#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
True.
Side Score: 102
|
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 88
|
|
1
point
Just to clarify, the argument goes: Given that A and B have a moral right to bodily autonomy: If B provides for A, and the provision is inherently tied to B's body, and B is distinct from A, then B has a morally protected right to withdraw/terminate it's provision to A if B so chooses. 1) Since a mother (B) provides for a fetus (A), and 2) That provision depends on the mother's (B) body 3) A mother (B) is distinct from the fetus (A), it follows that _ 4) The mother (B) has a morally protected right to withdraw her provision from (A) What am I missing/misinterpreting? Side: True.
1
point
1
point
A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate So it's magically not okay to kill as it's being born? How's that? Babies are reliant on the mother until they aren't infants, and they still have no right over her or her body, so why isn't it okay to kill a newborn? Side: True.
So it's magically not okay to kill as it's being born? What are you talking about ? How's that? ??? Babies are reliant on the mother until they aren't infants, and they still have no right over her or her body, Yes a baby has no right over a woman’s body as it’s now a separate entity so why isn't it okay to kill a newborn? Read above Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
What are you talking about? You said fetus. A baby, according to you, and a fetus are different. So, why isn't it okay to kill a baby, but not a fetus? They're both living. Yes a baby has no right over a woman’s body as it’s now a separate entity A fetus is still a separate entity. Even if, like some say, a fetus is just a parasite, a parasite is still an entity separate to the mother. Side: True.
They are different if not what are you arguing about ? Regarding a baby it’s not reliant on a woman’s body to have life is it ? A fetus if it was a “ separate entity “ then how come it’s reliant on a woman’s body ? I never used the term “ parasite “ did I ? Yet again a fetus is not separate to a mother Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
They are different if not what are you arguing about ? They aren't different. A baby is a fetus, a fetus is a baby. Size doesn't matter here. That's what I'm arguing about. Regarding a baby it’s not reliant on a woman’s body to have life is it ? A newborn is reliant on a mother, in that it can't do anything, just like a fetus. A fetus if it was a “ separate entity “ then how come it’s reliant on a woman’s body ? Again, a newborn is reliant on a woman (and by extension their body) as well. I never used the term “ parasite “ did I ? Yet again a fetus is not separate to a mother I never said you did use the term parasite. And yet again, yes, a fetus is separate to a mother. Side: True.
They aren’t different They are thus the terms fetus and baby A baby is a fetus, a fetus is a baby Read above . Size doesn't matter here. Ok , so is an adult a fetus and if not why not ? A newborn is reliant on a mother
I know but it’s not reliant on her body to live Again, a newborn is reliant on a woman I know it’s also in most cases reliant on a man as well and by extension their body) as well. Incorrect And yet again, yes, a fetus is separate to a mother. Medical textbooks disagree with your assessment as do I Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
They are thus the terms fetus and baby ??? Read above ??? Ok , so is an adult a fetus and if not why not ? Is an adult a baby? No. An adult is defined as "a person who is fully grown and developed", while fetus is defined as "an unborn offspring of a mammal". Incorrect Incorrect Medical textbooks disagree with your assessment as do I If we can use books to help our points, than look up "The Ethics of Abortion" by Christopher Kaczor. Side: True.
Ok , so you don’t see the difference between the terms fetus and baby why’s that ? I know the definition of a fetus do you know the definition of a baby ? Incorrect ? But you cannot Back your objection up I’m not using books to help my points I’m pointing out what you’re blissfully unaware of medically ,the rest of your point makes no sense at all Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Ok , so you don’t see the difference between the terms fetus and baby why’s that ? Well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same words, but the only differences between a fetus and a baby are 1, a baby has been/is being born while a fetus is unborn and 2, a fetus is typically smaller than a baby. I know the definition of a fetus do you know the definition of a baby ? ba·by ˈbābē/Submit noun 1. a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. Incorrect ? But you cannot Back your objection up I can, but I didn't see the need to since you didn't either, when you said "Incorrect". I’m not using books to help my points But you were, seeing as you said "medical textbooks" and textbooks are books. Side: True.
Well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same words Thank you for agreeing ...... at last , but the only differences between a fetus and a baby are 1, a baby has been/is being born while a fetus is unborn and 2, a fetus is typically smaller than a baby. I know you just agreed there’s a difference after saying the opposite I can, But yet you didn’t but I didn't see the need to since you didn't either, when you said "Incorrect". I did , I said a fetus was reliant on a mother’s body , you said a baby was also , making you incorrect yet again
Ok , leave textbooks out and maybe consult a dictionary or your nearest medic for clarification You did say A fetus is still a separate entity That’s absolute nonsense and you know it Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I know you just agreed there’s a difference after saying the opposite I said there wasn't a difference between the words, I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the organisms themselves. making you incorrect yet again So is a newborn self-sufficient right out of the womb? Side: True.
1
point
Well, you said I was incorrect by saying babies rely on their mothers' bodies. I said a fetus relies on its mother’s body for sustenance over which it has no right it also “ resides “ in the mother’s body which it has no rights to either Can babies feed themselves? Can babies dress themselves? Change themselves? A baby as separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I said a fetus relies on its mother’s body for sustenance over which it has no right it also “ resides “ in the mother’s body which it has no rights to either Why doesn't it have the right? You said it isn't a parasite, so why doesn't it have the right to live there while I live in my home? A baby as a separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not Why's that? Does being born give you those rights? Side: True.
Why doesn't it have the right? Does anyone have the right to life and sustenance from your body ? why should a fetus have this “ special right “ ? You said it isn't a parasite, Yes I said that so why doesn't it have the right to live there while I live in my home? You’ve been granted that right by your parents , why should a woman who wants an abortion be told what to do by a stranger like you ? What gives you the right to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do with her body ? A baby as a separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not Why's that? Because it’s a separate entity Does being born give you those rights? Yes Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Does anyone have the right to life and sustenance from your body ? why should a fetus have this “ special right “ ? If a woman chooses to take the risk of having a child, the fetus has "the special right". You've been granted that right by your parents What parents why should a woman who wants an abortion be told what to do by a stranger like you? They took the risk, they should live with the consequences. Why can't a woman put up their child for adoption? No one wants to make that illegal. Because it’s a separate entity How's a baby a separate entity but a fetus isn't? You may not be explaining it correctly. Yes How about you try letting it be born? Is there something that gives the baby the right to have been born that the fetus doesn't have? Side: True.
