Abortion

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
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.

A Feotus is not pre-human. It is human. 😉 A Foetus does have the potentiality of becoming human. It's already human. That's the difference. 😉

I think you are defining Human as strictly "human being".A Foetus is a potential human being yes, but already human. Does a human being stop being human once he or she is in a coma or no longer alive?

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
But they are still organisms... which come from humans... which, considering your logic, they essentially are human due to there pre-human beingness.

WRONG 👇 Again like usual. 🙄

A Foetus is not pre-human. It's already human It's just not a "human being yet. Sperm and Egg are human CELLS, yes, but are not human life.

Again, You have no idea what my logic is, because you are addressing it incorrectly. So don't call if flawed, until you realize what my stance actually is.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
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?

WE consist of a hell of a lot more cells than a sperm and egg. Not to mention that sperm and egg die out on there own,all the time, with or without our intervention.

We as human beings count as human lives, while individual egg and sperm do not. A Foetus is the unity of these two human cells, which become a human life (in Foetus form). Not a human being, BUT a human life nonetheless.

Abortion is essentially still the killing of a human life. IS that severe as killing a human being? No...but it is definately way more serious than killing one egg or one sperm.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Your logic is flawed my friend.

How can you say that when you don't even know what my logic is?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A Feotus is not pre-human. It is [b]human. 😉 A Foetus does have the potentiality of becoming human. It's already human. That's the difference. 😉

I think you are defining Human as strictly "human being".A Foetus is a potential human being yes, but already human. Does a human being stop being human once he or she is in a coma or no longer alive?

WRONG 👇 Again like usual. 🙄

A Foetus is not pre-human. It's already human It's just not a "human being yet. Sperm and Egg are human CELLS, yes, but are not human life.

Again, You have no idea what my logic is, because you are addressing it incorrectly. So don't call if flawed, until you realize what my stance actually is.

WE consist of a hell of a lot more cells than a sperm and egg. Not to mention that sperm and egg die out on there own,all the time, with or without our intervention.

We as human beings count as human lives, while individual egg and sperm do not. A Foetus is the unity of these two human cells, which become a human life (in Foetus form). Not a human being, BUT a human life nonetheless.

Abortion is essentially still the killing of a human life. IS that severe as killing a human being? No...but it is definately way more serious than killing one egg or one sperm.

How can you say that when you don't even know what my logic is? [/B]

Phoenix asked you to define "human", and you failed to do so. You mentioned numerous definitions that name fetuses as human, but failed to provide any. I'm assuming you dance around the issue because you are unable to create a definition that encompasses all the complications of human/inhuman.

Here are some definitions I found:

Adj: 1. Of or characteristic of man
2. relating to a person

Noun: 1. homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
2. a human being

By your own implied definitions, a zygote is a human. What defines it as such? Is it the organs? A zygote doesn't have any. Is it the brain capacity? A zygote is a single celled organism, yet that is the stage after a sperm cell and egg cell unite. You contradict yourself.

Comatose patients are still human beings.
Dead people are corpses.

And is it size that matters to you? The number of cells that make up the organism? Because for a while after conception, the embryo is very small.

Originally posted by Grimm22
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

Oh, but I will. You’ll never be in a situation were YOU are pregnant, so stop telling women what they should or should not do with THEIR bodies. Who’s given you the right to tell women what they can or can’t do?

Originally posted by Grimm22

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 🤨

Ah, and there you show your true colours, you male-chauvinist. THE WOMAN SHOULD HAVE… The WOMAN’s SELFISHNESS… So, we should stop having sex, eh? What if the condom breaks? Contraception isn’t 100 % fool proof. Just because you can’t get laid, it doesn’t mean women should abstain from having sex.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Yes abortion is murder, and I pray for your soul because you cannot accept that

No, abortion is not murder. And please, do not involve ME in your culturally accepted delusion. I – at least – do not “throw stones” after other people, and tell them what they can and cannot do, and call them selfish.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sperm is not sentient, dumbass. 👇

A foetus is not sentient, you scientific moron.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How can you say that when you don't even know what my logic is?

Empirical evidence, I'd say. You can't even define your own stance on abortion logically.

Right – anyone who cannot get into their thick skulls that abortion is NOT murder, will henceforth be ignored. We’ve been through this a giga-zillion times now.

