appolose said:
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:
DNA is a blueprint, nothing more. It's like saying that 2 buildings are different when all they have laid down is the ditch for the foundations. However at that point they are obviosuly different because the blueprint is different? I call bullshit on that.
Furthermore the fetus is a parasite, and correct me if I'm arong but a normal human isn't. A human doesn't depend on anyone else to live and be well. They depend on food and water and that's it. Before they are sustainable outside the mother the fetus is not human, it's a parasite.
Since you are so much for its rights, does that mean that you will oulaw pregnant drinking? Or smoking? Or eating unhealthily? Or doing heavy exercise? Or anything that will cause her to miscarry or damage the fetus? How the fuck is that not controlling one's body? You just basically made her a slave to that fetus, legally. F that.
If she wants that parasite out of her she should be able to remove it, if you want to save it, go ahead and find a way to keep it alive and going, as long as it's no longer in her. I don't care how you do it, implant in another mother, machines, or not at all.
|
You asked for a difference, and there is a massive genetic difference. And there is a considerable amount of difference between a dog and a human than there is between two buildings.
Parasites and humans aren't mutually exclusive. You can be a parasite and be human at the same time (blood transfusion, for example). Even if that weren't the case, so what?
I would disallow anything that would kill or harm the fetus, of course, just as I would for disallow an actions committed by one person that would kill or harm another. If that's what you mean by controlling the body, then what's the problem? Should we allow people to go running around spraying bullets into buildings because we would be "controlling their bodies" otherwise? Are they slaves to everyone else because that can't fulfill that particular whim?
|
See, now you are saying that if there's a parasite in you we get to control your body, simply put. I'm just purely looking at it from an Act Utilitarianism point of view. Meaning which will produce the greatest happiness in the most people. While the abortion won't necessarily cause happiness to the woman it certainly would prevent grief. On the other hand you have something that doesn't even feel ANYTHING, muchless happiness. Here you are telling me that the government should control just about every action of a woman when she is pregnant for some stupid parasite that won't even feel it if it got hit with a hammer in the zygote.
|
What does feeling have to do with living? What it be fine if I was shot in the head as long as I felt no pain during the event? I do not understand this objection: ''It'll make the mother happy!" It will also make the baby dead. Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped (is this what you meant by "controlling her body" this whole time? I thought you were referring to the fetus as "her body")?
|
No by her body I mean the mother's. Also the baby isn't conscious, feeling, or anything that even makes something even remotely human. It's a clump of cells which also happens to be a parasite. As I said earlier, if you wanna save the fetus good for you, I do too. However get it out of the mother if she wants it out and then save the little parasite in any way you want to.
