Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Page 4 of 14 [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Mar 2010, 10:15 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then I must say your judgment is monstrously crippled.


No, the one who calls the unborn child a mere parasite is the monster!

Question: From where do the so-called "parasite's" expectations of its "host" (mother) come?


And, just out of curiosity, what do you think about all those perfectly viable fertilized human eggs tossed away in the garbage in multitudes by the artificial insemination banks every day?



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

07 Mar 2010, 9:39 am

Sand wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then I must say your judgment is monstrously crippled.


No, the one who calls the unborn child a mere parasite is the monster!

Question: From where do the so-called "parasite's" expectations of its "host" (mother) come?


And, just out of curiosity, what do you think about all those perfectly viable fertilized human eggs tossed away in the garbage in multitudes by the artificial insemination banks every day?


In my opinion, that is a great question for causing a little pause ...

I do not know enough details to feel confident about saying much about sperm or egg banks, but I can say it would be too disturbing for me to be or to get involved with one. As silly as this might seem to some people, you or I or anyone else might come to mind whenever I think about a fertilized egg (and our having once been one) ... and I do not know what to think about the one (or the many) presently being held/stored in a freezer (or freezers) somewhere while waiting for a womb to come along ... or might it end up being gestated elsewhere and in captivity as a "human resouce" for mere corporate exploitation?

I know you and others spit at the thought of "God", and I defend your right to do that ...

He will eventually attend that matter all by Himself.

But in the meantime, let us not be fooled into thinking anything whatsoever is accomplished by spitting on each other or on the "parasite" yet hoping to emerge and join us right here where we are for now.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Mar 2010, 9:51 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Then I must say your judgment is monstrously crippled.


No, the one who calls the unborn child a mere parasite is the monster!

Question: From where do the so-called "parasite's" expectations of its "host" (mother) come?


And, just out of curiosity, what do you think about all those perfectly viable fertilized human eggs tossed away in the garbage in multitudes by the artificial insemination banks every day?


In my opinion, that is a great question for causing a little pause ...

I do not know enough details to feel confident about saying much about sperm or egg banks, but I can say it would be too disturbing for me to be or to get involved with one. As silly as this might seem to some people, you or I or anyone else might come to mind whenever I think about a fertilized egg (and our having once been one) ... and I do not know what to think about the one (or the many) presently being held/stored in a freezer (or freezers) somewhere while waiting for a womb to come along ... or might it end up being gestated elsewhere and in captivity as a "human resouce" for mere corporate exploitation?

I know you and others spit at the thought of "God", and I defend your right to do that ...

He will eventually attend that matter all by Himself.

But in the meantime, let us not be fooled into thinking anything whatsoever is accomplished by spitting on each other or on the "parasite" yet hoping to emerge and join us right here where we are for now.


I never spit as it caused infectious spread. And although spitting via the internet may become eventually a great technological accomplishment progress in that direction is agonizingly slow.
I readily admit the memories I have as a fertilized egg indicate a rather dull time of life. I do not recommend anyone spend nine months alone in a damp dark hole.

Since we are all subject to corporate exploitation most of our lives I cannot see how fertilized eggs need be exempt.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Mar 2010, 4:18 am

leejosepho wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
... there does come a point in the gestational life of a foetus where it will be born whether preterm or not. I am wondering, if at this stage, when life independent of the mother is a virtual given, should the foetus get rights over the mothers wishes.


How would one's likelihood of survival outside the womb have any effect on an answer to the question at hand?



Please tell me you are joking, you dont really need this explained, do you, Really ! !! !! !! !! !! !!????????????


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Mar 2010, 8:32 pm

fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Mar 2010, 8:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn


Rights are not God given absolutes, they are social arrangements and society can create or deny them. To give a few cells with the future possibility of becoming a person the same rights as a fully formed human living independently is insanity.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Mar 2010, 5:13 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn


Rights are not God given absolutes, they are social arrangements and society can create or deny them. To give a few cells with the future possibility of becoming a person the same rights as a fully formed human living independently is insanity.


I could not agree more. Rights are a social convention, not an inherent property of sufficiently sentient living beings.

ruveyn



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

09 Mar 2010, 4:56 pm

Sand wrote:
Rights are not God given absolutes, they are social arrangements and society can create or deny them.


There really is no need for any thought or mention of "God" in order to have this discussion!

