Saturday, August 20, 2005

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 8

And the discussion goes on....

I post directly to Kenndy:

Biology indicates that an embryo and fetus in it's mother's body require HER body for it's very survival up until the moment that it would be capable of surviving outside of the mother's body.

If you do not believe this - and still profess the "right to life" of a pre-viable embryo consider that, as the gestating host for the embryo - if I simply refuse to eat, and drink, and let my body deteriorate to the point that my life is imperilled the embryos' right to it's life - disaappears along with my own life.

Fine - if those are the terms that you would seek to enslave me to the "right" of the embryo to the use of my body. From what I understand, a hunger strike that also eliminates hydration that lasts for more than 10 days will result in basically coma and then death of my body.

Does the fetus/embryo have the right to the use of my body - without my consent? Well - try it - and see how far you get.

The pre-viable fetus/embryo's right to life is dependent upon it's mother's willingness to keep her own body functioning and alive. According to you - The fetus/embryo has a right to it's life and to the integrity of it's body - to not be attacked.

A woman who is pregnant that simply refuses to nourish herself has comitted no more ATTACK upon the fetus than a a farmer who refuses to provide his hard-labour produced crops to a starving hungry group of neighbors who can't or won't provide for themselves.

There is HUGE difference in principle between a person who attacks another person - and a person who simply refuses to assist another. If you don't understand this - then get thee to google and re-do the "EATING NANOOK" phase of Humanities.philosophy.objectivism.

The suggestion that a mother has the moral responsibility to sustain her own body ONLY to sustain the embryo inside her is tantamount to an arguement for slavery. You suggest that her body belongs to the embryo or fetus, before it belongs to her. In fact - your claim is that her body, her mind, her choice, her decisions and her actions are irrelevant in this scenario.

In fact - your arguement leaves no room for volition of the mother (WHICH IS BY THE WAY THE VERY BASIS OF RIGHTS) - and if the mother simply refuses to do anything - move, eat, drink - act, produce any value with her labour - your only option to protect the RIGHT of the fetus is to enslave the mother, tie her down - force feed her until the time that the fetus/embryo doesn't need her body
to exist.

The claim that the fetus or embryo that is incapable of sustaining itself outside of it's host/mother's body is like the claim that everybody has the right to food, shelter, medical care, job security etc... Just try to claim such a thing, when there is no victim to pay for these things and no woman will let her body be used in such a fashion. Try to claim such a thing - and reality will show you that it makes as much sense as claiming...

"That a rock is a house" - --Ayn Rand


"that sand is clothing" - --Ayn Rand


"that a penis is a car" - --Some poster on this thread who makes about as much sense as the poster claiming that a pre-viable embryo has a right to life.

OR... more specifically

That a pre-viable "embryo/fetus" - will magically have nutrients shoved into it's umbilicle cord - even if the mother does nothing but lie down and die.

And I later added

As for the "Moral Obligation" of a mother to provide for a life she has allowed to be created in her body with her genetic material.

I would put forward the position that if she continues to eat, and drink and let it sit in her body - unmolested, and does not induce labour - prior to the point of it's viability - she has already done it a favour and met whatever obligation she may have to it - for having allowed it to be created in the first place.

She doesn't have to do it - and indeed she may not even physically be capable of doing so.

So - next, is somebody going to suggest that a mother that has had 10 natural miscarriages
is somehow comitting some moral evil by allowing herself to get pregnant - since the odds that the fetus/embryo will be able to survive in her body is slim to none?

What about the EMBRYOS right to life in THAT instance? Are we to snatch the pre-viable embryos from women who's bodies are incapable of gestating to term - to SAVE them from the fact that BIOLOGY won't allow them to proceed to the point of viability outside of their
mother's womb?

And where would you put them?

What would you do with them?

WHO would you compell to provide the body for the fetus to gestate and be born of?

And what if the mother in question - who has serial miscarriages continues to reproduce
embryos: Do we sterilize her and therby keep her from endangering the RIGHTS of the
embryos? Do we Lock her up and forbid her to have contact with men? Do we pass
laws to ensure that ONLY women who are capable of gestating to terms be allowed
to get themselves pregnant?

Come on - let's see how far you REALLY want to take this idiotic position...


Post a Comment

<< Home