Abortion.

[Ambassadar]

An embryo has not yet released the potential to regard itself as a an individual. An unconscious person has reached the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality at that specific moment. The same can be said for the mentally ill (in case you were thinking of using the same point with them). They have the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality.

 

 

 

So that puts some mentally ill people in the same condition as a newborn child. If a person is advocating killing that unborn child is ok since they probably haven't considered themselves an individual yet then according to the same logic wouldn't it be ok to start exterminating "unwanted" mentally ill people?

[warri0r45]

1) That's fine, be a lobbyist for what you believe in, just make sure you don't fall into the trap of believing you in fact have divine right to tell a mother what she can and can not do when the choice to abort is within the limits of law.

 

(1) You are correct as long as that unborn child you are killing is not a human. If they are a human then they should have full protection under the law.

 

 

 

Yes, "life begins at birth" is BS. Life eventuates from a mechanical dividing machine into an embryo with a heartbeat and pain perception and beyond. Where to draw the line of where life begins can be a simple 'at conception' or something far more difficult to pin point.

 

(2) If you aren't sure then shouldn't you err on the safe side of things which according to what you just said would be conception?

 

I admire Ambassadar in particular for debating a human zygote as a person and bringing up many difficult philosophical issues to answer, but the argument then carries huge emotional appeal.

 

Ty for the compliment. If my argument carries huge emotional appeal then great but don't confuse that with an emotional argument. (3) The actual argument is cold hard logic and data.

 

 

My arguments countering Ambassadar's then evolved into a questioning of why not debate against killing a human zygote instead of lumping them in with the category of people?

 

(4) To which I countered give me a suitable definition of what a person is which you haven't done yet. :P That being the case if you don't know shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution until you do know? Lives are at stake over this issue.

 

 

 

Hell, why not divide the whole gestation period into weeks and argue against terminating the pregnancy at a specific point?

 

(5) Because there isn't a point you can say "Ok, suddenly this unborn child is a person but they weren't a person five seconds before that point." That means they were either a person the entire time since conception or else they aren't a person until they are born.

 

 

 

In terminating an undeveloped embryo, you are not snuffing out dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc. Can you see what I'm saying?

 

(6) Does a newborn baby have dreams, hopes, and aspirations?

 

 

 

Yes, it will likely grow up and have aspirations, dreams, hopes, etc, but it dosen't actually have those things now. People then make the connection that they are wiping out something analagous to a fully grown and concious human, which no doubt gets people worked up. If you were to kill an embryo with none of these qualitites, why are we bringing them up in the debate?

(7) If you were to kill a newborn infant that had the exact same situation then why would it all of a sudden be wrong to do it then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Should a human zygote have full protection under the law in the same way as an adult should, to you?

 

 

 

(2) Technically life does begin at conception. It's not a life of pain, emotion or awareness whatsoever but it is life. I'm not going to err on the safe side if it means a mother is duped of a choice to abort just because I don't feel right destroying an emotionless, unaware, unperceptive conglomeration of cells.

 

 

 

(3) Why not then go the next logical step. We all know killing people is wrong. I want to hear your justification for why killing a human zygote or a human blastocyst is wrong. Why is it wrong to kill an emotionless, unreceptive, unaware conglomeration of cells?

 

 

 

Would it not be logical to avoid ambiguity in your argument? Specify, at least to flatter me and see if your argument holds as much oomph as your current one does. We know killing people is wrong. What about killing a human zygote, for example?

 

 

 

(4) I'm no longer arguing against your definition of what constitutes a person. I'm asking you to see if your argument against killing zygotes is as strong as your argument against killing people.

 

 

 

(5) I wasn't talking about what constitutes a person. I was saying divide the category of 'people' and argue against a specific point in gestration to avoid ambiguity and an argument you know holds emotional weight. Try and see if your argument is as ground breaking if you choose to specify what it is you are arguing against.

 

 

 

(6) I suppose not, but it does have pain perception and emotion, unlike a zygote or a blastocyst.

