Respectful debate about abortion, anyone? (independence, alternatives, obsession, New York)
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.
I think that's not true at all. A "being" implies self-awareness, which does not exist in a clump of cells.
Can you share some evidence to support your assertion that you “think that’s not true at all”.
This is the definition:
“ a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”
Can you also share your evidence that the fetus is just a “clump of cells” up until birth?
Can you share some evidence to support your assertion that you “think that’s not true at all”.
This is the definition:
“ a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”
Can you also share your evidence that the fetus is just a “clump of cells” up until birth?
You didn’t like this description when I gave it to you in another thread a week or so past. This description doesn’t mention a fetus or being in utero.
A secondary question is does the being in utero, life take precedence over the woman who is neutering it.
Can you share some evidence to support your assertion that you “think that’s not true at all”.
This is the definition:
“ a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”
Can you also share your evidence that the fetus is just a “clump of cells” up until birth?
I mean, what you just said. Superior mental development, power of articulate speech, upright stance. When something has those things, I'd say, it's a human being.
As far as conception, my understanding is that a sperm cell fuses with an egg cell, and that produces a zygote cell. And then once it becomes multicellular, I believe that's when it's no longer called a zygote. But for a while there even after that point, it's very much still, just a few cells.
That's not a human being. If that's a human being, then so is a piece of tree bark.
You didn’t like this description when I gave it to you in another thread a week or so past. This description doesn’t mention a fetus or being in utero.
A secondary question is does the being in utero, life take precedence over the woman who is neutering it.
The definition simply defines a human, a home sapien. That’s what we are from the moment of conception and on.
I believe in compromise when it comes to abortion. Both lives matter. I believe I’ve stated my case several times so won’t repeat myself.
I mean, what you just said. Superior mental development, power of articulate speech, upright stance. When something has those things, I'd say, it's a human being.
As far as conception, my understanding is that a sperm cell fuses with an egg cell, and that produces a zygote cell. And then once it becomes multicellular, I believe that's when it's no longer called a zygote. But for a while there even after that point, it's very much still, just a few cells.
That's not a human being. If that's a human being, then so is a piece of tree bark.
At what age would your interpretation of the definition make one a human being? I’m very curious because by your definition babies and toddlers are not human beings and probably a lot of kids aren’t either, neither are many teenagers. I can think of adults who wouldn’t qualify as human beings under your interpretation of the definition of the term.
Almost double the amount of people are ok with abortion in the zygote phase than they are in the second trimester.
A piece of tree bark does not continue developing into anything. It’s not alive and it’s not a homo sapien which is a human being. A fetus is.
At what age would your interpretation of the definition make one a human being? I’m very curious because by your definition babies and toddlers are not human beings and probably a lot of kids aren’t either, neither are many teenagers.
Almost double the amount of people are ok with abortion in the zygote phase than they are n the second trimester.
A piece of tree bark does not continue developing into anything. It’s not alive and it’s not a homo sapien which is a human being. A fetus is.
There are living cells in the inside part of a tree's bark. And so is a zygote, it's, a living cell. One living cell is no more of a person than another living cell. They're, cells. You need a whole brain to host a person.
Yes, the human zygote might (if it survives), at some point in time later, as it continues to gradually develop, what it will eventually become, once born, will develop into a human being just like you and me are, and these are our bodies/brains/nervous systems.
But again, we're back to the point of, potential of x does not equal x. People like to rest the protection of a fetus based on what it might, or would become if it was not aborted. But that in itself admits that it's not those things.
I'll grant you that some of the terms we're discussing are confusing. I think I basically use "human being" and "person" mostly interchangeably. And for a zygote or a fetus, I would say that's a human zygote or a human fetus. The term "human" in this case, is to differentiate it from other classified species of life.
I think the "being" part of "human being" is less about physical biology, and more about what it is that makes us people. Like, what's your favorite color? You ask a human being, a question like that.
And I have no idea what age a developing human becomes a human being, because I don't think that's a thing. It probably varies, and is probably to some degree totally subjective. It's clearly a gradual process.
Again, I think we say, if it's of the age that it has been born, as far the legality/practicality of when a life begins, draw the cutoff point there.
And at 24 weeks, or viability, while still in the womb, as a compromise, you could say it's developed enough at that point that it has a very minimal right to life, as in an abortion is only appropriate for a health or justified reason.
And I have no idea what age a developing human becomes a human being, because I don't think that's a thing. It probably varies, and is probably to some degree totally subjective. It's clearly a gradual process.
Again, I think we say, if it's of the age that it has been born, as far the legality/practicality of when a life begins, draw the cutoff point there.
And at 24 weeks, or viability, while still in the womb, as a compromise, you could say it's developed enough at that point that it has a very minimal right to life, as in an abortion is only appropriate for a health or justified reason.
By your interpretation of the definition of human being, at what age do we become human beings? This would clearly occur after birth since babies don’t stand up right and toddlers don’t have articulate speech and most kids don’t have superior mental development.
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.
