Abortion Debate Forum - Is the Catholic Position Permitted In This Forum?


Is the Catholic Position Permitted In This Forum?	Join us now!

Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> Is the Catholic Position Permitted In This Forum?

Medical Questions

Author

Message

alternativethinker

New User, Becoming EHEALTHy

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Location: North America

Is the Catholic Position Permitted In This Forum? Posted: 02-21-06 13:16pm


I am a catholic, which means I am a christian and I support life. I posted here a few days ago and now that post is gone. I support life, but I dont think that a person has to be a christian to believe that abortion is wrong. Is it not for all to think that life is a thing to be cherished? Cannot anyone think that a person should hold themselves personally accountable for their own choices? If a person engages in sex, than they should be prepared to be responsible to deal with a new life being created. Abortion is not a medical precedure. Being pregnant is not a disease. Abortion has nothing to do with better health. Abortion has to do with people, men and women shirking their moral responsibility towards life and divorcing any responsibility from their own sexual choices. Http://acatholicforamer ica.Blogspot.Com/

acoles70

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 191
Location: KY

Posted: 02-21-06 14:16pm


I agree!!

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:91

Posted: 02-21-06 14:30pm


" is it not for all to think that life is a thing to be cherished?" peoples opinions differ, some eat meat and some don't. Some believe a womans right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not and others don't. There is no universal definiton of where to draw the line at 'life' being cherished and it's for no-one to tell people their opnions are right or wrong "cannot anyone think that a person should hold themselves personally accountable for their own choices? " having an abortion may be the 'responsible' thing to do in the position and by aborting you are being accountable for that - you're doing something about it " if a person engages in sex, than they should be prepared to be responsible to deal with a new life being created" sex isn't there just for pro-creation, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs then it's the womans choice where she goes from there " abortion is not a medical precedure. " what exactly is it then? You may not agree with abortion but it is a medical procedure, performed by doctors "being pregnant is not a disease" it's a medical condition, I am awae it'snot a disease. It can, however, be deeply unpleasant (wanted or otherwise) for a variety of reasons " abortion has nothing to do with better health. It can improve mental helth by removng the pregnancy which is causing the woman anxiety, it improves the health of women who abot for maternal health reasons " abortion has to do with people, men and women shirking their moral responsibility towards life and divorcing any responsibility from their own sexual choices." in your opinion. Morality isn't universal and I don't believe that abortion is people 'shirking their moral respnsibility'

alternativethinker

New User, Becoming EHEALTHy

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Location: North America

Posted: 02-21-06 15:33pm


"peoples opinions differ, some eat meat and some don't. Some believe a womans right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not and others don't. There is no universal definiton of where to draw the line at 'life' being cherished and it's for no-one to tell people their opnions are right or wrong" life begins at conception. A woman does not have a right to choose the death of an unborn life. That you would casually compare the decision to end a life to something as inane as meat consumption is amazing to me. Moral relativism that says that one thing is right to one person one moment and wrong to another person the next is very dangerous. We cannot exist in a world without objective right and wrong. "sex isn't there just for pro-creation, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs then it's the womans choice where she goes from there" this is your opinion about sex and far more subjective than that of the validity of unborn human life. To accept that abortion is wrong means that pro-abortion activists cannot have sex whenever they want. This thought is unthinkable to them. The need for sex to some justifies killing. Abortion is not responsible, it is the easy way for the weak and frightened. "you may not agree with abortion but it is a medical procedure, performed by doctors" are doctors paid to kill? "it can improve mental helth by removng the pregnancy which is causing the woman anxiety, it improves the health of women who abot for maternal health reasons" and killing an unborn child is good for a mother health? I would think that anyone that could kill an unborn child would not be so bothered by something as relatively trivial as a pregnancy.

sandyallen

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4580

Posted: 02-21-06 15:34pm


Well said .Moo! Alternativethinker, of course you have a right to your opinion but that does not mean that we have to agree with it. I haave known catholics and pro-lifer's to have abortions and to take b/c and that does not make them bad. You might support life but do you support quality of life, take a look at what happened in your own religion of those boys being molested and it is just not happening in your religion, it is happening all over and some have psychological and physical wouds that will not heal. Their are some women out there that feel that they are being punished because they had to have their baby and they take it out on the baby or child for the rest of their lives. Take a child that is born with aids or a crack or meth baby that will never be o.K., such as brain dead due to the chemicals and they knew this pre-birth. What is wrong to you does not make it wrong for others. It is about choice!