If a woman chooses to take the risk of having a child, the fetus has "the special right". Really ? Really tell me in law where that “ special right “ is ? What parents You haven’t parents ? Interesting They took the risk, they should live with the consequences. They had sex got pregnant their body their choice , why should a woman carry a fetus to term her choice not yours How's a baby a separate entity but a fetus isn't? I think you really need to look up the difference in a dictionary because you don’t seem to think there’s any difference How about you try letting it be born? I couldn’t care less either way have the child or abort it’s the woman’s choice not mine Is there something that gives the baby the right to have been born that the fetus doesn't have? Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Really ? Really tell me in law where that “ special right “ is ? Tell me in law where that " special right " isn't. why should a woman carry a fetus to term her choice not yours I'm not saying she doesn't have a choice, but I have the right to call her a murderer. I think you really need to look up the difference in a dictionary because you don’t seem to think there’s any difference A baby's been born and a fetus hasn't. That's the difference. Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born So what gives the baby the right to live? Side: True.
Tell me in law where that " special right " isn't. Oh ok , you’ve invented new rights that are called special rights that are applicable to a fetus ? I’m not saying she doesn't have a choice, but I have the right to call her a murderer. Well yes you would say that but she’s still not a murederer except in your mind A baby's been born and a fetus hasn't Yes a fetus is still in a woman’s body , what’s your point ? . Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born Correct So what gives the baby the right to live? It’s now a separate entity and granted human rights like the rest of us , do you really not know this ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
So is it not alive? I said it's unborn do you not know what that means ? If so, why does a woman get to kill a living thing just because it's inside her? Her body , her choice That's like saying you get to kill any children that are on your lawn. No it's not , that's a ridiculous comparison Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I said it's unborn Right, I know what you said. But you aren't answering my question. Is it or is it not alive? do you not know what that means ? I do know the word means, and I'm surprised you do since your grammar is worse than your logic. Her body , her choice I think you just proved my point. No it's not , that's a ridiculous comparison According to you, it's a fine comparison. Their land, their choice. Side: True.
Right, I know what you said. But you aren't answering my question. Is it or is it not alive? Of course it’s alive do you not know what that means ? Ah , now you’re resorting to insult I see , my logic is sound you’re the one who does not know what unborn means , regarding grammar yours definitely leaves room for .... vast improvement think you just proved my point. You’ve yet to make one According to you, No higher authority needed it's a fine comparison. It’s not , it’s typically pureile nonsense from you their land their choice Their land, their choice. More puerile nonsense from you Side: True.
1
point
Of course it’s alive Okay, so we've found some common ground. Now, is it human or is it not human? If not, what is it? Ah , now you’re resorting to insult I see No, actually, you were the one to start the insults when you said "do you not know what that means ?". As for your grammar, I don't know how you can call yours perfect, regarding the fact that you insert spaces before and after commas, question marks, and exclamation marks. You’ve yet to make one You said her body, her choice, proving my point that according to you, it's fine to kill anything on your property. It’s not , it’s typically pureile nonsense from you First, do you mean puerile? Second, I wouldn't call any talk about abortion childish. More puerile nonsense from you No, it's your exact logic put into a different circumstance. See how it's now immoral? Side: True.
Now is it human or is it not human? Non human , unless in your world a human is a fetus , well is it ? If not, what is it? A fetus , this seems very difficult for you to grasp, why’s that ? No, actually, you were the one to start the insults when you said "do you not know what that means ?". That was not an insult as it was merely pointing out your failure to comprehend a simple statement , your incomprehension informed my opinion As for your grammar, I don't know how you can call yours perfect, Because it is regarding the fact Your “ opinion “ is not factual you insert spaces before and after commas, question marks, Get the space police .....quickly and exclamation marks. I never use them You said her body, her choice, Yes I did proving my point Ehhh no that according to you, it's fine to kill anything on your property. I never said that , stop lying First, do you mean puerile? I did , but I decided to test your pedantry Second, I wouldn't call any talk about abortion childish. I didn’t , I called your opinion on the matter as such No, Yes it's your exact logic It’s not put into a different circumstance. You mean to fit your narrative See how it's now immoral? Who mentioned immortal except you ? Are you on a different topic ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Non human How is that? How did two humans make a non-human? A fetus A human fetus, correct? unless in your world a human is a fetus I didn't say a human is a fetus. Actually, I didn't even say anything about a fetus being a human. That was not an insult as it was merely pointing out your failure to comprehend a simple statement But I did comprehend the statement. Also, you are still insulting me. I don't have a problem with it, but it seems hypocritical. Because it is Try using Grammarly to prove my point. Your " opinion " is not factual I didn't say it was, and neither is yours. Get the space police .....quickly 1, you still need to work on it. 2, stop being petty, please. It doesn't help your argument. I never use them I didn't say you do. Ehhh no You did, though, in saying her body, her choice. By that logic, it's fine to kill anyone on my property because it's my property, my choice. I never said that, stop lying Sorry, let me rephrase. According to your logic, it's fine to kill anything on your property. I called your opinion on the matter as such Right, but my opinion is still an opinion about abortion. Yes No, It's not it's your exact logic. insert noun 1's insert noun 2, insert noun 1's choice. You mean to fit your narrative No, I meant what I said. Who mentioned immortal except you ? Are you on a different topic ? No one mentioned morality. I brought it into the discussion. Side: True.
How is that? How did two humans make a non-human? A fetus How do you not know the difference between a fetus and a viable baby ? A human fetus, correct? A clump of cells I didn't say a human is a fetus You did , read above . Actually, I didn't even say anything about a fetus being a human. You did read above But I did comprehend the statement. You keep saying things then denying you said them as in above , which you will now deny saying no doubt
Also, you are still insulting me. My rule on here is if you throw the first insult you will get it back , if you play fair so will I I don't have a problem with it, but it seems hypocritical. Because it is But you do have a problem with it otherwise why bring it up ? Try using Grammarly to prove my point. You're making no sense and neither is yours. It is 1, you still need to work on it. Stop being pedantic 2, stop being petty, please. As in pointing out I missed .... spaces , irony or what It doesn't help your argument. It's me merely defending your attacks , my argument is sound By that logic, it's fine to kill anyone on my property because it's my property, my choice. Again you're using the opposite of logic to attempt to force your point , According to your logic, it's fine to kill anything on your property. I never said that , what I'm saying is it's sbsolutely fine for a woman to abort I called your opinion on the matter as such Right, but my opinion is still an opinion about abortion. We have different opinions yes it's your exact logic It's not , your term " exact " is amusing to say the least . insert noun 1's insert noun 2, insert noun 1's choice. Still being petty are you ? No, I meant what I said. I know it fits your narrative No one mentioned morality. Really why are you saying you brought into the discussion then as in ....... I brought it into the discussion. Oh dear you just denied you said it , no doubt you will deny this Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
How do you not know the difference between a foetus and a viable baby ? There is no difference, a fetus = a baby. An unborn baby, at that, but a baby nonetheless. A clump of cells Are you not a clump of cells? You did , read above No, I said a fetus is a human, not the reverse. You did read above Fair enough. I retract that statement. if you play fair so will I Okay, I'll stop throwing insults and so will you. But you do have a problem with it otherwise why bring it up ? I have a problem with your hypocritical statements, but that's it. You're making no sense But I'm making perfect sense. Stop being pedantic Okay. As in pointing out I missed .... spaces , irony or what Yes! You finally realized. It's me merely defending your attacks , my argument is sound Why would you defend my attacks? Again you're using the opposite of logic The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". I'm using your reasoning assessed according to strick principles of validity to prove my point. I never said that , what I'm saying is it's sbsolutely fine for a woman to abort And I'm saying that one, abortion is murder and two, that it's okay for you to do anything to anyone on anything you own. t's not , your term " exact " is amusing to say the least How's that? Still being petty are you ? I assume so, yes. I know it fits your narrative It also fits your logic. Oh dear you just denied you said it I didn't deny I said it, I denied that you said it. I know I said it. Side: True.
