by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 






There are currently no top
rated posts : don't forget you can "thumb" up or down posts.

Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



  • Index
  • » Society - Room 1
  • » Abortion by sismetic
  •    Is abortion morally wrong, right or of no consequence?

    Is abortion morally wrong? Right? Neither?

    Please indicate your position and your argument(s).

    I know there's another debate, but I wanted to renew it, besides it's a little different. This isn't about should it be legal, but if it's moral...

    I'm pro-life and believe that it's morally wrong to abort a baby because it's a life, and furthermore it's a human life with human basic rights namely that of right to live. I will expand my view as people post....

    Edit

#21 2013-01-11 05:33:23

          Canada    SgtPeppers
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

 

 I realize this, and I already apologized for the mistake right after I posted it. The other images do correspond to their dates, though, with maybe ONE exception, where it was an estimate with a margin of error of 2 weeks, give or take.  

 

And of course we have your word on that... oddly enough... I'm not convinced. Also, you'll note that the photo that actually look like a baby (the last one) are almost to the third trimester, (trimesters are roughly 3 months, 4 weeks in a month, that makes week 24 the start of the 3rd trimester) and thus beyond my threshold for the permissibility of abortion (barring the life of the mother). I have already said that by that point, the woman has essentially decided that she is keeping the child and she has had ample opportunity to abort. The vast, vast majority of abortions take place before the 4 month mark, after which a medical reason is usually required.

 

 Are you talking about humans grown from skin cells, or grown from an egg with material injected into it? Because my point still stands that you need to find a case where this has happened, and sheep and dogs have been artificially conceived replacing the sperm's 'stuff' with 'stuff' taken from the organism that the egg came from. This is very different than turning a skin cell into an animal 

 

I'm talking about cloning... which does involve the injection into the egg

 

 "not fully human" implies something less than human, which has a prejudice and understandably negative connation, as opposed to simply "not human." I admit, my reaction might not have been called for. 

 

Not fully human implies not human... subhuman would be fully human yet intrinsically inferior

 

 You are implying that a person can be alive, but not be human. That's silly, and is the same as saying that I'm not human whenever I'm asleep.  

 

Higher level brain function is present even when sleeping. My parameters for a human life is based around that function, it is not yet present in embryos (prior to trimester 2) and in the brain dead, it is no longer present. The fact of life is not the continuing function of the body, it is the function of the mind, once that goes life is gone.

"Alright, fine, it's simply false. The burden of proof... here, have it back wink"

Tag, your it. If I don't know your specific objections, I can hardly respond to them can I?

Offline

#22 2013-01-11 05:12:22

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@NikoLStak 

 ''It does not matter how old the fetus is. It cancel the (potential) human growing in it whenever you stop pregnancy. What matter is; When the baby can feel pain and feel that we're killing it.''
Before this it is not more immoral to abort than to crush a flower. 

 

Wrong.  That's like saying it's moral to shoot me in the head when I'm asleep.

Offline

#23 2013-01-11 05:09:49

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




SgtPeppers wrote:

@SlimNm 

Addressing ONLY the pictures, you used the same one twice for 20 weeks and for twelve weeks (that also happens to not be a real fetus, it is a model of a baby pro lifers give out at protests claiming it is what a fetus looks like). The others appear frequently on pro-life websites, always labelled with different timestamps. Look at the representations in a biology textbook, they don't look like that (exempting the earliest phases, which, BTW, are too small to be photographed).

I realize this, and I already apologized for the mistake right after I posted it.  The other images do correspond to their dates, though, with maybe ONE exception, where it was an estimate with a margin of error of 2 weeks, give or take.

SgtPeppers wrote:

"Until you find me a case where this has happened, your point is irrelevant."
Human cloning is ILLEGAL, but we have cloned sheep and Dogs on several occasions and the science behind it doesn't change.

Are you talking about humans grown from skin cells, or grown from an egg with material injected into it?  Because my point still stands that you need to find a case where this has happened, and sheep and dogs have been artificially conceived replacing the sperm's 'stuff' with 'stuff' taken from the organism that the egg came from.  This is very different than turning a skin cell into an animal.

SgtPeppers wrote:

"Interesting. You imply that there is a such thing as subhuman, making your arguments align with the ones Nazis used to justify the massacre of Jews."

Okay, this is me irritated. First, not fully human does not imply subhuman. A half built car is not a sub car, it simply isn't finished enough to be called a car yet. Second, the nazis claimed the Jews were intrinsically inferior, whereas my argument refers to something not yet human but capable of being one.

"not fully human" implies something less than human, which has a prejudice and understandably negative connation, as opposed to simply "not human."  I admit, my reaction might not have been called for.

SgtPeppers wrote:

"Even the brain of a person in a permanent coma has not ceased to function. But given the fact that you just claimed coma patients aren't human, I wouldn't expect you to understand that."

No, I was not referring to ALL coma patients. I was referring to those generally known as "brain dead", in which all higher level cognitive function ceases, though some bodily functions like heartbeat continue.

You are implying that a person can be alive, but not be human.  That's silly, and is the same as saying that I'm not human whenever I'm asleep.

SgtPeppers wrote:

"That's not only blatantly false, it's an assumption backed by no evidence whatsoever."

Claiming that something is "blatantly false" implies you have some reason to say that beyond an alleged lack of evidence, please state how exactly I am wrong.

Alright, fine, it's simply false.  The burden of proof... here, have it back wink

SgtPeppers wrote:

Tip: If you are going to be a dishonest asshole, at least try not to post self evidently false images...

I'm not a dishonest asshole.  I apologized publicly immediately after I posted them. It was an honest mistake.

SgtPeppers wrote:

P.S. Sorry If I missed anything, the image URLs made the post a complete mess in the bottom bar

@SgtPeppers 

Offline

#24 2013-01-11 04:51:44

          Canada    SgtPeppers
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

Addressing ONLY the pictures, you used the same one twice for 20 weeks and for twelve weeks (that also happens to not be a real fetus, it is a model of a baby pro lifers give out at protests claiming it is what a fetus looks like). The others appear frequently on pro-life websites, always labelled with different timestamps. Look at the representations in a biology textbook, they don't look like that (exempting the earliest phases, which, BTW, are too small to be photographed).

"Until you find me a case where this has happened, your point is irrelevant."
Human cloning is ILLEGAL, but we have cloned sheep and Dogs on several occasions and the science behind it doesn't change.

"Interesting. You imply that there is a such thing as subhuman, making your arguments align with the ones Nazis used to justify the massacre of Jews."

Okay, this is me irritated. First, not fully human does not imply subhuman. A half built car is not a sub car, it simply isn't finished enough to be called a car yet. Second, the nazis claimed the Jews were intrinsically inferior, whereas my argument refers to something not yet human but capable of being one.

"Even the brain of a person in a permanent coma has not ceased to function. But given the fact that you just claimed coma patients aren't human, I wouldn't expect you to understand that."

No, I was not referring to ALL coma patients. I was referring to those generally known as "brain dead", in which all higher level cognitive function ceases, though some bodily functions like heartbeat continue.

"That's not only blatantly false, it's an assumption backed by no evidence whatsoever."

Claiming that something is "blatantly false" implies you have some reason to say that beyond an alleged lack of evidence, please state how exactly I am wrong.

Tip: If you are going to be a dishonest asshole, at least try not to post self evidently false images...

P.S. Sorry If I missed anything, the image URLs made the post a complete mess in the bottom bar

Offline

#25 2013-01-11 03:25:41

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




Way to sextuple post.
Logical fallacy abound, whether or not your overall point is correct.
... To many points being debated here, and I am apparently being ignored, as Nikolai is. I will merely watch unless I feel a strong urge to say something.

Offline

#26 2013-01-10 23:46:21

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




irishgenius wrote:

@SlimNm If you define a fetus as a human, are you going to go back and say a sperm or egg is a human?

@irishgenius 

No; a sperm and egg combine to become a human.  But a sperm and an egg are not individual people. 

No where in nature do 2 people combine to form one person.

Offline

#27 2013-01-10 23:23:07

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SgtPeppers 
                       
I made a mistake with the use of one of the fetus photos.  Apologies.  Just ignore the duplicates; they don't detract from my point.

Offline



   

#28 2013-01-10 23:17:46

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SgtPeppers 
                       
 

 That argument was ended 6 pages ago, the question has never been whether life begins at conception 

 

I meant the life of a human being.

