The Abortion Thread (now with nifty rules!)

[Tipsy]

It was the same thing he has been saying all along. Just in one big post made by a professor @ some university nobody has heard of.

Here, if it matters what university it comes from so much, here it is from Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html.

You can see it from internationally known ivy league schools to little schools that no one has ever heard of.

-Also, The person in a coma has rights because he/she has been born. Which is given to them in the constitution when it stated " All born or naturalized citizens"

I can either go by US Law or by international law, but since it is easier for me to copy and paste what I have already written because you never read it and/or never understood it:

"To make this fit under international I point out the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights (as in the rights a human has):

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

The United States is a member state of the United Nations and has to apply all the rights here to all the humans in its’ jurisdiction.

Now let’s go to article 3:

“Everyone has the right to life...”

All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it should be protected."

 

[Zerglite]

it is no persons right to say what a person can and cannot do.

it is a persons right to say whether they SHOULD or not.

It is a persons choice to have an abortion or not, it isnt yours, nor anyone elses but theirs.

A fetus may be human, but there is no valid reason to force a woman into motherhood.

 

[Lights]

it is no persons right to say what a person can and cannot do.*

it is a persons right to say whether they SHOULD or not.*

It is a persons choice to have an abortion or not, it isnt yours, nor anyone elses but theirs.*

A fetus may be human, but there is no valid reason to force a woman into motherhood.*

This is the weakest argument, though used the most. Ironic, eh?

* ... Except we are talking about what the governing institution has a right to do, not a person.
* ... Yes, unless what they want to "say" directly inteferes with anothers. In this case, the "saying" in question is abortion, and the fetus' right to life is definantly being intefered with. That's a no-no.
* Read above and below:

* Stop tiptoeing around a point you know you've lost to try and make your case sound stronger. A fetus IS a human, and that point is going to stand unchallenged unless you and lizard can come up with something better than "fully developed" garbage. That is why the government can and SHOULD "force" the woman to not kill the living human inside her. But no one is forcing her to keep the 'unwanted problem' or even forced her to become pregnant at all - that was her choice.

 

[OneEliteMof0]

Tipsy wrote:
To make this fit under international I point out the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights (as in the rights a human has):

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Now lets take the most important part of that. The most important part bieng of who it covers. Taking that part from your quote:

"THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society"

and later "both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

So which with those, rights are for those who fall under these catagories:
1)All people and all nations.
2)Every individual
3)Every organ of society

Than also:
A)Members of the states
B)Members of other territories

So is a fetus a person?
some specifics that make it a person:

Bieng an individual. A fetus fails at bieng an individual. It is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. The fetus for most does not have a consciousness. In no way shape or form does it have any "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." The fetus is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. The fetus never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women, and would be for another 9 months.

"Bieng a living human"

It is alive, but the fetus is a potential human. We know this because the word "Potential" is exactly what the embryo/fetus is doing, untill it is given birth to 9 months later.
(Incase you do not know what it means:The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being."

If it was already a complete human, there would be no reason for it to depend on a mothers womb. (Incase your thinking of arguing (Again) about a fetus just like a child is growing..Stop.. It does not depend on its mothers womb like a fetus does. It is not attached to an "umbilical cord" like a fetus is. The fetus is soly depending on that umbilical cord transporting nourishment to the fetus, and remove its waste. Do you know any children who depend on such a tube that is attached to their mother to give them nourishment, and also remove the childs waste? Any teenagers? Or even an adult? Untill you do, this argument fails)

So the fetus is now alive in the process to become a human that would not depend on what it previously did.

Human genetics
The fetus will have the human genetic structure of DNA before it is given birth to. The fact alone that the genetic human structure of DNA is not the only thing that makes it a "Living human" though.

When a persons finger gets cut off, that finger still shares this same identical human genetic structure of DNA. The finger shows to be still alive and able to function in many cases after bieng re-attached. (So if the only classification of a human is its DNA structure, than this finger is a living human. If it would be a living human, than it should have rights to. The man should be put on trial for the crime. That is to say, that anything with the human structure DNA is a living human.)

This example proves one of two things.
A)A living human can not be classified as having Identical human DNA structure only.

Or

B)You need to be arrested and put to trial if you are at fault if your finger(Other part of your Human DNA structure) gets cut off. After all, it is living, it can die, it shares the same human DNA structure.

Moving on. Somthing else that makes it a person:

People have characteristics of an Individual personality. Does your fetus love a great comedy? Does it prefere the blue hat over the red one? No, obviously it doesnt, because it has not developed a full personality yet. Sure it can have a potential personality, but not a full personality.

Another thing that makes it a person:
Physical appearance of the human body. As it keeps growing it becomes to look more and more like a human. It wasn't always that way though. Used to look like that dot you drew on your notepad last week. Iv never seen a human that looked like that.
Every fetus has an umbilical cord right?
Well I sure can't remember the last time I seen a human walking around with an umbilical cord attached to it. Can you remember the last time you did? You know the reason you can't remember? Because you never seen one that did.

So many physical changes take place on it from when it first starts out, untill it grows and is given birth. But it did not appear as a human when it was first conceived. Atleast not untill it developed to become a complete human bieng.

Humans are also individuals. We went threw this before and we know it is in no way an individual. Atleast not yet.

These are things all living human biengs that are people have incommon. Out of these a fetus only shares its Human DNA Structure. It is not yet a person. It is still a Potential human, that has potential to be born, and potential to grow older, and potential to graduate from highschool, and potential to live to 80. And lastly it has potential to get human rights. It just doesn't have any of them now.

Secondly your "THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" applies to all humans in "all nations"

The fetus is not a human yet (Potential human yes) A human, and a potential human are not the same thing. So they should not have the same rights. Reguardless of jurisdiction, weather or not it was international or in New York, they still would have to be a human first. Once it developed into a human with its own consciousness and is in its own entity without depending on its mothers umbilical cord, than it would have rights. As long as it is dependant on its host (The mothers womb) it should have no rights.




Now lets look at the other parts of this law it grants the rights to:
2)Every individual

I already went threw why a fetus is not an individual in no way shape or form. This has got to be atleast the one aspect that no one can say anything different with.
So this part of the law can not be ment for the fetus.

3)Every organ of society

Clearly the fetus is not a part of society at this stage. So this part of the law can not be ment for a fetus either.

Than also:
A)Members of the states
B)Members of other territories

We heard arguments both if it has government rights as a citizen, or if that should even matter. One side states that citizenship would not apply to the fetus. The other side says citizenship does not matter, what matters is the rights all humans should have. So im not going to go about the members of other states, or other territories.





However if you think it should have rights, you are entitled to your own opinion. Only difference from the opinion is that as of now it doesn't have these rights. And it should not be changed.

======================================================
NOW FOR THE MYTH AND FACTS PAGE
======================================================

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Fact one of your "Myths page" has numerious flaws:
#1 bieng when they call a Fetus a Human being. If it was a human being, it would have the same rights a human being had. However fact #1 should be added to the myth section. Because a fetus is a potential human being.

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother's and the father's chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother's tissues". Quoting Carlson:

one of your "Myths page" next flaw:
Besides the fact it calls the fetus a "human" again, it than also adds individual. There is no possible way that a fetus can be any sort of an individual. It has its uniqe DNA sure, but that does not mean its an individual.

Individual means Existing as a distinct entity; separate. Especially a single human: A fetus is inside the mother. Its attached to her. If its attached inside to the mother, it can't possibly be a single human. If it is not a singe human and not seperated, it can not possibly be an individual!

Fact #3 is where its biggest problem is so far: (Could be a bigger one, I am only on #3)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a 'potential' or a 'possible' human being — not a real existing human being."

Now lets hear their fact.

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Fact #3 is not a fact. If it was a fact that "absolutely no question whatsoever" (Obviously their is huge question, which makes this absurd) "immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being" Than add it is a human being-with potential to grow bigger, and develop.

one of your "Myths page" next flaw:
If it was a fact that it was a human, than it would be a fact that it had the same rights all humans have. Sense it is false a Fetus has the same rights a "Human" would have, than it could not possibly be a "Human"

Than adds on the human has potential to grow bigger and develop.
If the human had potential to grow bigger, that would mean that it does not occure 100%. If a human did not grow, and develop than it would be the size of a fetus forever. Do any of you work with humans that are the size of fetus's? Im sure one of you must have a neighbor the size of a fetus. I mean if a fetus is a human, but doesnt have to grow, or develop, it just has the potential, than there must be fetus's in our society!

Oh I guess we don't. Wonder why. Mabie it is because a fetus is developing and growing so it can be a full human, but as of now is only a potential human.
(Do we stick a pinecone in the ground and call it a Pine Tree? No, Its a pinecone with potential to become a pine tree-Not a pine tree that looks exactly like a pinecone with potential to grow)

Fact #4 agian presents nothing new:

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being — and that that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

It took an embyrologist to figure out a fetus looks like a fetus because thats what it is supposed to look like at that period?

So if all the embyrologist know that at all stages it is a human being, why don't they share their genious findings (along with what a fetus is supposed to look like-{Almost kept a straight face there}) and explain that to the supreme court. Ofcourse just them stating it doesn't make it so. They would have to prove it to the supreme court. So why havn't they? I am sure it wasn't just discovered last tuesday was it? Especially sense they "All" know this.