There is no difference, a fetus = a baby. Incorrect An unborn baby, at that, but a baby nonetheless. A clump of cells Are you not a clump of cells? I'm a human being and all that entails a fetus is not I have a problem with your hypocritical statements, but that's it. Back to insults I see , back that statement up or withdraw it But I'm making perfect sense. Yes! You finally realised Back to being pedantic , oh dear Why would you defend my attacks What the hell are you talking about ? The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". Yes you should try it some time I'm using your reasoning You're not , you're using your faulty reasoning to force a point assessed according to strick principles of validity to prove my point. What does the term strick mean ? And I'm saying that one, abortion is murder It's not , why then are women who abort not doing life for murder? and two, that it's okay for you to do anything to anyone on anything you own. I never said that so stop telling me what I didn't say It also fits your logic. It doesn't , you need to work on your logic Oh dear you just denied you said it I didn't deny I said it, I denied that you said it. I know I said it. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Incorrect How is a fetus not a baby? An unborn baby is still a baby. A clump of cells Like you, like your parents, like your pet, like any living thing. I'm a human being and all that entails a fetus is not Maybe a dog fetus isn't a human, but a human fetus is a human. Back to being pedantic , oh dear That's on you, Derm. What the hell are you talking about ? You said "defending your attacks. Why would you defend my attacks? Yes you should try it some time I have been this whole argument. You're not , you're using your faulty reasoning Explain how my reasoning is faulty, please. What does the term strick mean ? I meant strict. It's not , why then are women who abort not doing life for murder? Because abortion isn't legally defined as murder as of 2018. I never said that so stop telling me what I didn't say I didn't say you said it, I said what your logic entails. It doesn't , you need to work on your logic* But I don't, I'm copying your logic. Side: True.
How is a fetus not a baby? So a baby is now a fetus and every new baby you see you call a fetus , interesting An unborn baby is still a baby. So there's no such thing as a fetus now ? Maybe a dog fetus isn't a human, but a human fetus is a human. So you go around calling fellow humans a fetus That's on you, Derm *^ Says you the pedant You said "defending your attacks. Why would you defend my attacks? You're making no sense again I have been this whole argument. No , you're still not I meant strict. I know just pointing it out as I know how important it is to you Because abortion isn't legally defined as murder as of 2018. Yes , so a woman who aborts is not as you falsely claim a murderer I didn't say you said it, I said what your logic entails. No , that's what your faulty " reasoning " assumes But I don't, You do and I'm not the first to point it out I'm copying your logic. You're not and you need to stop stating you use logic when the concept is alien to you Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The problem with that reasoning is that the fetus didnt just pop out of nowhere like some kind of virus, it was due to consensual hanky panky stuff (rape cases etc put aside of course) If you cant assume the consequences of an action, just dont do it! And even after birth the baby is reliable on its mother for sustenance Side: True.
1
point
So, why does the fetus have zero rights "regarding usage of the woman's body" The woman's rights should always trump any rights real or imagined the fetus actually has ^As you said, it takes two to make a fetus Don't tell me you disagree with that statement as well ? so if they took the risk, Yes unprotected sex is a risk why doesn't the fetus have any rights?* As I stated it's a woman's individual choice not mine if she wishes to carry to term fine , if she wants to abort fine as that's her choice not mine or yours Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
The woman's rights should always trump any rights real or imagined the fetus actually has They're both humans. Do my rights as an adult trump the rights of a child? No. Don't tell me you disagree with that statement as well ? I don't disagree with that statement. if she wants to abort fine as that's her choice not mine or yours I'm not saying it's my choice, I'm just saying the fetus shouldn't be treated the same as an inmate would be. Side: True.
They're both humans. They're not unless one attributes new meanings to the term fetus and human Do my rights as an adult Trump those of a child No That's because a fetus is not a child I'm just saying the fetus shouldn't be treated the same as an inmate would be. I know what you're saying , I disagree , in your world do you not accept different points of view ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
They're not So, an unborn baby is a nonhuman clump of cells? This makes no sense. That's because a fetus is not a child Analogy, Derm. I know what you're saying , I disagree Okay, disagreement is healthy. in your world do you not accept different points of view ? I accept different points of view from people who actually argue instead of spewing the same 3 sentences. Side: True.
So, an unborn baby is a nonhuman clump of cells? This makes no sense. A fetus is a clump of cells , yes a lot of things make no sense to you it seems , maybe if you run off and get your " book "and crayons we can draw you a couple of diagrams ? Analogy, Derm Poor Analogy at that I accept different points of view from people who actually argue instead of spewing the same 3 sentences. Says the clown who keeps babbling on about front lawns and contradicting his own gibberish Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
A fetus is a clump of cells , yes a lot of things make no sense to you it seems , maybe if you run off and get your " book "and crayons we can draw you a couple of diagrams ? And you say I'm petty? A fetus is a human clump of cells with human features. Poor Analogy at that I'd say it's a pretty good analogy, but that's my opinion. Says the clown who keeps babbling on about front lawns and contradicting his own gibberish I'm not babbling, unless you consider arguing like a normal person as babbling. I'm also not saying any gibberish unless you consider your own logic gibberish. Also, how'm I the clown? You're the one running in circles. Side: True.
