Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…[/quote]

Please don’t misrepresent what I said.

I am promoting freedom for humans to choose until their choice infringes upon the life of another human. You are promoting the taking of an individual human life out of pure convenience.

It may have a hard life? Too fucking bad.It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. It may burden our infrastructure? Too fucking bad. It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. Not to mention that that is the promotion of abortion as a form of eugenics. Look how well it is working in China where they are killing so many female babies it is going to become a major issue for them in the future.

And you can drop the red herrings if you want to debate in good faith. I am not arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Go back and find one place where I mentioned God, a soul, or anything supernatural. Indeed, the only one of us so far who has appeared to assign supernatural qualities to beings is you, in that a human organism is okay to murder at a certain point, and then, magically, at another point, not okay to murder. My standard is consistent throughout, and I believe even most atheists will agree with me when I say that it is wrong to take an innocent human life.

So, let’s see if you can figure out how to get out of this corner you’ve painted yourself into. Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?

302

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…[/quote]

So we are here:
-Abortion is murder but murder is ok in some circumstances. Particularly if one life depends on another for it’s existence, then the hosting life has the right to cut life off from the dependent if it no longer feels it wants to be bothered.
-It’s better to kill the human life in early developmental stages rather than later where it my be actually aware something is killing it.

So let’s switch gears. What value do you put on a human life? What is the cut off that makes it ok to take a human life?

It’s not a Christian issue, it’s a life or death issue.

303

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s not a Christian issue, it’s a life or death issue.[/quote]

I’ve noticed this common theme on PWI:

Someone brings up hard, irrefutable evidence and sound logic to support their point ===>

Opponent ignores said points and commences to attacking the poster for being Christian.

Or they yell “bigot!” or some such nonsense.

304

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) [/quote]
Science is proving this idea occurs earlier and earlier. Your point please?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice. [/quote]
WHY kill a defenseless child?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant. [/quote]
So who decides when point is acceptable to kill a grown man? I also fail to even understand how murder solves anything.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/ [/quote]
So YOU know what they would want?

What exactly are you doing? Looks like you are telling me I can NOT respect life!

305

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…[/quote]

Please don’t misrepresent what I said.

I am promoting freedom for humans to choose until their choice infringes upon the life of another human. You are promoting the taking of an individual human life out of pure convenience.

It may have a hard life? Too fucking bad.It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. It may burden our infrastructure? Too fucking bad. It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. Not to mention that that is the promotion of abortion as a form of eugenics. Look how well it is working in China where they are killing so many female babies it is going to become a major issue for them in the future.

And you can drop the red herrings if you want to debate in good faith. I am not arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Go back and find one place where I mentioned God, a soul, or anything supernatural. Indeed, the only one of us so far who has appeared to assign supernatural qualities to beings is you, in that a human organism is okay to murder at a certain point, and then, magically, at another point, not okay to murder. My standard is consistent throughout, and I believe even most atheists will agree with me when I say that it is wrong to take an innocent human life.

So, let’s see if you can figure out how to get out of this corner you’ve painted yourself into. Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?
[/quote]

So, if I understand you, you support suicide?

Once again, you have two options from an unwanted pregnancy. Either you terminate it, or you make it into a life-long burden. Seems simple enough, except when it comes to people like you who have this strange hyper-inflated value of human life over quality of life. There’s no shortage of humans of orphans for that matter. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. The child feels no pain and isn’t self-aware and therefore doesn’t care if it lives or dies at that time, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you either.

No matter what the cost, keeping this person alive is worth it. Fine. That’s YOUR personal preference. Other people don’t value the life of a non-cognitive fetus over a happy life.

You’re looking at this through your “morality-goggles” (so to speak) rather than looking at the situation plainly. There’s no correct answer to whether you abort the child or not, each situation is unique and so we should give the option to the unique individuals. Since the fetus is incapable of making a decision, or even caring for that matter, the choice falls upon the mother. If she chooses to keep it, then great. If she chooses to abort it, still no problem. It will be the same outcome as if she simply menstruated.

306

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s not a Christian issue, it’s a life or death issue.[/quote]

I’ve noticed this common theme on PWI:

Someone brings up hard, irrefutable evidence and sound logic to support their point ===>

Opponent ignores said points and commences to attacking the poster for being Christian.

