Turn on thread page Beta

Convince me that abortion isn't wrong in many cases watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Okay then.

    Seemed quite a quick turn around to me. First of all you were emphasising personal freedom, individual circumstances etc, and then you mentioned heavy sanctioning for those choosing to have an abortion, even fines. Seems quite a turn around to me?
    I guess I didn't make it clear, my bad. What I meant to say was... people who have an abortion blindedly and get drunk and have a baby, should have some kind of sanction (heavy or not) so that they don't do something so f*cking (no pun intended) stupid again.

    If they don't have some sanction, whether that's education and awareness (now how is that heavy?), how will they ever learn?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I consider myself to be very liberal socially and I would consider myself to be quite left wing. I fully support LGBT rights, women's rights, I hate racism etc. but the one thing that, no matter how hard I try because it's just so apparent that to be against it is horrific, is abortion. And I feel so so pressured into changing my opinion.
    And I would like to point out that this is not based on religious belief, which appears to be a go-to argument for most pro-choice people. I am secular.
    To me, it is simply killing a human being because your convenience is more important than that child's rights. I am one of the ones who takes exception when the health of the mother or child is at risk, and when the mother has been raped (this almost always leads to the aforementioned whether physically or mentally). However, I would look at each case individually. The case of somebody going out, sleeping with someone for their own pleasure, forgetting contraception and becoming pregnant then going to abort the child, because it would be inconvenient, and, I think shockingly, whether the father cares or not, is disgusting to me as a person. I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why it's ME who is sickeningly immoral and vile for thinking that. I hear the excuses and to them I say this - any life is better than no life. You have robbed a living thing of the greatest gift in the universe, to live as a human being. And if you're so convinced you can't provide a worthy life, give it up for adoption! It is your mistake and you have to face the consequences.
    Now, I often think about the fact that perhaps using contraception/masturbation is just as bad. But I don't think so for a few reasons. Masturbation is how you discover yourself sexually and it's part of life. Contraception exists so that you can further this sexual discovery, and if/when the time is right, choose to have a child. When you disregard this through your own foolishness or selfishness, you have a responsibility for somebody now. To KILL it to make things easier is, to me, selfish and immoral. That's not substance or tissue it's a PERSON.

    What am I missing?
    As does the child
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If they don't have some sanction, whether that's education and awareness (now how is that heavy?), how will they ever learn?
    The procedure of an abortion is sanction enough.
    And for the women who don't learn, they risk damaging their uterus beyond repair through multiple abortions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiritsugu)
    I guess I didn't make it clear, my bad. What I meant to say was... people who have an abortion blindedly and get drunk and have a baby, should have some kind of sanction (heavy or not) so that they don't do something so f*cking (no pun intended) stupid again.

    If they don't have some sanction, whether that's education and awareness (now how is that heavy?), how will they ever learn?
    Forcing people into education because they chose to have an abortion may lead to social issues, such as stigmatisation, even ostracisation.

    It's also slightly unrealistic, because how are you going to determine whether an individual fell pregnant because they didn't use protection, or because they did use protection but it failed? Having to provide evidence either way would be wholly unpractical, and costly.

    I'm pretty sure that most people of drinking age in our country are aware of the possible consequences of unprotected sex, but still do it anyway. So I don't think it's a case of them 'learning'. Risky behaiour is complex and there's more to it than that. One of my good friends became pregnant last year with her boyfriend (unwanted, quickly turned to wanted), and I remember her saying 'I just didn't think it'd happen to me'. I mean she obviously knows the facts, but something in her head just took that risk anyway.
    • #7
    #7