And you say I'm petty? Yes and pedantic also A fetus is a human clump of cells with human features. A fetus is a clump of cells ...... yes I'd say it's a pretty good analogy, It's not but if it makes you feel good that's fine
I'm not babbling, You are unless you consider arguing like a normal person If your intellect is the bar for normality , I will attempt to dumb it down for you I'm also not saying any gibberish unless you consider your own logic gibberish. No I consider your babble gibberish , my logic is faultless Also, how'm I the clown? Self awareness is not one of your strengths is it ? Also what's how'm mean ? You're the one running in circles. Yes , attempting to flee your front lawn gibberish Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Yes and pedantic also Ah, okay. It's not It is. but if it makes you feel good that's fine More false logic from Dermot. You are I'm not. If your intellect is the bar for normality My intellect is above the bar for normality, but not by very much. I will attempt to dumb it down for you No "dumbing down" required, just a bit of sense from your side. No I consider your babble gibberish And that's your opinion, which we do not share. my logic is faultless It's only faultless when it works in your favor. Self awareness is not one of your strengths is it ? I'm pretty self-aware, though I can't say the same for you considering the "arguments" you've typed out so far. Also, what's how'm mean ? How'm = How am ex. How'm I the clown? Yes , attempting to flee your front lawn gibberish Is that so? Why don't you just climb over your "bar of intellect" nonsense? Does your "faultless logic" have something to do with it? Side: True.
It is It's not more false logic from Dermot. You do not understand the first thing about logic I'm not. You are intellect is above the bar for normality, but not by very much. With this I agree No "dumbing down" required, just a bit of sense from your side.
Well you don’t know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby so blaming me on your stupidity is hardly fair It’s only faultless when it works in your favour Which is relatively easy when used against your “ arguments “ I’m pretty self aware , though I can’t say the same for you considering the “ arguments you’ve typed so far Maybe I need a “ front lawn “ argument as common sense eludes you How’m I the clown There’s that lack of self awareness again Your last statement is nonsense and void of implication .... what a surprise Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
It's not We'll agree to disagree. You do not understand the first thing about logic. And what would the first thing be? The definition? I think I explained the definition of logic to you in a previous reply. You are Proof, please? With this I agree We'll just take that at face value. Well you don't know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby Do you need dumbing down? You can't seem to comprehend my argument. An adult isn't a fetus or a baby. A baby isn't an adult, and neither is a fetus. A fetus is an unborn human being, a baby is a very young human being, meaning it's been born. I'm not blaming you for my "stupidity", I'm blaming you for your stupidity. Which is relatively easy So when you use your logic to fit your narrative, it's cool, but then somehow it doesn't work when I use the same reasoning to fit my narrative? when used against your " arguments " Again, why doesn't it work when I use it for my narrative? Maybe I need a “ front lawn “ argument Would you like me to use a different argument? Fine. Let me set the scene: You're a slaveowner. Your slaves try to revolt. You kill some of them because they're on your land and rely on you to survive, so it's your choice on whether or not to kill them. Doesn't that seem immoral? There’s that lack of self awareness again And yet you fail to realize your own... Side: True.
You are I don’t even know what this is meant to mean at this stage Well you don't know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby Considering you spent the whole thread saying a fetus was a baby at last you’re starting to get it that a fetus is not a “ baby “ , Why you’re blaming me for what you have only eventually grasped is beyond me .
So when you use your logic to fit your narrative, it's cool, but then somehow it doesn't work when I use the same reasoning to fit my narrative? You don’t use “ reasoning “ I’ve said from the start a fetus has zero rights to sustenance or useage of a womans body and it’s a woman’s choice whether to abort or not , you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset as you continue to do a ridiculous dance around terms , why’s that ? Let’s cut to the chase in an attempt to avoid your childish attempts to avoid actually answering what I keep asking , should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not , if not why not ? Would you like me to use a different argument? Fine. Let me set the scene: You're a slaveowner. Your slaves try to revolt. You kill some of them because they're on your land and rely on you to survive, so it's your choice on whether or not to kill them. Doesn't that seem immoral? Why theses ridiculous analogies ? Is this another avoidance tactic by you ? Why do you assume you have the right to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ? And yet you fail to realize your own... What a “ superb “ reply Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
BTW, the brain directs electrical signals necessary for normal growth. https://www.wired.com/story/
Supporting Evidence:
https://www.wired.com/story/
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Considering you spent the whole thread saying a fetus was a baby A fetus is an unborn human being. Let's get that straight. You don’t use “ reasoning “ Yes, I do. I use your reasoning. I've said from the start a fetus has zero rights to sustenance So, because it's inside another human being, that human being has zero rights? and it's a woman's choice whether to abort or not Why does she get to choose whether or not to kill another human being? You've yet to answer. What gives her the right, other than your faulty logic? you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset What question did you ask? Restate the question and I'll answer it. why’s that ? Because I haven't seen any form of a question that wasn't meant to make me dig myself into the ground. Again, just ask a question and I'll answer. should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not No. if not why not ? The fetus is a human and a living human at that. Why theses ridiculous analogies ? Is this another avoidance tactic by you ? Because I want you to answer my question. I've answered your question, now answer mine. Why do you assume you have the right to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ? Again, because I think that abortion is manslaughter, not murder because murder is defined as being premeditated, and more often than not abortions are impulsive. What a " superb " reply I'm just telling you the truth. Now, let's be civil, yeah? Side: True.
A fetus is an unborn human being. Let's get that straight. It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making , don’t take my word on it consult a medical text Even if I allow for your assertion that its a “ human being “ so what ? Yes, I do. I use your reasoning. Another typically childish response So, because it's inside another human being, that human being has zero rights? Correct and it's a woman's choice whether to abort or not Again correct Why does she get to choose whether or not to kill another human being? Her body , her choice You've yet to answer. I keep telling you but for some reason you fail to complain smile statement , let’s try for to 50 th time ...... ready .....listen Her body, her choice What gives her the right, other than your faulty logic? My logic is fine your being childish yet again , so you’re saying a woman should have no rights over her body , that makes you a bully and a tyrant you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset Will I repeat it again for the 51st time ? What question did you ask? Restate the question and I'll answer it. I asked you several questions most which you avoided by remaining mute , let’s try one of them again as in ...... What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body regarding abortion ? should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not No. But contraception is used to prevent a life being born so you disagree with contraception ? Tripped up on your own logic again , you’ve admitted you’re against preventing a life to be born so therefore to be consistent you have to be against contraception , well ? The fetus is a human it’s not go consult wiki and a living human at that. It’s alive but not as yet a human I've answered your question, You avoided mind now answer mine I have several times Again, because I think that abortion is manslaughter Merely your opinion based on your own view of the situation and thankfully lawmakers and legislators disagree with your primitive viewpoint and more often than not abortions are impulsive. What do you base that ridiculous reply on ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making Fair point. Even if I allow for your assertion that its a " human being " so what ? So you would allow a woman to kill a human being that relies on her? Let's take away all factors, except for that their's a human and the woman wants to kill it. Is that not murder/manslaughter? Correct Why? Again correct Again, why? Excluding "her body, her choice", because that response is based on nothing other than the response itself. Her body , her choice What about the father? Doesn't he get a say? What if he doesn't want an abortion? It's his son too, and the mother wouldn't be a mother if not for him. so you’re saying a woman should have no rights over her body When did I say women shouldn't have any rights over their bodies? You get angry when I do that, but then you turn around and do the same thing. that makes you a bully and a tyrant And that makes you immoral, saying women can kill their children without input from the father. you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset You typed that, not me. I addressed that in my last response. What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body regarding abortion ? Nothing, other than the law considering with abortion you're still killing a potential human. But contraception is used to prevent a life being born By contraception you mean things like birth control pills, correct? We'll assume that's the focus here. Contraception is different than abortion because it stops the potential life from existing in the first place. In other words, the fetus doesn't exist. With abortion, you're ending the fetus' life. so you disagree with contraception ? No, I actually encourage contraception for teens and those who think they don't have the money to raise a child, the same goes for adoption. you’re against preventing a life to be born No, I'm against terminating a life. you have to be against contraception No, I'm pro-contraception. it's not go consult wiki It is, read this fe·tus ˈfēdəs/Submit noun an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby lawmakers and legislators disagree with your primitive viewpoint Tell that to Mississippi. Side: True.
So you would allow a woman to kill a human being that relies on her? You mean a potential human in the making ? Yes I would allow her to abort is this not clear to you yet ? . Anti-abortion advocates make the jump from these cells being capable of later on forming a person to the conclusion that these cells are the equivalent of a person. I fail to see how that jump in logic is valid. Let's take away all factors, except for that their's a human and the woman wants to kill it. What you mean is “ let’s insert your particular view”” and attempt to force the issue Is that not murder/manslaughter? No , it’s merely you asserting it is and being wrong again , why is a woman not jailed for this “crime “ if that’s not the case ? You make statements that are incorrect and assume they’re correct because you say so , why’s that ? Why? Her body , her choice Excluding "her body, her choice", Why does that upset you ? because that response is based on nothing other than the response itself. What a bizarre statement the response explains perfectly the woman’s position in the matters What about the father? What about him ? Doesn't he get a say? He does but his wishes are secondary to the woman’s , also I bet he only gets a say if he’s anti abortion isn’t that right ? Or do you believe he also can only make 1 choice ? What if he doesn't want an abortion? What if he does ? It's his son too, Potential son /daughter actually and the mother wouldn't be a mother if not for him. So what ? When did I say women shouldn't have any rights over their bodies? Well you wish to deny the woman a right to abort so that’s a denial of her bodily rights ,are you now denying this ? I’ve yet to “ get angry “ I’m amused actually , so tell me is this projection on your part ? You get angry And that makes you immoral, Incorrect , I’m perfectly will to allow a woman to carry a child to pregnancy or abort making me a paragon of fairness and morality saying women can kill their children It’s children now , no longer a “ fetus “ or even a “baby “ your appeal to emotion is “ touching “ but Victorian melodrama does not work with me without input from the father. Again what if the father wants to abort is that “ input “ equally valid ? Nothing, other than the law considering with abortion you're still killing a potential human. The law does not say that and if your killing a human being why aren’t you jailed for it ? But I see at last you agree with me as you’re now also saying “ a potential human “ So it’s not “ children “ or “babies “ anymore but a “ potential human “ By contraception you mean things like birth control pills, correct? Well done Sherlock We'll assume that's the focus here. The giveaway was in the term “ contraception “ Contraception is different than abortion Quiet similar actually as both are preventative measures because it stops the potential life from existing in the first place Exactly what abortion does as in stops a potential life from existing . In other words, the fetus doesn't exist. Because you’ve prevented it existing like abortion With abortion, you're ending the fetus' life. You’re preventing it from being born the exact function of contraception, making you a ......hypocrite No, I actually encourage contraception for teens and those who think they don't have the money to raise a child, the same goes for adoption. So you encourage the prevention of a birth because teens and others may not have the money to raise a child , so if a teen gets pregnant why not encourage abortion or does your hypocrisy not allow this either No, I'm against terminating a life. But you’re for preventing a potential child life No, I'm pro-contraception. Yes your hypocrisy noted It is, read this fe·tus ˈfēdəs/Submit noun an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby Nonsense A fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken Tell that to Mississippi* I did say “ primitive “ Mississippi “ and it’s inhabitants are not exactly renowned for being “ intellectual powerhouses “ are they ? Are you a native ? I ask this because of your views also on Evolution , it is a typical knee jerk Bible Belt retort by American religious nuts to the Evolution is fact statement , this seems to drive a fair amount of mainly Americans insane while the rest of the world know it as fact Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3
points
You mean a potential human in the making? It's not a potential human, it is a human. Already. Women can't give birth to fish. Yes I would allow her to abort is this not clear to you yet ? I'm fully aware of your immorality. Anti-abortion advocates make the jump from these cells being capable of later on forming a person to the conclusion that these cells are the equivalent of a person Where's your evidence? Also, what makes a fetus' cells different from a newborn's cells? I fail to see how that jump in logic is valid There was no jump to begin with. What you mean is " let's insert your particular view"" and attempt to force the issue No, you simply don't enjoy it when others use your view and put into any other circumstance. Let me ask, how is it different? Killing an adult and killing a baby? why's that? I don't assume they're correct because I say they are, that's you. Why does that upset you ? It doesn't upset me, but I wish you'd make an argument excluding feelings. What a bizarre statement the presonse explains perfectly the woman's positions in the matters What? He does but his wishes are secondary to the woman's And why's that? If not for him, how did the baby get there in the first place? also I bet he only gets a say if he's anti abortion isn't that right ? No, it's not right. I don't care what your stance is as long as you make a choice. Or do you believe he also can only make 1 choice ? See, this is gibberish. What are you saying? What if he does? Then let him make that choice. I can't tell anyone what to do, and neither can you. Potential son /daughter actually Back to being petty, are we? Well, in that case, what about the 63 other genders some of your liberal friends propose exist? So what? So she wouldn't be making the choice in the first place. Well you wish to deny the woman a right to abort so that’s a denial of her bodily rights Let me ask you this: Who/what gives you "bodily rights"? Certainly not the government, there isn't an abortion section of the First Amendment. So, where does she get her bodily rights from? Incorrect , I’m perfectly will to allow a woman to carry a child to pregnancy or abort making me a paragon of fairness and morality You stand for abortion, so you clearly aren't being fair to the human you're killing. I can't read the rest of your argument, which is most likely due to you placing your asterisks incorrectly and not proof-reading. I'll be glad to address those when you fix it. Side: True.