Alot of the next few myths and facts cover how long untill implantation takes. Or untill there is a pre-embryo. But sense our member asked not to find when "Life starts" But rather "Is it a human, I will skip these.

also some fall under the same principle and idea. Like #11 for example:

Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human embryo and fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral fish gills or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet a human being, but is only in the process of becoming one. It is simply 'recapitulating' the historical evolution of all of the species."

Fact 11: This "scientific" myth is yet another version of the "potential," "possible," "pre-embryo" myths. It is an attempt to deny the early human embryo its real identity as a human being and its real existence. But quoting once again from O'Rahilly:

Fact #11 is not a proven fact. It is not a human being when its an embryo, fetus, pre embryo. The reason is all of its potential, and possible outcome, and a chance at life all depends on the mother and her womb. No born child, teenager, adult, or old man depends on their mothers womb in the hopes of anything. Only the pre-embryo/embryo/fetus must have the womb for the potential to become.

Fact #12 states:
fact the embryo begins as a "developmental individual" at fertilization.

The embryo is obviously going to start its development and growth state, but is not an individual which has been stated numerious times. (Existing as a distinct entity; separate) Obviously can not be separate if it lives inside a womb of a woman attaced by an umbilical cord. How would bieng attached physically by a cord to keep you surviving, while living inside it count as existing separate?

Than onto an important one:
Myth 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active exercising of 'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of 'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."

(Half of this myth is complete guarbadge. Only reason it is here is to bring in an example of a 40 year old person that doesn't have one of these. So if he is only considered human with it, but doesn't have it, he shouldn't have rights too.



Which I am sure you would bring up sense my argument depends on this. However I would not say a person is defined by all of these. Especially not "exercising" certin attributes People have different issues with the spinal cord not allowing to feel anything in many areas. So how I determined a human, and how myth 14 did, are completly different.

Especially than your website argues this assnine view.

What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics — and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons?

Sense when did human beings that are people with issues as follow Depend on their umbilical cord, and mothers womb to survive after they were born?

mentally ill,
mentally retarded,
depressed elderly,
Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's,
drug addicts,
alcoholics,
comatose,
patients in a "vegetative state,"
paraplegics,
other paralyzed and disabled patients,
diabetics

so the next part of the "Fact" (Funny the way this site uses it) says: Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons?

Sense both are considered to be living human beings with rights, I will ignore that complete idiotic sentence.

 

[OneEliteMof0]

Sorry to double post. I typed the hole thing out. Than told me it was too long.

===================================================
According to this site they would not have human rights.

Sense they are throwing all the opinions they have around and titling them "Facts" I am going to creat my own fact.

OneEliteMofo's Fact:
This site is all a bounch of quotes from people with the title of "Facts" above their statment. Look, I have that same title above my statment. It must be true, it says "Fact". Than useing the "Facts" it replys to these myths which 50% are complete trash for the most part. the rest borderline.

The main goal of this myth site is to try establishing that a fetus is a human being with human rights.


Last thing worth mentioning:

After Fact #14
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.

Oh thanks for clearing that up. the rest of the world sure had a different idea on what it was. Silly us.

Not only is it a change of environment, but a separation making it its own entity,removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing untill this day. and setting the date from that moment on now has its own rights. But hey if you leave those out, I guess its similar to changing your environment. Like moving to a new house I suppose.

I don't want to get into the specifics of my own opinion of how long a person should have before they can make the choice for abortion. (I do have my own opinions) They however are not in this argument.

Bottom line:

For the reasons I have explained a fetus is a potential human with potential rights. Not to be confused with the existing rights an existing person has.

Originally Posted by _Ace
Just one word: DEPENDENCY. Fetus can't live outside the womb without any kind of simulated womb (artificial feeding and such)

Undead cheese wrote:
Aye, but, unfortunately for your argument, no one gives a shit about dependency. A person on life support isn't somehow no longer a human being.

Aye yes, But, unfortunately for your argument, this person on life support is not a potential human. He now is no longer attached to his mothers womb, nor umbilical cord he was fed threw from the first day he begin to develop.

The difference between a fetus depending on the womb and umbilical cord for survival is it is a potential human with potential human rights. So it has not developed, nor has the fetus's rights. On the other hand the man on life support is not a potential life. Hey may be on life support, close to die. But obtained his human rights long ago. They don't expire your rights as if it were a drivers licence. Once you have it, you have it. He is a human with human rights. The fetus is a potential human with potential rights. The fetus doesn't have them.

The man on life support has been given his rights, the fetus hasn't. But undead cheese, you are correct,

Undead cheese wrote:
a person on life support isn't somehow no longer a human.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Ace
Hey Tipsy, please tell me the genetical difference between a serial-murderer and the Pope. None, yet they are completely different. And a fetus, until not fully developed, is NOT human.

You and lizard keep bringing up this "not full human" thing. I believe lizard so eloquently put it as "full blown." You keep saying this, BUT YOU DONT SAY WHY! We have expressed again and again that we are human by genetics, and you totally ignore that and say "not yet human." If you could PLEASE give a reason as to why a 3 month toddler is "more human" than a 4 month fetus, I'de LOVE to hear it. And please don't say something about "not developed," because that is simply stupid. Is a 5 minute-old baby a "fully developed" human or is it just an undeveloped, stupid baby? You don't stop "developing" until you are in your twenties, so I fail to understand this argument.


Undead Cheese wrote:
indeed, and the serial killer can be put to death. However, this can only happen after due process has run its course. The accused have rights, but, if the serial killer is found guilty, he can
be put to death. The fetus isn't guilty of anything, though, and is therefore not subject to the same death penalty.

Difference between a serial killer getting killed and a fetus getting killed:

The serial killer has human rights and was given due process.

The fetus does not have the same rights.

"The fetus isn't guilty of anything, though, and is therefore not subject to the same death penalty."

First of all you are only found guilty when proven so by the court of law. The fetus was never taken to court sense it does not contain the same rights. Secondly sense it never went to court, it could of never been found guilty. Lastly, the fetus was not terminated the same way the serial killer was. No one is going to give the fetus a lethal injection, or strap it down to the electric chair.


In my argument I explained further what "_Ace" was meaning to say.

o your argument now is that anyone under the age of 25 is fair game, right? After all, "people" aren't fully developed until their early-to-mid twenties.

A human has certin things. A fetus eventually develops into them. Individual-Your entity is seperated before the age of 25. You have a personality before the age of 25. You physically look like a human before the age of 25. You also have a consciousness before the age of 25. You do not need to fully develop and grow into some 6' 200 lbs person. These qualitys that make a human what it is are things it developes at early age in its life. A fetus does not develop each of these.

undead cheese wrote:
If the actual process of giving birth is going to kill the mother, then she can have it artificially removed, even before the full nine months, and they can both survive. If for some other reason, though, the very pregnancy itself is life-threatening to her, she can have the fetus killed, because that falls nicely in the lines of "self defense."

-I don't want to discuss any part of that sense it falls under personal opinion. So that can stay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizardbreath
-Also, The person in a coma has rights because he/she has been born.
You have failed to demonstrate why being born constitutes being human. The birth is merely an event in the human life cycle and is the first change of environment the person experiences. A person 5 minutes after birth isn't any more human than a person 5 minutes before birth, or 10 minutes, or an hour, or a day, or a week, etc.

Im glade I took the time to explain the birth part above.
Incase you missed it, here it is again

Not only is it a change of environment, but a separation making it its own entity,removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing untill this day. and setting the date from that moment on now has its own rights. But hey if you leave those out, I guess its similar to changing your environment. Like moving to a new house I suppose.

For anyone to state that bieng born is just a part of some life cycle is so absurd. Before the child was born, it was conceived. The time when the sperm entered the egg is merely an event in the life cycle. This would be the first process needed in order for it to later become a human, and get human rights. Calling it a event in the life cycle is so stupid. Everything that happens is a series of small events in the cycle of life. However three specific events in a life cycle are important. One bieng when first begin to develop. Two bieng when your born. (Before you try to argue this again: Have you ever had a birthday party, or been part of someone elses birthday party? If it was only some event in the cycle, you would not decide to celebrate it than. ) Three bieng when you die.

Is a humans DNA structure of a person who has been dead 5 minutes any different than how it was 5 minutes before he died?

Or even somthing further that would prove why birth is a huge deal. A person who die's is given an autopsy. A person who is killed is given an autopsy. A person who kills them self is given an autopsy. And a person given the death sentence is even given an autopsy. How come when an abortion, misscarriage, or some other early termination occures, that they don't give an autopsy unless the mother was killed also?

Also, between the time the fetus is in the womb, and 5 minutes after birth, there have been so many changes.

(Although I know you said 5 minutes before, and 5 minutes after.)
I have a personal opinion of when in the 9 months the law on abortion should change. However there is no way to argue that sense before birth there is no such change of the rights the embryo/fetus would have.

Otherwise you could say, "Any women has 287 hours to have an abortion, 1 second later, you can not"

Originally Posted by lizardbreath
Which is given to them in the constitution when it stated " All born or naturalized citizens"

undead cheese wrote:
But no one cares about whether or not the fetus is a citizen, because you can be a non US citizen and still have rights. Hell, we've even agreed with you that the fetus isn't a citizen of the United States. What's the relevence of this, though? None. According to international law / treaties that we've signed, all people, not just citizens, within a country's jurisdiction have certain rights, and a 'right to life' is one of them.

