FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (Jews, Adam)
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.
AGAIN...you are doing nothing but engaging in "label play"...to try to remove the human being status that occurs with conception, and remains through all stages after.
Here, let me 'splain it to ya:
CURRENT KNOWN SCIENCE says,
It is a human being at fertilization (conception).
It is a human being as a zygote.
It is a human being as a embryo.
It is a human being as a fetus.
It is a human being as a newborn.
It is a human being as a infant/baby.
It is a human being as a toddler.
It is a human being as a child.
It is a human being as a adolescent.
It is a human being as a adult.
It is a human being as a geriatric.
It is a human being at death.
AGAIN, AGAIN: Current known SCIENCE (not just my "opinion") says...from conception, and at ALL stages of life after that (in or out of the womb) it IS a human being.
Not a "potential" human being...but a human being...PERIOD.
Being able to survive without help is not a prerequisite to be a human being.
Many human beings need others for their survival, and could not survive on their own--They are considered no less of a human being than any other, no matter how much more "capable" that other might be in comparison.
And AGAIN...if you have some solid science that disproves the current...I'd like to see it.
IMO......YOU are playing the label game. A zygote, embryo, fetus is OF the human SPECIES.....but is not yet a bonified human being......and it certainly has no business trumping the rights of a bonified human being....the woman.
Someone who needs OUTSIDE help to survive is not the same as something that needs to be physically attatched to a LIVING host to survive.
It can only live if its one and only host lives. The PEOPLE you are comparing it to can be kept alive by an unlimited amount of different, interchangable people or machines. There is a big difference between needing a host and needing a care giver.
Ah the old replying to people hidden in replies to other people trick. I almost did not see this. Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
that is human, and has different DNA from any other entity what-so-ever...is there from conception.
But again the point is that simply being human DNA is not that special and simply being unique is not either. The world is full of unique DNA. What is so special about that? Walk into a slaughter house and all the cows in there will likely have unique DNA. Why are you not protecting that?
Simply appealing to uniqueness and human DNA does nothing. Neither are all that special. One must appeal to something more than this when discussing "rights" and "morals" and I think you will find when you explicitly say what that something is... that it ends up being a something that simply is not present in a fetus at 20 weeks development. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
Because, if it is the SAME entity that always existed (just less developed)...and it could EVER later be considered a "human being"...then, by Nozzs' logic...it must have necessarily ALWAYS been a human being.
Ridiculous tosh. This is like saying that a pile of bricks, since that pile was always going to be made into a house, was therefore always a house, and we should not call bricks bricks therefore but houses. After all it is the same entity that always existed, it was just less developed wasn't it?
That is about as much sense as you are making here.... that is to say none.... by suggesting these things are equivalent. Again, if you are becoming X that means you are NOT X now. Simple as that.
The morality is what it is . . . not what any of us choose to believe it is.
Actually, given the lack of any evidence at all that morality exists in and of itself, what we choose it to be would appear to be exactly what it is. I repeat: We are a social species and we come together and decide the best way to live together and achieve ends we pretty much all have such as maximizing well being for as many as possible. The rules and procedures and methods and constructs we decide on for how best to achieve this is what we call "morality". This wholly imagined objective morality that you appear to think exists somehow separate to us is entirely unsubstantiated fantasy.
Ah the old replying to people hidden in replies to other people trick. I almost did not see this. Nice try.
But again the point is that simply being human DNA is not that special and simply being unique is not either. The world is full of unique DNA. What is so special about that? Walk into a slaughter house and all the cows in there will likely have unique DNA. Why are you not protecting that?
Simply appealing to uniqueness and human DNA does nothing. Neither are all that special. One must appeal to something more than this when discussing "rights" and "morals" and I think you will find when you explicitly say what that something is... that it ends up being a something that simply is not present in a fetus at 20 weeks development. At all.
Ridiculous tosh. This is like saying that a pile of bricks, since that pile was always going to be made into a house, was therefore always a house, and we should not call bricks bricks therefore but houses. After all it is the same entity that always existed, it was just less developed wasn't it?
