Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    A pre-born is a child. the child (or children in some cases) of the mother and father. All pre-borns, regardless of developed state/stage fits this term both in the manner we use it in society and manner of description for offspring.
    You think this is a child?

    excuse me, I did not know I needed to cite nor explain biology. did not know this portion was in question either. Characteristics of life is described in different ways at times, so here are just a few links I found you could visit rather I type it up myself.
    http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7c...cs_of_life.htm
    http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/pdf/origin06.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...istics_of_life

    the pre-born follow the above. ergo - living.
    I suspect you're purposefully taking my usage of "life" out of context and just using a definition that suits your argument, but I'll bite:

    So do bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, spermatocytes, oocytes and cancer cells - you know well enough that this isn't the definition of "life" that is relevant to the abortion debate: unless you want to go ahead and argue that we shouldn't kill any of these either.
    And if you're going to argue that this IS the definition of life used in the abortion debate, I'll go ahead and give you a statement used by the pro-lifers:
    "Life begins at conception"
    If we apply the biological definition of life, as you have, then this statement is blatantly false, because life obviously starts way before conception, because gametes are alive. Hence, we know that the biological definition of life is not the one relevant to the abortion debate. There's a big difference between biological life and the more philosophical idea of 'human life'.

    as for the premise of all pre-born humans are human beings and therefore a person.
    humans can only reproduce other humans. not a single human nor animal may reproduce an offspring that is a different 100% completely new species (that then turns around and changes into what ever species the parents are - in this case human) or a non-living thing. if there is serious doubt, you can tell by DNA. that is all we need in order to be human.
    I don't think you've justified your premise at all. You've simply stated that a Homo sapiens gives birth to another Homo sapiens, you haven't justified that a zygote containing the genetic make-up of a Homo sapiens is a person.

    If we decide that a zygote is a person because it contains the DNA of a Homo sapiens, then what's to stop us classifying stem cells as people? What about liver cells? Or skin cells?

    chromosone count may help in determining "being" rather a part of or not a "being".
    I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean...I hope you're not suggesting that the number of chromosomes is what decides whether someone is human or not?

    there are different meanings to the word of quality, I did not see the word in use of the definition of 'personhood' as refering to quantity or something strickly countable.there are many ways to try and determine "quality of life". economics is one way. however one might try, my point is that you can not determine another person's death based on your concept of "quality".
    I went to the effort of giving you a link to the definition of "quality" being used in that context...
    Quality - an attribute, a characteristic.
    Hence, human being - the quality (attribute) of being a person. It has nothing to do with quality of life; quality of life has never entered the abortion debate.


    if you noticed, I said illness (which includes cancer). humans have a rich history of curing illnesses at any attempt by any means (this includes the non-scientific sort as well).
    for example: use of leaches,
    To the best of my knowledge, leeches weren't used until the introduction of Hippocratic medicine in 5th century BC (a consequence of the humoral theory of illness), but I see your point, and I'll accept it as valid since there is evidence that our evolutionary ancestors (early primates) did use some form of medicine.

    Let's say that "humans try to defeat illness in the wild", and thus say every other attempt to defeat ANY illness (e.g. cancer) by ANY means (e.g. chemotherapy) is natural? Let me see if I have your argument right:

    Humans try to help our bodies defeat illness in the wild; therefore any attempt to help our body defeat illness is natural; hence, the use of chemotherapy (and its plentiful number of unnatural drugs) and the use of radiotherapy (and its linear particle accelerators) is natural.

    Let me see if I can help you see the problem with this logic:
    Humans move try to move quicker in the wild (by running); therefore any attempt to make a human move quicker is natural; hence the use of cars, trains, and aeroplanes is natural.

    Humans try to kill animals in the wild; therefore any attempt to kill animals is natural; hence, the use of slaughterhouses and all their motorised, electricity-powered equipment is natural.

    So as you can see, it is not logical to say that an attempt to heal the sick early in our evolutionary lineage means that our current methods of treating cancer are natural.

    my main concern was the above statement.

    if radiation therepy was harmless, then there would not be reports of patients developing cancer from it, nor dieing from related issues. that's another topic, however.
    Radiation (the 'substance' of radiotherapy) is mostly harmless: radio waves, microwaves, visible light are all forms of radiation.
    Radiotherapy is not harmless - hence why I didn't try to say it was harmless.

    The only difference between harmful and harmless radiation is the energy of the photon, hence why I made this distinction previously, which you seemingly ignored.

