Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[AnnaG]

I just estimated 100,000 would cover all of them, no idea really how many there are.

There are millions, JLM.

Yes, there are. Hundreds of grass species alone.

Come on, it processes food and oxygen, it grows, it kicks........how many dead things do you know of that do all that?

It may be alive JLM, but so are sperm and egg. Then why not show the same care and consideration to the sperm and the egg? The problem is, we really don’t know when the fetus becomes a human life.

As people have mentioned, scientifically, human fetuses are alive. The problem is before that.

And exactly how does one define a human life? Is it when the fetus acquires a heartbeat? But heartbeat doesn’t make it human. Perhaps when it grows limbs? But that doesn’t necessarily make it human. Perhaps when it grows brain? What exactly is it that makes it human and when does that occur?

As I said, these are complicated issues, with no simple answer.

Quit taking it apart and concentrating on the parts. Put all the facts together and you end up with a human. Limbs? Check. Heartbeat? Check. Human DNA? Check. Brain activity? Check. Human sperm donor? Check. Human egg donor? Check. And so on and so forth. The added results = human

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quit taking it apart and concentrating on the parts. Put all the facts together and you end up with a human. Limbs? Check. Heartbeat? Check. Human DNA? Check. Brain activity? Check. Human sperm donor? Check. Human egg donor? Check. And so on and so forth. The added results = human

All these things do not add up to a human being, Anna. Let us look at them.

Human limbs – Human limbs? Isn’t that circular reasoning? We are trying to establish if the fetus is a human being, so isn’t calling them human limbs jumping the gun?

Human DNA - a dead body, or a blob of tissue also has human DNA.

Brain activity – animals have brain activity. Are we talking of brain activity in human sense, ability to think, to reason, to analyze, to come to conclusions? I doubt it.

Human sperm and egg donor - Sure, human DNA went in and eventually a human being will emerge. The question is, at what stage.

Now, instinctively you may think it obvious that all these factors combined make a human being. But when we look at it in detail, the answer is not so obvious.

 

[JLM]

Quit taking it apart and concentrating on the parts. Put all the facts together and you end up with a human. Limbs? Check. Heartbeat? Check. Human DNA? Check. Brain activity? Check. Human sperm donor? Check. Human egg donor? Check. And so on and so forth. The added results = human

All these things do not add up to a human being, Anna. Let us look at them.

Human limbs – Human limbs? Isn’t that circular reasoning? We are trying to establish if the fetus is a human being, so isn’t calling them human limbs jumping the gun?

Human DNA - a dead body, or a blob of tissue also has human DNA.

Brain activity – animals have brain activity. Are we talking of brain activity in human sense, ability to think, to reason, to analyze, to come to conclusions? I doubt it.

Human sperm and egg donor - Sure, human DNA went in and eventually a human being will emerge. The question is, at what stage.

Now, instinctively you may think it obvious that all these factors combined make a human being. But when we look at it in detail, the answer is not so obvious.

Getting back to your millions of species. For starters we could safely constrict it to mammals, which may possibly be a few hundred. Now, if it isn't human as you suggest, what mammal is it? Getting back to the argument the main issue for the mother seems to be "it's her body". So what, the fetus is a "body" that doesn't have the voice the mother has. You're starting to be difficult here S.J.- just suggesting it's a mushroom is ridiculous and only weakens your argument.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Getting back to your millions of species. For starters we could safely constrict it to mammals, which may possibly be a few hundred.

That still may come up to several thousand (or perhaps even a hundred thousand, I am not sure, but definitely much more than a few hundred).

Now, if it isn't human as you suggest, what mammal is it?

Why should it have to be mammal? Why should it have to be anything? Even if we accept that it is alive (in the sense that sperm and egg are alive), we don’t know what it is. Is the sperm a mammal? Is an egg a mammal? No, they are just that, sperm and egg.

Now, they belong to mammal species, but it would be nonsense to say that the sperm is a mammal or an egg is a mammal. Same way the fetus belongs to mammal species, if fully developed; it will turn into a mammal. But to call it a mammal since conception? Why?

Getting back to the argument the main issue for the mother seems to be "it's her body". So what, the fetus is a "body" that doesn't have the voice the mother has.

But that is just the point; fetus is not a human body. At least we don’t’ know if it is human body or not.

You're starting to be difficult here S.J.- just suggesting it's a mushroom is ridiculous and only weakens your argument.

I was being facetious, JLM, I was not seriously suggesting that fetus is a mushroom. I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of your argument, of the process of elimination.