That rule would not contain to a fetus. As I have shown why in my argument. Although weather or not the fetus is or is not a citizen of the US, I do agree with Undead cheese. It should not make any difference whatso ever. Atleast not untill in the constituion they place, "Unborn life have the right to......."

can either go by US Law or by international law, but since it is easier for me to copy and paste what I have already written because you never read it and/or never understood it:

"To make this fit under international I point out the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights (as in the rights a human has):

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

The United States is a member state of the United Nations and has to apply all the rights here to all the humans in its’ jurisdiction.

It seems that law would give the right to every human. Its too bad a fetus does not fall under that.

Now let’s go to article 3:

“Everyone has the right to life...”

All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it should be protected."

Its just too bad for the fetus that it is a Potential human -We know this because the word "Potential" is exactly what the embryo/fetus is doing. (Incase you do not know what it means:The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being."
A human is an individual. A fetus is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. Making it dependent on survival by living in a host. Remove the host, and the fetus is toast.


The fetus will have the human genetic structure of DNA before it is given birth to. The fact alone that the genetic human structure of DNA is not the only thing that makes it a "Living human" but rather "Developing into a human". Which I previously explained

Humans have characteristics of an Individual personality. Is your fetus neat and tidy? It is still developing. There has been no scientific proof of a fetus having a "Human personality."

Or what about the way a human looks.
Well I sure can't remember the last time I seen a human walking around with an umbilical cord attached to it. Can you remember the last time you did? You know the reason you can't remember? Because you never seen one that did. The fetus has to be attached to, while living inside its host or it will not grow, will not develop, will not have potential for anything.

These are things all living human biengs that are people have incommon. Out of these a fetus only shares one. Basic human DNA Structure. It is not yet a person. It is still a Potential human, that has potential to be born, and potential to grow older, and potential to graduate from highschool, and potential to live to 80. And lastly it has potential to get human rights. It just doesn't have any of them now. Mabie you should change the discussion to "The rights a fetus should have."



For it to have rights it must fall under one of these two things. It fails the US Constitution as we all know because of "" All born or naturalized citizens""

so if that fails we have the International law
"THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

It doesn't fit under this law either. Atleast not untill it is changed to "Unborn Life" "Potential human life" or "Things with 26 chromosomes"










Very last thing:

Tipsy wrote:
Please point out any of the genetic differences between a person when they were a fetus and a person now. In the human life cycle, it never changes. You are always genetically the same (unless changed by something from outside the human life cycle). What decides what a human is? Genetics, plain and simple. A fetus is a natural stage in the human life cycle. A fetus is a human, that is a fact.

Don't you honestly see the flaw in that right there? In the human life cycle, the human DNA structure doesn't change. Even after you die. But should dead people have rights also? Well they have the same human DNA structure and look what they do to the dead. Throw them in holes, burn them to ashes. Although many people have specific wishes when they die, that are carried out. They are not required by any law, but rather carried out by the respect of family/friends.

So just like a dead person who has the exact Same DNA structure. He is no longer a living human being. Just as a fetus is not a living human being. A fetus is a "Living human being to come" the title for the rights is a "human being" not a "human becomming"

 

[Kamikaze]

some specifics that make it a person:

Bieng an individual. A fetus fails at bieng an individual. It is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. The fetus for most does not have a consciousness. In no way shape or form does it have any "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." The fetus is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. The fetus never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women, and would be for another 9 months.

so a newborn, or someone with severe alzheimers, or someone in a coma, in your opinion is not an individual because it has no "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." it is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. it never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women,

"Bieng a living human"


Human genetics
The fetus will have the human genetic structure of DNA before it is given birth to. The fact alone that the genetic human structure of DNA is not the only thing that makes it a "Living human" though.

When a persons finger gets cut off, that finger still shares this same identical human genetic structure of DNA. The finger shows to be still alive and able to function in many cases after bieng re-attached. (So if the only classification of a human is its DNA structure, than this finger is a living human. If it would be a living human, than it should have rights to. The man should be put on trial for the crime. That is to say, that anything with the human structure DNA is a living human.)

you forget one thing, a human finger does not have a heart, lungs, brain, liver, kidneys, intestines, a stomach, a circulatory system, and every other part necessary for life on its own. even if all these parts haven't developed enough to support life, they are there.

People have characteristics of an Individual personality. Does your fetus love a great comedy? Does it prefere the blue hat over the red one? No, obviously it doesnt, because it has not developed a full personality yet. Sure it can have a potential personality, but not a full personality.

does a newborn love a great comedy and prefer the blue hat over the red one?

Another thing that makes it a person:
Physical appearance of the human body. As it keeps growing it becomes to look more and more like a human. It wasn't always that way though. Used to look like that dot you drew on your notepad last week. Iv never seen a human that looked like that.

ever heard of John Merrick? he must not be human because i've never seen a human look like that.
by the 14th week of a normal pregnancy there would be no doubt in anyones mind that the embryo is human. it looks just like a little baby.

Every fetus has an umbilical cord right?
Well I sure can't remember the last time I seen a human walking around with an umbilical cord attached to it. Can you remember the last time you did? You know the reason you can't remember? Because you never seen one that did.

ever hear of pace makers? diabetic insulin pumps? or even life support?
does being hooked up to one of these mean you are not human?

Once it developed into a human with its own consciousness and is in its own entity without depending on its mothers umbilical cord, than it would have rights. As long as it is dependant on its host (The mothers womb) it should have no rights.

dependant on its host like children? or special needs people? alzheimers patients? or quadriplegics?
maybe none of them should have any rights because they are dependent on others


i would love to continue, but i'm at work right now.
if i have time i'll finish when i get home.
-edit-
ok, now that i'm home i can continue

Not only is it a change of environment, but a separation making it its own entity,removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing untill this day. and setting the date from that moment on now has its own rights.

man you've beaten this to death and beyond, so i'll post something else about it.
three words "failure to thrive", in bad cases children form the time they are born until they are 2 or 3 need to be tube fed.

For the reasons I have explained a fetus is a potential human with potential rights. Not to be confused with the existing rights an existing person has.

LOL, replace the words "a fetus is" with the sentence "the Iraqi people are" and you'd swear to god it came from one of George Bush's speeches

Aye yes, But, unfortunately for your argument, this person on life support is not a potential human. He now is no longer attached to his mothers womb, nor umbilical cord he was fed threw from the first day he begin to develop.

whats the difference between that and feeding your children until they're 18 and leave your house?

First of all you are only found guilty when proven so by the court of law. The fetus was never taken to court sense it does not contain the same rights. Secondly sense it never went to court, it could of never been found guilty. Lastly, the fetus was not terminated the same way the serial killer was. No one is going to give the fetus a lethal injection, or strap it down to the electric chair.

no, the things they do a fetus in an abortion are 10 times worse than lethal injection or the electric chair.
to be torn apart, cut to pieces, burned to death.. or my personal favorite- partial birth abortion: Performed during the late second or third trimester. Using ultrasound, the abortionist grasps the baby's leg with forceps, and partially forcefully delivers all but the head. Scissors are then jammed into the back of the babies skull, and the wound is pryed open. A powerful vacuum tube is inserted and sucks out the baby's brain.

For anyone to state that bieng born is just a part of some life cycle is so absurd. Before the child was born, it was conceived. The time when the sperm entered the egg is merely an event in the life cycle. This would be the first process needed in order for it to later become a human, and get human rights. Calling it a event in the life cycle is so stupid.

are you even conscious of what you are saying or are you completely oblivious to the stupidity in that statement?

Or even somthing further that would prove why birth is a huge deal. A person who die's is given an autopsy. A person who is killed is given an autopsy. A person who kills them self is given an autopsy. And a person given the death sentence is even given an autopsy. How come when an abortion, misscarriage, or some other early termination occures, that they don't give an autopsy unless the mother was killed also?.

an autopsy is usually done to determine the cause of death, a suicide would have one done to make sure it was a suicide and not a murder, i haven't actually heard of one being done after an execution. what part of having your brains sucked out with a vacuum leaves a doubt as to waht killed you and requires an autopsy?

Its just too bad for the fetus that it is a Potential human -We know this because the word "Potential" is exactly what the embryo/fetus is doing. (Incase you do not know what it means:The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being."
A human is an individual. A fetus is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. Making it dependent on survival by living in a host. Remove the host, and the fetus is toast.

like insulin, stop giving it to diabetics and half the population of the earth will die

Or what about the way a human looks.
Well I sure can't remember the last time I seen a human walking around with an umbilical cord attached to it. Can you remember the last time you did? You know the reason you can't remember? Because you never seen one that did. The fetus has to be attached to, while living inside its host or it will not grow, will not develop, will not have potential for anything.

ummm.. insulin pumps, pace makers, colostomy bags, life support, oxygen, dialysis... need i go on?

Don't you honestly see the flaw in that right there? In the human life cycle, the human DNA structure doesn't change. Even after you die. But should dead people have rights also? Well they have the same human DNA structure and look what they do to the dead.
So just like a dead person who has the exact Same DNA structure. He is no longer a living human being. Just as a fetus is not a living human being. A fetus is a "Living human being to come" the title for the rights is a "human being" not a "human becomming"

big difference, a fetus grows, a corpse doesn't

 

[Glowy]

OK correct me if I'm wrong but I just slighty skimmed cuz its alot to read. BUt I noticed most of the argument is based on the actual fetus? am I correct? Becuase its not only the fetus life you got to think about. What about the parents. 2 15 year old kids gettign pregant. There lives for 1 is automactially ruined. Yes its their fault that they did it. But kids are going to be wrong. Look at it this way. Is destroying one life worth ruining 3 lives?

