Pages: 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 33

Topic closed

2011-04-09 16:08:47
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

a fetus cannot be issued a birth certificate. a stillborn cannot be issued a 'live birth' certificate. a still born baby cannot have a legal name, because legally it was never "alive".

take your philosophy elsewhere, because until it breathes, it is not an entity. until it breathes, it is only potential, and that's why it's called the breath of life.

if it cannot survive independent of it's mother, it is still part of it's mother.

/thread.
2011-04-09 16:33:00
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5383|Cleveland, Ohio
well we should change the courts that judge someone different who beats a pregnant woman versus a non pregnant woman.
2011-04-09 16:42:43
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6591|The Land of Scott Walker

burnzz wrote:

if it cannot survive independent of it's mother, it is still part of it's mother.

/thread.
Biology class says otherwise.  The baby has a unique genetic code, hence, not a part of his/her mother.
2011-04-09 16:49:25
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

Stingray24 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

if it cannot survive independent of it's mother, it is still part of it's mother.

/thread.
Biology class says otherwise.  The baby has a unique genetic code, hence, not a part of his/her mother.
biology? if it can't sustain life on it's own, you are going to argue that it's living? son, you are arguing semantics + biology - a genetic code dooooooes not a person make. there are plenty of members on this forum that still live at home with their moms, but that doesn't mean they need them biologically.
2011-04-09 17:46:03
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6918|PNW

The abortion issue is all about biology, semantics and ethics. I doubt an infant can live on its own for very long, either, so a lack of self-sufficiency is hardly a very good argument in abortion's favor.
2011-04-09 17:49:00
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The abortion issue is all about biology, semantics and ethics. I doubt an infant can live on its own for very long, either, so a lack of self-sufficiency is hardly a very good argument in abortion's favor.
an infant can be cared for by another, same as a premie. a fetus is wholly dependent on it's mother, biologically.


your argument fails. kthnks . . .
2011-04-09 17:50:56
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5848|College Park, MD

11 Bravo wrote:

well we should change the courts that judge someone different who beats a pregnant woman versus a non pregnant woman.
y'know, after the Ft Hood shooting, they usually did not include the pregnant soldier's fetus in the death toll
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-04-09 18:10:42
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6591|The Land of Scott Walker
Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
2011-04-09 18:14:19
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6918|PNW

burnzz wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The abortion issue is all about biology, semantics and ethics. I doubt an infant can live on its own for very long, either, so a lack of self-sufficiency is hardly a very good argument in abortion's favor.
an infant can be cared for by another, same as a premie. a fetus is wholly dependent on it's mother, biologically.


your argument fails. kthnks . . .
No, not really. An infant isn't going to feed itself. Even if someone else takes care of the kid once he's out, he's still entirely dependent on being cared for. If dependence is the issue, is it thus reasonable to terminate the lives of any dependent if they're unwanted?

e:

burnzz wrote:

if it cannot survive independent of it's mother, it is still part of it's mother.
I might also add, at the risk of derailing the thread, that suicide is illegal.
2011-04-09 18:18:06
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

Stingray24 wrote:

Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
nope. they may need a caregiver to provide food, but said food isn't delivered via an umbilical cord, wholly inside of another person's body.

do not speak for me, i'm capable of making my point - "according to my standard" a person is 'a person' when it's not biologically dependent on another being to sustain life, can breathe on it's own, and another person can begin caring for it, if it's still in infancy.

a mother and fetus share sustenance in the womb, no other person can provide for a fetus at that stage of development. your argument fails, trying to say that a toddler = fetus.

thanks for playing.
2011-04-09 18:28:03
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6918|PNW

In other news...

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-righ … -feticide/
2011-04-09 19:46:17
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6921|Noizyland

lowing wrote:

no I would not say a blood cell is human life. I will say a fetus is human life? Why? Because every human life has a beginning. I say that beginning starts at the exact second of conception . A SPECIFIC exact point in the development of a human.


You say it is not. Fine. When EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY do you go from a blob to human life. I want to know the exact moment.

I want to know when one day you are a blob, and 30 seconds later you are a human life. When EXACTLY might that be?
I would say life starts when signs of life start, i.e. heartbeat, brain waves, central nervous system, that sort of thing. This generally occurs betwen weeks 9 and 16. Even at that point "life" as such is minimal and I still wouldn't consider it a human life. It is still in no way independent life.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-04-09 19:49:53
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

dammit Ty - from weeks 9/16, a fetus is still connected to it's mother. i've always seen you as a rationale person, myth busted.
2011-04-09 19:51:16
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6921|Noizyland

Burnzz I was answering when life begins, not necessarily when something becomes human. We're still on the same page buddy, don't worry.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-04-09 21:38:13
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5630|Bolingbrook, Illinois

burnzz wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
nope. they may need a caregiver to provide food, but said food isn't delivered via an umbilical cord, wholly inside of another person's body.

do not speak for me, i'm capable of making my point - "according to my standard" a person is 'a person' when it's not biologically dependent on another being to sustain life, can breathe on it's own, and another person can begin caring for it, if it's still in infancy.

a mother and fetus share sustenance in the womb, no other person can provide for a fetus at that stage of development. your argument fails, trying to say that a toddler = fetus.

