Why abortion is wrong.
Scroll to see replies
188 negs within 2 weeks... Wow your good at this
Original post by Hypocrism
Pathetic attempt, you know full well that the second definition refers to people taking about their offspring. Do you think your grandparents are children? No; they are the children of your great grandparents, they are sons and daughters of any age. And the first definition uses the word "human being", which is what you have failed to show that a developing embryo is.
my grandparents are not my children, but someone's children.
And my grandparents parents would still look at their children as their child as much as the definition refers to all human offspring as someone's child. ergo, the pre-born are children regardless of bias.
as for what the embryo is? yes, they are humans. I don't need to show that as the second definition only applies to human offspring which the embroy is. so if the sedcond definition works, which it does, then the first works.
blam!
if you question logic, then look towards dna. human dna is unique and of our own. we are the only ones to have it/maintain it (to difer any more blood transfusions).
if you are still in disbelief. then what the bloody h*** do you think humans procreate? refer to biology. humans can only procreate another human being. this new human being is and can only be (of their own) a human being.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
my grandparents are not my children, but someone's children.
And my grandparents parents would still look at them as their child as much as the definition refers to all human offspring as someones child. ergo, the pre-born are children regardless to bias.
as for what the embryo is? yes, they are humans. I don't need to show that as the second definition only applies to human offspring which the embroy is. so if the sedcond definition works, which it does, then the first works.
blam!
just a sec.
And my grandparents parents would still look at them as their child as much as the definition refers to all human offspring as someones child. ergo, the pre-born are children regardless to bias.
as for what the embryo is? yes, they are humans. I don't need to show that as the second definition only applies to human offspring which the embroy is. so if the sedcond definition works, which it does, then the first works.
blam!
just a sec.
You clearly did not read; try again, you covered neither of the points.
(Hint: you just backed up my first point, I never claimed your grandparents are your children, and saying "an embryo is a human" does not make it true." And to your edit, having human DNA does not make you a human. Such a view is cold and doesn't give a rich view of what human life is about.)
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Hypocrism
You clearly did not read; try again, you covered neither of the points.
(Hint: you just backed up my first point, I never claimed your grandparents are your children, and saying "an embryo is a human" does not make it true." And to your edit, having human DNA does not make you a human. Such a view is cold and doesn't give a rich view of what human life is about.)
Posted from TSR Mobile
(Hint: you just backed up my first point, I never claimed your grandparents are your children, and saying "an embryo is a human" does not make it true." And to your edit, having human DNA does not make you a human. Such a view is cold and doesn't give a rich view of what human life is about.)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Humans share 95% of our DNA with chimpanzees. I wonder how much research danolo has done into that remaining 5% of DNA that makes us "human"? Has he actually thought this through?
...probably not.
It's a woman's choice if she wants to have a baby or not. In some cases it'd be better off for the child for them not to have been born- it saves them growing up in extreme poverty (like living on the streets and starving), with genetic health problems, unloved by their parents, abuse, and just general neglect. I think that it is the woman's choice if she wants to have a baby or not (children are a lifetime commitment that if a woman doesn't feel like she can take on, isn't it technically abusive for the child for her to go ahead and have it just for the sake of having it when she knows she'll never be able to care for it properly e.g. it'll go into care etc). At the end of the day it's that particular mother that will be changing her entire life for that child, so I think it is up to her and it isn't anyone else's place to make a judgement of her as they are not the ones that will be investing their entire lives to that child.
Original post by Hypocrism
You clearly did not read; try again, you covered neither of the points.
(Hint: you just backed up my first point, I never claimed your grandparents are your children, and saying "an embryo is a human" does not make it true#" And to your edit, having human DNA does not make you a human# Such a view is cold and doesn't give a rich view of what human life is about##
(Hint: you just backed up my first point, I never claimed your grandparents are your children, and saying "an embryo is a human" does not make it true#" And to your edit, having human DNA does not make you a human# Such a view is cold and doesn't give a rich view of what human life is about##
edithwashere
Humans share 95% of our DNA with chimpanzees# I wonder how much research danolo has done into that remaining 5% of DNA that makes us "human"?
As Hypocrism says. "just because you say something is, does not make it true." so far I have given plenty of evidence as to why an embryo is human and a child. It is not because I say so, but because of the evidence provided.
you have only appealed to ignorance and replied w/ "that's not how it is." well then, explain it...if you can.
Hypocrism, I did not back up your first point. you stated that an embryo is not a child by definition, but by definition an embryo is. then you state, "the second definition refers to people taking about their offspring#"
no dur# I agreed to that statement and an embryo #the pre-born at any stage of their life really# is a human offsrping# if you agree that a human offspring is a child #which the second definition refers to#, then the embryo is a child#
however, you don't need to agree with it so it may be true.
in order for the embryo to be a human offspring, the embryo must be human!
so if the second definition applies, the first definition applies#
if you are so disatisfied about dna being the only difference between human or not human. then please, do supply some evidence to the contrary. I have provided/explained it in several posts already. it can not be stated any clearer.
as for editwashere's comment: humans have 99% similarity to chimpanzees. obviously it is not I, who did not think this through. below is a quote from an article about human dna from "scientificamerian" they make it clear that it is human dna which makes us stand out. If I have it wrong, they have it wrong. do they? their credibility is on the line after all.
#QUOTE#somewhere among those roughly 15 million bases lay the differences that made us human#/QUOTE#
http://www#scientificamerican#com/article#cfm?id=what-makes-us-human
Original post by Hypocrism
Assumes a creator.
The metaphor is that sex allowing pregnancy is comparable to leaving a window open allowing a burglar in.
The metaphor is that sex allowing pregnancy is comparable to leaving a window open allowing a burglar in.
that just sounds stupid.
extra links just for fun:
"that human nature is not uniform, but differs according to age, race, and sex.”
1Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Science by Londa Schiebinger. Copyright ©1993 by
Londa Schiebinger. Reprinted by permission of Beacon Press, Boston, pp. 143-145.
http://www.facinghistory.org/who-human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
(edited 10 years ago)
26 pages of running in circles.
Pro-lifers: what this argument keeps coming back to is your definition of a human being. The point that's being contended is that it is not murder to abort a foetus, but the justification for that point is that a foetus is not considerable a person. Now, this is about abortion in principle; many pro-choicers are in fact in favour of a reduction in the timeframe abortions are legal, so pointing at a late stage of development and concluding that a foetus by that point is a human being with rights ignores massive complexities and dismisses the possibility of earlier stage abortions without addressing why they're bad too. It's a complete strawman argument.
When does a fertilised egg become a human with the right to live and why? This is the true crux of the debate. The religious will automatically run to the sanctity of life as their explanation. People who do so shouldn't be debated in a scientific setting, as religion, as everyone will agree, is not scientific and not subject to debate. The proper response to the 'sanctity of life' argument is: 'I see. You're religious.'
Any argument beyond that is in fact an argument about the validity of religion and completely derails the topic. It's one you're free to have, but see it for what it is.
Any person who wants to continue arguing outside of 'Biblical evidence' must come up with empirically verifiable reasons for arguing what they argue. DNA is a meaningless topic; it is simply an entity in the mechanism which leads to protein synthesis. It's not even a valid point, and is purely an emotional one where people whip out percentages, as if that has some bearing on the subjective experiences of an unconscious organism.
The argument of a 'potential life' is another invalid topic; yes, an embryo foetus which was aborted probably would have become a human being had it not been aborted. However, it didn't. Therefore there was no human. It's effectively an admission that the foetus is not subjectively a human but rather an organism which will someday become human. However, this argument makes the presumption that the natural or most probably course of events without artificial interference must be the preferable course of events. That argument is quite frankly akin to saying that it's immoral to warn somebody of a volcanic eruption you predicted using instruments. They are both likely potential scenarios; to distinguish one from the other involves acknowledging that the value of probable outcomes per se is nil.
In a nutshell, 'potential lifers' shouldn't be argued with because the mindset they come from is very similar to religious dogma.
The only, and I mean the only point worth discussing is when a human being IS a human. Not when something resembles something that could become human.
Pro-lifers: what this argument keeps coming back to is your definition of a human being. The point that's being contended is that it is not murder to abort a foetus, but the justification for that point is that a foetus is not considerable a person. Now, this is about abortion in principle; many pro-choicers are in fact in favour of a reduction in the timeframe abortions are legal, so pointing at a late stage of development and concluding that a foetus by that point is a human being with rights ignores massive complexities and dismisses the possibility of earlier stage abortions without addressing why they're bad too. It's a complete strawman argument.
When does a fertilised egg become a human with the right to live and why? This is the true crux of the debate. The religious will automatically run to the sanctity of life as their explanation. People who do so shouldn't be debated in a scientific setting, as religion, as everyone will agree, is not scientific and not subject to debate. The proper response to the 'sanctity of life' argument is: 'I see. You're religious.'
Any argument beyond that is in fact an argument about the validity of religion and completely derails the topic. It's one you're free to have, but see it for what it is.
