NEED POSTS!! i want to know ur thoughts on ABortion

[divineseraph]

The fetus is different from any other cell becuase it has a different DNA structure and is therefore genetically a different human. It is also CURRENTLY growing. it is not a potential human, it is a potential BORN human. It is still a human, just in an earlier stage of development.

You may not like this analogy, because it feels even to me like an emotional ploy... But look at it like this. Medically and legally, the only difference between fetus and infant is location. Take a look at a 9 month viable fetus and a 8 month preemie. The fetus, which is legally a non-person, is actually OLDER and more developed than the 8 month born human. To me, this proves that there is no potential, since the only difference in late term feti is location. Of course, very few people are for 2nd or third trimester abortions, for just this reason.

Point being, the fetus is already alive and growing, there is no potential about it.  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

It is not a parasite.

Yes, it really is. It is an organism that feeds on a host's nutrients without giving any or adequate returns.

Quote:

The next time a tick develops a central nervous system in 5 months and begins to learn, think and understand language, then I will agree that the fetus is a parasite. Oh, no I won't. Because the definition of parasite includes that it must be of a different SPECIES. Fail at medical definition.

Hm, what kind of ******** medical definition are you using? All my dictionaries are telling me it just has to be another "organism." Being of the same species makes no difference at all.

Quote:

The woman must choose to have sex to get pregnant. People do not consensually stick cancer-cells in their selves. And before you say that having sex does not consent to pregnancy- It does. Implied consent.

La dee freakin' da. How does this imply that her rights are removed? It's still her body.

Quote:

Again, personhood CHANGES. Blacks were NOT people, simply because they weren't CALLED people. They, too, were PROPERTY. Why can't we still own black people? Because they have feelings? So do cattle. Take away the personhood of any group of human, and they are nothing but property.

Personhood does change. You feel a lot more comfortable with giving a parasitic ball of human cells a remote definition of personhood than I do, apparently. I hate the thought of just throwing away kids, I really do, but I hate even more the thought that if my girlfriend got pregnant, that she wouldn't be able to live her life at ALL.

Quote:

And in case you missed it, I was being facetious. I'm not racist, but I am pointing out how your argument is similar to that of the days of old when black people were also property.

Black people are biological parasites to our persons...there just might be a difference.  

[stopthebanningplease]

divineseraph

Firing a bullet AT someone? But there are still hunting accidents, and there is a crime called manslaughter for just such a thing. Point being, you'd better be damned sure that what you're doing won't kill anyone, or else you're still at least partially liable, malice and direct intent or non.

Might I now point out that you're trying to draw an analogy between pregnancy and liability? Pregnancy should NEVER be a punishment.

=D I think it's time to throw a bender in. Let's assume that having unprotected sex IS consent to conception of a fetus. Prove now that it is consent to keeping the fetus, without using circular logic.

Quote:

Definition of personhood? I have none, because personhood is a system used to dehumanize. Anything IN the bounds of personhood are safe, anything OUT is property. Be they feeling or not. Again, look back to slavery. Look back to the jews in the holocaust. Denied personhood by germany and slaughtered. By definition, the holocaust was not murder because in Germany, Jews weren't people. And murder requires a person being killed.

If you have no standard for personhood, how can you claim that a dog is not a person? ONG YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THIER RITES!111

Quote:

I believe that all HUMANS should be put under protection from death, be it from war, abortion, disease, whatever.

Huh. Well, I, on the other hand, believe that people who want to die, for any reason, as well as people who have consistently shown disregard for their own lives, should be allowed to die.

(Disregard for your own life can be best summed up as "Ooh, a light socket! *poke* ZAP! *poke* ZAP! *poke* ZAP!...")

Quote:

And no, my argument is not based in science, nor the bible but in situational evidence.

There is no situational evidence except that which your own, socially biased mind has conjured up to complement the situation.

Quote:

The fetus has its entire life to lose,

It has not yet obtained life.

Quote:

while the woman has a bit of stress and 9 months. A life always outweighs convenience, especially when the woman took the required steps to get th life in there in the first place.

So then pregnancy IS a punishment?  

[stopthebanningplease]

divineseraph

The fetus is different from any other cell becuase it has a different DNA structure and is therefore genetically a different human. It is also CURRENTLY growing. it is not a potential human, it is a potential BORN human. It is still a human, just in an earlier stage of development.

In-Vitro Fertilization extracts and fertilizes dozens of eggs from a couple to increase the odds of having a child. The excess is frozen and eventually thrown away. Do you also oppose In-Vitro Fertilization?

Quote:

You may not like this analogy, because it feels even to me like an emotional ploy... But look at it like this. Medically and legally, the only difference between fetus and infant is location. Take a look at a 9 month viable fetus and a 8 month preemie. The fetus, which is legally a non-person, is actually OLDER and more developed than the 8 month born human. To me, this proves that there is no potential, since the only difference in late term feti is location. Of course, very few people are for 2nd or third trimester abortions, for just this reason.

Can the fetus survive on its own outside of the mother? If yes, and the mother wants it out, induce labour through chemicals. If no, it's still not an infant and still not a person. If she wants it out, get it out through labour or abortion.

Quote:

Point being, the fetus is already alive and growing, there is no potential about it.

It is potentially a person. Until it is able to survive without constantly feeding off the host/mother, it is not alive. As for growing, a child in Permanent Vegetative State is still growing. It is not a person. Growing =/= person.  

[divineseraph]

stopthebanningplease

divineseraph

Firing a bullet AT someone? But there are still hunting accidents, and there is a crime called manslaughter for just such a thing. Point being, you'd better be damned sure that what you're doing won't kill anyone, or else you're still at least partially liable, malice and direct intent or non.