thanks for playing.
what happens when science advances so far that fetuses can grow outside of the womb?
2011-04-09 21:50:46
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6591|The Land of Scott Walker

burnzz wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
nope. they may need a caregiver to provide food, but said food isn't delivered via an umbilical cord, wholly inside of another person's body.

do not speak for me, i'm capable of making my point - "according to my standard" a person is 'a person' when it's not biologically dependent on another being to sustain life, can breathe on it's own, and another person can begin caring for it, if it's still in infancy.

a mother and fetus share sustenance in the womb, no other person can provide for a fetus at that stage of development. your argument fails, trying to say that a toddler = fetus.

thanks for playing.
Simply carrying your stance to its logical conclusion.
2011-04-10 00:42:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6797|USA

burnzz wrote:

a fetus cannot be issued a birth certificate. a stillborn cannot be issued a 'live birth' certificate. a still born baby cannot have a legal name, because legally it was never "alive".

take your philosophy elsewhere, because until it breathes, it is not an entity. until it breathes, it is only potential, and that's why it's called the breath of life.

if it cannot survive independent of it's mother, it is still part of it's mother.

/thread.
well. A fetus can not be issued a BIRTH certificate because it isn't BORN yet

A still born cannot be issued a LIVE birth certificate because it isn't ALIVE. ( does not mean it never was however)

and a stillborn baby CAN have a legal name and issued a certificate of still birth.  and it is flat wrong to say " it never legally was alive". the law disagrees with you, and more importantly, so does biology.

So, much for that. Burnzz, that rationale ranks up there with comparing a fetus to iron ore, maggots and toe nails.
2011-04-10 00:51:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6797|USA

Ty wrote:

Burnzz I was answering when life begins, not necessarily when something becomes human. We're still on the same page buddy, don't worry.
I specifically asked when a blob is considered a HUMAN life. Burnzz, I take it in your eyes, by your definiton, a human life only exists 1 second after birth. If that is so, how do you rate premature babies? When does a premature baby become human to you? Certainly the difference between being human and a blob is not the passage through a hole?....... Is it?

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-10 01:04:40)

2011-04-10 00:55:43
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6975
I was a blob born 6 weeks early with almost no immune system. On top of that, I was almost aborted but my mom ended up becoming a born again christian.
2011-04-10 01:03:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6797|USA

CC-Marley wrote:

I was a blob born 6 weeks early with almost no immune system. On top of that, I was almost aborted but my mom ended up becoming a born again christian.
Well you do know according to some, you were not "alive", nor were you human. Apparently, you were born no more significant and as disposable, as a toe nail. I wonder when this board would have considered you a human being?
2011-04-10 03:41:08
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6827|Disaster Free Zone

HaiBai wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
nope. they may need a caregiver to provide food, but said food isn't delivered via an umbilical cord, wholly inside of another person's body.

do not speak for me, i'm capable of making my point - "according to my standard" a person is 'a person' when it's not biologically dependent on another being to sustain life, can breathe on it's own, and another person can begin caring for it, if it's still in infancy.

a mother and fetus share sustenance in the womb, no other person can provide for a fetus at that stage of development. your argument fails, trying to say that a toddler = fetus.

thanks for playing.
what happens when science advances so far that fetuses can grow outside of the womb?
Then they can have an abortion and a test tube can look after them for the next 6-9 months.

Also lowing, when does someone become an adult? What second in someones life do they go from child to adult?
2011-04-10 06:53:25
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6643

lowing wrote:

I specifically asked when a blob is considered a HUMAN life.
Burnzz, I take it in your eyes, by your definiton, a human life only exists 1 second after birth.
If that is so, how do you rate premature babies?
When does a premature baby become human to you?
Certainly the difference between being human and a blob is not the passage through a hole?....... Is it?
okay, you "win" because you keep asking the last question, never allow one of your questions to be answered, and never read any other responses.

i get it, it really doesn't matter what i type. i've answered these questions already, and i see how much you value a response.

Good day, sir.
2011-04-10 15:45:49
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6769|Little Bentcock

HaiBai wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Two separate points.  I was focusing on the first in my response to you.

1. Unique human DNA does a person make. 

2. Yes, a person is still living even if they depend on another to sustain their life.  Example, children require the constant care of their mothers to sustain their life for quite some time.  According to your standard, they are not yet a person even after birth.
nope. they may need a caregiver to provide food, but said food isn't delivered via an umbilical cord, wholly inside of another person's body.

do not speak for me, i'm capable of making my point - "according to my standard" a person is 'a person' when it's not biologically dependent on another being to sustain life, can breathe on it's own, and another person can begin caring for it, if it's still in infancy.

a mother and fetus share sustenance in the womb, no other person can provide for a fetus at that stage of development. your argument fails, trying to say that a toddler = fetus.

thanks for playing.
what happens when science advances so far that fetuses can grow outside of the womb?
Your church tells everyone how evil it is and you go around carrying posters and placards protesting this advancement in science.
2011-04-10 15:50:32
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5630|Bolingbrook, Illinois
source
2011-04-10 15:54:21
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5732

In fairness to HaiBai, He's Catholic. in the U.S. the Catholics aren't the crazy ones. It's mostly the southern Protestants like Shifty who debate evolution and want to stifle technological progress though, the Catholics still have a bunch of hangups about sex.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 33

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard