Sighhhhhhhh never said that. You are trying to claim through my argument that killing is murder in all cases, and that just isn't so.DrunkFace wrote:
Ok, so foetus's are enemy combatants. Gotya.lowing wrote:
Oh God, more "what ifs".DrunkFace wrote:
It is if that person was an innocent civilian. Which one would assume a "baby" which has done nothing wrong would be.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-07 23:45:36)
A foetus is as much a baby as some iron ore, limestone and carbon in a furnace is steel.lowing wrote:
don't recall shouting at anyone.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
lowing, your argument is that abortion is ending human life.
Their argument is that a foetus is not human life.
See how the debate will go no further than just shouting at each other?
and they are not showing a fetus is not human life, they are trying to disqualify it as life through a truck load of irrational thought. None of which supports the idea that what is growing inside a woman during pregnancy is not human life.
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2011-04-08 00:01:05)
and by comparing a fetus to iron ore is another example of detaching yourself from the morality of what it is to abort a pregnancy. It is terminating human life.Adams_BJ wrote:
A foetus is as much a baby as some iron ore, limestone and carbon in a furnace is steel.lowing wrote:
don't recall shouting at anyone.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
lowing, your argument is that abortion is ending human life.
Their argument is that a foetus is not human life.
See how the debate will go no further than just shouting at each other?
and they are not showing a fetus is not human life, they are trying to disqualify it as life through a truck load of irrational thought. None of which supports the idea that what is growing inside a woman during pregnancy is not human life.
It is some cells, attached to a woman's uteres. it's not alive. It will become alive if the process continues, sure.
same as those ingredients in a furnace is not steel. It will become steel if the process continues, but if the factory suddenly closes, its just some gunk mixed together.
e: wrong word
except in fetal stages of human life. According to the law.DrunkFace wrote:
Premeditated killing of an innocent, is murder in all cases.
Only because the law does not recognise a foetus as human life.lowing wrote:
except in fetal stages of human life. According to the law.DrunkFace wrote:
Premeditated killing of an innocent, is murder in all cases.
You can't say im detaching myself from morality when you can't seem to detach yourself away from spirituality/cosmology/xenology/anything else you want to call it.lowing wrote:
and by comparing a fetus to iron ore is another example of detaching yourself from the morality of what it is to abort a pregnancy. It is terminating human life.Adams_BJ wrote:
A foetus is as much a baby as some iron ore, limestone and carbon in a furnace is steel.lowing wrote:
don't recall shouting at anyone.
and they are not showing a fetus is not human life, they are trying to disqualify it as life through a truck load of irrational thought. None of which supports the idea that what is growing inside a woman during pregnancy is not human life.
It is some cells, attached to a woman's uteres. it's not alive. It will become alive if the process continues, sure.
same as those ingredients in a furnace is not steel. It will become steel if the process continues, but if the factory suddenly closes, its just some gunk mixed together.
e: wrong word
you can call it a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a kid a teenager, a young adult, middle aged, geriatric. whatever stage of human life it is in, it is still human life. When you terminate a pregnancy you are terminating human life in the fetal stage. It really is that simple.
Save the morality of it all for another discussion, lets first agree on this.
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2011-04-08 00:16:24)
oops.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeticideDrunkFace wrote:
Only because the law does not recognise a foetus as human life.lowing wrote:
except in fetal stages of human life. According to the law.DrunkFace wrote:
Premeditated killing of an innocent, is murder in all cases.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-08 00:21:11)
lol I can absolutely detach myself from anything regarding religious reasoning in this. I am not religious at all. My argument is biological. and yes it is alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
You can't say im detaching myself from morality when you can't seem to detach yourself away from spirituality/cosmology/xenology/anything else you want to call it.lowing wrote:
and by comparing a fetus to iron ore is another example of detaching yourself from the morality of what it is to abort a pregnancy. It is terminating human life.Adams_BJ wrote:
A foetus is as much a baby as some iron ore, limestone and carbon in a furnace is steel.
It is some cells, attached to a woman's uteres. it's not alive. It will become alive if the process continues, sure.
same as those ingredients in a furnace is not steel. It will become steel if the process continues, but if the factory suddenly closes, its just some gunk mixed together.
e: wrong word
you can call it a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a kid a teenager, a young adult, middle aged, geriatric. whatever stage of human life it is in, it is still human life. When you terminate a pregnancy you are terminating human life in the fetal stage. It really is that simple.
Save the morality of it all for another discussion, lets first agree on this.
It isn't alive. It's that simple. It just isn't. Not yet, it will be should the pregnancy continue, but it just isn't now. Once its organs have formed it is alive. While it is just a ball of cells, there is nothing alive about it apart from some cells behaving how cells behave according to their DNA.
The same as which sperm and eggs are alive, same as hair is alive, same as blood cells are alive, same as toenails are alive.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-08 00:27:28)
It is not alive in a human sense, though. It just has the potential to be. You have to seperate the potential, from the actual. As I said before, it is just some cells duplicating because that's what its DNA told it to do. Up until its organs have begun to develop (some would argue only after they fully develop, but personally that's cutting it fine) it won't be defined as alive, by any standard apart for spiritually.lowing wrote:
lol I can absolutely detach myself from anything regarding religious reasoning in this. I am not religious at all. My argument is biological. and yes it is alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
You can't say im detaching myself from morality when you can't seem to detach yourself away from spirituality/cosmology/xenology/anything else you want to call it.lowing wrote:
and by comparing a fetus to iron ore is another example of detaching yourself from the morality of what it is to abort a pregnancy. It is terminating human life.
you can call it a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a kid a teenager, a young adult, middle aged, geriatric. whatever stage of human life it is in, it is still human life. When you terminate a pregnancy you are terminating human life in the fetal stage. It really is that simple.
Save the morality of it all for another discussion, lets first agree on this.
It isn't alive. It's that simple. It just isn't. Not yet, it will be should the pregnancy continue, but it just isn't now. Once its organs have formed it is alive. While it is just a ball of cells, there is nothing alive about it apart from some cells behaving how cells behave according to their DNA.
The same as which sperm and eggs are alive, same as hair is alive, same as blood cells are alive, same as toenails are alive.
I edited, please read.Adams_BJ wrote:
It is not alive in a human sense, though. It just has the potential to be. You have to seperate the potential, from the actual. As I said before, it is just some cells duplicating because that's what its DNA told it to do. Up until its organs have begun to develop (some would argue only after they fully develop, but personally that's cutting it fine) it won't be defined as alive, by any standard apart for spiritually.lowing wrote:
lol I can absolutely detach myself from anything regarding religious reasoning in this. I am not religious at all. My argument is biological. and yes it is alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
You can't say im detaching myself from morality when you can't seem to detach yourself away from spirituality/cosmology/xenology/anything else you want to call it.
It isn't alive. It's that simple. It just isn't. Not yet, it will be should the pregnancy continue, but it just isn't now. Once its organs have formed it is alive. While it is just a ball of cells, there is nothing alive about it apart from some cells behaving how cells behave according to their DNA.
The same as which sperm and eggs are alive, same as hair is alive, same as blood cells are alive, same as toenails are alive.
35 states. that is only 15 states short from the entire nation. It is also the majority. not being unanimous is not an argument.DrunkFace wrote:
Hmmm, 25 states. Hardly unanimous.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-08 00:33:05)
And the rest of the world? No where in Australia is it homicide until near birth stage. In the UK the foetus must be 24 weeks and I suspect it's similar in most other countries. You know to fall in line with when legal abortions can take place.lowing wrote:
35 states. that is only 15 states short from the entire nation. It is also the majority. not being unanimous is not an argument.DrunkFace wrote:
Hmmm, 25 states. Hardly unanimous.
