Arbat (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} arbat) wrote,@ 2005-03-03 23:30:00 |
|
| Current mood: |  calm |
dyak in quotes
- When life begins and what life means as applied to a fetus is obviously very culture-relativistic. In my opinion, in this important issue we should avoid cultural relativism as much as possible and rely only on non-culturally-relativistic criteria. One way is: as long as a fetus is inside the mother (up to and including one second before birth), she has a right (she may choose to act otherwise) to extract the fetus out of her body in the way safest to her and without any regard to the safety or survivability of the fetus. Once the fetus is out of the body, if he or she has a brain function, he or she is a person if and as long as he or she is alive
- Under my scheme, one may call the fetus anything as long as the woman's right to extract it out of her is not interfered with
- A human being is a biological organism. If we have one biological organism, we have one human being. Saying that something must take its nutrients and depend in a lot of other ways directly from another human's body is how we, placental mammals, tell whether it is a part of another biological organism or a separate biological organism; and it is so for brain, liver, fetus, kidney, etc
- A woman should have the right to (a) relocate the fetus from the inside of her body to the outside of her body (b) when the woman wants it and (c) in the way safest to the woman. This is the beginning and the end of my basic position.
- Assuming that the right of the woman to extract the fetus in the way safest to her is protected, I personally would be in favor of forbidding torturing fetuses. Why? Because causing pain to a living creature for the sake of causing pain is bad regardless of whether you are dealing with a person, a fetus, a monkey, or a cat.
- The right to control your body, just like the right to control your home, is actually several rights. The first and the most fundamental of them is the right to remove an unwanted object or intruder in the safest way to the owner. This is the right I am most concerned about
- As long as a fetus is inside a woman, it is a living organism which functions essentially as a body part
- The doctor may never choose between life and health of a woman and a fetus, the doctor should always give the interests of the mother the first priority, and the interests of the fetus the second priority after the interests of the mother; never otherwise, and never equal priorities to the mother and the fetus. The doctor should never think of this choice as a choice between two human lives or as of a murder of a fetus. Mother first, fetus second, everywhere, every time.
- My position on abortions is clear and has never changed:
1. A fetus is not a person.
2. A pregant woman has the right to extract the fetus from her.
3. The extraction is to be done in the way safest to her, first of all, and to the fetus, second of all.
4. Once a baby is outside and alive, it is a person. - арбат про меня: Он настаивает, что, если это можно сделать без вреда для жизни матери и она хочет от зародыша немедленно избавиться - убить зародыша допустимо в любой момент до родов.
Конечно ничего такого я никогда не говорил. - Мое мнение (выраженное примерно сто раз в ста местах):
Если иначе вреда для жизни матери не избежать, и она хочет от зародыша немедленно избавиться –- убить зародыша допустимо в любой момент до родов. Можно убивать только если нельзя не убивать. Надо постараться, чтобы зародыш не пострадал.
Вы мне приписали:
"Если это можно сделать без вреда для жизни матери и она хочет от зародыша немедленно избавиться - убить зародыша допустимо в любой момент до родов." - Слово "вред" было употреблено Вами и приписано мне, я говорил "опасность для жизни и здоровья" и т. п.
- Абсолютного права на аборт и/или любой аборт по желанию матери я не отстаивал нигде. Это еще одно или два ложно Вами приписанное мне мнения.