Alright then so when a womens egg becomes fetilsed by sperm it can be taken out fully intact, its not killing it its just removing it from the womens body
@yourcityliesindust The baby belongs inside the mother until he or she is born, so whether you like it or not, the baby has a RIGHT to live inside his or her mother, and use her body. The baby has no choice in this. it's not like the baby CHOSE to live there. That's just where babies are conceived. Say that someone locked you in a room, and you couldn't get out without dieing. But that room belonged to someone else. And that someone else decided that they didn't want you in there.
@Lucky10279 body autonomy=/=property possession, but nice job comparing women's bodies to property. No, the fetus (Let's use medical terminology alright?) does not have a right to use someone else's organs. No one has the right to use someone else's organs. Say I hit someone with my car and they needed an organ transplant, I am still not obligated to donate any of my organs.
You're right, an abortion ISN'T the same as cutting fingernails or hair...it's more like having a tapeworm removed. And since the fetus, much like the tapeworm, is NOT a part of my body, I have every right to take it out.
@yakottayoungblood No you don't. Not until the baby is ready to be born. And do you know that a lot of abortions are where the baby is removed from the mother in a c-section, and then simply neglected until he or she dies? But if someone had actually taken care of the baby after he or she had been taken out of the mother the baby would have been OK?
@Lucky10279 Oh, wow, that is just so factually incorrect. My body, my choice. Not yours, not your gods, not the governments, MINE.
Most abortions (60%) occur before 9 weeks, 90% before 12 weeks. At 3 months old no fetus (fetus, not baby) can survive without leeching nutrients from the mother. bit [dot] ly/99dVdwPost
No it is not.NOT YOUR BODY.NOT YOUR CHOICE.The baby inside you is a separate human being. The baby has different DNA as he said in the video. It is illogical, and scientifically inaccurate to say that the baby inside of you is part of you. But he/she belongs there.And has a right to be there.Think about what would happen if everyone adopted your way of thinking. If every single woman decided that they could kill there baby because they didn't want to share the womb, and there food
@yakottayoungblood (Con) with the baby, then the entire human race would DIE OUT. When you have choose to have sex, you invite a baby in. The baby did not ask to be there. Say someone knocked on your door and you invited him in. But then decided that you didn't want him there anymore. Would you then have the right to shoot him dead?
@Lucky10279 The entire human race WON'T die out, despite your fear mongering. Some women choose to have children. Some women don't. Many women in BOTH categories choose to have sex. Wanting to feel pleasure does not "invite a baby in." It is my body. My body that, as we agree, a foreign entity has decided to occupy without my consent. I have every right to make the best decision for my body, for my life. And that decision may include terminating a pregnancy. What if every man adopted YOUR way of
@Lucky10279 (con't) thinking? What if ALL men saw women's bodies as not belonging to us? WAs just baby incubators? We're human beings with rights and bodies and lives that are OURS. An unwanted fetus does NOT belong in a uterus if we do not want it to be there. And you know what? I've had an abortion. Tons of women have had abortions. We have them because they're the right choices for our bodies. Not because abortions make you uncomfortable. You don't enter the picture.
Okay by this logic, abortion is still perfectly reasonable considering the embryo is generally removed intact, so therefore it can keep its body and I can keep mine. Two separate human beings!
A baby inside a womb cannot survive until the very least 6 months gestation. Even then they need to be on oxygen. What about miscarriages? The only difference between those and abortion is that one is mostly man made.
The person in this vidoe displays both his obvious dislike of women, and his total ignorance. Forcing a women to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy is both unjust, and doesn't work! Prohibiting abortions has no effect on stopping them from happening..it just leads to women dying from unsafe/unsterile conditions. Women have terminated unwanted pregnancies since recorded history.You may disagree with abortion..So Don't Have One..Simple!
You said: "A foetus is not a human life, it is a bunch of cells that may or may not develop into one. Simple science." ~~~ Tell me, what will a fetus develop into other than a human life? Your statement is absurd, it is like saying "A tadpole is not a life, it may or may not develop into a frog." ~ The fetus will not develop into a human life, only if you murder him/her, as you wish to do obviously.
@GaryLyons It's a developmental stage, and the argument works equally well with the tadpole/frog argument.
A tadpole is not a frog, it is a bunch of cells that may or may not develop into one.A tadpole can either develop into a frog or die.
If you kill a tadpole, are you killing a frog? No.. you are killing a tadpole, that would have, maybe, developed into a frog. It's a "potential frog life". NOT a frog.
I never said that a foetus ISN'T alive, I said it is not a human life.
you sir... are an idiot. im not even going to go into detail as to why you are an idiot, because I would be up all night trying to fit in every single reason why you are an idiot, into a well executed, 500 word essay... 500 words being the limit that Youtube has given me.
@theshillelaghlaw I'd hate to see the reaction of someone who's lost a child to murder,a real child not a potential one would have to you ,with your'when she killed him' rhetoric.I hope you wouldn't do that to a real parent who's lost a real child to murder.I don't think they'd have much sympathy for you.
It's not YOUR body either,Mr.Patriot4life ,why don't you mind your own business and keep it out of other peoples s bodies. If you don't agre with abortion..Don't have one! Simple!
Notice that of the three, the fetus, the biological mother, and biological father, none of them is you. Who has more say, them or you in their family planning and health decisions? How about if I start making your moral and ethical decisions for you?
@ndrthrdr1 Well, what if on the night your parents had conceived you, they instead decided to go to a movie? Would that be a moral and ethical decision made without your consent? The ova that your life started from would have simply been ejected from your mother. Your mother would have "chosen" to "abort" your life, through inaction.
@dmmchn If I had not been conceived, or if I had been conceived but had not been born, I would not have minded it any more than any other nonexistent beings.
@dmmchn For a fetus to not be an existent being it would have to be a nonexistant being. Or "non-being" which means nothingness. Therefore what you're trying to say is that fetus's don't even exist. They're only in our imagination. Like unicorns.
@SuburbiaSurvivor So now you're going to cut straws based on nuances in language? Heres a tip : so long as language conveys the meaning, the spelling is irrelevant.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, it is a foetus.. a developmental stage towards creating a human being.
Even a baby isn't really a human, because its brain really isnt developed to the point that we require in "humans". But, it is a separate, living organism, which will (probably) become a human being.
A foetus is reliant totally on the mother. Really, it is just a shell developing to house a human brain. The shell grows first. The brain develops mostly at the end, or after birth.
@dmmchn No, a fetus is a particular developmental stage OF a human being. A human being is a member of the species Homo Sapien: Man, Woman, or child. A child is a young human being under the age of full physical development. A fetus is a being, since it is a living and growing organism, and it is human. Therefore: It is a human being.
Superior brain activity isn't required in the definition of a human being. If it were, anyone unconscious or in a coma would be considered a non-human-being.
@SuburbiaSurvivor OF a human being. NOT a human being. A foetus is not "life", because it cannot live or continue to survive by itself.
An ova is also a developmental stage of a human being. Are you suggesting also that by not fertilising an ova, you are murdering a human?
You can't bring the ethics of a fully grown human being (those in a coma) into the unborn, because they are not equivalent at all. Someone in a coma does not directly rely on another human to live.
@dmmchn Life is not defined by its dependency. It is defined by whether a being is alive or not.
And no, even if attached to the mother's womb an ova will not grow into a human being. A fetus is a growing human being. An ova is only part of the information required to create a human being.
Why not bring it into the debate? A person in a coma A) Does not think. B) Is not concious. and C) Relies on its environment to live. Very much like a fetus.
@SuburbiaSurvivor I didn't say it was defined by "dependency", I said it was defined by "independence".
Yes, a foetus is alive, but in a parasitic way. It is not a human, as a human does not require another human to sustain itself. A foetus NOT attached to a human will never develop into a human, in the same way that a ova will never develop into a human without a sperm.
The difference between a person in a coma and a foetus is thus - a person in a coma is a developed human.
@dmmchn Same thing. And hmm... I guess all children under the age of 14 are not human beings either, huh? Since they are not independent.
So a fetus is alive! Therefore it is a being. And how is it not human? It has human DNA, it is alive, it is growing, how could it be anything other then human? It's certainly not mole rat.
Then what about an unconscious 4 year old? Children are not developed humans just like fetuses.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, they ARE independent. A baby is independent. Independent life being "A life that is self sustaining".
It has human DNA, it is alive, and it is growing. Sure. What is it growing into? A human. What is it WHEN it's growing into a human? Not a human. Otherwise why would it need to grow?
Is an acorn an oak tree? Let's see you make a house out of an acorn.
@dmmchn The ONLY way for a fetus to be anything other then a human being would be for it to A) Be dead. B) Be only partly human. (Such as only be an arm of a human, or a clumb of non-growing skin tissue etc.) Or C) Be a non-human entity.
A fetus IS alive, it IS fully human (it's not partly human, it has the full functioning DNA of a human being), it IS growing, and it IS nothing other then a member of the species Homo Sapiens!
