Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion
- Thread starter bluedog
- Start date
Of course it does. If someone finds skeletal remains, and they can't identify based on what they do have, genetics tells them it's a human, and then they can investigate what happened.
Further, you're ignoring the crucial fact that the developing baby is doing just that. A dead baby does not develop. Genetics tells us it's a human, and biology tells us it's living.
The rest as I said is the same ole from the last time. I'm not going to rehash that.
You're so good at stating what you think DOESN'T define human life, how about letting us know what DOES define human life.
Of course it does. If someone finds skeletal remains, and they can't identify based on what they do have, genetics tells them it's a human, and then they can investigate what happened.
Sure Tonington, but does that mean that the skeleton is a human being? It doesn’t, it may be human (coming from a human being), but it is not a human being.
It is the same with fetus. Sure fetus is of human origin, DNA tells us that, but that doesn’t mean that it is a human being. Same as sperm, it is of human origin, but by no stretch of imagination can a sperm be called a human being.
And that is what the argument is about, isn’t it? The argument is about whether fetus is a human being, nobody disputes that it is of human origin (like the skeleton you speak of).
Sure Tonington, but does that mean that the skeleton is a human being? It doesn’t, it may be human (coming from a human being), but it is not a human being.
It is the same with fetus. Sure fetus is of human origin, DNA tells us that, but that doesn’t mean that it is a human being. Same as sperm, it is of human origin, but by no stretch of imagination can a sperm be called a human being.
And that is what the argument is about, isn’t it? The argument is about whether fetus is a human being, nobody disputes that it is of human origin (like the skeleton you speak of).
Further, you're ignoring the crucial fact that the developing baby is doing just that. A dead baby does not develop. Genetics tells us it's a human, and biology tells us it's living.
It is not the baby that is developing, Tonignton, it is the fetus. A baby starts developing after it is born.
And yes, it is living, it is of human origin, but is it a human being? It does not necessarily follow. When a person dies, take a few cells from his body, put them in a Petri dish with nutrients. The cells keep on living, they grow and multiply. The cells are human, they are living, they are growing. But can they be called a human being?
The whole thing is much more complicated than you (or prolifers) make it out to be.
The rest as I said is the same ole from the last time. I'm not going to rehash that.
Perhaps you are right, we have discussed the subject to death.
It is not the baby that is developing, Tonignton, it is the fetus. A baby starts developing after it is born.
And yes, it is living, it is of human origin, but is it a human being? It does not necessarily follow. When a person dies, take a few cells from his body, put them in a Petri dish with nutrients. The cells keep on living, they grow and multiply. The cells are human, they are living, they are growing. But can they be called a human being?
The whole thing is much more complicated than you (or prolifers) make it out to be.
The rest as I said is the same ole from the last time. I'm not going to rehash that.
Perhaps you are right, we have discussed the subject to death.
Semantics. A child is a developing adult. A fetus is a developing baby. This does not disqualify one as a human, as billions of humans before you and I have followed the same plan. It's in your genes whether or not you care to acknowledge that fact.
More semantics, and does it matter? Can you find the words human being in the Charter? Can you find them in the Criminal Code of Canada? Does your ethics only extend to what you classify as a human being? What moral code is at work here that rests on such an arbitrary term?
I don't find the deaths of babies a small deal. Didn't you read what I said and you quoted?
Look, Sir Joe, a human being is a human being at whatever stage of development it is in. What you are saying is that no-one is human because we are ALL developing in some way or other all the way to death. The only difference is in the environment we and babies are developing in.
lol
No worries from me. You aren't one of the critters I would want to "scalp". lol
No worries. I am a bit too young to have been a VN vet. It was over before I was born. lol
But, why did you add my comment in your post?
Not true, Anna. Society as a whole agrees that after birth it is a human being, there is no argument about that.
And call it nit picking or call it semantics (like Toningotn did), but it is important. Human beings have certain rights guaranteed by the constitution, and if a fetus is considered a human being , it automatically acquires the same rights.
Thus if the fetus is a human being, every fetus must be named at conception and must be listed as the baby of the woman at conception, the conception must be registered with the government (like any birth). If she is on welfare, she will be able to draw welfare for two from the moment of conception.
Fetus must have health card number, Social Insurance number (in USA Social Security number) at conception. If a woman is ill and there is some question that fetus may have to be destroyed, the fetus must be given its own lawyer, to plead case of the fetus before the judge.
If there is a miscarriage, she must take the fetus to a proper funeral home, and have a funeral same as for any other human being, the death must be registered with the government.
Also the fetuses must be counted when government carries out a census.
So the implications are enormous, if the fetus is considered to be a human being. So it isn't nit picking, it is serious business.
Like I told Old Archie on Nipissing 10, you wouldn't want mine (then hoisted the hat) It's got a big hole in it....