alternativethinker

New User, Becoming EHEALTHy

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Location: North America

Posted: 02-21-06 15:51pm


"well said .Moo! Alternativethinker, of course you have a right to your opinion but that does not mean that we have to agree with it." at least you could be honest and say that an abortion kills an unborn child. "i have known catholics and pro-lifer's to have abortions and to take b/c and that does not make them bad." killing is a wrong and no catholic can call themselves catholic if the support the right to choose abortion. "you might support life but do you support quality of life, take a look at what happened in your own religion of those boys being molested and it is just not happening in your religion, it is happening all over and some have psychological and physical wouds that will not heal." is that the best you have? Take a look at your own house first? So the molestation of boys in turn justifies the killing of unborn children? No one justifies the sex abuse and no one claims that it is anyones right. Is death preferrable to anything less then perfection? "their are some women out there that feel that they are being punished because they had to have their baby and they take it out on the baby or child for the rest of their lives." this does not account for the vast majority of elective abortions. I would rather be an ubused child than a dead child. Are you to discern whether a child has a potentially suitable quality of life before we decide whether it lives or dies? "take a child that is born with aids or a crack or meth baby that will never be o.K., such as brain dead due to the chemicals and they knew this pre-birth." how about downs babies? What impairments are not acceptable. Are we interested in the welfare of children or are we engaged in selective breeding for desirable outcomes? Shall we abort for hair color, eye color? Where do you stop? "what is wrong to you does not make it wrong for others. It is about choice!" what is wrong is wrong regardless of who chooses to accept it.

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:91

Posted: 02-21-06 15:58pm


"life begins at conception." i don't believe I said anything contrary to your statement, I am fully aware of the basics of human biology. My point was that peoples ideas of 'cherishing life' differ " a woman does not have a right to choose the death of an unborn life." by 'unborn life' I assume you mean her own embryo or fetus, in which case she does have the right to decide whether or not it's continued by virtue of r v w or the abortion act (depending on which side of the atlantic you reside) " that you would casually compare the decision to end a life to something as inane as meat consumption is amazing to me." the point was that some people believe killing/eating animals is wrong - they have lives too! Also, there's nothing casual about abortion it was a reference to the wide range of beliefs that occur when thinking about the value of a life "moral relativism that says that one thing is right to one person one moment and wrong to another person the next is very dangerous." you're entitled to hold that opinion, however you cannot deny that we live in a world where there are no general statements as to "right" and "wrong" - i'd much prefer to live in a world where people are allowed to make their own opinions as opposed to bneing dictated to about universal morals that simply don't exist "this is your opinion about sex and far more subjective than that of the validity of unborn human life. " the validity of a fetus being born is subjective - generalize all you will, the fact is you do not know the situation of every single unwanted pregancy or abortion. Sex is for fun alongside procreation (why would we have orgasms and only be able to conceive for around 2days a month if it were only for reproduction??) "to accept that abortion is wrong means that pro-abortion activists cannot have sex whenever they want." erm...No it doesn't. If you believe abortion is wrong then you can have sex whenever and just accept you wont terminate should an unplanned pregnancy occur "this thought is unthinkable to them. The need for sex to some justifies killing" the thought is not "unthinkable", contraception is pretty much 100% and the need for sex isn't what 'justifys' abortion. " abortion is not responsible, it is the easy way for the weak and frightened." you may not believe it can be responsible, I disagree and by saying that abortion is an "esy" option shows how little an understanding you actually have about abortion and the women who chose it. I'm not weak, I wasn't frightened and I am responsible "are doctors paid to kill?" doctors are paid to provide medical assistance to their patients "and killing an unborn child is good for a mother health? I would think that anyone that could kill an unborn child would not be so bothered by something as relatively trivial as a pregnancy." please continue to show your complete lack of understanding for women who abort and their situations :roll:

jimmyjackers

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 270

Re: Is the Catholic Position Permitted In This Forum?
Posted: 02-21-06 21:29pm

alternativethinker wrote:

i am a catholic, which means I am a christian and I support life. I posted here a few days ago and now that post is gone. I support life, but I dont think that a person has to be a christian to believe that abortion is wrong. Is it not for all to think that life is a thing to be cherished? Cannot anyone think that a person should hold themselves personally accountable for their own choices? If a person engages in sex, than they should be prepared to be responsible to deal with a new life being created. Abortion is not a medical precedure. Being pregnant is not a disease. Abortion has nothing to do with better health. Abortion has to do with people, men and women shirking their moral responsibility towards life and divorcing any responsibility from their own sexual choices.

