Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor implied.
Actually, I'm expanding on what you said about the pro-choice position.
Umm... how so? I never said that nothing is a human being, nor did I ever ask the question of what a human being is. End of story.
No, you simply said "Fetuses aren't human."
Which, of course, begs the question of why you responded as such...
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
Nice straw man. A woman does have a right to privacy here, but must go about it in different ways (i.e. by giving the child up for adoption). In the case of a few-month-old fetus, it is removed from the body, and is not viable for survival anyway. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. A child cannot survive on its own without the mother for, oh, about 15 years after it's born. If a woman has the right to kill a fetus due to "privacy," then the woman has the right to kill her children for the same reason. If not, then the position is logically inconsistent and worthless.
Yes, but that child can survive if given to a new caretaker. The same cannot be said of a fetus. They are very different cases.
Can't it be said? We have such advanced medical technology these days; has anybody tried to take the fetus from one body and put it in another? We can (and do) do this with eggs and even new embryos, so why not fetuses?
Anyway, no, it is not different; the fetus can survive for a few minutes; the other guy can survive for a few years. The only difference is in time, which is relative anyway.
If somone can find a way of doing so, I will fully support it.
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
Wrong. As shown by your above post, you are merely misrepresenting the logic of pro-choice arguments.
Not really.
Merely contradicting what I said is not a valid argument, unless you live in a Monty Python-type universe. For the record, Monty Python's Flying Circus is the best TV show ever made.
Haven't you been contradicting what I've said?
Probably, yes, I think you've got me there.
[spoiler] If I'd been going for irony, I would have said "No I haven't" :P [/spoiler]
"It's not human!" What's a human?
In my opinion, a fetus becomes human when it is viable for survival outside of the womb.
"Opinions" are worthless. There needs to be an objective standard of human or there is nothing special or unique about humanity and thus no reason for rights--leading to no particular reason why abortion should even be allowed, let alone all the other rights we have.
What I'm saying is that this definition of when a fetus becomes human should be that objective standard.
And what I'm saying is that it is logically inconsistent--and thus cannot possibly be viable for objectivity.
If a person is human when they can survive outside of the womb, then a fetus is human. If you take the fetus out of the womb then it will survive for a few minutes before it dies. Same for everyone else, really, except some of them might survive for a few days or weeks.
Well done, you just managed to take my words literally instead of actually looking at their meaning. Kind of like Biblical literalism, but that's a different story.
Your meaning is different? Then say what you mean and quit dancing with words. What you said: A fetus can't survive outside of the womb, therefore, it is not human. What I said: Yes it can survive outside of the womb, just like you and me; the ONLY difference is in HOW LONG.
Sorry, I thought my meaning was fairly explicit. War described it fairly well.
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
You're using two very different words, there.
Different words with the same meaning.
Not at all. The first case describes a property pertaining to a mother's right to an abortion. The second case describes a circumstance under which an event would occur.
They both fall under the mother's right to privacy. Of course they're different in that one is allowed and one is not, but there's no consistent reason as to why this is.
Okay, fine, if you would prefer us to simply remove the fetus and let it die outside of the body rather than killing it and then removing it, so be it.
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
Lol, I love how you decided to repeat that argument. Refer to above post.
I repeated it to show the circular reasoning.
...lolwut? Thanks mate, now explain yourself.
I explained myself in my first post. The whole pro-choice position revolves around subjectively defining "human" so that the fetus does not meet that definition; ask what is a human and you get the runaround and eventually end up back at "it's not human!" Ergo, circular reasoning.
And, the whole pro-life position revolves around subjectively defining "human" so that the fetus does meet that definition; as what is a human and you get the runaround and eventually end up back at "it's human!" Ergo, circular reasoning.
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
Why do you argue that they do, then? It works both ways.
I have a consistent standard of what makes a human special.
So do I.
You haven't exactly given it.
I actually do not think that human beings are "special" in any way. Rights are in place for the reasons I have described already.
Anyway, I can answer this question regardless. Human beings have rights because these rights are necessary to a functioning society; for example, could you imagine a society functioning viably if stealing were allowed? Further rights are necessary to prevent abuse of power by authority. I could probably think of more, but you get the idea.
And can you imagine a society that functions by allowing people to kill their children? If the authority in question isw what grants these rights in the first place, then how does the existence of the rights prevent abuse by that same authority?
Fetuses aren't children.
There's no difference between a fetus five minutes from birth and a child five minutes after birth, now is there? Plus, you avoided my point.
Ignoring my point about a fetus being considered human when it can viably survive outside of the womb, but oh well, what else can I expect...
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
Thanks for the evidence. oh wait... This is the problem of most pro-lifers-they make claims like these without any actual evidence.
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
There is no fetus that does not meet this definition.
I like how pro-choicers demand evidence for every syllable uttered from a pro-lifer yet base their entire position on opinions. "Well, in my opinion. . . ":lol:
Ohai, I forgot, all of those traits are unique to humans. :roll:
We aren't talking about humans. :lol: We're talking about "alive," remember?;)
You should have been more specific. I guess I should have clarified that I was stating that you haven't provided evidence that they are human, not that they are alive.
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did. ;)
So, why post it?
Because I'm not talking to or about you specifically.
So why did you post it in response to me?
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did.;)
So, why post it?
Log in to comment