Abortion

[sephiroth_king]

 

I wouldn't, because what you're saying is factually incorrect: it's not a baby.

 

No, factually it is a baby.

 

baby

- 8 dictionary results

ba·by

   /ˈbeɪbi/ Show Spelled [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.

–noun

1.an infant or very young child.

2.a newborn or very young animal.

3.the youngest member of a family, group, etc.

4.an immature or childish person.

5.a human fetus.

 

 

(Make sure you go into the hidden text to see where I start from! :P)

 

So what if it is a baby? I'm tired of these poor arguments from people who wish to strip choices from simply because they would wish to guilt the parties that would receive abortions.

 

I need to ask--I haven't actually read any past parts of this thread. So I don't know if you've argued these points ever, I will admit this. Its late in New Hampshire and I'm taking a break from watching the Naked Prey for my class. So no, I'm not going to tool back until tomorrow because I have one early class and I will attain freedom.

 

So, my questions:

 

1) Does this fetus/unborn baby have any interpersonal connections emotionally to any other human beings? Meaning, does it have an emotional connections such as having friends, true emotional connections to its mother and father, or having loving relationships with another? If not, then it is unlike me, a living human, and therefore cannot be like many other humans.

 

2) Does the fetus/unborn baby have any rationale thoughts, or awareness? Not much is known of this, but think a bit and come up with your own conclusions. Scientifically speaking, absolutely not. Born human babies aren't even aware of their existences until they are months in, and even then memories and rational thought is all based off of trial and error through a learning stigmata.

 

3) Is the fetus/unborn baby an individual human being? This is broad, so I shall elaborate through this: Can an unborn fetus/baby live without the umbilical cord? If no, then its is, again, unlike me. GRANTED, a born human baby cannot fend for itself, but it clearly does not need to act like a parasite as it is in comparison when inside the womb.

 

4) Is the fetus/unborn baby like that of a sperm? By this, I mean does this fetus/unborn baby have the potential to be something? If yes, then you must take into account every time a man masturbates he has killed approximately 200-300 million potential lives, and when a couple have sex the womens body kills approximately 199,999,950-299,999,950 sperm due to biological mechanisms in destroying foreign bodies, in this case the sperm. You must also take into account people that use condoms and birth control and see this as "wrong" because of preventing any said potential life at all. But anyway.

 

5) Does the fetus/unborn baby have feelings? This one if the most straightforward of my questions.

 

6) Completely detached from those questions is a personal challenge to anyone: do you enjoy stripping the right for people to get safe and legal abortions? Let me put it this way: making abortion "illegal" due to a preexisting notion that you have that these unborn beings are truly alive...is that a good thing? Women (and couples in general) will still obtain abortions if they want one, but in extremely unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and worse, horrid, HORRID risks. I'm not saying abortion doesn't have risks as it does now, but it will be worse if made unethical and illegal.

 

7) This stems from when I said "who cares if its a baby or not?" Either way, in your eyes, you are still KILLING something. But what exactly are you killing? Murdering me is different from murdering a fetus for example; I have interpersonal relationships, I am mature (debatable) and can think cognitively (debatable), hell I don't need to live off of someone else. So are we truly killing a human being, or something that resembles a parasite?

 

8: Who has more of a say, a man, or a woman? It seems that many men (who are either religious or conservative [not ALL conservatives]) seem to be against it without taking women's thoughts into account. In a relationship, both people should consolidate together, but think about it: a man does not have to bear the fetus/unborn baby. Personally, I think religious beliefs and some men should be ashamed of themselves for Guilting women and demoralizing, or worse, DEMONIZING them. So who should have the most say?

 

9 (Final Question): Without a cultural and relative morality, do you think that abortion would still be demonized? Without Religion, would it still be demonized? The reason why many think its wrong is because people think a soul exists and god created it uniquely. Its lovey-dovey and its a religious tactic to emotionally interconnect with the religious person (i.e., god made you in his own image). Think back to Roman ages, where abortions could still be performed. Much of the same was thought then, too--i.e., killing a human life. Nowadays, we know more about these subjects then they did all those years ago. Furthermore, if you free yourself from this cultural bond for a second, what do you truly believe? Take every question into account on this one, or many other world views for that matter.

 

These questions aren't only directed towards you, but anyone willing to free think and answer them, but I'm mainly directing them towards you because I'm curious. I feel very strongly about this subject, and I myself am a male seeking womens rights to a safe abortion and expulsion of the demonizing factor in abortion. I look forward to any responses.

[Zierro]

If you were to say humans got their rights three months after conception, I'd argue that point in time is arbitrary and unclear. Whats the difference between day 89 and day 90 in a process that is seamless?

 

But yet pro-life advocacy completely demolishes all the unclear ambiguity of the leap from a bunch of cells of non-importance to sacred personhood, right? That it is fine to kill billions of sperm by masturbating or wearing a condom, but immoral to kill one fresh fetus. I'm curious. What do you have against sperm?

 

I've spent a very long time understanding and researching this issue, so that I can articulate a clear position. I've learned the rhetoric from both sides, cut through the crap, and formed my own opinion. I've found that one side can base itself in honesty, morality, science and truth, while the other side is filled with scandals and fluff - touchy-feely compassion with little substance.

