Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign??

Prince · 02-13-2004, 11:09 AM

Well, here's my oddball take on it all.

To me, the question of "when life begins" is entirely irrelevant. That does not mean it IS, that is just how I find it. I don't know when life "began", but I do know that it did. And to me, the sperm I produce is alive. The "eggs" my wife carries, are alive. That is how I see it. So, summa summarum, to me the point that something is a "live human being" as soon as it is conceived, is irrelevant.

The way I - and only I, I'm sure - see it, is that the embryo/fetus is a human in the making inside the mother, and as such has little rights beyond what is granted for it by the mother, the "host" if you will. If the mother does not want to complete the pregnancy, I do not see that anyone has the right to demand that she do so.

As for a fetus being human, I agree. It IS a human...a human fetus. And no, nothing magical happens to it when it is born. However...while the fetus is still inside the host, it cannot live without it. Its life is dependent on the host, and that is the timeframe which works for me in determining how long the host should have jurisdiction over it.

You can claim that a four-year-old child also needs its parents, does this mean that the parents have the right to kill it? No. But to say that would be ignoring what I already said; the fetus cannot survive outside of the host body, at least not in the early stages. If the host does not want to carry it, then that's all there is to it. IF you can come up with a way to remove the fetus and give it to someone who can somehow keep it alive and help it grow, fine.

For the record, I do not approve of someone terminating a pregnancy because they find the pregnancy inconvenient. However, that is not my call to make, and not my authority nor anyone else's, in my opinion, to tell them not to.

There's no right slash wrong beyond our own personal morals and ethics.

[edited to include something that's ON-topic, as well]

I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school.

I'm not saying he should have his license revoked or anything...or his name announced everywhere to keep other employers from hiring him. It's not like he sold sedatives to teenagers under the table or something. But losing that particular could offer a lesson in business conduct.

02-13-2004, 11:09 AM	#119 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	Well, here's my oddball take on it all. To me, the question of "when life begins" is entirely irrelevant. That does not mean it IS, that is just how I find it. I don't know when life "began", but I do know that it did. And to me, the sperm I produce is alive. The "eggs" my wife carries, are alive. That is how I see it. So, summa summarum, to me the point that something is a "live human being" as soon as it is conceived, is irrelevant. The way I - and only I, I'm sure - see it, is that the embryo/fetus is a human in the making inside the mother, and as such has little rights beyond what is granted for it by the mother, the "host" if you will. If the mother does not want to complete the pregnancy, I do not see that anyone has the right to demand that she do so. As for a fetus being human, I agree. It IS a human...a human fetus. And no, nothing magical happens to it when it is born. However...while the fetus is still inside the host, it cannot live without it. Its life is dependent on the host, and that is the timeframe which works for me in determining how long the host should have jurisdiction over it. You can claim that a four-year-old child also needs its parents, does this mean that the parents have the right to kill it? No. But to say that would be ignoring what I already said; the fetus cannot survive outside of the host body, at least not in the early stages. If the host does not want to carry it, then that's all there is to it. IF you can come up with a way to remove the fetus and give it to someone who can somehow keep it alive and help it grow, fine. For the record, I do not approve of someone terminating a pregnancy because they find the pregnancy inconvenient. However, that is not my call to make, and not my authority nor anyone else's, in my opinion, to tell them not to. There's no right slash wrong beyond our own personal morals and ethics. [edited to include something that's ON-topic, as well] I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school. I'm not saying he should have his license revoked or anything...or his name announced everywhere to keep other employers from hiring him. It's not like he sold sedatives to teenagers under the table or something. But losing that particular could offer a lesson in business conduct. __________________ Who is John Galt? Last edited by Prince; 02-13-2004 at 11:28 AM..