The mom and dad who cna't afford it will for one become a burden on their parents. the kid will not be raised properly and might end of in jail or suicide. What about people who cna't afford it? Should they deserve to live off foodstamps that hardworking people like me haft to pay them?

I never understood why so many people care about this. it jsut shows how people like to butt into other people business. My fiancee already had an abortion. Yes I was about to have a child and he's been dead for about 2-3 years now. It hurts..its sad. And yes I always wonder what it would be liek to have a little boy/girl sitting on my lap calling me daddy.(please don't pervert that).

But then how would my life be now? I would be working 2-3 jobs. Nothing of personel value. My job in life would become nothing but supporting the baby. At my age. Its the couples choice of whether they want it done or not. You noses mother****ers just need to stop brown nosing on everyone elses business and making life harder for everyone. If they ban abortion guess what.

About a 50% increase in drugs viloence from where kids are being dumped into adoption homes.

Seriously stay the **** out of other peoples business and the world will be a better place. Like those dumb ****ing irahbs that come to our country and ****ing complain about kids says the pledge of allegince that our ****ign country was based on. And of course they get there way. Just like the ten commandents in court rooms. Some stupid mexican or iraqi goes and complains and wham there it goes.


Once again stay the **** out of other peeps buzznazz

 

[OneEliteMof0]

Kamikaze

Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
some specifics that make it a person:

Bieng an individual. A fetus fails at bieng an individual. It is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. The fetus for most does not have a consciousness. In no way shape or form does it have any "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." The fetus is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. The fetus never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women, and would be for another 9 months.

so a newborn, or someone with severe alzheimers, or someone in a coma, in your opinion is not an individual because it has no "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." it is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. it never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women,

Well if you were to read the full argument before posting a reply you would clearly see where I addressed the people who fell under things as such you suggested, "Alzheimers, coma" (And even others that you didn't mention) but you clealry never got to it, or your idiotic reply on it would not of included them.

Incase you did miss it, here it is:

Quote:
What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics — and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons?

Sense when did human beings that are people with issues as follow Depend on their umbilical cord, and mothers womb to survive after they were born?

mentally ill,
mentally retarded,
depressed elderly,
Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's,
drug addicts,
alcoholics,
comatose,
patients in a "vegetative state,"
paraplegics,
other paralyzed and disabled patients,
diabetics

And if you further would read my post you would find this interesting piece:



Which makes your argument wrong if your trying to say what my argument said. Because it didn't say that.

so a newborn, or someone with severe alzheimers, or someone in a coma, in your opinion is not an individual because it has no "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." it is not aware of its situation.

So lets look where I addressed "Individual" remembering that I stated:

Hey may be on life support, close to die. But obtained his human rights long ago. They don't expire your rights as if it were a drivers licence. Once you have it, you have it. He is a human with human rights. The fetus is a potential human with potential rights. The fetus doesn't have them.

The man on life support has been given his rights, the fetus hasn't.

ome specifics that make it a person:

Bieng an individual. A fetus fails at bieng an individual. It is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. The fetus for most does not have a consciousness. In no way shape or form does it have any "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics."

Now let me use your 3 examples, and use them in my argument one at a time:

so a newborn, or someone with severe alzheimers, or someone in a coma, in your opinion is not an individual

newborn

A)It is existing as a distinct entity.
B)It is separate.
C)It would have a consciousness.
D)Its identity just started.
E)New born babys do have characteristics.
F)The new born baby would not have beliefs as of now.

So 5/6 it does contain.

alzheimers

A)It is existing as a distinct entity.
B)It is separate.
C)It did have a consciousness (Human Rights can't be taken away once given)
D)It did know its identity at one time (Human rights can't be taken away once given)
E)It still does have characteristics, as well previously did too.
F)It would of had beliefs at one time(Human rights can't be taken away once given)

Unless this person with alzheimers was born this way, it would of contained each at one time or another.

coma
[/quote}

Hope you see how easy this one is.
A)It is existing as distinct entity (Entity:The fact of existence)
B)It is separate
C)It has a consciousness
D)It did know the identity before coma (Human rights can't be taken away once given)
E)It did have characteristics(Human rights can't be taken away once given)
F)It would of had beliefs at one time


And than stated that in my argument, that would make them not an individual according to my argument. This clearly shows I did no such thing.

OneEliteMofo says:
"Your wrong"

Next

Kamikaze wrote:

you forget one thing, a human finger does not have a heart, lungs, brain, liver, kidneys, intestines, a stomach, a circulatory system, and every other part necessary for life on its own. even if all these parts haven't developed enough to support life, they are there.

That was purposly left out of the argument. Because based on exactly what you said, if it were true, a fetus even with these would not be able to live life on its own. As stated by numerious people, numerious times. I didn't forget anything. And this is why:

Lights wrote:
(*Note: Before you get excited, I understand you are not limiting human rights to if a person has a nose or not, but you are limiting it to physical features and the reaching of a certain stage of development.)
[/quote

Tipsy wrote:
"Eyes, ears, a nose, legs, arms, a brain, or even a heart do not make you human. These are physical characteristics, which as has been stated, it is illegal to discriminate by

By the way I was using this example to address someone else when stating a human is defined by its genetics. Than I was using the same principle with the example bieng the finger. Basically if a human is only defined by genetics, that finger would be a human. You clearly didn't pick up on any of that. Actually argued the same direction that I did. You just were not aware of it.

does a newborn love a great comedy and prefer the blue hat over the red one?

It now has the ability to decide if it does. And now has the ability to further define its personality.

Many babys have specific colors more than others.

Side note fact-Many Babys are really attracted to shiny things.

ever heard of John Merrick? he must not be human because i've never seen a human look like that.
by the 14th week of a normal pregnancy there would be no doubt in anyones mind that the embryo is human. it looks just like a little baby.

also note where I specifically put in "Another thing that"

Not the only thing.

And no I have not heard of him...Next

ever hear of pace makers? diabetic insulin pumps? or even life support?
does being hooked up to one of these mean you are not human?

Already showed why in one of your previous replys that it would not.

Re-read the example when comparing man on life support, comparted to fetus on cord.

Can't believe you reply to somthing while missing the biggest point.

dependant on its host like children? or special needs people? alzheimers patients? or quadriplegics?
maybe none of them should have any rights because they are dependent on others

They are not living inside someone like a fetus. They are not connected to someone like a fetus. They are not developing in a womb. They will not come out of a vigina 9 months later.

Although they may need somthing to live, it doesn't matter sense they already contain "human rights" as I shown why above. A fetus does not.

man you've beaten this to death and beyond, so i'll post something else about it.
three words "failure to thrive", in bad cases children form the time they are born until they are 2 or 3 need to be tube fed.

Hey smart guy find in my argument where I said "Tub fed". Ill save you some time looking. I DIDN'T!

What I actually said, because I'm sure you don't know:

removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing

LOL, replace the words "a fetus is" with the sentence "the Iraqi people are" and you'd swear to god it came from one of George Bush's speeches

Things you say like these are why you were so easly proven wrong. The other people were much harder to find an argument for. But not yours.

whats the difference between that and feeding your children until they're 18 and leave your house?

person on life support was bieng compared to a fetus on the mothers umbilical cord. Go ahead and compare it exactly like, or completly opposite a person on life support. Either way it does not change my argument in any way about abortion, a fetus, or human rights.

Whats does sand and a tooth brush have in common? The answer: They two are pointless comparasions just as a man on life support is to feeding some teenager.

no, the things they do a fetus in an abortion are 10 times worse than lethal injection or the electric chair.
to be torn apart, cut to pieces, burned to death.. or my personal favorite- partial birth abortion: Performed during the late second or third trimester. Using ultrasound, the abortionist grasps the baby's leg with forceps, and partially forcefully delivers all but the head. Scissors are then jammed into the back of the babies skull, and the wound is pryed open. A powerful vacuum tube is inserted and sucks out the baby's brain.

I never said it was or was not worse. You must be high. I stated the differences of the two. Why one goes to court, and why one doesn't. Also why one is found guilty, and the other not tried. Than made it known a fetus is never strapped to an electric chair, or given a lethal injection. No where in there did I claim one was better or worse.

Your opinion could be for either. Doesn't matter sense it does not effect my argument.

Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
For anyone to state that bieng born is just a part of some life cycle is so absurd. Before the child was born, it was conceived. The time when the sperm entered the egg is merely an event in the life cycle. This would be the first process needed in order for it to later become a human, and get human rights. Calling it a event in the life cycle is so stupid.


are you even conscious of what you are saying or are you completely oblivious to the stupidity in that statement?

I was very conscious in that full statment. Were you smart enough to know where it came from? I purposly used the same term they described a "Birth" to than describe the rest of the parts of life. The point of it was to make it sound completly stupid. Because than "Birth" bieng only an enviroment change is completly inane.

So your ansewr is yes.

an autopsy is usually done to determine the cause of death, a suicide would have one done to make sure it was a suicide and not a murder, i haven't actually heard of one being done after an execution. what part of having your brains sucked out with a vacuum leaves a doubt as to waht killed you and requires an autopsy?

What part of an execution done by lethal execution whitnessed by a state leave doubt as to what killed him that makes it necessary for an autopsy?
Its obvious the cause of death. Just like an abortion is obvious the cause of death. The difference being that one gets an autopsy and one doesn't.

like insulin, stop giving it to diabetics and half the population of the earth will die

Not the same thing. This is a bad example on your part. The fetus is fed threw the cord by its mother. We will call her "Donna"

Now john gets his insulin from Dr. Johnson.

