Bigg Boss 19-Daily Discussion Thread- 30th September, 2025
Bigg Boss 19: Daily Discussion Thread - 1st Oct '25
DADI AS BOOTH 1.10
What's next? (Multiple votes allowed)
Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai Oct 1, 2025 Episode Discussion Thread
Swara Bhaskar..someone who dared to say it out loud #respect
Budget Single Digit : 7 cameo openings.
True Face of BIAS & NEPOTISM!
My Box Office Prediction for Sunny Ki....jo bhi hai.
DO NOT REPLY: Current story summarized in 3 pics: ONLY PICS NO REPLIES
Which faces u r fed up of watching
👻 The Manuscript Marauders 👻 BookTalk Reading Challenge October 2025
What are the professional achievements of gabhira
Gen 5- Major Discussion Thread
Official Teaser - Tere Ishk Mein - Dhanush Kriti Sanon
Sonam Kapoor is in her family way ? (2nd baby)
Mihir extra marital affair
The Wanderer Planet
🎉 New Fun Quizzes Are Live on India Forums! 🎉
The Manuscript Marauders Bingo Challenge Thread
Originally posted by: ItIsMyLife
A person in coma?
Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil
Another point I forgot to mention - "no strings attached" also applies to say a 1 week old baby. By your logic there is nothing wrong with humanely terminating them basing their futures on pure probabilities and speculations, considering you are OK with letting them die even AFTER it has come out of the mother's body (i.e. the main point of this discussion). I think I have already given an example with the single mother and lethal injection dose. Frankly, nipping a life in the bud does not always seem like a very logical step to me.
Btw most people from the orphanage don't commit suicide as they grow and I don't think all of them consider their lives, as a whole, worthless. They carry on and strive to be happy. I don't think us privileged members of the upper class society are that much different; we have to find meaning in this meaningless world, aim to find purpose and strive to be happy against all odds. Simply knowing where our lineage came from and having a few members on our side does not change all the obstacles that we have to face and fight and defeat as we go on. I am pretty sure a lot of these unwanted babies end up getting a much better future than many of us much wanted children.
Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil
I don't follow the logic. Can it not be said that the mother should wait until the birth of the baby and give it up for adoption? I think a better reasoning could be: "since we do not know it for sure if the fetus ' especially at the beginning stage - can be deemed as a life (more like a potential life), terminating it is not the same as taking a life. Also, different forms of life ' some which are even more conscious than a fetus is at the beginning stage ' is cold-bloodedly taken to feed our belly and for even more trivial reasons, taking a life that is still slightly different from a human is not the same as murder."
Lets put it this way- A crime, an accident or a mistake committed leads to pregnancy against the mother's wishes. We can leave the medical compulsions aside for the time being as I think we have consensus on it. Continuing the pregnancy to term entails putting up with all the hormonal, physical, psychological, social, financial changes that would follow only to land up with a baby the mother did not want in the first place. Unless she has enough support or feels competent enough to put up with it all , there seems to be no logic in letting the pregnancy progress to term only to give up the baby for adoption. Besides, I dont think it is fair to compel a mother to undergo full term pregnancy against her wishes when it is possible to intervene and prevent it. As an individual she has a right to make a decision after weighing the associated benefits and risk that have accrued to her. She is a person in her own right whereas the foetus hasnt attained personhood yet. As pregnancy progresses emotional bonding can occur making it difficult for the mother to give up the baby .She may want to avoid all that and go for an early termination of her condition.
You could call it pure speculation if you like but then nothing is a certainty till it happens. I am fine with your line of reasoning regarding the different forms of life evoking a different reaction. Other than forms of life, the circumstances too would influence any emotional reaction. A mother under supportive and favourable circumstances would welcome a baby whereas one in adverse situation may not.
Who deserves more empathy – a woman who is a living entity at that point of time or a baby who may be born at a future date?
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Human life = Personhood + Self Sustaining
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
An acorn is not an oak tree.
A sick oak tree is still an oak tree.
Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil
Err...a person in coma is neither self-sustaining nor conscious enough to have personhood. He isn't just "sick" but is actually kept alive and sustained through various medical devices. If performing euthanasia over him even without his former consent turns out to be the more practical and utilitarian option, then it is totally morally permissible to do it. The chance of a person in coma having a miraculous recovery is as much as a fetus leading to born baby - even less maybe.
As such we can end the 'fetuses are not living' line of reasoning. Whether or not they are living in the initial stage, they tend to acquire "life" or the central organs necessary for life. They don't attain life seconds before coming out of their mother's body I am sure.
Channel V Dil Dosti Dance
Arjun
