(April 6, 2013 at 7:26 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

At 2 months, 8 weeks, of pregnancy, the baby is moving along swiftly in its development. It has it's own blood type. It's heart has by then divided into its left and right chambers and beats at approximately 150 bpm. The baby is at this point beginning to practice moving. So a fetus is defined above as a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth. That means that most of it's development occurs after the period in which it classifies as a fetus.

Fetus = Unborn Baby.

Why waste time posting about stuff I never disputed and ignoring the criticism I attempted to convey?

Quote:Emotional arguments aside, this is fact and nothing but fact. Abortions are allowed up to 14 weeks and in some places up to 24 weeks! That is well into the development of the child!

So you see that a fetus is a human being, not something completely unaware of its own existence. The face begins to develop in the first month! Well before the time limit on abortion expires.

"Human" and "completely unaware of its own existance" are not mutually exclusive, not that I think that matters here. I do not think how developed or undeveloped a foetus is should affect the time limit on abortion as long as aborting a foetus of that age is relatively safe for the pregnant person. I view the point as that the mother has the right to her own body, and if she does not want to carry the foetus then it should be removed. Before the point of viability, this results in the death of the foetus; after it, it may be more like a premature birth, although given the resources needed to attempt to sustain babies born at 25 weeks I do not think abortion at that point is generally a good thing.

(April 6, 2013 at 7:34 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 7:28 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Oh okay.. it's not self aware until its two? So is it okay to kill an infant after it's born now?

I am tempted to provide an affirmative response, but I do not want to get you more riled up than you already are. Seriously, though, you do need to calm down.

As far as abortion is concerned, I do not advocate it past the recommended twenty four weeks unless the mother's life is in peril or there is something severely wrong with the fetus where it would be more humane to end its life to cut short its suffering in this world.

Yes, I do support abortion. No, I do not view it as murder. Yes, a fetus is both a human and a bundle of cells. No, a fetus does not have personhood. Yes, the fetus is a parasite.

Okay. But why is it okay to kill something human, that is nearly fully developed. At 24 months it is formed like us, it thinks and moves. How is that okay? This is going nowhere.

---

(April 6, 2013 at 7:40 am)Mononoke Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 7:26 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

At 2 months, 8 weeks, of pregnancy, the baby is moving along swiftly in its development. It has it's own blood type. It's heart has by then divided into its left and right chambers and beats at approximately 150 bpm. The baby is at this point beginning to practice moving. So a fetus is defined above as a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth. That means that most of it's development occurs after the period in which it classifies as a fetus.

Fetus = Unborn Baby.

Quote:Why waste time posting about stuff I never disputed and ignoring the criticism I attempted to convey?

Did you not ask me to differentiate between a fetus and a baby? I did the best I could. Which probably wasn't very good, since they are the same thing.

Quote:Emotional arguments aside, this is fact and nothing but fact. Abortions are allowed up to 14 weeks and in some places up to 24 weeks! That is well into the development of the child!

So you see that a fetus is a human being, not something completely unaware of its own existence. The face begins to develop in the first month! Well before the time limit on abortion expires.

"Human" and "completely unaware of its own existance" are not mutually exclusive, not that I think that matters here. I do not think how developed or undeveloped a foetus is should affect the time limit on abortion as long as aborting a foetus of that age is relatively safe for the pregnant person. I view the point as that the mother has the right to her own body, and if she does not want to carry the foetus then it should be removed. Before the point of viability, this results in the death of the foetus; after it, it may be more like a premature birth, although given the resources needed to attempt to sustain babies born at 25 weeks I do not think abortion at that point is generally a good thing.

Well I guess the issue here is then this: if it's a fetus, then its okay to abort it, but if it is a baby, it is not okay. My argument is that they are one in the same. And I feel that there are better alternatives to abortion. Maybe contraception, or abstinence. I don't have all the answers. I don't know what should be done if the woman is raped, or the child is a product of incest. But regardless of the arguments brought against me, I cannot say that abortion is okay.

(April 6, 2013 at 7:45 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Okay. But why is it okay to kill something human.

I honestly see no reason why abortion should not be legal. Yes, it is killing a human life, but I see no problem with that.

I thought I would post this argument from something I was just skimming:

Quote:The crux of my argument in favor of abortion is that killing is basically okay. Human beings kill everything. We kill cows because they taste good, trees because we like furniture, germs because they make us feel bad, deer because we love hunting, cockroaches because they are disgusting, and thousands of other species because we just hate those rain forests so much… Pretty much every species on Earth has been killed by humans at some point for some reason.

“Wait a minute,” I hear you cry. “That may all be true but we draw the line at killing other humans!” No, we don’t. We kill old people (euthanasia, and insurance companies will even pay for it), we kill criminals (capital punishment), we kill ourselves (suicide), we kill each other (war), we kill in self-defense, we kill when we are temporarily insane, and we pull the plug on people who are in comas. I haven’t even started listing all the indirect ways we kill people: drug companies pushing dangerous drugs, insurance companies not paying for lifesaving procedures, people starving in Africa because our fat asses can’t be bothered to share some food, athletes playing dangerous sports, smoking, alcohol, and McDonald’s.

99.99% of the time it’s perfectly okay and legal to kill any living thing you want. The only exception is that you can’t kill another human being for no apparent reason. That’s murder. That’s where the line is drawn.

http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402

(April 6, 2013 at 7:53 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 7:45 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Okay. But why is it okay to kill something human.

I honestly see no reason why abortion should not be legal. Yes, it is killing a human life, but I see no problem with that.

I thought I would post this argument from something I was just skimming:

Quote:The crux of my argument in favor of abortion is that killing is basically okay. Human beings kill everything. We kill cows because they taste good, trees because we like furniture, germs because they make us feel bad, deer because we love hunting, cockroaches because they are disgusting, and thousands of other species because we just hate those rain forests so much… Pretty much every species on Earth has been killed by humans at some point for some reason.

“Wait a minute,” I hear you cry. “That may all be true but we draw the line at killing other humans!” No, we don’t. We kill old people (euthanasia, and insurance companies will even pay for it), we kill criminals (capital punishment), we kill ourselves (suicide), we kill each other (war), we kill in self-defense, we kill when we are temporarily insane, and we pull the plug on people who are in comas. I haven’t even started listing all the indirect ways we kill people: drug companies pushing dangerous drugs, insurance companies not paying for lifesaving procedures, people starving in Africa because our fat asses can’t be bothered to share some food, athletes playing dangerous sports, smoking, alcohol, and McDonald’s.

99.99% of the time it’s perfectly okay and legal to kill any living thing you want. The only exception is that you can’t kill another human being for no apparent reason. That’s murder. That’s where the line is drawn.

http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402

The crux of my argument then is this: killing is not okay, unless it is for food, or for the defense of other life. That is what I believe. If I'm hungry, I don't mind killing a cow and having some burgers. If someone attacks me or another and I see it, I will put a bullet into the situation to save a life, mine or otherwise. I do not believe in unncessesary killing. Ever. If you choose to put your life on the line in war, or in law enforcement, or when you go hunting with your friends, then that is your issue to deal with. But I do not believe that it is okay to kill those who have no choice in the matter.

So then Drew, you support Maelstrom's argument.

---

The Cow (animal food), Bacteria, Insects, Vegetables, War victims, including ALL that Maelstrom has stated don't have a say in the matter of being killed either.

You are FAR too emotional about this issue mate. have a cup of tea and calm down.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:03 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So then Drew, you support Maelstrom's argument.

No. Where did you come up with that? There is absolutely a line that is drawn very boldly between death by choice and murder. A soldier knows that there is a possiblity of death, but he/she goes boldy on to war to fight for what they believe is right. The police officer knows that there is a possiblity of death in their job as well, but they courageously step forward to defend those who need it and to enforce the laws of the land. The burglar knows that if the police officer catches him/her, then he/she may well be shot and die if they make the wrong move while the officer's gun is drawn. The fetus has no knowledge that it is going to be killed, and therefore has no choice in the matter. The murder victim doesn't wish to die, but does anyway, against his/her wishes. The cow is food. The chicken is food. All animals are beneath humans on the food chain, as you well know. We can't say that animal life is equal to our own, so using the killing of animals in a debate about the morality of the abortion of human fetuses is nonsense.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:11 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: The fetus has no knowledge that it is going to be killed, and therefore has no choice in the matter.

The fetus is also not an individual. It has no individual rights while it is still in the womb. Once born, that changes. As a fetus, however, the mother has the right to determine what to do with the parasite that is feeding off of her.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:11 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 8:03 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So then Drew, you support Maelstrom's argument.

No. Where did you come up with that? There is absolutely a line that is drawn very boldly between death by choice and murder. A soldier knows that there is a possiblity of death, but he/she goes boldy on to war to fight for what they believe is right. The police officer knows that there is a possiblity of death in their job as well, but they courageously step forward to defend those who need it and to enforce the laws of the land. The burglar knows that if the police officer catches him/her, then he/she may well be shot and die if they make the wrong move while the officer's gun is drawn. The fetus has no knowledge that it is going to be killed, and therefore has no choice in the matter. The murder victim doesn't wish to die, but does anyway, against his/her wishes. The cow is food. The chicken is food. All animals are beneath humans on the food chain, as you well know. We can't say that animal life is equal to our own, so using the killing of animals in a debate about the morality of the abortion of human fetuses is nonsense.

So tell me Drew ...did the bacteria have "knowledge" that you were going to kill them? How about the food animals? What about the vegetables?

This murder victim of yours is one who is ex-utero and so is a person. Do those who are killed in war KNOW they are going to die?

(April 6, 2013 at 8:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 8:11 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: The fetus has no knowledge that it is going to be killed, and therefore has no choice in the matter.

The fetus is also not an individual. It has no individual rights while it is still in the womb. Once born, that changes. As a fetus, however, the mother has the right to determine what to do with the parasite that is feeding off of her.

Well, I value all human life intrinsically. I feel that unborn babies have the right to life. I won't debate over the issue of abortion of fetuses resulting from unwanted incest or rape, but for certain, I don't believe that it should be legal to kill a fetus that resulted from the mother's inability to not have sex, or even not use contraception. It should be more important to preserve human life than to kill it because its too hard to deal with. The irresponsibility of a person shouldn't, in my eyes, result in the death of a fetus.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:22 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: Well, I value all human life intrinsically. I feel that unborn babies have the right to life.

Do you agree with male infant circumcision or baptism, even though those are done against the infant's will? Do you agree with teaching children only your version of the truth according to your religion, even though that is going against their will to choose for themselves what they wish to believe?

How can you be against abortion if you do other things that disrespect the rights of infants/children?