[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I am asking you to explain the logic behind the justification of murder, . [/quote]
I am saying that removing a mass of cells is not murder
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We’ve been over this, Abortion & Capital Punishment are not the same thing.[/quote]
Certainly not, but if the “questionable company” argument stands for one thing, it stands in general. We are among a very small number of countries on Earth that are willing to execute minors, for instance.
Which is not to say that I’m in favor of abortion or opposed to capital punishment, because I’m neither of those things.[/quote]
We consider minor’s to be under 18, which is rather arbitrary though. How many countries agree with that age?
I actually don’t know. Maybe a lot do for all I know.
The death penalty is also quickly going away in the states, which is why discussing it is rather mute at this point, imo. [/quote]
Yeah, the definition of “minor” varies greatly from country to country and even within countries. The point of that statistic, though, is that we have executed people who we considered to be minors, and only a few other countries do that with people they consider to be minors.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I am asking you to explain the logic behind the justification of murder, . [/quote]
I am saying that removing a mass of cells is not murder
[/quote]
At what point does the mass of cells become something more, in your opinion?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I am asking you to explain the logic behind the justification of murder, . [/quote]
I am saying that removing a mass of cells is not murder
[/quote]
If a fetus is a mass of cells, so is an infant, a teenager and an adult.
So you are for the legalization of murder then?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ The point, though, that the U.S. is in some questionable company, is a good one. But then that argument has to stand for capital punishment, too.[/quote]
GREAT POINT.[/quote]
Very.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s no such thing. A sperm is not an autonomous living human being. It carries information, that’s all.[/quote]
A sperm is an autonomous living sperm
[/quote]
Correct, not a human…
This might clear up some of your misconceptions from a source I know you cannot argue against. He’s a bioethicist
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703[/quote]
It does not rule out that the egg and the sperm are Human Organisms as well
[/quote]
Seriously? You need your very basic biology broken down for you at a cellular level? On their own neither cell is it’s own autonomous human specie.
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/aobjetEmbr/objectembryo.html
Here. I am not an embryologist, so you can read the work of people who are.
So from the link:
"After the spermatozoon has docked onto the oolemma, a coalescence of the two membranes takes place. This makes it possible for the structures lying inside the spermatozoon to enter the cytoplasma of the oocyte. One calls this process the impregnation of the oocyte. Among other things the nucleus with the highly concentrated DNA, the centrosome that lies across the nucleus in the neck region and the mid piece with the mitochondria and the kinocilium (tail) are transferred.
The genetic material, lying in the nucleus and coming from the father, is unpacked and is used for building the paternal pronucleus. In what follows, the centrosome plays an important role in the convergence of the two pronuclei. Later - after the subsequent division - it will also be responsible for building the first division spindle of the new creature. All centrosomes in the bodily cells of a human originate from that of the father.
Other sperm components transferred to the oocyte cytoplasm, like the kinocilium, are dissolved. Effective processes also exist for eliminating sperm mitochondria from the cytoplasm of the oocyte.
Thus, all mitochondria in the bodily cells of an individual normally derive from the mother alone"
So what that means is that a sperm cell is a cell that originates from the father, but is not itself a human person. Much like you eyeball has eyeball cells, but are not a separate and distinct human aside from the person it belongs to. It’s an eyeball cell. Now your eyeball has your DNA and nobody else’s. Your sperm has your DNA and nobody elses. When the abovementioned process finishes, the result is a being with different DNA than either the sperm or the egg originally had. The cells with it’s own unique and separate DNA are a different being than the host, not the same. Hence a separate human being, not a part of an existing human being.
Now quiz time, do you believe that two distinct separate persons can run into each other and become one? Because that is what you are talking about by saying a sperm or egg is the same as a person in the zygote stage.[/quote]
You have posted 2 articles the 1rst says
“The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete â?? though, of course, immature â?? human organism.”
He calls the adult a human being he calls the immature a human organism .
If you want to cut and paste the specific aspect of your second article I will discuss it
[/quote]
He is correct and you are not. That’s the point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I am asking you to explain the logic behind the justification of murder, . [/quote]
I am saying that removing a mass of cells is not murder
[/quote]
If a fetus is a mass of cells, so is an infant, a teenager and an adult.
So you are for the legalization of murder then?
[/quote]
The problem with the debate going “there” is that one can spend literal years studying teleology, and philosophy of identity, and the problem of the many and at the end of it, still look back and say: beats me.
I have my car. I take one wheel off: it’s still my car. I keep going until all that’s left is one of the other wheels. This is no longer my car, but the wheel of my car. But where the thing stopped being my car: that’s entirely debatable. And probably subjective, and largely a matter of semantics and arbitrary definition. This is why I don’t think that every detail of the debate can be solved in a country of 300+ million opinions, because in the end one side will say X and the other will say NOT X and there will be nowhere left to go.
I, for example, don’t consider the morning after pill to be an abortion. But I know that some people do.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter what the “definition of human life” is? Why bother approaching abortion from that standpoint anyway?
IMO the rule should just be no abortion unless there is a medical need for the mother to have one. That medical need would certainly include potential psychological damage to the mother if she had a baby that was the product of rape.
Inconvenience as a result of your stupid decisions does not qualify as a medical need. That’s not a good enough reason to kill your potential baby imo.[/quote]
No your not the only one. It’s the quintessential point. If said in utero baby is a human life, then you cannot just kill it. If it is not, I don’t care what you do with it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]
A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.
[/quote]
A 3 week old infant can live with Dad or Aunt Susie or worst case the State
[/quote]
Or you can chop it up and throw it away. Same thing as an abortion.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.
EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]
I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child
[/quote]
So what about all the potential future mothers that are aborted each year then?
If you are so concerned with a woman’s choice, how can you be okay with the elimination of that choice by terminating her life before she ever has the chance to make that choice?[/quote]
Rhetoric , I personally condone life even after it is born . So if mom and dad are poor and dumb I think the child deserves a home , medical care and food
[/quote]
It needs to live before it can get any of that?
Am I correct in that you believe the in utero child is not a human and therefore can kill it off?
If that is then the case and you were convinced that the in utero child were a human you would be against killing it?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A 3 week old can live without it’s mother .
[/quote]
A 3 week old infant cannot survive on its own. It cannot shelter itself, it cannot feed itself, shit it can barely use its 5 senses.
[/quote]
A 3 week old infant can live with Dad or Aunt Susie or worst case the State
[/quote]
Or you can chop it up and throw it away. Same thing as an abortion.[/quote]
And that is my point. The only difference is being surrounded by a wall of muscle and in a sack of fluid.
How anyone that has watched a birth, and actually loved the child that came out, can be pro-choice and call a baby a “mass of cells” is beyond me.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.
EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]
I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child
[/quote]
So what about all the potential future mothers that are aborted each year then?
If you are so concerned with a woman’s choice, how can you be okay with the elimination of that choice by terminating her life before she ever has the chance to make that choice?[/quote]
Rhetoric , I personally condone life even after it is born . So if mom and dad are poor and dumb I think the child deserves a home , medical care and food
[/quote]
It needs to live before it can get any of that?
Am I correct in that you believe the in utero child is not a human and therefore can kill it off?
If that is then the case and you were convinced that the in utero child were a human you would be against killing it?[/quote]
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
This is argument by assertion.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I, for example, don’t consider the morning after pill to be an abortion. But I know that some people do.
[/quote]
While I highly doubt this doesn’t do horrid things to a woman’s body that we don’t understand at this point, if this is the method people choose, it is much better than waiting to know you are pregnant.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I am asking you to explain the logic behind the justification of murder, . [/quote]
I am saying that removing a mass of cells is not murder
[/quote]
If a fetus is a mass of cells, so is an infant, a teenager and an adult.
So you are for the legalization of murder then?
[/quote]
The problem with the debate going “there” is that one can spend literal years studying teleology, and philosophy of identity, and the problem of the many and at the end of it, still look back and say: beats me.
I have my car. I take one wheel off: it’s still my car. I keep going until all that’s left is one of the other wheels. This is no longer my car, but the wheel of my car. But where the thing stopped being my car: that’s entirely debatable. And probably subjective, and largely a matter of semantics and arbitrary definition. This is why I don’t think that every detail of the debate can be solved in a country of 300+ million opinions, because in the end one side will say X and the other will say NOT X and there will be nowhere left to go.
I, for example, don’t consider the morning after pill to be an abortion. But I know that some people do.
[/quote]
Good philosophical questions. What makes a ‘thing’ what it is?
The problem with the morning after pill is that it may or may not be an abortion. It depends on whether or not the egg was fertilized and whether or not the fertilization took. It’s an ‘abortifacient’ which means that it will abort a human if the process took place. The problem with the morning after pill is that it is still a slippery slope.
Now at this point I am concerned with numbers. I would consider it a huge victory to get rid of most abortions. It doesn’t mean that I don’t consider it a human life, quite the contrary. But I would accept the rape & incest and morning after pill exceptions for now to get those numbers down and get people on the right thinking for now.
Actually, if we could get the abortion rate below 10,000 I would just shut up. It would be a huge difference.
Numbers do matter.
As to what you spoke of earlier that’s ‘gestalt’ theory. That the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. If you had all the parts of your car in a box, it’s not a car. But a car missing some parts IS still a car.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
This is argument by assertion.[/quote]
Not to mention the fact it pushes the limit of abortions until the child is like 5 or 6 in the most advanced cases.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
This is argument by assertion.[/quote]
All the arguments on this subject are so 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As could have the aborted fetuses you champion.
EDIT: you cut off the part of the post where I addressed that irrelevant factoid. [/quote]
I do not champion abortion , I champion the mother’s right to decide what is best for her and her unborn child
[/quote]
So what about all the potential future mothers that are aborted each year then?
If you are so concerned with a woman’s choice, how can you be okay with the elimination of that choice by terminating her life before she ever has the chance to make that choice?[/quote]
Rhetoric , I personally condone life even after it is born . So if mom and dad are poor and dumb I think the child deserves a home , medical care and food
[/quote]
It needs to live before it can get any of that?
Am I correct in that you believe the in utero child is not a human and therefore can kill it off?
If that is then the case and you were convinced that the in utero child were a human you would be against killing it?[/quote]
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
So you are saying viability to live on it’s own defines the value of a human life? You are a human organism.
What’s the difference in the child the day before it can exist outside the protection of the womb and the day after? We are talking a matter of hours that changes something from a non-human to a human according to your definition. Though there is actually no verifiable difference in the organism itself. It is still the same organism, just developed further.
Would you have an abortion?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
This is argument by assertion.[/quote]
Not to mention the fact it pushes the limit of abortions until the child is like 5 or 6 in the most advanced cases. [/quote]
I would say about 15-16. When a kid could conceivably support itself.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is a human organism . Until viability it is the mothers choice . Until that child has the ability to live outside the womb , it is none of my or your business
[/quote]
This is argument by assertion.[/quote]
All the arguments on this subject are so
[/quote]
No, they are not.