It's not a potential human, it is a human. It’s not , you’ve already admitted as much you idiot in your last post Here you go ... ..It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making Fair point. Your exact words when I said it was a potential human in the making , so why are you lying ? Already. Women can't give birth to fish. I’m starting to doubt that as you’re displaying the intellect of a fish I'm fully aware of your immorality. You’re a judgemental hypocrite Where's your evidence? So you’re now asking me for evidence of what you claim , you are anti abortion are you ? Also, what makes a fetus' cells different from a newborn's cells? What this is meant to be getting at I’ve no idea There was no jump to begin with. Yes you don’t do logic , my mistake for giving you credit you’re not due No, you simply don't enjoy it when others use your view and put into any other circumstance. You mean like your ridiculous garden lawn argument ? Let me ask, how is it different? Killing an adult and killing a baby? But a fetus is not a baby it’s a potential life in the making you agreed with this already How is it that you admit it’s immoral to prevent a potential human to be born yet hypocritically defend abortion which does exactly this ? I don't assume they're correct because I say they are, You do until corrected then you resort to lying like your first post on this thread or failing that hypocrisy as in your defence of contraception It doesn't upset me, but I wish you'd make an argument excluding feelings. But I’ve destroyed every one of your “ arguments “ so now you’re lying in an attempt to save face What? Woman’s body , woman’s choice And why's that? If not for him, how did the baby get there in the first place? I said he gets a choice but the woman’s choice takes precedence No, it's not right. So you don’t care if the man wishes to abort but you do if it’s the woman ?
See, this is gibberish. What are you saying? I just told you read above Then let him make that choice. So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion? I can't tell anyone what to do, But yet people like you if they could would deny them a choice and neither can you. That’s why I don’t , I leave it up to the individual woman Back to being petty, are we? No , just correcting you again Well, in that case, what about the 63 other genders some of your liberal friends propose exist ? My “ liberal friends “ what are you talking about you idiot ? so she wouldn't be making the choice in the first place. What are you babbling about ? Let me ask you this: Who/what gives you "bodily rights"? It’s actually called bodily integrity why not do some research instead of just shooting your fool mouth off ? Certainly not the government, there isn't an abortion section of the First Amendment. Your stupidity is spectacular bodily integrity look it up , where does she get her bodily rights from? As above You stand for abortion, so you clearly aren't being fair to the human you're killing. I stand for choice so you’re wrong yet again I can't read the rest of your argument, which is most likely due to you placing your asterisks incorrectly and not proof-reading. I'll be glad to address those when you fix it. Because to site crashed earlier and I never had the chance to check , anyway it was only me having a laugh at your “ Evolution is not a fact nonsense “ on the other thread Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
you idiot Says the one calling names on a debate website. I'm starting to doubt that as you're displaying the intellect of a fish So, people who disagree with you are fish and fish are people who disagree with you? Interesting. You're a judgemental hypocrite Says the man/fish/Darwinist that believes women can kill their children as long as they haven't been born yet. So you're now asking me for evidence of what you claim No, I'm asking for your evidence of your claim being true. Where do you get that anti-abortion advocates do this? you are anti abortion , are you ? Yes, I'm anti-abortion. I'm also anti-Dermot, but that's irrelevant. What this is meant to be getting at I've no idea Since you say a baby is different from a fetus biologically, what cells change? Yes you don't do logic , Well not my own. I use your logic. my mistake for giving you credit you're not due You're right, I shouldn't be given credit for your faulty logic. You mean like your ridiculous garden lawn argument ? What's a garden lawn? Also, this doesn't seem to be helping your argument. But a fetus is not a baby it's a potential life Potential human. It's living. Otherwise, why would it need to rely on the mother for nutrients? How is it that you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human to be born No, I admit it's immoral to kill a potential human that also happens to be your child, but I'm pro-contraception. You do until corrected then you resort to lying Where have I lied? But I've destroyed every one of your " arguments " How's that? Your only consistent argument is "Her body , her choice". Woman's body , woman's choice What gives you that choice? There's no law or amendment giving women "bodily rights", so where do they get them from? I said he gets a choice but the woman’s choice takes precedence Why aren't their choices equal? Yes, the baby is in the mother, but the baby wouldn't be there without the father. So you don’t care if the man wishes to abort but you do if it’s the woman ? Where do you get this from? You continue to say "Her body, her choice" but the baby isn't solely hers. So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion? ??? But yet people like you if they could would deny them a choice No one gets the choice to murder legally. what are you talking about you idiot You're a liberal. What are you babbling about ? It's only babbling to you because you can't comprehend the words I'm typing. It’s actually called bodily integrity Then why have you called it bodily rights in the past? You act like the terms are interchangeable, like sex and gender. why not do some research instead of just shooting your fool mouth off ? I don't need to do research, you're providing me with all the information I need. Your stupidity is spectacular bodily integrity look it up I've looked it up, and I still don't understand where they get "bodily integrity" from. It's not given as a right by the United States government, and ethicality is not a replacement for the law. If it were, abortion would be illegal. I stand for choice so you're wrong yet again Pro-choice = Pro-abortion, idiot. Because to site crashed earlier and I never had the chance to check Fair enough anyway it was only me having a laugh at your " Evolution is not a fact nonsense " I believe your quotes are placed incorrectly, I never said that the evolution isn't a fact argument was nonsense. Side: True.
Says the one calling names on a debate website. That's not name calling that's merely an apt description of you as in you're an idiot So, people who disagree with you are fish and fish are people who disagree with you? I never that , I said you have the intellect of a fish which you've demonstrated yet again with this latest piece of gibberish
Says the man/fish/Darwinist that believes women can kill their children as long as they haven't been born yet. Man Fish ??? Oh yes I forgot you don't understand Evoultion either and now a fetus is a child , you are getting desperate aren't you ? Where do you get that anti-abortion advocates do this? you are anti abortion , are you ? What are you babbling on about ? Yes, I'm anti-abortion. I'm also anti-Dermot, but that's irrelevant. You're anti Evolution also so you're consistent in your stupidity Since you say a baby is different from a fetus biologically, what cells change? Why not consult a medical textbook ? Well not my own. Yes I know I use your logic. As in me denying Evolution is fact. , interesting You're right, I shouldn't be given credit for your faulty logic.