Originally posted by The Omega
Right – anyone who cannot get into their thick skulls that abortion is NOT murder, will henceforth be ignored. We’ve been through this a giga-zillion times now.

And a giga-zillion times you have taken a personal opinion and tried to state it as a fact.

Fact: Most places in the world do not allow abortions after the 3rd trimester.

Why?

Because it is believed that a fetus at that stage of development, while still dependant on the mother, is too close to being a full-grown human baby, and so an abortion is both wrong and illegal. ( most countires and states have laws to this effect.)

In effect, those laws are saying that at a certain point, an abortion is murder.

Those laws are why pro-life people such as myself, argue and lobby for the de-legalization of abortion.

Because if a baby who is 5 days from being born is considered no different than a born one, why would you allow it to be killed?

It's no different than an infant, except for its age and place of residence.

So, what about a baby 10 days from birth?

Still pretty much the same. Only difference is age and place of residence.

What about a month from birth? Ending the life at that point is almost entirely illegal, everywhere.

So how about 3 or 4 months from birth?

This is where it gets tricky.

You could say that it's not a fully developed human being, and be reasonably correct.

I could say that its still going to become one, and that stoping that process is ending a life, and be reasonably correct.

As you keep tracing back through the human life development cycle, there is no clear point (as yet discovered) when you can say "It is a fully grown and developed life worth protecting" other than at birth, and every thing else up to that point is one point in a series of steps leading up to birth.

The most logical conclusion is at contraception, when a sperm and egg fuse together, creating a new organism, one which will grow and develop into a human being.

At any given point it may not have arms, legs, a pre-recorded diary, or whatever else you personally consider it needing to have to make it worth protecting, ... but that doesn't change the fact that it will have said characteristic later on in its development cycle.

In any event, as certain types of abortion are illegal, and certain ages of fetuses are protected against being killed, you cannot say that it is a FACT that an abortion is not murder......

seeing how in some circumstances, it is already widely considered to be so now.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This will be my last post in this thread.

Can't say much for your self-restraint.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Fact: Most places in the world do not allow abortions after the 3rd trimester.

Fact: 92% of all abortions are performed during the first 5 weeks.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As you keep tracing back through the human life development cycle, there is no clear point (as yet discovered) when you can say "It is a fully grown and developed life worth protecting" other than at birth, and every thing else up to that point is one point in a series of steps leading up to birth.

The most logical conclusion is at contraception, when a sperm and egg fuse together, creating a new organism, one which will grow and develop into a human being.

At any given point it may not have arms, legs, a pre-recorded diary, or whatever else you personally consider it needing to have to make it worth protecting, ... but that doesn't change the fact that it [B]will have said characteristic later on in its development cycle.[/B]

The only difference between "prevention" and "termination is" location and timing, e.g. consider the difference between a sperm and egg one second before fertilization and a sperm and egg one second after fertilization.

By this reasoning, contraception and sterilization are equivocal to abortion because preventing the development of human life before it begins is equivocal to terminating the development of human life once it has started.

After all, stopping this process at any point is ending a life, right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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

It already is a human, from the moment of conception. It is not yet a human BEING, but is certainly human, as humans are incapable of producing anything but humans.

You also can't make a personal opinion a fact. What the law says, and what people believe are two seperate things. The law forbids same sex marriage but there are still people who support it, who don't believe the laws opinion. Same thing here.

To Grimm, you need to get your fetus worshipping head read. I'd hate to be your girlfriend and be controlled by an imbecile like you.

Originally posted by crazylozer
Phoenix asked you to define "human", and you failed to do so. You mentioned numerous definitions that name fetuses as human, but failed to provide any. I'm assuming you dance around the issue because you are unable to create a definition that encompasses all the complications of human/inhuman.

Here are some definitions I found:

Adj: 1. Of or characteristic of man
2. relating to a person

Noun: 1. homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
2. a human being

By your own implied definitions, a zygote is a human. What defines it as such? Is it the organs? A zygote doesn't have any. Is it the brain capacity? A zygote is a single celled organism, yet that is the stage after a sperm cell and egg cell unite. You contradict yourself.

Comatose patients are still human beings.
Dead people are corpses.

And is it size that matters to you? The number of cells that make up the organism? Because for a while after conception, the embryo is very small.

