Why I Am Pro-Life

[Minimalist]

If you want my opinion I would say when they are about 30 and finally move the fuck out of mommy's basement.

No, seriously. "It's just a fetus" comes a lot from "pro-choice" side so it would help to understand that position more if it was explained when a fetus becomes a baby.

Seriously? It becomes a person at birth.

[fr0d0]

It doesn't matter who calls it life. It doesn't change what it is, which is a cell. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

I think it's an emotional one that it isn't ending a human life until it looks like a human.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It doesn't matter who calls it life. It doesn't change what it is, which is a cell. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

I think it's an emotional one that it isn't ending a human life until it looks like a human.

Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know when it starts looking human? Way before I say it's not ok. Or you know what, just keep repeating yourself.

[fr0d0]

@ DP

1. Yeah more than the word inherently. You're supposed to try to comprehend the sentence. The primary function a piece of your body is not the production of a human life. The primary function of a fertilised human egg is to develop into a human.

I hope we're not going to drift off into you explaining about primary colors, primary forces and primary school now.

2. OK so it's perfectly ethical in your mind to add a chemical to water that would cause every female to abort? What a useful German you would have made.

On you rant without wanting to listen you what is being said. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF ANYBODY! The fact of the matter is that you are terminating a life from conception. You have a right to do that. No one is stopping you or wants to stop you. You have an unavoidable ethical choice when deciding to terminate that life.

3. Like I keep saying, it's entirely up to the parents or person in their absence with authority to make that decision.

I'm not giving you my personal feelings on that as I don't wish to muddy this further with irrelevant distraction. Both sides have good points.

__________
A troll in your case is someone that can't refrain from pretty insults, lacks basic comprehension skills and doggedly sticks to a point way after that point has been refuted successfully.

Oh and whines like a baby.

---

Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know when it starts looking human? Way before I say it's not ok. Or you know what, just keep repeating yourself.

Yes I did. You described a viable life form. Are you saying that has nothing to do with an emotional attachment?

I don't wish to discuss that. All I wish to discuss is the scientific classification and the ethical imperative thereof. I am very aware of the reasoning for the various legal positions currently in force around the world. There is nothing to discuss around those for me.

[Creed of Heresy]

Around and around the argument goes...

Where it stops, only atheismo knows!

Human life processes begin at the moment of contraception, as biological studies agree.

However, the human brain is where that which makes a person a "person," as in, with a "person"ality, is located. No brain, no personality. Technically you could grow a human fetus without a brain if you somehow become that good of a genetic engineer. It could grow to an adult, if you found some way to sustain its life processes with machinery. But here's the thing; it's not really a person. Yes, it's a human. But it's not a person. It has no personality. It does nothing. It exists. It has no means of deciding. It is an animal, and in some senses it's not even THAT, because it doesn't have emotions or feelings or anything because it is a husk. This is the same quandary that comes up in the case of "human vegetables": "Keep her alive!" says one group, "let her die with some dignity!" says another. The former are idiots because there is no point keeping a human who is not a person alive; you're not keeping the brain alive, the brain is DEAD, all you are doing is keeping the organs going, and for what purpose?? Who they were no longer exists. It's dead. Nothing more than a shell; a metaphorical factory working at nominal capacity producing abso-fucking-lutely nothing whatsoever. It is a person in the same way a seashell is whatever species once inhabited it, just more complex but nevertheless devoid of that which made them who they were. On the flip side, if you could somehow devise a way to transplant a human brain into an entirely prosthetic body, like a cyborg, with its adrenal glands still functioning, you'd still have a person. You couldn't exactly call them "human," because they'd be more machine than human, but you'd have a person nevertheless, and you would not have that if you removed a different part of the human anatomy to put into said robot. The tin man with a heart is still a tin man, but the tin man with a brain is suddenly a person who has a much more efficient body.

What is more important? A human? Or a person?

A fetus has no personality. It has not developed one, because it has no brain, and the parts of the brain that do develop do not undertake personalities until well into pregnancy, I believe the third trimester is when the frontal lobe begins to develop, unless I am mistaken? Someone correct me if I am wrong. But a fetus is not a "person." Yes, it's a human, in the loosest sense of the word, but it has no capacity for thought. It has no emotions, no personality, no means to sustain itself. I don't believe in a soul in the metaphysical sense but if I were to use the word "soul" as a simile to that which is the essential part of personhood, then it has none for the first 7 months of its development. It is, until that point, a husk, an empty vessel, and not yet filled. Terminating it before that time does not mean you a terminating a person, it means you are terminating a husk.

My point being, pro-lifers are running around trying to protect non-persons, under the mistaken belief they are saving people. There is no ethical quandary, unless you think that the brain is NOT the epicenter of the human experience.

And in which case you think that, please study the rudimentary basics of neurology, and get back at me.

All an abortion is is terminating a POTENTIAL person. In which case you also need to outlaw jerking off and ovulation because each egg and each sperm is, if put in the right situation, potential human life.

Tl;dr: Yes, human "life" begins at birth, but human experience/personhood does not begin for over half a year after conception. Even then it's rudimentary at best but I'm not going to muddy the waters, here, I'm going to go to the absolute most base forms of each: Life, and personality.

Now, let's see if anyone can answer my points maturely and with a level head.

[orogenicman]

That convolution is exactly why there are so many religious wars. Congratulations. The fact is that human life does NOT begin at conception. The fact is that abortion is a woman's right UNDER THE LAW.

Why don't you find that evidence that science says that a human isn't formed at conception? Instead of spewing your religious hatred at a scientifically based argument?

AN ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT UNDER LAW!

Moron

A fetus that is not viable is just a bunch of cells. Until the fetus is viable, there can be no argument for calling it a human being. And the fetus isn't viable until 24 weeks.

[fr0d0]

Take that up with the vast consensus of scientists orogenicman. I have no interest in your personal opinion.

[wwjs]

Seriously? It becomes a person at birth.

So if fetus is not a person and becomes one at birth then there would be nothing wrong if abortion was done 1 hour before birth?

[bladevalant546]

Every relevant biology source one can check, whether textbook or online, describes the biological life cycle of Homo sapiens as beginning with the fertilized egg or zygote (Saladin, 2001; Browder, 1991; Moore, 1982; see also “Human” in Wikipedia, specifically the biology section describing the human life cycle).

That it doesn't feel pain yet... seemingly your only qualifier discounting it's humanity.. doesn't alter the fact that you're dealing with a unique human life. Ending that life prevents a human developing, and it began developing at conception, unless all of the science I reference is incorrect.

Your science is correct. Your logic that follows is what is faulty.

Until it has a brain, it isn't a being. Until it's a being, it isn't a being. If it's not a being, it doesn't have rights. Q.E.D.

So are you supportive of restrictions based on that premise, until it has a brain?

I personally thing there needs to be restrictions based on the principle of judging when it is wrong to destroy a being when it is a "being". Also, the lack of male representation in the choice of some kind and the apperent double standard is troubling, that however is another date.

[Minimalist]

Seriously? It becomes a person at birth.

So if fetus is not a person and becomes one at birth then there would be nothing wrong if abortion was done 1 hour before birth?

I have no problem with that. The choice is that of the mother. Not the government.... and certainly not you.