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes, a foetus is only partly human, that is correct. It's no different to "an arm".
It's growing into a human, it is not one yet. The only reason you are willing to consider a foetus a human being is because it is central to your "pro life" argument.
@dmmchn An arm is a part of a human being. A fetus has an arm. A fetus is fully a developing human being.
If it is not a human, then what is it? Upon reading your argument one could assume that you are insinuating that a fetus is an alien! Or perhaps, it does not even exist!
And so? I consider a fetus a human being because it makes biological and logical sense. Life begins at conception. A human being is created at conception. Which is why I am Pro-Life. Not visa versa.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Developing, developing. Not human yet. It requires input (the mothers womb, time) to become a human.
An ova by your own definition of "human" being a "developing human" is also human. Or does an ova not exist? Every ova COULD BE a human, just like every foetus COULD BE a human.
Life does not begin at conception, it continues via procreation. There is a difference, although subtle.
@dmmchn Everyone is developing until the age of about 21 (varies from person to person), I guess since they are developing they are not human beings? Somehow? Of course, all humans require input to live.
No, there is no scientific evidence that an ova is developing human being. It is a human cell with half of a human's DNA.
*Sigh* if life doesn't begin at conception, then in what state is a fetus? A state of being dead?
@dmmchn *Sigh* A) An ova is not undergoing mitosis. Therefore it is not developing. B) An ova only has half of the human DNA code, therefore it is only partly human.
The scientific argument is that which I have already stated. A fetus is a member of the species Homo Sapiens and is therefore a human being.
I meant the life of the fetus begins at conception. Not the parent's. (Hahaha, boy, I really have to be patient with you, don't I?)
"Sigh", without a developed frontal lobe (or even a DEVELOPING frontal lobe), a foetus is not a human. A more adequate "comatose" analogy is to compare a foetus to a braindead human, about to be harvested for organs. Is harvesting those organs murder? No, because the brain is dead, it is not a human.
A foetus has yet to have a brain.
It's not that I don't understand your argument, I just think you are purposely regressing it only to a level that supports your viewpoint.
@dmmchn Personally, that's where I find a problem with the Pro-Choice stance on whether or not a fetus is a human being. You say it must have a developed frontal lobe, others say it must have thought, others say that because it is not developed, it isn't a human being, others say that since it relies on the mother, it is not a human being, others say that it isn't important. The list goes on and it is constantly changing. It all relies on defining personhood by a certain characteristic (cont'd)
@dmmchn (cont'd) that a fetus doesn't have in an attempt to justify abortion. However, who really gets to define personhood? We know a fetus is biologically a human being. The scientific community all but unanimously agrees that a human being begins at conception. But how do we really know what defines a person? Wouldn't defining personhood by a certain characteristic put you in the same category as the Nazis or Slave Owners? They defined personhood by a certain characteristic (cont'd)
@SuburbiaSurvivor Also- an ova is not developing. Yes! Correct. So, if you choose to not fertilise it, it will not continue to develop into a human.
A foetus is developing IN THE WOMB. If you choose to remove it, it will not continue to develop into a human.
Note that in both cases, human interaction is required. You can CHOOSE not to have sex, or use contraceptives, which denies the existence of a foetus and therefore a human.
@dmmchn that their slaves or the Jews didn't have to dehumanize them to the point where it was legal to kill or own them. That's where I find a problem with abortion. It kills a human being on the grounds that it is not a person based on characteristics that vary from person to person. There is no universal justification for abortion. The reasons are endless and each person has their own way of justifying it. In the end, you are killing a human being.
If I eat a fertilised egg, did I just eat a chicken?
Your reference to the scientific community is faulty in logic. Even if you define the starting point of a human life as conception, that doesn't mean the zygote/embryo etc is a human being. It is becoming one.
There is no human characteristic that a foetus has except DNA. It's an empty shell growing to contain a brain/frontal lobe. A late term abortion though? I'd be against that.
@dmmchn Did you just eat a chicken? Yes. You ate a chicken in its early developmental stage. Just like eating an acorn is eating an Oak.
How is it faulty in logic? You can't have human life without having a human being. The word "being" literally means being alive. Therefore it is a human that is alive.
Characteristic is irrelevant to being a human being, an unconscious man displays no human characteristic either.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the "personhood" line at "having a developed frontal lobe".
A large number of foetuses self abort anyway, if the conditions aren't correct - do we celebrate the life of this human? Do we bury it in a tiny casket, name it, give it a grave marker? No. We don't even name a child until it is born. I understand your viewpoint, but it defines personhood incorrectly.
@dmmchn It has the functioning DNA to create a frontal lobe. In fact, the very exponential growth of the cells suggests that it is developing a frontal lobe.
I think the level in which a mother grieves over a miscarriage as compared to the death of a born child is debatable.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, there have been numerous studies done about frontal lobe development. The rest of the brain sub-systems have to develop before the frontal lobe can start.
Eh, yes of course, it depends on the person, and of course the pro-life will grieve more since they absolutely believe that a clump of cells is equivalent to a person.
@dmmchn My point is that since the development of the fetus has begun, in a sense the development of the frontal lobe has begun. Somewhat like building a foundation is the preliminary stage to building a house.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes.. but when an ova enters the uterus, in a sense, the development of a foetus has begun. You could call the ova the foundation. The foetus would be the plumbing.
@dmmchn No, when a fertilised ovum (not sure if singular form of word or plural xD debates are always forcing my to go look up words) enters the uterus the development has begun. Without fertilization there can be no fetus.
@dmmchn If you abort a fetus, you will be ending the existence of a human being. You will have killed a human being. If you kill an ovum, you will not have killed a human being. Since that ovum is only partially human and not-growing.
A fetus is a person in a biological sense. Legally it is not for its lack of rights. (In Ireland, a fetus is a person, in the US, it is not. Therefore personhood is relative to the law).
Not the same choice. One kills a human being. The other does not.
@dmmchn I never said that removing a fetus out of its mothers womb was OK. That would be akin to killing.
It isn't murder because it's legal. It isn't person because it isn't legally recognized by the government as being an individual. It is, however, a human being therefore denying it the ability to grow is killing it. And we don't grow into humans. We are humans. We don't start off as naked mole rats.
Perhaps, however they consider it a human right's issue. In this case it is both.
@dmmchn That wouldn't change the fact that they are in fact different species.
Yes, but a more accurate way of describing it would be to say "By denying an ovum the ability to grow by not fertilizing it you prevent a human being from coming into existence. By killing a zygote you are ending the existence of a human being."
@SuburbiaSurvivor OK, so you define a human being as "a living thing which has human DNA".
Would you consider it murder for someone to remove the part of someones brain that makes them conscious? They are still breathing, they may even be able to react to things.. and they'd still be a living thing with human DNA.
@dmmchn Hmm, well in that case the person will never experience reality again. There's no possible way it could. And if left alone in its enviroment, in its stage of development, it would surely die. Unless we hooked it up to life support and kept its body alive. However, it would never come back.
So it wouldn't be murder, since the person is still alive, but is still an extreme form of assault.
@dmmchn Sure, a complete mass of living tissue is a human being. In case you were unaware, you are a mass of living human tissue too.
So you admit somehow, that killing a brain-dead person, someone with no chance of ever regaining brain function, is somehow murder, yet killing a fetus, which wiill inevitably develope brain function, is not murder? Interesting.
@SuburbiaSurvivor -- Continued - Murdering a human being is wrong because it denies a conscious being the right to continue to be conscious.
However, a foetus has zero consciousness, the conscious part of the brain does not develop until the rest of the body is formed. So, the argument is about POTENTIAL human life. Which, if you want to argue that way, would require ALL ova to be fertilised. The female fertility cycle is completely unethical, by pro life standards.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, but of course you would make that assumption.
A foetus REACTS, but does not RESPOND. A protozoa responds to its surroundings, but that doesn't make it a conscious being. There have been studies done wherein the line between "reaction" and "consciousness" is drawn.
Does a 4 week old zygote respond to anything? No. 8? No. Your argument is either due to misunderstanding of human development, or sexual politics. Which is it?
@dmmchn I never said a fetus reacts to its enviroment, but that it responds. For example, at 18-20 weeks a baby will respond to sound and later it is even capable of pattern recognition.
I never said a zygote responds to anything. It hasn't developed the ability. Much like an infant hasn't developed the ability to make coherent speech.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Ah, well there you go, it is developing, just as I said. It's not an independent, functional life form yet, it is in a developmental stage.
Do we let those under 16 drive a car? No, because they are not developed enough to do so, in general. Is it ethically wrong to limit their lives? They're a conscious being and we deny them experience.
A foetus has no experience, ending its life does not deny anything except potential. Just like choosing not to conceive.
@dmmchn Of course, once again, every human being under the age of about 22 is developing and in a developmental stage.
We do not let those under 16 year olds drive cars because it could potentially harm them or someone else. If in one's pursuit of happiness you infringe on another's right to life, you are breaking the law.