 

I am a believer of pro-choice, but that's not because it's the "perfect side" as there are a handful of flaws and moral discrepancies on both sides. But to claim your argument is the honest, moral, scientific, truthful superior and the other is a fluff-filled scandal really tells us something. You're completely disregarding any benefit to abortion - such as when a woman has been raped and never consented to having a child, but yet must go through with the pregnancy because if she doesn't, it's the same thing as walking into a random store and killing an innocent person. There's also your willingness to argue that abortion being legal is a cause of sexual abuse. :-?

 

6) Completely detached from those questions is a personal challenge to anyone: do you enjoy stripping the right for people to get safe and legal abortions? Let me put it this way: making abortion "illegal" due to a preexisting notion that you have that these unborn beings are truly alive...is that a good thing? Women (and couples in general) will still obtain abortions if they want one, but in extremely unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and worse, horrid, HORRID risks. I'm not saying abortion doesn't have risks as it does now, but it will be worse if made unethical and illegal.

 

This is a very important point to take into account.

[sees_all1]

1) Does this fetus/unborn baby have any interpersonal connections emotionally to any other human beings? Meaning, does it have an emotional connections such as having friends, true emotional connections to its mother and father, or having loving relationships with another? If not, then it is unlike me, a living human, and therefore cannot be like many other humans.

 

2) Does the fetus/unborn baby have any rationale thoughts, or awareness? Not much is known of this, but think a bit and come up with your own conclusions. Scientifically speaking, absolutely not. Born human babies aren't even aware of their existences until they are months in, and even then memories and rational thought is all based off of trial and error through a learning stigmata.

 

3) Is the fetus/unborn baby an individual human being? This is broad, so I shall elaborate through this: Can an unborn fetus/baby live without the umbilical cord? If no, then its is, again, unlike me. GRANTED, a born human baby cannot fend for itself, but it clearly does not need to act like a parasite as it is in comparison when inside the womb.

 

4) Is the fetus/unborn baby like that of a sperm? By this, I mean does this fetus/unborn baby have the potential to be something? If yes, then you must take into account every time a man masturbates he has killed approximately 200-300 million potential lives, and when a couple have sex the womens body kills approximately 199,999,950-299,999,950 sperm due to biological mechanisms in destroying foreign bodies, in this case the sperm. You must also take into account people that use condoms and birth control and see this as "wrong" because of preventing any said potential life at all. But anyway.

 

5) Does the fetus/unborn baby have feelings? This one if the most straightforward of my questions.

 

6) Completely detached from those questions is a personal challenge to anyone: do you enjoy stripping the right for people to get safe and legal abortions? Let me put it this way: making abortion "illegal" due to a preexisting notion that you have that these unborn beings are truly alive...is that a good thing? Women (and couples in general) will still obtain abortions if they want one, but in extremely unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and worse, horrid, HORRID risks. I'm not saying abortion doesn't have risks as it does now, but it will be worse if made unethical and illegal.

 

7) This stems from when I said "who cares if its a baby or not?" Either way, in your eyes, you are still KILLING something. But what exactly are you killing? Murdering me is different from murdering a fetus for example; I have interpersonal relationships, I am mature (debatable) and can think cognitively (debatable), hell I don't need to live off of someone else. So are we truly killing a human being, or something that resembles a parasite?

 

8: Who has more of a say, a man, or a woman? It seems that many men (who are either religious or conservative [not ALL conservatives]) seem to be against it without taking women's thoughts into account. In a relationship, both people should consolidate together, but think about it: a man does not have to bear the fetus/unborn baby. Personally, I think religious beliefs and some men should be ashamed of themselves for Guilting women and demoralizing, or worse, DEMONIZING them. So who should have the most say?

 

9 (Final Question): Without a cultural and relative morality, do you think that abortion would still be demonized? Without Religion, would it still be demonized? The reason why many think its wrong is because people think a soul exists and god created it uniquely. Its lovey-dovey and its a religious tactic to emotionally interconnect with the religious person (i.e., god made you in his own image). Think back to Roman ages, where abortions could still be performed. Much of the same was thought then, too--i.e., killing a human life. Nowadays, we know more about these subjects then they did all those years ago. Furthermore, if you free yourself from this cultural bond for a second, what do you truly believe? Take every question into account on this one, or many other world views for that matter.

 

These questions aren't only directed towards you, but anyone willing to free think and answer them, but I'm mainly directing them towards you because I'm curious. I feel very strongly about this subject, and I myself am a male seeking womens rights to a safe abortion and expulsion of the demonizing factor in abortion. I look forward to any responses.

 

 

1. Does someone with Asperger syndrome have any interpersonal connections emotionally? Are they not human? Are they not guaranteed basic rights?

2. So whats your point, because we don't know if it thinks or not, it isn't human? Are brain dead people not human?

3. Are paralyzed people with mechanical ventilators not humans because they cannot live without their ventilator?

4. An embryo already is a unique individual. Its different than an egg cell or a sperm cell because it has a complete set of DNA, not a half set.

5. Do Psychopaths have feelings?

6. Do you enjoy stripping the most basic right to life? Also, people use crack even though its illegal. Do we need to make it legal so we know some dealer isn't cutting it with bleach?

7. Give your own definition of human, or when a baby "becomes" human. Even if a baby can't think, why is it immoral to drown a newborn in a toilet? Baby in the womb = parasite, baby out of the womb = full legal protections (unless it was born after a botched abortion, then they drown it anyway).

8. Some of the most vocal pro-life people are women... Anyhow, its not about "who has more say", its about protecting the very right to live.