 

 This is especially true when the fallacy in question is a straw man, because that means you are deliberately misinterpreting your opponents arguments 

 

I didn't deliberately misinterpret his arguments.

 

 Also, I was talking about the naked eye. When you look at an ultrasound of a young embryo, it is virtually indistinguishable from that of other animals.  

 

What do you mean by young?

Do you mean 22 weeks? auth22w-01.jpg

Do you mean 20 weeks?
abortion-fetus-baby-human-fetus-79725663983.jpeg

Do you mean 18 weeks?
how_life_begins.jpg?w=300&h=270

Do you mean 15 weeks?
fetus-at-15-weeks.jpg

Do you mean 12 weeks?
398395_342264985795334_254455071242993_1193247_385384439_n.jpg

Do you mean 9 weeks?
week9.jpg

Do you mean 6 weeks?
foetusnew460.jpg

Do you mean 1 week?
embryo.jpg

 

 I did tell you what does... philosophy has those positions. A human is not a human unless it meets certain characteristics... 

 

Who is going to determine these arbitrary characteristics?  It certainly won't be the little baby; it's helpless.  Will it be you?  Government officials?  Philosophers? 

 

 we do not grant equal rights to humans in microbe form. 

 

Who is we?  In the past, we have not granted equal rights to women.  We have not granted equal rights to blacks.  We haven't granted equal rights to Jews.  We haven't granted equal rights to humans in physically handicapped form.  We haven't granted equal rights to humans in mentally handicapped form.  Now we aren't granting equal rights to babies?

 

 Honestly, do you not understand how debating works? I said nine months for the sake of simplicity.  

 

Honestly, you were the on being nit-picky about logical fallacies; you don't get a free pass in this debate anymore.

 

 prior to the second trimester, the embryo does not suffer in any way 

 

Whoa, you seem pretty damn confident about that statement!  Whether people feel pain at the stage of development is debatable.

Excerpt from Sir Albert Lilley, known as the "Father of Fetology" in his book "The Tiniest Humans:"

 

 Question: In the case of an 8- to-10-week fetus, if you apply pressure will it tend to try to get out of the way?

Answer: Normally it would be extremely difficult, apart from putting a foreign instrument or needle into the uterus to apply pressure, but with a fetus at that maturity you have a very small fetus in a larger capsule of fluid. However, as the famous work of Dr. Davenport Hooker shows, in his many thousands of feet of film, babies at this maturity are responsive to touch.

The fetus also responds violently to painful stimuli-needle puncture and injection of cold or of hypertonic solutions- stimuli which you and I find painful, children will tell you are painful, and the neonate, to judge from his responses, finds painful.

---

I have been told by advocates of abortion that we have no proof that the fetus actually feels pain. Strictly, they are quite correct. Pain is a peculiarly personal and subjective experience and there is no biochemical or physiological test we can do to tell that anyone is in pain - a phenomenon which makes it very easy to bear other people's pain stoically, which is an important point for obstetricians to remember. By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organization like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prepared to extend to animals.

Question: The question, then, of pain felt by the fetus - it is your personal opinion, I gather from what you say in your paper, that in effect the fetus does feel pain?

Answer:
I can only say that the fetus responds violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful. Bertrand Russell once remarked that a fisherman had told him that fish had neither sense or sensation, but how he knew that the fisherman would not tell him. 

 

Besides, whether or not the fetus feels pain is totally irrelevant. Killing an unborn child painlessly doesn't detract from it's immorality, just as shooting someone in their sleep or drugging a child to death painlessly.

 

 Right now, every single person is shedding cells by the thousands. Given modern technology every one of those cells could be used to create an exact copy of the person 

 

Until you find me a case where this has happened, your point is irrelevant.

 

 all they need is a process to grow it,m that is not all that different from the early stage embryo, both require a simple process to become fully human, if that process is interrupted they never become fully human. 

 

Interesting.  You imply that there is a such thing as subhuman, making your arguments align with the ones Nazis used to justify the massacre of Jews.

 

 A person whose brain ceases to function (say in a permanent coma) is not human 

 

Even the brain of a person in a permanent coma has not ceased to function.  But given the fact that you just claimed coma patients aren't human, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

 

 Mentally handicapped people are not subhuman, assuming they still have higher level brain function. They might be slow, but they are still capable of the things other people are. Only if they are handicapped to the degree they can no longer experience the world cognitively are they no longer properly human and that is because I would label them as functionally dead. 