Might I now point out that you're trying to draw an analogy between pregnancy and liability? Pregnancy should NEVER be a punishment.

=D I think it's time to throw a bender in. Let's assume that having unprotected sex IS consent to conception of a fetus. Prove now that it is consent to keeping the fetus, without using circular logic.

Quote:

Definition of personhood? I have none, because personhood is a system used to dehumanize. Anything IN the bounds of personhood are safe, anything OUT is property. Be they feeling or not. Again, look back to slavery. Look back to the jews in the holocaust. Denied personhood by germany and slaughtered. By definition, the holocaust was not murder because in Germany, Jews weren't people. And murder requires a person being killed.

If you have no standard for personhood, how can you claim that a dog is not a person? ONG YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THIER RITES!111

Quote:

I believe that all HUMANS should be put under protection from death, be it from war, abortion, disease, whatever.

Huh. Well, I, on the other hand, believe that people who want to die, for any reason, as well as people who have consistently shown disregard for their own lives, should be allowed to die.

(Disregard for your own life can be best summed up as "Ooh, a light socket! *poke* ZAP! *poke* ZAP! *poke* ZAP!...")

Quote:

And no, my argument is not based in science, nor the bible but in situational evidence.

There is no situational evidence except that which your own, socially biased mind has conjured up to complement the situation.

Quote:

The fetus has its entire life to lose,

It has not yet obtained life.

Quote:

while the woman has a bit of stress and 9 months. A life always outweighs convenience, especially when the woman took the required steps to get th life in there in the first place.

So then pregnancy IS a punishment?

You are medically wrong on many levels. The definition of "Alive" is growing, moving and able to react to stimuli. The fetus is all of these. Yes, not to the level of a born human, but they are alive.

Pregnancy is not a punishment. You take the focus off the life of the fetus and put it on the woman. this is nt where I am arguing from. I am trying to PROTECT the fetus, not PUNISH the woman. Were I truly out to punish women for sex, I would be against sex in general. I would also be against curing sexually transmitted diseases, since those are also consequences of sex.

Instead of your fallacious thought of my intent being "You MUST have this child" it is "You may NOT kill this child". To mistake the two is foolish. Quite like saying "Woah, there are laws against murder? but what about my right to express myself? I feel like expressing myself by killing people! Are you punishing me for expressing myself?! RITESRITESRITESLOLZ"

And once again, personhood is irrelevant to this conversation.  

[Tarrou]

Question, Seraph: I've noticed that you only ever use the word 'fetus' to describe the unborn. Now, given that a developing human is not a fetus until approximately eight weeks into its gestation (before that it is an embryo or, at the very beginning, a zygote), are we to assume that you are not necessarily opposed to embryonic abortion, or are you simply being inexact in your choice of words?  

[AznZephyr]

love the comic there, divineseraph: very true.  

[Tarantellatears]

interesting, I'm getting this in real life AND online. Kids are battling it out in the hallways, proclaiming "Life" in red duct tape, and "Choice" in plain tape. Funny how everyone seems to get so worked up about it . . .  

[divineseraph]

Tarrou

Question, Seraph: I've noticed that you only ever use the word 'fetus' to describe the unborn. Now, given that a developing human is not a fetus until approximately eight weeks into its gestation (before that it is an embryo or, at the very beginning, a zygote), are we to assume that you are not necessarily opposed to embryonic abortion, or are you simply being inexact in your choice of words?

Eight weeks? No, the fetus implants well before that. Abortions practically can't take placeu ntil 8 week. but it is pretty much irrelevant. still a human, still in development and thus still alive.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

Eight weeks? No, the fetus implants well before that. Abortions practically can't take placeu ntil 8 week. but it is pretty much irrelevant. still a human, still in development and thus still alive.

No, what implants is an embryo. The fetal stage begins about eight weeks after fertilization and is marked by the formation of major organ systems and recognizably human physical structures. You have answered my question, though. Clearly you're using 'fetus' as a general term to describe an unborn child and not in its technical sense.  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

Instead of your fallacious thought of my intent being "You MUST have this child" it is "You may NOT kill this child". To mistake the two is foolish.

Wait. What's the difference? Seriously. If you forbid the killing, you require the having.  

[Tarantellatears]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

Instead of your fallacious thought of my intent being "You MUST have this child" it is "You may NOT kill this child". To mistake the two is foolish.

Wait. What's the difference? Seriously. If you forbid the killing, you require the having.

but you don't have the keeping. There is something called adoption you know.  

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

Instead of your fallacious thought of my intent being "You MUST have this child" it is "You may NOT kill this child". To mistake the two is foolish.

Wait. What's the difference? Seriously. If you forbid the killing, you require the having.

The point of focus. Choicers put the focus on the rights and convenience of the woman. Lifers do not aim to take the rights of the woman, but extend them to the fetus in the one, solitary case of pregnancy considering the extensive circumstances involved. Altough this IS taking the right to abort from the woman, this is not what we want to do. We don't sit around and say "What rights can we take from women today?". We see that the fetus has not even the right to be guaranteed life, and we wish to extend that right to it. In doing so, the only right the woman will lose is the right to kill the fetus.  

[IcarusDream]

thestarthatshines

IcarusDream

divineseraph

Instead of your fallacious thought of my intent being "You MUST have this child" it is "You may NOT kill this child". To mistake the two is foolish.

Wait. What's the difference? Seriously. If you forbid the killing, you require the having.

but you don't have the keeping. There is something called adoption you know.

So? You directly claimed that it "wasn't" "You MUST have this child," which is totally false.

Also, I bet you find it an amazing idea to have all of the millions of aborted children since 1973 in adoption centers. How grand would that be?

Until we get some major CPS reform, adoption is not a viable option.