9. Considering that all laws are based on morality, isn't this a ridiculous question? Why is slavery immoral, and now illegal? Why is murder immoral, and illegal? If you actually free yourself from "this cultural bond", you'll likely find yourself in jail.

 

No religion in this argument:

A new Human being forms when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell (with a set of 46 or 47 chromosomes). A new Human being forms when the nucleus of an egg is sucked out and replaced by an existing set of 46 or 47 chromosomes (cloning).

Human beings are protected under law, because they have basic rights.

The most basic right is the right to life - without it all other rights are worthless.

A (embryo/fetus/baby) should be given its basic rights and protected under law because it is human.

 

 

EDIT:

But yet pro-life advocacy completely demolishes all the unclear ambiguity of the leap from a bunch of cells of non-importance to sacred personhood, right? That it is fine to kill billions of sperm by masturbating or wearing a condom, but immoral to kill one fresh fetus. I'm curious. What do you have against sperm?

Nothing against sperm, but sperm isn't human because it has 23 chromosomes. Same with an egg. When the two combine, it forms a new individual, different than the mother and different than the father.

 

 

[im sorry if I seemed like an ass at times, but I did enjoy debating with you, I will certainly try to be more civil in the future. While neither one of us changed our beliefs thanks for standing your ground and giving a good argument, as I hope I did the same.

:thumbup:

[Alg]

But yet pro-life advocacy completely demolishes all the unclear ambiguity of the leap from a bunch of cells of non-importance to sacred personhood, right? That it is fine to kill billions of sperm by masturbating or wearing a condom, but immoral to kill one fresh fetus. I'm curious. What do you have against sperm?

We have tons of it and are always making more. They last for about two weeks if not used, and are constantly replaced by new cells. Not going to wiki for the numbers because I don't want to look at the pictures that the page will undoubtedly have, though I can assure you that we're in no danger of running out.

[Skeptical]

You can say the same thing about any reproductive cell, and we certainly have a surplus of humanity, so that can't be what you're referring to.

[obfuscator]

No, because not every reproductive cell is a stem cell that will grow into a human being.

[sees_all1]

No, because not every reproductive cell is a stem cell that will grow into a human being.

Careful with the language- it already is a human being.

A sperm or egg cell isn't a human being because of its DNA - it doesn't have a complete set.

DNA is also what separates humans from animals on the most basic level.

[soulless]

Hate it when people do it, it's the same concept as murder. If you don't want to take care of the baby, someone else will. If it happened through rape or something, now you know life's a [bleep], deal with it.

 

Wow.

 

"Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks."

 

People like this make me speechless.

 

And so the baby should be punished for this? I mean Wemen say it is their body so it is their choice, but last I checked the baby is a whole new body and life and the women has no right to choose to kill or let it live!

 

I hate how EVERYONE brings up all these stupid arguments and forget about the baby’s life and the fact it is MURDER!!! Once the sperm goes in the egg it is life and HUMAN! People say, but they are not human and just a bundle of nerves, well a dog has the same IQ as a new born baby, does that mean we can kill 1 year old babies like we do dogs?

 

And people do know that when they abort a baby it is not in the egg form, it is when the baby already has arms, legs, toes and finger and even finger nails... They stick a basically tongs in there and squish the baby up and then suck it out and throw it away. Look at an apple and about 3/4 that size is how big the baby is when it's killed. Well lets just say the baby is as big as mouse when they kill it. You all talk about only cells and such but that is not true.

[soulless]

Hate it when people do it, it's the same concept as murder. If you don't want to take care of the baby, someone else will. If it happened through rape or something, now you know life's a [bleep], deal with it.

 

It's no worse than killing an animal.

 

A one year old baby has the same IQ as a dog, a 7 year old kid has the same IQ as a Chimp. Hmm that little girl across the road is screaming about all the time? I think shes under 7... Thanks now I know I can kill her and it's all okay!!................. NOT.... Barth!!!

[fakeitormakeit2]

Hate it when people do it, it's the same concept as murder. If you don't want to take care of the baby, someone else will. If it happened through rape or something, now you know life's a [bleep], deal with it.

 

Wow.

 

"Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks."

 

People like this make me speechless.

 

And so the baby should be punished for this? I mean Wemen say it is their body so it is their choice, but last I checked the baby is a whole new body and life and the women has no right to choose to kill or let it live!

 

I hate how EVERYONE brings up all these stupid arguments and forget about the baby’s life and the fact it is MURDER!!! Once the sperm goes in the egg it is life and HUMAN! People say, but they are not human and just a bundle of nerves, well a dog has the same IQ as a new born baby, does that mean we can kill 1 year old babies like we do dogs?

 

And people do know that when they abort a baby it is not in the egg form, it is when the baby already has arms, legs, toes and finger and even finger nails... They stick a basically tongs in there and squish the baby up and then suck it out and throw it away. Look at an apple and about 3/4 that size is how big the baby is when it's killed. Well lets just say the baby is as big as mouse when they kill it. You all talk about only cells and such but that is not true.

 

A rapists baby should not exist. Just because he shot his seed off in her (against her will) doesnt mean hes entitled to spread his genes to the next generation. More importantly a women shouldnt have to bear this burden either. I notice its mostly males who support women being forced to give birth to rapists babies, is your perception of a women that she is a baby making machine? Because it sure reeks of that

 

Call me stupid, evil, a baby killer but I think that in the case of rape if nothing else abortion should be allowed - if not morally obligated. (then theres always the muslim point of view that if I women got raped she had it coming, is this what you support?)

"hes not entitled to spread his genes"? That's a rather out of place comment in this century. How is it "morally obligated?" That sounds like inflicting pain on someone who doesn't deserve it to take revenge on someone else.

 

And since when has inconvenience ever been a validation of getting ride of people? I would have to say if as a society we can justify abortion because a woman is entitled to ride herself of a person by killing them because she merely has the position is which she can do it, then Hitler had warrant to exterminate the Jews because they were in his dominion, same with the Turks and Armenians and Assyrians.

 

Edit: Actually the Ottoman Empire is a perfect example. Several minorities were political and social bothers to the Empire so they decided to deport and forcibly march them. Now the majority of them were not directly killed by the Turks, just prevented of normal life because they were inconveniences, in the process massive percentages of these minorities ceased to develop.

[sephiroth_king]

Whew. Long Absence is long. Was a tad busy with my school work, only had enough time to come on here and check out the answers. Nice and relaxed, as well.

 

I find it very noble that you try to keep out religion in your arguments, but unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with anything at hand, and I am not trying to start anything here, but in my 6 years of Catholic school your arguments are very similar to theirs, albeit frustrating as it has always been to me. There are flaws with your arguments, fundamental flawsso lets start from the beginning.

 

Does someone with Asperger syndrome have any interpersonal connections emotionally? Are they not human? Are they not guaranteed basic rights?

 

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the individual with Asperger syndrome cannot develop social connections with others due to this condition, and in that sense, you are correct. What I cannot agree with you is that this person/child has 2 parents that know it and take care of it physically. A fetus is isolated within the mothers womb, and not a single person knows what it is likeit is still unlike someone with Aspergers syndrome. Also, many individuals with Asperger syndrome still has quite uncanny abilities that many people will never have. The fixation on a subject that they love is genius within itself.

 

So I can grant you that they will probably will never develop emotional bonds but people still care about them. You can, I suppose, make a case that people can love and care for a fetus, but that's highly improbable due to the fact that said fetus is unknown to the universe.

 

So whats your point, because we don't know if it thinks or not, it isn't human? Are brain dead people not human?

 

So, what, am I supposed to agree with you on the brain dead part? Well, I'm not. That's just silly. Here's what separates me from a brain dead person: thought and awareness of existence. Unfortunately, all I can do is argue what I am about to argue, but in the end the brain dead argument is based off of personal thought. So hear me out.

 

People often make the mistake of calling something that can no longer think or function anymore human, due to this bizarre notion that the human body contains some sort of foreign entity like a soul dwelling within it. In reality, its all brain stimuli. So, if you are brain dead, then no, what made you human has now made you a mass of muscle and still-functioning organs. On a personal matter, I haven't heard this argument since the Terry Schiavo case when I was in middle school, which was a Catholic school.

 

So, NO. The very thing that separates us from a dog or cat is the ability to think. There are few other animals that are self aware as we, but no other animal that we know of can form complex thought. Where does all of the complex thought come from? The brain. Where does the consciousness come from? The brain. Where do feelings come from? The brain. Where does every function that we do come from? THE BRAIN.

 

If someone is brain dead, how can they still be human? Blood, body, and organs? Demonstrate to me that these things alone will still make someone human, and I will accept your claim. Furthermore, demonstrate to me that a fetus or brain dead person can think, and I'll except your claim. The burden of proof is on you.

 

Think for a moment. If they are stripped of the very thing that makes us human, especially the ability of awareness and thought, how can you still call a human being a human being? In my opinion, no.

 

Merriam Webster:

hu·man

 adj \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\

1

: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

2

: consisting of humans

3

a : having human form or attributes

 

Are paralyzed people with mechanical ventilators not humans because they cannot live without their ventilator?

 

That's not parasitic, they aren't forcing something else against their will to live. One cannot force a ventilator to make another live, it is built with the function to help that person live. There's a difference between dependency and parasitism.

 

The difference between this and a fetus is the fetus is forcefully using the womans body to survive, whether or not that seems cruel to say. The women is not willingly allowing the fetus to absorb nutrients, this is all done within biological and uncontrollable boundaries, just like facial expressions. One could argue that a women can allow the fetus to live in her body, sure, but she's technically not controlling what is happening biologically.

 

A paralyzed person isn't acting like a tick and living off of something else as a fetus must. They are using machines, which are unfeeling, mechanical objects. Also, the person is still an individual, they still have thoughts, feelings, and interpersonal relationships (unless they are completely alone). An awesome example of someone who is paralyzed but is an utter genius is Stephen Hawking, someone who depends on others to live, but doesn't force them (or maybe he does, but the likelihood?) Again, demonstrate to me that the fetus has thoughts, feelings, etc. and also doesn't act like a parasite and I will grant this to you.

 

de·pen·den·cy

 noun \-dən(t)-sē\

plural de·pen·den·cies

Definition of DEPENDENCY

1

: dependence 1

2

: something that is dependent on something else; especially :a territorial unit under the jurisdiction of a nation but not formally annexed by it

3

: a building (as a stable) that is an adjunct to a main dwelling

de·pen·dence

 noun \di-ˈpen-dən(t)s\

Definition of DEPENDENCE

1

: the quality or state of being dependent; especially : the quality or state of being influenced or determined by or subject to another

2

: reliance, trust

3

: one that is relied on

4

a : drug addiction <developed a dependence on painkillers>

 

 

Definition of PARASITE

 

1

: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

2

: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

3

: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

par·a·sit·ic also par·a·sit·i·cal adjective

par·a·sit·i·cal·ly adverb

 

 

An embryo already is a unique individual. Its different than an egg cell or a sperm cell because it has a complete set of DNA, not a half set.

 

That's not what I wholly asked.

 

Is the fetus/unborn baby like that of a sperm? By this, I mean does this fetus/unborn baby have the potential to be something?

 

That was the main part of my question. The second part you answered. And so what? You aren't making a very strong case, the question is, are you killing something? Complete DNA or not, are you not killing something through masturbation? Do they not have potential? The main reason this is a weak argument is that the sperm that makes it and the egg that unites with the said sperm are BOTH unique to begin with, and in that union become a zygote, and will divide to create the new human.

 

Do Psychopaths have feelings?

 

To be of no offense, but this argument is arrogant. To put it bluntly, YES, psychopaths have feelings. Your argument seems to stem off of the human belief of monstrosity, or the psychopaths that murder people with no remorse. If this is the case, then you are only strengthening my argument. A fetus has never felt guilt. How can it? Its done nothing to make it feel guilty. Now, in general, if you mean a psychopath has no feelings at all, how can you make such a jumpy assertion? Where is your evidence for this statement? People like Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and cannibalized many he ate (and if I'm mixing serial killersapologies), and in an interview admitted that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it because he felt no remorse for his actions. Who's to say he didn't feel anger? Hatred? Love? Or any other feeling in his life? As a human, he probably did.

 

Also, I think that if the fetus did have feelings, then nature is cruel. Why would something isolated within the womb have feelings? Just saying.

 

Also, a definition:

 

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal.

 

For psychopath:

 

psychopath - sociopath: someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder (`psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by `sociopath')

 

In conclusion to this argument, I didn't know empathy was the only feeling we had. And, if meaning the other definition, then we would be dealing in sociopathic studies, which in the end has nothing to do with feelings, just antisocial behavior. And I apologize if I didn't see your argument as you envisioned it, and would be happy to revise my argument if you meant something else. If so, be a tad more specific so I don't create a strawman.

 

Do you enjoy stripping the most basic right to life? Also, people use crack even though its illegal. Do we need to make it legal so we know some dealer isn't cutting it with bleach?

 

Do you know why crack is illegal? Because the government made it illegal. Should it be illegal? ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is exactly like the prohibition era, where people weren't allowed to do with what they want with their bodies because its harmful. Why should a governing body have ANY right to tell you what to do with your body? If we made it legal, we could tax it and sell it in stores, and STRENGTHEN the economy to boot with the people that want to consume it. Am I saying drugs are good? Absolutely not, but I don't believe any governing body has the right to tell me what I can and CANNOT do with my body. And be making abortion illegal, this is EXACTLY what its like; a governing body telling a woman what they can't do with their bodies.. And do you think that will stop women who want to get abortions from getting one? NO. Its the same thing with drugs, they'll just do it illegally and cause more problems, more health risks, and so on.

 

Lastly, demonstrate to me that a fetus is wholeheartedly a life, hands down, and I will believe you. The burden of proof rests with you.

 

Give your own definition of human, or when a baby "becomes" human. Even if a baby can't think, why is it immoral to drown a newborn in a toilet? Baby in the womb = parasite, baby out of the womb = full legal protections (unless it was born after a botched abortion, then they drown it anyway).

 

A human being is someone who can think who are intelligent beings who have the ability to form complex thought, gaining friendships and people who love you through complex dialogue that exists within human language, and lastly, someone who is not like a parasite, though they may depend on objects or people to move along, i.e. autistic people for instance need to be taken care of, but then again we all need attention and dependency in some points of our life. Collaboration is something that also makes up humans.

 

Now, as to when a fetus becomes a human, I can't tell you. I am going to be intellectually honest and say, I DON'T know, because I am not going to be dishonest with myself and pull a random trimester out of my ass and say OH! ITS HUMAN IN THIS TRIMESTER! DERP! nor am I going to assert that life begins upon conception. Truth be told, until science figures it out, none of us know, and so I submit to you, I don't know. None of us do, its only a belief. The closest belief that I have is 7 months, if one is VERY lucky like my friend was, as premature births aren't always lucky enough to live. And my friend was the size of a can of peas. But even then, he was extremely close to death and said he was lucky, and knows he was lucky. But as said before, I can't give you any true assertion because its dishonest in my standards to do so, until proof comes around.

 

To the next part, I don't know how you pulled the baby drowning out of that question unless its a form of counterargument...To be honest, I was truly confused when I read that. I'm not going to lie. But anyway...Anyway, the only reason why its immoral to kill a newborn baby is because of our cultural morality. In contrast, in Greek times, Spartans would leave babies to die that they didn't want.

 

In my own morality, killing something which is now within the realm of existence and living with 6 billion other beings in this earth is horrible. Something which is no longer potentially human but now are human is a whole lot different that something that is in the process of development. That's my opinion. It seems that the last part of that comment wasn't really supposed to be anything more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Some of the most vocal pro-life people are women... Anyhow, its not about "who has more say", its about protecting the very right to live.

 

You know why they are vocal? Ostracization. The preexisting notion within people that they are disgusting, demonic, vile women who wouldn't let that life live. I know of no woman that would want to give up a right to what they can or cannot do with their bodies. That's like a group trying to make circumcision mandatory, and some men being vocally for it, only because people ostracize and make fun of them for having funny looking penises. If I recall correctly, my father experienced being made fun of for not being circumcised, then he got circumcised and thought he was doing me a service when he got me circumcised.

 

Its the same thing with many women, and like my father getting the circumcision because he didn't fit in, these women will go against what they did and live in the shadow of what they did only because people demonize them. Its sad. If people didn't see it as bad, you wouldn't see anyone feeling bad. But people will do anything to not be ostracized. Its human nature.

 

So I submit to you that those vocal pro-life women are just pawns to the men who oppose it.

 

But nevertheless, this was still a simple question. I wanted to know who had more say, I could give a rats ass about the right to life, I just wanted to know your thoughts.

 

By the way, the woman has more say. Its her body. Just my opinion though.

 

Considering that all laws are based on morality, isn't this a ridiculous question? Why is slavery immoral, and now illegal? Why is murder immoral, and illegal? If you actually free yourself from "this cultural bond", you'll likely find yourself in jail.

 

Slavery is now immoral and now illegal because you are forcing someone to be your pack mule against their will. It violates basic human rights. Fetus's shouldn't have human rights because they aren't of this earthy yet, and because, like I always say, they are parasitic. Anyway, I don't agree that all laws are based off of morality, that's silly in my mind. It seems,t though, if you imbue such things as Christian law and things like that into our constitution, or any law, then sure, killing Fetus's would be bad. But fortunately, in the day and age of sciences, its safe to say reasonably sane and non biased individuals who don't lean towards religion will look at what we know about the subject and come up with conclusions that won't harm society as a whole. As in not making it illegal as we did drugs and prohibition.

 

No religion in this argument:

A new Human being forms when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell (with a set of 46 or 47 chromosomes). A new Human being forms when the nucleus of an egg is sucked out and replaced by an existing set of 46 or 47 chromosomes (cloning).

Human beings are protected under law, because they have basic rights.

The most basic right is the right to life - without it all other rights are worthless.

A (embryo/fetus/baby) should be given its basic rights and protected under law because it is human.

 

Prove to me that it is a human and is alive as we know humans to be alive rather than asserting such, and I will believe you. Hell, the world will, and most likely your side will win. Otherwise, the assertion that they are alive on conception will get you no where, religiously believing this or not. We can just make arbitrary laws based upon a belief that it is alive. We know nothing nowI no not if it is alive, and you should assert the same, until we can prove such. Even in the formation argument, you cannot assert it is human unless you take into account everything that makes us humanincluding complex thought. Just bear that in mind.

 

Apologies for any mistakes. Its getting late, multitasking isn't always fun.

[Iamdan]

People seem to be ignoring the fact that we are no better than every other animal. No humans life is really worth more than the cow they eat, or the cockroach they squash.

 

Death isn't really that big of a deal. It's part of our culture, and everybody contributes to it. Abortion is killing, so [bleep]ing what? Indirectly, so is buying lunch instead of donating it and saving third world families. Life isn't sacred, we aren't special. Human life is a continuous process and aborting a baby every now and then isn't going to doom us all.

[sees_all1]

So whats your point, because we don't know if it thinks or not, it isn't human? Are brain dead people not human?

 

So, what, am I supposed to agree with you on the brain dead part? Well, I'm not. That's just silly. Here's what separates me from a brain dead person: thought and awareness of existence. Unfortunately, all I can do is argue what I am about to argue, but in the end the brain dead argument is based off of personal thought. So hear me out.

 

...

 

Think for a moment. If they are stripped of the very thing that makes us human, especially the ability of awareness and thought, how can you still call a human being a human being? In my opinion, no.

Take a long hard look at the social/mental fringes of society - people who aren't quite brain dead, but have IQs well below whats considered mental [developmentally delayed]ation. Say, one step up from persistent vegetative state, but an IQ below 20 - profound mental [developmentally delayed]ation, requiring pervasive support. Are these not human? One could make the argument that a dog or a cat have more capacity to think than them; they aren't capable of thought as we know it. They are still guaranteed the same rights by law. If you say they're not human, then at what level is someone human? Where is that arbitrary line, and how can we know who is and who isn't human?

 

Going by genetics, it is much simpler. 23 or 23.5 pairs of chromosomes make the most basic of humans, which is why a sperm cell or an egg cell is not human. The ability to grow and mature as an organism makes a human. A sperm or an egg cell will not grow or mature on its own, it is not human. As soon as the two combine though, they fulfill the most basic requirements, and they complete their set of DNA, they begin to grow and mature.

 

Are paralyzed people with mechanical ventilators not humans because they cannot live without their ventilator?

 

That's not parasitic, they aren't forcing something else against their will to live. One cannot force a ventilator to make another live, it is built with the function to help that person live. There's a difference between dependency and parasitism.

 

The difference between this and a fetus is the fetus is forcefully using the womans body to survive, whether or not that seems cruel to say. The women is not willingly allowing the fetus to absorb nutrients, this is all done within biological and uncontrollable boundaries, just like facial expressions. One could argue that a women can allow the fetus to live in her body, sure, but she's technically not controlling what is happening biologically.

 

A paralyzed person isn't acting like a tick and living off of something else as a fetus must. They are using machines, which are unfeeling, mechanical objects. Also, the person is still an individual, they still have thoughts, feelings, and interpersonal relationships (unless they are completely alone). An awesome example of someone who is paralyzed but is an utter genius is Stephen Hawking, someone who depends on others to live, but doesn't force them (or maybe he does, but the likelihood?) Again, demonstrate to me that the fetus has thoughts, feelings, etc. and also doesn't act like a parasite and I will grant this to you.

People on mechanical ventilators, people that need dialysis, people that require constant medical care are very much requiring other people to live, whether its a relative, friend, health care professional, or a state appointed caretaker. You can be cruel and call the relationship parasitic, as they are "draining" everyone else, but technically that isn't correct.

And the people on the ventilator or dialysis do not necessarily have thoughts, feelings, or interpersonal relationships, but they're still people.

 

 

Definition of PARASITE

 

1

: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

2

: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

3

: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

par·a·sit·ic also par·a·sit·i·cal adjective

par·a·sit·i·cal·ly adverb

Alternative definition of PARASITE, which scientifically speaking is more accurate:

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

 

 

An embryo already is a unique individual. Its different than an egg cell or a sperm cell because it has a complete set of DNA, not a half set.

 

That's not what I wholly asked.

 

Is the fetus/unborn baby like that of a sperm? By this, I mean does this fetus/unborn baby have the potential to be something?

 

That was the main part of my question. The second part you answered. And so what? You aren't making a very strong case, the question is, are you killing something? Complete DNA or not, are you not killing something through masturbation? Do they not have potential? The main reason this is a weak argument is that the sperm that makes it and the egg that unites with the said sperm are BOTH unique to begin with, and in that union become a zygote, and will divide to create the new human.

Put a sperm or an egg cell in a Petri dish and tell me if it starts dividing. No, it isn't human, because it will not grow. As soon as a sperm cell and an egg cell come together, they combine DNA and undergo mitosis immediately. Sperm cells and egg cells cannot do this after they undergo meiosis, they are not human.

 

Do Psychopaths have feelings?

...

In conclusion to this argument, I didn't know empathy was the only feeling we had. And, if meaning the other definition, then we would be dealing in sociopathic studies, which in the end has nothing to do with feelings, just antisocial behavior. And I apologize if I didn't see your argument as you envisioned it, and would be happy to revise my argument if you meant something else. If so, be a tad more specific so I don't create a strawman.

The point of that rhetorical question and all the questions I asked is that there are humans without morals, humans unable to have emotion (feel happy, sad, or angry), humans unable to see, humans unable to hear, humans unable to taste, feel, smell. There are also humans unable to think or reason, remember, or unable to communicate. Lacking any or all of these senses, feelings, or "properties" doesn't make one less human, and the only difference between someone lacking all these properties and a baby in the womb is location and age. Legally, are we allowed to kill the former? Abuse them? Harm them in any way? They won't know what happened, right?

 

The other point I was trying to make is DNA and the ability to grow and develop are the lowest common denominators for all live humans.

 

Lastly, demonstrate to me that a fetus is wholeheartedly a life, hands down, and I will believe you. The burden of proof rests with you.

Biologically, I've already shown that. No biologist or other honest studied person would disagree, so why be so stubborn about it?

 

 

Anyway, I don't agree that all laws are based off of morality, that's silly in my mind. It seems,t though, if you imbue such things as Christian law and things like that into our constitution, or any law, then sure, killing Fetus's would be bad. But fortunately, in the day and age of sciences, its safe to say reasonably sane and non biased individuals who don't lean towards religion will look at what we know about the subject and come up with conclusions that won't harm society as a whole.

If law is not based on morality, on what is it be based?

 

 

Prove to me that it is a human and is alive as we know humans to be alive rather than asserting such, and I will believe you. Hell, the world will, and most likely your side will win. Otherwise, the assertion that they are alive on conception will get you no where, religiously believing this or not. We can just make arbitrary laws based upon a belief that it is alive. We know nothing nowI no not if it is alive, and you should assert the same, until we can prove such. Even in the formation argument, you cannot assert it is human unless you take into account everything that makes us humanincluding complex thought. Just bear that in mind.

 

Apologies for any mistakes. Its getting late, multitasking isn't always fun.

None of the things you talked about make someone human, and going to an argument that it is impossible to know when the life of a new individual begins because we haven't taken into account your unscientific beliefs is absurd.

[Iamdan]

If law is not based on morality, on what is it be based?

 

Some laws exist to keep order, others exist because they benefit reach people. None are based on morals, if anything it's the other way around.

[Saru Inc]

People seem to be ignoring the fact that we are no better than every other animal. No humans life is really worth more than the cow they eat, or the cockroach they squash.

 

Death isn't really that big of a deal. It's part of our culture, and everybody contributes to it. Abortion is killing, so [bleep]ing what? Indirectly, so is buying lunch instead of donating it and saving third world families. Life isn't sacred, we aren't special. Human life is a continuous process and aborting a baby every now and then isn't going to doom us all.

 

 

 

That's actually not what many people think at all. Religious and Atheistic alike recognize we are not the same as animals at all, how we arrived at this state, is what we debate.

[Iamdan]

People seem to be ignoring the fact that we are no better than every other animal. No humans life is really worth more than the cow they eat, or the cockroach they squash.

 

Death isn't really that big of a deal. It's part of our culture, and everybody contributes to it. Abortion is killing, so [bleep]ing what? Indirectly, so is buying lunch instead of donating it and saving third world families. Life isn't sacred, we aren't special. Human life is a continuous process and aborting a baby every now and then isn't going to doom us all.

 

 

 

That's actually not what many people think at all. Religious and Atheistic alike recognize we are not the same as animals at all, how we arrived at this state, is what we debate.

 

We're better why? Because of a random property unique to humans?

 

We're no better because we have morals/intelligence/whatever than a fish is because it can breathe underwater.

 

All species will value themselves over others. It's a self interest thing.

 

We [bleep] the earth up and kill each other. If anything, other animals are better than us.

[Zierro]

Sperm cells and egg cells cannot do this after they undergo meiosis, they are not human.

 

Which specie do the living organisms belong in then?

 

None of the things you talked about make someone human, and going to an argument that it is impossible to know when the life of a new individual begins because we haven't taken into account your unscientific beliefs is absurd.

 

Personhood is far too complicated to just be a question of science alone. It needs the aid of philosophy.

[Assume Nothing]

Can someone list some good arguments that has been stated in this thread? Got an abortion debate tomorrow (for my course, ofcourse), would be nice to have a few good points to show.

 

Hmmm

[sees_all1]

If law is not based on morality, on what is it be based?

 

Some laws exist to keep order, others exist because they benefit reach people. None are based on morals, if anything it's the other way around.

Why is prostitution illegal? Is it not sex between two consenting adults where payment is exchanged at the end? Surely prostitution came before religion, yet it is still outlawed?

Most laws are based on morality, and its ludicrous to say otherwise.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Can someone list some good arguments that has been stated in this thread? Got an abortion debate tomorrow (for my course, ofcourse), would be nice to have a few good points to show.

 

Hmmm

Which side of the debate will you be on?

[Alg]

But I see where you are going with this, "spread his genes" does sound very similar to what nazis would say about Jews.

Ding ding ding! It only took 18 pages but someone has finally made a Nazi comparison!

[Saru Inc]

But I see where you are going with this, "spread his genes" does sound very similar to what nazis would say about Jews.

Ding ding ding! It only took 18 pages but someone has finally made a Nazi comparison!

 

 

RECORD.

 

 

---------------

 

 

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

 

I would continue this more, but I'm really hungry so ima go get some chinese.

[Dupin]

But I see where you are going with this, "spread his genes" does sound very similar to what nazis would say about Jews.

Ding ding ding! It only took 18 pages but someone has finally made a Nazi comparison!

 

 

RECORD.

 

 

---------------

 

 

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

 

I would continue this more, but I'm really hungry so ima go get some chinese.

The point is that you value that only because it's a trait you have. Try telling that to a cat, and he'll just ignore you. Why? Well, your fur is pretty darn ugly, for one, and you can't jump to save your life. It's like a larger version of how people of different cultures will value different things. You might look at some random suit on the street and say "Man, I'll bet that guy hasn't had an interesting thought in weeks". But it makes no difference, because he doesn't value intelligence in the same way that he might value, for example, level of education and hard work.

 

In order to be happy, we (as humans) must find something that sets us above other beings. It's natural for us to think the trait that makes us different somehow makes us superior. It isn't necessarily correct.

[Saru Inc]

But I see where you are going with this, "spread his genes" does sound very similar to what nazis would say about Jews.

Ding ding ding! It only took 18 pages but someone has finally made a Nazi comparison!

 

 

RECORD.

 

 

---------------

 

 

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

 

I would continue this more, but I'm really hungry so ima go get some chinese.

The point is that you value that only because it's a trait you have. Try telling that to a cat, and he'll just ignore you. Why? Well, your fur is pretty darn ugly, for one, and you can't jump to save your life. It's like a larger version of how people of different cultures will value different things. You might look at some random suit on the street and say "Man, I'll bet that guy hasn't had an interesting thought in weeks". But it makes no difference, because he doesn't value intelligence in the same way that he might value, for example, level of education and hard work.

 

In order to be happy, we (as humans) must find something that sets us above other beings. It's natural for us to think the trait that makes us different somehow makes us superior. It isn't necessarily correct.

 

1) Chinese was very very yummy.

 

2) So are you agreeing, or disagreeing with me? lol.

[Dupin]

But I see where you are going with this, "spread his genes" does sound very similar to what nazis would say about Jews.

Ding ding ding! It only took 18 pages but someone has finally made a Nazi comparison!

 

 

RECORD.

 

 

---------------

 

 

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

 

I would continue this more, but I'm really hungry so ima go get some chinese.

The point is that you value that only because it's a trait you have. Try telling that to a cat, and he'll just ignore you. Why? Well, your fur is pretty darn ugly, for one, and you can't jump to save your life. It's like a larger version of how people of different cultures will value different things. You might look at some random suit on the street and say "Man, I'll bet that guy hasn't had an interesting thought in weeks". But it makes no difference, because he doesn't value intelligence in the same way that he might value, for example, level of education and hard work.

 

In order to be happy, we (as humans) must find something that sets us above other beings. It's natural for us to think the trait that makes us different somehow makes us superior. It isn't necessarily correct.

 

1) Chinese was very very yummy.

 

2) So are you agreeing, or disagreeing with me? lol.

1) No.

2) Yes.

 

E: Disagreeing on both. Chinese food is bad and Iamdan is right.

[Saru Inc]

In that case.

 

Chinese food is amazing, and well. You don't appreciate food.

 

 

And in Iamdan's opinion, he is correct. In my opinion, he is not correct in the slightest. Nor do I agree with your idea of happiness.