Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
the Truth Is a Circle Posted: 04-08-05 01:29am
The issue is humanity... Who can prove
that unborn human beings are not human?
They clearly are scientifically and
biologically. So please disprove human
fetus' humanity or you can not justify
abortion. Please tell me why a human
fetus is not a human being. I am of the
opinion, based on facts, that it can not
be disproved.
People in support of abortion (or
pro-choice b/c who is pro-abortion, even
though it's apparently only a reproductive
choice as simple as letting the being live
to birth or giving it up for adoption) can
not concede to the humanity of embryos and
fetuses because then any arguments they
try to make fall apart and hold no
water.
If the unborn being is human, and
therefore a human being, which of course
it is, then it takes more to justify the
killing of it, under law, let alone
morally, than for just any reason as our
law currently is written.
Stop playing ignorant and ignoring the
truth.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Re: the Truth Is a Circle Posted: 04-08-05 11:02am
where_is_the_line
wrote:
the issue is humanity...
Who can prove that unborn human beings are
not human?
ah, so you are referring
to the species issue? Yes, the fetus and
embryo are as human as are your kidneys.
Quote:
so please
disprove human fetus' humanity or you can
not justify
abortion.
sure we can. The issue
of abortion rights is about allowing the
use of your body. The status of the
fetus is irrelevant, your postulation none
withstanding.
Quote:
please tell me
why a human fetus is not a human
being.
because it is not an
individual, and thus is not a "being."
Quote:
i am of the
opinion, based on facts, that it can not
be disproved.
isn't that special. I
am also of te opinion, based on facts,
that the fetus is not a human being.
That's nice, we both have opinions.
So?
Quote:
people in support
of abortion (or pro-choice b/c who is
pro-abortion, even though it's apparently
only a reproductive choice as simple as
letting the being live to birth or giving
it up for adoption)
....
you are rambling. What
is it you are trying to hint at here?
Quote:
...Can not
concede to the humanity of embryos and
fetuses because then any arguments they
try to make fall apart and hold no
water.
what a stupid claim.
Even if the fetus was a person 5 times
over, it still would not have the right to
use a person's body against that person's
wishes. No other person has such a
right. So until I can force you to give
of your bodily resources to me, you can't
force the woman to give of her bodily
resources to the embryo or fetus either.
Therefore, regardless of how absolutist
your silly claim is, it is still silly.
Quote:
if the unborn
being is human, and therefore a human
being, which of course it is, then it
takes more to justify the killing of it,
under law, let alone morally, than for
just any reason as our law currently is
written.
so you say. You are
saying that "a human being" has the right
to use another person's body to stay
alive. Then I have the right to force
you to give blood if it could save my
life.
Yet, I have no such right, and as such
your claim is outright false. You are
simply wrong.
Quote:
stop playing
ignorant and ignoring the
truth.
why don't you?
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 04-08-05 11:30am
Quote:
stop playing
ignorant and ignoring the truth.
ah, I was hoping you'd be a pro-lifer that
didn't have to prove her point by
insulting.
Ah, well.
Anyways, I don't think because people have
different views they're ignorant.
Please stop playing like you know the
facts. Thanks.
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 04-09-05 01:42am
A fetus is a human fetus, yes. It
obviously isn't a dog fetus. But, like
steen said, it isn't its own being and
cannot live without its "host" and
therefore isn't a human being. Fact: a
fetus is not legally a human being based
on biology, etc. So, your "facts"
stating that it is are merely opinion.
When a fetus can survive, or grow on its
own then o.K, get rid of abortion. But
as long as it needs its "host" then
obviously it is a women's rights issue.
Would you let me live off of your body for
nine months, bearing the possability that
you may die when I break off? Should
that not be your decision?
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Re: the Truth Is a Circle Posted: 04-11-05 15:43pm
steen
wrote:
ah, so you are referring to
the species issue? Yes, the fetus and
embryo are as human as are your
kidneys.
it goes beyond the species issue. A fetus
and an embryo are more human that a mere
kidney. A kidney is not a living human
being that matures and changes inside the
woman's body, as the being will continue
to do outside if allowed to live.
Quote:
the issue of
abortion rights is about allowing the use
of your body. The status of the fetus
is irrelevant, your postulation none
withstanding.
you aren't disproving the status of the
fetus by claiming it is irrelevant, which
does not make any sense to me. (go ahead,
insert smart remark here) how can you
claim it is irrelevant?
Quote:
[a human fetus
is not a human being] because it is not an
individual, and thus is not a
"being."
it clearly is a being, just look at the
definition: existence; life, one that
lives or exists. Are you denying that a
fetus is not alive or that it actually
exists?
Individual: existing as a separate thing
or being
a fetus is not separate from the woman's
body while inside. But it is
distinguishable, it is a separate body
within her body, it is not part of her
body, it is in her body.
Quote:
i am also of the
opinion, based on facts, that the fetus is
not a human being. That's nice, we both
have opinions.
So?
so our opinions are only as good as the
facts that back them up. You haven't
explained why you think a fetus is not a
human being. I think it is because from
conception it has it's own, separate, dna,
bloodtype, gender, etc. It develops and
matures from the moment of conception just
as it continues to do outside of the womb.
It is a being that is nothing else but
human. A kidney, for example, is not a
human being because it does not grow and
develop and mature on it's own, even
though it uses the woman's body to stay
alive, a kidney grows with the rest of the
body, not independently (not as far as
reliance, as far as not being part of her
body) as a fetus does.
Quote:
you are rambling.
What is it you are trying to hint at
here?
the point I am trying to make is simple.
Why do people get so defensive when being
called pro-abortion? Even though by some
of the comments in this forum, people are
clearly pro-abortion, not just having the
choice to abort. Yet some people maintain
abortion is bad, but they can't impose
their view etc etc while others do not
seem to see anything wrong with abortion
no matter what, simply because the woman
has the ability to make a choice. I was
certainly not rambling.
"...Can not concede to the humanity of
embryos and fetuses because then any
arguments they try to make fall apart and
hold no water"
Quote:
what a stupid
claim. Even if the fetus was a person 5
times over, it still would not have the
right to use a person's body against that
person's wishes. No other person has
such a right. So until I can force you
to give of your bodily resources to me,
you can't force the woman to give of her
bodily resources to the embryo or fetus
either. Therefore, regardless of how
absolutist your silly claim is, it is
still silly..
go ahead, say stupid and silly a few more
times and maybe it will become true or
you'll convince a few more people, that
actually works in the mass media.
Quote:
you are saying
that "a human being" has the right to use
another person's body to stay alive.
Then I have the right to force you to give
blood if it could save my life.
Yet, I have no such right, and as such
your claim is outright false. You are
simply wrong.
donating blood and being pregnant are
completely different, that is not a very
good analogy.
You do not need to save the life of a
fetus, you simply need not kill it.
Yes, the younger a person is the more
protection we generally provide for it
under law.
You were already allowed to be born, you
are past the point of needing that
protection.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 04-11-05 15:58pm
kourtney08
wrote:
Quote:
stop playing
ignorant and ignoring the truth.
ah, I was hoping you'd be a pro-lifer that
didn't have to prove her point by
insulting.
Ah, well.
Anyways, I don't think because people have
different views they're ignorant.
Please stop playing like you know the
facts.
Thanks.
fair enough, that comment was unnecessary.
It was emotional and inflammatory, my
error.
And i'm flattered you refered to me as a
"her" but I am male.
I wasn't refering to everyone with that
comment, just certain people, and that
comment had nothing to do with proving any
of my points, it only had the potential to
insult, but it obviously did not further
any of my arguments.
I do know a fair amounts of facts, I
apparently form different conclusions from
them than other people. Sometimes I just
feel people are ignoring certain aspects
because it doesn't fit their argument as
well, but I guess we're all guilty of that
to some extent.
I don't assume ignorance just because
someone has a different viewpoint.
Again, I shouldn't have included that
comment, it wasn't very prudent in
retrospect.
|
where_is_the_line
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 173 Location: USA: NY & DC
Posted: 04-11-05 16:01pm
hotasfrick
wrote:
when a fetus can survive, or
grow on its own then o.K, get rid of
abortion. But as long as it needs its
"host" then obviously it is a women's
rights issue.
ok, but abortion is still legal past the
point of viability outside of the womb for
any reason. So do you agree with me we
should limit the choice of the woman after
that point?
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-14-05 16:26pm
where_is_the_line
wrote:
steen
wrote:
ah, so you are referring to
the species issue? Yes, the fetus and
embryo are as human as are your
kidneys.
it goes beyond the species issue. A
fetus and an embryo are more human that a
mere kidney. A kidney is not a living
human being that matures and changes
inside the woman's body, as the being will
continue to do outside if allowed to
live.
i'm sorry to have to
correct you but you are wrong. The
kidney does mature and it does change.
It is not a human being because obviously
it is not and cannot be independent of the
person it inhabits, much like a fetus.
How is it that "a fetus and an embryo are
more human than a mere kidney"? How are
they more and how did you reach that
distinction and definition?
Quote:
how can you claim
it is
irrelevant?
whether you consider
the fetus a human person or not does not
matter (hence, is irrelevant) since no
person (whether living, "unborn", or dead)
has the right to be physically dependent
on another persons body, resources, and
organs. When I say physically dependent,
I am referring to actually being
physically attached to another person to
survive.
Quote:
Quote:
[a human fetus
is not a human being] because it is not an
individual, and thus is not a
"being."
it clearly is a being, just look at the
definition: existence; life, one that
lives or exists. Are you denying that a
fetus is not alive or that it actually
exists?
for me, personally,
neither. I am not denying that a fetus
(if healthy) is alive or that it exists.
However, I believe what steen meant to say
is that a fetus is not a human *person*.
To be considered a person and indeed the
way that we have always counted and
considered persons is that they be born.
Upon successful birth, physical indepence
is established and the fetus is then its
own person and is at that time considered
a part of the human race.
Quote:
individual:
existing as a separate thing or being
a fetus is not separate from the woman's
body while inside. But it is
distinguishable, it is a separate body
within her body, it is not part of her
body, it is in her
body.
actually, it is not
separate but is intimately, physically
attached to the woman for survival. In
this respect, it is a part of her body
just like a kidney, a mole, and her hair.
It cannot live without the woman and is
physically attached to her body and
systems. It is not an individual since
it is not separate. This is also why we
do not consider z/e/f's persons.
Quote:
i think it is
because from conception it has it's own,
separate, dna, bloodtype, gender, etc.
It develops and matures from the moment of
conception just as it continues to do
outside of the womb. It is a being that
is nothing else but human. A kidney, for
example, is not a human being because it
does not grow and develop and mature on
it's own, even though it uses the woman's
body to stay alive, a kidney grows with
the rest of the body, not independently
(not as far as reliance, as far as not
being part of her body) as a fetus
does.
identical twins do not
have unique dna (from one another), are
they not considered persons? Clearely,
having unique dna does not garner one the
status of being considered a person.
Hydatiform moles also have unique human
dna from the host but you can find no one
claiming that they are human persons.
These are human but are not persons. The
fetus then is not independent on an
argument of dna because several other
things have unique dna but would never be
considered a person. The fetus is not
independent of the woman. It is
absolutely dependent on another human
being for its continued existence.
Without the woman's life-giving nutrients
and oxygen it would die. Throughout
gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the
woman's body are *symbiotically linked*,
existing in the same physical space and
sharing the same risks. What the woman
does affects the fetus. And when things
go wrong with the fetus, it affects the
woman.
You stated, "a kidney, for example, is not
a human being because it does not grow and
develop and mature *on it's own*, even
though it uses the woman's body to stay
alive, a kidney grows with the rest of the
body, not independently (not as far as
reliance, as far as not being part of her
body) as a fetus does." this is false.