If donna removes the fetus from the cord, the baby has no other way to stay fed, or alive, and dies.

If Dr. Johnson stops giving john Insulin, John than goes to Dr. Frank.

The fetus cant find a new womb to go to.

ummm.. insulin pumps, pace makers, colostomy bags, life support, oxygen, dialysis... need i go on?

Well you could. They would not mean anything just as these didn't. Because I have seen humans that have each of these,

big difference, a fetus grows, a corpse doesn't

Correct, but I was not comparing the actual life, but rather the DNA structure. Sense both would have the same DNA structure, I was arguing that that alone does not make it a human being.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

 

[Undead Cheese]

Most of the arguments you've presented can be refuted by reading either things that have already been posted in this thread or in the last thread, but, unless Tipsy or Lights reply first (likely - I will have a lot to do before I can come back to this), I'll go through your posts point-by-point. Until then, however, I'd like to point something out really quick ...

It doesn't fit under this law either. Atleast not untill it is changed to "Unborn Life" "Potential human life" or "Things with 26 chromosomes"

When did anyone in this thread advocate extending human rights to frogs?

 

[Zerglite]

Even if the government were to ban abortions, they would still go on.

 

[Snagg]

Same reason why murders are "banned" but they still go on. There will always b e those who break the law.

 

[Tipsy]

Now lets take the most important part of that. The most important part bieng of who it covers. Taking that part from your quote:

"THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society"

and later "both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

So which with those, rights are for those who fall under these catagories:
1)All people and all nations.
2)Every individual
3)Every organ of society

Than also:
A)Members of the states
B)Members of other territories

So is a fetus a person?
some specifics that make it a person:

Read the key words in my post: “All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it should be protected.â€

This served no other point than to show how basically any social argument justifying abortion cannot be resolved until we decide if a fetus is a human or not. Do you disagree that if a fetus is a human it should receive human rights?

Bieng an individual. A fetus fails at bieng an individual. It is not existing as a distinct entity. It is not separate. The fetus for most does not have a consciousness. In no way shape or form does it have any "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." The fetus is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. The fetus never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women, and would be for another 9 months.

On the contrary, a fetus is a distinct individual. To go back to the article:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."

The chromosomes of the newly formed human being are forty six in number, and do share much with the mother and father. However, the chromosomes are not the exact same meaning the fetus inside of the mother has a distinctly new strand of DNA.

And this whole Descartes thing people keep bringing up is philosophy. There is a distinct difference between philosophy and this science. As stated in fact 14, “these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data.â€

It is alive, but the fetus is a potential human. We know this because the word "Potential" is exactly what the embryo/fetus is doing, untill it is given birth to 9 months later.
(Incase you do not know what it means:The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being."

I think you fail to grasp the concept that a human being is decided by genetics.

To go back to the article:

“The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."â€

A human being is clearly formed when an egg and sperm combine and create an embryo. There is a clear distinction in the difference between the DNA of the mother and the DNA of the fetus.

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."

If it was already a complete human, there would be no reason for it to depend on a mothers womb. (Incase your thinking of arguing (Again) about a fetus just like a child is growing..Stop.. It does not depend on its mothers womb like a fetus does. It is not attached to an "umbilical cord" like a fetus is. The fetus is soly depending on that umbilical cord transporting nourishment to the fetus, and remove its waste. Do you know any children who depend on such a tube that is attached to their mother to give them nourishment, and also remove the childs waste? Any teenagers? Or even an adult? Untill you do, this argument fails)

A dependant human being is still a human being and for this reason should be entitled to human rights. As a side note, a fetus can survive birth at the age of 24 weeks.

So the fetus is now alive in the process to become a human that would not depend on what it previously did.

A fetus is a human, it has been clearly stated:

“The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."â€

The fetus will have the human genetic structure of DNA before it is given birth to. The fact alone that the genetic human structure of DNA is not the only thing that makes it a "Living human" though.

When a persons finger gets cut off, that finger still shares this same identical human genetic structure of DNA. The finger shows to be still alive and able to function in many cases after bieng re-attached. (So if the only classification of a human is its DNA structure, than this finger is a living human. If it would be a living human, than it should have rights to. The man should be put on trial for the crime. That is to say, that anything with the human structure DNA is a living human.)

This example proves one of two things.
A)A living human can not be classified as having Identical human DNA structure only.

Or

B)You need to be arrested and put to trial if you are at fault if your finger(Other part of your Human DNA structure) gets cut off. After all, it is living, it can die, it shares the same human DNA structure.

Last time I checked a finger wasn’t a stage in the human life cycle. Being a fetus, on the other hand, is.

People have characteristics of an Individual personality. Does your fetus love a great comedy? Does it prefere the blue hat over the red one? No, obviously it doesnt, because it has not developed a full personality yet. Sure it can have a potential personality, but not a full personality.

And having a personality applies to this how? If something is a human being or not is decided by genetics.

Another thing that makes it a person:
Physical appearance of the human body. As it keeps growing it becomes to look more and more like a human. It wasn't always that way though. Used to look like that dot you drew on your notepad last week. Iv never seen a human that looked like that.

Every fetus has an umbilical cord right?
Well I sure can't remember the last time I seen a human walking around with an umbilical cord attached to it. Can you remember the last time you did? You know the reason you can't remember? Because you never seen one that did.

So many physical changes take place on it from when it first starts out, untill it grows and is given birth. But it did not appear as a human when it was first conceived. Atleast not untill it developed to become a complete human bieng.

Not only will I point out once again that science determines if something is a human being or not, but that discriminating based on physical characteristics is clearly illegal.

Humans are also individuals. We went threw this before and we know it is in no way an individual. Atleast not yet.

Human beings are decided by genetics.

Humans are also individuals. We went threw this before and we know it is in no way an individual. Atleast not yet.

I have already shown a human being a genetically seperate from its' mother.

These are things all living human biengs that are people have incommon. Out of these a fetus only shares its Human DNA Structure. It is not yet a person. It is still a Potential human, that has potential to be born, and potential to grow older, and potential to graduate from highschool, and potential to live to 80. And lastly it has potential to get human rights. It just doesn't have any of them now.

So a fetus shares the required biological and genetic requirements to be a human being (making it a human being), but not the philosophical concepts you stated (which have no weight on the matter of scientifically deciding whether a fetus is a human being or not). Once again, human beings are decided by genetics.

Secondly your "THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" applies to all humans in "all nations"

The fetus is not a human yet (Potential human yes) A human, and a potential human are not the same thing. So they should not have the same rights. Reguardless of jurisdiction, weather or not it was international or in New York, they still would have to be a human first….

This has already been clearly addressed in the very beginning of this post:

“Read the key words in the post: “All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it should be protected.â€

This served no other point than to show how basically any social argument justifying abortion cannot be resolved until we decide if a fetus is a human or not. Do you disagree that if a fetus is a human it should receive human rights?â€

We heard arguments both if it has government rights as a citizen, or if that should even matter. One side states that citizenship would not apply to the fetus. The other side says citizenship does not matter, what matters is the rights all humans should have. So im not going to go about the members of other states, or other territories.

I don’t think anyone has stated a fetus has citizenship.

However if you think it should have rights, you are entitled to your own opinion. Only difference from the opinion is that as of now it doesn't have these rights. And it should not be changed.

You are entitled to your opinion as well. Your philosophy states that it is not a human, the science backing my opinion states it is. See what weighs more in law, philosophy or scientific fact.

Fact one of your "Myths page" has numerious flaws:
#1 bieng when they call a Fetus a Human being. If it was a human being, it would have the same rights a human being had. However fact #1 should be added to the myth section. Because a fetus is a potential human being.

Once again I state that a human being is decided by genetics not philosophy. This clearly states the science that shows a fetus is a human being.

one of your "Myths page" next flaw:
Besides the fact it calls the fetus a "human" again, it than also adds individual. There is no possible way that a fetus can be any sort of an individual. It has its uniqe DNA sure, but that does not mean its an individual.

Individual means Existing as a distinct entity; separate. Especially a single human: A fetus is inside the mother. Its attached to her. If its attached inside to the mother, it can't possibly be a single human. If it is not a singe human and not seperated, it can not possibly be an individual!

Considering it meets your definition it is a 1) human being and 2) individual. It has forty six chromosomes that is “a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortmentâ€, making is very distinct and separate from the mother comparing DNA. The genetics once again show it is scientifically an individual.

one of your "Myths page" next flaw:
If it was a fact that it was a human, than it would be a fact that it had the same rights all humans have. Sense it is false a Fetus has the same rights a "Human" would have, than it could not possibly be a "Human"

I must have been sleeping in history because if all human beings immediately have always had the same rights slavery must have never existed!

Than adds on the human has potential to grow bigger and develop.
If the human had potential to grow bigger, that would mean that it does not occure 100%. If a human did not grow, and develop than it would be the size of a fetus forever. Do any of you work with humans that are the size of fetus's? Im sure one of you must have a neighbor the size of a fetus. I mean if a fetus is a human, but doesnt have to grow, or develop, it just has the potential, than there must be fetus's in our society!

Oh I guess we don't. Wonder why. Mabie it is because a fetus is developing and growing so it can be a full human, but as of now is only a potential human.

(Do we stick a pinecone in the ground and call it a Pine Tree? No, Its a pinecone with potential to become a pine tree-Not a pine tree that looks exactly like a pinecone with potential to grow)

Humans have the ‘potential to grow bigger’ and are not ‘occurring at 100%’ until the age of 25 give or take a bit. By this logic I’m assuming you look at people who haven’t completed the basic human developmental cycle as potential humans as well? Do you consider yourself (assuming you’re not 25, I don’t actually know) and myself potential human beings?

