ABORTION.......

It's called conception....

the sperm--->seed
the egg--->dirt, water, etc.

together----->growing plant

How do you think that it is anything but a human? Humans are not based on how many cells they have, and if they were, how many cells would constitute a human? Enough to make them look "normal"?

A fetus is a fetus...not a living human being.

An acorn is an acorn...not an oak tree.

An egg (even if fertilized) is an egg ...not a chicken.


Why do you have so much trouble with this?

If a fetus can die... it must be a living entity.

thunder_runner32 wrote:

It's called conception....

the sperm--->seed
the egg--->dirt, water, etc.

together----->growing plant

I'm aware of what it's called.

thunder_runner32 wrote:

How do you think that it is anything but a human? Humans are not based on how many cells they have, and if they were, how many cells would constitute a human? Enough to make them look "normal"?

Again I say, if this is your belief, then a sperm would more or less be half a human? The egg a half? If I chopped off a finger that finger would then be considered a human? It simply doesn't make sense to label them as such. Sperm and eggs are "matter". A severed finger is just that. Blood isn't human, it's a fluid. So how then can 1 cell be a human? Because it contains enough information to become a human if events allow?

Then answer Runner's question:

How many cells does one have to have before he is considered human?

When you have your answer, subtract one. Is he now not human?

real life wrote:

Then answer Runner's question:

How many cells does one have to have before he is considered human?

When you have your answer, subtract one. Is he now not human?

I believe I stated eariler that when a fetus becomes developed enough to be a human is the real question. I don't know the answer to that, noone really does.

My point is not when is the fetus alive. My point is that 1 cell cannot be considered a human, which is what was posted above. I understand the cleverness of your post, but since the eternal debate has been "when is the sack of tissue considered alive" that question can only currently be answered with opinion.

Hi Questioner,

You seem a little conflicted, at one point you state that 1 cell "cannot be considered human" (emphasis mine); and in the next sentence, you state it is all a matter of opinion.

I can well understand how the answer to "When does a human life begin?" might be answered by "I don't know." or "I'm not sure." It's a complicated subject with room for differences in view, both of opinion and interpretation of the facts.

My question is: If you're not sure if someone is alive or not, shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to the side of life?

Or as someone else once asked: Would you bury a body if you weren't sure it was dead?

For instance, if a policeman came upon an accident victim and he wasn't sure if the victim was alive or not, should he treat him as if he isn't alive, or as if he may be alive?

real life wrote:

Hi Questioner,

You seem a little conflicted, at one point you state that 1 cell "cannot be considered human" (emphasis mine); and in the next sentence, you state it is all a matter of opinion.

Actually, when I said it was all a matter of opinion I was referring to whether a fetus is alive or not. I stand by the statement that 1 cell cannot be labeled "human".

real life wrote:

I can well understand how the answer to "When does a human life begin?" might be answered by "I don't know." or "I'm not sure." It's a complicated subject with room for differences in view, both of opinion and interpretation of the facts.

Indeed. And I honestly doubt that the question will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction.

real life wrote:

My question is: If you're not sure if someone is alive or not, shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to the side of life?

Or as someone else once asked: Would you bury a body if you weren't sure it was dead?

For instance, if a policeman came upon an accident victim and he wasn't sure if the victim was alive or not, should he treat him as if he isn't alive, or as if he may be alive?

My apologies. I wasn't attempting to argue for or against abortion, but rather I chose to argue against a particular line of reasoning that I was seeing. My stance on abortion is that there are 2 scenarios in which "early-stage" abortion is acceptible.

1) Where rape results in a pregnancy.
2) Where the mother is in obvious risk by carrying a pregnancy full-term


I've heard mention in this thread that "it's the woman's body, therefore it should be her choice", and "it's not a human, so it isn't murder", "the mother's situation is such that taking care of the baby would be impossible."

The first one is a statement typically reserved for the selfish. Unless you were raped, you made the choice and should live with the consequences. The second is a difficult one, but since there is so much debate about the subject my opinion stands that it's better to err on the side of caution. The last is moot since there are abundant childcare and adoption agencies both religion-based and state-sponsored that can help.

Just to reiterate, my points earlier were not arguing for or against abortion, but rather an attempt to more or less debunk what I perceive to be an incorrect statement.

Frank Apisa wrote:

A fetus is a fetus...not a living human being.

An acorn is an acorn...not an oak tree.

An egg (even if fertilized) is an egg ...not a chicken.


Why do you have so much trouble with this?

If a fetus can die... it must be a living entity.

Rape is a very difficult circumstance indeed. But adding the guilt of killing an innocent third party to the shame of the earlier crime the woman suffered through is not a good solution at all. Abortionists today usually protect rapists by refusing to report underage girls as victims of statutory rape, often in violation of specific state law. They instead take their money and protect the guilty.

BOTTOM LINE:

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy...that should be her right...and her right alone. None of you holy rollers should have a say in it...nor should the government.