 

Show me a case of a person that deserves your arbitrary label of being functionally dead.

 

 The brain of an infant is distinct from that of a child or that of an adult in only 2 ways
1. Hormone levels
2. Practical experience 

 

That's not only blatantly false, it's an assumption backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Offline

#29 2013-01-10 22:02:37

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




irishgenius wrote:

@SlimNm 

PSS. Conception is a long time.Make yourself specific.

@irishgenius 

PSS.  Birth is a long time.Make yourself specific.

Offline

#30 2013-01-10 21:59:45

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@irishgenius 
                       
 

 Since the beginning
of recorded history, women
throughout the world
have terminated unwanted
pregnancies. 

 

Yea, so what?  Since the beginning of recorded history, people have murdered, raped, stolen, pillaged, plundered, committed genocide, owned slaves, and lots of other despicable things.  It doesn't make them moral!

You want to reference history to defend abortion?  Fine!  I can use history to support my position too:

From the ORIGINAL HIPPOCRATIC OATH:

 

 I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. 

 

From the ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF GENEVA:

 

 Physician's Oath:
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity
 

 

From the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS - 1949:

 

 A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception. 

 

Offline

#31 2013-01-10 21:39:39

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@irishgenius 
                       

A fetus doesn't become a real human being until it is physically delivered from a mother's womb.

That's a false assumption.  Provide a source for this claim.

Offline

#32 2013-01-10 15:59:50

          Canada    SgtPeppers
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

 

 No, it can't be altered. I am showing you that science proves life begins at conception. I'm not showing you that science proves if there is significant brain function at conception.  

 

That argument was ended 6 pages ago, the question has never been whether life begins at conception, clearly some form of life exists then the question is whether the microbes have the rights of fully autonomous humans and although you seem to be arguing for that point, you have yet to support it in the slightest by anything more than repeating that life begins at conception, with no reason presented to treat that life as fully human.

 

 I didn't imply that babies aren't capable of knowing they are alive. Are you familiar with the douchebaggery known as pointing out logical fallacies in an opponent's argument? Stop trying to teach me logic. If I'm not trying to be logical, then you might as well stop arguing with me. It's pointless to argue logic with someone who doesn't appreciate logic. By the way, they ARE physically distinguishable from other animals. Unless you are talking about to the naked eye, which is absurd, because you can't even see a human embryo with the naked eye, or most any other animal embryo, for that matter.  

 

No, pointing out a fallacy is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation so long as it is not the entire argument. This is especially true when the fallacy in question is a straw man, because that means you are deliberately misinterpreting your opponents arguments and thus your responses are simply illegitimate. If you are admitting that logic is not a parameter you are judging based on, then you really should not be debating. Debating is all about trying to pinpoint logical and otherwise non-subjective reasons for belief, unless you are trying for the same thing this discussion will go on forever.

Also, I was talking about the naked eye. When you look at an ultrasound of a young embryo, it is virtually indistinguishable from that of other animals. This was also demonstrated a century ago by looking at fetuses that miscarried at various points... they have GILLS for the first couple months. They aren't invisible, they are usually inside the body, but when they miscarry they are not inside and visible (assuming they are large enough)

 

 Science doesn't have a position on whether that life is equal to the life of a full grown human? Please, tell me what does then! A human is a human is a human; there are no degrees of humanity. To imply otherwise is bigotry.  

 

I did tell you what does... philosophy has those positions. A human is not a human unless it meets certain characteristics... we do not grant equal rights to humans in microbe form. If we did, then we would have long since banned In-vitro fertilization because it creates dozens of embryos and only a single child, the rest of the embryos are frozen.

 

 False. Embryos do not always require a full 9 months to incubate. That's a gross generalization, and there are exceptions. The fact that humans begin life at conception, however, is NOT a generalization, and there are NO exceptions. I challenge you to find a single one 

 

Honestly, do you not understand how debating works? I said nine months for the sake of simplicity. Yes SOME embryos can survive by month 7, usually requiring life support to do so. This exception does not impact my argument because 7 months in is 3rd trimester and I have always argued both on this thread and on the original abortion thread that 3rd trimester abortions should only be allowed in the case of the life of the mother. I say the same about the last months of the second trimester. Unless you can point to a case where a embryo came out and survive prior to the end of the 4th month (my usual, though flexible cut off point) then your point is utterly irrelevant.

As Irishgenius pointed out, there is a difference between when LIFE begins, which is at conception and when an embryo is considered  fully human. I am a longstanding supporter of the right to die in cases f extreme suffering. An unwanted child is far more likely to suffer, far more likely to die young, more likely to be abused, and for teenage mothers, far more likely to suffer debilitating disease. I view an abortion as morally wrong in many cases, but still a decision the woman has the right to make. A woman who choses abortion is essentially saying that she cannot give a child a worthwhile life and prior to the second trimester, the embryo does not suffer in any way, whereas the mother would if she carried it to term.

 

 Really? No significant difference? Other than the fact that an embryo is a scientifically distinct HUMAN BEING and millions of sperm are not? What does significant mean to you? Is age a significant difference? Is color? Nationality? 

 

Logical fallacy of ad hominom, implying racism and agism is never a good way to be taken seriously, especially when even the most cursory reading f this site shows me to be overwhelmingly for human equality. The embryo is simply the combination of the genetic material of 2 people which IF ALLOWED TO INCUBATE becomes human. The sperm example is one I use to gauge how extreme the persons position is. Here is a better one. Right now, every single person is shedding cells by the thousands. Given modern technology every one of those cells could be used to create an exact copy of the person, all they need is a process to grow it,m that is not all that different from the early stage embryo, both require a simple process to become fully human, if that process is interrupted they never become fully human. Abortion is simply a way of preventing the process from occurring.

 

  It's simply a matter of degrees? You are implying that prenatal babies are subhuman. So my value as a person is proportional to my age? That's bigotry. Or it proportional to my level of development? Are mentally handicap people subhuman? That's also bigotry. You are arguing like Hitler. Yes I just invoked Godwin's law 

 

Age has nothing to do with it. The brain of an infant is distinct from that of a child or that of an adult in only 2 ways
1. Hormone levels
2. Practical experience

However prior to the second trimester an embryo has no brain function whatsoever. As I view it, prior to brain function humanity is limited to genetics. A person whose brain ceases to function (say in a permanent coma) is not human either, they are basically a shade of the person they once were, the same body but everything else is simply dead. The embryos mind is the opposite, its mind is not yet alive.

Mentally handicapped people are not subhuman, assuming they still have higher level brain function. They might be slow, but they are still capable of the things other people are. Only if they are handicapped to the degree they can no longer experience the world cognitively are they no longer properly human and that is because I would label them as functionally dead. Life is just chemicals, however human life is more, it is the wonder of human consciousness, of experiencing the world around us in new ways. If something cannot do that, it simply is not human yet in any reasonable sense and in that case, the fully formed person takes precedence over the potential person.

Offline

#33 2013-01-10 15:10:36

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

PSS. Conception is a long time.Make yourself specific.

Offline

#34 2013-01-10 14:17:14

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

PS.
Since the beginning
of recorded history, women
throughout the world
have terminated unwanted
pregnancies. This practice is well
documented (Rylko-Bauer 1996, Devereux 1976,
Gallen et al. 1981, Riddle 1992).
Historians and anthropologists have conducted numerous
cross-cultural, descriptive studies focusing on traditional
beliefs, women's knowledge and practices related to
abortion, and fertility regulation (Devereux 1967, Devereux
1976). These studies have found that abortion is one of
the oldest medical practices, dating back to ancient Egypt,
Greece and Rome. Abortion techniques were documented in
the ancient Egyptian Ebers Papyrus (1550 B.C.) (Dabash and
Roudi-Fahimi 2008). Five thousand years ago, the Chinese
Emperor Shen Nung described the use of mercury for
inducing abortion (Glenc 1974).
Historically, the majority of pregnancies were terminated
through non-surgical methods including the administration
of abortifacient herbs (Riddle 1997) and irritant leaves,
fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen,
starving and lying on a hot surface. Other common
techniques, which are often very dangerous, included the use
of sharpened tools, the application of abdominal pressure
and potentially harmful physical activities such as strenuous
labor, climbing, paddling, carrying heavy loads or diving
into a body of water.

Offline

#35 2013-01-10 14:07:49

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@SlimNm 

Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person.A fetus doesn't become a real human being until it is physically delivered from a mother's womb. If you define a fetus as a human, are you going to go back and say a sperm or egg is a human? Should we ban birth control altogether then since we'd be killing a "human"?

Offline

#36 2013-01-10 13:57:14

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@NikoLStak 

Agreed.Personally I think its "Alive" at the 10 week point,for thats when the brain and heart are fully developed.

Offline

#37 2013-01-10 13:07:11

          Russia    NikoLStak
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@irishgenius 

Me, since everybody ignored me I quoted myself.

Offline

#38 2013-01-10 06:52:36

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




@NikoLStak 

Whoi said this?.

Offline

#39 2013-01-10 05:14:47

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




You have proven nothing except that someone said life begins at conception. All your statement taking that statement as granted truth are invalid.
Pointing out logical fallacy has its uses, especially weakening the validity of the opponents' arguement. I believe you may be stepping towards ad hominem, and probably a few other fallacies I don't know or care to look up the name of.
Pepper just told you what does have a position on the comparative value of human life, philosophy. To say any human life is worth more, less, or equal to another is not science, because that is subjective, ergo unmeasurable.
Nova Chankya.

Last edited by calibur (2013-01-10 05:17:56)

Offline

#40 2013-01-10 04:30:59

          United States    SlimNm
               Reply
   0    

Re: Abortion




SgtPeppers wrote:

No, you provide a quote which could easily be altered by context... "It is scientifically correct to say life begins at conception" could be radically altered if the next sentence is "However it is also a fact that this life has no significant brain function for months AFTER conception".

No, it can't be altered.  I am showing you that science proves life begins at conception.  I'm not showing you that science proves if there is significant brain function at conception.

SgtPeppers wrote:

Yes, someone who commits suicide is no longer a person, as is someone who dies of any other cause... they are corpses. My point is that you definition includes corpses as human right up to the point nature corrects its mistake and mutates... Also the idea was they lacked the cognitive function to commit suicide, the very proposition of them doing so is absurd to you... ergo you realize they are not even capable of knowing they are alive

I didn't imply that babies aren't capable of knowing they are alive.

Are you familiar with the douchebaggery known as pointing out logical fallacies in an opponent's argument?  Stop trying to teach me logic.  If I'm not trying to be logical, then you might as well stop arguing with me.  It's pointless to argue logic with someone who doesn't appreciate logic.

By the way, they ARE physically distinguishable from other animals.  Unless you are talking about to the naked eye, which is absurd, because you can't even see a human embryo with the naked eye, or most any other animal embryo, for that matter.

SgtPeppers wrote:

You confuse science and philosophy. Science can tell you when a life begins, but it has no position on whether that life is equal to the life of a full grown human, it only says that those microbes have the potential to become human... every sperm a man produces and every egg a woman produces share that potential...

Science doesn't have a position on whether that life is equal to the life of a full grown human?  Please, tell me what does then!  A human is a human is a human; there are no degrees of humanity.  To imply otherwise is bigotry. 

SgtPeppers wrote:

they are viable human life, requiring only fertilization, the embryos are viable, requiring a full 9 months to incubate.

False.  Embryos do not always require a full 9 months to incubate.  That's a gross generalization, and there are exceptions.  The fact that humans begin life at conception, however, is NOT a generalization, and there are NO exceptions.  I challenge you to find a single one.

SgtPeppers wrote:

There is no significant difference between a woman removing an embryo at 4 weeks and a man destroying millions of potential people by wearing a condom.

Really?  No significant difference?  Other than the fact that an embryo is a scientifically distinct HUMAN BEING and millions of sperm are not?  What does significant mean to you?  Is age a significant difference?  Is color?  Nationality?   

SgtPeppers wrote:

It is simply a matter of degrees and the decision societies have made is that prior to the 2nd 3rd trimester, when the baby has all the markers of humanity, the woman's right takes precedence.

It's simply a matter of degrees?  You are implying that prenatal babies are subhuman.  So my value as a person is proportional to my age?  That's bigotry.

Or it proportional to my level of development?  Are mentally handicap people subhuman?  That's also bigotry.

You are arguing like Hitler. 

Yes I just invoked Godwin's law. 

@SgtPeppers 

Offline

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com