Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[NoraBrimstone]

Once more: human =/= person.
And even if it was, the mother's rights should come first because she is the conscious being it is using as a host.

I'm not arguing your definition of a person, now am I?
I'm relaying the scientific fact that a human zygote/fetus in an individual lifeform and you guys are denying that it's true. < This is what I find humorous...
Once you admit what it is, we can talk about the morality of killing it. (that's what this is about, btw)

I understand that you struggle to read, but we're not saying it's not an individual life-form. A bacterium is an individual lifeform, so by your logic, we should be debating the morality of bathing or cleaning. Life isn't some magical important thing. Look to your left, the first item you see is likely to be teeming with millions of these "individual lifeforms" you find so bloody sacred. A foetus is totally unaware of its own existance, it can't feel pain or fear. There is no moral issue with killing it if the host doesn't want it, but there is a moral issue with forcing a woman to suffer unnecessary pain and ruin her entire life.

I'd hate to be around you. You must be riddled with headlice that have been there since you were a child because you were so concerned with the morality of killing the individual lifeforms.

[catfish]

I'm not arguing your definition of a person, now am I?
I'm relaying the scientific fact that a human zygote/fetus in an individual lifeform and you guys are denying that it's true. < This is what I find humorous...
Once you admit what it is, we can talk about the morality of killing it. (that's what this is about, btw)

I understand that you struggle to read, but we're not saying it's not an individual life-form. A bacterium is an individual lifeform, so by your logic, we should be debating the morality of bathing or cleaning. Life isn't some magical important thing. Look to your left, the first item you see is likely to be teeming with millions of these "individual lifeforms" you find so bloody sacred. A foetus is totally unaware of its own existance, it can't feel pain or fear. There is no moral issue with killing it if the host doesn't want it, but there is a moral issue with forcing a woman to suffer unnecessary pain and ruin her entire life.

I'd hate to be around you. You must be riddled with headlice that have been there since you were a child because you were so concerned with the morality of killing the individual lifeforms.

Seriously? You're going to argue about the importance of bacteria? Do you realise that we're discussing a human lifeform here?
Why are you even arguing with me anyways? I saw your post where you said that you could never do it. Why not?

---

I'm not arguing your definition of a person, now am I?
I'm relaying the scientific fact tha a human zygote/fetus in an individual lifeform and you guys are denying that it's true. < This is what I find humorous...
Once you admit what it is, we can talk about the morality of killing it. (that's what this is about, btw)

Well, when you're arguing that what makes it human is its distinct DNA, then you'll need to provide for these additional problems in your definition when they come up. But if you can't, well, then you're just plain wrong.

But you're also bouncing about a lot, too: a moment ago you were talking about what makes a fetus human, but now that you've encountered a question you can't answer about that, you've switched to talking about what makes it alive despite the fact that even a cursory glance at previous pages would tell you that most of us have been likening the little mite to a parasite for the entire thread. Parasites are very definitely alive, but in this sense the fetus is alive in the way that most cells are alive.

Alive, but not conscious.

Now, would you like to leap to some other topic without acknowledging that you're wrong on this one? That's been your habit thus far.

---

I saw your post, you answered yourself with "single-bodied, single consciousness possessing", it's kinda silly to argue for multiple individuals after that statement...

Except that you yourself, mere posts ago, was arguing that what differentiates the fetus as its own distinct human being is its unique DNA.

Chimera have two sets of DNA. Your options are either to admit that you don't differentiate fetuses based on the uniqueness of their DNA, or admit that that definition is flawed.

You should read what I have already wrote. This is getting retarded, really it is.
A human is an individual lifeform formed at conception in case you're too lazy.

[Esquilax]

Seriously? You're going to argue about the importance of bacteria? Do you realise that we're discussing a human lifeform here?

I guess what we're trying to do is get you to narrow your goddamn argument down and stop you from bouncing from point to point. So far all we've been able to get out of you is that a fetus is a human and therefore worth preserving, but you've been unable/unwilling to point out exactly what it is about being human that makes the life worthy of preserving.

You seem to place some inherent worth in the fetus despite the fact that it's non-viable outside the womb, it has no mental faculties that could remotely give it humanity, nor has it a human body. We are asking you why you believe this is so in the hopes that you'll examine your own position and perhaps go into greater detail.

It's clearly not a genetic argument because there's too many ways that could go wrong for you. It's clearly not an appeal to the specialness of life because you've got no issue destroying life so long as its not "human" even if it's more complex than the fetus would be. So why not just tell us what's so special about the life of a fetus, this humanity in potentia, that makes getting rid of it so much worse than getting rid of a sperm, or killing an animal for food?

And before you even think about talking about its potential as a human being, I'd remind you that argument works both ways, and also in many other ways besides: maybe that baby would go on to do something great, but it's equally likely the reverse is true. Fanciful non-argumentative appeals to emotion won't work here.

[catfish]

Is a human fetus an individual human lifeform or not?

[NoraBrimstone]

Why wouldn't I? Because I would want the baby.

[Esquilax]

Is a human fetus an individual human lifeform or not?

So rather than actually joining the debate in any meaningful way, you're just going to go around in a circle and ask a question we've already answered because you didn't agree with the answer you got the first time around, eh?

[catfish]

Is a human fetus an individual human lifeform or not?

So rather than actually joining the debate in any meaningful way, you're just going to go around in a circle and ask a question we've already answered because you didn't agree with the answer you got the first time around, eh?

Yeppers. I can't accept "fish" as a valid answer to a simple question about basic human biology...
Will you admit that a tapeworm (parasite) is an individual lifeform unique (and separate) from it's host?

[NoraBrimstone]

Are you a fucking bot?

---

Will you admit that a tapeworm (parasite) is an individual lifeform unique (and separate) from it's host?

Will you? Please, for the love of fuck.

[catfish]

Are you a fucking bot?

Why, do you need one?

[Joel]

Isn't every living thing an individual lifeform? Including plants. It/they don't share their 'life-force' with another lifeform.
That being said, an individual lifeform doesn't mean something is a person.

A fetus is human; an individual lifeform attatched to - and living off of - its host, but living separately. It's irrelevant, though, because it isn't a person. It's a fetus. It isn't autonomous, it has no conscious mind, it doesn't feel or think... Just as a rose is an 'individual lifeform', but it doesn't do any thinking: it's not a person.