Originally posted by Grimm22
Those are distinct human rights.To denie them is against the geneva convention and just about any law.
It is straight up murder
It's not murder you complete fool. What part of that do you not grasp? It doesn't matter what you think and believe, factually and undeniably it is not murder.
-AC
Originally posted by Grimm22
Um there is a huge difference between an miscarrige and an abortion 😐Abortion are selfish acts of murder that happen when people would rather take the life of an innocent child than live up to their responsibilitys.
Miscarriges are when the body rejects a pregnency
Deny it all you like, but abortion is the act of the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its termination.
Thus, a miscarriage is an abortion.
Originally posted by Grimm22
Actually abortion is against human rights of life and the pursuit of liberty and happiness 😐Roe v. Wade was the first decline of modern society
What about the WOMAN's right to HER pursuit of liberty and happiness?
And who gives you the right to judge what is a first decline of modern society?
Originally posted by Grimm22Abortion are selfish acts of murder that happen when people would rather take the life of an innocent child than live up to their responsibilitys.
Abortion is not murder. Period. Get it into your head. What YOUR want to call it is irrelevant. You are a man, am I correct?
Originally posted by The Omega
What about the WOMAN's right to HER pursuit of liberty and happiness?And who gives you the right to judge what is a first decline of modern society?
Abortion is not murder. Period. Get it into your head. What YOUR want to call it is irrelevant. You are a man, am I correct?
Yes I am a guy
Oh dont go all your a guy you wouldnt understand crap on me. Im a human being I understand well enougth
The Woman should have thought about that before she was stupid and had sex without thinking about the consiquences, so now a woman's selfishness overights the life of an innocent child 🤨
Yes abortion is murder, and I pray for your soul because you cannot accept that
Originally posted by Grimm22
Oh dont go all your a guy you wouldnt understand crap on me. Im a human being I understand well enougthThe Woman should have thought about that before she was stupid and had sex without thinking about the consiquences, so now a woman's selfishness overights the life of an innocent child 🤨
👆
Especially the part where you say "Oh dont go all your a guy you wouldnt understand crap on me."--That shit's like the dumbest comeback in the world, and it's seriously getting old.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Then stop wacking off to keep from killing sentient living sperm cells.
Sperm is not sentient, dumbass. 👇
A foetus is. A Foetus is the development of union of egg and sperm, and thus human.
A separate egg and separate sperm do not count, they are single celled organisms, only becoming human once they unite. 😉
Originally posted by Grimm22
No because those who get the death penalty if you ask me are no longer human 😐
One of the most flawed arguments I ever heard 👇
1) Not all people who get the Death Penalty are actually guilty, nor do all actually deserve it. ❌
2) Even still, even if they are still criminals, they are still human. No matter what, when you warrant Capital Punishment, you are killing a HUMAN BEING.
How convienent for you to call the Foetus a "Child" and THEN say that the criminal is no longer "human". Don't be a hypocrit. 👇
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sperm is not sentient, dumbass. 👇A foetus is. A Foetus is the development of union of egg and sperm, and thus [b]human.
[/B]
So? Sperm cells and egg cells are pre-human being. So, referring to your logic in your earlier post, they, too, are human. Sperm cells and egg cells have the potentiality of becoming human.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A separate egg and separate sperm do not count, they are single celled organisms, only becoming human once they unite. 😉
But they are still organisms... which come from humans... which, considering your logic, they essentially are human due to there pre-human beingness.
What I would like to point out is that if you think that sperm cells and egg cells do not count as being human then why do you consider being human yourself? Do you honestly believe that we do not consist of the same stuff as do both organisms?
Your logic is flawed my friend.
Originally posted by crazylozer
Perhaps on every page, someone should be designated to repeat the facts of the argument, thus limiting the amount of stupidity that enters the debate when they don't realize that their point has probably been repeated and refuted at some point in the previous...393 pages. Something generic like this:"Abortion is not murder, and cannot be defined as such. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion, as of yet, is not unlawful.
A foetus, which if you are unaware is what is aborted, may or may not be considered to be a human being. Because the exact definition of human is ambiguous, one must consider other factors, instead of thinking of this argument by itself. While conclusive proof either way on this point would indeed provide a strong argument towards either pro-life or pro-choice stances, none has been provided yet.
Banning abortion could be a slippery slope. If it is inconclusive as to whether or not abortion is the equivalent of killing a human being, what shall be outlawed next? Would fast food companies be charged with mass murder for giving young children fatty foods that could one day kill them?