That is about as much sense as you are making here.... that is to say none.... by suggesting these things are equivalent. Again, if you are becoming X that means you are NOT X now. Simple as that.
First...this is an open forum...mentioning other posts in responses to other members who are also participating in the debate, and have mentioned those posts, is reasonable and normal.
It wasn't a "trick", or me "trying" anything.
But Nozz...you REALLY don't know why society demonstrates a greater interest in protecting the lives of "separate, distinct, and unique HUMAN BEINGS" over the separate, distinct, and unique life of cows and trees?!!
I mean, COM'OOOOOOON!...quit pretending to be so ignorant. Always putting forth some foolish remarks that you are clueless about why humans are special and rate "rights" over cows and trees.
Nobody but you isn't hip to why humans rate higher to other humans than cows and trees do...and if you can't figure out why...there isn't much I can tell ya.
Dig this: Humans kill and eat cows...humans kill and eat vegetation...and society doesn't typically see that as any kind of harm or foul. But in civilized society we don't ever kill and eat other humans!!
Now, maybe you can't figure out the basis in why we don't rate cows and trees with other humans, or grant them the same "rights"...but 99.9999999% of the rest of the people in the world do.
Just as the infant is as much of a human being as an adult (even though it has yet to develop teeth, all it's hair, and many other components/aspects of it's physical/mental makeup)...as soon as fertilization occurs, what is there is as much of a human being as it will EVER be (just less developed).
Look...I'm not just giving my "opinion" (like you, et al)...the most current experts in the fields of biology, embryology, genetics, etc...have concluded and determined that it is FULLY A HUMAN BEING FROM CONCEPTION. And I have shown scores of places where you can link to that information to educate yourself on the matter.
If you have some of your own science to dispute that information...please put it forth.
Oh, and BTW...in case you didn't know it...a pile of bricks doesn't intrinsically have it within them to grow/mature into a "fully developed house" simply by sustaining and maintaining them...like a human being does, from the moment he/she is conceived. That's why a pile of bricks isn't a house...but it IS a human being from conception.
BOTTOM LINE...It has been determined scientifically that an embryonic/fetal human being is fully a human being, and was from conception.
Any that contest this, need to show their supporting science to dispute/refute what we have currently. Anything else is "ridiculous tosh".
IMO......YOU are playing the label game. A zygote, embryo, fetus is OF the human SPECIES.....but is not yet a bonified human being......and it certainly has no business trumping the rights of a bonified human being....the woman.
Someone who needs OUTSIDE help to survive is not the same as something that needs to be physically attatched to a LIVING host to survive.
It can only live if its one and only host lives. The PEOPLE you are comparing it to can be kept alive by an unlimited amount of different, interchangable people or machines. There is a big difference between needing a host and needing a care giver.
Here is how it works...and it is the same for you, me, or anyone else:
"Opinions" on this only matter as opinions...they don't usurp the facts.
The most current experts in the fields of biology, embryology, genetics, etc...have concluded and determined that it is FULLY A HUMAN BEING FROM CONCEPTION.
I have shown scores of places where anyone can link to that information to educate themselves on the matter.
If any have their own science to dispute that information...they need to put it forth...and it's merit can be assessed.
If not...the current scientific determinations and conclusions stand by default.
IN SUMMATION...It has been determined scientifically that an embryonic/fetal human being is fully a human being, and was from conception.
"Opinions" and "dissenting reasonings" can be offered as such...but they cannot be accepted as factual over known current science.
Now, society can determine that it is acceptable for humans to kill other humans...we do that during war, when executing criminals, in defense of self or others, etc.
Pretending we aren't killing or subjugating "full" human beings, to assuage feelings of guilt over what is being done, has been common throughout human history. We've used race, gender, ethnicity, conceptual persuasion, and a host of other "reasonings" to determine a group to not be "fully a human being"--"Not fully developed and depending on a host" is just the most recent. It has also resulted in the most prolific slaughter...and IMO is demonstrative of the fact that mankinds inhumanity to his fellow man knows no bounds.
