Originally posted by Ytse
So you're claiming that in human development when you're a fetus you're a non-human? Yes? So, is a rat fetus a non-rat? Or is a cow fetus a non-cow?
I don't class a foetus as a human being because I class us as human beings, and it doesn't have what we have, it's not independent in any way.
That said, people are acting like cells are human, and that's just stupid. Treat them with the respect you'd treat a foetus if you want, but to say they're the same thing is wrong.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's human in the sense that it was created by one. It's not a human in the sense you or I are humans, therefore it does not deserve the same rights.Either way, cells are not humans, are they?
-AC
True, cells are not humans, but humans are merely a large collection of cells. Also, embryonic cells differ from say stomach cells in the sense that a stomach cell will not develop into a full blown human if allowed to run it's natural course.
I added this onto my previous post, but to save you going back just to progress faster:
Originally posted by Robtard
A fetus starts at 8 weeks.. at 8 weeks, it is clearly human; has all the structure of a birthed human.
At that point I still believe the woman has the right to do as she wishes, but what of people who claim anything before that, including conception, is human?
That's what you're seeing in this thread, and that's wrong isn't it?
I'm more interested in showing what human ISN'T, because that's where the debate lies. To me, it doesn't matter where human DOES begin, because I see nothing that woman does as any of my business, but seeing as we're on the subject, we may as well establish for sure what human ISN'T, and nothing at conception, or for a while after, is human.
-AC
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes they're foetuses, nothing more.
So a rat fetus and a human fetus are the same thing until they develop? I don't think that's the case...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't class a foetus as a human being because I class us as human beings, and it doesn't have what we have, it's not independent in any way.
Then back to my first question. Who gets to decide the technical parameters of a human being and why?
Originally posted by Ytse
Then back to my first question. Who gets to decide the technical parameters of a human being and why?
People who are qualified, people who study humans and foetuses and establish what is there and what isn't there. What DOES make up a foetus and what doesn't.
That said, to me, it doesn't matter whether a foetus is considered human, not human, conscious or not conscious. It's not mine, it's hers, she can do as she wishes and nobody has any right to tell her different.
As proven, many more are willing to propose adoption than partake in it, and many only care for the foetus as a means to exact what they feel is punishment on irresponsibility. Nobody gives a shit about it once it's born or older, it's pro-child, it's sickening.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I added this onto my previous post, but to save you going back just to progress faster:At that point I still believe the woman has the right to do as she wishes, but what of people who claim anything before that, including conception, is human?
That's what you're seeing in this thread, and that's wrong isn't it?
I'm more interested in showing what human ISN'T, because that's where the debate lies. To me, it doesn't matter where human DOES begin, because I see nothing that woman does as any of my business, but seeing as we're on the subject, we may as well establish for sure what human ISN'T, and nothing at conception, or for a while after, is human.
-AC
Why do you feel the woman has the right though when a fetus is clearly human? It has all the structure of a human and brain stem activity can be measured.
That's why I'm okay with people having abortions very early on, when it's just a clump of cells, not when the embryo has become essentially a functioning human, albeit with special needs.
Originally posted by Ytse
So a rat fetus and a human fetus are the same thing until they develop? I don't think that's the case...
No, one will become a rat and one will become a human. They are however both foetuses, the only difference between the two as far as I'm concerned is what they will become. Not from a biological perspective of course, but as to how lifelike they are.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's why I'm okay with people having abortions very early on, when it's just a clump of cells, not when the embryo has become essentially a functioning human, with special needs.
Then I guess that's where we differ, I don't care when she does it.
If someone was to prove "Ok, it becomes human in the womb at THIS point...", I'd say "Ok, great. So? My opinion on abortion is the same.". I'm not one to deny fact, but if it is being denied elsewhere, it needs to be faced.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you feel the woman has the right though when a fetus is clearly human? It has all the structure of a human and brain stem activity can be measured.
Because the foetus, despite having those things, still doesn't have any right that transcends her own. It's still alive and allowed to get to that point because of her.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then I guess that's where we differ, I don't care when she does it.If someone was to prove "Ok, it becomes human in the womb at THIS point...", I'd say "Ok, great. So? My opinion on abortion is the same.". I'm not one to deny fact, but if it is being denied elsewhere, it needs to be faced.
