Here Is An Interesting Scenario

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:40 pm

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:01 pm

I just can't believe that we are discussing whether it is right to kill a child or not. What direction is our world going to? It makes me very sad that a woman would be so selfish as to kill a baby because she just didn't want the hassle.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:51 pm

Corvus:

Even the "unviable" blastocyst is life. It is teeming with living cells dividing and dividing. And you cannot argue that it is part of the mother's body and therefore her right to terminate the life, because it has it's own set of chromosomes!

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:43 pm

*BUMP*

Scenario:

Bob is at his house one evening, thinks it's a bit stuffy in the room and opens a window to let some fresh air in.

Later, a thief comes by, sees the open window, gets into the house and steals most of Bob's stuff.

The thief is later captured by the police, with Bob's stuff in his possession.

Since the thief did not forcibly open the window, is it acceptable for the police to forbid Bob from coming to get his stuff back?

If such a thing is not acceptable then why is it acceptable for the government to forbid a woman from having an abortion on the basis that she was not "forced" to risk becoming pregnant?

Any answers to this or not?

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:02 pm

Scenario:

Bob is at his house one evening, thinks it's a bit stuffy in the room and opens a window to let some fresh air in.

Later, a thief comes by, sees the open window, gets into the house and steals most of Bob's stuff.

The thief is later captured by the police, with Bob's stuff in his possession.

Since the thief did not forcibly open the window, is it acceptable for the police to forbid Bob from coming to get his stuff back?

If such a thing is not acceptable then why is it acceptable for the government to forbid a woman from having an abortion on the basis that she was not "forced" to risk becoming pregnant?

First of all... this is not the same as a woman becoming pregnant for a couple of different reasons...

#1 Bob left the window open not thinking that someone is going to come by looking to steal his 'stuff'. It is not a natural assumption that if some one comes by the open window they are automatically going to rob the place. A woman who lays down with a man personally invites pregnancy because that is NATURES reason for sexual intercourse. Bob did nothing to personally invite the thief in. Unless he yelled out the window that he was leaving his window open so if anyone wants to steal anything they can. Then I would say that Bob was an idiot and got what was coming to him.

#2 This analogy is disturbing because you compare a human life to 'stuff' that can be replaced. A human life cannot be replaced.

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:20 pm

The government cannot legally force someone to give blood to save another person, nor can it legally force someone to give a life saving organ to another. Why should the government be allowed to force a woman to give nine months of her life to a fetus, especially with all the added emotional trauma and pain?

And why is it that society is more concerned with each individual woman and what she does with her uterus, than they are with the millions of children in orphanages and people living on the streets?

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:26 pm

The fetus is not part of the mother.

It is a living organism with it's own set of chromosomes.

Therefore, once she's pregnant, the mother CAN'T act on the new ORGANISM, not organ, inside of her.

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:32 pm

Parasite: an organism that grows and feeds in or on another organism without benefiting the host organism. Most parasites are harmless, but some are deadly.

A fetus in a woman's body is a parasite.

tcay584 · Post by **tcay584** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:41 pm

Spongemom,
Gosh, just think....you used to be a parasite. Your complete and total disrespect for human life...including your own if you are, and you must be, referring to your own ignoble beginnings....is astounding.

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:44 pm

tcay584 wrote:Spongemom,
Gosh, just think....you used to be a parasite. Your complete and total disrespect for human life...including your own if you are, and you must be, referring to your own ignoble beginnings....is astounding.

Everyone used to be a parasite. And if you had been aborted, you'd have never known it.

I don't have "complete and total disrepect for human life". I simply believe that women should have control over what does or does not happen inside their bodies.

I believe that a woman has absolute authority over her body. No one else has a right to tell a woman she MUST give birth simply because she became pregnant. It is her body and she is the one who gets to chose what happens to it. It is just that simple.

I do not believe there is a moral obligation to potential life to the extent that it over shadows the moral obligation to existing life on the individual basis. But I do think that is true on the global level. Do I think we need to preserve and protect the earth to assure the continual existence of not only our species but all species? Yes. Do I think that applies on an individual basis, that every woman who becomes pregnant needs to give birth? No. Unfortunately we seem to have it backwards these days. We are less concerned with the long term survival of the planet and it's resourses and more concerned with each individual woman and what she does with her body.

I do not think getting pregnant is a miracle, it's just the normal course of events for all mammals. It's no more miraculous than a snake laying a hundred eggs. It's the way of life.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:48 pm

Do you realize at leat an entire generation has been aborted?

If you are so much for procuring the survival of our planet, explain where our tax money, world leaders, doctors and scientists are going to come from?