Potentiality is not a strong enough argument to go on. Yes, you could say that one day, that child could grow up to be a great painter, or scientist or whatnot, but there is an equal, if not greater, chance that the child will simply be average or even considered to be a bad person. Looking further upon potentiality, sperm that are not used during a male's lifetime could have created thousands more children. Does that make him a killer by negligence? No one would think that way. Or if a man dies in a car accident, do the thousands of children he could have spawned also die with him? I think not.
Good and bad are defined by morals. Each person's set of morals varies, but there are some actions that are commonly believed to be wrong. Stealing, rape, murder, etc. are commonly believed to do so, because they harm another human being. Do you see how strongly the debate hangs upon the point of whether the foetus is human or not? Morals change over time though. It used to be that disagreeing with the Church made you a sinner, deserving of death. Looking different, or being of a different race made it alright for you to be treated badly, or even killed.
On that note, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It is perfectly possible for someone to believe that it is alright for a woman to have an abortion, but not support their choice. Something along the lines that Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Of course, it is widely supported on both sides the use of abortion if it threatens the mother's life. Hmm, does that mean the mother is more important, because she is already alive? Wait, that would imply that the unborn was not yet a full person! That's just my pro-choice bias, but think about that.
And of course, one must consider the consequences of outlawing abortion. Some women who have abortions feel, and rightly so, that they cannot support themselves and their child. That is not always the case, but surely those who value life so much can see that forcing young women and children to undergo hardships day after day is cruel. But oh wait, because they did not die, it's fine, right? Here's another fact: thousands of children die everyday. While some relief is provided, it still happens. If there really were so many homes for adoption, as some pro-lifers claimed (they believe that adoption is a viable alternative to abortion) why are they not used presently to save the lifes of children in poorer countries?"
I knew that would come in handy. Please Grimm, read the post.
Sentience is the ability to perceive. Can foetuses feel, hear, touch, smell, etc.? Maybe a little after a lot of development, but again, it's still not clear. You want to expand the definition of perception? If you do, so will I. Living cells are aware of their purpose i.e. to reproduce, and do so because they recognize that is what they are to do. Flawed no? But that's what happens when one ventures into the definitions of unknown capacities.
It's obvious that some here haven't read through the entire thread yet. There was a 10 page discussion as to what was a 'human' and what was not. I'll sum it up.
A) A human is NOT anything with 46 chromosomes.
B) A human is the sum of its parts
C) Once a human is defined as such, remaining 'alive' retains its humanity even after losing assorted amount of parts that originally made it human (mechanical heart transplant and the like)
D) Life and death of a human refers to it as a whole. Once a person clinically dies, there are still living cells upon the corpse. Is the person still alive? No.
E) Thinking, that being the trait that makes us dominant over other species on Earth, has become the biggest factor as to what a human is. A person who is "brain-dead" is no longer considered alive. Do foetuses think? I don't think so. Did they before hand? As sperm and egg, more definitely not. Therefore, they were not a person, they lack the traits that define them as human, and they may become so, but potentiality is not enough.
And yeah, the poll question has been noticed to be wonky. I guess the better version of it would be something like: "Do you believe that induced abortion should be made legal/remain legal?"
Originally posted by crazylozer
It's obvious that some here haven't read through the entire thread yet. There was a 10 page discussion as to what was a 'human' and what was not. I'll sum it up.A) A human is NOT anything with 46 chromosomes.
B) A human is the sum of its parts
C) Once a human is defined as such, remaining 'alive' retains its humanity even after losing assorted amount of parts that originally made it human (mechanical heart transplant and the like)
D) Life and death of a human refers to it as a whole. Once a person clinically dies, there are still living cells upon the corpse. Is the person still alive? No.
E) Thinking, that being the trait that makes us dominant over other species on Earth, has become the biggest factor as to what a human is. A person who is "brain-dead" is no longer considered alive. Do foetuses think? I don't think so. Did they before hand? As sperm and egg, more definitely not. Therefore, they were not a person, they lack the traits that define them as human, and they may become so, but potentiality is not enough.
A) A human is NOT anything with 46 chromosomes.
Says you... around here (modern earth) that's still the defintion of human life.
B) A human is the sum of its parts
Humans are made of tissue, have blood, brains, and body. Uh-huh, yep you're doing good.
C) Once a human is defined as such, remaining 'alive' retains its humanity even after losing assorted amount of parts that originally made it human (mechanical heart transplant and the like)
Uh-huh, keep going....