 

 

 

(7) Because they most certainly feel pain.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

1) That's fine, be a lobbyist for what you believe in, just make sure you don't fall into the trap of believing you in fact have divine right to tell a mother what she can and can not do when the choice to abort is within the limits of law.

 

 

 

2) Yes, "life begins at birth" is BS. Life eventuates from a mechanical dividing machine into an embryo with a heartbeat and pain perception and beyond. Where to draw the line of where life begins can be a simple 'at conception' or something far more difficult to pin point.

 

 

 

3) Yes, I don't like the emotional appeal. I admire Ambassadar in particular for debating a human zygote as a person and bringing up many difficult philosophical issues to answer, but the argument then carries huge emotional appeal. To debate such issues and avoid an emotional bias, you need specificity in what you are debating against. Ambassadar's argument was that zygotes are people, killing people is wrong and therefore killing zygotes is wrong (feel free to correct me Ambassadar). My arguments countering Ambassadar's then evolved into a questioning of why not debate against killing a human zygote instead of lumping them in with the category of people? Hell, why not divide the whole gestation period into weeks and argue against terminating the pregnancy at a specific point? This would undoubtedly destroy emotional appeal because the connotation when saying 'killing people' is much more real and unsettling than the connotation when saying 'killing zygotes' or even 'killing blastocysts' or 'killing 1 week old embryos.'

 

 

 

4) Eugenics is a difficult issue and you bring up a difficult scenario.

 

 

 

5) Herein lies the polar opposite views of the debate. You're bringing emotion into it by comparing what you are infact not doing to what you are. In terminating an undeveloped embryo, you are not snuffing out dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc. Can you see what I'm saying? Is the mentality here that the position has less appeal when you actually look at what it is you are doing rather than what you are not? They are future possibilities, as you pointed out; you are arguing a hypothetical as if it were the current state of the embryo and people thrive on that emotion in thier arguments and disgust in abortion. They think of little children playing in fields of green grass when talking about biochemical entities who feel nothing and whose current purpose is to divide.

 

 

 

Yes, it will likely grow up and have aspirations, dreams, hopes, etc, but it dosen't actually have those things now. People then make the connection that they are wiping out something analagous to a fully grown and concious human, which no doubt gets people worked up. If you were to kill an embryo with none of these qualitites, why are we bringing them up in the debate? A possible answer could be people like the oomph or emotional undertones of 'killing a future human with dreams and aspirations' over 'killing a conglomeration of dividing cells with no pain perception or awareness of self.'

 

 

 

6) I'm not saying that the adoption program is dismal like that. I don't know enough about it to do so. Your hypothetical seemed to have all pieces fit into each other nicely and as for how frequently these occurances happen in real life, I'm not sure. I think it's great when a mother can agree to go through a pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption to a truly deserving couple. The key word being 'agree.' I'm not about to say what she must or must not do with her embryo even if I am a truly deserving infertile parent. It would be seen as rather intrusive and rude of me.

 

 

 

7) That wasn't the question. You asked me about the rights of an embryo of irresponsible parents when I asked you if abortion should be outlawed even though those who do abort aren't always irresponsible. In other words, should the actions of those irresponsible ones determine the legality of abortion for those who genuinely need it?

 

 

 

 

 

1. Never have had that "divine right," unlike others in the debate. Notice how I've brought the Bible into this. I'm relying on moral and ethical principles here. General ones.

 

 

 

2. Exactly. That's the whole spirit of the debate. However, most pro-choicers I talk to believe in the "life begins at birth" and therefore spoil my opinion of the rest of you. Like you stated in number 7, it's a small group of irresponsible ones spoiling it for the rest.

 

 

 

3. However, the point is that zygotes only last for hours before the first division. Note that this is three-five days after intercourse, in which the parents to be had plenty of time to follow-up with birth control. The "morning-after" pill is dirt cheap, I hear. And unlike some people, I don't consider it abortion if you use it "the morning after" as the sperm has likely not reached the egg.

