Abortion and Global warming

[Heywood]

I tend to ignore questions with obvious answers.

A future person is a person that exists in the future.

Ok. That doesn't actually answer anything.

When the subject matter is one of subjective interpretation of when life begins, dismissing a request that seeks to elucidate where the line is drawn is foolish and not conducive to furthering the debate.

There is no subjective interpretation except by those who don't like what science has told us. The life cycle of a human being is very well understood. You should not deny science just so you can take the position you want on abortion.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ok. That doesn't actually answer anything.

When the subject matter is one of subjective interpretation of when life begins, dismissing a request that seeks to elucidate where the line is drawn is foolish and not conducive to furthering the debate.

There is no subjective interpretation except by those who don't like what science has told us.

What has 'science told us'? Where has 'science told us' this? Where have you taken this conclusion from?

You are demonstrably incorrect when you assert that there 'is no subjective interpretation' when this very thread evidences the contrary.

Sort of seems like you're just dismissing points/opinions contrary to yours based on your own foregone conclusion.

The life cycle of a human being is very well understood. You should not deny science just so you can take the position you want on abortion.

Your position that one is 'denying science' is pretty far from being evidenced, and can thus be dismissed as nothing more than grandstanding.

[pocaracas]

Yes, a zigote is a human.
But sometimes it's better for all involved that that particular human doesn't get to develop to become a baby.
Sometimes, it happens naturally, the woman's body just rejects it. If I take Heywood's stance to its fullest, this could come to be defined as involuntary manslaughter...

But the cases we're discussing here are when it's a conscious decision that is made (mostly) by the woman.... which would become voluntary manslaughter.

Do note that, for the most part, women who get pregnant, do so willingly and with the purpose of actually having the child, raising it to become an adult and have s/he's own children.

So, the few who get pregnant but don't want to have the child, for whichever reasons, according to Heywood, should be under arrest for manslaughter...
I view abortion as the correction of a mistake. A mistake that happened for the most various reasons, but a mistake, nonetheless...
People make mistakes, there are ways to correct those mistakes, why not take advantage of that?
Why block access to those corrections and force people to endure, for life, a mistake done once?

And don't appeal to the abortion in the past of someone who is around us, today. Someone whose mother never chose to abort, someone whose mother wished to live and grow.
We are talking about "future people" whose mothers do not wish them to be born in the first place.

Have you ever dealt with orphan kids?
Kids from abusive families whose parents say out loud that they never wanted them?

Would you wish that on anyone?

Is it not better to let the woman correct her mistake and carry on with her life, so that, if she so wishes, she can have a kid at a more appropriate time of her life, a more conducent to the well being of the child and future adult member of society... is this not a better option, at least, on average?

[Bad Wolf]

Heywood, what do you mean by 'human being'? Do you mean a person? Or homosapien? The human species?
P.S: still waiting on your definition of a human is...

[Losty]

Heywood, what do you mean by 'human being'? Do you mean a person? Or homosapien? The human species?
P.S: still waiting on your definition of a human is...

His idea of giving a definition is listing all the things he considers to be human beings. Maybe Heywood doesn't know what definition means.

[Esquilax]

I answered this on a couple of occasions already. If you want to know what a human being is....open up a junior high school biology text and look up the life cycle of a human being. A human being is a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, an adult, and an elderly adult(which is really just an adult).

Okay, let's see if I can't make this even clearer: an infant is stillborn. Is it still a person, or is it just a body? Say that infant is born alive but persistently vegetative from birth, and it is supported through its life so it can grow to eventually die of natural causes. Is there no difference between that scenario and me, sitting here?

Because frankly, what you're saying is still just an assertion, that everything along the human life cycle is exactly the same as any individual segment on it. That's not saying much; under the definition you're using now, a dead body is a person just as much as I am, since a corpse can fit into any one of those categories. Would you be causing the same fuss if I aborted a corpse, Heywood?

Or is there more to this issue than simple genetics?

(PS, you might be tempted to accuse me of moving the goalposts since I'm now talking about "people" rather than "human beings," but that's not actually true, since I said "humanity" in my initial post. See, I'm attempting to cut down on equivocations, where you say "pro-choicers are in favor of killing human beings," to raise emotional reactions when what you actually mean is "pro-choicers are in favor of disposing of matter that has a human genetic code.")

[Heywood]

Heywood, what do you mean by 'human being'? Do you mean a person? Or homosapien? The human species?
P.S: still waiting on your definition of a human is...

A human being is a being of the species homo-sapiens.

Person and being are not the same thing.

If you are confused about definitions, consult a dictionary.

[Esquilax]

Right, so what constitutes a person?

[Losty]

Heywood, what do you mean by 'human being'? Do you mean a person? Or homosapien? The human species?
P.S: still waiting on your definition of a human is...

A human being is a being of the species homo-sapiens.

Person and being are not the same thing.

If you are confused about definitions, consult a dictionary.

Oh really Heywood, a dictionary now? Sure. This is the definition of human being in my dictionary. Since you refuse to give your personal definition.

Human Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems like, according to my dictionary, zygotes and fetuses cannot be distinguished as human beings.

[Bad Wolf]

A human being is a being of the species homo-sapiens.

And what is your definition of homo-sapien?

Person and being are not the same thing.

If you are confused about definitions, consult a dictionary.

I know what they are, I wanted to see if you did too.