Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Collective]

 

 

Way to attack my choice of language, instead of my logic

 

 

 

If does if they compare getting pregnant to a car crash.

 

 

 

How about you start attacking people's logic rather than their choice of words, then maybe you can expect to be afforded the same respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Maybe I'm a "half-wit", as you said to the other person. How am I not refuting logic? In your case, you picked only one part out of my whole argument that was really irrelevent and picked on that - in my case, his entire logic is based on that.

 

 

 

Calling him "sick" is not refuting his logic, it's attacking his choice of language. That is the exact same thing you're complaining about me doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't realise that then yes, you are a halfwit.

[insane]

 

 

 

Way to attack my choice of language, instead of my logic

 

 

 

If does if they compare getting pregnant to a car crash.

 

 

 

How about you start attacking people's logic rather than their choice of words, then maybe you can expect to be afforded the same respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Maybe I'm a "half-wit", as you said to the other person. How am I not refuting logic? In your case, you picked only one part out of my whole argument that was really irrelevent and picked on that - in my case, his entire logic is based on that.

 

 

 

Calling him "sick" is not refuting his logic, it's attacking his choice of language. That is the exact same thing you're complaining about me doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't realise that then yes, you are a halfwit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah - I understand now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In that post I was sort of asking him, "are you comparing getting pregnant to a car crash?", and then I said that in my opinion, that's kind of sick. The actual logical refutation came after that, which is what I have been debating about in other posts - it's just seperated from this one isolated incident.

[VOV]

I have no problem with abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see no point in bringing a child into the world if you don't have the means to take care of it.

[dusqi]

I disagree with you for two reasons, Insane. Firstly, I do not think that 'purpose' is not defined by the user. I think that biological processes have no 'purpose' in the strict sense of the word. They evolved by chance, and they just happen to be something we use to live. I think that objects which have been designed by man can have a 'purpose' that is defined by the creator, but that once something has been invented, its 'purpose' is whatever the user uses it for. Just like literature: the author writes it with something in mind, but once it has been published, each reader gives the text its own meaning and interpretation. An object that was designed to be a calculator that just happens to be round and light, will become a frisbee once people start chucking it about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, even assuming that purpose is only defined by the user, I find a dissonance between your stance on sex and your stance on other 'primary' purposes, such as eating:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without reproductive sex we WOULD NOT be here, without recreational sex we MIGHT NOT be here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without food we wouldn't be here. According to you, its primary 'purpose' is just to be eaten for sustenance. Do you never eat food when you're not really hungry, just because it tastes nice for instance? Assuming you do like to eat candy from time to time, or drink some soda, why can people not have sex just for the good feelings?

[insane]

I disagree with you for two reasons, Insane. Firstly, I do not think that 'purpose' is not defined by the user. Secondly, even assuming that purpose is only defined by the user, I find a dissonance between your stance on sex and your stance on other 'primary' purposes, such as eating:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without reproductive sex we WOULD NOT be here, without recreational sex we MIGHT NOT be here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without food we wouldn't be here. According to you, its primary 'purpose' is just to be eaten for sustenance. Do you never eat food when you're not really hungry, just because it tastes nice for instance? Assuming you do like to eat candy from time to time, or drink some soda, why can people not have sex just for the good feelings?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They can, it's just not its primary purpose. Heck, I eat because it tastes good all of the time - but if food didn't taste good, I'd still eat it!

[dusqi]

Sorry, I have an awful habit of posting something, and then re-reading it and editing it :x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit (lol) :

 

 

 

Okay, tell me if I have your viewpoint right :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have no objection to people having sex for pleasure. You just think that sex cannot be removed from its primary 'purpose' (because the purpose was defined by the creator) - and thus if you do have sex for pleasure, you have to accept the risk of getting pregnant - and thus you have to have the baby.

[Nadril]

 

 

 

 

Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm a vegetarian so I choose not to eat animals. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the plant thing is true, I never thought of it like that. :? But I don't agree with killing animals. I know some other people do but when people say that humans are more important it really pisses me off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simple answer realy. What do you see all around you? Houses, buildings, cars, all manmade inventions. We have taken over the earth, thus I would have to say that mankind is far greater and more important than a little animal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as abortion goes, i'm for it. The main reason is, is that like everyone else said the child will probaly not have the best life. If abortion would to be even considered than i'm sure that the parrents are not ready for such a thing to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also, in reply to this quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People have free will... Its their choice if they want to kill their baby. However, a true way of looking at it would be asking yourself - if you were told, right now, that your father was a rapist, and his whereabouts unknown, would you say "Oh, mother, why didn't you kill me while I was in your stomach?!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In some conditions the parrent could handle to keep the child. For example, if the woman had a good financal background and had the ability to keep the child well than I would easily agree with you, you wouldn't just ask to be killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but, but what if she wasn't. What if she got raped when she was 15 , or younger? Unless put up for adoption, you'd probaly lead a preaty... bad life. In that case, I don't think you'd ask why she didn't just abort you, but hell, if your life was bad enough you might.

[dusqi]

To answer that Nadril, I'd say let the child be born, and then it can decide to end its life if it wants to.

[CoRnMaN]

To answer that Nadril, I'd say let the child be born, and then it can decide to end its life if it wants to.

So suicide is ok but abortion isnt? Thats crazy talk. Culture makes up these rules. It is not right to murder steal and such becuase its our culture. Sure I have a choice to yell and cuss at my teacher, but becuase I have a choice dosn't mean I have a right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am againts abortion becuase I think its selfish to destroy someones life just becuase you don't want to have a bad life.

[dusqi]

 

 

 

So suicide is ok but abortion isnt? Thats crazy talk. Culture makes up these rules. It is not right to murder steal and such becuase its our culture. Sure I have a choice to yell and cuss at my teacher, but becuase I have a choice dosn't mean I have a right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suicide is a choice about your own life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is a choice about someone else's life, which they have no say in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouting at a teacher is a choice about your own life, however it affects someone else's life in a negative way and they have no say about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a right to do what you want with your own life, as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else's ability to do what they want with their life.

[Joe2142]

I'm only 14 years old but I have a strong say in the controversial matters of abortion..So here I go..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is going into the mother's womb and killing the baby. Therefore, it is murder. People that think it is okay to kill a baby that supposedly doesn't feel pain yet are entirely wrong. Even if it's true that they can't feel pain at a certain part in the pregnancy, that doesn't give you the right to kill it and then say to yourself "it was painless". Say it was painless, you still murdered the infant and you didn't give it a chance at life because it would eventually develop into a human being. It was God's choice to bring the baby into the world in the first place. Accept that. As far as baby's growing up being unwanted, they should be adopted to loving parents who actually want to raise a child. Emotional damage should not play a role in the child's life. Just because you are that pessimistic to think that the child you are raising will be a nothing to society doesn't mean you can abort. There have been homeless people who grow up to be Harvard graduates, crazy stuff happens in this world. In the famous ultrasound "The Silent Scream", the 12-week-old 'fetus' becomes desperate while attempting to escape the abortionist's suction curette. The tiny baby's heart rate doubles during the 'procedure' that ends its life. During the video you see the baby moving violently trying to save itself. The thing that haunted me the most was that you see the baby with it's mouth wide open, 'silently' screaming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Collective]

It was God's choice to bring the baby into the world in the first place. Accept that.

 

 

 

Seriously, did you skip your sex ed. classes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, telling people they should convert to your religion is hardly going to convice anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your nonsense about "The Silent Scream", that film has been debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about. This is in vast contrast to the people who make and distribute the film, who seem to know close to nothing about anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a nice report on "The Silent Scream." This will, of course, require you to read something, as opposed to getting your facts from a 30 minute propaganda video.

[Joe2142]

edit

[Collective]

-Edit- responded to fast (delete if possible please, mods)

[Joe2142]

I meant to edit my post but accidently quoted. I don't need scientific crap that can be disproven to alter my opinions. I still believe that it's God's choice for a women to be impregniated.

[Collective]

I meant to edit my post but accidently quoted. I don't need scientific crap that can be disproven to alter my opinions. I still believe that it's God's choice for a women to be impregniated.

 

 

 

You don't seriously believe that the existance of sperm and eggs has been disproven, do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't like science, stop using computers and throw away your television.

[jakerules13]

abortion is murder, no matter what you say

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

does the baby have a choice if it wants to live? no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i believe abortion should be illegal unless the embryo was concieved by someone who was raping the woman, or if the woman's life or health is at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if abortion can still be legal, i want to kill my language teacher and get away with it :D

[Joe2142]

During the growth of a baby that it feels pain at whatever time they say can be disproven. It's God's choice/plan for the woman to be impregniated. To everything there is a reason. Again, these are just my opinions.

[Joe2142]

PS- No matter what time the baby feels pain, it will still grow into a human being.

[Collective]

i believe abortion should be illegal unless the embryo was concieved by someone who was raping the woman

 

 

 

I've never quite understood this point of view. Does a person being related to a rapist have any bearing on whether they have to right to live or not? If so, how?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the growth of a baby that it feels pain at x time can be disproven.