Because the foetus, despite having those things, still doesn't have any right that transcends her own. It's still alive and allowed to get to that point because of her.
-AC
So it seems...
So you're okay with people killing people as long as it's done in the womb? (Considering your scenario above)
I disagree, it's no different than people with such severe complications that they cannot live without help from others. A new born baby needs it's mother (or another) for every conceivable need of "living" besides breathing.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I agree with AC. If the cost of a life is to make another's miserable, I think that's too higher cost. It should be up to the mother and the father should also have input. For whatever reason, even if they just don't feel ready, it should be their choice entirely.
Your taking the stance that every abortion is done because the child will ruin someone's life; that is B.S.
1) Not all abortions are done on the precept
2) Even if done for that reason, theres no way to factually prove it will "make another's miserable". It could, or it couldn't.
I agree it should be their choice, but there needs to be a more reasonable time limit to when they can make that choice. If 'you' don't want a child, that's fine, but you should be able to decide that long before 8-12-16-20+ weeks, imo.
Originally posted by Robtard
So you're okay with people killing people as long as it's done in the womb? (Considering your scenario above)
Killing is a broad word. Murdering people is never excusable, but people killing others? There are a billion and one inexcusable and excusable scenarios. Murder and killing are different.
E.g: Armin Meiwes advertised for a man to be killed and eaten, a man answered. To me? Killing him was fine, he wanted it, they both did. Killing a man because you want revenge? Not excusable.
I know this isn't relevant, but hopefully it helps clear a distinction I make. I'm trying not to drift, but at the same time explain my reasoning to you.
Killing a foetus to benefit yourself? Fine by me. Selfish? Yes. Self-beneficial? Yes. Both may be the case and both are different, both are none of my business. Do I like the idea of it being frivolously used? No, but as stated, that's a people problem, not an abortion one.
Originally posted by Robtard
I disagree, it's no different than people with such severe complications that they cannot live without help from others. A new born baby needs it's mother (or another) for every conceivable need of "living" besides breathing.
It's mother may not need IT, or WANT it, so therefore she can do as she wishes.
People who have severe complications have had a shot at living. My grandmother had to be cared for like a baby in her later years, though she was mentally fine, however, she lived a full and long life before hand. It's entirely different to a foetus.
You're not taking away from a foetus, you're preventing. ABORTion, end before completed.
-AC
Its all in speculation that these decisions are made, not off of actual fact. It is done in fear, fear of consequence, fear of the monetary or relationship outcome of the child. There are rare cases only with real abortion neccesities, and there is quite a fine line there as well. I dont see how people can toss it aside as such a trivial right endowed upon them.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It is done in fear, fear of consequence, fear of the monetary or relationship outcome of the child. There are rare cases only with real abortion neccesities, and there is quite a fine line there as well. I dont see how people can toss it aside as such a trivial right endowed upon them.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Its all in speculation that these decisions are made, not off of actual fact.
I would put those words on a wafer so they are more enjoyable when you eat them, but I don't think you deserve the luxury.
Or, you could explain the hypocritical barf-fest I just pointed out.
Or, you could give me the debate you promised.
Be thankful I'm giving you options; this courtesy seems to be beyond you.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Killing is a broad word. Murdering people is never excusable, but people killing others? There are a billion and one inexcusable and excusable scenarios. Murder and killing are different.E.g: Armin Meiwes advertised for a man to be killed and eaten, a man answered. To me? Killing him was fine, he wanted it, they both did. Killing a man because you want revenge? Not excusable.
I know this isn't relevant, but hopefully it helps clear a distinction I make. I'm trying not to drift, but at the same time explain my reasoning to you.
Killing a foetus to benefit yourself? Fine by me. Selfish? Yes. Self-beneficial? Yes. Both may be the case and both are different, both are none of my business. Do I like the idea of it being frivolously used? No, but as stated, that's a people problem, not an abortion one.-AC
Point was, if a fetus was shown to be human at a certain point as per your scenario, you'd still be okay will the killing of an innocent life. I disagree with that, I also find it rather obtuse coming from someone who is anti death penalty, imo.