Or they yell “bigot!” or some such nonsense. [/quote]

Orrrrr they look at a passing statement as being part of their opponents core argument and whine about it for the next dozen-or-so posts. :wink:

307

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are here:
-Abortion is murder but murder is ok in some circumstances. Particularly if one life depends on another for it’s existence, then the hosting life has the right to cut life off from the dependent if it no longer feels it wants to be bothered.
-It’s better to kill the human life in early developmental stages rather than later where it my be actually aware something is killing it.

So let’s switch gears. What value do you put on a human life? What is the cut off that makes it ok to take a human life?

It’s not a Christian issue, it’s a life or death issue.[/quote]

I’m glad to see you are getting what I’m saying, even if you don’t agree.

There’s no right answer to when it is or isn’t okay to take a human life (or any life, I suppose). So much depends on the situation. I would look at the outcomes of both options and make a choice based on my preferences. Since I don’t want other people to impose their preferences on me it is logically inconsistent for me to want to do the same to other people, so I say give them the choice as well.

If a woman gets pregnant, but can’t support her child and also would not want her child to grow up in an orphanage may conclude that abortion is the best option. This is logically consistent, so the only issue I could take up with it is against her preferences. But then, what makes my preferences any more legitimate than hers? Especially considering her choice has nothing to do with me.

309

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

If a woman gets pregnant, but can’t support her child and also would not want her child to grow up in an orphanage may conclude that abortion is the best option. This is logically consistent…

[/quote]

Not even close to being logically consistent. To be so would be to allow the woman to hypothetically find out her child was unhappy growing up in the orphanage and therefore demand that she be allowed to put the, say, 8 year old to death to “save it” from a continued unhappy childhood.
[/quote]

Well then you’ve changed the situation, haven’t you? There’s new factors to consider.

The situation you put forth assumes the woman DID prefer to birth the child and place it up for adoption. So it’s not consistent for her to kill her child as a means of sparing it from the life of an orphan when she made it an orphan. Also consider that the child is now cognitive and capable of feeling pain. Hurting it would be cruel, but it is also capable of choosing for itself whether or not it wants to live. It can form an opinion and does care one way or another and since it is it’s own life in question it should get a say. Besides this, the child lives independent of the mother . It’s life no longer affects her’s.

I’m not claiming one formula works for every situation. I’m not dogmatic.

312

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

…The situation you put forth assumes the woman DID prefer to birth the child and place it up for adoption. So it’s not consistent for her to kill her child as a means of sparing it from the life of an orphan when she made it an orphan. Also consider that the child is now cognitive and capable of feeling pain…

[/quote]

You’re not going to get traction on this line of thinking because as soon as I or Pat or Kneedragger or Joe Blow OB-GYN down at the clinic demonstrates that a say 6th or 7th or 8th or 9th month (or earlier) gestation baby can feel pain your argument is annihilated.

Now would you care to take a wager that such baby CAN feel pain? Would you care to take a wager that such baby can be shown to have cognition? How much you wanna lay down on this? Who will hold the money?
[/quote]

It’s not as though most women are getting abortion right at the 5 month point. It’s also not as though we have no means of making the process painless if the contrary is proven to be three or two months. Also, whatever “self awareness” the fetus may or may not have at any given point in the pregnancy is irrelevant as the child is unable to make a choice (I already know what your going to say to this, but go ahead and say it anyway…). Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both.

But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what scientists studying this have to say

Prenatal perception - Wikipedia

Looks to me like, if anything, a fetus can’t feel pain until closer to 25 weeks, with some suggesting as late as 30!

It’s also worth noting that most abortions take place long before week 20.

313

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…[/quote]

Please don’t misrepresent what I said.

I am promoting freedom for humans to choose until their choice infringes upon the life of another human. You are promoting the taking of an individual human life out of pure convenience.

It may have a hard life? Too fucking bad.It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. It may burden our infrastructure? Too fucking bad. It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. Not to mention that that is the promotion of abortion as a form of eugenics. Look how well it is working in China where they are killing so many female babies it is going to become a major issue for them in the future.

And you can drop the red herrings if you want to debate in good faith. I am not arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Go back and find one place where I mentioned God, a soul, or anything supernatural. Indeed, the only one of us so far who has appeared to assign supernatural qualities to beings is you, in that a human organism is okay to murder at a certain point, and then, magically, at another point, not okay to murder. My standard is consistent throughout, and I believe even most atheists will agree with me when I say that it is wrong to take an innocent human life.