It took an embyrologist to figure out a fetus looks like a fetus because thats what it is supposed to look like at that period?

So if all the embyrologist know that at all stages it is a human being, why don't they share their genious findings (along with what a fetus is supposed to look like-{Almost kept a straight face there}) and explain that to the supreme court.

Because the Supreme Court ignored this issue and refused to address it.

Ofcourse just them stating it doesn't make it so. They would have to prove it to the supreme court. So why havn't they? I am sure it wasn't just discovered last tuesday was it? Especially sense they "All" know this.

Believe it or not, science in this field has made massive strides sense Roe v Wade.

Fact #11 is not a proven fact.

Actually, it is.

The embryo is obviously going to start its development and growth state, but is not an individual which has been stated numerious times. (Existing as a distinct entity; separate) Obviously can not be separate if it lives inside a womb of a woman attaced by an umbilical cord. How would bieng attached physically by a cord to keep you surviving, while living inside it count as existing separate?

Clearly because it is genetically an individual.

(Half of this myth is complete guarbadge. Only reason it is here is to bring in an example of a 40 year old person that doesn't have one of these. So if he is only considered human with it, but doesn't have it, he shouldn't have rights too.

Which I am sure you would bring up sense my argument depends on this. However I would not say a person is defined by all of these. Especially not "exercising" certin attributes People have different issues with the spinal cord not allowing to feel anything in many areas. So how I determined a human, and how myth 14 did, are completly different.

Especially than your website argues this assnine view.

This goes back to looking at the claims with large scientific support showing that a fetus is a human being and the relative philosophies looking at it as discussed earlier in this very long post.

Sense when did human beings that are people with issues as follow Depend on their umbilical cord, and mothers womb to survive after they were born?

Since when did an umbilical cord cause a wall that makes people ignore genetics?

Sense they are throwing all the opinions they have around and titling them "Facts" I am going to creat my own fact.

OneEliteMofo's Fact:
This site is all a bounch of quotes from people with the title of "Facts" above their statment. Look, I have that same title above my statment. It must be true, it says "Fact". Than useing the "Facts" it replys to these myths which 50% are complete trash for the most part. the rest borderline.

The difference is your ‘fact’ is made up and their fact is scientifically backed.

Oh thanks for clearing that up. the rest of the world sure had a different idea on what it was. Silly us.

Not only is it a change of environment, but a separation making it its own entity,removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing untill this day. and setting the date from that moment on now has its own rights. But hey if you leave those out, I guess its similar to changing your environment. Like moving to a new house I suppose.

Yes, let us apply law to quotes from the international board of Nomina Embryologica, because they certainly aren’t talking about the human life cycle and science.

For the reasons I have explained a fetus is a potential human with potential rights. Not to be confused with the existing rights an existing person has.

I didn’t see any reasons explaining that.

Aye yes, But, unfortunately for your argument, this person on life support is not a potential human. He now is no longer attached to his mothers womb, nor umbilical cord he was fed threw from the first day he begin to develop.

The difference between a fetus depending on the womb and umbilical cord for survival is it is a potential human with potential human rights. So it has not developed, nor has the fetus's rights. On the other hand the man on life support is not a potential life. Hey may be on life support, close to die. But obtained his human rights long ago. They don't expire your rights as if it were a drivers licence. Once you have it, you have it. He is a human with human rights. The fetus is a potential human with potential rights. The fetus doesn't have them.

The man on life support has been given his rights, the fetus hasn't. But undead cheese, you are correct,

And since I have in the above indisputably shown why your reasons do not apply I will just state that a fetus is a human and a human [should be] entitled to human rights.

 

[Tipsy]

Part 2

Difference between a serial killer getting killed and a fetus getting killed:

The serial killer has human rights and was given due process.

The fetus does not have the same rights.

However, this isn’t ‘does a fetus have the same rights…’ but ‘should the fetus have the same right…’.

First of all you are only found guilty when proven so by the court of law. The fetus was never taken to court sense it does not contain the same rights. Secondly sense it never went to court, it could of never been found guilty. Lastly, the fetus was not terminated the same way the serial killer was. No one is going to give the fetus a lethal injection, or strap it down to the electric chair.

Killing without due process is still killing without due process regardless of how the killing is carried out.

A human has certin things. A fetus eventually develops into them. Individual-Your entity is seperated before the age of 25. You have a personality before the age of 25. You physically look like a human before the age of 25. You also have a consciousness before the age of 25. You do not need to fully develop and grow into some 6' 200 lbs person. These qualitys that make a human what it is are things it developes at early age in its life. A fetus does not develop each of these.

This has to do once again with what a human is being decided by genetics.

For anyone to state that bieng born is just a part of some life cycle is so absurd. Before the child was born, it was conceived. The time when the sperm entered the egg is merely an event in the life cycle. This would be the first process needed in order for it to later become a human, and get human rights. Calling it a event in the life cycle is so stupid. Everything that happens is a series of small events in the cycle of life. However three specific events in a life cycle are important. One bieng when first begin to develop. Two bieng when your born.

It is the first process of being a human as explained above.

(Before you try to argue this again: Have you ever had a birthday party, or been part of someone elses birthday party? If it was only some event in the cycle, you would not decide to celebrate it than. ) Three bieng when you die.

How exactly do social customs tie into deciding whether a fetus is a human or not?

Or even somthing further that would prove why birth is a huge deal. A person who die's is given an autopsy. A person who is killed is given an autopsy. A person who kills them self is given an autopsy. And a person given the death sentence is even given an autopsy. How come when an abortion, misscarriage, or some other early termination occures, that they don't give an autopsy unless the mother was killed also?

Did the fact that fetuses are denied human rights ever occur to you?

Also, between the time the fetus is in the womb, and 5 minutes after birth, there have been so many changes.

Please state the changes that have occurred that make it human. Remember, it is genetics that decides.

Don't you honestly see the flaw in that right there? In the human life cycle, the human DNA structure doesn't change. Even after you die. But should dead people have rights also? Well they have the same human DNA structure and look what they do to the dead. Throw them in holes, burn them to ashes. Although many people have specific wishes when they die, that are carried out. They are not required by any law, but rather carried out by the respect of family/friends.

So just like a dead person who has the exact Same DNA structure. He is no longer a living human being. Just as a fetus is not a living human being. A fetus is a "Living human being to come" the title for the rights is a "human being" not a "human becomming"

Unlike a dead person, a fetus is a living human being as stated in my argument and shown by science.

I never understood why so many people care about this.

It is that some people care about preserving the dignity of all human life.

Even if the government were to ban abortions, they would still go on.

And this effects who should get human rights how?

 

[Kamikaze]

first of all its "since" not "sense", i have a hard time taking anything you say seriously everytime you write that.

If donna removes the fetus from the cord, the baby has no other way to stay fed, or alive, and dies.

ever wonder why they do such horrible things such as dismembering the fetus and sucking out its brains?
its because a lot of them would live for a few hours, even a few days afterwards if they didn't.

don't bother telling me that it dies because it is without its umbilical cord, because if you leave a 3 year old in a house by themselves within a few days they will die too. any defenceless person left alone and uncared for will die.

They are not living inside someone like a fetus. They are not connected to someone like a fetus. They are not developing in a womb. They will not come out of a vigina 9 months later.

children born with severe autism are dependant on their parents their entire lives most of them never learn to talk, use the bathroom on their own, and will never be able to support themselves in any way shape or form.
they are connected to their parents from the day they are born until the day they die. coming out of a vagina is not how you gain human rights, being a human is.

man you've beaten this to death and beyond, so i'll post something else about it.
three words "failure to thrive", in bad cases children form the time they are born until they are 2 or 3 need to be tube fed.

Hey smart guy find in my argument where I said "Tub fed". Ill save you some time looking. I DIDN'T!

What I actually said, because I'm sure you don't know:

removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing

are you incapable of following a simple comparison i used as an argument against something you've said?

hey smart guy, whats the difference between an umbilical cord and being tube fed? give up?..... NOTHING! except that it is much more demanding on a parent.

First of all you are only found guilty when proven so by the court of law. The fetus was never taken to court sense it does not contain the same rights. Secondly sense it never went to court, it could of never been found guilty. Lastly, the fetus was not terminated the same way the serial killer was. No one is going to give the fetus a lethal injection, or strap it down to the electric chair.

no, the things they do a fetus in an abortion are 10 times worse than lethal injection or the electric chair.

I never said it was or was not worse. You must be high

and you must be ignorant, because what my statement said, was that serial killers are executed in a more humane way than an aborted fetus.

like insulin, stop giving it to diabetics and half the population of the earth will die

Not the same thing. This is a bad example on your part. The fetus is fed threw the cord by its mother.
Now john gets his insulin from Dr. Johnson.

If donna removes the fetus from the cord, the baby has no other way to stay fed, or alive, and dies.

If Dr. Johnson stops giving john Insulin, John than goes to Dr. Frank.

The fetus cant find a new womb to go to.

no, it's poorly understood on your part.

a diabetic will always be on insulin and will die without it, a fetus can be born months prematurely and live without the umbilical cord by feeding it intravenously or even tube feeding. so the baby doesn't need another womb.

 

[Lights]

I have a question to all the pro-abortionists, and I'de like a serious answer to it.