Thank you. You said precisely what I was going to reply, even more.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A Feotus is not pre-human. It is [b]human. 😉 A Foetus does have the potentiality of becoming human. It's already human. That's the difference. 😉

I think you are defining Human as strictly "human being".A Foetus is a potential human being yes, but already human. Does a human being stop being human once he or she is in a coma or no longer alive?

WRONG 👇 Again like usual. 🙄

A Foetus is not pre-human. It's already human It's just not a "human being yet. Sperm and Egg are human CELLS, yes, but are not human life.

Again, You have no idea what my logic is, because you are addressing it incorrectly. So don't call if flawed, until you realize what my stance actually is.

WE consist of a hell of a lot more cells than a sperm and egg. Not to mention that sperm and egg die out on there own,all the time, with or without our intervention.

We as human beings count as human lives, while individual egg and sperm do not. A Foetus is the unity of these two human cells, which become a human life (in Foetus form). Not a human being, BUT a human life nonetheless.

Abortion is essentially still the killing of a human life. IS that severe as killing a human being? No...but it is definately way more serious than killing one egg or one sperm.

How can you say that when you don't even know what my logic is? [/B]

You, however, need to read 50-100 pages back so you can understand that this has been a subject of great debate. If you claim that a foetus, in any of its forms is in fact human then it is in your hands to prove to us why it is human. And I do believe that Crazylozer has already stressed more than once that you cannot use potentiality as an argument because of the examples we ourselves are setting for that argument.
How do you know that after the fetus is born that it won't grow up to become a murderer? How do you know it won't grow up to become a religious fanatic? How do you know....? The answer to these questions is that... you don't know. Potentiality is not a sufficient argument.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Fact: Most places in the world do not allow abortions after the 3rd trimester.

Why?

Because it is believed that a fetus at that stage of development, while still dependant on the mother, is too close to being a full-grown human baby, and so an abortion is both wrong and illegal. ( most countires and states have laws to this effect.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And a giga-zillion times you have taken a personal opinion and tried to state it as a fact.

As stated the vast majority of abortions occur in the earliest stages of pregnancy. The legislation against late-term abortions usually have exceptions if carrying the pregnancy to term has a severe health risk, which is probably the predominant cause for performance of a late-term abortion.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In effect, those laws are saying that at a certain point, an abortion is murder.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Those laws are why pro-life people such as myself, argue and lobby for the de-legalization of abortion.

E.g. opposition to the emergency contraceptive pill.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As you keep tracing back through the human life development cycle, there is no clear point (as yet discovered) when you can say "It is a fully grown and developed life worth protecting" other than at birth, and every thing else up to that point is one point in a series of steps leading up to birth.
The most logical conclusion is at contraception, when a sperm and egg fuse together, creating a new organism, one which will grow and develop into a human being.

The medical definition of the beginning of pregnancy is implantation to the fundus of the uterus.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
At any given point it may not have arms, legs, a pre-recorded diary, or whatever else you personally consider it needing to have to make it worth protecting, ... but that doesn't change the fact that it [B]will have said characteristic later on in its development cycle.[/B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In any event, as certain types of abortion are illegal, and certain ages of fetuses are protected against being killed, you cannot say that it is a FACT that an abortion is not murder......

seeing how in some circumstances, it is already widely considered to be so now.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
It already is a human, from the moment of conception. It is not yet a human BEING, but is certainly human, as humans are incapable of producing anything but humans.

You also can't make a personal opinion a fact. What the law says, and what people believe are two seperate things. The law forbids same sex marriage but there are still people who support it, who don't believe the laws opinion. Same thing here.

To Grimm, you need to get your fetus worshipping head read. I'd hate to be your girlfriend and be controlled by an imbecile like you.

Wrong, it's a zygote, a cell. Nothing human about it. Also, yes, abortion is factually not murder. FACT, IE: No debating it. I find it perverse that you and many others can't grasp this. Murder is SOLELY a legal term, therefore what the law says it is...is what it is. Abortion not being applicable.

Can we please just accept this and move on? It's been proven so many times now. Seriously.

-AC

ITS MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!one

Originally posted by PVS
MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!one

Great movie.

Originally posted by crazylozer
Phoenix asked you to define "human", and you failed to do so. You mentioned numerous definitions that name fetuses as human, but failed to provide any. I'm assuming you dance around the issue because you are unable to create a definition that encompasses all the complications of human/inhuman.