A fetus does not develop and mature "on
its own" since it is physically attached
to the woman's body. The woman's body
providing nutrients and oxygen aid in
development and without them, the fetus
will not grow. A fetus that fails to
implant (physically attach) to the woman
does not continue to grow "on its own".
It's growth, development, and maturity
depend entirely upon being physically
attached (therefore not independent) to
the woman's body. A fetus that suffers
from a defect will still grow even when
any signs of life cannot be detected.
Clearly, the fetus is not willing itself
to grow and cannot grow independently from
the woman's body just as your claims that
the kidney cannot grow independently from
a body to support it.
Quote:
why do people get
so defensive when being called
pro-abortion? Even though by some of the
comments in this forum, people are clearly
pro-abortion, not just having the choice
to abort.
probably because no one
on this particular board is pro-abortion.
Being pro-abortion would mean that you
advocate *all* pregnancies ending in
abortion. Being pro-choice means to
support all the choices that a woman may
make with her own pregnancies.
Quote:
Quote:
you are saying
that "a human being" has the right to use
another person's body to stay alive.
Then I have the right to force you to give
blood if it could save my life.
Yet, I have no such right, and as such
your claim is outright false. You are
simply wrong.
donating blood and being pregnant are
completely different, that is not a very
good analogy.
on the contrary, being
pregnant is the voluntary donation of
space within your body, your resources and
fluids, and your organs for the potential
that a child may be born. If you do not
wish to donate, you can take
contraceptives and if that does not work
(as all contraception has a failure rate),
you can then choose to either donate those
resources or obtain an abortion.
Quote:
you do not need
to save the life of a fetus, you simply
need not kill
it.
how do you do one
without doing the other? How do you end
a pregnancy that you do not want and the
fetus not be killed? Because the fetus
*is* physically dependent on the woman,
ending the pregnancy cannot but end in the
death of the fetus.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-14-05 16:36pm
where_is_the_line
wrote:
hotasfrick
wrote:
when a fetus can survive, or
grow on its own then o.K, get rid of
abortion. But as long as it needs its
"host" then obviously it is a women's
rights issue.
ok, but abortion is still legal past the
point of viability outside of the womb for
any reason. So do you agree with me we
should limit the choice of the woman after
that point?
[/quote] please provide
evidence (case names, dates, and courts
will be sufficient) that abortion is legal
past the point of viability "for any
reason"? Please point out in the
prevailing court precedence where this is
true and please point out the documented
cases for women obtaining abortions "for
any reason" past viability.
Prevailing case law states that abortions
after viability are only legal in the
event that the life or health of the woman
is in jeopardy. Abortions after
viability account for only 1/5 of 1% of
all abortions performed. The
overwhelming majority of abortions
performed are done so within the first
trimester and well within viability. You
must show actual, medical need to obtain
an abortion after viability. Not only
must you show this for your insurance (or
medicaid/medicare) to cover the associated
costs but you must also find one of the
very few doctors who will perform the
procedures common after viability.
Women don't wait around until after
viability to suddenly decide that they
will have an abortion nor can they
legally. Abortions performed after
viability are prescribed in the event of
fetal abnormality not conducive to life
outside the womb or where the pregnancy
represents a present danger to the woman's
health or life.
To my knowledge, there have been no cases
(and you can be rest assured that they
would be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law nor would any doctor go near
them and risk their livelihood) involving
women who obtain a post-viability abortion
"for any reason". There are reasons for
these abortions to be allowed and
performed and they must be medically
documented.
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 04-14-05 16:40pm
The difference is that a kidney cannot
exist outside of the human body no matter
how long you keep it in your body,whereas
a fetus after 24 weeks can live
independent of the females body,take your
kidney out after 24 weeks and even with
all the technology we have it will die in
a matter of hours,take a fetus out after
24 weeks and it will more than likely live
for 90 years,that is the difference and
you must admit it is a major difference
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 04-14-05 18:00pm
Welcome back jenn-smithson! I agree with
you, very well said!
Fyi foreverblue I am not jenn's spouse or
secretary(lol) I just wanted to set things
straight.
Sincerely,
sandy
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 04-14-05 18:04pm
foreverblue
wrote:
the difference is that a
kidney cannot exist outside of the human
body no matter how long you keep it in
your body,whereas a fetus after 24 weeks
can live independent of the females
body,
irrelevant. The right
to not have your body used against your
willl is not dependent on the outcome of
that use. And no, the kidney no more
live on its own than does the bodily
resources for the fetus. But the kidney
patient that benefits from the new kidney
will live as surely as will the fetus if
it makes it to birth. Guess, you see
neither the woman nor the kidney pateitn
as persons in their own right?
Quote:
take your kidney
out after 24 weeks and even with all the
technology we have it will die in a matter
of hours,
likewise for any of the
bodily resources you want to give to the
fetus against the woman's will.
Quote:
take a fetus out
after 24 weeks and it will more than
likely live for 90
years,
yes, the fetus can be the
recipient of bodily resources just as the
kidney patient can. So they can bot h
live. Yet, you don't care about the
kidney pateint. Guess it is true that
you are not pro-life, only
pro-fetal-life?
Quote:
that is the
difference and you must admit it is a
major
difference
really? What are the
major differences between the recipients
of the bodily resources? What is the big
difference between the kidney pateint and
the fetus? After all, you pl always
claim that the fetus is a human being, a
person. Are you denying that the kidney
patient is both of these?
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 04-15-05 09:28am
steen
wrote:
foreverblue
wrote:
the difference is that a
kidney cannot exist outside of the human
body no matter how long you keep it in
your body,whereas a fetus after 24 weeks
can live independent of the females
body,
irrelevant. The right
to not have your body used against your
willl is not dependent on the outcome of
that use. And no, the kidney no more
live on its own than does the bodily
resources for the fetus. But the kidney
patient that benefits from the new kidney
will live as surely as will the fetus if
it makes it to birth. Guess, you see
neither the woman nor the kidney pateitn
as persons in their own right?
Quote:
take your kidney
out after 24 weeks and even with all the
technology we have it will die in a matter
of hours,
likewise for any of the
bodily resources you want to give to the
fetus against the woman's will.
Quote:
take a fetus out
after 24 weeks and it will more than
likely live for 90
years,
yes, the fetus can be the
recipient of bodily resources just as the
kidney patient can. So they can bot h
live. Yet, you don't care about the
kidney pateint. Guess it is true that
you are not pro-life, only
pro-fetal-life?
Quote:
that is the
difference and you must admit it is a
major
difference
really? What are the
major differences between the recipients
of the bodily resources? What is the
big difference between the kidney pateint
and the fetus? After all, you pl always
claim that the fetus is a human being, a
person. Are you denying that the kidney
patient is both of
these?
can someone please decipher this trolls
rambling,i do not speak troll
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-15-05 09:51am
foreverblue
wrote:
can someone please decipher
this trolls rambling,i do not speak
troll
this is *exactly* why I
stopped coming here. Last week I
reviewed a few threads, found this
behavior to be lacking, and decided to
post again thinking that everyone had
grown the hell up in the time I have not
been posting here. If you're going to
return to such infantile behavior, I will
once again say farewell.
Do you people act this way at your jobs
with someone you don't agree with or don't
like? Do you act this way in church?
Jesus tap dancing christ, .G.E.T .O.V.E.R
.I.T. *.G.R.O.W .U.P.*!
.E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E!!!!!
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 04-16-05 17:03pm
I also am pretty much done here. I
really did think this forum was a great
idea and that is why I asked for it.
But, for some reason, people just can't
stop insulting each other and it is just
too much stress for me. It is a shame.
Especially since most of you who are doing
all of this insulting back and forth, I
know are above it! Whether I agree with
your views or not, I don't think anyone
here is stupid or immature, but for some
reason a lot of you feel the need to act
that way anyway.
If someone is insulting you, why don't you
be the bigger person and come back with a
valid debate, or just ignore it?
Obviously the person doing the
name-calling or whatever isn't worth the
time it takes to post, so why do it? I
don't know. Just my thoughts.