None of the supposed rights you folks want to give the zygote, embryo, or fetus should arbitrarily take her rights away.

Frank Apisa wrote:

BOTTOM LINE:

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy...that should be her right...and her right alone. None of you holy rollers should have a say in it...nor should the government.

None of the supposed rights you folks want to give the zygote, embryo, or fetus should arbitrarily take her rights away.

So in order to enforce the mother's rights (rights that, by the way, could be argued that she gave up by taking a course of action that would cause her to be in her current circumstances) you take away the rights of an unborn child.

Now before we get back to that old debate, I'm not a holy roller, nor am I pro life/abortion. But your insistance that there is, currently, a BOTTOM LINE to this debate is a bit premature.

In my opinion...which is what we are dealing with here in this thread, is that there is a BOTTOM LINE to the debate...the debate has been raging for decades...and your suggestion that it is "premature" to voice my opinion of the BOTTOM LINE...is both presumptuous and preposterous.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In my opinion...which is what we are dealing with here in this thread, is that there is a BOTTOM LINE to the debate...the debate has been raging for decades...and your suggestion that it is "premature" to voice my opinion of the BOTTOM LINE...is both presumptuous and preposterous.

Or my opinion, but whatever.

I have no problems whatsoever labeling a zygote a zygote, an egg an egg. We've been through that in this thread already. But the question remains, at what point does the zygote become a child. Taking a small clusters of unformed cells is one thing. I can even see the argument that an early-stage fetus could be little more than a collection of matter, neither aware nor fully functional.

Where I begin having difficulties with this subject is when that collection of matter gains the ability to move, heart starts beating and all of that. So in the interest of my understanding your viewpoint, where would you draw the line, or is there a line for you at all?

I have discussed this hundreds of times...and several times already in this thread.

It is my opinion that when the fetus stops being a fetus...which is to say, when the fetus exits the hosts body...it becomes a child.

Until then...it is a fetus.

To be even more callous about it...when it can be taken as a dependant on one's income return...it is a child. Until then...it is a fetus.

For the record, I share the concerns you enumerated in your last paragraph. I sorely wish I could trust the other side of this debate enough to refine my concerns and address them...but the other side in this debate ultimately insists that life begins at conception; that a single cell should be considered a living human being; and that the single cell supposedly has rights that unnecessaryily and inappropriately (in my opinion) restrict the rights of the host in whose body the single cell exists.

To make ANY concessions on my definition of when a fetus becomes a child is capitulation that could be devistating to women's rights.

I will not do it....and insofar as I can talk any intelligent individuals into taking that same stance, I will.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have discussed this hundreds of times...and several times already in this thread.

It is my opinion that when the fetus stops being a fetus...which is to say, when the fetus exits the hosts body...it becomes a child.

Until then...it is a fetus.

To be even more callous about it...when it can be taken as a dependant on one's income return...it is a child. Until then...it is a fetus.

For the record, I share the concerns you enumerated in your last paragraph. I sorely wish I could trust the other side of this debate enough to refine my concerns and address them...but the other side in this debate ultimately insists that life begins at conception; that a single cell should be considered a living human being; and that the single cell supposedly has rights that unnecessaryily and inappropriately (in my opinion) restrict the rights of the host in whose body the single cell exists.

To make ANY concessions on my definition of when a fetus becomes a child is capitulation that could be devistating to women's rights.

I will not do it....and insofar as I can talk any intelligent individuals into taking that same stance, I will.

I see. Thank you for humoring me with your definition. I had no doubt that this very topic was covered several times, but seeing as there were well over 300 pages already the repition is appreciated.

I understand your stance now, and can certainly appreciate the rigididity of your position. Childbirth and pregnancy is something which I obviously will never have any firsthand experience with. And being a strong supporter of women's rights myself I do find the issue of removing women's liberties and right of choice to be concerning.

I don't, however, believe that a woman 2 weeks from giving birth should be allowed to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach in an effort to abort the child. I suppose that the more stringent nay-sayers could be mollified by freezing the zygote or embryo for inception into another host that wants a child but is unable. Though probably not.

To clarify, earlier when I stated that a woman's choices which may lead to pregnancy should not be a reason for abortion what I meant was if a woman is participating in intercourse without benefit of contraception of some kind (much of which can be obtained for free) then the consequences (pregnancy) should be bourne by her.

After thinking more on that statement, it is perhaps best to withdraw it. While I am of the mind that all actions have consequences that should by rule be experienced by those making the choices, having a child merely because "you had it coming" really isn't in the best interests of either mother or child.

Again, thanks for the clarification of your stance, much appreciated.

You are an outstanding contributor, Questioner...which I feel even when I am in disagreement with your position.

I hope you stick around...and poke a stick at me from time to time.

Keep me on my toes...and I will do the same for you.


What part of the country (or the world) do you call home?

Intrepid wrote:

If a fetus can die... it must be a living entity.

Is it alive? Or is it like an appendix?