#1: At what point does a fetus gather enough 'individuality' 'humanism' or whatever it is that makes it's life a human life, one that should not be allowed to be killed? Is it at birth, sometime in the second-trimester, or when the mother decides to keep it?

#1B: For your answer to #1, what makes it, at that point, more "human" than it was 2 weeks before that point?

 

[OneEliteMof0]

Tipsy/Light

Let me first say for the most part that I agree with you when you think a fetus should have rights. I agree that they should not be able to just kill it off. Morally it is wrong, unfair, and unnatural. None of my arguments are defending abortion rights specifically. I only want to defend what our government calls a Human. Which is where I personally have a problem.

Tipsy wrote:
Once again I state that a human being is decided by genetics not philosophy. This clearly states the science that shows a fetus is a human being.

rights follow laws, not science. If the law was changed, I would be fine.

However I am a fair person. If my government was to classify a fetus to be the same as anyother human being, than it should be entitled to the rights other humans contain.

and as for what you said:

This served no other point than to show how basically any social argument justifying abortion cannot be resolved until we decide if a fetus is a human or not. Do you disagree that if a fetus is a human it should receive human rights?

If our government decides a fetus is exactly the same as a human that contains rights, than it should have human rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where I feel the problem is at:

If statments:

if a fetus is a human it should receive human rights

I agree with you fully on th is statment. If a fetus is classified as bieng a human just as anyone else, than it should be classified as the same rights as everyone else.

The problem in this. This depends on the fetus bieng classified as a human. Which is completly fine. Now when I say classified as a "Human" I mean it should not have anything else attached to it to be accepted by the "if statment". No Partial(Human), No Potential (Human), No pre (Human), no in process of becomming a (Human). But actually is a (Human)

So if a fetus is a Human, it should have human rights.

Now two things that make this very important:
#1)If it is NOT A HUMAN.
-It should not receive any right a Human would.

#2)If it IS A HUMAN.
-It should be entitled to all rights any person under legal age contains.

Although we dissagree, we basically agree.

I have one honest question for (Tipsy/Lights) Sense are only reasonable responses who oppose me.

Note:I took into aspect the above if statment. So could you please also do so and give me your honest opinion on the "If Statments" I see comming up in our future (Not on forum, but supreme court/laws/rights ect)

I know I know I know. We are not talking about ("Is it" but rather "Should it")

But just for the sake of "If Statments" lets suppose just for 1 day in history this became a true statment, Now off of it, what do you believe should happen.


#1We know Human rights are given to humans.
Do you believe as of right now our government by law classifies a fetus to being a human?


#2
If a fetus was refused by law to be classified as a human, should it still receive human rights?


My very last one. An important one. (Mabie not by law/government/rights) but I would be contempt.

#3
If a fetus was to be removed from its mother and placed into a "synthetic" womb for the remainder of the 9 months, and the baby was proven by scientific data research that it would come out just as normal/healthy/smart/correct as a normal baby from an actual mother did, would it still be okay?




I hope you put serious thought into this rather than, "That would never happen/apply"



















It is perfectly fine every time someone wants to reply to somthing I have said. It is fine to clerify on what you thought I ment. It is even fine for you to believe that I am wrong while giving your reason.

However Kamikaze, you don't fall under any of those because I "Sense" your a complete dumbass.

I originally said this:
Quote:
"sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics."

Originally Posted by Kamikaze
first of all its "since" not "sense", i have a hard time taking anything you say seriously everytime you write that.


Let me take you to sko0L for a quick lesson.

Since
From then until now or between then and now:

Example: "I'v come to understand you are a moron ever since reading a post by you."

Sense
A perception or feeling: as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.

Example: "I sense intelligence is not a strong point for you."

I originally said this:
Quote:
"sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics."

Originally Posted by Kamikaze
first of all its "since" not "sense", i have a hard time taking anything you say seriously everytime you write that.

Yeah, well, I have a hard time believing your reading the same thing im typing.

Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
If donna removes the fetus from the cord, the baby has no other way to stay fed, or alive, and dies.

ever wonder why they do such horrible things such as dismembering the fetus and sucking out its brains?
its because a lot of them would live for a few hours, even a few days afterwards if they didn't.

Which means exactly what I said. They are dependant on that cord for survival. Not meaning a time frame of 1 minute or 2 days, but rather more than the remaining 9 months to which would be disconnected from the cord anyway.

don't bother telling me that it dies because it is without its umbilical cord, because if you leave a 3 year old in a house by themselves within a few days they will die too. any defenceless person left alone and uncared for will die.

A one week old fetus being removed from the umbilical cord will die eventually. Even if it is placed in the car of another parent, the fetus will die. Mabie not 8 seconds later, but more soon, than later.

However there is a difference in leaving your child in a house and leaving for 3 days, and disconnecting the umbilical cord.

Leaving a child in a house by itself for 3 days falls under many crimes for one. Secondly it is an american with constitutional rights.

negligence
Law. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Because this is a law, and not a right (Using argument that a fetus even had human rights), it does not apply to a fetus.

Than this pointless bit again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
They are not living inside someone like a fetus. They are not connected to someone like a fetus. They are not developing in a womb. They will not come out of a vigina 9 months later.

children born with severe autism are dependant on their parents their entire lives most of them never learn to talk, use the bathroom on their own, and will never be able to support themselves in any way shape or form.
they are connected to their parents from the day they are born until the day they die. coming out of a vagina is not how you gain human rights, being a human is.

Which basically is the same thing you stated last time when I proved you wrong, in specifically addressing those. Than bring up that specific piece again. So, here it is again.

what you said:

so a newborn, or someone with severe alzheimers, or someone in a coma, in your opinion is not an individual because it has no "sense of its identity, attitudes, beliefs, or characteristics." it is not aware of its situation. It doesn't know the creation of it was started from the fathers sperm, or the mothers egg. it never came to a conclusion in thinking it was inside of a women,

My reply

Well if you were to read the full argument before posting a reply you would clearly see where I addressed the people who fell under things as such you suggested, "Alzheimers, coma" (And even others that you didn't mention) but you clealry never got to it, or your idiotic reply on it would not of included them.

Incase you did miss it, here it is:

Quote:
Quote:
What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics — and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons?

Sense when did human beings that are people with issues as follow Depend on their umbilical cord, and mothers womb to survive after they were born?

mentally ill,
mentally retarded,
depressed elderly,
Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's,
drug addicts,
alcoholics,
comatose,
patients in a "vegetative state,"
paraplegics,
other paralyzed and disabled patients,
diabetics


And if you further would read my post you would find this interesting piece:



Which makes your argument wrong if your trying to say what my argument said. Because it didn't say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
They are not living inside someone like a fetus. They are not connected to someone like a fetus. They are not developing in a womb. They will not come out of a vigina 9 months later.

children born with severe autism are dependant on their parents their entire lives most of them never learn to talk, use the bathroom on their own, and will never be able to support themselves in any way shape or form.
they are connected to their parents from the day they are born until the day they die. coming out of a vagina is not how you gain human rights, being a human is.

Incase you need it spelled (Thats S P E L L E D) out for you christ.

Your example is in no way comparable to mine at all. children born with severe autism are not living inside someone like a fetus. children born with severe autism are not connected to someone like a fetus. children born with severe autism are not developing in a womb. children born with severe autism will not come out of a vigina in 9 months.

We are not to decide when a Human gets human rights. Remember everyone saying that?

All im stating is that a child born with severe autism has these rights. A fetus doesn't have these right now. We are not to decide when these rights are to be given.


really im not even arguing with you so much about the human having no rights, rights, or a red cape. Its just so absurd how you can not understand anything stated. And than post an example that compares more to your previous example than anything I reply on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0

Hey smart guy find in my argument where I said "Tub fed". Ill save you some time looking. I DIDN'T!

What I actually said, because I'm sure you don't know:

removing its needed umbilical cord that it depended on for the last 9 months to keep living, growing, and keep developing

are you incapable of following a simple comparison i used as an argument against something you've said?

hey smart guy, whats the difference between an umbilical cord and being tube fed? give up?..... NOTHING! except that it is much more demanding on a parent.

Tipsy may dissagree with me about many things on here, so may light. But I promise you they know an umbilical cord is not the exact same thing as a "tub fed".

First difference I notice is one is made from the human body. More than likly the tub is going to be made from plastic.

Second difference I notice is that the umbilical cord actually grows. Plastic tubes do not grow..

Also, the umbilical cord naturally comes out of the women, and into the fetus. Plastic tubes do not naturally come out of anyone, or go into anyone.

Lastly, the umbilical is passing threw food that someone just consumed. Unless a parent is eating a cheeseburger, and puking it down a tub into someone to feed, its not the same thing.

hey smart guy, whats the difference between an umbilical cord and being tube fed? give up?..... NOTHING! except that it is much more demanding on a parent.

Right there as soon as you first stated "Except" is where you became wrong. Not to mention all the other excepts you should have added. Luckly I am so kind and did that for you.

no, the things they do a fetus in an abortion are 10 times worse than lethal injection or the electric chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
I never said it was or was not worse. You must be high

and you must be ignorant, because what my statement said, was that serial killers are executed in a more humane way than an aborted fetus.

When you copy past somthing someone has and first reply to it with a "No'

Now your telling me you said before

you must be ignorant, because what my statement said, was that serial killers are executed in a more humane way than an aborted fetus.

But what you actually said

the things they do a fetus in an abortion are 10 times worse than lethal injection or the electric chair.

like insulin, stop giving it to diabetics and half the population of the earth will die

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEliteMof0
Not the same thing. This is a bad example on your part. The fetus is fed threw the cord by its mother.
Now john gets his insulin from Dr. Johnson.