 

[JLM]

"I was being facetious, JLM, I was not seriously suggesting that fetus is a mushroom. I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of your argument, of the process of elimination."- That comment strengthens my argument, you've just admitted that one specy is ridiculous, now we can move onto gnats, flies, worms, butterflies, toads, etc. etc. etc. until we end up with just one specy- human.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"I was being facetious, JLM, I was not seriously suggesting that fetus is a mushroom. I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of your argument, of the process of elimination."- That comment strengthens my argument, you've just admitted that one specy is ridiculous, now we can move onto gnats, flies, worms, butterflies, toads, etc. etc. etc. until we end up with just one specy- human.

But the problem remains JLM, why would you attribute species to it at all? Again look at the analogy of sperm and egg.

Now, the sperm undoubtedly belongs to human being, but can the sperm be called a human being? Can an egg be called a human being?

Then why fetus? Your basic premise (that fetus is a human or a dog, or a frog, or a rabbit etc.) is flawed. It is a fetus belonging to human species, not a human being. There is a big difference.

 

[Liberalman]

fetus is a human being but a sperm and an egg before they connect are not

 

[SirJosephPorter]

fetus is a human being but a sperm and an egg before they connect are not

Now we are going in circles, Liberalman, we don’t know that. Perhaps it is time to end the discussion, we have said all that there is to say.

 

[bluedog]

Again, a dishonest argument, most animal rights activists support putting animals to sleep if circumstances warrant it. So I fail to see how they value a dog or a cat over a human being.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am still interested to hear you address that the same people who would abort a child for birth control, worrying a new life would disrupt their lifestyle or interfere in there sex life. Even if other fetuskillers could question their ability to nurture it to term, love it once born, provide for it through to adulthood and use economics as an excuse to kill it.
If these same, anyone of them could decide to the next day... pick up that interestingly beautiful rock, shine it, cut it, and then hold on to it for those same eighteen years treasuring it, until the price was right. How would they not be called rapacious?

greed - reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)
avarice, avaritia, rapacity, covetousness
a deadly sin, mortal sin - an unpardonable sin entailing a total
loss of grace; "theologians list seven mortal sins"

source: (not some obscure theological text) The freedictionary.com



Please Sir Joseph, Peta puts "Valuable born Innocent" to sleep but not to sell (as above) pelts. They would decide to subject your abortion ritual on litters of pregnant animals to...
ease the life of the mother either.

Greed is greed, Innocence innocence.
"...if this be the end of the sin, with good reason were we directed to stop at the beginning of it: Look not upon the wine when it is red"



Then, Let us worry not about our life
for we have only to look at the lillies of the field:fish:

 

[lone wolf]

When the dust from logic and good sense have clouded beyond all reason, there is always the ridiculous to confuse an opponent to abandonment. In that way, the battle is deemed as won by he who can never be wrong.

 

[Cliffy]

Here's one I haven't heard. Humans are animals. The various stages of development have different names like zygote and fetus. The terms alone do not specify species. But until that entity reaches a stage of being fully functional on its own it is a animal fetus with no particular species designation.

I think the main problem here is that we still think that because we are human that we are somehow more important than any other species. It is all still based on the false belief that we were created in the image of god. We are just intellectual animals. It is our self importance that causes us to think this debate is even important. Surely, when religion is taken out of the argument, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

 

[JLM]

fetus is a human being but a sperm and an egg before they connect are not

That would be the reasonable conclusion.

 

[JLM]

Here's one I haven't heard. Humans are animals. The various stages of development have different names like zygote and fetus. The terms alone do not specify species. But until that entity reaches a stage of being fully functional on its own it is a animal fetus with no particular species designation.

I think the main problem here is that we still think that because we are human that we are somehow more important than any other species. It is all still based on the false belief that we were created in the image of god. We are just intellectual animals. It is our self importance that causes us to think this debate is even important. Surely, when religion is taken out of the argument, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

You bet Cliff, probably the most intellectual of all animals BUT when it comes to wisdom (a more important yard stick) we're not even close to the top.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am still interested to hear you address that the same people who would abort a child for birth control, worrying a new life would disrupt their lifestyle or interfere in there sex life.

Different people have different lifestyles, bluedog. That is the beauty of our country, we tolerate all the life styles, we don’t pass judgment.

As to PETA, it does come across as an extreme organization in the animal rights movement (same as pro life groups adopt an extreme position in the abortion debate). So I am not sure that it is appropriate to bring PETA into the debate. While I agree with their aim (animal welfare), I find many of their tactics questionable.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That would be the reasonable conclusion.

Again, it is a matter of opinion, JLM.

 

[AnnaG]

Quit taking it apart and concentrating on the parts. Put all the facts together and you end up with a human. Limbs? Check. Heartbeat? Check. Human DNA? Check. Brain activity? Check. Human sperm donor? Check. Human egg donor? Check. And so on and so forth. The added results = human

All these things do not add up to a human being, Anna. Let us look at them.

