Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Indeed. But a fetus is not "a child", and there are valid reasons for allowing people to abort pregnancies. A foetus is a child. To deny that is mere semantics. Sadly, it can so easily be redefined as a non-human; then it can be killed with impunity. The real valid reason is: danger to the mother's health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Alternative: it is alive, albeit not necessarily capable, as yet, of independent life. That's true of many people in hospital, you know. Yes and perhaps we should also be questioning the ethics about keeping people alive when they have no quality of life and wish to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yes and perhaps we should also be questioning the ethics about keeping people alive when they have no quality of life and wish to die? So you want to be able to kill for convenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 A foetus is a child. To deny that is mere semantics. It isn't semantics. It's a seperate word with its own meanings. An embryo is not a fetus, and a fetus is not a child. No semantics about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 And, yes- having a baby might well be inconvenient for its mother. But that's not a reason to kill the child, is it now? That's okay, we aren't talking about killing children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So you want to be able to kill for convenience? and wish to die No, I suspect she wants to give people the right to choose to end their own life with the assistance of someone else if they so chose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 A foetus is a child. To deny that is mere semantics. Sadly, it can so easily be redefined as a non-human; then it can be killed with impunity. The real valid reason is: danger to the mother's health. No, to deny that is the key to the entire debate, everyone agrees that killing children is wrong, but there is stage in human development before childhood, that's self evident, you wouldn't call a couple of cells a child, so there clearly there is some point at which the developing human becomes a child. That point is defined as birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So you want to be able to kill for convenience? Yes, of course, that is SO what I said. I am the female version of Harold Shipman.:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It isn't semantics. It's a seperate word with its own meanings. An embryo is not a fetus, and a fetus is not a child. No semantics about it. Embryo's and fetus's are the early stages of a human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Many on the pro-choice side of the debate are the usual trots and marxists using another issue just to get one over on what they see as the Christian bourgeois establishment. Just for the record I'm neither one of the bourgeoise or a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.