D) Life and death of a human refers to it as a whole. Once a person clinically dies, there are still living cells upon the corpse. Is the person still alive? No.
....No friend. See what you did there? You took your own personal feelings and tried to compare two different things to make it seem as though it supported your argument.
Surely no person of sense would compare a newly created life from egg and sperm to the still alive fingernails on a corpse.
One is going to be a conscious, living, breathing, dreaming, feeling human being in a short time,... the other is merely the outward shells (nails, hair, etc..) of what was once a life.
E) Thinking, that being the trait that makes us dominant over other species on Earth, has become the biggest factor as to what a human is. A person who is "brain-dead" is no longer considered alive. Do foetuses think? I don't think so. Did they before hand? As sperm and egg, more definitely not. Therefore, they were not a person, they lack the traits that define them as human, and they may become so, but potentiality is not enough.
Actually, animals think, have instincts, and reason. (to a certain degree, with the reason part.)
It's our emotions, our souls or personalities, with hopes, fears, and dreams that make us human.
Despite what you or anybody may "consider" them to be, a person who is brain-dead is still alive.
Don't agree?
Tell it to those folks who were vegetables in coma's for 7 years who woke up and re-joined their families.
You don't know if a fetus thinks or not. You're only guessing that they don't.
In any event, they feel pain after 12 weeks.
How much they think or feel as a fetus is not the point, the point is that left alone, naturally, they will be a thinking feeling human being, just like you or I.
Abortion is stopping that process, and removing from existence someone who would think or feel just like you or I.
Of course as sperm and egg there is no thought process, and also, no human being.
It is the process of them joining together, what scientists call "conception" that begins the human beings journey.
That is the sparking point of life, much as an electric spark may start a car motor, or turn on a light, and from that point on, any deliberate attempt to stop the process is, at the very least, the prevention of human life.
I use that word as "murder" seemed to bother everybody last time, although I don't know what else you would call the intentional prevention of a human life continuing to grow and be born, once the process has already begun.
I will revert back to my final post now:
BIOLOGIC FACTS
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individuals life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his fathers sperm and his mothers ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation."
This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
- The above is not a religious faith belief.
- The above is not a philosophic theory.
- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.
Must the question "when does human life begin" be answered?
If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.
What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?
The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer.
We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.
What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?
We would ask:
Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
But what if a person would still sincerely doubt that this is human life in the womb?
Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go?
Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life?
We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man?
I suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.
Rather than dismissing it, like dumb mindless masses of flesh, quite literally "for f*ck's sake".
This will be my last post in this thread.
I invite any of you to debunk these claims before continuing in your pointless support of government condoned murder and genocide of an entire class of human beings which is based SOLELY on age and place of residence.
To the tune of one out of every three babies each year, or.... an entire THIRD of my generation.
FIN.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I use that word as "murder" seemed to bother everybody last time, although I don't know what else you would call the intentional prevention of a human life continuing to grow and be born, once the process has already begun.
You'd call it killing or more specifically, abortion. If you need a tag, frivolous killing. Either way, it's not murder, so we can drop it there, surely.
Second, you're not stopping the continuation of a human life, you're stopping something that's alive, becoming a human. It can't be on the path to being one, and be one.
-AC
Originally posted by sithsaber408Left alone i.e. separated from the mother... it will die.
How much they think or feel as a fetus is not the point, the point is that left alone, naturally, they will be a thinking feeling human being, just like you or I.
Originally posted by sithsaber408So is masturbation and menstruation in theory.
Abortion is stopping that process, and removing from existence someone who would think or feel just like you or I.
Originally posted by sithsaber408Nor is there in a morula.
Of course as sperm and egg there is no thought process, and also, no human being.
Originally posted by sithsaber408Before or after pronuclear fusion? Before or after implantation to the fundus of the uterus?
It is the process of them joining together, what scientists call "conception" that begins the human beings journey.That is the sparking point of life, much as an electric spark may start a car motor, or turn on a light, and from that point on, any deliberate attempt to stop the process is, at the very least, the prevention of human life.
Originally posted by sithsaber408It's called an abortion. Before the zygote has attached to the fundus it is called emergency contraception.
I use that word as "murder" seemed to bother everybody last time, although I don't know what else you would call the intentional prevention of a human life continuing to grow and be born, once the process has already begun.
Originally posted by sithsaber408What community college only has one embryology text.
