Do you agree that abortion of fetuses after a certain point (wherever that point is) should not be allowed?

If yes, you can argue for as long as you like about what time that should be, but ultimately it will come down to drawing a line in the sand - or, as you say, defining a line on a continuum. And that should be enshrined in legislation.


I think we've all been too afraid to click on the link.

I looked at the picture, mentally convulsed several times and closed the tab two seconds later.

It wasn't that bad.

this. i've seen quite a few dead and deformed calves born. some had holes in them or their skin was as thin as paper, and some had multiple limbs or not enough. i think some hadn't even finished forming. i don't know nearly enough about it, but i'm inclined to agree with BM. those particular calves were not animals, and there's no way on this Earth that they were. but that's nature. things go wrong, and we're no exception.

Jesus Christ, i don't even know what i'm trying to say. there's something floating around in my head which is to do with why i'm pro-choice but i can't get it out.

fuck it.

Awww... But I wanna hear your thoughts :( Is it controversial?

I'd say the sorts of anomalies that MA is describing are more animate collections of flesh than animals. They're not animals in the same way that a tumour or a donated organ is not an animal.

And a rusty hulk in a scrapper's yard is not a car?

Not if you can't drive it it isn't. If it fulfills no car-like functions it doesn't fit the definition of 'car'.

Cars in a scrapper's yard have new functions, which have been excluded by your definition. Based on what? Cars are not cars if they are not car-like. What is car-like? Being like a car. What is a car?

The same applies to humans and foetuses.

to be honest i agree with MM. cars are made to do a specific job, which is operate like a car. once it no longer fulfills that requirement in any way it becomes something else, but not a car. scrap, spare parts, a future project to get it up and running again. its different viewpoints. working/obsolete cars and humans/foetuses are very much far apart, and that's my view.

There's the thing, though. You have defined cars specifically in a way to exclude scrapped cars. Have you defined people to specifically exclude or include foetuses? And on what basis?

This analogy is weirder than my philosophy term paper.

i see what you mean, but what i meant by my previous post was that i don't think its a viable analogy. in short: no, i haven't defined people to include/exclude foetuses because i don't know enough about them. but i feel i can define whether a car is a car on the basis of whether it does what it was intended to do because it is man-made. if it doesn't get you from A to B without exploding or breaking down, it is not a car. a foetus on the other hand is a natural process that will continue to grow, and this is what i feel contrasts too much with the analogy, which is why i don't think its a viable one. but this doesn't affect my view on abortion. i am still pro-choice.

I still feel the strange need to attack your car definition, but it seems insufficiently on-topic to do so.

http://www.vbox7.com/play:9d7ffdbe
I don't have the time to read all 5 pages.
I would never do such a thing.Anyway:If we have the right to choose we must have the right to get all the information about what we choose...and I don't think we do.At least here...

The video wouldn't load. I just hope like fuck it wasn't that fake video of the foetus screaming.