My Apologies. I have read over Pheonix's response too fast, and overlooked when he asked me how I define human. So here it goes:

I define Human, an actual human, as simple as down to the union of egg and sperm (with atleast a few weeks time given). Now, why is this? Wouldn't I just consider this a bunch of human cells, and not necessarily human? No...when a human being DIES, that does not mean they are no longer human. That just means they are no longer alive.

Yes, you are right to say that no one definition can truly encompass all the complications of being human, simply because we do not know everything there is to being a human. There is so much more to Humans than today's science, religion, or philosophy has to show for.

So, in effort, my definition is a personal/scientific one, and I promise you not a bias one just for sake of argument. I beleive a human is a human from a questionable amount of time after conception, and until the courpse is completely disintegrated....I do not consider a dead person to be no longer human, to me they are still human...only difference is that they are human courpses.

I mean, if you think about, look at the word itself: Human Foetus...how is a human foetus NOT human?

Originally posted by crazylozer
Here are some definitions I found:

Adj: 1. Of or characteristic of man
2. relating to a person

What about woman? Relation to a person? Isn't a person already human? This definition is flawed !

Originally posted by crazylozer
Noun: 1. homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
2. a human being

A Human BEING yes.....a BEING has an ego and identity...but you don't need an EGO/identity to be human. Is a person in a coma no longer human because they lack intelligence and ego? Is a Dead person no longer human, because they lack intelligence, sentience, speech, and erect carriage? 🙄

Originally posted by crazylozer
By your own implied definitions, a zygote is a human. What defines it as such? Is it the organs? A zygote doesn't have any. Is it the brain capacity? A zygote is a single celled organism, yet that is the stage after a sperm cell and egg cell unite. You contradict yourself.

No, i only SEEM to contradict myself to you. I already stated that I consider a human to be human, a reasonable time after conception. Zygote to me is not automatically human, MAYBE it's human, but I cannot consider so far.....however, in my eyes, a Foetus already passes for human. 😉 I think I already explained why.

Originally posted by crazylozer
Comatose patients are still human beings.
Dead people are corpses.

Dead people are HUMAN COURPSES. Nice try trying to dodge that fact. 👇 They are still HUMAN. Stop twisting facts to fit convienently fit your argument.

Originally posted by crazylozer
And is it size that matters to you? The number of cells that make up the organism? Because for a while after conception, the embryo is very small.

Irrelevant. I never said size matters, so stop putting words into my mouth. Damn, must you make such desperate arguments in attempt to sound right? 🙄

Originally posted by The Omega
A foetus is not sentient, you scientific moron.

Actually, GENUIS, the Foetus is sentient once it hits the 4th-5th months. Not only can it feel pain, it can also hear the sound of its mother's voice.

Originally posted by The Omega
Empirical evidence, I'd say. You can't even define your own stance on abortion logically.

No ❌ you just FAIL to comprehend due to ur intense bias against any logic that contradicts your own, also due to your black and white mentality, claiming that any stance that feels Abortion is immoral is religious propaganda. 🙄

I seem to recall you so convienently saying "I do not consider the foetus a child", even though the Foetus is always referred to as an unborn child, and on top of that, you fail to use ANY FACTS to justify WHY you feel that way. Talk about being subjective......

Originally posted by The Omega
[BRight – anyone who cannot get into their thick skulls that abortion is NOT murder, will henceforth be ignored. We’ve been through this a giga-zillion times now. [/B]

You are only proving to me how ignorant of one's argument you can be. I DO NOT THINK ABORTION IS MURDER....stop putting words into my mouth, and stop claiming that my stance is flawed when you yourself have a deluded/bias and possibly stupid intepretation of what my stance is.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
My Apologies. I have read over Pheonix's response too fast, and overlooked when he asked me how I define human. So here it goes:

I define [b]Human, an actual human, as simple as down to the union of egg and sperm (with atleast a few weeks time given). Now, why is this? Wouldn't I just consider this a bunch of human cells, and not necessarily human? No...when a human being DIES, that does not mean they are no longer human. That just means they are no longer alive.

Yes, you are right to say that no one definition can truly encompass all the complications of being human, simply because we do not know everything there is to being a human. There is so much more to Humans than today's science, religion, or philosophy has to show for.