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. [B]There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individuals life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his fathers sperm and his mothers ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.[/B]
Originally posted by sithsaber408So does a tumor.
[B]Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.[/B]
Originally posted by sithsaber408Only when attached to a mother.
[B]Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.[/B]
Originally posted by sithsaber408Exogenous maternal hormones.
[B]Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.[/B]
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I swore to stay out of this thread, and kept good on that promise for several months, but I was involved in the discussion you mentioned and all that you have just "summed up" is your point of view on the arguments.[B]A) A human is NOT anything with 46 chromosomes.
Says you... around here (modern earth) that's still the defintion of human life.
B) A human is the sum of its parts
Humans are made of tissue, have blood, brains, and body. Uh-huh, yep you're doing good.
C) Once a human is defined as such, remaining 'alive' retains its humanity even after losing assorted amount of parts that originally made it human (mechanical heart transplant and the like)
Uh-huh, keep going....
D) Life and death of a human refers to it as a whole. Once a person clinically dies, there are still living cells upon the corpse. Is the person still alive? No.
....No friend. See what you did there? You took your own personal feelings and tried to compare two different things to make it seem as though it supported your argument.
Surely no person of sense would compare a newly created life from egg and sperm to the still alive fingernails on a corpse.
One is going to be a conscious, living, breathing, dreaming, feeling human being in a short time,... the other is merely the outward shells (nails, hair, etc..) of what was once a life.
E) Thinking, that being the trait that makes us dominant over other species on Earth, has become the biggest factor as to what a human is. A person who is "brain-dead" is no longer considered alive. Do foetuses think? I don't think so. Did they before hand? As sperm and egg, more definitely not. Therefore, they were not a person, they lack the traits that define them as human, and they may become so, but potentiality is not enough.
Actually, animals think, have instincts, and reason. (to a certain degree, with the reason part.)
It's our emotions, our souls or personalities, with hopes, fears, and dreams that make us human.
Despite what you or anybody may "consider" them to be, a person who is brain-dead is still alive.
Don't agree?
Tell it to those folks who were vegetables in coma's for 7 years who woke up and re-joined their families.
You don't know if a fetus thinks or not. You're only guessing that they don't.
In any event, they feel pain after 12 weeks.
How much they think or feel as a fetus is not the point, the point is that left alone, naturally, they will be a thinking feeling human being, just like you or I.
Abortion is stopping that process, and removing from existence someone who would think or feel just like you or I.
Of course as sperm and egg there is no thought process, and also, no human being.
It is the process of them joining together, what scientists call "conception" that begins the human beings journey.
That is the sparking point of life, much as an electric spark may start a car motor, or turn on a light, and from that point on, any deliberate attempt to stop the process is, at the very least, the prevention of human life.
I use that word as "murder" seemed to bother everybody last time, although I don't know what else you would call the intentional prevention of a human life continuing to grow and be born, once the process has already begun.
I will revert back to my final post now:
BIOLOGIC FACTS
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individuals life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his fathers sperm and his mothers ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation."
This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
- The above is not a religious faith belief.
- The above is not a philosophic theory.
- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.
Must the question "when does human life begin" be answered?
If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.
What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?
The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer.
We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.
What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?
We would ask:
Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
But what if a person would still sincerely doubt that this is human life in the womb?
Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go?
Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life?
We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man?
I suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.
Rather than dismissing it, like dumb mindless masses of flesh, quite literally "for f*ck's sake".
This will be my last post in this thread.
I invite any of you to debunk these claims before continuing in your pointless support of government condoned murder and genocide of an entire class of human beings which is based SOLELY on age and place of residence.
To the tune of one out of every three babies each year, or.... an entire THIRD of my generation.
FIN. [/B]
Lack of reading comprehension FTL.
A) A skin cell has 46 chromosomes. Is it a human? No.
D) You misunderstand me. My point was that the attribute that matters is what decides what is alive and what is dead.
I've already addressed the potentiality argument.
E) By thinking....I meant emotions, logic, feeling etc. That stuff occurs in the brain.
BTW, brain dead is different from comatose. Brain dead is when there is IRREVERSIBLE damage to the brain. There is no possibility of recovery. Your example of patients who awake after years and come back does not apply to the word.
You seem to switch freely between "will become a full-fledged person" and "it is a person".
Did you know that it was an accepted scientific fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Majority doesn't make right. Further studies will either verify or debunk any statement of fact.
I have addressed the potentiality argument, and that seems to be the basis of your argument.