Experience is arbitrary and irrelevant to whether a human being is a human being or not.
@SuburbiaSurvivor But some 16 year olds are more than capable of driving a car. We deign an arbitrary point where we say "At this point, it should be OK".
Experience is not arbitrary at all; conscious experience IS the defining difference between man, and, say, a cow.
@SuburbiaSurvivor And really, to be fair, I already know that it's about sexual politics and nothing more. Because if you truly cared about ALL life, you would be living in Africa ensuring those humans are not dying. But since you are not there (you're wasting your time on the internet arguing semantics about when life BEGINS), I know that you don't actually care about life, it's just a means to a socio-sexual end.
Protip : for every "baby" you "save", hundreds of humans die in the 3rd world.
@dmmchn I find it interesting how you assume that I do not care about all life because I'm not in Africa. I could apply the same argument to you. If you're so Pro-Choice why aren't you in China fighting for the people's rights? I guess you're not Pro-Choice at all.
I'm arguing on the internet about when life begins primarily to understand the Pro-Choice mind so that in real life I can debate with open minded people about the issue.
@SuburbiaSurvivor I don't care either way, I just like arguing. Do I think abortion should be legal? Eh. I don't really care about the "choice" aspect. I don't think it's murdering a human, that's all.
And you don't care about life, you care about abortion. You can save FAR more human lives by being in Africa, do you deny that? You could instead be helping the millions of homeless (ALREADY ALIVE) humans.
But no, you choose to focus on a sexual politics issue instead.
@dmmchn Well, it's murder if the law recognizes a fetus as being a individual with human rights.
And I'd go to Africa if I could. I hear it's amazing there. But I have no money to get there. And no money to do anything there. All I could do is offer moral support. But people don't want moral support. They want food. Soooo... Yeah. :/
I choose to focus on it so that I can learn the main Pro-Choice standpoints and develop rebuttals so I am prepared if I debate with someone in the future.
@SuburbiaSurvivor And, therein lies the ONLY reason you wish to designate a "foetus" as a "human".
If, say, abortion was made illegal, and people instead had their ovaries removed, I am sure that another movement would surface which claimed an ova was a human life, and so on.
You don't NEED money to do anything or go to Africa, there are organisations that require volunteers.
@dmmchn And no, ova are not human beings. I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone who believes that an ova is a human being. An ova only has half the DNA of a human, it isn't developing, it isn't even going through mitosis. If put into a womb an ova wouldn't grow into a human being no matter how much food you give it.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Well, I'm pretty sure that if you removed a foetus from a womb, it's going to stop developing.
And that's the whole point - it can't self sustain - like an ova can't self fertilise. If a foetus is a human that "just requires a few months of gestation", then an ova is a human that "just requires fertilisation and a few months of gestation".
@dmmchn I'm also pretty sure that if you stop feeding an infant, it will die. In fact, if you stop feeding anyone, they will die. I guess that means that no one is a human being since no one can self sustain.
@SuburbiaSurvivor You can't "feed" a foetus. Again, if you want to reduce things to the most basic argument in that way you must ALSO consider an ova as a human.
You don't get to regress until its convenient to your argument to stop. A foetus can't exist without a spern, so therefore not providing sperm to an ova stops a foetus from existing, so on, so on.
@SuburbiaSurvivor So if my mother was to die, I would die soon after?? I can assure you I feed myself.
An ova exists, just as a foetus does. It's unreasonable to say that a human foetus is superior to an Ova - just due to its lack of "complete DNA" - would you also say that, were I to suffer genetic damage, I was no longer classed as "human"?
Human existence is entirely subjective. Without the areas of the brain that allow that subjective existence - there is no humanity.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yeah, I meant "I am a human, do I need my mothers body to live". More evidence against the foetus being a human, I'm afraid.
It IS unreasonable. To go from an ova to a foetus takes minimal effort, relatively. To go from a foetus to a human takes around 7 months, and tonnes of nutrients. The line between ova and foetus is much slimmer than between foetus and human.
It is subjective, without your subjective experience you may as well be a cow.
@dmmchn Yes, and if I take you out of the earth, your environment, and put you into space, you'll also die. Environment is irrelevant to humanity.
Effort is irrelevant. There are distinct biological differences between an ovum and a fertilized ovum. One is unique, the other is not. I've been over this a hundred times...
In that case, are infants, those without experience, non-human beings? Or perhaps, human non-persons?
@SuburbiaSurvivor Without fertilisation, an ovum cannot become a foetus, similarly, without the mother a foetus cannot become a human. A human requires the earth to live, yes. The foetus does not depend on the earth. Nor does an ovum.
There are also distinct biological differences between a foetus and a human. Organs. A brain. Being able to live independently from another human.
An infant does experience life subjectively. Just barely.
@dmmchn A human adult relies on the earth (its environment) to live. A fetus relies on its mothers body (its environment) to live. Therefore difference in environment is irrelevant.
Only in a developmental sense. Just like there are anatomical differences between an infant and an adult. Both are human beings. One is simply less developed.
Then what about someone in a coma? They don't experience life subjectively, are they not human beings?
@dmmchn I disagree. Preventing a fertilization is preventing an existence. Abortion ends an existence.
All human bodies are carriers for the human subjective experience. Therefore no human bodies should be killed unjustly, as you rob a human being of a human subjective experience.
Okay, tell me this, is a fetus a member of the species Homo Sapiens? AKA, is it human as opposed to naked mole rat?
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, because a foetus does not have a subjective experience, it has no mind.
If you tackle it from a religious viewpoint? Eh.. maybe you could argue the soul enters the body at conception. But even then, that isn't supported by many religious texts.
All human bodies ARE carriers, yes - but only at the point that subjective experience is possible. When you are dead, you are more developed but a foetus, but your existence has still ended. As a foetus, it has not started.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes, a rock, or a star, these things exist without a subjective experience. It is not murder to smash a rock with a hammer.
We're arguing that killing a human is wrong because of a humans unique experience, I am arguing that a foetus doesn't have one yet, so it is not murder.
@dmmchn I'm not arguing that killing a human being is wrong based on unique experience. I'm arguing that killing a fetus is wrong because you end the existance of an innocent human being.
@SuburbiaSurvivor But it isn't ending the existence of a human being. A human being experiences reality subjectively (which is why murder is wrong), whereas a foetus doesn't.
If "just life" is so important, then you must be very careful to never end any life at all. That includes carrots.. do you know theyre alive when you cut them up??
@dmmchn In essence, you're arguing that a fetus isn't a human being because it is currently incapable (as far as we know) of exhibiting what you have deemed to be the defining characteristic of a human being. It's like arguing a dog isn't a dog because it can't bark, or even that the sun either doesn't exist or just isn't a sun because it can't shine at night.
Make sense? Defining a being by characteristic must be aplicable to all scenarios for it to be a logical approach.
@SuburbiaSurvivor The consciousness comes from the development of a brain; with an undeveloped (or butchered, as per the previous example) brain, there is no consciousness.
A brainless human is an empty shell, and ending its life is not murder.. Yes, OK, a foetus has "human characteristics", but so does a dead body, so does a chimpanzee. But what is the difference, the part that makes murder immoral? Stopping the conscious existence.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Well... sometimes that can get a bit tricky, can't it? It depends to what degree of detail you use. What has 2 arms, 2 legs, and makes and uses tools? Human? Chimp?
What has 2 legs and makes and uses tools.. human? Raven?
The human characteristics a foetus has changes with its development. A zygote has only human DNA. A 7 month old foetus is much "more human".
@dmmchn You're avoiding the question. We are about to test whether your logic is sound or not. Do you, or do you not, define a being by its defining characteristic? The characteristic is arbitrary, it can be whatever you like.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, because for most things there is not a single defining characteristic.
However, something does need to display all of its defining characteristics to be considered that object. For example, would you consider a headless cow a cow? No, it's a headless cow.
@dmmchn Interesting, so in the case of beings that generally only have one single defining characteristic, if they are incapable at that time if displaying that characteristic, can you conclude that that being does not exist?
@SuburbiaSurvivor No no, I didn't say "didn't exist" - but if it does not fulfill it's defining characteristic, it is not that thing.
A car without an engine can still be called a car, but thats just linguistic convenience. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't provide car functionality.
If you slash the tyres on a car with no engine, you haven't stopped anyone getting to work.
@dmmchn So essentially, if it's not fullfilling it's defining characteristic, it is not that thing, therefore by the rules of logic it does not exist as that thing.
So what do you call a car with no engine? The sun when it can't shine at night? A dog when it can't bark? A person in a coma who can't think? A fish that can't swim?
@SuburbiaSurvivor It isn't a being. Being implies consciousness. We don't call a chimpanzee "An ape being".
Being IS the state of awareness. A foetus possesses none.
It has different properties. It does not possess a consciousness. It is smaller. A zygote does not even have a body. In the first few months it does not even have much of a form.
Just like a fertilised egg is not a chicken - it cannot lay another egg, because it is not a chicken yet.
@dmmchn Definition of being "1. Existence. 2. Living; being alive.". So unless you're arguing that fetuses aren't alive, then you're going to want to move on to another point.
Really? Because that sounds like something you made up.
People in comas don't have a conciousness. Infants are smaller. Zygotes do have a body, their cells, and in the first few months it just doesn't look like you or I, it is still a human being.
I guess 8 year olds aren't people because they can't reproduce...
Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving..... Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".
A foetus CAN be defined as "human", loosely, but not as a "human being". A dead body is also a "human body".
@dmmchn Sure, wikipedia defines the primary defining characteristics of a human being. But you can be a human being without displaying these characteristics.
@dmmchn A fetus does not have a fully developed conciousness, sure. But neither does a baby. This is why most of the people who use the lack of conciousness argument support infaniticide.
It is developing a conciousness however. The moment it is born it begins developing its conciousness.
Therefore killing a fetus is kiling a human being. If it is not, then killing someone in a coma, or killing someone who is asleep would not be killing a human being.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Of course you would try to take it that further and say "if you support abortion you support infanticide and then murder". "The moment it is born it begins developing its conciousness. Therefore killing a fetus is kiling a human being." But a foetus ISN'T BORN. "someone in a coma," Could wake up "someone who is asleep" Can wake up. "Foetus" Does not possess consciousness at all, or the mechanism to have one. See the difference?
@dmmchn I just gotta say, I love our debates. Most people type 3 pages of comments just to make one point, whereas we sumarize our points to each other in quick sentences.
I have a feeling this debate could go on for months, without either of us reaching a compromise, but whatever :P
@dmmchn Nope, I'm just saying your argument supports infanticide and murder. Frankly, I consider you to be a pretty cool person, and against those two things.
Woops. I meant to say the moment it is conceived! Don't you hate it when you type the wrong word?
A fetus is developing a conciousness though.
A fetus,
can be born.
Just like,
a person in a coma can wake up.
Actually a fetus does posess a mechanism to have one. If not, it would never be able to think.
How? My complete argument is - a foetus, at the point before it has a developed enough of a body to support a frontal lobe (around 6-7 months), is not a human being.
In the same way I would consider a braindead, living body (ie, pre-organ donation) to be not a human being. The only real distinction between the two is "may become human" and "was once a human".
@dmmchn I posted a response to you a while ago but alas... It has not entered. Oh well. I take that as a cue for ending. A pleasure debating with you! Do you have an account on debate.org?
@SuburbiaSurvivor Can I point out to you, you said "A fetus can be born..a person in a coma can wake up.." A fetus cant be "born", it cannot survive outside the womb until later stages of pregnancy; at which point, abortions are very rarely performed. You may be referring to any stage as a fetus tho. As for a person waking from a coma, this isnt always possible. A brain dead person may never awaken or ever regain awareness. And, um, a fetus is NOT able to think! Hahaha. Even if you say so. :P
@loathedanabhorred Semantic arguments are a drag... For one, the word "fetus" has multiple definitions, and can be referred to as meaning any unborn child at any stage of development. Secondly, I didn't specify time in that statement.
Obviously this is all just a chance. Not all people in comas are braindead though.
Depends on your definition of "think". Once again, the word has multiple definitions, and can include the consciousness that a fetus at a certain level of development has.
@SuburbiaSurvivor "and can be referred to as meaning any unborn child at any stage of development."
Notice that at no time I said "a late term abortion is OK". I have always maintained that frontal lobe development (around 7 months-ish - there was a study about it I read) is the key point to decide when a foetus truly becomes "a human being".
@SuburbiaSurvivor And also, you miss the main point again that murder is not about stopping the life of something that possesses human DNA, but ending a conscious existence.
@dmmchn Really. Because I have never, in my entire life, heard murder defined in that manner. The only people that define murder that way our those who advocate abortion.
But if that were true, then killing someone who is unconcious would not be murder. Therefore I could kill you in your sleep.
@SuburbiaSurvivor It is not the way people who advocate abortion argue murder, it is the actual ethical reason murder is wrong.
Sleep is one of the states of a conscious being.
As per my previous example, if you were to butcher someones brain to the point that they was no longer able to be conscious, and yet their body was still "living", that would be considered murder. Would you agree?
@dmmchn If sleep (the state of being unconcious, I'm not referring to REM sleep) is a state of a concious being, then fetuses are in a state of a concious being.
@SuburbiaSurvivor And, of course I know where you were trying to go with this, but here's why that argument is faulty.
It is not wrong for lions to kill zebra, buffaloes to kill baby lions, strangler vines to suck the life out of trees.
The wrongness of murder comes from the defining human characteristic, because we are human, and that wrongness comes from the ending of a conscious existence. A foetus does not have this.
Alright then so when a womens egg becomes fetilsed by sperm it can be taken out fully intact, its not killing it its just removing it from the womens body
xxSophiexSmithxx 1 month ago
@xxSophiexSmithxx removing the baby from the mother before the baby can survive outside the mother is still murder! Because the baby will still die!
Lucky10279 1 week ago
How about we castrate this man and tell him he has no choice wheher or not we chop his balls off, bet he would fight for his right to his own body,
xxSophiexSmithxx 1 month ago
I don't care what it is, it doesn't get to use the pregnant person's organs.
yourcityliesindust 2 months ago
@yourcityliesindust The baby belongs inside the mother until he or she is born, so whether you like it or not, the baby has a RIGHT to live inside his or her mother, and use her body. The baby has no choice in this. it's not like the baby CHOSE to live there. That's just where babies are conceived. Say that someone locked you in a room, and you couldn't get out without dieing. But that room belonged to someone else. And that someone else decided that they didn't want you in there.
Lucky10279 1 week ago
@Lucky10279 body autonomy=/=property possession, but nice job comparing women's bodies to property. No, the fetus (Let's use medical terminology alright?) does not have a right to use someone else's organs. No one has the right to use someone else's organs. Say I hit someone with my car and they needed an organ transplant, I am still not obligated to donate any of my organs.
yourcityliesindust 2 days ago
@yourcityliesindust (Continued) So they decided to kill you. Would that be OK?
Lucky10279 1 week ago
You're right, an abortion ISN'T the same as cutting fingernails or hair...it's more like having a tapeworm removed. And since the fetus, much like the tapeworm, is NOT a part of my body, I have every right to take it out.
yakottayoungblood 2 months ago
@yakottayoungblood No you don't. Not until the baby is ready to be born. And do you know that a lot of abortions are where the baby is removed from the mother in a c-section, and then simply neglected until he or she dies? But if someone had actually taken care of the baby after he or she had been taken out of the mother the baby would have been OK?
Lucky10279 1 week ago
@Lucky10279 Oh, wow, that is just so factually incorrect. My body, my choice. Not yours, not your gods, not the governments, MINE.
Most abortions (60%) occur before 9 weeks, 90% before 12 weeks. At 3 months old no fetus (fetus, not baby) can survive without leeching nutrients from the mother. bit [dot] ly/99dVdwPost
yakottayoungblood 4 days ago
No it is not.NOT YOUR BODY.NOT YOUR CHOICE.The baby inside you is a separate human being. The baby has different DNA as he said in the video. It is illogical, and scientifically inaccurate to say that the baby inside of you is part of you. But he/she belongs there.And has a right to be there.Think about what would happen if everyone adopted your way of thinking. If every single woman decided that they could kill there baby because they didn't want to share the womb, and there food
Lucky10279 4 days ago
@yakottayoungblood (Con) with the baby, then the entire human race would DIE OUT. When you have choose to have sex, you invite a baby in. The baby did not ask to be there. Say someone knocked on your door and you invited him in. But then decided that you didn't want him there anymore. Would you then have the right to shoot him dead?
Lucky10279 4 days ago
@Lucky10279 The entire human race WON'T die out, despite your fear mongering. Some women choose to have children. Some women don't. Many women in BOTH categories choose to have sex. Wanting to feel pleasure does not "invite a baby in." It is my body. My body that, as we agree, a foreign entity has decided to occupy without my consent. I have every right to make the best decision for my body, for my life. And that decision may include terminating a pregnancy. What if every man adopted YOUR way of
yakottayoungblood 3 days ago
@Lucky10279 (con't) thinking? What if ALL men saw women's bodies as not belonging to us? WAs just baby incubators? We're human beings with rights and bodies and lives that are OURS. An unwanted fetus does NOT belong in a uterus if we do not want it to be there. And you know what? I've had an abortion. Tons of women have had abortions. We have them because they're the right choices for our bodies. Not because abortions make you uncomfortable. You don't enter the picture.
yakottayoungblood 3 days ago
Okay by this logic, abortion is still perfectly reasonable considering the embryo is generally removed intact, so therefore it can keep its body and I can keep mine. Two separate human beings!
sharktoothshine 2 months ago 4
A baby inside a womb cannot survive until the very least 6 months gestation. Even then they need to be on oxygen. What about miscarriages? The only difference between those and abortion is that one is mostly man made.
csincali 3 months ago
Comment removed
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
The person in this vidoe displays both his obvious dislike of women, and his total ignorance. Forcing a women to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy is both unjust, and doesn't work! Prohibiting abortions has no effect on stopping them from happening..it just leads to women dying from unsafe/unsterile conditions. Women have terminated unwanted pregnancies since recorded history.You may disagree with abortion..So Don't Have One..Simple!
dianalee84 3 months ago
@dianalee84 "If you don't like abortion, don't get one!"-Pro-Choice
"If you don't like slavery, don't get a slave!"-Pro-Slavery.
"If you don't like killing jews, don't kill a jew!"-Nazism (Okay, they probably never said that. But probably something similar)
I rest my case.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
Shut up you skin-headed bastard. I have a right to my own body..and if I want an abortion FOR ANY REASON..I'll have it.
Purpledragon1766 3 months ago
Regardless of it having different DNA what right does it have to use my body as a life sorce?
TheCreamPuffz 4 months ago
You suck at this lol
marypatrice3 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said: "A foetus is not a human life, it is a bunch of cells that may or may not develop into one. Simple science." ~~~ Tell me, what will a fetus develop into other than a human life? Your statement is absurd, it is like saying "A tadpole is not a life, it may or may not develop into a frog." ~ The fetus will not develop into a human life, only if you murder him/her, as you wish to do obviously.
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons It's a developmental stage, and the argument works equally well with the tadpole/frog argument.
A tadpole is not a frog, it is a bunch of cells that may or may not develop into one.A tadpole can either develop into a frog or die.
If you kill a tadpole, are you killing a frog? No.. you are killing a tadpole, that would have, maybe, developed into a frog. It's a "potential frog life". NOT a frog.
I never said that a foetus ISN'T alive, I said it is not a human life.
dmmchn 3 months ago
you sir... are an idiot. im not even going to go into detail as to why you are an idiot, because I would be up all night trying to fit in every single reason why you are an idiot, into a well executed, 500 word essay... 500 words being the limit that Youtube has given me.
thecurse23 4 months ago
@theshillelaghlaw I'd hate to see the reaction of someone who's lost a child to murder,a real child not a potential one would have to you ,with your'when she killed him' rhetoric.I hope you wouldn't do that to a real parent who's lost a real child to murder.I don't think they'd have much sympathy for you.
dianalee84 5 months ago 2
It's not YOUR body either,Mr.Patriot4life ,why don't you mind your own business and keep it out of other peoples s bodies. If you don't agre with abortion..Don't have one! Simple!
dianalee84 5 months ago 2
Notice that of the three, the fetus, the biological mother, and biological father, none of them is you. Who has more say, them or you in their family planning and health decisions? How about if I start making your moral and ethical decisions for you?
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago 7
@ndrthrdr1 Well, what if on the night your parents had conceived you, they instead decided to go to a movie? Would that be a moral and ethical decision made without your consent? The ova that your life started from would have simply been ejected from your mother. Your mother would have "chosen" to "abort" your life, through inaction.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn If I had not been conceived, or if I had been conceived but had not been born, I would not have minded it any more than any other nonexistent beings.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Exactly, so is a foetus born? No. It's no more an existent being than an un-fertilised egg.
Through someone elses choice (be that, to have sex or not, or to have an abortion or not) a being does not exist.
dmmchn 3 months ago
Comment removed
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn For a fetus to not be an existent being it would have to be a nonexistant being. Or "non-being" which means nothingness. Therefore what you're trying to say is that fetus's don't even exist. They're only in our imagination. Like unicorns.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
LOL forever at this video.
You need to go.
purebloodjiselle 5 months ago 2
DNA is not a life. If I cut myself, my blood on something is not me.
A foetus is not a human life, it is a bunch of cells that may or may not develop into one. Simple science.
dmmchn 5 months ago 7
@dmmchn
Yeah... I'm actually amazed your comment got thumbed up given that your analogy makes little to no sense
fruitnugget 4 months ago
@fruitnugget Well, exactly. Of course it doesn't make sense. Just like the argument that the OP has made.
dmmchn 4 months ago
@dmmchn You're right. A foetus isn't even a word.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor So now you're going to cut straws based on nuances in language? Heres a tip : so long as language conveys the meaning, the spelling is irrelevant.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn So you're saying a fetus isn't a human being? Then what is it? A duck? A naked mole rat?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, it is a foetus.. a developmental stage towards creating a human being.
Even a baby isn't really a human, because its brain really isnt developed to the point that we require in "humans". But, it is a separate, living organism, which will (probably) become a human being.
A foetus is reliant totally on the mother. Really, it is just a shell developing to house a human brain. The shell grows first. The brain develops mostly at the end, or after birth.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn No, a fetus is a particular developmental stage OF a human being. A human being is a member of the species Homo Sapien: Man, Woman, or child. A child is a young human being under the age of full physical development. A fetus is a being, since it is a living and growing organism, and it is human. Therefore: It is a human being.
Superior brain activity isn't required in the definition of a human being. If it were, anyone unconscious or in a coma would be considered a non-human-being.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor OF a human being. NOT a human being. A foetus is not "life", because it cannot live or continue to survive by itself.
An ova is also a developmental stage of a human being. Are you suggesting also that by not fertilising an ova, you are murdering a human?
You can't bring the ethics of a fully grown human being (those in a coma) into the unborn, because they are not equivalent at all. Someone in a coma does not directly rely on another human to live.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Life is not defined by its dependency. It is defined by whether a being is alive or not.
And no, even if attached to the mother's womb an ova will not grow into a human being. A fetus is a growing human being. An ova is only part of the information required to create a human being.
Why not bring it into the debate? A person in a coma A) Does not think. B) Is not concious. and C) Relies on its environment to live. Very much like a fetus.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I didn't say it was defined by "dependency", I said it was defined by "independence".
Yes, a foetus is alive, but in a parasitic way. It is not a human, as a human does not require another human to sustain itself. A foetus NOT attached to a human will never develop into a human, in the same way that a ova will never develop into a human without a sperm.
The difference between a person in a coma and a foetus is thus - a person in a coma is a developed human.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Same thing. And hmm... I guess all children under the age of 14 are not human beings either, huh? Since they are not independent.
So a fetus is alive! Therefore it is a being. And how is it not human? It has human DNA, it is alive, it is growing, how could it be anything other then human? It's certainly not mole rat.
Then what about an unconscious 4 year old? Children are not developed humans just like fetuses.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, they ARE independent. A baby is independent. Independent life being "A life that is self sustaining".
It has human DNA, it is alive, and it is growing. Sure. What is it growing into? A human. What is it WHEN it's growing into a human? Not a human. Otherwise why would it need to grow?
Is an acorn an oak tree? Let's see you make a house out of an acorn.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn The ONLY way for a fetus to be anything other then a human being would be for it to A) Be dead. B) Be only partly human. (Such as only be an arm of a human, or a clumb of non-growing skin tissue etc.) Or C) Be a non-human entity.
A fetus IS alive, it IS fully human (it's not partly human, it has the full functioning DNA of a human being), it IS growing, and it IS nothing other then a member of the species Homo Sapiens!
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes, a foetus is only partly human, that is correct. It's no different to "an arm".
It's growing into a human, it is not one yet. The only reason you are willing to consider a foetus a human being is because it is central to your "pro life" argument.
-- continued
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn An arm is a part of a human being. A fetus has an arm. A fetus is fully a developing human being.
If it is not a human, then what is it? Upon reading your argument one could assume that you are insinuating that a fetus is an alien! Or perhaps, it does not even exist!
And so? I consider a fetus a human being because it makes biological and logical sense. Life begins at conception. A human being is created at conception. Which is why I am Pro-Life. Not visa versa.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Developing, developing. Not human yet. It requires input (the mothers womb, time) to become a human.
An ova by your own definition of "human" being a "developing human" is also human. Or does an ova not exist? Every ova COULD BE a human, just like every foetus COULD BE a human.
Life does not begin at conception, it continues via procreation. There is a difference, although subtle.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Everyone is developing until the age of about 21 (varies from person to person), I guess since they are developing they are not human beings? Somehow? Of course, all humans require input to live.
No, there is no scientific evidence that an ova is developing human being. It is a human cell with half of a human's DNA.
*Sigh* if life doesn't begin at conception, then in what state is a fetus? A state of being dead?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor What do you mean there is no scientific evidence that an ova is a developing human being??
It has human DNA. It can grow into a human, just like a foetus, with the conditions being correct.
And also, what "scientific evidence" is there that a foetus is a human? This is an ethical argument, not science.
And no, life does not begin at conception; because the parent is already alive. Is the parent dead until the foetus is created?
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn *Sigh* A) An ova is not undergoing mitosis. Therefore it is not developing. B) An ova only has half of the human DNA code, therefore it is only partly human.
The scientific argument is that which I have already stated. A fetus is a member of the species Homo Sapiens and is therefore a human being.
I meant the life of the fetus begins at conception. Not the parent's. (Hahaha, boy, I really have to be patient with you, don't I?)
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor
"Sigh", without a developed frontal lobe (or even a DEVELOPING frontal lobe), a foetus is not a human. A more adequate "comatose" analogy is to compare a foetus to a braindead human, about to be harvested for organs. Is harvesting those organs murder? No, because the brain is dead, it is not a human.
A foetus has yet to have a brain.
It's not that I don't understand your argument, I just think you are purposely regressing it only to a level that supports your viewpoint.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Personally, that's where I find a problem with the Pro-Choice stance on whether or not a fetus is a human being. You say it must have a developed frontal lobe, others say it must have thought, others say that because it is not developed, it isn't a human being, others say that since it relies on the mother, it is not a human being, others say that it isn't important. The list goes on and it is constantly changing. It all relies on defining personhood by a certain characteristic (cont'd)
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@dmmchn (cont'd) that a fetus doesn't have in an attempt to justify abortion. However, who really gets to define personhood? We know a fetus is biologically a human being. The scientific community all but unanimously agrees that a human being begins at conception. But how do we really know what defines a person? Wouldn't defining personhood by a certain characteristic put you in the same category as the Nazis or Slave Owners? They defined personhood by a certain characteristic (cont'd)
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Also- an ova is not developing. Yes! Correct. So, if you choose to not fertilise it, it will not continue to develop into a human.
A foetus is developing IN THE WOMB. If you choose to remove it, it will not continue to develop into a human.
Note that in both cases, human interaction is required. You can CHOOSE not to have sex, or use contraceptives, which denies the existence of a foetus and therefore a human.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn that their slaves or the Jews didn't have to dehumanize them to the point where it was legal to kill or own them. That's where I find a problem with abortion. It kills a human being on the grounds that it is not a person based on characteristics that vary from person to person. There is no universal justification for abortion. The reasons are endless and each person has their own way of justifying it. In the end, you are killing a human being.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor It is not about "dehumanising" someone.
If I eat a fertilised egg, did I just eat a chicken?
Your reference to the scientific community is faulty in logic. Even if you define the starting point of a human life as conception, that doesn't mean the zygote/embryo etc is a human being. It is becoming one.
There is no human characteristic that a foetus has except DNA. It's an empty shell growing to contain a brain/frontal lobe. A late term abortion though? I'd be against that.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Did you just eat a chicken? Yes. You ate a chicken in its early developmental stage. Just like eating an acorn is eating an Oak.
How is it faulty in logic? You can't have human life without having a human being. The word "being" literally means being alive. Therefore it is a human that is alive.
Characteristic is irrelevant to being a human being, an unconscious man displays no human characteristic either.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the "personhood" line at "having a developed frontal lobe".
A large number of foetuses self abort anyway, if the conditions aren't correct - do we celebrate the life of this human? Do we bury it in a tiny casket, name it, give it a grave marker? No. We don't even name a child until it is born. I understand your viewpoint, but it defines personhood incorrectly.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Well then, in that case no one under the age of about 21 has "personhood" since they do not "developed frontal lobes".
No, fetuses never self-abort. They simply die since their environment is unable to sustain them. Sure, many women do in fact grieve over miscarriages.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, a foetus before around 7 months does not HAVE a frontal lobe, at all.
Women who grieve over miscarriages do not grieve in the same way as for a lost child. It is the loss of potential.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn It has the functioning DNA to create a frontal lobe. In fact, the very exponential growth of the cells suggests that it is developing a frontal lobe.
I think the level in which a mother grieves over a miscarriage as compared to the death of a born child is debatable.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, there have been numerous studies done about frontal lobe development. The rest of the brain sub-systems have to develop before the frontal lobe can start.
Eh, yes of course, it depends on the person, and of course the pro-life will grieve more since they absolutely believe that a clump of cells is equivalent to a person.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn My point is that since the development of the fetus has begun, in a sense the development of the frontal lobe has begun. Somewhat like building a foundation is the preliminary stage to building a house.
And yes.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes.. but when an ova enters the uterus, in a sense, the development of a foetus has begun. You could call the ova the foundation. The foetus would be the plumbing.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn No, when a fertilised ovum (not sure if singular form of word or plural xD debates are always forcing my to go look up words) enters the uterus the development has begun. Without fertilization there can be no fetus.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Crap, it is "ovum"... whoops.
Yes, exactly. And if you abort a foetus, there will similarly be no foetus. What's the difference?
You choose not to fertilise an egg, which would become a person.
You choose to abort a foetus, which would become a person.
Same choice. The choice to not allow a foetus to grow in the womb.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn If you abort a fetus, you will be ending the existence of a human being. You will have killed a human being. If you kill an ovum, you will not have killed a human being. Since that ovum is only partially human and not-growing.
A fetus is a person in a biological sense. Legally it is not for its lack of rights. (In Ireland, a fetus is a person, in the US, it is not. Therefore personhood is relative to the law).
Not the same choice. One kills a human being. The other does not.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor OK, so, if we remove the foetus "alive", and let it fend for itself, that's OK?
No, you are denying the ability for a foetus to grow into a human. In order for it to be "murder", it has to be "a person". It isnt.
If you choose to not fertilise an ovum, you are denying it the ability to grow into a person. Same thing.
Legally speaking, well, ireland is deeply conservative... as I said, not a human rights issue, it is a socio-sexual issue.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I never said that removing a fetus out of its mothers womb was OK. That would be akin to killing.
It isn't murder because it's legal. It isn't person because it isn't legally recognized by the government as being an individual. It is, however, a human being therefore denying it the ability to grow is killing it. And we don't grow into humans. We are humans. We don't start off as naked mole rats.
Perhaps, however they consider it a human right's issue. In this case it is both.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I could show you a picture of a naked mole rat foetus and a human foetus and I bet you couldn't tell the difference.
You deny the ability for an ovum to grow by not fertilising it.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn That wouldn't change the fact that they are in fact different species.
Yes, but a more accurate way of describing it would be to say "By denying an ovum the ability to grow by not fertilizing it you prevent a human being from coming into existence. By killing a zygote you are ending the existence of a human being."
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor OK, so you define a human being as "a living thing which has human DNA".
Would you consider it murder for someone to remove the part of someones brain that makes them conscious? They are still breathing, they may even be able to react to things.. and they'd still be a living thing with human DNA.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Hmm, well in that case the person will never experience reality again. There's no possible way it could. And if left alone in its enviroment, in its stage of development, it would surely die. Unless we hooked it up to life support and kept its body alive. However, it would never come back.
So it wouldn't be murder, since the person is still alive, but is still an extreme form of assault.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor OK, so the issue is really that you define "living human tissue" as "a human being".
I think my example IS murder. At that point the "person" is dead. A foetus is not yet "alive".
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Sure, a complete mass of living tissue is a human being. In case you were unaware, you are a mass of living human tissue too.
So you admit somehow, that killing a brain-dead person, someone with no chance of ever regaining brain function, is somehow murder, yet killing a fetus, which wiill inevitably develope brain function, is not murder? Interesting.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor -- Continued - Murdering a human being is wrong because it denies a conscious being the right to continue to be conscious.
However, a foetus has zero consciousness, the conscious part of the brain does not develop until the rest of the body is formed. So, the argument is about POTENTIAL human life. Which, if you want to argue that way, would require ALL ova to be fertilised. The female fertility cycle is completely unethical, by pro life standards.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn So if you kill an unconscious human being it's not murder? Since you define a human being as being a person with a consciousness.
And not true, fetuses respond to their surroundings. You can't respond to your surroundings if you have zero consciousness.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, but of course you would make that assumption.
A foetus REACTS, but does not RESPOND. A protozoa responds to its surroundings, but that doesn't make it a conscious being. There have been studies done wherein the line between "reaction" and "consciousness" is drawn.
Does a 4 week old zygote respond to anything? No. 8? No. Your argument is either due to misunderstanding of human development, or sexual politics. Which is it?
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I never said a fetus reacts to its enviroment, but that it responds. For example, at 18-20 weeks a baby will respond to sound and later it is even capable of pattern recognition.
I never said a zygote responds to anything. It hasn't developed the ability. Much like an infant hasn't developed the ability to make coherent speech.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Ah, well there you go, it is developing, just as I said. It's not an independent, functional life form yet, it is in a developmental stage.
Do we let those under 16 drive a car? No, because they are not developed enough to do so, in general. Is it ethically wrong to limit their lives? They're a conscious being and we deny them experience.
A foetus has no experience, ending its life does not deny anything except potential. Just like choosing not to conceive.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Of course, once again, every human being under the age of about 22 is developing and in a developmental stage.
We do not let those under 16 year olds drive cars because it could potentially harm them or someone else. If in one's pursuit of happiness you infringe on another's right to life, you are breaking the law.
Experience is arbitrary and irrelevant to whether a human being is a human being or not.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor But some 16 year olds are more than capable of driving a car. We deign an arbitrary point where we say "At this point, it should be OK".
Experience is not arbitrary at all; conscious experience IS the defining difference between man, and, say, a cow.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And really, to be fair, I already know that it's about sexual politics and nothing more. Because if you truly cared about ALL life, you would be living in Africa ensuring those humans are not dying. But since you are not there (you're wasting your time on the internet arguing semantics about when life BEGINS), I know that you don't actually care about life, it's just a means to a socio-sexual end.
Protip : for every "baby" you "save", hundreds of humans die in the 3rd world.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I find it interesting how you assume that I do not care about all life because I'm not in Africa. I could apply the same argument to you. If you're so Pro-Choice why aren't you in China fighting for the people's rights? I guess you're not Pro-Choice at all.
I'm arguing on the internet about when life begins primarily to understand the Pro-Choice mind so that in real life I can debate with open minded people about the issue.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I don't care either way, I just like arguing. Do I think abortion should be legal? Eh. I don't really care about the "choice" aspect. I don't think it's murdering a human, that's all.
And you don't care about life, you care about abortion. You can save FAR more human lives by being in Africa, do you deny that? You could instead be helping the millions of homeless (ALREADY ALIVE) humans.
But no, you choose to focus on a sexual politics issue instead.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Well, it's murder if the law recognizes a fetus as being a individual with human rights.
And I'd go to Africa if I could. I hear it's amazing there. But I have no money to get there. And no money to do anything there. All I could do is offer moral support. But people don't want moral support. They want food. Soooo... Yeah. :/
I choose to focus on it so that I can learn the main Pro-Choice standpoints and develop rebuttals so I am prepared if I debate with someone in the future.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And, therein lies the ONLY reason you wish to designate a "foetus" as a "human".
If, say, abortion was made illegal, and people instead had their ovaries removed, I am sure that another movement would surface which claimed an ova was a human life, and so on.
You don't NEED money to do anything or go to Africa, there are organisations that require volunteers.
I don't really have a pro-choice standpoint.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn And no, ova are not human beings. I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone who believes that an ova is a human being. An ova only has half the DNA of a human, it isn't developing, it isn't even going through mitosis. If put into a womb an ova wouldn't grow into a human being no matter how much food you give it.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Well, I'm pretty sure that if you removed a foetus from a womb, it's going to stop developing.
And that's the whole point - it can't self sustain - like an ova can't self fertilise. If a foetus is a human that "just requires a few months of gestation", then an ova is a human that "just requires fertilisation and a few months of gestation".
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I'm also pretty sure that if you stop feeding an infant, it will die. In fact, if you stop feeding anyone, they will die. I guess that means that no one is a human being since no one can self sustain.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You can't "feed" a foetus. Again, if you want to reduce things to the most basic argument in that way you must ALSO consider an ova as a human.
You don't get to regress until its convenient to your argument to stop. A foetus can't exist without a spern, so therefore not providing sperm to an ova stops a foetus from existing, so on, so on.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Yes, a mother's body feeds the fetus. That's how a fetus is fed
No, an ova is not fully human. It neither has the full DNA of a human nor is it growing. It is only partially human.
And not quite. You can't stop a fetus from existing it if never existed in the first place.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor So, as a human being, does my mothers body feed me?
Are you saying then that ova do not exist?
The foetus is just a fertilised ova. By choosing not to fertilise an ova you are denying it the right to be a foetus; and thus a human being.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Yes, your mother feeds you.
No, they do exist. But they are not human beings. Only partial human beings, since their DNA is incomplete.
And an unfertilised ova is not a human being. A human being only has the right to live once it begins its existence.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor So if my mother was to die, I would die soon after?? I can assure you I feed myself.
An ova exists, just as a foetus does. It's unreasonable to say that a human foetus is superior to an Ova - just due to its lack of "complete DNA" - would you also say that, were I to suffer genetic damage, I was no longer classed as "human"?
Human existence is entirely subjective. Without the areas of the brain that allow that subjective existence - there is no humanity.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Woops, my bad! I meant that as a fetus your mother's body feeds you. A mother's body is the fetus's environment that it is.
How is it unreasonable to say that a human fetus is superior to an ova due to an ova's lack of growth and a complete DNA?
It's not subjective. The existance of human characteristics is subjective, but the existence of a human being is not subjective.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yeah, I meant "I am a human, do I need my mothers body to live". More evidence against the foetus being a human, I'm afraid.
It IS unreasonable. To go from an ova to a foetus takes minimal effort, relatively. To go from a foetus to a human takes around 7 months, and tonnes of nutrients. The line between ova and foetus is much slimmer than between foetus and human.
It is subjective, without your subjective experience you may as well be a cow.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Yes, and if I take you out of the earth, your environment, and put you into space, you'll also die. Environment is irrelevant to humanity.
Effort is irrelevant. There are distinct biological differences between an ovum and a fertilized ovum. One is unique, the other is not. I've been over this a hundred times...
In that case, are infants, those without experience, non-human beings? Or perhaps, human non-persons?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Without fertilisation, an ovum cannot become a foetus, similarly, without the mother a foetus cannot become a human. A human requires the earth to live, yes. The foetus does not depend on the earth. Nor does an ovum.
There are also distinct biological differences between a foetus and a human. Organs. A brain. Being able to live independently from another human.
An infant does experience life subjectively. Just barely.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn A human adult relies on the earth (its environment) to live. A fetus relies on its mothers body (its environment) to live. Therefore difference in environment is irrelevant.
Only in a developmental sense. Just like there are anatomical differences between an infant and an adult. Both are human beings. One is simply less developed.
Then what about someone in a coma? They don't experience life subjectively, are they not human beings?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor But the environment is different! It's just as relevant as "fertilised/unfertilised".
At any rate - a foetus develops into a "carrier" for the human subjective experience. If our bodies die, we die.
If the brain, and subjective experience was developed first.. eh. That would be different.
An empty, unthinking, body is not a human.
If that coma is irrecoverable, they are dead human beings. Again, is organ harvest murder?
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I disagree. Preventing a fertilization is preventing an existence. Abortion ends an existence.
All human bodies are carriers for the human subjective experience. Therefore no human bodies should be killed unjustly, as you rob a human being of a human subjective experience.
Okay, tell me this, is a fetus a member of the species Homo Sapiens? AKA, is it human as opposed to naked mole rat?
Not all comas are irrecoverable.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, because a foetus does not have a subjective experience, it has no mind.
If you tackle it from a religious viewpoint? Eh.. maybe you could argue the soul enters the body at conception. But even then, that isn't supported by many religious texts.
All human bodies ARE carriers, yes - but only at the point that subjective experience is possible. When you are dead, you are more developed but a foetus, but your existence has still ended. As a foetus, it has not started.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn You can exist without having a subjective experience.
I'm not arguing about the soul at all.
Not true, the definition of existence means "The state or fact of being alive". A zygote does exist, otherwise, how would it grow?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes, a rock, or a star, these things exist without a subjective experience. It is not murder to smash a rock with a hammer.
We're arguing that killing a human is wrong because of a humans unique experience, I am arguing that a foetus doesn't have one yet, so it is not murder.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I'm not arguing that killing a human being is wrong based on unique experience. I'm arguing that killing a fetus is wrong because you end the existance of an innocent human being.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor But it isn't ending the existence of a human being. A human being experiences reality subjectively (which is why murder is wrong), whereas a foetus doesn't.
If "just life" is so important, then you must be very careful to never end any life at all. That includes carrots.. do you know theyre alive when you cut them up??
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn In essence, you're arguing that a fetus isn't a human being because it is currently incapable (as far as we know) of exhibiting what you have deemed to be the defining characteristic of a human being. It's like arguing a dog isn't a dog because it can't bark, or even that the sun either doesn't exist or just isn't a sun because it can't shine at night.
Make sense? Defining a being by characteristic must be aplicable to all scenarios for it to be a logical approach.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor The consciousness comes from the development of a brain; with an undeveloped (or butchered, as per the previous example) brain, there is no consciousness.
A brainless human is an empty shell, and ending its life is not murder.. Yes, OK, a foetus has "human characteristics", but so does a dead body, so does a chimpanzee. But what is the difference, the part that makes murder immoral? Stopping the conscious existence.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn I have a question, do you, or do you not, define a being by it's defining characteristic?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Well... sometimes that can get a bit tricky, can't it? It depends to what degree of detail you use. What has 2 arms, 2 legs, and makes and uses tools? Human? Chimp?
What has 2 legs and makes and uses tools.. human? Raven?
The human characteristics a foetus has changes with its development. A zygote has only human DNA. A 7 month old foetus is much "more human".
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn You're avoiding the question. We are about to test whether your logic is sound or not. Do you, or do you not, define a being by its defining characteristic? The characteristic is arbitrary, it can be whatever you like.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, because for most things there is not a single defining characteristic.
However, something does need to display all of its defining characteristics to be considered that object. For example, would you consider a headless cow a cow? No, it's a headless cow.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Interesting, so in the case of beings that generally only have one single defining characteristic, if they are incapable at that time if displaying that characteristic, can you conclude that that being does not exist?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No no, I didn't say "didn't exist" - but if it does not fulfill it's defining characteristic, it is not that thing.
A car without an engine can still be called a car, but thats just linguistic convenience. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't provide car functionality.
If you slash the tyres on a car with no engine, you haven't stopped anyone getting to work.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn So essentially, if it's not fullfilling it's defining characteristic, it is not that thing, therefore by the rules of logic it does not exist as that thing.
So what do you call a car with no engine? The sun when it can't shine at night? A dog when it can't bark? A person in a coma who can't think? A fish that can't swim?
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Yes.. it isn't "that thing". A foetus does not exist "as a human being" it exists "as a foetus".
I call them..
A car with no engine. The sun still shines at night, we just can't see it. A dog that can't bark. A person in a coma. A dead fish.
We don't call a foetus a human being, we call it a foetus, because it possesses different properties to a human.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn A fetus is a human being. It is a being, that is human. It's alive, and it's not a duck. Very simple.
Exactly! And I call a fetus a person who can't yet think.
What different properties? Name one.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor It isn't a being. Being implies consciousness. We don't call a chimpanzee "An ape being".
Being IS the state of awareness. A foetus possesses none.
It has different properties. It does not possess a consciousness. It is smaller. A zygote does not even have a body. In the first few months it does not even have much of a form.
Just like a fertilised egg is not a chicken - it cannot lay another egg, because it is not a chicken yet.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Definition of being "1. Existence. 2. Living; being alive.". So unless you're arguing that fetuses aren't alive, then you're going to want to move on to another point.
Really? Because that sounds like something you made up.
People in comas don't have a conciousness. Infants are smaller. Zygotes do have a body, their cells, and in the first few months it just doesn't look like you or I, it is still a human being.
I guess 8 year olds aren't people because they can't reproduce...
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, the use of the word "being" as it pertains to humans implies human consciousness.
An 8 year old is not a fully formed human in the animal sense, but it still conscious being and thus a human being.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Wikipedia agrees with me too.
Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving..... Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".
A foetus CAN be defined as "human", loosely, but not as a "human being". A dead body is also a "human body".
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Sure, wikipedia defines the primary defining characteristics of a human being. But you can be a human being without displaying these characteristics.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No you can't, without consciousness there is no "being".
You can be "a human", ie, genetically, without a consciousness.
But, as you agreed before, removing someones consciousness but still allowing their body to live is murder.
By terminating the life of that empty body.. that isn't murder. The "person", or "human being" is already gone.
A foetus does not yet contain a "human being" - no consciousness.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn Then you're saying, if a fetus isn't concious, it doesn't exist? Do you even know what being means?
Exactly!
Yes, I agree. Removing conciousness is murder, because it ends a life. Killing a fetus is murder because it also ends a life.
Terminating the life of anything is killing. It's not considered murder because it's legal, but it is murder in say, Ireland.
No, a fetus doesn't posess a legal "person", but to argue that a fetus is not a human being is ridiculous.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Of course a foetus exists, but the point you keep missing is "it is not a human being".
Killing a foetus is killing a foetus, but it is not equivalent to murdering a human being.
And exactly, a foetus possess no consciousness - killing and murder are different.
You eat a raw carrot, you're killing it.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn No, I'm saying you're wrong. Because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "human being".
Conciousness is irrelevant. We don't kill people in comas, right? Right.
She wasn't coming back, and she was brain dead. Fetus's are not brain dead.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Foetuses are, effectively, brain dead. Their brain is not "alive" yet.
You misunderstand the term "human being".
"Human" - containing human DNA.
"Human being" - human DNA + consciousness
Do we ever use the term "being" to describe a cow? Bovine being?
Chicken being? No, and no.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn Oh? Their brains are developing. I'm not sure how you can call developing dead.
Haha. That's your definition. One used by the Pro-Choice movement to define human beings. Too bad it's not how human beings are actually defined...
Guess people in comas aren't human beings? They must be ducks.
Yes, cows are beings. Anything that exists or is alive is a being. Go look up the word.
Human - has human DNA
Being - is alive
Dictionaries everywhere agree with me.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor But, again, we're focusing on language and that isn't what we're arguing about.
A foetus has no consciousness, it has yet to develop it, and it is not murder to kill it.
(which is why murdering a baby is wrong - a baby HAS consciousness.)
Killing the brain dead is in the same league.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn A fetus does not have a fully developed conciousness, sure. But neither does a baby. This is why most of the people who use the lack of conciousness argument support infaniticide.
It is developing a conciousness however. The moment it is born it begins developing its conciousness.
Therefore killing a fetus is kiling a human being. If it is not, then killing someone in a coma, or killing someone who is asleep would not be killing a human being.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
dmmchn 2 months ago 3
Comment removed
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@dmmchn I just gotta say, I love our debates. Most people type 3 pages of comments just to make one point, whereas we sumarize our points to each other in quick sentences.
I have a feeling this debate could go on for months, without either of us reaching a compromise, but whatever :P
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You'll see the light of reason eventually :D Bahahaha
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn Hahahaha!
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn Nope, I'm just saying your argument supports infanticide and murder. Frankly, I consider you to be a pretty cool person, and against those two things.
Woops. I meant to say the moment it is conceived! Don't you hate it when you type the wrong word?
A fetus is developing a conciousness though.
A fetus,
can be born.
Just like,
a person in a coma can wake up.
Actually a fetus does posess a mechanism to have one. If not, it would never be able to think.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuburbiaSurvivor "it would never be able to think"
A foetus never CAN think. It has to develop into a fully-formed human being first.
"A fetus,can be born."
Yes, but an improperly developed, and then born, foetus, usually dies, or is at least a "special" child.
If you want to go back to arguing "potential", we must again include ovum. An ovum can be fertilised.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor "your argument supports infanticide and murder."
How? My complete argument is - a foetus, at the point before it has a developed enough of a body to support a frontal lobe (around 6-7 months), is not a human being.
In the same way I would consider a braindead, living body (ie, pre-organ donation) to be not a human being. The only real distinction between the two is "may become human" and "was once a human".
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn I posted a response to you a while ago but alas... It has not entered. Oh well. I take that as a cue for ending. A pleasure debating with you! Do you have an account on debate.org?
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I never got it? Maybe someone flagged it as spam.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Can I point out to you, you said "A fetus can be born..a person in a coma can wake up.." A fetus cant be "born", it cannot survive outside the womb until later stages of pregnancy; at which point, abortions are very rarely performed. You may be referring to any stage as a fetus tho. As for a person waking from a coma, this isnt always possible. A brain dead person may never awaken or ever regain awareness. And, um, a fetus is NOT able to think! Hahaha. Even if you say so. :P
loathedanabhorred 2 months ago
@loathedanabhorred Semantic arguments are a drag... For one, the word "fetus" has multiple definitions, and can be referred to as meaning any unborn child at any stage of development. Secondly, I didn't specify time in that statement.
Obviously this is all just a chance. Not all people in comas are braindead though.
Depends on your definition of "think". Once again, the word has multiple definitions, and can include the consciousness that a fetus at a certain level of development has.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor "and can be referred to as meaning any unborn child at any stage of development."
Notice that at no time I said "a late term abortion is OK". I have always maintained that frontal lobe development (around 7 months-ish - there was a study about it I read) is the key point to decide when a foetus truly becomes "a human being".
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn Lol, I know.
My computer probably never sent it.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Did they "murder" Terry Schiavo?
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn I don't know who Terry Schiavo is.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Braindead woman in the US, they took her off life support and there was a massive pro-life hullaballoo.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And also, you miss the main point again that murder is not about stopping the life of something that possesses human DNA, but ending a conscious existence.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn Really. Because I have never, in my entire life, heard murder defined in that manner. The only people that define murder that way our those who advocate abortion.
But if that were true, then killing someone who is unconcious would not be murder. Therefore I could kill you in your sleep.
This is clearly a fallacy.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor It is not the way people who advocate abortion argue murder, it is the actual ethical reason murder is wrong.
Sleep is one of the states of a conscious being.
As per my previous example, if you were to butcher someones brain to the point that they was no longer able to be conscious, and yet their body was still "living", that would be considered murder. Would you agree?
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn If sleep (the state of being unconcious, I'm not referring to REM sleep) is a state of a concious being, then fetuses are in a state of a concious being.
Yes. It is murder.
SuburbiaSurvivor 3 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, a sleeping brain has different characteristics to one that possesses no consciousness.
dmmchn 2 months ago
@dmmchn What different characteristics?
Being implies living, because that's what the word means. Seriously, look up the word.
Exactly, and so are the unborn.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And, of course I know where you were trying to go with this, but here's why that argument is faulty.
It is not wrong for lions to kill zebra, buffaloes to kill baby lions, strangler vines to suck the life out of trees.
The wrongness of murder comes from the defining human characteristic, because we are human, and that wrongness comes from the ending of a conscious existence. A foetus does not have this.
dmmchn 3 months ago