Any person who wants to continue arguing outside of 'Biblical evidence' must come up with empirically verifiable reasons for arguing what they argue. DNA is a meaningless topic; it is simply an entity in the mechanism which leads to protein synthesis. It's not even a valid point, and is purely an emotional one where people whip out percentages, as if that has some bearing on the subjective experiences of an unconscious organism.
The argument of a 'potential life' is another invalid topic; yes, an embryo foetus which was aborted probably would have become a human being had it not been aborted. However, it didn't. Therefore there was no human. It's effectively an admission that the foetus is not subjectively a human but rather an organism which will someday become human. However, this argument makes the presumption that the natural or most probably course of events without artificial interference must be the preferable course of events. That argument is quite frankly akin to saying that it's immoral to warn somebody of a volcanic eruption you predicted using instruments. They are both likely potential scenarios; to distinguish one from the other involves acknowledging that the value of probable outcomes per se is nil.
In a nutshell, 'potential lifers' shouldn't be argued with because the mindset they come from is very similar to religious dogma.
The only, and I mean the only point worth discussing is when a human being IS a human. Not when something resembles something that could become human.
Original post by Calllu-m
Well you might find abortion unacceptable. But frankly, I think it's a woman's right to choose, and I think you need to keep your conservative and reactionary opinions to yourself.
They aren't children. They're unborn zygotes with no nerve endings and can't feel pain. It isn't hypocrisy, as it isn't murder.
They aren't children. They're unborn zygotes with no nerve endings and can't feel pain. It isn't hypocrisy, as it isn't murder.
Babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.
How is is a womans right to choose whether to kill someone that is not her! Even suicide is illegal...and that is just killing yourself to which some may argue you should have a choice as it is your own body.
Is it a parent's choose whether or not to kill their child outside of the womb? Should parents have a right to choose after birth?
Original post by Lady_L
Babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.
How is is a womans right to choose whether to kill someone that is not her! Even suicide is illegal...and that is just killing yourself to which some may argue you should have a choice as it is your own body.
Is it a parent's choose whether or not to kill their child outside of the womb? Should parents have a right to choose after birth?
How is is a womans right to choose whether to kill someone that is not her! Even suicide is illegal...and that is just killing yourself to which some may argue you should have a choice as it is your own body.
Is it a parent's choose whether or not to kill their child outside of the womb? Should parents have a right to choose after birth?
-Suicide is not illegal in the UK and hasn't been since 1961
-Reactions to stimuli do not show consciousness or ability to feel pain, we know the spinal cord reflexes develop before the CNS and neural development doesn't finish until about the age of 2. At 20 weeks it's pretty certain the embryo cannot perceive anything consciously or feel pain.
-Parents don't have a right to choose to kill their child after birth because its passed the point (about 24 weeks) where it can feel pain, a common landmark for forbidding unnecessary abortion. The baby is also not a part of the mother's body after birth, hence she is not affected by the baby remaining alive.
-your argument is from emotion, with no substance behind it, making it weak.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by March
Pro-lifers: what this argument keeps coming back to is your definition of a human being. The point that's being contended is that it is not murder to abort a foetus, but the justification for that point is that a foetus is not considerable a person. Now, this is about abortion in principle; many pro-choicers are in fact in favour of a reduction in the timeframe abortions are legal, so pointing at a late stage of development and concluding that a foetus by that point is a human being with rights ignores massive complexities and dismisses the possibility of earlier stage abortions without addressing why they're bad too. It's a complete strawman argument.
no one is misrepresenting (from which I have read) the other 'side' accept for describing all pro-lifers.
2. "concluding that a foetus by that point is a human being with rights ignores massive complexities and dismisses the possibility of earlier stage abortions without addressing why they're bad too."
a. what massive complexities are there?
b. if a person is arguing against all (induced) abortions (other than the depravity of either one or the other may live), then logically their argument/claim would be that the time once an abortion may occur (1 week or 21 weeks into the pregnancy) does not give merit to the abortion.
c. why induced abortion is wrong is that you are killing a human being. based on: all humans have the right to life.
d. "foetus is not considerable a person." the only people who do not consider the fetus or embryo as not being a person or human have been pro-abortionists (in clarifying how this is not an aunt sally). however, there are limited reasons why any one of us would not be human/person/have person-hood from conception. all excuses presently provided have been politely argued w/ little rebuttal. That which has been stated against the fact that that we are all human/person from conception is in the form of a question (which is answered) or a repeat of statement (not an explanation).
When does a fertilized egg become a human with the right to live and why?
The religious will automatically run to the sanctity of life as their explanation. People who do so shouldn't be debated in a scientific setting, as religion, as everyone will agree, is not scientific and not subject to debate. The proper response to the 'sanctity of life' argument is: 'I see. You're religious.'
it is based on science and history. how? you use science to determine who is a human. you observe history to understand that human rights should not be violated.
DNA is a meaningless topic; it is simply an entity in the mechanism which leads to protein synthesis. It's not even a valid point, and is purely an emotional one where people whip out percentages, as if that has some bearing on the subjective experiences of an unconscious organism.
the only reason you have the mental ability that you take for granted, is because of your dna. if your dna was different in any manner, you might not just loose your brain function, but could change the fact as to whether or not you are human. it must. why? because it codes your entire physical being. you would not look as you look, nor be able to think as you think. this come about after differentiation process inside the womb, but the information is present in your dna since conception.
"DNA contains the information for specifying the proteins that allow life. " notes from Biology class.
"DNA's job is to provide the information on how to build and operate an organism."
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask18
if you question this...post the question on a forum dedicated to science. wait...I found one
http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/35368-what-determines-us-being-human.html
here is another article that pushes dna:
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/06/5993/what-makes-us-human-studies-chimp-and-human-dna-may-tell-us
if you study dna to determine "what makes us humna" it is dna.
The argument of a 'potential life' is another invalid topic; yes, an embryo foetus which was aborted probably would have become a human being had it not been aborted. However, it didn't. Therefore there was no human.
It's effectively an admission that the foetus is not subjectively a human but rather an organism which will someday become human.
when does the transformation occur and could you give an example of anything similar else where in nature?
In a nutshell, 'potential lifers' shouldn't be argued with because the mindset they come from is very similar to religious dogma.
The only, and I mean the only point worth discussing is when a human being IS a human. Not when something resembles something that could become human.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
...
Martin Luther King Jr. was religious and many aspects in his speech deal with religious thought. was he wrong because of it? should he had kept his mouth shut? the civil rights of many humans have been based on ... the fact that everyone is human.
...
Martin Luther King Jr. was religious and many aspects in his speech deal with religious thought. was he wrong because of it? should he had kept his mouth shut? the civil rights of many humans have been based on ... the fact that everyone is human.
...
Despite everything on this thread, this little sentence has definitely made me less certain of my stance on abortion. It really is true that previous human rights movements were based around showing others that the oppressed group were humans, and we cannot today understand how they ever thought otherwise. Could I be as blind to the immorality of abortion as the slave owners were to the immorality of keeping slaves? It definitely should be a woman's right to determine what happens to her body, but you did make this point hit home. It will be an interesting one to think about.
Original post by da_nolo
so when is it?!?!?!?! when did you become human?
And you've finally asked the only important question in the debate.
Original post by Hypocrism
Despite everything on this thread, this little sentence has definitely made me less certain of my stance on abortion. It really is true that previous human rights movements were based around showing others that the oppressed group were humans, and we cannot today understand how they ever thought otherwise. Could I be as blind to the immorality of abortion as the slave owners were to the immorality of keeping slaves? It definitely should be a woman's right to determine what happens to her body, but you did make this point hit home. It will be an interesting one to think about.
But what does it mean to be human?
Imagine we resurrected the neanderthal. Significantly different species, but intelligent and man-like enough we'd still treat them with plenty of respect. But why? They're not human. Not literally.
It's because of the characteristics they embody regardless. They feel pain. Happiness. Have emotional states. Individual thoughts.
An embryo has none of those. It's like comparing the Border Collie to the cockroach. Hell, in the earlier stages of a pregnancy a civilian AI in Grand Theft Auto games probably has more of a survival instinct. We could point at DNA to define humanity, but then what is DNA really? Little more than a blueprint for proteins.
Firstly, I wonder how suicide could be illegal since the person is dead so... is there a prison up there?
I don't think that if a baby is severely disabled and it shows on tests it should be born, if the whole family (including the baby) will suffer.
For other cases, giving up the baby to social services so that it can be adopted may be an option, but sometimes everybody will then go through more heartache and I don't know if this is necessary.
If young people could keep it in their pants and not unbutton it all the time (for some of them, lots of teenagers are responsible too) part of the problem would disappear. Or, even better, they should learn about contraception. No, it doesn't work all the time (maybe 98%?) but having a baby is much less worse than having STDs.
I don't think that if a baby is severely disabled and it shows on tests it should be born, if the whole family (including the baby) will suffer.