If donna removes the fetus from the cord, the baby has no other way to stay fed, or alive, and dies.

If Dr. Johnson stops giving john Insulin, John than goes to Dr. Frank.

The fetus cant find a new womb to go to.

no, it's poorly understood on your part.

a diabetic will always be on insulin and will die without it, a fetus can be born months prematurely and live without the umbilical cord by feeding it intravenously or even tube feeding. so the baby doesn't need another womb.

No, if your going to compare it, compare it on the right levels.

If your talking about removing the worlds supply of insilin, than you would compare it to the worlds supply of mothers wombs.

Not a world supply, compared to 1 mothers womb.

Not the same thing. This is a bad example on your part.

No, it's poorly understood on your part.

ROFLMAO!

Thing of a comparison like an algebra problem. For it to be correct, both sides have to be equal. No matter if that amount is 1, 10, or a billion.

Comparing the worlds supply to one mothers womb is stupid. I used your example correct. Using one womb, to one supplyer of insulin. Which mabie I even used too big of example. Mabie only a bottle. But for the sake of your argument, lets pretend it was the hole hospital, or city. Damn, How about the hole state. A hole state of insaline compared to one women's womb in that state.



For the sake of this again, we do not need to hear your opinion unless:
A) its somthing new
B) Its factual evidence and not personal opinion
C)You spent more than 10 minutes reading the full point, and spent more than 10 minutes thinking of a response
D)Attempting to guess what my first reply will be to what your typing,than change what it is your typing so I won't have to reply.

Or my personal favorite
E) Don't post a reply after quoting only one sentence of a 3 paragraph argument. Because you attempt to make it sound like I'm stating the exact opposite of what I am.

As far as the rest of you who have/and still will argue my point, I do not mind, sense you actually bring up valid reasons.


The one thing iv heard that got me thinking the most this hole time,
"If a person has rights, is a fetus a person"

Now I view these things based on context of law/possibility of law. I find it to almost be an impossible task for say, the supreme court, to be available to make this decision.

True personal opinion: I think what will end up happening (Not today, or this year, but eventually) a fetus will fall under some sort of start to finish law. Making it required to finish the process once started unless very limited cases happen to apply. By means of things like rape/mother life at danger, or some other complex issue that has a simple answer. Because it is not right to use abortion as a birth control. However there is somthing known as "There is an exception to every rule" rule.

Most of my views are not what I think a human must be in order to apply. But I bring up things that I am sure would be braught up at a court case, or supreme court case. Because the fact that 23 chromosomes from the father, and 23 different onces from the mother are joined together giving new human dna structure. Seeing that proving 46 uniqe chromosomes exist doesn't seem like it would be such a hard thing to do. Mabie the supreme court does not want to give exact qualification of a Human? Mabie they are unsure, Do they expect it to have other things. Remember this part is personal opinion not to be confused with the rest.

 

[Advocatus_Diaboli87]

First, I'd like to say that I respect both sides and can see somepoints on the pro-lifers side, but ultimately, you won't be able to change my mind on this. Also, I'm expecting that you will not dis me or say "YOU ARE WRONG", like you did to cheese. You're not going to win debates saying the other side is just plain wrong.

I have a question for you prolifers. You said genetics determines whether or not your human. You also said that having body parts (i.e. ears, legs, etc.) is irrelevant to being consider human.
My question:
Do you guys know what determines our body parts?

Answer:
Genetics. Based on our parents DNA, we are built...physically. Not mentally or socially. Just physically, which you condsider irrelevant to being human. Now I personally believe that a fetus is not a human...up to a time. I, like undead_cheese (i think thats his name), do not believe in abortion in the third and second half of second trimester. (I'll explain soon.) To me, the fetus is basically, a parasite : An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. That's what a fetus *basically* does. It uses the womans blood, food, and waste system (a lack of better words there) Being pregnant does not help the woman in any way except pass on her and the father's genes. But that's assuming the child doesn't die,get vascetomy/*woman's version*, get ovarian/testicular cancer, or isn't homosexual.

"...But a newborn depends on the woman as much as a fetus does" - those weren't the exact words, but along the same line; someone said.

That is not true. A newborn infant doesn't require use to go to the bathroom for it. It does that it self, using its own system and own muscles. A fetus uses the mother. Plain and simple.

I know I should address this, but I'm getting tired, is the alzheimer's patients and mentally retarded people.

Now...on why I belive it's wrong to have an abortion between 2nd 1/2 - 3rd trimester. First of all, from what I understand, is that having an abortion (that late in pregnancy) is like giving birth. If you are willing to go through the pain of an abortion, then you might as well wait an extra2-3 months and just give birth. Also, this is just speculation, but the survival rate of an unborn fetus rises rapidly starting a little before the third tri-mester. (I might be wrong on this... I can't remember where I saw this information. I think it was in TIME. All I know is that is saw it this year 2005) Another note: I don't think women should have abortions, but if it's what the want/feel they need to do, then it's their choice, not politicians.

Well, that'll be all for now. And just on a side note, and off topic(we can discuss some other time)... it's kinda funny how "conservatives" use science to support one idea (Mendel) and completely disregard others (Darwin).

EDIT: Just for the record...I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. Most of us are (choice). There is a difference.

 

[Lights]

#1We know Human rights are given to humans.
Do you believe as of right now our government by law classifies a fetus to being a human?

That depends on what you mean. I believe it does in wording, but not in action (Obviously not in action or abortions would already be illegal). I think Tipsy has marvelously shown how the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, various court rulings, and international human rights statements have shown that fetus' are covered, it's just that they have never been included where they rightfully should. They have been passed over.

But, even if the law doesn't classify a fetus as human, it should definantly be changed to where there is no doubt whatsoever, as science has clearly shown a fetus is, in fact, human.

#2
If a fetus was refused by law to be classified as a human, should it still receive human rights?

I'll rephrase that for you: If "science" refused to classify a fetus as human, should it still receive human rights? No, and rightfully not - nonhumans shouldn't receive human rights. In this situation, however, the law should be made after the declarations of science. If the law refused it alone, against the truths of science, I still wouldn't shut up.

But, that isn't the case. Fetus' are, by science, human, and the lawmakers and politicians should follow suit.

#3
If a fetus was to be removed from its mother and placed into a "synthetic" womb for the remainder of the 9 months, and the baby was proven by scientific data research that it would come out just as normal/healthy/smart/correct as a normal baby from an actual mother did, would it still be okay?

Now this is just my personal, undeveloped opinion, and one that might change with debate, but.. for me, that's perfectly fine. I honestly do not care if the fetus is created in a lab 1,000 miles away from a woman, once that egg is fertilized we have a human being (not potential, but growing). Human beings should be protected, no matter in what stage of life, by law.

This is why I I'm not that worried about "women's rights" or "tradition" or anything else. For me, isn't about a woman's right to her body, it is just about the fact we have a growing human being destroyed mercilessly. Created in a womb or a tube, the creation is still human.



*Edit: This is for the above post.

To me, the fetus is basically, a parasite

This is where I fail to understand many pro-abortion arguments (You may say there is a difference, but I do not. The "choice" was to have sex or not, which we both believe in. You (not just you) are for abortion, plain and simple.) You say a fetus is a "parasite" that it's just a "lifeless ball of cells" and it's just "feeding off the mother." Alright, but.. how does any of that change from the first trimester to the third? Sure, it grows some, developes some, and generally begins to 'look' more 'normal,' ... but it's the exact same human being, just a few months later in life.

You can give it titles such as "parasite" to make it seem less human, less normal, and just less wanted, but this "parasite" is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It's doing what you did, and what every other human being in history has done. Give it discriminatory comparisons if you want, but that doesn't impress me. It may have parasitic qualities, and I suppose that it does, but it's perfectly normal. It's normal in the human development - so that isn't a reason, for me, to allow abortions. Far from it.

 

[Undead Cheese]

EDIT: Just for the record...I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. Most of us are (choice). There is a difference.

I'm pro-choice, too. I think people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to rob a bank. I don't support the act of robbing banks, and I probably wouldn't even do it myself, but I don't think that people who make that decision should be punished for it.

Does the argument look stupid yet, or shall I continue?

 

[Advocatus_Diaboli87]

Quote:
To me, the fetus is basically, a parasite

This is where I fail to understand many pro-abortion arguments (You may say there is a difference, but I do not. The "choice" was to have sex or not, which we both believe in. You (not just you) are for abortion, plain and simple.) You say a fetus is a "parasite" that it's just a "lifeless ball of cells" and it's just "feeding off the mother." Alright, but.. how does any of that change from the first trimester to the third? Sure, it grows some, developes some, and generally begins to 'look' more 'normal,' ... but it's the exact same human being, just a few months later in life.

You can give it titles such as "parasite" to make it seem less human, less normal, and just less wanted, but this "parasite" is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It's doing what you did, and what every other human being in history has done. Give it discriminatory comparisons if you want, but that doesn't impress me. It may have parasitic qualities, and I suppose that it does, but it's perfectly normal. It's normal in the human development - so that isn't a reason, for me, to allow abortions. Far from it.

First of all, I never said it was a "lifeless ball of cells". I know that it is alive, and growing. A woman has a right to use her bodies resources as she wants. Her choice is what to do with her body and with what ever is living in it. If she doesn't want to give birth, then fine, it's her call. But she can't just stop nurturing it, so she has to abort it.