable.

Since the fetus is dependent on the, the mother gets to make the decision of what happens in her body. I am not in favor or granting a fetus greater rights than that of it's host.

kerry · #**165** 02-03-2012, 08:07 PM

Being a person means having autonomy. That's the basis of democracy.
Women are persons.
No one has a duty to reproduce
Everyone has a right to control whether or not they reproduce
2 cells lack autonomy
4 cells lack autonomy
A 6 month fetus lacks autonomy
The line between a person and a non-person cannot be clearly drawn
Women's sexuality used to be controlled by men. Women were property and spousal rape wasn't a crime.
To be a moral agent requires one have freedom to exercise one's will.
A fetus is dependent on the will of the pregnant women
Existence is gratuitous--none of us had the right to demand of our mothers that they bring us into existence.
With the exception of pregnancy and abortion, the government does not require us to use our internal organs to the benefit of another. No one is coerced by the government to donate a kidney for example.
Pregnancy is an onerous and medically risky state of being
Men put 2 minutes into reproduction
A pregnant woman puts at least 5000 hrs into reproduction
The State should stay out of reproductive and abortion decisions
Women should make the decisions about whether or not to reproduce.
A freely given decision to reproduce can be freely rescinded at any time