For other cases, giving up the baby to social services so that it can be adopted may be an option, but sometimes everybody will then go through more heartache and I don't know if this is necessary.
If young people could keep it in their pants and not unbutton it all the time (for some of them, lots of teenagers are responsible too) part of the problem would disappear. Or, even better, they should learn about contraception. No, it doesn't work all the time (maybe 98%?) but having a baby is much less worse than having STDs.
Original post by March
And you've finally asked the only important question in the debate.
I did not finally ask anything. I pushed the the question in prior postings. now I'm directing the question your way.
what do you think makes you human?
where,when, how did you become human?
(edited 10 years ago)
March
But what does it mean to be human?
Imagine we resurrected the neanderthal. Significantly different species, but intelligent and man-like enough we'd still treat them with plenty of respect. But why? They're not human. Not literally.
"Neanderthals were human"
http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/
http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html
It's because of the characteristics they embody regardless. They feel pain. Happiness. Have emotional states. Individual thoughts.
An embryo has none of those. It's like comparing the Border Collie to the cockroach. Hell, in the earlier stages of a pregnancy a civilian AI in Grand Theft Auto games probably has more of a survival instinct. We could point at DNA to define humanity, but then what is DNA really? Little more than a blueprint for proteins.
dna is the blueprint to your entire physical and mental structure. your cells would not be able to be or act as they do with out it.
"DNA contains the information for specifying the proteins that allow life. " notes from Biology class.
"DNA's job is to provide the information on how to build and operate an organism."
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask18
http://www.thescienceforum.com/biolo...ing-human.html
here is another article that pushes dna:
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/06/599...na-may-tell-us
"For life to exist, an information system is needed to produce and regulate life functions."
http://www.icr.org/creation-dna/
your brain, the way you feel, your ability to talk, your ability to walk, and everything about your physical being is based purely on your dna. do you disagree with this?
what is survival instinct?
does emotions, feelings/physical sensors, determine who is human?
what are characteristics?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Spontogical
they're completely irrelevant.
The main function of sex is pregnancy.
The main reason people buy a car is to get to places.
:/
The main function of sex is pregnancy.
The main reason people buy a car is to get to places.
:/
I bet you're a right hit with the women.
It depends on the purpose regardless. Some people have sex for fun, as some people buy a car for social status. It's not that simple I'm afraid.
Fact is our primal instincts just don't fit in with the society we live in today. Many people do manage to abstain from sex, however most struggle to do so. For a feeling to be so hardwired into ones nature, it's hard to avoid.
Original post by March
But what does it mean to be human?
Imagine we resurrected the neanderthal. Significantly different species, but intelligent and man-like enough we'd still treat them with plenty of respect. But why? They're not human. Not literally.
It's because of the characteristics they embody regardless. They feel pain. Happiness. Have emotional states. Individual thoughts.
An embryo has none of those. It's like comparing the Border Collie to the cockroach. Hell, in the earlier stages of a pregnancy a civilian AI in Grand Theft Auto games probably has more of a survival instinct. We could point at DNA to define humanity, but then what is DNA really? Little more than a blueprint for proteins.
Imagine we resurrected the neanderthal. Significantly different species, but intelligent and man-like enough we'd still treat them with plenty of respect. But why? They're not human. Not literally.
It's because of the characteristics they embody regardless. They feel pain. Happiness. Have emotional states. Individual thoughts.
An embryo has none of those. It's like comparing the Border Collie to the cockroach. Hell, in the earlier stages of a pregnancy a civilian AI in Grand Theft Auto games probably has more of a survival instinct. We could point at DNA to define humanity, but then what is DNA really? Little more than a blueprint for proteins.
I still think that I allow abortion. It's just a very good point that made me think something along the lines of "The slave owners were unaware that they were treating Africans as sub-human. Couldn't I also be mistaken and have missed the fact that a pre-human should be treated as human?" It is just an interesting ethical question that hit me quite hard, and I like to tell people when their arguments have actually affected my opinion, as that rarely seems to happen on TSR!
So wait, if you're saying it's wrong to kill a baby in the womb because it's murder etc etc
Why aren't you stressing over the real murders? The adults and young children who are murdered every day. Those who are bombed in other countries and those who are killed by horrible parents etc, that worse and you haven't touched on that. Focus on the **** that is happening to actual babies/adults before you touch on the unborn.
Why aren't you stressing over the real murders? The adults and young children who are murdered every day. Those who are bombed in other countries and those who are killed by horrible parents etc, that worse and you haven't touched on that. Focus on the **** that is happening to actual babies/adults before you touch on the unborn.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