 

 

 

4. Yes, I thought so. The bads far outweigh the goods of eugenics research.

 

 

 

5. As someone stated before, a newborn infant does not have current views, ideas, aspirations, etc. But when an infant is smothered by it's mother, CNN crucifies her bringinig up that same point. But an embryo or fetus is different because it hasn't been born yet?

 

 

 

I was not referring to a termination paradox, I was referring to the grandiose double-standard that exists.

 

 

 

6. It's her right (couple A) to do whatever she wants. But my belief is that murder is not one of them. If she does carry the baby to term, she may decide that she does indeed love this thing growing inside her. She might even decide to keep the child.

 

 

 

7. I believe it should. Abortion is not to be used as a form of birth control (the main thing about it that pisses me off). If someone has genuine medical need of an abortion, with a certified gynecologist providing evidence, I'm more likely to bend. But it should be strictly monitored, so every midwife in America doesn't make a killing giving out 'abortion tickets.'

 

1) Good to hear.

 

 

 

3) That's not the point at all. It's a peripheral issue. You can put the zygote in the same category as the next few divisions in which it looks and functions in the same way. On the morning after pill, I should put it out there that I'd much rather a world where everyone took the morning after pill as opposed to waiting a few weeks to get an abortion.

 

 

 

5) No, an embryo or fetus is different in that it has undeveloped pain perception, assuming it's far back in development. I'm not crash hot on aborting later in the pregnancy when some of those faculties are more developed.

 

 

 

6) Another one of those emotive words. Abortion is in fact not murder. And yes, she may decide she eventually wants to keep it. If so, great.

 

 

 

7) Firstly, I'd rather it not be in any way the first choice of birth control. Such a use for abortion is an abuse of the system among other things. And yes, definately; I'm in no way endorsing abortion as a throw away procedure. Taken carefully and seriously at all times or not at all.

[Led-Zeppelin]

What it comes down to is, you may think it is wrong, but it needs to be legal for the mother own safety. If it were illegal, I'm sure plenty of people would seek out other methods of abortion. Go to some seedy abortion centre run out of someones house, in a unsterile environment. Where he will probably prod you with a rusty coat hanger. Or get someone to kick the crap out her stomach.

 

 

 

Now, all you pro-lifers, what would be a greater crime to let die, a fetus which doesn't know it's mouth from it's a-hole. Or a young woman, too scared to deal with a child she would never be able to care for, who didn't have the right facilities avaliable to her?

 

Actually, our mouth and anus do come from the same hole. So there is nothing to tell apart at first...

 

But really, making something illegal does not guarantee anything. when you have to have it you have to have it. People will get abortions no matter the law, and here's a thought: just because something is legal does not mean everybody will do it. Sbortion being legal does not mean hundreds of thousands will be getting abortions each day.

 

 

 

What, isn't messing with peoples quotes against forum rules? I said tit, but it got bleeped out. And you quoted me and said mouth? Whats up with that.

[Ambassadar]

(1) Should a human zygote have full protection under the law in the same way as an adult should, to you?

 

If a human zygote is a person then they should absolutely have the same rights as an adult. If they did not then it would be discrimination.

 

 

 

If that human zygote is not a person they should have no rights unto themselves. If they were not a person then they would need to be viewed as something that is owned by the parents so if it is damaged or destroyed by someone that doesn't "own" it the person that did the damage can go to trial.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to err on the safe side if it means a mother is duped of a choice to abort just because I don't feel right destroying an emotionless, unaware, unperceptive conglomeration of cells.

 

So according my understanding of the way you view things(please correct me if I understood it wrong) there is a grey area between conception and birth where somewhere during that time a baby should gain the right to be called a person and not a lump of cells. You aren't sure when that time is but you know it is somewhere between those two points.

