Girl, 11, PREGNANT

[Sidoh]

So you support the idea of not legislating on abortion, but personally have a moral objection to abortion? 

If there was a bill passed to outlaw (or at least make the times on when abortion is legal or not), I would vote for it, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it.  I'm against it, but not enough to devote much of my time to.

Sidoh, if you're going to make the, "the baby could be beneficial to society" argument, then we also have to outlaw condoms and force people to have sex as much as possible.  Why?  Because each baby they don't have may benefit society.  So not aboring a baby because it might benefit society is useless to surmise. 

If a child is not conceived, how can it even be considered in this argument?  That's stupid.

It's not useless to surmise.  The baby could live to be someone and it could not.  As I've said twice before, predicting what its life will become is impossible to any degree of certainty.

Now the problem is, the core argument here is being overlooked as it always is in abortion cases: is an unborn baby alive?  People tend to ignore that and preach morality and all that fun stuff, which doesn't further the argument on abortion.

Um... yes.  An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.'  Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb.  It's definitely 'alive.'  Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'

So, the only real problem we have here is AntiVirus's statement, calling abortion "murder".  When we kill cows for food, we don't call that murder (unless you're PETA, but that's different), because the animals aren't human.  So the question becomes, is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.

I don't think anybody can answer that.  It depends on your definition of human.  Sure it "becomes" human, but so does sperm and we don't outlaw maturbation.  So, when does a human, by definition, become human? 

I've heard this argument so many times before that I chose to ignore it until you brought it up.

I would logistically say whenever the baby develops a nervous system and is able to move by itself.  At this point, it's obvious it has a funcitoning brain.

[iago]

If a child is not conceived, how can it even be considered in this argument?  That's stupid.

You're stupid.  I'm skipping the rest of that paragraph. 

Um... yes.  An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.'  Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb.  It's definitely 'alive.'  Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'

Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive". 

is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.

I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy.  Who's right?

[MyndFyre]

As discussed at the vL forums, sperm does not have the same potential for life.  Sperm/egg forming human > just sperm.

You'll forgive me if I don't count the vL forums as authoritative.

That implies actively being against legislation. 

No it doesn't.  Just because you have a belief (or in otherwords you support a position), doesn't mean you're going to march out into the world and start actively protesting.  You support not legislating on homosexual marriage, since you

think that government has no place in telling homosexuals that they can't marry.

You just don't feel strongly enough about it to spend your day holding protest signs.  This is probably because you have a moral objection to homosexual marriage that counterbalances your more intellectual position that the government shouldn't get involved.

Yes, it does.  "Support" is an active voice verb.  It implies doing something.  I'm in favor of not legislating on homosexual marriage, but I don't support it.  To support it would imply that I'm doing something in favor of the "cause."

Um... yes.  An unborn baby is definitely 'alive.'  Its heart beats, it breathes, it reacts to things happening outside the womb.  It's definitely 'alive.'  Perhaps you're looking for a word like 'conscious?'

Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive". 

is the unborn fetus a human?

Yes.

I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy.  Who's right?

I am curious.  Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human?  What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines?  Is that person not human?  I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human.  He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle.  Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove.  If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

[CrAz3D]

As discussed at the vL forums, sperm does not have the same potential for life.  Sperm/egg forming human > just sperm.

You'll forgive me if I don't count the vL forums as authoritative.

That I will

I was just saying that this has been addressed before (with most of us participating).
Sperm won't become a child unless other things happen, the little embryo will become a human unless other things happen.

[leet_muffin]

Well, let's give it a chance. If the kid has failing grades and a sex life by age 10... 33RD TRIMESTER ABORTION! =)

[iago]

I am curious.  Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human?  What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines?  Is that person not human?  I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human.  He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle.  Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove.  If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do.  But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human. 

Now, good luck resolving it!

[leet_muffin]

I am curious.  Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human?  What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines?  Is that person not human?  I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human.  He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle.  Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove.  If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do.  But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human. 

Now, good luck resolving it!

I favor abortion and consider the womb thing to be human.

[CrAz3D]

I am curious.  Assuming that conception and embryonic/fetal development are all parts of the human developmental cycle, as is old age, do you consider old people who depend on others to, say, go to the bathroom, to be not human?  What about a 25 year-old in a coma who has to be hooked up to life support machines?  Is that person not human?  I don't see any evidence that that person *is* human.  He doesn't breathe or eat on his own, he doesn't communicate, he shows nearly no sign of brain activity.

