Comments on: Abortion: why the 24 week rule is absurd http://www.owen.org/blog/1132 Thoughts on development and beyond Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:50:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: amber http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-7624 amber Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:02:20 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-7624 An unborn baby has every human component present within itself at the exact moment of conception. A car has many pieces that must be made, welded, shipped seperately and must be put together by machines and people, it doesn't grow into a car. Also, it doesn't have a heart or a brain and so an and so forth. An unborn baby has every human component present within itself at the exact moment of conception.

A car has many pieces that must be made, welded, shipped seperately and must be put together by machines and people, it doesn’t grow into a car. Also, it doesn’t have a heart or a brain and so an and so forth.

]]> By: amber http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-7622 amber Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:52:16 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-7622 Owen. You considered deleting a previous comment that disagreed with something you stated in the article. Is this article open to opposing opinions that are valid and well said in a respectful manner? Owen. You considered deleting a previous comment that disagreed with something you stated in the article.

Is this article open to opposing opinions that are valid and well said in a respectful manner?

]]> By: Donald Strachan - Writer » Blog Archive » Talk amongst yourselves, we couldn’t possibly comment http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-829 Donald Strachan - Writer » Blog Archive » Talk amongst yourselves, we couldn’t possibly comment Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:00:13 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-829 [...] A second argument claims a right to life for the foetus as soon as it’s “viable” – able to survive outside the body. Owen replies: [...] [...] A second argument claims a right to life for the foetus as soon as it’s “viable” – able to survive outside the body. Owen replies: [...]

]]> By: Anon http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-828 Anon Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:01:09 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-828 Through abortion, you are violating the right of an unborn baby and ethically this is insane. <i><b>Owen replies: </b> I came close to deleting this comment as spam; but left it because it shows the unthinking position of some opponents of abortion. If you bothered to read the article above, you would see a carefully argued position explaining why I don't think that the foetus has rights (it is an "unborn baby" in the same sense that sperm is an "unborn baby" or a piece of steel is an "unmade car".)</i> Through abortion, you are violating the right of an unborn baby and ethically this is insane.

Owen replies: I came close to deleting this comment as spam; but left it because it shows the unthinking position of some opponents of abortion. If you bothered to read the article above, you would see a carefully argued position explaining why I don’t think that the foetus has rights (it is an “unborn baby” in the same sense that sperm is an “unborn baby” or a piece of steel is an “unmade car”.)

]]> By: Matt http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-827 Matt Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:53:04 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-827 A more interesting debate could be had on the merits of any viability distinction, as opposed to the particular one of 24 weeks (6 months, or end of second trimester). In the US most states define the time of viability at the first trimester, or 12 weeks. This definition is not based on medical technology, but on the fact that before the end of the first trimester, there is no brain activity, and the musculo-skeletal system of the fetus is not being controlled by any consciousness. Such a definition divorces viability from medical technology and also addresses a variety of other concerns such as the human rights argument raised above. If something is not really alive (has no personal consciousness or ability to act as an independent agent) then it cannot be lumped into the same category as human beings with full moral and practical agency. Thus, it becomes obvious that this entire bloody debate is based on nothing more than semantics of a few key terms. A more interesting debate could be had on the merits of any viability distinction, as opposed to the particular one of 24 weeks (6 months, or end of second trimester). In the US most states define the time of viability at the first trimester, or 12 weeks. This definition is not based on medical technology, but on the fact that before the end of the first trimester, there is no brain activity, and the musculo-skeletal system of the fetus is not being controlled by any consciousness. Such a definition divorces viability from medical technology and also addresses a variety of other concerns such as the human rights argument raised above. If something is not really alive (has no personal consciousness or ability to act as an independent agent) then it cannot be lumped into the same category as human beings with full moral and practical agency. Thus, it becomes obvious that this entire bloody debate is based on nothing more than semantics of a few key terms.

]]> By: Owen’s musings » Blog Archive » Abortion, conscience and elections http://www.owen.org/blog/1132/comment-page-1#comment-826 Owen’s musings » Blog Archive » Abortion, conscience and elections Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:27:25 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/?p=5#comment-826 [...] ning candidates could prompt a wider debate. First, on the merits of the issue itself, as I argued here in 2003, there is no case for adjusting the time limit [...] [...] ning candidates could prompt a wider debate. First, on the merits of the issue itself, as I argued here in 2003, there is no case for adjusting the time limit [...]

]]>