Http://acatholicforamer ica.Blogspot.Com/

well said! I too am a catholic and obviously a christian, and it is also clear to me that abortion is completely wrong and I arrive at this conclusion without having to revert to my catholic belief, it is wrong both logically and theologically.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12985

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 02-21-06 22:22pm


I just have a question for the catholics: do you approve of birth control pills? And also, I deeply respect you for having your own opinion... Just don't force me to have to follow by it. I happen to be one of the pro-choicers who almost adamantly admits at every chance that abortion is killing something, something that has human dna but, something that has not reached the full potential of even physical capabilities or mental capabilities that make us human. Furthermore, you believe life begins at conception, and so do i. I mean, biologically it just .D.O.E.S! Come on people; mitosis starts happening!! The spem was alive and the egg was alive, so how can the two possibly combine to create something that is unliving? Life, in a limited form, begins at conception. Notice there is no mention of a soul there; I am speaking purely biological life.

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:91

Posted: 02-22-06 06:34am

eiri wrote:

i happen to be one of the pro-choicers who almost adamantly admits at every chance that abortion is killing something, something that has human dna but, something that has not reached the full potential of even physical capabilities or mental capabilities that make us human.

Furthermore, you believe life begins at conception, and so do i. I mean, biologically it just .D.O.E.S! Come on people; mitosis starts happening!! The spem was alive and the egg was alive, so how can the two possibly combine to create something that is unliving? Life, in a limited form, begins at conception. Notice there is no mention of a soul there; I am speaking purely biological life.

i completely agree. I don't really understand why some people deny that the z/e/f is alive and that it's human. It has a long way to go before it becomes a person and the fact it is non sentient and cannot exist independantly shows this.

oopoopoop

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 1209
Location: ,

Thanks: 34

Thanked:2

Posted: 02-22-06 06:34am


I fully support the right of people to choose to be catholic, and to choose not to have abortions. What is not supportable is for them to try to impose their beliefs on anyone else. I do not believe that contraception is wrong. I do not believe that having sex without being married is wrong. I do not believe that having sex with people of your own gender is wrong. I do not believe that abortion is wrong. If you believe those things are wrong because a celibate old man in rome said so, that is entirely your choice. Catholics shouldn't care what non-catholics do anyway, since we are all doomed to hell from the start. Why should you care about all those non-catholic fetuses, who are going to be clogging up limbo whatever stage of gestation they get to?