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I consider myself to be very liberal socially and I would consider myself to be quite left wing. I fully support LGBT rights, women's rights, I hate racism etc. but the one thing that, no matter how hard I try because it's just so apparent that to be against it is horrific, is abortion. And I feel so so pressured into changing my opinion.
    And I would like to point out that this is not based on religious belief, which appears to be a go-to argument for most pro-choice people. I am secular.
    To me, it is simply killing a human being because your convenience is more important than that child's rights. I am one of the ones who takes exception when the health of the mother or child is at risk, and when the mother has been raped (this almost always leads to the aforementioned whether physically or mentally). However, I would look at each case individually. The case of somebody going out, sleeping with someone for their own pleasure, forgetting contraception and becoming pregnant then going to abort the child, because it would be inconvenient, and, I think shockingly, whether the father cares or not, is disgusting to me as a person. I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why it's ME who is sickeningly immoral and vile for thinking that. I hear the excuses and to them I say this - any life is better than no life. You have robbed a living thing of the greatest gift in the universe, to live as a human being. And if you're so convinced you can't provide a worthy life, give it up for adoption! It is your mistake and you have to face the consequences.
    Now, I often think about the fact that perhaps using contraception/masturbation is just as bad. But I don't think so for a few reasons. Masturbation is how you discover yourself sexually and it's part of life. Contraception exists so that you can further this sexual discovery, and if/when the time is right, choose to have a child. When you disregard this through your own foolishness or selfishness, you have a responsibility for somebody now. To KILL it to make things easier is, to me, selfish and immoral. That's not substance or tissue it's a PERSON.

    What am I missing?
    Well my friend had an abortion, she was 19 at the time at uni. She knew she couldn't take care of her child, she still had another 3 years of uni and her course was intensive, she wasn't eating well due to stress, she felt as if she was abusing her child. She tried her best for her child. She started getting sick due to her pregnancy and her professor said he would remove her from the course if she failed to turn up to more seminars. (btw she went to college in the US with no scholarship, so being thrown out would cause her to lose money). She really wanted to keep her child, but her circumstances meant she couldn't. She still is upset about it to this day.

    You were probably expecting a more pro-choice story than this, sorry.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Forcing people into education because they chose to have an abortion may lead to social issues, such as stigmatisation, even ostracisation.

    It's also slightly unrealistic, because how are you going to determine whether an individual fell pregnant because they didn't use protection, or because they did use protection but it failed? Having to provide evidence either way would be wholly unpractical, and costly.

    I'm pretty sure that most people of drinking age in our country are aware of the possible consequences of unprotected sex, but still do it anyway. So I don't think it's a case of them 'learning'. Risky behaiour is complex and there's more to it than that. One of my good friends became pregnant last year with her boyfriend (unwanted, quickly turned to wanted), and I remember her saying 'I just didn't think it'd happen to me'. I mean she obviously knows the facts, but something in her head just took that risk anyway.
    Okay I don't mean forcing them into education to such an extent that it will cause stigma or ostracisation. Maybe just some stuff like leaflets.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    how are you going to determine whether an individual fell pregnant because they didn't use protection, or because they did use protection but it failed? Having to provide evidence either way would be wholly unpractical, and costly.
    You can't determine for sure. You'll have to give them the benefit of the doubt and that's what courts do. If they say they fell pregnant due to a lack of protection, well then why would that be? Is it because they wanted a baby or is it because they didn't? If they were in the right mind-frame and under the influence of no drugs/alcohol and mutually consented, that's their baby and it ain't getting aborted.

    If they say they fell pregnant due to some influence like alcohol, then they should be able to get an abortion.

    A problem comes when the father and mother disagrees. I think if the mother is in danger, the father should have absolutely no say in the matter. I think if the mother is not in danger (though this might be hard to prove, because she'll probably always be in danger - and so will the child if the father changes his mind afterwards), the father might be entitled to some say however in the end I believe it's the "mother's" choice.