So, in effort, my definition is a personal one, and I promise you not a bias one just for sake of argument. I beleive a human is a human from a questionable amount of time after conception, and until the courpse is completely disintegrated....I do not consider a dead person to be no longer human, to me they are still human...only difference is that they are human courpses.

I mean, if you think about, look at the word itself: Human Foetus...how is a human foetus NOT human?

What about woman? Relation to a person? Isn't a person already human? This definition is flawed !

A Human BEING yes.....a BEING has an ego and identity...but you don't need an EGO/identity to be human. Is a person in a coma no longer human because they lack intelligence and ego? Is a Dead person no longer human, because they lack intelligence, sentience, speech, and erect carriage? 🙄

No, i only SEEM to contradict myself to you. I already stated that I consider a human to be human, a reasonable time after conception. Zygote to me is not automatically human, MAYBE it's human, but I cannot consider so far.....however, in my eyes, a Foetus already passes for human. 😉 I think I already explained why.

Dead people are HUMAN COURPSES. Nice try trying to dodge that fact. 👇 They are still HUMAN. Stop twisting facts to fit convienently fit your argument.

Irrelevant. I never said size matters, so stop putting words into my mouth. Damn, must you make such desperate arguments in attempt to sound right? 🙄 [/B]

By definition of human, I meant give some characteristics to differentiate what is human and what is not. There may not be an all-encompassing definition, but please, name some characteristics that tell you that an object is human.

So you say a human corpse is still human to you? If a scientist grew parts that were flesh, bone and blood, that were humanoid in structure and utility, and sewed it up to make it look like a person, would that be a human to you?

In the terms human fetus and human corpse, the word 'human' is used as a adjective, more akin to implying that it belongs, or did belong, to a human. Example of such: "The dog ate a human heart". Is the heart human? It in itself is not a human, but it belonged to one.

You know what the definition meant by 'man'. Many literary sources are still unequal in terms of gender bias.

Originally posted by crazylozer
By definition of human, I meant give some characteristics to differentiate what is human and what is not. There may not be an all-encompassing definition, but please, name some characteristics that tell you that an object is human.

The Foetus is not an object though. That's what you seem to not realize. I find it appalling how so many debators can equate a Human Feotus with a peice of crap, with a rock, with a peice of chicken.....you guys fail to realize it's Human, and are so quick to label it something else.

Originally posted by crazylozer
So you say a human corpse is still human to you? If a scientist grew parts that were flesh, bone and blood, that were humanoid in structure and utility, and sewed it up to make it look like a person, would that be a human to you?

A Human Courpse is still human, yes. Is a dog no longer a dog, when it's dead? I'd like to know how you define human.....it seems to me that to you a Human is only Human when it has a name, an intelligence, a desire, and is concious. There is MORE to being human than that. 😉

Originally posted by crazylozer
In the terms human fetus and human corpse, the word 'human' is used as a adjective, more akin to implying that it belongs, or did belong, to a human. Example of such: "The dog ate a human heart". Is the heart human? It in itself is not a human, but it belonged to one.

The Heart is not human because it is only a part of a human. A Feotus is not PART of a human....it is a human itself. Underdeveloped? YES, but still human......not a partial human, a human.

Originally posted by crazylozer
You know what the definition meant by 'man'. Many literary sources are still unequal in terms of gender bias.

Gender Bias sucks !

...And still no definition.

Mine? "I think, therefore, I am"

A pause in thinking (comatose patients, etc.) do not detract from its humanity because it did think, it did live, and it not dead yet.

And yeah, a dog that has died, to me, is a cadaver. Nothing more than dead and dying cells in a cluster.

So have we really gotten anywhere with this debate????
Greetings to all those who I have yet to meet here...I'm sure there are alots of you b/c I've been rather lax with checking this site.

Thanks for voicing your opinions on abortion. It's such a sensitive topic to some people.

Yes... a human corpse is not human, it is a human corpse. It ceases to be human on death, which is why we can do things like remove organs, use it in scientific experiments and feed it into an incinerator to be cremated.

Being human, in a philosophical sense, is a two parter - it is from a certain point biologically, but it is also a mental thing. A corpse does not fulfil the criteria, and nor does a foetus in the initial period where an abortion can be performed.

So have we really gotten anywhere with this debate????

Hard to say... probably not.

actually partial birth abortion has there being a matter of minutes or seconds difference between what could have been a live child.
Fetuses are able to live outside the mother by that time.