Abortion not allowed

[Bad Wolf]

No I believe it is human from conception.

And yet you still won't define the word 'human'

[Jenny A]

Good luck getting that definition. I'm off.

[Chas]

No I believe it is human from conception.

Why do you believe that?

I have explained in some detail why I don't.

[C4RM5]

No I believe it is human from conception.

And yet you still won't define the word 'human'

I already have at least 10 times, please stop asking me to do so.

---

No I believe it is human from conception.

Why do you believe that?

I have explained in some detail why I don't.

So have I.

---

I never knew that so many people were eager to kill their unborn child.

Really?

I've miscarried, but never aborted. I have two girls just about to enter college. I want them to retain the right not to have children until they want them. I want grandchildren, just not tomorrow.

If they do have to abort, there won't be any child killing involved.

---

No I believe it is human from conception.

Then WHY do you care how late the abortion occurs?

I was giving an example.

[Bad Wolf]

I already have at least 10 times, please stop asking me to do so.

Where? Where have you done this? Where have you given any kind of definition of the word 'human'? Link me to the page where you defined what you think a human being is.

[C4RM5]

What defines a human to you?

[Esquilax]

What defines a human to you?

At this point, I think it's safe to say that the reason you don't want to simply repeat, or point to, your definition of a human is because it really is as anemic as what you said back a page, that you believe it's human from conception.

What you fail to realize is that what you believe is not a relief map of why that is; a definition necessarily comprises more than just the noun it refers to. You need to go into more detail, which you won't because you haven't actually thought this through, and we'll be able to find obvious flaws in whatever exposition you try to give us.

Your position isn't tenable because it's not rational, and not justified. It's a gut feeling you have, an intuitive leap you made because you find some idea or another icky, and for some reason you decided that your likes and dislikes are so much more important than the needs and lives of everyone else on the planet. Have I just about got it?

You could prove me wrong by simply expounding on your position and providing a rationally justified, non-contradictory, specific reason why it's murder to terminate a pregnancy. But we're fifty six pages in, and I don't think you have the intellectual content on hand to do so, because I seriously do not think you've considered your position at all beyond the simple assertion, "it's murder!"

[C4RM5]

Alright I got my RE textbook so here are some points.

A foetus has the right to life because it is a potential human being.

I foetus is not just a part of a woman's body like a leg or arm it is a separate person with a right to life.

Abortion contradicts the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take it states " I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception.

People should take responsibility for their actions, when a woman has sex she may get pregnant and bring a foetus into existence, she therefore has a duty to take care of it.

There are laws against euthanasia so why can't there be laws against abortions.

if there are mental or social problems or disability surrounding the conception the parents and child should be treated with compassion, it is not compassion to take an innocent life.

Some women/couples cannot have children, it is better to have a child adopted rather than killed.

Hopefully this makes you happy.

[fr0d0]

His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.

On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.

If murder is the illegal taking of life, then most abortions aren't murder in the eyes of the the law. The morality of the act can always be considered, no matter what the legal position, and that's mostly a decision owned by the patents, being the only ones in a position to know.

[Esquilax]

His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.

Which is why, as I pointed out earlier, humanity isn't the sticking point. Personhood is.

On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.

Double standard? Ha, no. A baby is a person; it has a brain, a nervous system, the apparatus through which it can accumulate memories and a personality. At the point at which it has those, I consider it sapient and worth saving, and hence anyone killing that would be acting immorally.

Conversely, a fetus has none of those things and is not sapient. It is human, but it is no more alive than a brain dead body, something for which we are fully morally justified in pulling the plug. A person is not valuable because of their heartbeat.

This has been my position for some time, and I believe I even explained this the last time you attempted to call my position on god and babies a double standard, which leaves me to conclude that you've either forgotten, in which case you should have no issue with retracting this portion of your argument, or you're being thoroughly dishonest in pretending my position is something other than what I've clearly explained.

So are you wrong, or strawmanning me?