41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, is a baby, just toddler batter? Is a middle age adult an ingredient of an old man?[/quote]

Heh. [/quote]

It’s actually a good point :slight_smile:

But I think the analogy still holds. At some point in the baking process, it stops being batter and becomes a cake. It still isn’t fully baked, but it is properly called a cake rather than cake batter. It transitions from batter to cake, then goes through different cake stages (underdone, moist, dry, burned ;). I’m just about to the burned stage myself.

I guess the real question is whether or not the batter has inherent rights, by virtue of being batter instead of a cake. Why should something have more rights just because it’s further along in the baking process?

I guess you could argue that it qualitatively changes during baking, and becomes something altogether different. It has the identical ingredients as the batter, but it is still qualitatively different.[/quote]

So we’re discussing when an innocent human life can be deliberately snuffed out. See Kamui’s post.

402

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zygote
The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.[/quote]

Organism = life
Human zygote = Human organism = Human life

Hence, why I framed the discussion to reflect as much.

Oh, borrowed the definition from none other than…Planned Parenthood.
zygote
The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.[/quote]

There’s no question that it has human DNA…
[/quote]

If there’s no question that it’s human DNA, and no question that an organism is by definition living, then we can identify the life in question as human. Human life. You can’t keep acknowledging these things with making the connection, forlife. After awhile it looks deliberate.

So, to recap, you agree that science knows the difference between a frog zygote and a human zygote.

You agree that a zygote is an organism.

You agree that that an organism is living. Life.

You then must realize that human zygote = human organism.

Human organism = human life.

[/quote]

Human zygote <> Human

Cake batter <> Cake

403

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, it’s not killing a person.[/quote]

Is it because your saying it’s not a human being? Then what kind of organism is it if not a human one?

[/quote]

A coma patient with fluid instead of brains is still a human being, but i wouldn’t call it a person.

Without a functioning brain a human being is just a sack of flesh, bones and fluids. A zygote is a tiny satchel of flesh, bones and fluids but without a properly functioning brain.

[/quote]

But are they a human being all the same?

404

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, is a baby, just toddler batter? Is a middle age adult an ingredient of an old man?[/quote]

Heh. [/quote]

It’s actually a good point :slight_smile:

But I think the analogy still holds. At some point in the baking process, it stops being batter and becomes a cake. It still isn’t fully baked, but it is properly called a cake rather than cake batter. It transitions from batter to cake, then goes through different cake stages (underdone, moist, dry, burned ;). I’m just about to the burned stage myself.

I guess the real question is whether or not the batter has inherent rights, by virtue of being batter instead of a cake. Why should something have more rights just because it’s further along in the baking process?

I guess you could argue that it qualitatively changes during baking, and becomes something altogether different. It has the identical ingredients as the batter, but it is still qualitatively different.[/quote]

So we’re discussing when an innocent human life can be deliberately snuffed out. See Kamui’s post.[/quote]

You can’t dehumanize something that isn’t a human to begin with.

A human zygote may or may not be a human. If the cake analogy holds, it isn’t a human, only human batter.

405

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, is a baby, just toddler batter? Is a middle age adult an ingredient of an old man?[/quote]

Heh. [/quote]

It’s actually a good point :slight_smile:

But I think the analogy still holds. At some point in the baking process, it stops being batter and becomes a cake. It still isn’t fully baked, but it is properly called a cake rather than cake batter. It transitions from batter to cake, then goes through different cake stages (underdone, moist, dry, burned ;). I’m just about to the burned stage myself.

I guess the real question is whether or not the batter has inherent rights, by virtue of being batter instead of a cake. Why should something have more rights just because it’s further along in the baking process?

I guess you could argue that it qualitatively changes during baking, and becomes something altogether different. It has the identical ingredients as the batter, but it is still qualitatively different.[/quote]

So we’re discussing when an innocent human life can be deliberately snuffed out. See Kamui’s post.[/quote]

You can’t dehumanize something that isn’t a human to begin with.

A human zygote may or may not be a human. If the cake analogy holds, it isn’t a human, only human batter.[/quote]

I’ve already explained why it doesn’t.

406

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.

407

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, it’s not killing a person.[/quote]

Is it because your saying it’s not a human being? Then what kind of organism is it if not a human one?

[/quote]

A coma patient with fluid instead of brains is still a human being, but i wouldn’t call it a person.

Without a functioning brain a human being is just a sack of flesh, bones and fluids. A zygote is a tiny satchel of flesh, bones and fluids but without a properly functioning brain.

[/quote]

But are they a human being all the same?
[/quote]

A human being without personhood?

I find it difficult to put it into words.

408

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, is a baby, just toddler batter? Is a middle age adult an ingredient of an old man?[/quote]

Heh. [/quote]

It’s actually a good point :slight_smile:

But I think the analogy still holds. At some point in the baking process, it stops being batter and becomes a cake. It still isn’t fully baked, but it is properly called a cake rather than cake batter. It transitions from batter to cake, then goes through different cake stages (underdone, moist, dry, burned ;). I’m just about to the burned stage myself.

I guess the real question is whether or not the batter has inherent rights, by virtue of being batter instead of a cake. Why should something have more rights just because it’s further along in the baking process?

I guess you could argue that it qualitatively changes during baking, and becomes something altogether different. It has the identical ingredients as the batter, but it is still qualitatively different.[/quote]

So we’re discussing when an innocent human life can be deliberately snuffed out. See Kamui’s post.[/quote]

You can’t dehumanize something that isn’t a human to begin with.

A human zygote may or may not be a human. If the cake analogy holds, it isn’t a human, only human batter.[/quote]

I’ve already explained why it doesn’t.

[/quote]

You did. And really, did anyone really need to make the case why baking a cake isn’t analogous to the continued development of an individual organism? Forlife, read the last couple posts of yours. Batter, baking, ovens?

Human zygote forlife

Human adult forlife

Same individual organism. An individual human life from start to finish. It’s that simple. Note this isn’t actually challenged directly. Instead we get cakes and batter.

409

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.[/quote]

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

The argument is that despite having the same ingredients, a qualitative transformation does occur, whereby it becomes something different.

410

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.[/quote]

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

The argument is that despite having the same ingredients, a qualitative transformation does occur, whereby it becomes something different.[/quote]

But you called it a human zygote in the same manner you’d say human adult. You didn’t call it batter zygote.

411

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.[/quote]

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

The argument is that despite having the same ingredients, a qualitative transformation does occur, whereby it becomes something different.[/quote]

But you called it a human zygote in the same you’d say human adult. You didn’t call it batter zygote.[/quote]

412

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, it’s not killing a person.[/quote]

Is it because your saying it’s not a human being? Then what kind of organism is it if not a human one?

[/quote]

A coma patient with fluid instead of brains is still a human being, but i wouldn’t call it a person.

Without a functioning brain a human being is just a sack of flesh, bones and fluids. A zygote is a tiny satchel of flesh, bones and fluids but without a properly functioning brain.

[/quote]

But are they a human being all the same?
[/quote]

A human being without personhood?

I find it difficult to put it into words.
[/quote]

Yes. The coma patient is a human being but not a person according to you, so the zygote would be the same? And even if so, aren’t both entitled to life?

413

[quote]forlife wrote:

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

[/quote]

In fact, it can.

414

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.[/quote]

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

The argument is that despite having the same ingredients, a qualitative transformation does occur, whereby it becomes something different.[/quote]

A qualitative transformation occurs throughout a persons life. Not just in the womb.

This is getting old.

415

Let’s cut right to it, you do acknowledge that the human zygote is a human life, right?

To answer no, you MUST choose 1 of the 2.

  1. A human zygote is not an organism.

  2. An organism is not life.

416

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A human zygote may or may not be a human. [/quote]

Oh right, it might be a frog.[/quote]

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

The argument is that despite having the same ingredients, a qualitative transformation does occur, whereby it becomes something different.[/quote]

A qualitative transformation occurs throughout a persons life. Not just in the womb.

This is getting old.[/quote]

The question is whether or not the organism must reach a certain point in the transformation process to be considered a cake (human), rather than just cake batter (zygote). The cake continues to transform the entire time it is in the oven. That doesn’t change the fact that at one point it is not a cake, and at a later point it is.

Anyway, I’ve beaten the analogy to death and thanks for humoring me.

I’m inclined to agree with you, and here’s why.

If someone were brain dead, I would still consider them human.

If someone had an artificial heart, I would still consider them human.

If someone had no arms, no legs, no face, no hair, no body organs, and missing chromosomes, but was somehow alive, I would still consider them human.

The physical components don’t define humanity for me. I guess it really does come down to those 2 fundamental elements: essential human DNA, and life.

By that definition, a zygote is in fact a human.

417

[quote]forlife wrote:

By that definition, a zygote is in fact a human.

[/quote]

/thumbs up

418

if a zygote is a batter, it’s an unique, extremely complex, irreplaceable batter.

It tooks evolution several billions years to make this batter.
It take only a few breaths to destroy it (…or a few more to cook it).

we should be speaking about our duties toward it, not about its rights. or lack thereof.

419

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right; you have your opinion on the matter and you want women to follow suit. That’s my point all along Chris.

It’s not your place to even want to be in a position that you can claim moral dominance in these matters.

As long as you see women as lesser beings because they don’t adhere to your views on how women should behave, you invalidate anything you say on this issue.[/quote]

Red herring

420

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
it appears men are the only ones on this thread agruing against abortion… intresting.[/quote]

I guess you missed Grneyes, Buckeyegirl, and BG’s friend. And, what is your point?