 

 

 

If a you choose to aggressively pursue abortion and not err on the side of caution then there is a very good chance people will die using your own definition of what a person is. If a mistake is made due to pursuing an aggressive plan in a fuzzy situation is that not negligence? If a person is killed on purpose would that not be murder?

 

 

 

(3) Why not then go the next logical step. We all know killing people is wrong. I want to hear your justification for why killing a human zygote or a human blastocyst is wrong. Why is it wrong to kill an emotionless, unreceptive, unaware conglomeration of cells?

 

I think I might be missing what you are getting at here because the entire point of my argument is to clarify why a zygote is a person in the first place and since they would be a person then killing them would be wrong because killing innocent people in pretty much any situation is wrong.

 

 

 

Would it not be logical to avoid ambiguity in your argument? Specify, at least to flatter me and see if your argument holds as much oomph as your current one does. We know killing people is wrong. What about killing a human zygote, for example?

 

Are you wanting me to toss my my argument and completely make up a new argument that makes the exact same point?

 

 

 

(4) I'm no longer arguing against your definition of what constitutes a person. I'm asking you to see if your argument against killing zygotes is as strong as your argument against killing people.

 

My argument against killing zygotes is my argument against killing people. It's the same thing. A zygote is merely a very young person.

 

 

 

 

 

(5) I wasn't talking about what constitutes a person. I was saying divide the category of 'people' and argue against a specific point in gestration to avoid ambiguity and an argument you know holds emotional weight.

 

I will be glad to do whatever you are asking here if I can get a little clarification first. What exactly do you want me to be arguing for or against at each point? If we concede they are a person from conception then what is there to argue beyond that? Also, divide the category of people into what? I think neither one of us is fully understanding what the other one is getting at right now.

 

 

 

(6) I suppose not, but it does have pain perception and emotion, unlike a zygote or a blastocyst.

 

 

 

(7) Because they most certainly feel pain.

 

So now we are saying we should define who is or isn't a person by if they have the ability to feel pain?

 

 

 

6) Another one of those emotive words. Abortion is in fact not murder. And yes, she may decide she eventually wants to keep it. If so, great.

 

There are only two options at any time to label what is inside a pregnant mother. Either it is a person or it is not a person and merely a part of the mother's body.

 

 

 

If it is a person then they should have full rights under the law which would mean killing them would be murder.

 

 

 

If it is not a person then the mother can do anything with it they want to do.

[warri0r45]

I'm 100% pro-choice. I think that it's your right as a human individual to do whatever you want since it's your life, and no one should be able to control you. I think it's your right to kill babies, and I think it's your right to walk up to people and stab them in the heart. I think that it's your right to catch your neighbors' houses on fire, and I think it's your right to run people over who walk in front of you on the street. I think it's your right to steal from stores that overcharge you for items, and I think that it's your right to harass anyone who ever bothers you. It's your right because you're a human and an individual and no one should be able to tell you otherwise. Ever.

 

 

 

Let's use the example of the legal aborting an embryo not yet with developed pain perception.

 

 

 

Killing babies - causes harm and against the law

 

Stabbing people - causes harm and against the law

 

Arson - destruction of property (monetary harm) and against the law

 

Running people over - causes harm and against the law

 

Stealing - theft of property (monetary harm) and against the law

 

Harrassment - causes harm and against the law

 

 

 

Aborting an embryo not yet with pain perception - causes no harm (well, unless you'd like to include the emotional distress of the pro-life movement) and is within the law.

 

 

 

Whatever the intention of your little spiel, it's not an accurate representation of someone who is pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

[warri0r45]

(1) Should a human zygote have full protection under the law in the same way as an adult should, to you?

 

If a human zygote is a person then they should absolutely have the same rights as an adult. If they did not then it would be discrimination.

 

 

 

If that human zygote is not a person they should have no rights unto themselves. If they were not a person then they would need to be viewed as something that is owned by the parents so if it is damaged or destroyed by someone that doesn't "own" it the person that did the damage can go to trial.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to err on the safe side if it means a mother is duped of a choice to abort just because I don't feel right destroying an emotionless, unaware, unperceptive conglomeration of cells.

 

So according my understanding of the way you view things(please correct me if I understood it wrong) there is a grey area between conception and birth where somewhere during that time a baby should gain the right to be called a person and not a lump of cells. You aren't sure when that time is but you know it is somewhere between those two points.

 

 

 

If a you choose to aggressively pursue abortion and not err on the side of caution then there is a very good chance people will die using your own definition of what a person is. If a mistake is made due to pursuing an aggressive plan in a fuzzy situation is that not negligence? If a person is killed on purpose would that not be murder?

 

 

 

(3) Why not then go the next logical step. We all know killing people is wrong. I want to hear your justification for why killing a human zygote or a human blastocyst is wrong. Why is it wrong to kill an emotionless, unreceptive, unaware conglomeration of cells?

 

I think I might be missing what you are getting at here because the entire point of my argument is to clarify why a zygote is a person in the first place and since they would be a person then killing them would be wrong because killing innocent people in pretty much any situation is wrong.

 

 

 

Would it not be logical to avoid ambiguity in your argument? Specify, at least to flatter me and see if your argument holds as much oomph as your current one does. We know killing people is wrong. What about killing a human zygote, for example?

 

Are you wanting me to toss my my argument and completely make up a new argument that makes the exact same point?

 

 

 

(4) I'm no longer arguing against your definition of what constitutes a person. I'm asking you to see if your argument against killing zygotes is as strong as your argument against killing people.

 

My argument against killing zygotes is my argument against killing people. It's the same thing. A zygote is merely a very young person.

 

 

 

 

 

(5) I wasn't talking about what constitutes a person. I was saying divide the category of 'people' and argue against a specific point in gestration to avoid ambiguity and an argument you know holds emotional weight.

 

I will be glad to do whatever you are asking here if I can get a little clarification first. What exactly do you want me to be arguing for or against at each point? If we concede they are a person from conception then what is there to argue beyond that? Also, divide the category of people into what? I think neither one of us is fully understanding what the other one is getting at right now.

 

 

 

(6) I suppose not, but it does have pain perception and emotion, unlike a zygote or a blastocyst.

 

 

 

(7) Because they most certainly feel pain.

 

So now we are saying we should define who is or isn't a person by if they have the ability to feel pain?

 

 

 

6) Another one of those emotive words. Abortion is in fact not murder. And yes, she may decide she eventually wants to keep it. If so, great.

 

There are only two options at any time to label what is inside a pregnant mother. Either it is a person or it is not a person and merely a part of the mother's body.

 

 

 

If it is a person then they should have full rights under the law which would mean killing them would be murder.

 

 

 

If it is not a person then the mother can do anything with it they want to do.

 

 

 

I'll give you this one to see if we can take this further. As for your argument that killing zygotes is wrong because they are people, you are the victor. I challenged you to add specificity to avoid the luxury of emotional appeal so I'll do it for you. What if I put it to you that I feel it is wrong to kill some people but not others?

 

 

 

What if I put it to you that that I see no harm in killing people with no ability to feel pain, no consciousness, no knowlege of self, or no emotion?

 

 

 

What if I put it to you that before the first sign of any of these things, I see no wrong in terminating this life?

 

 

 

Thus, my position includes those people from zygote to first sign of development of those aformentioned features.

[Voldmort0]

I think abortion is a desperate and despicable solution.

 

It's the parent's responsibility from the moment they had sexual relations to the part where the baby is born, they should assume it. Every human being has the right to live.

 

Only case where I think it's admissible, would be when the vicitim was raped, and had no control over the situation. =;

[Riku3220]

I think abortion is a desperate and despicable solution.

 

It's the parent's responsibility from the moment they had sexual relations to the part where the baby is born, they should assume it. Every human being has the right to live.

