There still is a difference. In one instance you are punishing someone who is clearly choosing a substance that detrimental to society as a whole and as a result is illegal. Because allowing some to use will create a "they can do it" mess where they would have to be fair and let whole host of others use as well. So it is necessary to have a standard. With that being said it is a far stretch to pre-determine a individual who has yet to make a choice!Quote by: RhettAllen
There is no definition for the capability of the infant human to manipulate parents especially and others with so little effort. I think a high level of oxytocin is responsible for the strongest parental response. Levels of it result in behavioral differences related to love and relationships. These varying levels of oxytocin would bear a study on levels in pro-choice and pro-life members. My bet would be that pro-lifers would test at higher levels.
One thing that can be said of a born infant rather than an unborn. It breathes independently or it dies. Sentient or not.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Apparently children not aborted are detrimental to society as a whole.
It's no different to predetermine if an individual who is being born will be good or bad and predetermining if an individual who is starting to use drugs will be good or bad.
Please enlighten me on the significant difference that makes one more liable than the other.
I suppose it could play some sort of role. I'm not so sure you'd see much of a correlation in the study though, as the factors that seem to be most relevant are cultural, educational, religious, etc. background. Maybe if you could prove that asians have less oxytocin levels overall, because they seem to be very liberal about abortions in this part of the world. I could be wrong, just seems that way. They seem to tend to make such policies based on population factors rather than moral factors.
But can't an unborn breath independently sometime in the last trimester if taken out prematurely to some degree? I'm not sure, I suppose I'm just assuming.
9 guys run China. Reproductive freedom in China is a non sequitur. The actions due to natural urges (hormonal or not) are suppressed.
Of course it is presumed so. But let's say it struggles and the mother is of some naturalist type of religion of some type and insists no aid be given to the struggling infant whether term or not on the grounds that if it cannot manage to breath independently then it will not live to ever challenge its digestive system. Selection is a tool of eugenics as well as evolution. Eugenics is self directed evolution. Why not select for genetic disease free babies?But can't an unborn breath independently sometime in the last trimester if taken out prematurely to some degree? I'm not sure, I suppose I'm just assuming.
Future Generations
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Do you hold the same "regard" to other animals?
Chickens? Other Apes? Etc?
Please explain your response, if you can.
I'm not talking about just China. I said Asia. Japanese girls use abortion as a form of birth control. They are actually strongly against birth control pills here, as they have overly scared the public about cancer and heart risks. Apparently when my wife went to go get birth control pills from a doctor, he kept going on about how it will give her cancer and that she shouldn't use it. They act like abortion is a part of life. But they are PLENTY caring when it comes to a child they want. I see young guys carrying babies on their front-side all the time here. Japanese mothers also seem to pay a little more attention to a crying child than in the US.
Ah yes, that is another thread of discussion.
It's not a tragedy, it's biology. Get over yourself.
One individual is conscious and breaking a law (though not dying as a result). The other has broken no law and has yet to make a choice.
So? Are you saying "our way is the besy way"? Or that we are superior somehow?
Last time, not to many years ago, I went into a pharmacy to buy the day after pill (in LA), do you know the response was? Do you know the attitude I got to deal with? They started going on how I should have "been more careful" and gave me their opinions about how bad I was then just giving me the damn pills.
I dont see much difference from Japanese response (in regard to your post), so I am just saying....
And why is the law there in the first place? And though they are not dying, oftentimes their lives are being ruined.
No, I'm commenting on minorworks' post about how he thinks that maybe pro-life advocates might have higher levels of oxytocin and thus is why they tend towards pro-life feelings.
I was simply saying that I don't think there would be a correlation unless asians in general had less oxytocin levels, as most of the countries in asia seem very liberal towards abortion.
As far as which way is better... the strange thing about living in Japan for the past year is that on many social and political issues, I feel there needs to be a combination of the two to get a better system.
I like that they are more open to abortion and may even talk to one another about it without any negative feelings. Though I wish they were a little more pro-pill.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks