Abortion - your views.
- Thread starter Davey Gaga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They mean in a genetic sense... It still lacks what it needs to be human... So NO IT IS IN NO WAY [OTHER THAN GENETICALLY] A HUMAN BEING!!!
I can begin to freeze water but that doesn't make it ice until it is done...
You cannot dehumanize what isn't human! So no we are not killing human beings.
Last edited:
Until it meets all the requirements not just 25%[Flesh] it isn't human.
So to clarify my example just because you put water[Sperm] in a freezer[Egg] it isn't Ice[Human] until it has finished freezing[Developing] do you understand what I meant now?
Your paramecium argument is fallacious. When a paramecium is fully-formed, it only consists of one cell. When a human being consists of one cell, it is not fully-formed. A human being cannot exist viably as a single cell. By the same logic, I could say that humans are birds. They both have bones, right? Well, yeah, but that's only one defining characteristic of a bird/mammal.
There are three countries where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. All heavily Catholic. Draw your own conclusions there.
There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).
Not to sound like the dumb, arrogant American, but we should look to the US to set the precedent in the world because our Constitution was devised to give its citizens as much freedom as is possible while still maintaining a viable central government. We are a wealthy nation, we are overdeveloped if anything, and we (theoretically) have a fundamental separation of church and state. We should be leading the charge on personal freedom, and yet we're doing our best to keep 51% of our population as second-class citizens.
I doubt your not capable of grasping the meaning of what I said right? If so please you need a HIGHER level of understanding.
You took me too literally. I meant until it reached around the time of newborn. Otherwise we technically wouldn't be humans until death.
CassinnoChips
Here's your last post to me btw:
Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.
Edit: There's also Malta.
Mehaha
What fallacy would that be? And no, the number of cell doesn't matter, it's the structure of it compare to that of an unborn child. One is alive(a simple individual structured cell) and one is not(a complex individual structure of cells). That was your point against me remember?
Here's your last post to me btw:
Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.
Actually you question the fact that it's alive, not human. That was Mehaha's point. Am I guessing you've changed your point now?
Like I said, within certain limits, limits that I agree with. You forgot the Vatican btw. That's ok, I don't think it's a country either, but technically it is though.
Edit: There's also Malta.
Thought so.....How's the US economy btw? Anyways, my point still stands, the US Constitution really has no hold over the internet. While you think we should follow what it says, I don't really have to, don't I? especially the fact that your US legislation still keeps fighting over such issue even to this day.
Mehaha
So in your opinion, being a newborn is the stage where we start being human right?
Last edited:
Around that time yes...
OMG that was funny I'll give you that... I took your question incorrectly... I believed you meant start being human as in actual full human not an ingredient to one.
B
Bun
In this case, I was focusing more on determining where we draw the line at technically living (i.e. breathing, heart pumping, blood flowing, etc) as opposed to living (i.e. experiencing the world around you in a cognitive manner and giving those experiences value and meaning, etc). At what part in time does it matter whether the organism should live or die? We kill living things each and every day. Aside from our very own kind, what gives us the right to assign a specific worth to something that isn't even done developing yet? Why give it a chance over some other living organism that may contribute to the world and in a, possibly, better way?
I'm not saying I devalue human life, although there are times when I think we're just being a little high and mighty. I just think that sometimes there is too much worth assigned to the "miracle" of life.
Last edited:
Mehaha
Bun
I'm pretty sure the fault was all mine, since I'm the one who needs a "higher level of understanding".
When you say full human, do you mean a fully develop one?
Bun
What gives us the right indeed. Shouldn't I be asking that question?
Generalization.
No, Strawman, I wasn't saying feti are not human. I was simply giving you an example of how your logic is flawed. Taking one aspect of paramecia and applying it to humans, therefore equating science's accepted view of paramecia to humans, is logically unsound.
Comparatively speaking? Good, actually. And it's funny how when the US economy takes a hit, so does the rest of the world's, is it not? Relevance, Strawman?
Actually, the legislation doesn't fight over it. The legislation has not been changed since Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has not overturned that ruling, and every case that has been brought before the Supreme Court regarding abortion has been ruled on in keeping with the Roe v. Wade decision. The legislation has been clear for 30+ years.
Chips
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").
Ok, both has cells in them. One is alive and one is not. How is that insufficient to the factt that your conclusion is inconsistent?
There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).
And your reason can't possibly be a strawman now is it?
Human Life Bill HR.227
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;
(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.
Hasty generilization am I right?
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").
Ok, both has cells in them. One is alive and one is not. How is that insufficient to the factt that your conclusion is inconsistent?
I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your conclusion that an unborn child is not alive when simpler structures such as a bacteria can be deemed living. Like I said, the number of cells does not matter, in all scientific sense a cell is considered "alive" it's not living when the cell is dead.. Why then do we deny that to our own species.
Same reason why you brought up the state of other countries.
There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).
And your reason can't possibly be a strawman now is it?
Supreme Court =/= Legislation, it's actually the Congress. Now you want to tell me what this bill is all about then?
Human Life Bill HR.227
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;
(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.
Last edited:
No fault I was misreading what you said and made an assumption...
I mean one that can think complexly and whatnot ETC.
Nope because it is obvious we give ourselves the right...
Both living neither human...
The law once said Blacks weren't human and they even possessed all the ingredients to be human... So the laws definition isn't relevant due to its inconsistencies and frequency of change.
Mehaha
*sigh* I remember you saying that a couple pages ago. How about this? Would this work for you?
A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.
Score one for the US Legislation.
*sigh* I remember you saying that a couple pages ago. How about this? Would this work for you?
A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.
Score one for the US Legislation.
No, one *is* a cell, the other is made up of cells. Ergo, different.
Because a human being cannot "live" as one cell.
More to the point, I never denied that a zygote is alive.
It's not. Poverty drastically affects TFR.
Legislation is finalized once it leaves the legislative branch. The Supreme Court interprets legislation. Thus, what the Supreme Court says, goes. The Supreme Court has never changed its ruling on Roe v. Wade. Therefore, there is no argument in the legislation. The people may be arguing. The legislation is not.
HR 227 has been introduced. That's all. It has not been voted on. It has not been discussed on the floor. It has not been voted on. Right now, it is in the House Judiciary Committee. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. (Ironically, it's like a zygote. And it's probably going to be aborted. There's no way it'll ever get through a (D)-controlled House vote.)