If there has ever been anything more intrinsically heinous and evil than a woman willfully killing her own offspring as it grows in her womb, I've yet to hear it.
If there has ever been anything more intrinsically heinous and evil than a woman willfully killing her own offspring as it grows in her womb, I've yet to hear it.
What about all those that kill them after they're born?
That's not a terribly rare thing, you know.
.
I must say: This new phenomenon of Mothers doing away with their children (in or out of the womb)...by the MILLIONS...is beyond anything I could have ever imagined in my worst nightmare.
I'm sure glad I got the Mother I did...they don't come better than her. Her worst fear was that any harm would come to her children...her life mission was to shield us from it, from the second she knew she was pregnant...never mind inflict harm upon us herself.
I must say: This new phenomenon of Mothers doing away with their children (in or out of the womb)...by the MILLIONS...is beyond anything I could have ever imagined in my worst nightmare.
I'm sure glad I got the Mother I did...they don't come better than her. Her worst fear was that any harm would come to her children...her life mission was to shield us from it, from the second she knew she was pregnant...never mind inflict harm upon us herself.
Oh for goodness, the hand wringing needs to stop. Humans have killed their offspring for millions of years, it's not a new thing at all. A safe abortion is far more humane and civilised than killing a live born that's for sure.
Go read some history, you're looking uneducated to say the least.
Oh for goodness, the hand wringing needs to stop. Humans have killed their offspring for millions of years, it's not a new thing at all. A safe abortion is far more humane and civilised than killing a live born that's for sure.
Go read some history, you're looking uneducated to say the least.
This is your second post about women killing their offspring as "typical behavior"...replete with an aire of "who cares?, no big deal! Hmmmmmmm.
They didn't give statistics...but pretty much said it was for survival reasons, or out of complete ignorance thinking they needed to do it to appease some God that people in the past did away with their children.
Those are not the reasons women in modern western cultures kill their .
I don't know how it compares to the past, but currently a third will do it.
I find that reprehensible...even if you don't.
Here is how it works...and it is the same for you, me, or anyone else:
"Opinions" on this only matter as opinions...they don't usurp the facts.
The most current experts in the fields of biology, embryology, genetics, etc...have concluded and determined that it is FULLY A HUMAN BEING FROM CONCEPTION.
I have shown scores of places where anyone can link to that information to educate themselves on the matter.
If any have their own science to dispute that information...they need to put it forth...and it's merit can be assessed.
If not...the current scientific determinations and conclusions stand by default.
IN SUMMATION...It has been determined scientifically that an embryonic/fetal human being is fully a human being, and was from conception.
"Opinions" and "dissenting reasonings" can be offered as such...but they cannot be accepted as factual over known current science.
Now, society can determine that it is acceptable for humans to kill other humans...we do that during war, when executing criminals, in defense of self or others, etc.
Pretending we aren't killing or subjugating "full" human beings, to assuage feelings of guilt over what is being done, has been common throughout human history. We've used race, gender, ethnicity, conceptual persuasion, and a host of other "reasonings" to determine a group to not be "fully a human being"--"Not fully developed and depending on a host" is just the most recent. It has also resulted in the most prolific slaughter...and IMO is demonstrative of the fact that mankinds inhumanity to his fellow man knows no bounds.
If there has ever been anything more intrinsically heinous and evil than a woman willfully killing her own offspring as it grows in her womb, I've yet to hear it.
You seem to think that for some reason the human species is "special"......it isn't.
The human species is nothing more than one of many species that have evolved on this earth.
A fetus is nothing more than an organism that has the potential to become a human being.....it certainly isn't some sacred entity as you would like to believe.
The woman who has to carry the fetus has rights.....a fetus doesn't. The woman is more important and her health and wishes trump those of a mere organism that is feeding off of her body.
If that organism is feeding off of her body against her will, she has every right to have it removed. The woman is a person, the fetus is an organism.....an organism that is at the mercy of its host.
A woman is more important than an organism the size of a peanut that cannot think and cannot feel.....that is not "guilt"....that is FACT.
Last edited by Annie53; 11-22-2011 at 12:57 PM..
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.
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.
