Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is a baby in the womb in the 32nd week a baby human?
If you say no, you're essentially saying your grandson wasn't a baby human while in the NICU. Well, unless you think they have magic fairy dust they sprinkle on them when entering.
No one has said its not human. I never said my grandson wasn't a human baby. Of course its a human fetus. A pig fetus is Sus, a cow fetus is bovine, etc.
I'm not sure why your so fired up about that.
As well cancer cells are human cells.
My argument wasnt even the right or wrong of abortion or when a fetus is considered viable it was the premise of the argument to force a pregnancy to fruition.
The point is they are both dependent to survive. They are both human babies.
Many adults, the elderly, those on life support are dependent to survive. The difference is anyone can provide subsistence. A fetus' survival is dependent on the host body.
So, if your kids were born prematurely, were you going to wait until they turned into humans at some point to name them and ask the nurse how your blob of cells were doing in the NICU until that point?
If the child is born, he or she is already here in the World, & is a baby. & typically, if the development of the fertilized egg went normally, it's a human baby. The blob of cells stage happens quite early on, even before implantation, I believe.
No one has said its not human. I never said my grandson wasn't a human baby. Of course its a human fetus. A pig fetus is Sus, a cow fetus is bovine, etc.
I'm not sure why your so fired up about that.
As well cancer cells are human cells.
My argument wasnt even the right or wrong of abortion or when a fetus is considered viable it was the premise of the argument to force a pregnancy to fruition.
So, although you might not agree with it, do you feel a woman should have the right to arbitrarily terminate a pregnancy at 35 weeks?
I say no. I say their should be major restrictions such as if the mothers life were in danger.
Do you think arbitrary late term abortions should be legal?
Many adults, the elderly, those on life support are dependent to survive. The difference is anyone can provide subsistence. A fetus' survival is dependent on the host body.
So, you're saying if a 32 week baby is removed from the womb it will die regardless of medical care?
I'm going to have to say you're wrong if you answer that in the affirmative.
If the child is born, he or she is already here in the World, & is a baby. & typically, if the development of the fertilized egg went normally, it's a human baby. The blob of cells stage happens quite early on, even before implantation, I believe.
At 38 weeks and still within the womb, is it not a baby?
So your argument is that government determines what is a life? I know of people with no state ID's (no birth certificate, etc...), are they not human?
Your argument is invalid. Life is determined by science and a life is created at conception. You aren't "anti-science" are you?
It's not government so much that determines what is a life - it's society. Once humans get organized - religion, government, agriculture - it's typically the legal system of that society that determines what is a person - a life in the community. So yah, in the US, it's the judiciary that defines what a person (in the sense of a member of the community) is.
life is created at conception is a theological argument, as evidenced by the choice of the word creation. Scientists don't typically use that language - it's too charged with theological baggage. They're more likely to say an egg is fertilized @ conception.
We don't hold people to those standards in other faucets of life and it doesn't hold up in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
We know smoking causes cancer yet it is acceptable to get rid of the cancer.
Yes, but can you sue over such after knowing and being informed of such? Answer...no. Why? Because the responsibility of the use of such a product was informed before the person used it and they acknowledged the risks when they used the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
pain meds cause addiction, yet we treat it.
Yes, but this is also warned as a possible problem before hand. Again, if one becomes addicted, after knowing such, can they sue for it? Answer.. Why? Because the responsibility of the use of such a product was informed before the person used it and they acknowledged the risks when they used the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Food causes obesity, yet we accept it.
Yes, but how many cases can you cite where someone won a case of placing the cause of such on the food manufacturer? Why? Because anyone who isn't a complete idiot understands the basic concept of caloric intake and how over eating can cause you to increase in weight. laws aren't designed for the unfathomably stupid, they are designed for normal people who can understand basic concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Certain activities and sports cause injury and death yet we provide insurance to cover them and continue to engage in the same activities.
to which all are informed of the risks beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
We know having no job and producing multiple kids puts us in poverty yet we reward it with handouts.
We know marriage can end in divorce and financial crisis, but its not our fault.
We know we can drown, yet we get in the water.
We know we cant fly, yet we get on a plane.
We know hot coffee burns us, yet if we spill it on ourselves its not our fault.
I give up...
This is just plain stupid.
You win!
/facepalm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.