    In your replies to me, I think you've been quite intellectually dishonest: taking words out of context, ignoring parts of people's arguments, etc. Fair enough if this has been an accident because your native language isn't English or if you've just been rushing, but if it continues, then this debate isn't going to progress anywhere and will just go round in circles. If it continues like this, there'll be no point in me replying, and I don't want that!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donald Duck)
    And we have beaten, murdered and fought since we existed. During most of which we kept slaves. Perfectly natural.
    what ever
    your point?

    At the age of 34, Marcus got cancer. Life is a natural cycle, and it was his turn to die.
    Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.
    lets go over this statement. the natural cycle is not interrupted. that's my entire point. cancer and any disease is natural. that's why if you die from it, a doctor/coroner will state that you died from natural causes. if you interrupt that process - you are not preventing the natural cycle, since you will still die. the body tries to defeat all illnesses. humans have always wanted to defeat illnesses or what ails them. natural desire to live. therefore the act to cure an illness - what ever that illness may be - is natural.

    the only thing that interrupts a natural cycle of anything is outside influence. for the life cycle, this is known as homicide. that's why doctors/corners do not/can not say you died from natural causes when you are killed. that's not natural.

    I disagree with the o.p. and stated so. A patient defeating cancer is an example of breaking a natural cycle.

    all the bad things that happen is not an excuse/reason to allow them to happen - nor abortion.

    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    it is not logical to say that an attempt to heal the sick early in our evolutionary lineage means that our current methods of treating cancer are natural.
    it appears you are still having issues with this part. I said act not method. using electricity or what ever magic to consume food does not matter, the act of consuming food does. the method of leeches or what ever magic to heal one self does not matter, the act of trying to heal does.

    I may try a different word than "act". replace it with "effort".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    what ever
    your point?

    lets go over this statement. the natural cycle is not interrupted. that's my entire point. cancer and any disease is natural. that's why if you die from it, a doctor/coroner will state that you died from natural causes. if you interrupt that process - you are not preventing a natural cycle. the body is tries to defeat all illnesses. humans have always wanted to defeat illnesses or what ails them. natural desire to live.

    the only thing that interrupts the natural cycle of anything is outside influence. for the life cycle, this is known as homicide. that's why doctors/corners legally can not say you died from natural causes when you are murdered. that's not natural.

    I disagree with the o.p. and stated so. I do not think that a patient defeating cancer is an example of breaking a natural cycle. all the bad things that happen is not an excuse/reason to allow them to happen - nor abortion.
    Animals evolve to control their population. Too many individuals and resources fail to be sufficient and they start to die out. Too few and there isn't enough genetic diversity or it is too uncommon to find a mate, and they start to die out. Abortion is part of the natural cycle, because it's the way humans naturally evolved to control population.

    See? If you can bull**** medicine into "natural", I can bull**** abortion into "natural".
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Animals evolve to control their population. Too many individuals and resources fail to be sufficient and they start to die out. Too few and there isn't enough genetic diversity or it is too uncommon to find a mate, and they start to die out. Abortion is part of the natural cycle, because it's the way humans naturally evolved to control population.

    See? If you can bull**** medicine into "natural", I can bull**** abortion into "natural".
    except I did not b.s. medicine. and you did not b.s. abortion into "natural" .

    the extinction of a species is normal/natural, but this is not because the species tries to control their own population. nor does a species evolve to purposely limit its own population. it only continues to grow until it can no longer grow.

    once again, I am talking about the act or effort (which may better describe it) in making one self feel better (heal).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    **** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

    Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc
    what's worse

    giving the child a potentially bad situation (disability, poverty etc) or absolutely no chance of life at all ...

    It is possible for people to overcome bad situations, not quite so sure about death
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OMG the title is exactly like one of the 8 mark questions I had in my R.E mock exam :0


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    You think this is a child?
    IF you presented a picture of a human being, I know that person is a child.
    may not be a kid, an infant, a toddler, a teen, an adult, but a child and a human person.

    I suspect you're purposefully taking my usage of "life" out of context and just using a definition that suits your argument
    I am not. I placed the correct context as the word means: to live. to fit under being - something that is living, something that exists.
    (Original post by def. of life)
    The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...
    there is also the description of being that is an entity, which would better describe an individual. at the time I only read being as the definition I provided - existing. this is the essence to life and what most speak about when saying "right to life" since this is the context described by John Locke.
    (Original post by def. of life 2)
    Living things and their activity (bio def. of life fits perfectly)
    If you do not mean the simple fact of existing but the 'experiences within life', then you go into the issue of the "quality of life". as in, what is living? what qualifies as 'experiences within life'. as I have explained already, this concept of quality is not practical and does not justify homicide.

    So do bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, spermatocytes, oocytes and cancer cells
    these are cells that are a live. they follow the characteristics of life. the only characteristics that may describe (all) life.

    you know well enough that this isn't the definition of "life" that is relevant to the abortion debate: unless you want to go ahead and argue that we shouldn't kill any of these either.
    I have come across abortionists that claim that the child is not living. that the child is a "non-living thing". it has come up in the abortion discussion. there is also the issue in "quality of life" or "what is life" which makes it very relevant, as it should be considered. therefore I will press it. why? that's how you determine who is a person. you follow the steps.
    is the pre-born:
    1. living (life)= yes
    2. human = yes
    3. individual = yes
    4. person = yes
    (5. person-hood = yes)
    should be protected under unalienable right to life = yes

    as for the other creatures, there is a difference between human organism/entity (being) and fungi, bacteria, spermatozoa and what ever other sort of creature or cell exists. we treat all differently. we should treat all humans the same. if you disagree with that statement, there is an issue. please clarify if you disagree that all human beings (of whom are persons) should be the same?

    And if you're going to argue that this IS the definition of life used in the abortion debate, I'll go ahead and give you a statement used by the pro-lifers:
    "Life begins at conception"
    I am not a "pro-lifer". however, the concept that "life begins at conception" is mean to as "(A new) life begins at conception".
    the sentence is describing a new person develops at conception, not - as abortionists have claimed - any time after (such as birth, week 20, week 10, etc.). if you do not trust me, ask them yourself.


    There's a big difference between biological life and the more philosophical idea of 'human life'.
    there is? since when? may you provide some sort of evidence or justification?

    if there is a difference (which I am not admitting/accepting) philosophical "human life" must follow biological life description. since you can not have what ever concept "human life" may be if you are not alive.

    still, if your concept is accepted, you get into the issue of what is "human life" similar to "what is quality of life". the biological definitions to life is an absolute. it applies to the abortion debate.


    I don't think you've justified your premise at all. You've simply stated that a Homo sapiens gives birth to another Homo sapiens, you haven't justified that a zygote containing the genetic make-up of a Homo sapiens is a person.
    yes I have.

    you have to follow the definitions.
    in order to be a person you must be 1.human 2. individual
    the child is human and an individual.
    therefore the child is a person. that is all the child can be. if you say the child is not, then you are saying the child is neither human, an individual, or alive/a life (existing).

    If we decide that a zygote is a person because it contains the DNA of a Homo sapiens, then what's to stop us classifying stem cells as people? What about liver cells? Or skin cells?
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    chromosome count may help in determining "being" rather a part of or not a "being".
    the difference between a zygote and a liver cell is being or entity may describe the difference better.

    the use of chromosome is to counter the thought that an egg or sperm cell may be a person or considered the same as a zygote.

    but so does the liver cell, yes. but the liver cell is the portion that creates or makes up the entity and is not, of itself, an individual human being/entity.

    the zygote is.

    perhaps this describes it better
    I went to the effort of giving you a link to the definition of "quality" being used in that context...
    Quality - an attribute, a characteristic.
    Hence, human being - the quality (attribute) of being a person.

    It has nothing to do with quality of life; quality of life has never entered the abortion debate.
    yes it has.
    http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402
    (Original post by from web site)
    some human lives are worth less than others
    in order for a human life to worth less - there must be quality. a sense of worth. that is only possible if the word "quality" is used in the context I used. it is an unfortunate sad thing that certain people think they are worth more than others. as described earlier, "no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be." we are merely, different.

    this link is not just some guy either. I have had many discussions in which an individual spewed that same idiocy. some on here. not to say you have or are.

    In regards to "an attribute, a characteristic"...which would you prescribe? what do you think is "human"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    except I did not b.s. medicine. and you did not b.s. abortion into "natural" .

    the extinction of a species is normal/natural, but this is not because the species tries to control their own population. nor does a species evolve to purposely limit its own population. it only continues to grow until it can no longer grow.

    once again, I am talking about the act or effort (which may better describe it) in making one self feel better (heal).
    Untrue, cases of species evolving to control their populations are well documented in the literature.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Untrue, cases of species evolving to control their populations are well documented in the literature.
    what literature? fiction?

    please, do share.

    also note how the person who stated that, admitting that the statement is b.s. As in false, a lie.

    within nature there is a natural balance to limit a population: disease, food chain, lack of food, etc. this is a balance that fixes itself, a cycle that operates in a balance. humans are the only species in history to act outside this cycle.

    remember what is being suggested:
    that "species" (more than one) adapted in order to act to prevent another organism of the same species to live w/ pure cause to limit their own population.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    what literature? fiction?

    please, do share.

    also note how the person who stated that, admitting that the statement is b.s. As in false, a lie.

    within nature there is a natural balance to limit a population: disease, food chain, lack of food, etc. this is a balance that fixes itself, a cycle that operates in a balance. humans are the only species in history to act outside this cycle.

    remember what is being suggested:
    that "species" (more than one) adapted in order to act to prevent another organism of the same species to live w/ pure cause to limit their own population.
    http://mrlife.org/life-history-reproductive-rate-i.htm

    Among other factors, animals evolve to reproduce at a rate dependent on the population density of their species. Mice living in populated cultures, with adequate nutrition, have a lower birth rate.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101893094533

    One good example is birds. As suggested in the above link, you should read Lack's "The Regulation of Animal Numbers"

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25556485900252

    You might or might not have access to this paper, but it is a model of how animal reproductive rates evolve.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is what abortion demand culture leads to:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-playing-down/

    Enjoy the rest of your day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    This is what abortion demand culture leads to:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-playing-down/

    Enjoy the rest of your day.
    Please explain the link between "abortion demand" and what that man did. His actions were illegal and he was killing viable babies whilst endangering the mother's lives in the process. None of what he did has anything to do with legal and safely procured abortions, it's just the horrible actions of a psychopath.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    http://mrlife.org/life-history-reproductive-rate-i.htm

    Among other factors, animals evolve to reproduce at a rate dependent on the population density of their species. Mice living in populated cultures, with adequate nutrition, have a lower birth rate.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101893094533

    One good example is birds. As suggested in the above link, you should read Lack's "The Regulation of Animal Numbers"

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25556485900252

    You might or might not have access to this paper, but it is a model of how animal reproductive rates evolve.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    still reading provided link...

    though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    still reading provided link...

    though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay.
    You have lost track of the discussion. A summary:

    1) You argued that abortion is wrong because it disrupts the natural order.
    2) Another member pointed out that so does chemotherapy
    3) Through warped logic you claimed that chemotherapy is natural
    4) As a counterargument I demonstrated that population control evolves naturally in animals and that abortion is therefore natural.

    In short, "abortion is not natural" is not a good argument.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruby321)
    I agree. If you don't want a baby, don't ****ing have sex.
    What about rape?

    Are you a woman or a man?


    Plus it's completely unacceptable for you to think you have control over somebody elses body, just saying.
    If I were holding a new born baby in one hand and a fetus in a petri dish in the other, and threatened to drop both but you could only save one, and you genuinely can't decide which live is more sacred? Bullcrap, you'd save the baby. Therefore you can't really believe they are equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DCFCfan4eva)
    what's worse

    giving the child a potentially bad situation (disability, poverty etc) or absolutely no chance of life at all ...

    It is possible for people to overcome bad situations, not quite so sure about death
    A disabled, drug addicted woman is raped by a psychopath, who then runs and is never found again by the woman. She, being alone and confused, has the baby, but doesn't know how to look after him/her. The baby is beaten and sexually abused and is often starved.
    Now yeah, there is a chance some bad situations can be overcome, but would you rather take that gamble?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

    Now let me give you some statistics:

    196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
    44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
    Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

    7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

    Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

    (the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

    Thank you for reading,

    Gray Wolf


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-england-wales

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journ...et-2012-01.pdf
    There are many arguments in opposition to abortion. Some of these arguments are convincing. Some of them make sense. Your arguments fall into neither of these categories.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostly.)
    What about rape?

    Are you a woman or a man?


    Plus it's completely unacceptable for you to think you have control over somebody elses body, just saying.
    If I were holding a new born baby in one hand and a fetus in a petri dish in the other, and threatened to drop both but you could only save one, and you genuinely can't decide which live is more sacred? Bullcrap, you'd save the baby. Therefore you can't really believe they are equal.
    This is almost certainly the best argument I have read on TSR that I haven't come across outside TSR debate. Serious, serious props.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    This is almost certainly the best argument I have read on TSR that I haven't come across outside TSR debate. Serious, serious props.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks I'd like to see an argument against that haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    :/
    Then we've also got a large part of the driving population who drive for pleasure. And an even larger part of the population who have sex for pleasure.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.