Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:39:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
645 times
|
| |
|
|
Thanks James,
You kinda scare me when you start off with the word Simple... none of
this has seemed simple yet, and if it's so simple to someone else, I
question whether they have given it enough thought.
However, thats a pretty good point that I had not heard before, or I
conveniently forgot it (I'm not very well informed about this topic, as I
made a decision on it years ago and never listened to the other side since -
I think that is common with this particular topic, so shutting our ears to
it probably isn't the best policy). So there is some study that shows that
a fetus won't live if seperated from the host too soon? Even with the fancy
and expensive machines? What about test tube babies - what is that? I
thought those were very viable at a very early age, much less than 24 weeks.
You might argue that it can't live on its own and I'd agree but a lot of
babies born at 8 or 9 months won't live without really good care, machines
or medicine. So, I don't think that answer works for me, at least I have to
give it some more thought. I appreciate the response though, James.
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:G3yu53.DLz@lugnet.com...
>
> > In my mind the inalienable rights we have granted to human beings • should
> > apply to ALL human beings, including the very, very young (unborn). I • think
> > these rights should take precedence over someone else's wishes not to be
> > "hassled by the man." Please tell me a) why your desire not to be • troubled
> > by the powers that be is more important than the right to life of another
> > human being or b) what evidence you have that a fetus younger than an
> > arbitrary number (16 weeks?) is not a human being.
>
>
> I'll take you up on this one John D.
>
> Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be • viable.
> Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that • point
> (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 weeks or so...)
>
> Therefore, they are not a separate life form, until they are viable _on • there
> own_, without the mother's direct support.
>
> James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I'll take you up on this one John D. Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be viable. Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that point (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
