Eorl,
I assume that nearly everyone agrees. So, how do we get off track so easily? It's frustrating!!
You are correct echi.
Whether or not the unborn is a living human being is THE key issue.
And it's the one that most pro-abortion folks don't want to talk about for long.
They'd rather discuss the minimum wage and child care, as we've seen.
Does anyone have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?
echi, I know !!
real life....
From Wiki:
Quote:Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (known as the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.
Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from individual families to nations, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through religion, science, philosophy and mythology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.
How many foetuses do you know who fit this definition? No medical tests have been done on foetus art, literature or fire building skills, so medical proof either way will be forthcoming. More importantly, medicine CAN determine if it can experience pain, understand it's own suffering, know what is happening etc...., and it is based on such evidence that I think abortions should happen earlier in a medical environment than later in the back yard.
There is a reason the words zygote, embryo, foetus, child, adult exist. It's the same reason words like catepillar, butterfly, egg and chicken exist. It's because they are different things and they have notable differences that allow us categorize them accordingly. A foetus may become an adult human in the same way that an egg may become a chicken. It doesn't mean an egg IS a chicken, even if that egg has been fertilised.
Can't we just agree that a foetus is something (and thereby avoid the word games) and then look at what rights we think it deserves and by what criteria?
Eorl wrote:Can't we just agree that a foetus is something (and thereby avoid the word games) and then look at what rights we think it deserves and by what criteria?
Absolutely. What's the hold-up?
Eorl wrote:echi, I know !!
real life....
From Wiki:
Quote:Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (known as the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.
Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from individual families to nations, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through religion, science, philosophy and mythology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.
How many foetuses do you know who fit this definition? No medical tests have been done on foetus art, literature or fire building skills, so medical proof either way will be forthcoming. More importantly, medicine CAN determine if it can experience pain, understand it's own suffering, know what is happening etc...., and it is based on such evidence that I think abortions should happen earlier in a medical environment than later in the back yard.
There is a reason the words zygote, embryo, foetus, child, adult exist. It's the same reason words like catepillar, butterfly, egg and chicken exist. It's because they are different things and they have notable differences that allow us categorize them accordingly. A foetus may become an adult human in the same way that an egg may become a chicken. It doesn't mean an egg IS a chicken, even if that egg has been fertilised.
Can't we just agree that a foetus is something (and thereby avoid the word games) and then look at what rights we think it deserves and by what criteria?
Here's part of the hold up. The semantic games of the pro-abortion crowd.
Eorl , we know that you refer to this as a 'definition' of a human being.
But I hardly think that wikipedia is an authoritative source for definitions. It is an online encyclopedia that ANYONE can add to or edit.
We know that by using this 'definition' , you want to use it to deny that newborns are human beings as well.
Moreover, the exclusive manner in which you use this definition is ridiculous. The article states that :
Quote:humans are the only known species to build fires
Are we therefore to say that one who has not built a fire is not human?
But you use the article in just such a way, claiming that newborns and the unborn, since they do not use abstract reasoning , produce art or literature -- that they are therefore not human.
You are so far out in left field that one cannot see you from home plate.
Out in left field? He isn't even in the park on this one.
You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Using a pro-abortionist, left-wing totalitarian, nazi backwater like Wikipedia for a common definition?
I say "let's just call it "something" and focus on what the thing is/does/feels rather than on what to call it, while YOU insist on a definitive word definition so that you can twist laws outside their intended usage...and I'M THE ONE PLAYING WORD GAMES ????
Fine....games it is, and no real useful discussion today then.
Please show me YOUR complete official definition of "a human being" from a reliable unbiased source. (Complete means you don't edit out the bit that doesn't work in your favour.)
The question, as I see it, is whether or not an unborn human has any sense of awareness.
I understand that it may seem ridiculous to think that an embryo has any sense of awareness, but it seems just as ridiculous, to me, to consider that I began as just a tiny clump of cells!
I realize it is possible that those cells were not aware, but merely had the potential for awareness. However, I have not been able to find a good enough reason to believe that that is the case. I would like to find one, but, until I do, I must stick with my default position, which is pro-life.
[does that make any damn sense? i was asleep thru most of it. zzzzzzzzzzzz]
As usual Echi, I find your position an admirable one. You mind is at least open to understanding a position such as mine, even if you don't agree.
When thinking about that clump of cells that eventually became you, it's worth pulling a hair out of your head, looking at the cells at the base of that hair, and realising that we have the technology to create an identical twin for you, another human being, from each of those cells.
Deist TKO:
I'm notsaying that anyone is actually unintellegent, but if you sound like a fool, you lose all credibility. I'm sure you and RL are educated individuals.