 

 

 

I assume you meant "can't." Either way, if the baby doesn't have a nervous system capable of transmitting and recieving pain impulses it's going to have extreme difficulty feeling pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

I may aswell also add this. If something being "part of God's plan" influences people's desire to copulate and bring forth babies, why would it not also affect their desire to have an abortion?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

The parents deserve to know. If they don't already know, it means the girl is only seeking the abortion to keep her parents from finding out, and that is exactly the thing I am against. Getting an abortion for the sake of getting out of trouble is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't believe in doctor-patient confidentiality? In most cases, (in the south) you will get into more trouble if your parents knew you had an abortion rather then having a child. The notification system is in place so that parents can unjustly impose their moral judgements on the teen; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an abuse of parental power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is an abomination to this world and should be illegal. People say things such as "Its not even a baby yet" and things like that, but a baby is a baby, if it isnt a baby...then the mom would not be pregnant. Abortion is no different from killing a 2 month old infant or a 45 year old man. I believe it should be illegal and banned from all countrys. If the womens life is at risk, abortion still isnt right because everything happens for a reason, it was God's Will. If a women dosn't want a baby, she should of never had intercourse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for forcibly imposing your religious views (making abortion illegal due to gods will) on everyone else; your views conflict with something called freedom of religion. My religious view is that everyone with a forums name of Raegen should spend life in prison because my god commanded it to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post is again, where we're just going to keep disagreeing - I believe purpose is not determined by the user. If the creators of calculators realized that all people were going to use them for was for frisbees, they would make frisbees instead, they wouldn't make calculators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bolded the word that weakens your argument. Without reproductive sex we WOULD NOT be here, without recreational sex we MIGHT NOT be here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want frisbees they want calculators! The people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care theyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re using it for the wrong ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâpurposeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, whoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to say how something should be used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we ban guns, their primary purpose is to kill people; killing people is wrong so it should be banned. Its funny how we never talk about banning guns and a host of other things with their primary purposes to kill; it just seems to me like the abortion debate is really just support for making women more subservient to men. The more areas where men have control of women the better!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking my words literally, I was trying to respect peoples philosophical views (like not having sex before marriage) by stating 'might not' even then most people don't become pregnant straight away, so recreational sex does play an influence in these cases. Let retract that statement and replace it with 'would not'. Not to mention biochemical reactions (like pheromones for example) which influence your sexual behaviour before you decide to only have sex for reproduction only. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s impossible to discard recreational sex from influencing your birth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the problem when discussing legal and natural phenomena things with you, you always use your philosophical arguments to justify your stance. This is ok since itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your opinion but it isn't going to change the nature; you can't use supernatural arguments to defend factual evidence. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not like their forcing you to have an abortion, if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in abortions then donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have one. So why not skip all the chat and just say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your opinion and that the choice should be left up to the individual mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

abortion is murder, no matter what you say

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

does the baby have a choice if it wants to live? no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i believe abortion should be illegal unless the embryo was concieved by someone who was raping the woman, or if the woman's life or health is at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion isn't murder since the foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a child; it can't live independently from the mother and hence has no say in whether it wants to live or not.

 

 

 

The foetus from the raped/unhealthy woman has no choice in if it wants to live; great double standard you got going there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know why I bother posting in these things, it just keeps on going in circles from people who donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t read the thread or just chime in support of enforcing their religious views on others. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s probably to try and cut down on the misconceptions people have but it never seems to get taken in, I guess some people like to have ignorance of the world around them.

[insane]

Why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we ban guns, their primary purpose is to kill people; killing people is wrong so it should be banned. Its funny how we never talk about banning guns and a host of other things with their primary purposes to kill;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish guns were banned. I'm not talking about it because that's not part of this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it just seems to me like the abortion debate is really just support for making women more subservient to men. The more areas where men have control of women the better!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you would explain this a little more it wouldn't look like you're forcing words into my mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking my words literally, I was trying to respect peoples philosophical views (like not having sex before marriage) by stating 'might not' even then most people don't become pregnant straight away, so recreational sex does play an influence in these cases. Let retract that statement and replace it with 'would not'. Not to mention biochemical reactions (like pheromones for example) which influence your sexual behaviour before you decide to only have sex for reproduction only. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s impossible to discard recreational sex from influencing your birth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few hundred million Catholics would disagree with you there. Unless you're saying that recreation is inherent in the definition of sex?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why not skip all the chat and just say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your opinion and that the choice should be left up to the individual mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I'm not a moral relativist. You're arguing too...? I always thought that logic was absolute, irrefutable. If someone believes 2+2=5 when I can logically/mathematically prove that it equals four then I think I'd be apt to say that their opinion is wrong. Why not skip all the chat and say that Hitler's opinion is his opinion and that his choices should be left to him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to go to a mother who is getting an abortion and criticize or judge her - it's just in a debate when I actually debate things. I'm not the type of guy that goes around looking for arguments irl.

[CoRnMaN]

 

 

 

Abortion isn't murder since the foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a child; it can't live independently from the mother and hence has no say in whether it wants to live or not.

