 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lidwen Wraith Except that once a living being has begun to develop - or at the very least once his or her heart is already beating - it is not a matter of a "potential parent". | Alright i can accept that. Once a foetus has a heartbeat you can't kill it. Scraping tissue off the inside of a uterus is not quite the same is it? Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lidwen Wraith The reason I disagree with you about how the two situations are comparable is that in the abortion situation you have a third party involved whose life is being taken away from him or her... | So couples with children should also not be allowed to get divorced without the consent of the children involved? Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lidwen Wraith I agree very much that people should have the right to divorce one another, as unpleasant as it is. No good can be accomplished from forcing people to stay with someone they definitely don't want to, even if they promised...especially under the pretense of marital "love".
But
as I wrote yesterday, the abortion question is a quite different one because killing is involved. | Again my contention is still while the tissue on the inside of the uterus is a physical part of the mother, she has the right to choose what to do with it. That bit of tissue is not yet separate from the mother in any biological terms. It is only separate in our definition. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lidwen Wraith Why do you feel that outside interference is warranted in a circumstance wherein a one-day- old neonate is killed (assuming you do)... but not when a six months' prenate is killed? | Six months prenate is still tissue. The senses have not yet come alive. Again i agree that second and thrid trimester abortions are just disturbing as the little beings actually sense the universe. Love for all, Hatred for none |