    And about risky behaviour - do you actually think anyone can stop that? No. That will always happen. The important thing is to try and prevent it though, one way being having a stronger community.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If any women suffered with raped and got pregnant, in that case abortion is not a wrong step.
    If women doesn't want a baby now but unfortunately they made a mistake during intercourse, in that case Abortion is right way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I consider myself to be very liberal socially and I would consider myself to be quite left wing. I fully support LGBT rights, women's rights, I hate racism etc. but the one thing that, no matter how hard I try because it's just so apparent that to be against it is horrific, is abortion. And I feel so so pressured into changing my opinion.
    And I would like to point out that this is not based on religious belief, which appears to be a go-to argument for most pro-choice people. I am secular.
    To me, it is simply killing a human being because your convenience is more important than that child's rights. I am one of the ones who takes exception when the health of the mother or child is at risk, and when the mother has been raped (this almost always leads to the aforementioned whether physically or mentally). However, I would look at each case individually. The case of somebody going out, sleeping with someone for their own pleasure, forgetting contraception and becoming pregnant then going to abort the child, because it would be inconvenient, and, I think shockingly, whether the father cares or not, is disgusting to me as a person. I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why it's ME who is sickeningly immoral and vile for thinking that. I hear the excuses and to them I say this - any life is better than no life. You have robbed a living thing of the greatest gift in the universe, to live as a human being. And if you're so convinced you can't provide a worthy life, give it up for adoption! It is your mistake and you have to face the consequences.
    Now, I often think about the fact that perhaps using contraception/masturbation is just as bad. But I don't think so for a few reasons. Masturbation is how you discover yourself sexually and it's part of life. Contraception exists so that you can further this sexual discovery, and if/when the time is right, choose to have a child. When you disregard this through your own foolishness or selfishness, you have a responsibility for somebody now. To KILL it to make things easier is, to me, selfish and immoral. That's not substance or tissue it's a PERSON.

    What am I missing?
    Because its not a child,not by any stretch of the imagination.To put it in perspective a foetus
    at that stage has about the same number of brain cells as a fly.We don't care about killing flies so shouldn't care about this at least not in the early stages.In the later stages of pregnancy you may have a point but in the early stages its not a child.Its not even really alive.Its just a collection of cells that might one day have the potential to be more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buyabortionpills)
    If any women suffered with raped and got pregnant, in that case abortion is not a wrong step.
    If women doesn't want a baby now but unfortunately they made a mistake during intercourse, in that case Abortion is right way.
    you make money from abortion - how reliable is such a position?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Because its not a child,not by any stretch of the imagination.To put it in perspective a foetus
    at that stage has about the same number of brain cells as a fly.We don't care about killing flies so shouldn't care about this at least not in the early stages.In the later stages of pregnancy you may have a point but in the early stages its not a child.Its not even really alive.Its just a collection of cells that might one day have the potential to be more.
    Wow. never seen so much unscientific and illogical crud in one post.

    you are just a collection of cells too.

    Like any fetus. you too were a child in your mums womb which is based on definition and backed with biology. the imagination is wishful thinking developed by those who had all too much to gain from abortion. $$$

    Furthermore. lets stick to science when describing an organism alive. which studies habe allowed us to know that the brain capacity you have is based on how you develop in the womb.....

    but of coarse our environment and choices may influence that
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Wow. never seen so much unscientific and illogical crud in one post.

    you are just a collection of cells too.

    Like any fetus. you too were a child in your mums womb which is based on definition and backed with biology. the imagination is wishful thinking developed by those who had all too much to gain from abortion. $$$

    Furthermore. lets stick to science when describing an organism alive. which studies habe allowed us to know that the brain capacity you have is based on how you develop in the womb.....

    but of coarse our environment and choices may influence that
    How is it unscientific? A foetus up until a certain point is just essentially a collection of different cells.If you get rid of the embryo then you are not commiting murder because the embryo is not a child yet.Whats hard to understand about that? A lot of animals have a lot more capacity to think and feel than any foetus yet most people don't have any problems with eating meat.And no one says that killing an animal is murder.By your logic it would be.By the way at least I can spell.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    How is it unscientific? A foetus up until a certain point is just essentially a collection of different cells.If you get rid of the embryo then you are not commiting murder because the embryo is not a child yet.Whats hard to understand about that? A lot of animals have a lot more capacity to think and feel than any foetus yet most people don't have any problems with eating meat.And no one says that killing an animal is murder.By your logic it would be.By the way at least I can spell.
    1. not a child? A child is a human offspring during youth. that is how a child is defined. to say a human inside the womb is not a child is to deny they are human.

    2. "not even alive." horrible assumption. Biology describes the child is alive.

    3. usage of "fetus" You elected to use a word that describes us during (as some institutions suggest) week 10 to birth - in which huge changes occur between that time period.
    http://www.babycenter.com/0_fetal-de...ne_10357636.bc

    http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pre...-weeks_1099.bc

    4. "brain cells." "different cells"
    “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
    Dr. Paul Ranalli
    http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html
    http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnanc...ervous-system/

    Again. an incorrect use of words and description. All humans are a collection of cells by the way. none more important than our embryonic stage in life. For this is when cells begin to differ.

    5a. Why describe or compare developing beings with adult beings?
    This is like comparing a high school athlete to a professional - or even a 5 year old. These are illogical and unjust premises.

    5b. "A lot of animals have a lot more capacity to think and feel than any foetus yet most people don't have any problems with eating meat."

    wtf :confused:

    Diet is not up for discussion. there is a historical presence in differing humans from animals. This is not based on brain capacity.

    Furthermore, many animals may carry higher brain activity than an infant and toddler. Based on your own logic, we should not care about these lower life forms either. Its all just potential.

    Research is still unclear however, on full ability of the human brain during our years of development.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I consider myself to be very liberal socially and I would consider myself to be quite left wing. I fully support LGBT rights, women's rights, I hate racism etc. but the one thing that, no matter how hard I try because it's just so apparent that to be against it is horrific, is abortion. And I feel so so pressured into changing my opinion.
    And I would like to point out that this is not based on religious belief, which appears to be a go-to argument for most pro-choice people. I am secular.
    To me, it is simply killing a human being because your convenience is more important than that child's rights.
    I would completely understand that point of view if a foetus was "alive" and that would be a great argument...
    but a foetus isn't alive. it's not alive in a human sense. a live baby that's just been born is alive, but a foetus is a prototype human being - nothing more than a developing blueprint. yes, it is biological, but not conscious, sentient, thinking, etc - *that* is the essence of human life. if you count the termination of a foetus's existence as murder, then I don't understand how it isn't murder to deweed a flower bed.

    I am one of the ones who takes exception when the health of the mother or child is at risk, and when the mother has been raped (this almost always leads to the aforementioned whether physically or mentally).
    why would you take exception here though when your previous argument was against the argument of "killing" for convenience? that's contradictory, surely? who cares about the raped mother - you shouldn't "kill" the innocent human being who's done nothing wrong, right?

    However, I would look at each case individually. The case of somebody going out, sleeping with someone for their own pleasure, forgetting contraception and becoming pregnant then going to abort the child, because it would be inconvenient, and, I think shockingly, whether the father cares or not, is disgusting to me as a person.
    yeah, again, this contradicts your first argument

    I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why it's ME who is sickeningly immoral and vile for thinking that. I hear the excuses and to them I say this - any life is better than no life. You have robbed a living thing of the greatest gift in the universe, to live as a human being.
    "rights" come from more than just our existence. they come from our rationality and sentience, and from there, our *social* existence in a community of people with the same interests and needs. we are rational, therefore we comprehend the needs of both ourselves and others. therefore, we understand, via mutual rationality and mutual sentience, that to harm others causes pain that we ourselves feel and understand. therefore, we develop a code of behaviour that is mostly based on "if we are both equally human, and I want to be treated in a certain way to stop feeling pain from others, then that same entitlement should be applied to everybody". a foetus doesn't have the rationality nor the sentience to have rights in that sense. rights are very human in that manner because animals don't have rights because they don't have the ability to come together to codify "rights" themselves amongst the other members of that species. I'm not saying rights aren't derived from our nature, I am saying that *our* nature is based on rationality and sentience. we should defend animals from harm and we should punish people for harming them in my opinion, but do animals have those kinds of rights? no - but we can create them artifically through our own sympathies.

    And if you're so convinced you can't provide a worthy life, give it up for adoption! It is your mistake and you have to face the consequences.
    if you can justify aborting or "killing" a person because their mother was raped, why can't another person justify killing because they are poor or apathetic? or any reason? the point still stands: if you think the foetus is alive, then nothing is acceptable. only self-defence. and it's not "self-defence" to kill a foetus, right? unless it's harming you. "inconveniencing you" isn't harm, and if it was, it was surely self-inflicted if you didn't get a morning after pill after getting raped (etc)

    Now, I often think about the fact that perhaps using contraception/masturbation is just as bad. But I don't think so for a few reasons. Masturbation is how you discover yourself sexually and it's part of life.
    you can hypothetically stop masturbating though - how's that a good argument?

    Contraception exists so that you can further this sexual discovery, and if/when the time is right, choose to have a child. When you disregard this through your own foolishness or selfishness, you have a responsibility for somebody now. To KILL it to make things easier is, to me, selfish and immoral. That's not substance or tissue it's a PERSON.
    that would be true if I accepted the premise that a foetus is alive and a "person". to have a personality is to have self-awareness, surely? how is somebody a person if they themselves don't even believe that they are a person? if you have no personality, how are you any less than an object? self-awareness surely separates us from objects? even if an object felt pain, how is that object "a person"? they are material and sentient, but how are they personal?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Plenty of people getting abortions have taken reasonable precautions and unfortunately it just doesn't work. Birth control is never 100% effective and there's always some risk involved in having sex.

    Abortions in my opinion are done early enough that you're not killing a baby. It is up to a woman to decide what to do with her body, pregnancy in itself is risky. I also believe that bringing unwanted kids into an overpopulated world (where many kids are sitting in care waiting for adoptions already) is not moral, especially if you can't guarantee being able to provide for it adequately (either with time and emotional resources or financially).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I would completely understand that point of view if a foetus was "alive" and that would be a great argument...
    but a foetus isn't alive. it's not alive in a human sense. a live baby that's just been born is alive, but a foetus is a prototype human being - nothing more than a developing blueprint. yes, it is biological, but not conscious, sentient, thinking, etc - *that* is the essence of human life. if you count the termination of a foetus's existence as murder, then I don't understand how it isn't murder to deweed a flower bed.



    why would you take exception here though when your previous argument was against the argument of "killing" for convenience? that's contradictory, surely? who cares about the raped mother - you shouldn't "kill" the innocent human being who's done nothing wrong, right?



    yeah, again, this contradicts your first argument



    "rights" come from more than just our existence. they come from our rationality and sentience, and from there, our *social* existence in a community of people with the same interests and needs. we are rational, therefore we comprehend the needs of both ourselves and others. therefore, we understand, via mutual rationality and mutual sentience, that to harm others causes pain that we ourselves feel and understand. therefore, we develop a code of behaviour that is mostly based on "if we are both equally human, and I want to be treated in a certain way to stop feeling pain from others, then that same entitlement should be applied to everybody". a foetus doesn't have the rationality nor the sentience to have rights in that sense. rights are very human in that manner because animals don't have rights because they don't have the ability to come together to codify "rights" themselves amongst the other members of that species. I'm not saying rights aren't derived from our nature, I am saying that *our* nature is based on rationality and sentience. we should defend animals from harm and we should punish people for harming them in my opinion, but do animals have those kinds of rights? no - but we can create them artifically through our own sympathies.



    if you can justify aborting or "killing" a person because their mother was raped, why can't another person justify killing because they are poor or apathetic? or any reason? the point still stands: if you think the foetus is alive, then nothing is acceptable. only self-defence. and it's not "self-defence" to kill a foetus, right? unless it's harming you. "inconveniencing you" isn't harm, and if it was, it was surely self-inflicted if you didn't get a morning after pill after getting raped (etc)



    you can hypothetically stop masturbating though - how's that a good argument?



    that would be true if I accepted the premise that a foetus is alive and a "person". to have a personality is to have self-awareness, surely? how is somebody a person if they themselves don't even believe that they are a person? if you have no personality, how are you any less than an object? self-awareness surely separates us from objects? even if an object felt pain, how is that object "a person"? they are material and sentient, but how are they personal?
    While I agree with you for the most part, it really annoys me when people describe a foetus as not being alive. As a biochemist, I can tell you that a foetus is alive in every way that matters. The sperm cell and the egg cell that combined to create it were living cells, and it is composed of living cells. A foetus grows, maintains homeostasis, undergoes metabolism, and responds to stimuli; it is alive.

    What that doesn't mean is that it should be given the same rights as a human being. You're right in saying that it isn't one of those yet.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I would completely understand that point of view if a foetus was "alive" and that would be a great argument...
    but a foetus isn't alive. it's not alive in a human sense. a live baby that's just been born is alive, but a foetus is a prototype human being - nothing more than a developing blueprint.
    the blue print is in our DNA. THAT is our blueprint.

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    While I agree with you for the most part, it really annoys me when people describe a foetus as not being alive. As a biochemist, I can tell you that a foetus is alive in every way that matters. The sperm cell and the egg cell that combined to create it were living cells, and it is composed of living cells. A foetus grows, maintains homeostasis, undergoes metabolism, and responds to stimuli; it is alive.

    What that doesn't mean is that it should be given the same rights as a human being. You're right in saying that it isn't one of those yet.
    Wow, you were going so good and then fell off at the end.

    Took the liberty to add bold for most important part.

    As a biochemist, how is a fetus (or any pre-born child) not a human when biology is very clear that the pre-born can only be human? There is no natural means for a foreign or non-human tissue to develop into a human.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes, it is biological, but not conscious, sentient, thinking, etc - *that* is the essence of human life. if you count the termination of a foetus's existence as murder, then I don't understand how it isn't murder to deweed a flower bed.
    The essence of life is life. That which makes your life human - please do understand that you are using the word "human" to describe the word "life" - is DNA. all else fails. Conscious, you loose it. I did on more than one occasion - no not by choice. If something is not human until it gains consciousness, then that same thing is not human when it without conscious. you (your argument) places very essence of being human in regard as to whether or not a being pertains consciousness.

    however, not only do human beings loose their conscious but all animals are sentient. I am sure some animals do not think as you or I or any human, but there are animals that feel and understand pain as well as any human. There are also humans whose inelegance and conscious differs from your own. If this factor changes so much and is shared among non humans, how is it adequate to say that life within the womb is not human?


    "rights" come from more than just our existence. they come from our rationality and sentience, and from there, our *social* existence in a community of people with the same interests and needs. we are rational, therefore we comprehend the needs of both ourselves and others. therefore, we understand, via mutual rationality and mutual sentience, that to harm others causes pain that we ourselves feel and understand. therefore, we develop a code of behaviour that is mostly based on "if we are both equally human, and I want to be treated in a certain way to stop feeling pain from others, then that same entitlement should be applied to everybody". a foetus doesn't have the rationality nor the sentience to have rights in that sense. rights are very human in that manner because animals don't have rights because they don't have the ability to come together to codify "rights" themselves amongst the other members of that species. I'm not saying rights aren't derived from our nature, I am saying that *our* nature is based on rationality and sentience. we should defend animals from harm and we should punish people for harming them in my opinion, but do animals have those kinds of rights? no - but we can create them artifically through our own sympathies.
    huh?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Wow, you were going so good and then fell off at the end.


    As a biochemist, how is a fetus (or any pre-born child) not a human when biology is very clear that the pre-born can only be human? There is no natural means for a foreign or non-human tissue to develop into a human.
    There are several important distinctions to be made here. I don't contest that a foetus is human, in the same way that human sperm and egg cells are human. I just don't consider it a human being - that is to say, I don't think it's a person at least until late in a pregnancy.

    There are plenty of strains of human cells that can now be grown in culture in the lab. Any one of those cultures contains living human cells, but you wouldn't give them the same rights as people, would you? There have to be more criteria than "living human".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    There are several important distinctions to be made here. I don't contest that a foetus is human, in the same way that human sperm and egg cells are human. I just don't consider it a human being - that is to say, I don't think it's a person at least until late in a pregnancy.

    There are plenty of strains of human cells that can now be grown in culture in the lab. Any one of those cultures contains living human cells, but you wouldn't give them the same rights as people, would you? There have to be more criteria than "living human".
    that makes no sense. biology identifies pre-born as a being. an different organism from the mother.

    unlike sperm cell or any organ in human body, pre-born do not stay a single organ or cell. sperm cell will stay a sperm cell. a fetus is a multitude of organs.

    True a sperm and egg combine, but at conception you no longer have either egg or sperm.

    Why is a human being not a person when by definition a person is just a single human?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's not for society to decide whether abortion is right or wrong - it's an individual choice. I made the choice not to have an abortion, but not because society told me it was the right thing to do.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    that makes no sense. biology identifies pre-born as a being. an different organism from the mother.

    unlike sperm cell or any organ in human body, pre-born do not stay a single organ or cell. sperm cell will stay a sperm cell. a fetus is a multitude of organs.

    True a sperm and egg combine, but at conception you no longer have either egg or sperm.

    Why is a human being not a person when by definition a person is just a single human?
    Your thinking is too fuzzy for me to argue with. Goodbye.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,816

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

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.