What qualifies as human?

I stand by my definition, that a human is a human at any point in the developmental cycle.  Monkeys don't have human children, and two humans aren't going to have sex and produce a dove.  If you say the 25-year-old is not human, then clearly we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes humanity.

I don't know what constitutes being human, and I'm not going to pretend that I do.  But that's the core problem with abortion arguments:
- People who favor abortion don't consider the clump of cells to be a human
- People who are against abortion do consider the pre-developed human to be a human. 

Now, good luck resolving it!

That clump of cells is a developing human.  And I believe as MyndFyre suggested, we are all developing humans, just at different stages.  It would make sense to say that the clump of cells should have rights equal to that of a person living freely in the world outside of the womb.

[iago]

That clump of cells is a developing human.  And I believe as MyndFyre suggested, we are all developing humans, just at different stages.  It would make sense to say that the clump of cells should have rights equal to that of a person living freely in the world outside of the womb.

It's also just a clump of cells with no brain, on neural system, and nothing else that we generally identify as human. 

Like I said, I'm not going to take one side or the other.  But I think that everybody has to understand how the otherside feels, which is why I used loaded language going both ways.

[CrAz3D]

I understand that it hasnt become a functioning being, but the potential is so great for it to be alive & walking someday

[iago]

I understand that it hasnt become a functioning being, but the potential is so great for it to be alive & walking someday

Every time you have sex, doesn't that have the potential to conceive a child, which has potential to be a member of "alive & walking"?  Birth control ruins the chance of that happening, but it's not illegal here. 

How does a "clump of cells", as abortionists would say, have any more potential than the act of sex? 

I'm not answering that, I'm just trying to give you information to think about. 

[CrAz3D]

The clump of cells has more potential because it is already a developing being whereas just the act of sex (even unprotected) does not always result in offspring.

[Sidoh]

You're stupid.  I'm skipping the rest of that paragraph. 

I don't see why you had to make it a personal argument.  I also don't see why you skipped the rest of that paragraph.

Sorry, I meant "human", not "alive". 

I'm thinking you meant "conscious."  Human is also easy to define.  Anything that contains gene data that constitues a human is a human.

I disagree, I don't think an unborn fetus is human, and entitled to the rights of a human, for the entire duration of pregnancy.  Who's right?

It's definitely human, but when it becomes conscious is obviously debatable.  I already stated when I believe this happens.

[MyndFyre]

How does a "clump of cells", as abortionists would say, have any more potential than the act of sex? 

There are millions of sperm inside of a wad of jizz.  Statistically speaking, even if one of them manages to fertilize, millions are going to die.  Putting a condom on or pulling out increases further the odds that they're *all* going to die.

Statistically speaking, most pregnancies end in a new human baby being born.

That's how a "clump of cells" has more potential than just having sex.

[iago]

I don't see why you had to make it a personal argument.  I also don't see why you skipped the rest of that paragraph.

You started with using the word "stupid".  I'm not going to respond when somebody calls what I say "stupid". 

I'm thinking you meant "conscious."  Human is also easy to define.  Anything that contains gene data that constitues a human is a human.

So if I lose an ear, and it's laying on the ground, you're asserting that the ear is human, and should be protected the same way a human is?  What if I cut myself and bleed?  What about the skin cells that I'm constantly shedding?  Having human gene data is necessary to be human, but not sufficient. 

It's definitely human, but when it becomes conscious is obviously debatable.  I already stated when I believe this happens.

I don't think it's human.  I think that it's becoming human.  I also think that consciousness is an essential part to being human, and it is largely what separates us from animals.  Of course, the same as what you're saying, that's only a personal belief, and I'm not going to try to pass that off as fact. 

There are millions of sperm inside of a wad of jizz.  Statistically speaking, even if one of them manages to fertilize, millions are going to die.  Putting a condom on or pulling out increases further the odds that they're *all* going to die.

Statistically speaking, most pregnancies end in a new human baby being born.

That's how a "clump of cells" has more potential than just having sex.

I think I'm using potential in a different context.  Stupid confusing English!  I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing.  I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness.