Very true. No one questioned the sperm or egg before they got started. ^_^ But it was by choice of our mother (and father) that we are here.
Then I assume you are against removing tumors, as they are life too? Right? Potential amputees should be required to deal with gangrene rather than remove that lump of cells?
dylan, one of my son's friends was just arguing with my son that a "kid" should stay with its parents until age 25, when the "frontal cortex" is fully developed. Since I got my own pad before I was 19, I suggested that perhaps the frontal cortex (frontal lobe?) can still develop outside of the bosom of the family unit. Perhaps a subject for another thread someday.
I guess it depends on what you qualify as life. You can have much of your brain taken out and your heart will keep on beating. I myself wouldn't consider that being alive in a fully human sense. Their is a visceral attraction to the idea of a beating heart as a sign of life but as a thinking being I wouldn't consider that human life. My own standard is when does consciousness begin. I admit to not knowing when that is but I have hard time believing that an undifferentiated clump of cells is conscious.
If we went to a flower store, and I offered to sell you a dozen barely erupted buds for the same price as a dozen beautiful red roses, would you agree that they are both the same thing and that the woody, green stems are equal to fully grown roses?
You musta missed where I said that if the mother or child becomes at risk then it should be aborted. Tumors would therefore be a risk to the host.
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#999999"><br/><a style="font: Verdana" href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2748877">Soul Man (LIVE) by The Blues Brothers</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=2748877,t=1,mt=video"/><embed src="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=2748877,t=1,mt=video" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed></object><br/><a style="font: Verdana" href="http://www.myspace.com/arspiresii">Ray</a> | <a style="font: Verdana" href="http://vids.myspace.com">MySpace Video</a></font>
What about people like tree man? Those tumors were in no way life threatening. You are therefore in favor of forcibly preventing cosmetic surgery for him?
We are a lump of cells that is highly differentiated, can both ingest nutrients and oxygen on our own, and display thought.
Your equating not fully bloomed roses with bloomed roses from the same store. You're right, I'd choose the pretty bloomed ones. But that doesn't equate with what we're discussing. Those flowers are one day going to be bloomed flowers. What's better is :: I buy seeds to plant my garden so that I can grow fruit and flowers and vegetables.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tGXzgpKw6fI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tGXzgpKw6fI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I have no idea at all what you are saying. You've completely left the analogy behind, unless you are suggesting that I should buy enslaved women to impregnate and force to grow a master race of my children. And those flowers are only one day going to be bloomed flowers if I put in a whole lot of work to make it so. Should it be required by law that I have to nurture any nascent buds to full bloom, once the buds start to appear? Because pretty regularly on my rose bushes, if a bud starts to bloom in the wrong place, I snip the b*stard off.
What of people who are hooked up to machines? Or cannot eat on their own? That must be cared for a fed. Do they fall into that category? Should they be aborted?
How much will you pay? I've got a whole lot of rose bushes. PM me your number and we can make arrangements for you to pay me cash for all the worthless dross I trim from my plants and normally just throw away.
In the case though of an unintentional pregnancy that by definition wasn't meant to happen. Say for instance a defective condom. Why should abortion not be allowed then but so in a rape since in both cases the women didn't intend to get pregnant? I'm sorry if I am picking on you but I have never fully understood the position that life begins at conception so abortion should be outlawed except under the condition of rape. In that case you are killing someone, the unborn, for something they had no choice in the matter. My point is I don't believe you have an absolutist position on the matter but the position that life begins at conception is absolutist.
Technically they can't be aborted unless they are implanted back into someone's womb. If that is the case I think the person they are implanted back into should have the right to decide whether they want them in their womb.
When I garden I buy the seed to plant, some buy an already bloomed plant. Anyways, the fact is that your rose will continue growing. It's cells and self will continue to grow. The fact that you equate snipping off the b*stard to killing a growing child just seems wrong. If you went out and dug up the entire plant and tossed it into the garbage, that's more like aborting a fetus. But even then, if it goes to the dump, the rose may continue growing when it finds earth. That fetus or lump of cells will not continue growing.