So, let’s see if you can figure out how to get out of this corner you’ve painted yourself into. Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?
[/quote]

So, if I understand you, you support suicide?

Once again, you have two options from an unwanted pregnancy. Either you terminate it, or you make it into a life-long burden. Seems simple enough, except when it comes to people like you who have this strange hyper-inflated value of human life over quality of life. There’s no shortage of humans of orphans for that matter. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. The child feels no pain and isn’t self-aware and therefore doesn’t care if it lives or dies at that time, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you either.

No matter what the cost, keeping this person alive is worth it. Fine. That’s YOUR personal preference. Other people don’t value the life of a non-cognitive fetus over a happy life.

You’re looking at this through your “morality-goggles” (so to speak) rather than looking at the situation plainly. There’s no correct answer to whether you abort the child or not, each situation is unique and so we should give the option to the unique individuals. Since the fetus is incapable of making a decision, or even caring for that matter, the choice falls upon the mother. If she chooses to keep it, then great. If she chooses to abort it, still no problem. It will be the same outcome as if she simply menstruated.[/quote]

Are you done cluttering up the debate with logical fallacies?

When you are, you can answer the questions I posed. Here they are, one more time, as you appear to have missed them:

Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?

315

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are here:
-Abortion is murder but murder is ok in some circumstances. Particularly if one life depends on another for it’s existence, then the hosting life has the right to cut life off from the dependent if it no longer feels it wants to be bothered.
-It’s better to kill the human life in early developmental stages rather than later where it my be actually aware something is killing it.

So let’s switch gears. What value do you put on a human life? What is the cut off that makes it ok to take a human life?

It’s not a Christian issue, it’s a life or death issue.[/quote]

I’m glad to see you are getting what I’m saying, even if you don’t agree.

There’s no right answer to when it is or isn’t okay to take a human life (or any life, I suppose). So much depends on the situation. I would look at the outcomes of both options and make a choice based on my preferences. Since I don’t want other people to impose their preferences on me it is logically inconsistent for me to want to do the same to other people, so I say give them the choice as well.

If a woman gets pregnant, but can’t support her child and also would not want her child to grow up in an orphanage may conclude that abortion is the best option. This is logically consistent, so the only issue I could take up with it is against her preferences. But then, what makes my preferences any more legitimate than hers? Especially considering her choice has nothing to do with me. [/quote]

So you believe human life is based on it’s worth?

316

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

…Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…

[/quote]

This is so fuckin lame I can’t even believe I lolly-gag around here.

If I sneak up on a 10 year old and whack his head off with a machete and it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…does that make it OK?

TT, you repeatedly approach, and pass, the line of sheer stupidity on this thread. Good grief, boy.
[/quote]

The bizarre part is that he acknowledges its a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it.

317

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…[/quote]

Please don’t misrepresent what I said.

I am promoting freedom for humans to choose until their choice infringes upon the life of another human. You are promoting the taking of an individual human life out of pure convenience.

It may have a hard life? Too fucking bad.It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. It may burden our infrastructure? Too fucking bad. It’s not anyone’s choice but its own to end its own life. Not to mention that that is the promotion of abortion as a form of eugenics. Look how well it is working in China where they are killing so many female babies it is going to become a major issue for them in the future.

And you can drop the red herrings if you want to debate in good faith. I am not arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Go back and find one place where I mentioned God, a soul, or anything supernatural. Indeed, the only one of us so far who has appeared to assign supernatural qualities to beings is you, in that a human organism is okay to murder at a certain point, and then, magically, at another point, not okay to murder. My standard is consistent throughout, and I believe even most atheists will agree with me when I say that it is wrong to take an innocent human life.

So, let’s see if you can figure out how to get out of this corner you’ve painted yourself into. Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?
[/quote]

So, if I understand you, you support suicide?

Once again, you have two options from an unwanted pregnancy. Either you terminate it, or you make it into a life-long burden. Seems simple enough, except when it comes to people like you who have this strange hyper-inflated value of human life over quality of life. There’s no shortage of humans of orphans for that matter. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. The child feels no pain and isn’t self-aware and therefore doesn’t care if it lives or dies at that time, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you either.

No matter what the cost, keeping this person alive is worth it. Fine. That’s YOUR personal preference. Other people don’t value the life of a non-cognitive fetus over a happy life.