 

Only case where I think it's admissible, would be when the vicitim was raped, and had no control over the situation. =;

 

 

 

every human has the right to live a good life. a 16 year old mother that works at wendy's is not a good life

[Kant]

Abortion is in fact not murder.

 

 

 

Isn't that what we're all arguing over? Whether or not it is, in fact, murder?

 

 

 

 

 

Aborting an embryo not yet with pain perception - causes no harm (well, unless you'd like to include the emotional distress of the pro-life movement) and is within the law.

 

 

 

Cheating on your spouse causes no harm except emotional distress and is within the law.

[warri0r45]

Abortion is in fact not murder.

 

 

 

(1) Isn't that what we're all arguing over? Whether or not it is, in fact, murder?

 

 

 

 

 

Aborting an embryo not yet with pain perception - causes no harm (well, unless you'd like to include the emotional distress of the pro-life movement) and is within the law.

 

 

 

(2) Cheating on your spouse causes no harm except emotional distress and is within the law.

 

(1)

 

Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Murder is distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of intent and the lack of justification.

 

 

murÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷der (mÃÆÃâÃâûr'dÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢r)

 

n.

 

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

 

A flock of crows. See synonyms at flock1.

 

 

 

v., -dered, -derÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ing, -ders.

 

 

 

v.tr.

 

To kill (another human) unlawfully.

 

To kill brutally or inhumanly.

 

To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

 

To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

 

Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough.

 

 

 

(2) Touche. The point of the post you quoted from was to split abortion as a harmful act from those other more harmful acts mentioned. I didn't think it was fitting comparing some of those acts to abortion if you go by the scenario of an embryo with no developed pain perception.

[Kant]

Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough.

 

 

 

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder.

[warri0r45]

Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough.

 

 

 

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder.

 

 

 

Sounds good. If we agree to go by this, we can avoid ambiguity. The difficulty is agreeing on abortion as an immoral act. As yet, I'm unconvinced that it is immoral, especially in earlier stages. The later it gets and the more receptive the embryo gets, the less I'll be comfortable with it happeneing.

[Kant]

Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough.

 

 

 

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder.

 

 

 

Sounds good. If we agree to go by this, we can avoid ambiguity. The difficulty is agreeing on abortion as an immoral act. As yet, I'm unconvinced that it is immoral, especially in earlier stages. The later it gets and the more receptive the embryo gets, the less I'll be comfortable with it happeneing.

 

 

 

Where do you personally draw the line?

[BlueTear]

Where do you personally draw the line?

I know that wasn't really a general question but I've been sitting on my own answer to it for like three pages without finding an opening, so I'll throw mine in:

 

 

 

When the feutus has developed far enough to be sustained outside of the mother's womb.

 

 

 

edit: Fixed for clarity.

[Barihawk]

Where do you personally draw the line?

I know that wasn't really a general question but I've been sitting on my own answer to it for like three pages without finding an opening, so I'll throw mine in:

 

 

 

When the feutus has developed far enough to be sustained without the mother.

 

 

 

In many cases, that's 2-3 weeks AFTER the birth when the child is reliant on breastmilk.

[BlueTear]

In many cases, that's 2-3 weeks AFTER the birth when the child is reliant on breastmilk.

Apologies for not making it clear that I mean outside of the mother's womb.

[Barihawk]

Which is not a good line to draw, because the child is dependant upon the mother for oxygen, food, and other needs until birth, and then dependant on her for food for several more weeks. A baby would drown in the placenta even a day before birth without the mother supporting it.

[BlueLancer]

I've read extensively about this subject but I can't make up my mind. Abortion is a true sensitive subject (I don't consider homophobia, racism etc. as sensitive issues as abortion, most people who practice those are just plain ignorant)

 

 

 

According to most western countries laws, a woman has the 100% ability and right to control her own body. A baby 1-2 months old is just an extension of her at that moment, it's not something that could live on it's own.

 

 

 

"Legal" doesn't mean ethical or moral though... After a lot of thinking I came to the same conclusion as BlueTear: Once the baby inside the womb could sustain itself alive given care and nurture, aborting it is murder and an unethical decision on behalf of the mother who should at the least give up the baby for adoption as a last resort.

 

 

 

I don't see how aborting a fetus in the age range of 0-3 months is "murder" though, or even immoral. You can't 'murder' something that can't biologically be alive (in this case, without being connected to the mother)

 

 

 

Think about breaking a hen's egg. You aren't murdering an animal. Given the egg has been held in, say, a fridge, it doesn't even have the capability to be alive. It isn't developed enough to be considered "alive". Neither is a human fetus less than a few months old.

[Barihawk]

Most of the time, though, the hen's egg is unfertilized. Think of it as their period. Another inappropriate analogy.

 

 

 

Very rarely are we ever eating a dead chicken fetus. That's just a sick joke to amuse children.

[BlueLancer]

But after the egg is developed enough it could hatch, killing it is "murder". Because without the external action of a human (in the case of an egg any human, in the case of a fetus, a mother) the egg could've hatched into a healthy animal.

 

 

 

If the egg is unfertilized or not has no influence on its living ability. A young human fetus (less than 3mth) has absolutely no way to stay alive were it taken out of the mother's womb. It's just a part of the mother.

[Barihawk]

But after the egg is developed enough it could hatch, killing it is "murder". Because without the external action of a human (in the case of an egg any human, in the case of a fetus, a mother) the egg could've hatched into a healthy animal.

 

 

 

If the egg is unfertilized or not has no influence on its living ability. A young human fetus (less than 3mth) has absolutely no way to stay alive were it taken out of the mother's womb. It's just a part of the mother.

 

 

 

But we are talking about unfertilized chickens, here. The rooster never impregnated the hen, so no baby chicken is there in any form (from zygote to chick).

 

 

 

The egg would have been forgotten. Like I said, regardless of fertilization, the egg is removed from the Hen like a period. The egg would just rot somewhere away from the nest.

[meb]

I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service.

 

 

 

Why thank you. I'm not saying we should round up all handicapped persons. I'm not saying we should round up any. In my opinion, a fetus is not a baby. It doesn't know anything, it isn't even alive yet. And the removing of fetuses that will develop a severe handicap is not a bad thing. Not a day goes by for handicapped people that they wish they could do things like a normal person. Of course they have the right to live! And killing those people is something I haven't even thought of. But to me a fetus is no living being, and if the parents don't want to deal with the troubles of raising a blind child for example, it is their right to remove the fetus.

[Kant]

Where do you personally draw the line?

I know that wasn't really a general question but I've been sitting on my own answer to it for like three pages without finding an opening, so I'll throw mine in:

 

 

 

Totally fine by me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bluelancer, what do you believe the difference between murder and killing is? Where does killing an animal cross the line into murder?

[Hume]

Which is not a good line to draw, because the child is dependant upon the mother for oxygen, food, and other needs until birth, and then dependant on her for food for several more weeks. A baby would drown in the placenta even a day before birth without the mother supporting it.

 

 

 

This somewhat reminds me of a case where one baby was joined to her twin through the head. The twin was considered in this case a growth since it needed the other to feed and sustain itself, and was killed because it was putting to much pressure on the baby to keep it alive with providing oxygen and other things. Now this sounded heart breaking to me, since this "growth" did have a concious state and i would have considered it a human being.

 

 

 

However it did raise a good question as to what we can consider a growth. I don't see how a collection of cells growing in a woman is any different from a growth, it can become human but at that point it is not.

 

 

 

Which leads us to you seeming to think that you're killing someones future dreams and aspirations by having an abortion. Thats not the case since the embryo does not have a mind or any form of concious state. How can you kill something that hasn't come into existance yet? The dreams and aspirations are finite and don't exist beyond that (except some would beleive they would after death).

 

 

 

So all i can take from your argument is that you draw the line at what you perceive to be a human being. An embryo is by some token "human" but it's not a being. It's as much a being as a growth is.