True, it is a people problem, but what do you do with a law/right that allows people to essentially commit a crime or an injustice? You either take away or modify that law/right, I prefer the latter in the case of abortion rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri It's mother may not need IT, or WANT it, so therefore she can do as she wishes.People who have severe complications have had a shot at living. My grandmother had to be cared for like a baby in her later years, though she was mentally fine, however, she lived a full and long life before hand. It's entirely different to a foetus.
You're not taking away from a foetus, you're preventing. ABORTion, end before completed.
-AC
Not all people who depend on others due to severe problems have had a "full life", some are infants, some have been all but brain dead their lives. I don't believe "birth" dictates the point when people have a right to life.
Originally posted by Robtard
Point was, if a fetus was shown to be human at a certain point as per your scenario, you'd still be okay will the killing of an innocent life. I disagree with that, I also find it rather obtuse coming from someone who is anti death penalty.
The fact that it's "innocent" is misinterpreted. It's "innocent" as far as "It hasn't done anything.". It hasn't, good or bad. It's done nothing, it's achieved nothing, the world will not be at a loss if it's aborted, there's a possibility nobody will miss it.
The death penalty is quite possibly the killing of a man or woman, alive, with many loved ones after many years, who didn't do anything wrong and is innocent in a more poignent sense of the word.
There is a canyon sized difference and it's silly to connect the two.
Originally posted by Robtard
True, it is a people problem, but what do you do with a law/right that allows people to essentially commit a crime or an injustice? You either take away or modify that law, I prefer the latter in the case of abortion rights.
I don't, so I guess we just disagree on abortions.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not all people who depend on others due to severe problems have had a "full life", some are infants.
I think if a termination is to be done, it's to be done in the womb only. Giving birth, letting it live until it's 3 or 4 and then stabbing it to death is obviously shit. None of my business, but obviously lame to me.
That said, I don't care what happens either way in the womb. A foetus is different to a living human.
In the cases you mentioned; being braindead etc, that's a case I think euthanasia is applicable, and I don't think it should be illegal either, if it is.
If someone has no arms or legs, but are still conscious and decide to live, they have that right. If someone is literally nothing besides a living burden piece of flesh, do as you wish. Rights go out the window then.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The fact that it's "innocent" is misinterpreted. It's "innocent" as far as "It hasn't done anything.". It hasn't, good or bad. It's done nothing, it's achieved nothing, the world will not be at a loss if it's aborted, there's a possibility nobody will miss it.The death penalty is quite possibly the killing of a man or woman, alive, with many loved ones after many years, who didn't do anything wrong and is innocent in a more poignent sense of the word.
There is a canyon sized difference and it's silly to connect the two.
I don't, so I guess we just disagree on abortions.
I think if a termination is to be done, it's to be done in the womb only. Giving birth, letting it live until it's 3 or 4 and then stabbing it to death is obviously shit. None of my business, but obviously lame to me.
That said, I don't care what happens either way in the womb. A foetus is different to a living human.
In the cases you mentioned; being braindead etc, that's a case I think euthanasia is applicable, and I don't think it should be illegal either, if it is.
If someone has no arms or legs, but are still conscious and decide to live, they have that right. If someone is literally nothing besides a living burden piece of flesh, do as you wish. Rights go out the window then.
-AC
I guess we do just disagree on abortions.
I find your "None of my business, but obviously lame to me" in regards to infanticide mind-boggling when you're anti death penalty though. Why are you obtuse to the killing of babies but vehemently against the killing of adults who may or may not be guilty of a crime deemed punishable by death? <-- Just curious
Originally posted by Robtard
I guess we do just disagree on abortions.I find your "None of my business, but obviously lame to me" in regards to infanticide mind-boggling when you're anti death penalty though. Why are you obtuse to the killing of babies but vehemently against the killing of adults who may or may not be guilty of a crime deemed punishable by death? <-- Just curious
Lack of achievements are not the grounds for death, I'm just using it as an example to counter-act the ridiculous connection you're making between the death penalty and abortion.
Why is it so confusing? Killing an adult with probable loved ones, a life and many other things that would be lost, based on "May or may not be guilty." and killing a foetus is entirely different.
Killing a foetus and killing an innocent man for something he didn't even do are the same?
Foetus "innocent" and wrongly convicted "innocent" are two different areas, Rob. One is subjectively worthwhile prevention, one possible wrong punishment by way of eternal death.
-AC