Originally posted by §P0oONY
It's not murder because you're not killing a self sustaining body, you're killing a foetus. Not a human.
The foetus is human....just not a person.
It's not a chicken foetus, it's not a cow foetus, it's a human feotus.
Technically speaking, you are killing a human life....it's not self sustaining, true, but it's still a life....
You are killing a human life. However, it is unaware of its death when you perform the Abortion early, so I do not see it comparable to murdering a just born child.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Or a human cell culture.
A human cell culture is not a human. It is only part of a human.
A foetus is not PART of a human...its human itself. It is only attached by the placenta to its mother.
When a woman is pregnant, she is not one body with a "growth"....she is a body with another body inside her. That other body belongs to another human life....not a person....but a human life nonetheless.
It's pathetic that you feel the need to equate a foetus with a cyst or a cancerous cluster to justify your opinion.
Why don't you just have the guts to admit that you don't think its evil or harmful to remove an early human life from further development? I certainly don't. I think an early abortion is just fine.
Originally posted by crazylozerbe made that the fetus may be able to form thoughts, but that is much later on in the pregnancy.
[B]Quoting myself out of laziness. Forgot to add something there:People are constantly referring to fetuses as humans. They are human, but the use of that term is used more as a possesive adjective, much like one would refer to a human heart, or a human trait.
I am a human being. I am aware, I think, and I am easily identified as human.
So I ask you all, what is comprises a human being? Is it the number of chromosomes in the DNA, each containing a unique combination of genes? Is it the basic physical form i.e. opposable thumbs, upright carriage, two legs and two arms?
All of those above traits can be reproduced by other species, or unfulfilled by actual humans because of disease/injury/etc.
So what seperates homo sapiens from any other species, making it so wrong to kill one of our own rather than other animals?
All I can think of is intelligence: the ability to form conscious thought and the like.
Does a fetus think? No.
After a while, the case can [B]strongly
Incidentally, I don't support third-trimester abortions.
Elaborating on the slippery slope, Adam Poe mentioned a few pages back the legalization of the morning after pill. So now what, pro-lifers? The stance that life begins at conception is now disagreed with by national courts.
But what if it had been shot down, and abortion outlawed, much as you would like? Well, if it was, then abortion would indeed be murder. Plain and simple. If the reason for the outlawing of abortion would be because zygotes and fetuses and the like are full-fledged human beings, anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. They go to jail for life, because it surely must be wrong to kill them.
But wait! Preventing pregnancy would be much like attempted murder!
Thus contraceptives would be outlawed.
So to avoid pregnancy, abstinence would be the safest choice. Hmm, doesn't a large contingent of Churches in the US support abstinence? Thus, the seperation between Church and State becomes nearly nil. What next? No freedom of speech, for fear of hearsay? No freedom of choice, because of sinning? Indeed, a slippery slope. [/B]
Good to know that the same post can be reused months later. [/B]
"Good to know that the same post can be reused months later."
Mainly because every now and then someone likes to claim a morally superior stance.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenA human foetus is genetically human. (Three cheers for redundancy.) Which was your argument. It's not a chicken foetus. It's not a cow foetus. An MCF-7 cell line is genetically human. A cyst is genetically human. The cells within them are alive. They are in the same way as a foetus "human life".
A human cell culture is not a human. It is only [b]part of a human.A foetus is not PART of a human...its human itself. It is only attached by the placenta to its mother.
When a woman is pregnant, she is not one body with a "growth"....she is a body with another body inside her. That other body belongs to another human life....not a person....but a human life nonetheless.
It's pathetic that you feel the need to equate a foetus with a cyst or a cancerous cluster to justify your opinion.
Why don't you just have the guts to admit that you don't think its evil or harmful to remove an early human life from further development? I certainly don't. I think an early abortion is just fine. [/B]
A foetus is not however "human life" in the same way as a 40 year old mother of two, or a 7 year old ballet dancer. And attempt to elevate it to that status based on potentiality is flawed. The foetus is not a human. It is a foetus.
As stated a proportion of abortions are performed in the embryonic stages, at which the "human life" is more akin to a cell culture or cyst than what one would define as morphologically human.
And I've already stated numerous times my position on abortion. I don't cast any aspersions on a woman for her choice to have an abortion within the bounds of the law regardless of whether I agree with her choice. It is her choice, and there is nothing "evil" about it.
Trying to elevate the genetic status of a foetus as H. sapiens to connotatively say "It's human life." Really only leads me to the response, "So?"
I don't state the comparison to a cell culture or to a cyst (which was actually VVD) to justify my stance. I do so (and I'll be bold and assume he/she/it did so too) to point out the flaw in your attempt to justify your stance.