 

 

 

So why don't we kill handicapped people? Some of them don't have a say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation:

 

 

 

#1 Mother has baby, baby is born handicapped. Mother dosn't want the responsiblity so kills handicaped baby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#2 My gramma can't take care of her self she cant live independently, so does her caretaker have the right to muder her becuase she dosn't want the responsiblity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is all murder. Killing is killing. There-is-no-reason-to-take-another's-life.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I wish guns were banned. I'm not talking about it because that's not part of this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you would explain this a little more it wouldn't look like you're forcing words into my mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few hundred million Catholics would disagree with you there. Unless you're saying that recreation is inherent in the definition of sex?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I'm not a moral relativist. You're arguing too...? I always thought that logic was absolute, irrefutable. If someone believes 2+2=5 when I can logically/mathematically prove that it equals four then I think I'd be apt to say that their opinion is wrong. Why not skip all the chat and say that Hitler's opinion is his opinion and that his choices should be left to him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might feel that guns should be banned but I doubt your opinion is of the majority in the pro-life camp. How about banning other things like pocket knifes or books detailing how to build weapons; it doesn't just stop at guns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forcing a woman to carry through to a child puts tremendous and unnecessary pressure on her by outside influences (parents, partner, family and friends) to keep the child (its alive so you may as well look after it) when she might not want it. It's coercing mothers (generally the poorer mothers) into becoming a housewife before they are ready to (since they can't afford things like child care). If you want to keep a woman for your own, what a better way of doing it then getting her pregnant and giving her a reason for sticking around? You might not see it that way but there a plenty of people out there that do and others that want it that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to keep it simple, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty much what I mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things like Mathematics and Logic have axioms which define the framework in which propositions are made. For example I was recently taught the 10 axioms of vector subspaces and its pretty much head slapping stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty simple to follow and shows how much work is put into defining something so simple). Mathematics creates a framework where we can make useful predictions which correlate to the physical world. Given the Axioms of mathematics, you can go out and find useful information and make models of it, independent of everyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with things like morals are that they have no simple axioms, there are no ground rules like addition, association or logic. If you attempt to define a set of axioms you can go out and find some sort of behaviour which contradicts the axiom. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the problem with hard and well defined set of morals; you can always go out and find a situation that contradicts the axiom. If there were a simple way to define what moral behaviour is we would have a simple set of rules by now (it's not like there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t any research being done), however thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the case. The inability for absolutism to come up with a solid set of universal rules, gives me the feeling that absolutism doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A simple proof for 2 + 2 = 5

 

 

 

Axiom1: u + w = w + u

 

 

 

Axiom2: u = w is an element of R;

 

 

 

u + w = u + w + 1 = w + u + 1 = (w + u) + 1 = 2*u + 1 = 2*w + 1

 

 

 

If u = w = 2 then u + w = 4 + 1 = 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is true under my definition of addition of 2 identical numbers, however you know this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the case in real life. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve been fed the conventional idea of addition because it is the most useful; if it was more useful to add one whenever we add equal numbers then you would have been taught that (but this is not the case). There is no fundamental reason why we do things the way we do them other then we are lazy and take the easiest route; the universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us how to add, we do. Why are we taught to reduce fraction or simplify something to the lowest common factor; either way it is still the correct solution, we just want something easy on the eyes. (Sorry if I repeated anything, didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really intend the tongue in cheek response to be so long and repetitive)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. Why do we write in Base 10?

 

 

 

Answer: Look at your hands.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

Abortion isn't murder since the foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a child; it can't live independently from the mother and hence has no say in whether it wants to live or not.

 

 

 

So why don't we kill handicapped people? Some of them don't have a say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation:

 

 

 

#1 Mother has baby, baby is born handicapped. Mother dosn't want the responsiblity so kills handicaped baby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#2 My gramma can't take care of her self she cant live independently, so does her caretaker have the right to muder her becuase she dosn't want the responsiblity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is all murder. Killing is killing. There-is-no-reason-to-take-another's-life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Handicapped people have a brainwave; foetuses don't in the first two trimesters (where abortion is legal). You can keep a brain dead person "alive" (having a beating heart) by artificially keeping then nourished (by having things like a feeding tube), the foetus is no different. A foetus is basically a husk of a living person; since it doesn't have a brain wave into the third trimester, it shouldn't be considered alive until then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1 a [developmentally delayed]ed baby has a brainwave so it is alive and can't be killed, a foetus on the other hand is brain dead into the third trimester.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#2 Same as 1, however if your grandmother can't communicate then her medical proxy has the power to give orders (such as pulling out life-support and refusing to let her be resuscitated) on her behalf; sometimes it is better to let someone die instead of continuously holding out for the same out come. Keep your grieving period to a minimum and move on with life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Killing a foetus is like killing a tree, they are living and organic objects but they are not alive in the sense that we are, so its not murder; get it into your head. When can you think of a reason to chop down a tree, more often then murdering someone I bet!