Another typical bit of stupidity from you What's a garden lawn? Oh I forgot you don't have them in trailer parks Also, this doesn't seem to be helping your argument. The argument is over from the off you've yet to offer a defence Potential human. It's living. Otherwise, why would it need to rely on the mother for nutrients? So what ? No, I admit it's immoral to kill a potential human that also happens to be your child, Yes you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human being born ,but it's fine to prevent a potential human being born by using contraception , you're a two faced hypocrite but I'm pro-contraception. Yes you're pro abortion Where have I lied? Denial now as well , you agreed when I originally corrected you by stating " A potential human " then denied you agreed now to agree agsin making you a liar How's that? Your only consistent argument is "Her body , her choice". That's the only argument needed , What gives you that choice? It's not my choice it's the individual's woman's choice , I don't care either way abort or don't , your body your choice There's no law or amendment giving women "bodily rights", so where do they get them from? Your ignorance is appalling why not do a bit of research into Roe V Wade in your own country and see what the findings were , you truly are an idiot Bodily integrity you idiot Why aren't their choices equal? It's not his body Yes, the baby is in the mother, but the baby wouldn't be there without the father. Amazing , thank you for that Where do you get this from? You continue to say "Her body, her choice" but the baby isn't solely hers. So you're saying the man should have a choice but why should his. choice be given equal consideration ? So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion? ??? You seem to want the man to have a choice but only if it's anti abortion No one gets the choice to murder legally. It's not murder you clown and no one is charged with murder for aborting so your stupidity is exposed again , and another correction your government murders people " legally " in prisons and bombing campaigns You're a liberal. I'm a humanist you fool It's only babbling to you because you can't comprehend the words I'm typing. Incorrect , I cannot comprehend the gibberish you type Then why have you called it bodily rights in the past? Same thing you idiot You act like the terms are interchangeable, They are you idiot like sex and gender. No , that's merely your obsession and Americans in general with gender don't you guys invent a new gender every day ? I don't need to do research, you're providing me with all the information I need. I know as in Roe v Wade you're another dense American who gets schooled in American law by a European I've looked it up, and I still don't understand where they get "bodily integrity" from. I know your stupidity isn't helping you is it ? It's not given as a right by the United States government, and ethicality is not a replacement for the law. But abortion is legal in the states you prize clown as your courts and legislators agree with me as in there is no accepted consensus on when life begins making me right again If it were, abortion would be illegal. Prove it Pro-choice = Pro-abortion, idiot. Pro choice , idiot You argued that the facts of Evution may be incorrect like you do on most facts as in above until corrected by your superiors as in me Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You are passionate about women's rights because you have witnessed how they are treated. You 'believe' that a fetus is just a clump of cells, but no one knows with 100 percent certainty. You could be defending women's rights at the expense of a fetus' life. My approach to the conundrum is to state my opinion and leave it at that. Not try to defend it too much. But that's just me ;) Side: True.
potential life of the unborn? Yes That's like telling someone, "You have a potentially long life to live..." just before you blow their brains out ;) Well no it’s not , that’s why one is deemed murder and the other is not , now which one is deemed murder do you think ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Well, that depends on how you define life. And I believe that you already agreed that scientists themselves are not sure when life begins and that your definition of life is just your opinion. Could you imagine if I could walk into a court room and state, "Your honor, it is my humble opinion that the person I shot was not alive." AND get away with it ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
That's not name calling Name calling: "abusive language or insults". I never that I'm simply using your logic, in that you say that because I believed that a fetus was a baby, I must've thought that a baby was a fetus and so on. Man Fish ??? It was a reference to your profile picture. Oh yes I forgot you don't understand Evoultion And you don't know how to spell evolution. What are you babbling on about ? That was you, idiot. You're anti Evolution No, I'm against people calling evolution a definite fact, at least right now. Why not consult a medical textbook ? Why don't you actually support your claims, instead of telling me to research your claim? As in me denying Evolution is fact. ?? Another typical bit of stupidity from you Funny how everything you can't argue against is "stupidity" or "gibberish". Oh I forgot you don't have them in trailer parks No, we don't. We have front lawns and backyards, maybe you should escape from your liberal safe space and explore more then your "garden lawn". The argument is over from the off From the off? My defense is the fetus is alive. Now, for your rebuttal? So what ? So, you say the fetus isn't alive. How is it not alive if it needs nutrients? And, if you do think it's alive, what makes abortion different from infanticide? Other then, of course, infanticide occurring after the birth. Yes you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human being born I admit it's immoral to kill a human/potential human. Not whatever you just said. but it's fine to prevent a potential human being born by using contraception How is the fetus created if the contraception works? Here's the line of progression, in case you needed a diagram: Use of contraception: Saucy stuff > Contraception > Mother doesn't become pregnant > fetus isn't created. Use of abortion: Saucy stuff > mother becomes pregnant > fetus is created > fetus is aborted; life ended. you're a two faced hypocrite Says Dermot. That's irony. Yes you're pro abortion Abortion = termination of pregnancy Contraception = prevention of pregnancy How can you not see the difference here? Denial now as well I haven't denied anything, except for having denied anything. That's the only argument needed No, that's just not true. You need arguments based on facts. I don't care about how you feel, I care about the stats to use to prove your arguments. It's not my choice Okay. it's the individual's woman's choice The individual's woman's? To whom does the woman belong? Amazing , thank you for that Okay, what's your point? So you're saying the man should have a choice but why should his choice be given equal consideration ? I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal choice on the matter. So you're fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she's anti abortion? When did I say this? I'm fine with both of them making a choice, as long as their choices have equal consideration. You seem to want the man to have a choice but only if it's anti abortion Wrong, yet again. Both parties should get an equal choice on the matter. It's not murder you clown I didn't say it was. no one is charged with murder for aborting What's your point? A lot of guys aren't charged with rape, that doesn't mean they didn't rape the girl. your government murders people " legally " The death penalty is legal in several states. I'm a humanist you fool No, you aren't. Humanists "emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively" by definition, and when fetuses have the cells needed to define them as humans, you still think it's okay to kill them. I cannot comprehend the gibberish you type Again, saying something is "gibberish" isn't a defense. Same thing you idiot Then why did you criticize me for using the term "bodily rights"? that's merely your obsession No, it isn't. don't you guys invent a new gender every day ? I'm a conservative, so you're wrong again. who gets schooled in American law by a European Funny how you bring up Roe v. Wade. You know, all nine justices on that court were men. And yet, you say you don't think men should be able to decide the fate of women. Also, did you know that in that case, something called substantive due process was used? Where some rights can't be taken away, even through due process, and that was the reason for the ruling in Roe v. Wade. This is what happens when Luigi tries to take down an American with our own laws and court cases. I know your stupidity isn't helping you is it ? What gives you bodily integrity? I asked you a question, and you didn't answer. But abortion is legal in the states you prize clown Oh, did I get a promotion? Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal. It wasn't illegal for Hitler to conquer Europe, but that didn't make it legal and he still did it. Side: True.
