FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (Commandments, pray)
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.
First...we are all "organisms". You, me, a fetus, a pregnant woman, everybody. But ALL of those are Human Beings.
Your assessment of a fetus as "nothing more than an organism that has the potential to become a human being"...flies in the face of current science that has determined and concluded there exists a fully separate and distinct human being from conception on.
That you "say" it isn't...doesn't change the scientific fact that it is.
And unless you have some of your own evidence that shows the current understanding of embryology, biology, and genetics to be wrong...your statement is relegated to "erroneous opinion".
I don't think a fetal human being is any more "sacred" than any other human being. I think they are the same.
They should be granted the same rights and protections under the law as any other human being in the society.
And that would necessarily proscribe the mother and some doctor conspiring to kill her/him.
While you argue eloquently and with some appeal to science (fertilization through to birth is the same organic entity, no doubt), we can't altogether buy your reasoning because it tends to exclude anything that doesn't fit in.
You last remark rather gives us the case.
"the mother and some doctor conspiring to kill her/him."
Can you scientifically right from the start tell whether it's a him or a her? If not, why not call it 'It'. If it's an It, it ain't a human being.
While you argue eloquently and with some appeal to science (fertilization through to birth is the same organic entity, no doubt), we can't altogether buy your reasoning because it tends to exclude anything that doesn't fit in.
You last remark rather gives us the case.
"the mother and some doctor conspiring to kill her/him."
Can you scientifically right from the start tell whether it's a him or a her? If not, why not call it 'It'. If it's an It, it ain't a human being.
Scientifically...it's a human being anyway.
Some people end up with both male and female "parts", and they are both male and female at the same time...you could probably refer to them as an "it"...but they are STILL a human being.
And really AREQUIPA, I see it as one of those "given" kind of things...because, what else could it be other than a human being?
The ONLY reason there is a case to try to say it's not, or that it's "just a potential human being"...is so it can be denied rights and protection, and killed with impunity.
It's all a matter of intention.
A woman who intends to have her child, but gets into an accident that causes her to miscarry...says, "her baby was killed by the accident".
The woman who aborts doesn't typically say she "went to the clinic and killed her baby".
Don't be surprised if in the near future, in the U.S. anyway...you see, based on the current science, the compulsion of a legal ruling that it is designated a human being from conception...and then follow that up with the mother being legally mandated to be responsible for providing the full care and protection (no abortion, or even smoking or boozing) as the law would require she provide for any child in her care and control.
MOF, I think one or two of the States have already legally adopted the "human being from conception" designation.
I see it as just a matter of time.
Don't be surprised if in the near future, in the U.S. anyway...you see, based on the current science, the compulsion of a legal ruling that it is designated a human being from conception...and then follow that up with the mother being legally mandated to be responsible for providing the full care and protection (no abortion, or even smoking or boozing) as the law would require she provide for any child in her care and control.
MOF, I think one or two of the States have already legally adopted the "human being from conception" designation.
I see it as just a matter of time.
How about we make male masturbation illegal as that kills a potential child. After all the sperm is *half* a human being.
Some people end up with both male and female "parts", and they are both male and female at the same time...you could probably refer to them as an "it"...but they are STILL a human being.
And really AREQUIPA, I see it as one of those "given" kind of things...
Of course you do. It's always so easy to just go with the kneejerk reaction and never mind that that it ends up abrogating a person's rights in favour of the supposed rights of a half dozen embryo cells.
Quote:
because, what else could it be other than a human being?
The ONLY reason there is a case to try to say it's not, or that it's "just a potential human being"...is so it can be denied rights and protection, and killed with impunity.
It's all a matter of intention.
A woman who intends to have her child, but gets into an accident that causes her to miscarry...says, "her baby was killed by the accident".
The woman who aborts doesn't typically say she "went to the clinic and killed her baby".
Don't be surprised if in the near future, in the U.S. anyway...you see, based on the current science, the compulsion of a legal ruling that it is designated a human being from conception...and then follow that up with the mother being legally mandated to be responsible for providing the full care and protection (no abortion, or even smoking or boozing) as the law would require she provide for any child in her care and control.
MOF, I think one or two of the States have already legally adopted the "human being from conception" designation.
I see it as just a matter of time.
Save the carefully constructed scenarios designed to suit your case and the slippery slope scaremongering. What I hope is that prevention is the preferred option rather than denial.
This can go on for ever. I know that you can argue the same thing at incredible length. What is clear is that the case is not clear cut, done and dusted and while there is something to be said on your side, there is something to be said on the other and that you ignore, dismiss and try to discredit.
The people will have to decide. If as you claim, science and 'given' conclusions support you, you shouldn't have a problem everyone voting your way.
Are you going to give them a name and a birth certificate on the day of conception?
Are you going to deduct them on your income taxes from the day of conception?
Are you going to make the father pay child support from the day of conception?
Are you going to pay extra for your health insurance for that new dependent from the day of conception?
Are we going to count them as people on the census from the day of conception?
If you live in a "no children" allowed apartment.....should you be evicted or charged extra rent from the day of conception?
If you see a movie or get on a plane or go on a cruise.....should you have to pay for another person?
Are we going to require death certificates and formal burials for miscarriages?
Are we going to take mothers who miscarry into court to prove they didn't do something to cause a miscarraige? Are we going to charge them with child neglect or voluntary manslaughter if they are found guilty?
Good grief!
You can't bestow "personhood" onto something that is NOT a person!
Bet that you'll see a lot of changes in the future Annie.
Why would you give a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" to a human being that hasn't been born yet? You will see the estimated conception date on medical records though.
You can only deduct "dependents" (as per the current tax code) on your income tax...not just human beings. The code may change in the future.
Fathers are typically responsible for costs...which for the preborn human being is prenatal care and the like.
To get insurance coverage you typically need to get a "maternity rider" to your policy, usually before pregnancy. That will cost extra. It will pay for prenatal costs.
The census only counts human beings that have been born...not the ones that are developing in the womb. Those are census rules.
Housing laws are such that children that are still developing in the womb are not a breech of the rules for "no children" as they have no ability at that point to be detrimental to the premises or disturb other tenants. That's a housing law issue.
The child can't see the movie from the womb...so won't be charged. On cruises and planes and such, you are charged by the "seat"...the child developing in the womb doesn't need a seat.
Don't be surprised if you see death certificates or burials for miscarriages if they are designated to be human beings by law.
Don't be surprised what sanctions could be applied for what may be determined to be neglect. Years ago the was no penalty for not having a baby in a car seat (I never had one)...but now it's considered neglect and is punishable by law. If the preborn are legally designated human beings there could be a whole plethora of laws that are levied.
I think you are going to be very surprised with what is going to come out of the new scientific discoveries in the field of genetics and embryology that have now determined and concluded that conception creates a new, separate, and distinct human being.
Sort of like the new laws that have been enacted since the new scientific findings of the danger of "second hand smoke".
As science figures out new things...laws change accordingly.
The day when an unborn fetus has more rights than the Mother is the day women have truly lost the cause. We are more than an incubation chamber. Women should never have to suffer the degradation of being a mere womb for an unwanted embryo or fetus purely because some sanctimonious group decided that is her only worth.
How about we make male masturbation illegal as that kills a potential child. After all the sperm is *half* a human being.
Current science has determined and concluded that a new, separate, and distinct human being is created at conception...sperm (or an egg) alone is inconsequential until they come together and fertilization occurs.
Not that you didn't already know this.
I know those that seek to snuff offspring developing in the womb are upset with current scientific findings, as it will probably result in a change of the laws.
Kinda like how smokers protest the new "no smoking" laws enacted since the new scientific findings about the danger of second-hand smoke.
They know that they are killing themselves and others...but given the "choice", they would subject others to the poisonous smoke anyway, even after knowing the danger it is to them.
Because, people want to do what they want to do...and they typically don't care what or who it harms as long as they are getting their way and doing what they want to do.
And they will try to twist and spin it any way they can to achieve those wants.
I think it's irrelevent whether you consider a fetus a baby, a person, what have you. Nothing gets to live inside me without my consent. I don't care if I'm carrying a baby or a dang 6-year-old, I reserve the right to remove you from inside me in a timely manner.
Current science has determined and concluded that a new, separate, and distinct human being is created at conception...sperm (or an egg) alone is inconsequential until they come together and fertilization occurs.
Not that you didn't already know this.
I know those that seek to snuff offspring developing in the womb are upset with current scientific findings, as it will probably result in a change of the laws.
Kinda like how smokers protest the new "no smoking" laws enacted since the new scientific findings about the danger of second-hand smoke.
They know that they are killing themselves and others...but given the "choice", they would subject others to the poisonous smoke anyway, even after knowing the danger it is to them.
Because, people want to do what they want to do...and they typically don't care what or who it harms as long as they are getting their way and doing what they want to do.
And they will try to twist and spin it any way they can to achieve those wants.
Well that's just not true. Or at least it's debatable. An embryo certainly has the same DNA as a human, but then so do the cells in my appendix and no one seems to object to letting that little being die. But is it really life if it can live as a part of another organism? I'd argue that at that level of development, it's no more alive than an organ (and this is how the medical community views it as well. I don't recall the exact cutoff, but before a certain point of development the zygote isn't seen as a separate person).
So at the point of conception, I'd have to say no, it's not a separate person. You could pose the argument later in fetal development, but as I previously posited, personhood is irrelevent.
Of course you do. It's always so easy to just go with the kneejerk reaction and never mind that that it ends up abrogating a person's rights in favour of the supposed rights of a half dozen embryo cells.
Save the carefully constructed scenarios designed to suit your case and the slippery slope scaremongering. What I hope is that prevention is the preferred option rather than denial.
This can go on for ever. I know that you can argue the same thing at incredible length. What is clear is that the case is not clear cut, done and dusted and while there is something to be said on your side, there is something to be said on the other and that you ignore, dismiss and try to discredit.
The people will have to decide. If as you claim, science and 'given' conclusions support you, you shouldn't have a problem everyone voting your way.
Not true...about the "voting your way".
People typically vote so as to get what they want...and I believe most (in the U.S. anyway) want abortion to be legal.
It's going to take the bringing in of the science...forcing a ruling made based on what now appears to be the fundamental and irreducible findings of the scientific community...and then moving forward from there to a mandate of rights and protections.
Many laws are "forced" into passage...that had they been left to the whims and caprice of voting public would never "pass muster".
Like the "no smoking" laws I mentioned in previous posts.
Also..you are right about my being able to argue at length.
I have a decided advantage over most.
I am at my computer, conducting business, with "lag time" in between what I'm doing. So I'm losing no "personal time" where I could be doing something else...and I'm making money. Not everyone has it like that.
But...GET READY TO CHEER...I will lay off for now...at least on this thread.
Happy Thanksgiving to All!!
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.