alternativethinker

New User, Becoming EHEALTHy

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Location: North America

In Response... Posted: 02-22-06 14:23pm


"catholics shouldn't care what non-catholics do anyway, since we are all doomed to hell from the start." when unborn children are dying every day. It is the the concern of catholics and should be the concern of all. About sex and catholic teaching... "if you believe those things are wrong because a celibate old man in rome said so, that is entirely your choice." the ignorance of this statement speaks for itself. The pope did not invent these teachings that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex belongs in the institution of marriage and that killing unborn children is wrong. "i just have a question for the catholics: do you approve of birth control pills? And also, I deeply respect you for having your own opinion... Just don't force me to have to follow by it. " yes, the catholic church does not endorse contraception. And as far as abortion goes, when an unborn child dies, it becomes the concern of all. "i assume you mean her own embryo or fetus, in which case she does have the right to decide whether or not it's continued by virtue of r v w or the abortion act (depending on which side of the atlantic you reside)" yes I mean an unborn child. There is no natural right and the flawed decision of roe v wade does not grant moral authority to kill unborn children, only legal access to the abortion precedure. The point was that some people believe killing/eating animals is wrong - they have lives too! Animals are a renewable resourse, they are not people, do not have souls as human do and they are meant to be enjoyed or used as a resourse at our discretion. Animals do not have lives. "i'd much prefer to live in a world where people are allowed to make their own opinions as opposed to bneing dictated to about universal morals that simply don't exist" the freedom to make a choice does not grant it automatic legal protection. Some choices are are illegal or immoral or both. Right and wrong must exist as objective realities otherwise society would degenerate into chaos. "doctors are paid to provide medical assistance to their patients" killing is not a medical treatment, nor is it even medical assistance. "please continue to show your complete lack of understanding for women who abort and their situations" why do women abort? -because they have a distorted view that death is preferrable to poverty. -they are in troubled relationships and think that killing their unborn child will alleviate the problem. -because a child is less important than career or work, or they simply want the pleasures of sex without the repsonsibilities of parenthood. -beacause their contraception failed. -they want nothing less than a perfectly healthy child. -they think that have enough children already. -because they think that killing an unborn child will alleviate the traumatic experience of rape. Dont think that I dont understand why women abort. The point is, they abort because they think that killing an unborn child is preferrable to whatever circumstance they are in at that moment. Aborion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

oopoopoop

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 1209
Location: ,

Thanks: 34

Thanked:2

Re: In Response...
Posted: 02-22-06 15:32pm

alternativethinker wrote:

when unborn children are dying every day. It is the the concern of catholics and should be the concern of all..

but from a religious point of view, it doesn't matter. None of those children born to non-catholics are going to heaven, and if aborted fetuses have souls (debatable even in catholicism before a certain point), they wouldn't be going to heaven either. Religious people concerning themselves with what those of other faiths, or no religion, do is absurd. It is like how muslims make all women in saudi arabia go veiled from head to toe because their religion requires it.

alternativethinker wrote:

the pope did not invent these teachings that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex belongs in the institution of marriage and that killing unborn children is wrong. ..

no, not this pope didn't invent it. But all the teachings have come from some other celibate (not always, of course!) bloke in rome. But what is the point of any of those teachings, which arose in a certain social and historical context? Put it this way - the church has changed its teachings about lots of things over the years. If it now decides that, well, maybe condoms are okay, what then?

alternativethinker wrote:

animals are a renewable resourse, they are not people, do not have souls as human do and they are meant to be enjoyed or used as a resourse at our discretion. Animals do not have lives..

uh...Yes they do. In fact, some religions teach that killing any animal is wrong. Some religions believe in reincarnation. You are saying those religions are wrong. Myself, I do not believe in a soul, or an afterlife for individuals. I think respect for animals is necessary for anyone who would call themself moral. But of course, I don't have a bloke in rome telling me what to think, so I must be wrong.

