ABORTION.......

Intrepid wrote:

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.

The point is that you and others in here have pontificated that a fertilized human egg is a "living human being" from the comment it is fertilized.

If a doctor kills a cancer cell...does that mean the cancer cell was a living human being?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

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.

The point is that you and others in here have pontificated that a fertilized human egg is a "living human being" from the comment it is fertilized.

If a doctor kills a cancer cell...does that mean the cancer cell was a living human being?

No. And, quite Frankly, I would have expected better from you.

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

????
An appendix is something that a person is born with. A fetus is the product of a union between a man and a woman. There are methods to prevent a fetus from beginning.

I find your analogy to be a rather strange one. Are you a student of Frank's?

Intrepid wrote:

????
An appendix is something that a person is born with. A fetus is the product of a union between a man and a woman. There are methods to prevent a fetus from beginning.

I find your analogy to be a rather strange one. Are you a student of Frank's?

Heh. Now that I look at it I can clearly see the absurdness of that comparison. My mind was still tracking on the statement that 1 cell was to be considered a "human".

To get back on track, try this one (sorry if it's already been said, entirely too many pages in this thread for me to read every one):

The fetus should be considered alive once it can be successfully removed from the mother and live under it's own power, or with minimum medical support. Until such time it is nothing more than a collection of cells that would, much like any other cells or organs in the human body, rot and die if removed from the host.

Does that work for anyone?

Intrepid wrote:

????
An appendix is something that a person is born with. A fetus is the product of a union between a man and a woman. There are methods to prevent a fetus from beginning.

I find your analogy to be a rather strange one. Are you a student of Frank's?

Heh. Now that I look at it I can clearly see the absurdness of that comparison. My mind was still tracking on the statement that 1 cell was to be considered a "human".

To get back on track, try this one (sorry if it's already been said, entirely too many pages in this thread for me to read every one):

The fetus should be considered alive once it can be successfully removed from the mother and live under it's own power, or with minimum medical support. Until such time it is nothing more than a collection of cells that would, much like any other cells or organs in the human body, rot and die if removed from the host.

Does that work for anyone?

Questioner wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

????
An appendix is something that a person is born with. A fetus is the product of a union between a man and a woman. There are methods to prevent a fetus from beginning.

I find your analogy to be a rather strange one. Are you a student of Frank's?

Heh. Now that I look at it I can clearly see the absurdness of that comparison. My mind was still tracking on the statement that 1 cell was to be considered a "human".

To get back on track, try this one (sorry if it's already been said, entirely too many pages in this thread for me to read every one):

The fetus should be considered alive once it can be successfully removed from the mother and live under it's own power, or with minimum medical support. Until such time it is nothing more than a collection of cells that would, much like any other cells or organs in the human body, rot and die if removed from the host.

Does that work for anyone?

Exactly ... it isn't an independent entity. It has no identity, no power to think or thrive with other living beings. Until it gets born someone else is owner of it.

So a child that is born with medical complications and requires more than minimum medical support is not yet alive.

Do I understand your position correctly?

vinsan wrote:

Questioner wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

????
An appendix is something that a person is born with. A fetus is the product of a union between a man and a woman. There are methods to prevent a fetus from beginning.

I find your analogy to be a rather strange one. Are you a student of Frank's?

Heh. Now that I look at it I can clearly see the absurdness of that comparison. My mind was still tracking on the statement that 1 cell was to be considered a "human".

To get back on track, try this one (sorry if it's already been said, entirely too many pages in this thread for me to read every one):

The fetus should be considered alive once it can be successfully removed from the mother and live under it's own power, or with minimum medical support. Until such time it is nothing more than a collection of cells that would, much like any other cells or organs in the human body, rot and die if removed from the host.

Does that work for anyone?

Exactly ... it isn't an independent entity. It has no identity, no power to think or thrive with other living beings. Until it gets born someone else is owner of it.

Even when slavery was legal, states often had restrictions on a slave owner to prevent them from killing the slave. (Yes I know the restrictions were often overlooked. No need to argue that.) The point is, the unlimited power you seem to postulate of the "owner" over the life of her "property" is worse than what was legal in the South under slavery.

You didn't ask if it would be a living entity - you asked if it would be a living human being. Which was ridiculous, and if you had any integrity you'd admit that.

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.

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

The point is that you and others in here have pontificated that a fertilized human egg is a "living human being" from the (m)oment it is fertilized.

If a doctor kills a cancer cell...does that mean the cancer cell was a living human being?

No. And, quite Frankly, I would have expected better from you.

Actually...I suspect this was a lot better than you suppose.

Originally you wrote:

Quote:

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

So I asked...if a cancer cell can die...does that mean it must be a living entity?

The problem there is not with my response...but with your original proposition.

I would have expected better from you!

Blah blah blah.

You used the words "living human being" and you are now acting as if that should be accepted as synonymous with "living entity".

I don't have the time or the inclination to even try to figure out whether your problem is that you're just too small to admit a mistake, or just so dense that you actually think the two terms equivalent.

Either way, the problem is yours, ole fella.

You used the words "living human being" and you are now acting as if that should be accepted as synonymous with "living entity".

snood wrote:

You used the words "living human being" and you are now acting as if that should be accepted as synonymous with "living entity".

Wasn't it Intrepid who made that "connection"?

Frank was responding to where Intrepid seemed to be heading.

real life wrote:

So a child that is born with medical complications and requires more than minimum medical support is not yet alive.

Do I understand your position correctly?

Not entirely. the keyword in your rephrasing is born. My above statement refers to a fetus removed from the womb by surgical means.

When are babies considered human beings, in your view?

Just when do you think it is no longer ok for a mother to kill her child?

This all goes back to Runner's question which you were completely unable to handle. How many cells does the unborn have to have before he is a human being with a right to live?

You are unable to define a point at which the child is not a human or alive.

Do you know why it is so difficult?

Because there is no point at which he is not human or alive until he is put to death in the abortion clinic by chemical poisoning in a saline abortion or sliced and hacked to pieces in a D&C abortion or has the base of his skull pierced as his arms and legs hang outside the womb and has his brain sucked out by a vacuum in a partial birth abortion or......(enter favorite abortion technique here)

After that, you are correct. He is not alive.

Hmmmm. Well okay. There's no reference to that in your post, but if that's what you meant.......

Do you then have a different standard for babies born vaginally as opposed to those who come into the world thru Caesarean section?

When are babies considered human beings, in your view? How much medical attention at birth disqualifies the child from deserving human status, in your view?

Even healthy babies require quite a bit of care and will die soon if not cared for and protected. 'Viability' is a term that has little actual meaning if we expect babies to live on their own without help.

Do they have to be self sufficient? That might delay things until they are say 18 years old or so.

Just when do you think it is no longer ok for a mother to kill her child?

This all goes back to Runner's question which you were completely unable to handle. How many cells does the unborn have to have before he is a human being with a right to live?

You are unable to define a point at which the child is not a human or alive.

Do you know why it is so difficult? Because there is no point at which he is not human or alive until he is put to death in the abortion clinic by chemical poisoning in a saline abortion or sliced and hacked to pieces in a D&C abortion or has the base of his skull pierced as his arms and legs hang outside the womb and has his brain sucked out by a vacuum in a partial birth abortion or......(enter favorite abortion technique here)

The sticky wicket for even many pro choice people, however, is at what point does that 'clump of cells' constitute a human being? If it is not at conception, then when?

That's the question that nobody seems to want to deal with.

Who has the authority to make the decision about the precise point that a human being exists?