You distract yourself.

Sand wrote:
To give a few cells with the future possibility of becoming a person the same rights as a fully formed human living independently is insanity.


Are you sure?! What future would mankind have apart from at least some kind of respect being shown toward those cells?!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

09 Mar 2010, 5:49 pm

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
To give a few cells with the future possibility of becoming a person the same rights as a fully formed human living independently is insanity.


Are you sure?! What future would mankind have apart from at least some kind of respect being shown toward those cells?!

Impossible to determine. But seeing as mankind has done remarkably well in regards to maintaining and increasing it's numbers without any knowledge about cells, I'd say a future where fetuses are continually without rights would not have a noticable impact.
Whereas a future with fetal rights would have an impact, whether it would be positive or negative is anyone's guess.

I do worry about the mother's rights, if the interests of the collection of cells in her womb become more important than hers.



JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

09 Mar 2010, 5:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn

If the fetus is not human, than what is it? I mean, the fetus has human DNA and is quite alive; and for that reason alone the very nature of the fetus must be human.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Mar 2010, 7:26 pm

JetLag wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn

If the fetus is not human, than what is it? I mean, the fetus has human DNA and is quite alive; and for that reason alone the very nature of the fetus must be human.


I didn't say human. I said people. The fetus has a human genome and is not a person.

The cells of your hair have a human genome and your hair is not a person either.

ruveyn



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 Mar 2010, 12:38 am

Lecks wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
What future would mankind have apart from at least some kind of respect being shown toward those cells?!

Impossible to determine. But seeing as mankind has done remarkably well in regards to maintaining and increasing it's numbers without any knowledge about cells, I'd say a future where fetuses are continually without rights would not have a noticeable impact.


If all else remained constant in the absence of mothers being told they have rights to throw babies in dumpsters, so to speak, I think I could easily agree.

Lecks wrote:
I do worry about the mother's rights, if the interests of the collection of cells in her womb become more important than hers.


Once many women seem convinced their "parasites" are insignificant unless turned into cash, there will be a glut in the market.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Mar 2010, 12:46 am

leejosepho wrote:
Lecks wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
What future would mankind have apart from at least some kind of respect being shown toward those cells?!

Impossible to determine. But seeing as mankind has done remarkably well in regards to maintaining and increasing it's numbers without any knowledge about cells, I'd say a future where fetuses are continually without rights would not have a noticeable impact.


If all else remained constant in the absence of mothers being told they have rights to throw babies in dumpsters, so to speak, I think I could easily agree.

Lecks wrote:
I do worry about the mother's rights, if the interests of the collection of cells in her womb become more important than hers.


Once many women seem convinced their "parasites" are insignificant unless turned into cash, there will be a glut in the market.


I can hardly wait for the mass of frozen embryos to hit the supermarket. Do you think they might taste like chicken?



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

10 Mar 2010, 6:36 am

I don't think that a genome should necessarily be an important point in this issue. I don't normally ascribe anyone human rights based on a study of their genome. The genome of an individual is also not as stable as it's often assumed to be. After a long life, it is extremely unlikely for all of them to still be the same even within a single human body.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

10 Mar 2010, 4:10 pm

Sand wrote:

I can hardly wait for the mass of frozen embryos to hit the supermarket. Do you think they might taste like chicken?


More, I believe, toward the Escargot end of the 'chicken taste' scale.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

10 Mar 2010, 7:41 pm

JetLag wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

ruveyn

Quote:
If the fetus is not human, than what is it? I mean, the fetus has human DNA and is quite alive; and for that reason alone the very nature of the fetus must be human.



Quote:
I didn't say human. I said people. The fetus has a human genome and is not a person.
Apologies for using the wrong word, but actually either word works either way. YourDictionary.com defines "human" this way:
"adjective - 1. of, belonging to, or typical of man (Homo sapiens) the human race. 2. consisting of or produced by people human society. 3. having or showing qualities, as rationality or fallibility, viewed as distinctive of people a human act, a human failing.
noun - a person: the phrase human being is still preferred by some."


Quote:
The cells of your hair have a human genome and your hair is not a person either.

ruveyn
A person is a person because of that person's unique essence. The child growing in the womb certainly does not have the nature of a fish, a reptile, or a bird; but rather he or she has a human nature.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning