To me it is not material. A newborn cannot survive on its own either... lots of people need help at various points in their life-- some even for extended periods of time.
and that means without having a direct impact on someones body. I doubt anyone that posts here could survive on their own.
actually how dumb are you? I never even said tube. I said "being physically attached to anyone" wtf does that have to do with a feeding tube?
I fail to see how a fetus is infringing on its mother's rights (excluding the case where mother's life is in danger, of course). How do you view Siamese twins that share a vital organ?
the argument is that if for you to live someone had to be connected to you say for liver or kidney function that they could say "no" even if you would then die.
i just failed to see how you connected me saying that a person on a feeding tube is not human. My father in law in currently on a feeding tube.
Right the argument against that is if she willingly had sex then she assumed the risks. But the counterpoint to that is if she at first agreed, say in a hospital, to let someone use their liver but then changed her mind, she should have that right.
I really would not know where to start. I guess i will say that I first said an argument for abortion is that a persons right to their own body outweighs another person right to life. He then said something about a person on a feeding tube not being human. I then said a feeding tube is a not a human and therefore by someone being on a feeding tube they are not infringing on anyones life.
If little Susie wasn't such a baby, she'd feel exactly the same way. And the life that her mother-considering-abortion is talking about is just a life without one more responsibility not life itself.
A mother doesn't donate organs, does she? I understand your analogy but it is feeble because no one asked the mother to give of herself-- only her actions resulted in the pregnancy and the "needy" baby (excepting rape of course) is flesh and blood of her own.
I understand why you might have taken offence, and apologize if I did. My mother also had a feeding tube...my question was to the point of relying on a mother for nutrition, etc. and was not at all to suggest that I would answer 'yes' to my original question. Some abortion advocates say that the baby is just a bunch of cells, like an appendix to the mother. One of the arguments (in some ways similar, but I see not the same as yours) is that the baby isn't human because it relies on the mother. If you flip that argument, from a purely biological standpoint, the baby needs the mother for things that can be provided artificially in a lot of ways. I am forced to ask myself if the definition of life will then morph as technology progresses and we can replicate the processes of the womb.
