|
| ferrari5x |
11/3/09 4:13 PM
|
|
 |
Why was this only two lines?
"Some have called it murder, but obviously the fetus cannot yet move or think, and is not yet a person. Yes, it is a living thing and has started to grow, but on the other hand it's not."
That's perhaps the most important part of the article, and you've swept it under the rug. Two lines doesn't do your statement justice. "Obviously the fetus cannot yet move or think, and is not yet a person." How is that obvious? What is obvious is that it's very controversial, which means many people "obviously" disagree with you. If it were obvious, there wouldn't be a very strong opposition, would there.. So, there's nothing "obvious" about it. "The fetus cannot yet move or think" uhh, that's completely dependent on the stage of development. You didn't clarify which stage of development you consider living, or moral to artificially abort, so you can't just say the fetus can't "move or think." Maybe you should watch a video of a later stage abortion.. maybe then you'd realize that the fetus obviously can think and move, can recognize pain, and can react (by squirming) to pain. Furthermore, you specifically said fetus, which is developed after the first trimester. By this stage, it already has all of its organs, measurable brain waves, and a heart beat. To some, that would seem like life. You said, "Yes, it is a living thing and has started to grow, but on the other hand it's not." I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. It either IS or it IS NOT. It can't be both, that's like saying the sky is blue but on the other hand, it's green. It's either one or the other, not both simultaneously. For the fetus, you have to explain why you think it possesses aspects of a living thing and a non-living thing in order to for your argument to make sense, you can't just say "it's alive, on the other hand it's not." I would recommend you address the following: Is it capable of living and growing independently? No. Is it indeed growing? Yes. Does growth (duplicating cells) signify life? You'll have to explain your own opinion on that. If you can address those questions accurately, you'll have a much better argument (regardless of whether I or others agree with you or not).
And really, I'm not looking to argue, I already know all the possible outcomes. I just don't want you to present incomplete sets of information. What really has to be determined (decided by each individual for themselves) is what is more important, life or liberty. Many philosophers consider life and liberty natural rights, but few have made one out to be more important than the other. If you don't think this is a matter of life, then you need to do a much better job of explaining that (refer to previous paragraph). :) |
| UnclGhost |
11/3/09 4:50 PM
|
|
 |
I agree, the core aspect of the argument was kind of glossed over. Part of what makes this a unique discussion is that on the surface, it's a discussion of legalization, but most members of each side support their respective side because of an underlying belief about whether or not a fetus (at various stages) is alive, causing a lot of the rhetoric to miss the point because it depends on each side's underlying belief being true, making it an unpersuasive argument to the other side.
Also, thank you for objectively analyzing the article based on its effectiveness and structure rather than its message. |
| miley7311 |
11/3/09 6:17 PM
|
|
 |
many of you have informed me of this mistake. I will know for next time to be more clear. I'm only 12, so it's not always gonna be perfect. The reason I wrote that is because i'm undecided weather it is real or not. |
| kandy334 |
11/3/09 6:27 PM
|
|
 |
What I DON'T get is if you get rpd you would force not to have an abortion. You want to keep a baby that it wasn't even a choice to conceive? You want your child to grow up knowing his mother got Saxually assaulted? |
| fairypup2 |
11/4/09 1:31 PM
|
|
 |
You wouldn't have to tell them that, Kandy, it would be your chioce WHETHER or not to (Not weather. catch that miley? xD) Anyways, the baby is still apart of you. I mean I guess I wouldn't blame the mother for hating it (in a way) because of who and how the baby was conceived. But is it really the Baby's fault she got rapped? Nope.
~~~
I agree Ferrari. Good points. :)
~~~
Not only can they squirm because of the pain, they can scream (Gosh that makes me sad). Has anyone seen the Silent Scream on YouTube? (I know a few of you have). |
| kalei |
11/4/09 7:36 PM
|
|
 |
reaction to external stimuli is different from sentience. flowers can turn to face the sun, but that doesn't make them sentient beings. |
| Monet1616 |
11/4/09 10:43 PM
|
|
 |
I've seen the Silent Scream. Oh well. It was the woman's choice. Sorry, not kiddo, you're with a non existent being. |
| ferrari5x |
11/5/09 6:31 PM
|
|
|
And what determines whether a being is sentient? A squirming fetus can't be equated to a flower turning to face the sun, it's obviously much more comparable to the reactions of a human if they were to be similarly ripped apart. Unless you want to propose some method of drawing the line between actual feeling and non-sentient reaction, you can't determine that a fetus (at some particular stage of development(?)) isn't sentient. |
| UnclGhost |
11/5/09 6:34 PM
|
|
|
You can exercise reason and rationally question how sentient something with only a partially formed central nervous system is... |
| ferrari5x |
11/5/09 6:41 PM
|
|
|
I don't have an verifiable statistic to support this claim, but the general consensus among scientists is that a fetus is indeed sentient. Once the brain is developed, it should be able to recognize something as basic as pain (and obviously an embryo can't). |
|
|
|