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:91

Posted: 02-22-06 15:54pm


"when unborn children are dying every day. It is the the concern of catholics and should be the concern of all." why exactly do you feel that the contents of my uterus is your concern? Why do you feel you know better than the people in the situation? "yes, the catholic church does not endorse contraception. And as far as abortion goes, when an unborn child dies, it becomes the concern of all." it was a question about contraception, I think you've made it clear that you seem to think that it's your concern whether women abort or not. As you a catholic I assume you therefore disagree with contraception (that's what the religion teaches - I went to catholic school before you tell me I don't understand) so what exactly would you suggest is used to prevent unplanned pregnancies, bearing in mind that abstinence is not a realistic option for most people? "yes I mean an unborn child." the correct terms are zygote, embryo and fetus " there is no natural right and the flawed decision of roe v wade does not grant moral authority to kill unborn children, only legal access to the abortion precedure." laws reflect the morality of the time in a democracy. Morals are not universal - something I believe to be right you believe to be wrong. The abortion act here allows the women to use her authority whether or not she wishes to play host to her z/e/f for 9months. "animals are a renewable resourse" each animal is an individual in the way a human is. On that basis, z/e/f's are 'renewable' - there's no lack of people being born " they are not people" neither are z/e/f's "do not have souls as human do " 'soul' is a personal belief, I think animals have souls (ever had a pet??) " they are meant to be enjoyed or used as a resourse at our discretion" vegitarians would disagree " animals do not have lives." yes they do, they live and breathe, eat and sleep "the freedom to make a choice does not grant it automatic legal protection." i don't believe I said it did :? "some choices are are illegal or immoral or both." well, abortion is legal so that's one good thing. As for other choices they depend entirely on the individual morality and beliefs of the person making that decision " right and wrong must exist as objective realities otherwise society would degenerate into chaos." there are basic "right" and "wrongs" but the fact is that people are allowed to make up their own minds on issues such as abortion and this is the only way to live in a free society - laws reflecting the ideas/morals of the majority. "killing is not a medical treatment, nor is it even medical assistance." killing a z/e/f (as you'd put it) is a medical procedure and the woman has sought medical assistance (except those of course who self-abort yet most likely need medical assistance following) "why do women abort?" you would have to ask every individual who has aborted why - I can only speak for myself. "-because they have a distorted view that death is preferrable to poverty." it's not distorted, the death of a fetus can be far more preferable than poverty "-they are in troubled relationships and think that killing their unborn child will alleviate the problem." maybe it will, maybe it wont, however, I don't think you'll find any pro-choicer who 'supports' a coerced decision to abort (which is likely in the above circumstance) "-because a child is less important than career or work, or they simply want the pleasures of sex without the repsonsibilities of parenthood" and?? I don't see anything wrong with people enjoying sex for non procreational reasons - I see nothing wrong with women delaying having a family because they want to have a career "-beacause their contraception failed." this will be combined with other reasons but if someones contraception fails they clearly do not want a child (i can testify to that) "they want nothing less than a perfectly healthy child." or they don't want their child to suffer horrendously for a few hours/weeks/days/yars following birth "-they think that have enough children already." maybe they do, who are you to say people should add to their family when they don't wish to/can't? "-because they think that killing an unborn child will alleviate the traumatic experience of rape." or because they don't wish to bring a child into the world who was conceived in such terrible circumstances, because they cannot bear the thought of carrying their rapists child, because they could not bear to give birth to their rapists child is that your definitive list?? "dont think that I dont understand why women abort." you clearly don't, you think by listing reasons why women may choose to abort means you understand them, don't make me laugh! If you did understand women who abort you would understand how much agonising goes into the decision, how difficult it is and how no two situations are the same instead of placing all of your concern on the "unborn child" " the point is, they abort because they think that killing an unborn child is preferrable to whatever circumstance they are in at that moment." the point is that you think you understand because you can envisage some situations where women choose to abort. It's obvious to me (a woman who has aborted) that you have no understanding past what you 'believe' to be 'right'

jimmyjackers

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 270

Posted: 02-26-06 00:33am

moo wrote:

eiri wrote:

a human is a person as many millions and millions of dictionaries clearly state; no one has ever proved a foetus is not a person so it is pointless claiming it isn’t.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12985

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 02-26-06 00:53am

jimmyjackers wrote:

moo wrote:

eiri wrote:

a human is a person as many millions and millions of dictionaries clearly state; no one has ever proved a foetus is not a person so it is pointless claiming it isn’t.

does a fetus think? Does it have a personality? Does it have emotion? Is it even able to have thoughts, personality traits and emotion? At early stages (earlier than about 25 weeks) it can not.

Do not personality, thought and emotion make a human a person? Without these things we are just the human animal, homo sapien. With these things we are people, realised, conscious, sentient.

jimmyjackers

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 270

Posted: 02-26-06 01:09am

eiri wrote:

does a fetus think?

yes.

eiri wrote:

does it have a personality?

does a newborn?

eiri wrote:

does it have emotion?

yes

eiri wrote:

is it even able to have thoughts, personality traits and emotion?

well no one has proved it hasn’t.

eiri wrote:

at early stages (earlier than about 25 weeks) it can not.

then neither can a man in a coma, or a newborn.

eiri wrote:

do not personality, thought and emotion make a human a person?

how does a man in a coma demonstrate these?

eiri wrote:

without these things we are just the human animal, homo sapien. With these things we are people, realised, conscious, sentient.

then you sanction the killing of those who are asleep or in comas.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12985

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 02-26-06 01:51am

jimmyjackers wrote:

eiri wrote:

does a fetus think?

yes.

actually no it doesn't; at early stages (definately under 20 weeks) it's brain isn't even developed enough to be connected. It doesn't feel pain or anything else, and it certainly can't think yet.

Quote:

eiri wrote:

does it have a personality?

does a newborn?

yes; ever seen one? Some cry a lot, some don't. They have a lot of personality for only being a few minutes old. And I happen to believe that a 8 month old fetus also counts as a viable "baby". Check out the old posts for reasons. Or, go read the pro-choice forum to see why I don't think young fetuses are people.

Quote:

eiri wrote:

does it have emotion?

yes

and what kind of emotions do fetuses inside the womb at 10 weeks show?

Quote:

eiri wrote:

is it even able to have thoughts, personality traits and emotion?

well no one has proved it hasn’t.

eiri wrote:

at early stages (earlier than about 25 weeks) it can not.

then neither can a man in a coma, or a newborn.

actually, since the brain becomes mostly connected atoun 27 weeks, a new born can. A 7 month old fetus can. And I happen to believe that abortions at this stage are wrong unless done for medical reasons.

Quote:

eiri wrote:

do not personality, thought and emotion make a human a person?

how does a man in a coma demonstrate these?

he is born. I'm not going to explain this concept again; go read old posts.

Quote:

eiri wrote:

without these things we are just the human animal, homo sapien. With these things we are people, realised, conscious, sentient.

then you sanction the killing of those who are asleep or in comas.

actually, sleeping people do show emotion numb-skull. Ever watched someone sleep? And as far as comatose people go, I know i'd want to be released from the machines to go wherever it is that we go after death, if I was in a coma for more than 6 months. So yeah, in a way, I support the "killing" of comatose people. Because I would want to be "killed".

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:91

Posted: 02-26-06 09:30am


"a human is a person" i've seen your list of dictionary definitions on another thread (fascinating I may add :roll: ) would you care to provide the legal definition of a person? Legally a fetus is not a person "no one has ever proved a foetus is not a person so it is pointless claiming it isn’t." no it's not. I'm not just going to roll over and pretend to accept your opinion because some dictionaries say so. Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary person noun [c] plural people or formal or law persons 1 a man, woman or child 2 used when describing someone and their particular type of character 3 specialized used in grammar to describe the verbs and pronouns that refer to the different people in a conversation. The first person ('i' or 'we') refers to the person speaking, the second person ('you') refers to the person being spoken to and the third person ('he', 'she', 'it' or 'they') refers to another person or thing being spoken about or described hmm....No mention that anything of the human species is a person (it's one example, I don't care to waste the space repeating this. The fact is that you may believe a z/e/f is a person, I don't and have the law on my side) i'm also interested that you're claiming a non-sentient fetus can think and has emotions?? Erm....What?? Do you have access to some secret study that proves a z/e/f can think?? Major changes to human biology, that should be widely known :roll: as for those in comas the simple fact of the matter is that they have been born, they are people and have lived lives, they are not dependant on one persons body, lots of people can take care of him.....See the difference?

jimmyjackers

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 270

Posted: 02-26-06 12:09pm

eiri wrote:

actually no it doesn't; at early stages (definately under 20 weeks) it's brain isn't even developed enough to be connected. It doesn't feel pain or anything else, and it certainly can't think yet.

there are brain waves as early as 8 weeks.

What has pain got to do with it, there are adults that feel no pain.

eiri wrote:

so we can kill people in comas then since they don’t demonstrate personally, and that goes for anyone asleep.

eiri wrote:

and what kind of emotions do fetuses inside the womb at 10 weeks show?

the same kind that people who are in comas show.

eiri wrote:

the brain doesn’t have to be connected to the body to function.

eiri wrote:

he is born. I'm not going to explain this concept again; go read old posts.

so location is the factor that deems someone a person or not? I don’t think so.

eiri wrote:

actually, sleeping people do show emotion numb-skull.

really?

eiri wrote:

ever watched someone sleep?

it’s not my favourite pass time.

eiri wrote:

and as far as comatose people go, I know i'd want to be released from the machines to go wherever it is that we go after death, if I was in a coma for more than 6 months. So yeah, in a way, I support the "killing" of comatose people. Because I would want to be "killed".

yes, well that is nice for you, but not everyone shares your opinion, and most people would not want to be killed merely for being asleep or unconscious.