You’re looking at this through your “morality-goggles” (so to speak) rather than looking at the situation plainly. There’s no correct answer to whether you abort the child or not, each situation is unique and so we should give the option to the unique individuals. Since the fetus is incapable of making a decision, or even caring for that matter, the choice falls upon the mother. If she chooses to keep it, then great. If she chooses to abort it, still no problem. It will be the same outcome as if she simply menstruated.[/quote]

Are you done cluttering up the debate with logical fallacies?

When you are, you can answer the questions I posed. Here they are, one more time, as you appear to have missed them:

Why does “self-sustaining” matter? Why does not causing the fetus pain matter? Why does “cognitive life” matter? Is this what makes us human?

[/quote]

Which logical fallacies, exactly? And how so, for that matter?

I’m also still waiting for your answer on suicide.

I’ve answered these same questions over and over, but I guess I’ll do it again! If the child is self-sustaining then killing it is not a mercy as it would not die either way. The baby is it’s own being now. It is self aware and does respond to stimuli and shows signs of self-preservation. At this point, killing it is cruel and would not be the lesser of two evils when compared with putting it up for adoption. Would you say killing something that doesn’t care is equivalent with killing something that wants to live?

I don’t know about you, but I would prefer if a fetus didn’t suffer during an abortion. That’s all.

What makes us human is our human DNA.

Again I stress that these are just side issues. The main issue is what I’ve pointed out in my previous post.

318

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

…Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…

[/quote]

This is so fuckin lame I can’t even believe I lolly-gag around here.

If I sneak up on a 10 year old and whack his head off with a machete and it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…does that make it OK?

TT, you repeatedly approach, and pass, the line of sheer stupidity on this thread. Good grief, boy.
[/quote]

No, you just set up very stupid counter arguments. I’ve said already that no one formula works for every situation. Different circumstances require a different approach, there are different things to consider. I’m telling you why what I’m saying makes sense in this situation, but all you’re doing is going “Yeah? Well it doesn’t make sense in THIS situation over here, therefore it’s wrong ALWAYS!”…

If you have a non-cognitive 10 year old body just being “alive” then it would be very much the same as if he was on life support. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the parents call as to whether he stays on it or not.

You’re arguing against me as though It’s my responsibility to “justify” killing to you in every situation you can come up with. It’s not. My position is it’s the mother’s choice. I’m not “pro-abortion”, despite what you all so desperately want me to be.

Different situations means different factors to consider. That’s all. Is that unreasonable to you?

319

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Which logical fallacies, exactly? And how so, for that matter?
[/quote]

Funny you should ask. This right here:

…happens to be one of them. My beliefs on suicide do not affect my argument and bringing it up is the same as bringing up my religion. It is a red herring intended to divert the focus of the argument onto my ideologies. Just to humor you, though, no, I don’t “support” suicide. However, on the scale of bad to really fucking evil, I would put taking the life of an innocent human who has no say in the matter whatsoever waaaaaaay the hell to the really fucking evil side compared to killing yourself. That’s all I am going to say on this matter.

[quote]
I’ve answered these same questions over and over, but I guess I’ll do it again! If the child is self-sustaining then killing it is not a mercy as it would not die either way. The baby is it’s own being now. It is self aware and does respond to stimuli and shows signs of self-preservation. At this point, killing it is cruel and would not be the lesser of two evils when compared with putting it up for adoption. Would you say killing something that doesn’t care is equivalent with killing something that wants to live?

I don’t know about you, but I would prefer if a fetus didn’t suffer during an abortion. That’s all.

What makes us human is our human DNA.

Again I stress that these are just side issues. The main issue is what I’ve pointed out in my previous post. [/quote]

Okay. No. You have NOT answered the questions. Not a one of them. Let’s try one more time and see if you can provide a justification for your rationale without begging the question or changing the subject this time:

WHY does “self-sustaining” matter? WHY does not causing the fetus pain matter? WHY does “cognitive life” matter?

320

In the meantime, food for thought. A “hopeless” alcoholic has, through his addiction, completely ruined his own life and is the cause of an absolutely hellish existence for his family. One night, he has drunk himself into such a stupor there there is absolutely no way to wake him from it. He may as well be in a coma.

Clearly, his existence is a net minus to himself and all of the people he is close to. So, is it okay for his wife to put a pillow over his head and end it for him? Certainly ending his and his family’s misery would be the lesser of two evils. Yes? Or no?