How does getting rid of welfare help? This is probably a subject for another thread - however, the fundamental purpose of welfare has merit - it's just been manipulated by many for financial gain through the use of unborn and newborns.
As for how the minimum wage increase can help, it helps enable parents to keep a pregnacy through term. If you think long term finances aren't a factor your wrong. When you consider pregnancy and minimum wage - the subject is clearly a financial matter. Along those lines - I feel that pregnancy should be a planned event - with equal input by husband & wife. In this regard - planning a pregnancy should be analogous to making the decision of whether or not to finance a vehicle, buy a house, acquire adequate insurance, etc. A couple should not become pregnant until they can afford to properly give birth to the child and have a reasonable plan to raise the child. (Just as they have a plan to pay for a home, vehicle, etc.)
And if you aren't advocating for abortion to become illeagal, and that you want people to just be able to make educated descisions, I'm with you. very much so. I've stated several times, that I would never have an abortion, but I believe that taking away that choice is dangerous. I've never said that the choice should be completely taken away! Never! It's a complex situation that should be given much more thought than it currently does. I am very much against the legality of aborting a fetus for reasons of convenience, poor planning, etc. I'd love to limit how and where you can get an abortion. I'd love to provide resourses such as counseling for mother's/couples who are concidering it. I agree.
What RL doesn't understand and I hope you do is the seperation of morality and legality. Things that are illeagal aren't illegal because they are imoral in nature, it is because they threaten the fabric of our society/culture. Look for instance at what is not illeagal. It's not illeagal for me to call a person a rasist name, but I don't. I don't because I elect not to; to be a decent person; to show welcome and unity towards others. I think we can agree that the MORAL thing to do is not can people names, but it is not the platform of law that should decide or control that. It is ourselves. This is another complex subject - however I believe that some of legality is founded in morality and some of morality should be legal. However those issues are my opinion and may not be yours. As morality is emotion-based and therefore subjective - it's a complex deal. And I feel that RL does understand this and simply disagrees with it. I do not know RL, but have found his/her posts to be intelligent and very passionate - a trait that is admirable.
Theft is illegal because if it weren't order would collapse, the same for murder. Abortion being leagal doesn't threaten our society. It's personal. It can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrong reasons, but it the person alone who must choose and live with that choice. You don't think murder is personal? If I stole all your money & belongings and you were forced to declare bankruptcy - becoming destitute - are you sure that you wouldn't consider that personal?
I don't know the circumstances of your sister's abortion, and I'm sorry to hear that she has regret for her choice. But what your sister may have needed is not for abortion to be banned (so it wasn't an option), but instead information and support so that she could have felt enable to keep the child. This may sound rough, (and I genuinely don't want to offend you.) but from what you have said, SHE feels guilt, but is resentful of the fact that SHE had a choice. I certainly hope that you can acknowledge that thecircumstances of each pregnancy are absoluly unique. Her entire position on this matter is that she was not emotionally or mentally prepared to make the decision she made. (Sis and her friends share this thought!) They feel that it was/is much too easy to obtain an abortion for "whatever" reason and as time goes by - they wonder what that child might have been like - how it would've affected their lives - how they would've affected it's life - and so on
My sister is a successful business-woman, has a fine husband and beautiful daughter, home, etc. And she emphatically claims there is no way she should've been allowed to make such a life-affecting decision at that point in her life!
Yes, I agree that each pregnancy is unique. I also agree that each murder, theft, etc. is also unique. However there are also "like-circumstances" of pregnancy, murder, theft, etc. that should be given the same amount of thought!
Again, I am sorry to hear about her distress over her choice.
as soon as the sperm fertilises the ovum it is a new living thing. this can take up to 9 days. personally i think that abortion is wrong. i understand the circumstances that some people may find themselves in, but it applies to this situation too:
''if your very poor, and on your own, and your father was costing a lot to keep in your house, would you kill him? or send him to somebody elses home?''
adoption is better than abortion.
Eorl wrote:When thinking about that clump of cells that eventually became you, it's worth pulling a hair out of your head, looking at the cells at the base of that hair, and realising that we have the technology to create an identical twin for you, another human being, from each of those cells.
"ouch!"
The cells at the base of my hair are sort of like an unfertilized egg. I see the potential, but it has not been "activated".
You have got me thinking, though. I reckon I'll have to learn more about the fertilization process. (It's google time.)
baddog1 wrote:Deist TKO:
Theft is illegal because if it weren't order would collapse, the same for murder. Abortion being leagal doesn't threaten our society. It's personal. It can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrong reasons, but it the person alone who must choose and live with that choice. You don't think murder is personal? If I stole all your money & belongings and you were forced to declare bankruptcy - becoming destitute - are you sure that you wouldn't consider that personal?