abortions in the UK were illegal for obvious reasons prior to 1967. So, what changed, biology or morality? My argument is regarding biology, yours is morality based.DrunkFace wrote:
And the rest of the world? No where in Australia is it homicide until near birth stage. In the UK the foetus must be 24 weeks and I suspect it's similar in most other countries. You know to fall in line with when legal abortions can take place.lowing wrote:
35 states. that is only 15 states short from the entire nation. It is also the majority. not being unanimous is not an argument.DrunkFace wrote:
Hmmm, 25 states. Hardly unanimous.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-08 02:22:10)
except, if it were the same as cancer or a kidney, there would be no reason to try and argue that it is the same as cancer or a kidney.Ty wrote:
A foetus at its earliest stages, i.e. the stage they are generally aborted, is a cluster of cells that keeps multiplying and multiplying. It doesn't have a heartbeat, it doesn't have a brain and it doesn't have a central nervous system. It is not a sentient being. To say it is alive is to say cancer is alive. You can't argue that a foetus at this stage is a life; it is still just a potential life. It is not alive unless you are arguing that the cells themselves are alive in which case you must still conceed that the foetus itself is no more alive than your left kidney.
No sir, I have never said an opinion is invalid. Please don't misunderstand me on that.Ty wrote:
Lowing are you seriously saying that my opinion is invalid because I have to argue it? The same could be said to any opinion ever so I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Argument should be the basis of opinion in that you should always qualify your opinions with an argument.
And sure it is a biological fact. A foetus is in its beginning stages nothing but a cluster of cells, it has not yet formed a working brain or heart or lungs of nervous system. I suppose it differs from a Kidney in that it doesn't serve a function outside its own existance.
it is not 'basic biology'. scientists still have a tough time defining life because the definition of life is constantly changing. a few years ago we would not have considered prokaryotes alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
Once it has formed organs that work it is alive. Before then its a growth on a woman's uterus. The only way you can say it is alive is on a spiritual basis. It has NO life in it. Nothing. End of story. To keep arguing that it is, is unrealistic and unreasonable. The argument comes to down to moral reasons. We aren't coming up with excuses to justify abortion in its early stages, we are coming up with facts. Just facts. It's basic biology.
because ball of cells =/= alive.HaiBai wrote:
it is not 'basic biology'. scientists still have a tough time defining life because the definition of life is constantly changing. a few years ago we would not have considered prokaryotes alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
Once it has formed organs that work it is alive. Before then its a growth on a woman's uterus. The only way you can say it is alive is on a spiritual basis. It has NO life in it. Nothing. End of story. To keep arguing that it is, is unrealistic and unreasonable. The argument comes to down to moral reasons. We aren't coming up with excuses to justify abortion in its early stages, we are coming up with facts. Just facts. It's basic biology.
how do you know there won't be another scientific breakthrough that proves that a fetus is alive?
we're all balls of cells. that doesn't mean anythingAdams_BJ wrote:
because ball of cells =/= alive.HaiBai wrote:
it is not 'basic biology'. scientists still have a tough time defining life because the definition of life is constantly changing. a few years ago we would not have considered prokaryotes alive.Adams_BJ wrote:
Once it has formed organs that work it is alive. Before then its a growth on a woman's uterus. The only way you can say it is alive is on a spiritual basis. It has NO life in it. Nothing. End of story. To keep arguing that it is, is unrealistic and unreasonable. The argument comes to down to moral reasons. We aren't coming up with excuses to justify abortion in its early stages, we are coming up with facts. Just facts. It's basic biology.
how do you know there won't be another scientific breakthrough that proves that a fetus is alive?
by any definition.
Its a growth
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.Adams_BJ wrote:
The reason those comparisons are brought up is because you need comparisons to see where we are going. A ball of cells is not alive, at this early stage it really ISNT any different to a cell anywhere else in the body. Would you say a blood sell is human life? The only difference is the DNA inside it telling it what to do. One cell has been told to become a blood cell, so it becomes a blood cell, another gets told to multiply and form part of a baby. You can't honestly say that it is alive. It meets no criteria for being alive. You aren't seperating potential from actual.
Once it has formed organs that work it is alive. Before then its a growth on a woman's uterus. The only way you can say it is alive is on a spiritual basis. It has NO life in it. Nothing. End of story. To keep arguing that it is, is unrealistic and unreasonable. The argument comes to down to moral reasons. We aren't coming up with excuses to justify abortion in its early stages, we are coming up with facts. Just facts. It's basic biology.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-09 16:18:34)