Human limbs – Human limbs? Isn’t that circular reasoning? We are trying to establish if the fetus is a human being, so isn’t calling them human limbs jumping the gun?

Sir Joe. Do not project, please. I diod not say human limbs. You did. I said simply, "limbs".

Human DNA - a dead body, or a blob of tissue also has human DNA.

Yes, they do.

Brain activity – animals have brain activity. Are we talking of brain activity in human sense, ability to think, to reason, to analyze, to come to conclusions? I doubt it.

No.

Human sperm and egg donor - Sure, human DNA went in and eventually a human being will emerge. The question is, at what stage.

Usually about the end of the 3rd trimester. No-one told you the process?

Now, instinctively you may think it obvious that all these factors combined make a human being. But when we look at it in detail, the answer is not so obvious.

Wrong. If you continue to separate them and look at them without consideration of the others, it isn't so obvious. If you look into each one with consideration of the others (regardless of depth of detail), it is obvious. Anyone ever tell you the tale of the blind men and the elephant?

Here:
"Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."
They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.
"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.
"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunkof the elephant.
"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."
"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right."

 

[bluedog]

Here's one I haven't heard. Humans are animals. The various stages of development have different names like zygote and fetus. The terms alone do not specify species. But until that entity reaches a stage of being fully functional on its own it is a animal fetus with no particular species designation.

I think the main problem here is that we still think that because we are human that we are somehow more important than any other species. It is all still based on the false belief that we were created in the image of god. We are just intellectual animals. It is our self importance that causes us to think this debate is even important. Surely, when religion is taken out of the argument, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess we should assume we have won the debate, since all we get is things like:

a zygote and fetus of any species is the same thing until it is fully functioning on its own. Did you turn this thesis in to your professor? Oh yeah, no professor.

A fish has a fish zygote because it is the product of two fish of the same species FROM CONCEPTION. A bird has a bird zygote because it too has a product of two of the same species FROM CONCEPTION. Any animal zygote has an animal zygote of the same species FROM CONCEPTION. We are human mammals, we have only mammilian zygotes therefore mammillian fetus FROM CONCEPTION.

Where is that logic of yours???
It is not a general statement that 'Any zygote is a zygote until it is any fetus then it has another name and therefore value only when that species is fully functional." You feel victim to way overgeneralization here.

Not to pick but. I think you reached 3000 this way brother! :fish:

 

[AnnaG]

Getting back to your millions of species. For starters we could safely constrict it to mammals, which may possibly be a few hundred. Now, if it isn't human as you suggest, what mammal is it? Getting back to the argument the main issue for the mother seems to be "it's her body". So what, the fetus is a "body" that doesn't have the voice the mother has. You're starting to be difficult here S.J.- just suggesting it's a mushroom is ridiculous and only weakens your argument.

Actually it is somewhere between 4500 and 5000 species of mammals.
And yes, the mushroom comment was a bit of a stretch but it sure was funny. Thanks for that, Sir Joe. You're a hoot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir Joe. Do not project, please. I diod not say human limbs. You did. I said simply, "limbs".

Sorry Anna, my mistake. You said “human. Limbs”. I read it ‘human limbs’.

 

[AnnaG]

Getting back to your millions of species. For starters we could safely constrict it to mammals, which may possibly be a few hundred.

That still may come up to several thousand (or perhaps even a hundred thousand, I am not sure, but definitely much more than a few hundred).

Now, if it isn't human as you suggest, what mammal is it?

Why should it have to be mammal? Why should it have to be anything? Even if we accept that it is alive (in the sense that sperm and egg are alive), we don’t know what it is. Is the sperm a mammal? Is an egg a mammal? No, they are just that, sperm and egg.

Now, they belong to mammal species, but it would be nonsense to say that the sperm is a mammal or an egg is a mammal. Same way the fetus belongs to mammal species, if fully developed; it will turn into a mammal. But to call it a mammal since conception? Why?

Getting back to the argument the main issue for the mother seems to be "it's her body". So what, the fetus is a "body" that doesn't have the voice the mother has.

But that is just the point; fetus is not a human body. At least we don’t’ know if it is human body or not.

You're starting to be difficult here S.J.- just suggesting it's a mushroom is ridiculous and only weakens your argument.

I was being facetious, JLM, I was not seriously suggesting that fetus is a mushroom. I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of your argument, of the process of elimination.

Sir Joe, science uses a great many tools to figure things out. Using reasoning is a biggie and the process of elimination is part of the reasoning.
As I said, if you take a human sperm donor, a human egg donor, let them do their thing, the egg donor becomes pregnant, what the result would be is definitely not a mushroom, tree, or a cup of tea. The result would be an undeveloped human being after about the 40th day.