[/quote]
I think you misread me. I'm saying there is a separation. Murder is not a personal choice that affect only you. Hence that it why it is illegal.
real life wrote:
"Rhetoric!"
You are going to have to do better than that. You asked if someone could prove to you the human thing, you got an answer you didn't like. Tough spot.
And even with the Merriam-Webster definition. I have never "induced an abortion," so I am not an abortionist. and as for "pro-abortion" being for the legalization...
Main Entry: pro-choice
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-choic·er /-'choi-s&r/ noun
I'm not "pro-abortion," I'm "pro-choice," and if that's a problem for you, I'm just a man who wants to protect our country from facsist ideals and uphold pluralism, no title needed.
As for Left-wing-godless-gay-communist-herbal-tea-crunchy-granola people trying to dodge the subject by talking about welfare, childcare and all the issues that come with children, you have to be joking. If you can't hold your weight in these topics, then you aren't "gaining the ground" you claim to be. You have only asked one question in every thread. You;ve beeen answered at least twice that I have seen. You need a new question.
And you still haven't convinced me that making abortion illegal is for my good in any way.
The best I can figure is that the fusion of the two pronuclei (from the sperm and the ovum) indicates the presence of a human person.
At this stage, the zygote contains its own, unique (human) DNA;
It is developmentally active (assuming that it survives);
And, it reacts to stimuli.
The fact that it reacts to stimuli seems to show a capacity for preference and, therefore, some sense of awareness. I admit that it does seem pretty extreme to think that a zygote could be aware of anything. I don't claim to understand how that could be, nor do I claim to understand the nature of my own sense of awareness.
But, because I can find no reason to draw a line at any other point, I can only assume that it traces back to fertilization.
Diest TKO wrote:real life wrote:
"Rhetoric!"
You are going to have to do better than that. You asked if someone could prove to you the human thing, you got an answer you didn't like. Tough spot.
And even with the Merriam-Webster definition. I have never "induced an abortion," so I am not an abortionist. and as for "pro-abortion" being for the legalization...
Main Entry: pro-choice
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-choic·er /-'choi-s&r/ noun
I'm not "pro-abortion," I'm "pro-choice," and if that's a problem for you, I'm just a man who wants to protect our country from facsist ideals and uphold pluralism, no title needed.
As for Left-wing-godless-gay-communist-herbal-tea-crunchy-granola people trying to dodge the subject by talking about welfare, childcare and all the issues that come with children, you have to be joking. If you can't hold your weight in these topics, then you aren't "gaining the ground" you claim to be. You have only asked one question in every thread. You;ve beeen answered at least twice that I have seen. You need a new question.
And you still haven't convinced me that making abortion illegal is for my good in any way.
My support for banning abortion is not because I think it will benefit you. You have already been born, therefore you don't need to be protected from abortion.
It is for the benefit of those being killed that I favor banning abortion.
When slavery was banned was it because one white had to convince another white that it was for his good?
The only question that matters in the abortion debate is:
Is the unborn a living human being?
Either he is and abortion is the killing of a living human being........
...............or he isn't and an abortion has no moral implications. It's like removing a wart or a mole from the skin.
Which is it?
A comparisson to slavery... this is pure comedy.
No, it is an explanation for the passing of law.
Earlier I used the examples of rape and theft to make the same point. But you ignored it, and I think I am beginning to understand why you miss the point so badly.
We pass laws, not to convince lawbreakers that these laws are in their best interest, and not to convince those who won't break the law that it is their best interest.
We pass laws to protect those who would be the victim of the lawbreaker.
Rape laws are to protect women, not to convince men that rape is not in their best interest.
Theft laws are to protect property owners, not to convince thieves that theft is not in their best interest.
Slavery laws were passed to protect blacks, not to convince whites that slavery was not in their best interest.
Abortion laws were to protect the unborn, not to convince those already born that it is their best interest.
Get it? No probably not.
--------------------------------------
Now, have you ANY evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?
That is the only relevant point in the abortion debate, and the one which you and most of the rest of the pro-abortion crowd can't seem to address specifically.
(except for Eorl who has openly admitted he believes that both the unborn and newborns aren't human beings)
Instead of simply labeling others 'fascist' , why don't you try actually addressing the issue?
Quote:
Now, have you ANY evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?
I am reminded of the hollow argument bandied about by empty headed theists; 'prove god DOESN'T exist!', all the while never understanding why it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence that he/she/it does.
Dok,
To me, the burden of proof is on those who claim that an unborn human is, somehow, not a human. Regardless, I think real life has presented sufficient evidence to support that a fetus is a living human being. He, at least, has put forth a good argument. Some on the pro-choice side have not done even that much, despite general agreement that it is central to the debate.