Name calling: "abusive language or insults". Facts regarding your idiocy are well .... facts I'm simply using your logic, in that you say that because I believed that a fetus was a baby, I must've thought that a baby was a fetus and so on. Again your re-invention of what was said is part of your genetic idiocy as in an inherited trait It was a reference to your profile picture. Oh yes I forgot you’re a young earth creationist And you don't know how to spell evolution. Well I do it’s just you’re boring and I thought I might amuse myself by letting you “ pounce “ on a typo ..... bless your little heart That was you, idiot. That’s a bit rich coming from a retard like you No, I'm against people calling evolution a definite fact, at least right now. Yes I know facts upset you the real truths are in answers in genesis aren’t they why don't you actually support your claims, Like I keep doing you mean ? instead of telling me to research your claim? I asked you to get a basic education but hey you’re a “ conservative “ Another typical bit of stupidity from you Yes I know acceptance of fact as in Evolution is stupidity according to young earthers like youn Funny how everything you can't argue against is "stupidity" or "gibberish". You really mean funny how easily I de -bunk your bullshit No, we don't. So I was right We have front lawns and backyards Oh , now you do like all your arguments as in you say one thing and then contradict your own nonsense , maybe you should escape from your liberal safe space and explore more then your "garden lawn". Maybe you should leave your trailer and get a job you lazy sod From the off? Apologies I forgot you’re a “ conservative “ and terms in common usage are alien to you My defense is the fetus is alive. That’s it ? Now, for your rebuttal? The fetus is reliant on “ life “ from the mother and either way so what ? So what So, you say the fetus isn't alive. How is it not alive if it needs nutrients? It’s reliant on the mother for life and it gets nutrients from the mother it’s not entitled to And, if you do think it's alive, what makes abortion different from infanticide? Other then, of course, infanticide occurring after the birth. Infanticide is the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth you idiot , what do you mean “after birth “ you fool ? I admit it's immoral to kill a human/potential human. Not whatever you just said. So now the game is “ whatever you just said “ what a cop out by the work shy “ conservative “ , what I said as well you know if you admit it’s immoral to prevent a like been born but yet you support contraception because you’re a hypocrite but it's fine to prevent a potential How is the fetus created if the contraception works? How is the baby born if the abortion works same principle both are as you admitted preventing a potential life being born .... checkmate again Here's the line of progression, in case you needed a diagram: Use of contraception: Saucy stuff > Contraception > Mother doesn't become pregnant > fetus isn't created. Use of abortion: Saucy stuff > mother becomes pregnant > fetus is created > fetus is aborted; life ended. Here’s the line of reasoning exposing your hypocrisy again theworkshy said ....it’s immoral to prevent a potential human life to be born but it’s moral to prevent a human life being born by contraception says Dermot. That's irony. Yes if you accept your “ alternative narrative “ Abortion = termination of pregnancy Contraception = prevention of pregnancy Abortion = Prevention of a potential life being born Contraception = Prevention of a potential life being born Can you see your hypocrisy now I haven't denied anything, except for having denied anything. You have but its ok you’re a “ conservative “ No, that's just not true. You need arguments based on facts. I don't care about how you feel, I care about the stats to use to prove your arguments. All my arguments are factual your are appeals to emotion The individual's woman's? Surprisingly over here women are individuals To whom does the woman belong? What that gibberish means is beyond me I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal choice on the matter. Nonsense, the woman’s choice takes precedence you caveman I'm fine with both of them making a choice, as long as their choices have equal consideration. No , woman’s choice takes precedence and your opinion is worthless because the law supports the woman’s choice Both parties should get an equal choice on the matter. They shouldn’t that’s why they don’t I didn't say it was. You did you liar then you changed to manslaughter
no one is charged with murder for aborting What's your point? A lot of guys aren't charged with rape, that doesn't mean they didn't rape the girl. But you just admitted it’s not murder you idiot so what do you want them charged with ? Newsflash .... it’s legal to abort get over it your government murders people " legally " The death penalty is legal in several states. Yes that’s why I mentioned it you fool no, you aren't. Oh yes I am Humanists "emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively" by definition, I know thanks for the lecture and when fetuses have the cells needed to define them as humans, you still think it's okay to kill them. Yes of course like you I believe in the right to prevent a potential life being born you agree as in contraception Again , saying something is "gibberish" isn't a defense. I don’t need a “ defence “ I’m merely pointing out your continual posting of gibberish Then why did you criticize me for using the term "bodily rights"? I corrected you on useage of terminology you were unaware of No, it isn't. Oh yes it is I'm a conservative, so you're wrong again. You forgot to mention a workshy conservative Funny how you bring up Roe v. Wade. Yes it Hilarious You know, all nine justices on that court were men So what ? . And yet, you say you don't think men should be able to decide the fate of women. I never said that you liar Also , did you know that in that case, something called substantive due process was used? Oh stop it you crybaby where some rights can't be taken away, even through due process, and that was the reason for the ruling in Roe v. Wade. This is what happens when Luigi tries to take down an American with our own laws and court cases. Abortion is legal you crybaby What gives you bodily integrity? It’s a basic human right you dunce I asked you a question, and you didn't answer. I did several times you dunce Oh, did I get a promotion? No , your workshy .... remember ? Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal. If something isn’t “ illegal “ that mean it’s legal you idiot , talk about alternative facts It wasn't illegal for Hitler to conquer Europe, It was you fucking cabbage under international law but that didn't make it legal If something isn’t illegal then it must be legal you clown What sort of nonsense is this ? If something is legal it’s not illegal you prize idiot Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate By this logic, the government has no right to require parents to attend to the needs of their children as this compels parents to do certain things with their body. Your logic would serve to eliminate laws against neglect. Side: True.
By this logic, the government has no right to require parents to attend to the needs of their children as this compels parents to do certain things with their body. What you're basically saying is you couldn't give a damn what I say on the topic , you continuously try to tell me what I'm saying by actually ignoring what I'm saying and re _ stating my case to fit your narritive I told you and others several times a fetus is where it is by permission which is given by the mother , this permission can be withdrawn at any time , a woman is perfectly entitled to bodily Autonomy/ integrety which is a right you and others feel perfectly acceptable to deny her , why have you a " right " to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ? Why should any supposed " rights " of a fetus trump those of a woman ? Your logic would serve to eliminate laws against neglect. No , that's actually your attempt to re-frame my position and far from logical , your position is you think the denial of a right for a woman is perfectly fair and reasonable Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
What you're basically saying...you continuously try to tell me what I'm saying Hypocrisy doesn’t typically come in a single, neat run-on sentence like this. by actually ignoring what I'm saying and re _ stating my case to fit your narrative I’m not ignoring what you are saying. I understand that your position is that you “do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body”. You’ve said already that “A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate”. The problem with your position is that it is an assertion that you cannot seem to support. You agree with the step by step A to B analysis of your position put forward by fgtorres. But you cannot be logically consistent in applying that analysis. It was like pulling teeth, but you finally admitted that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to end. For whatever reason you cannot see that the demands of a fetus on a mother continue long after it is born. Furthermore, you are incapable of stating why a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to end. You just reassert your belief and base it on nothing. I’m always impressed when you make good arguments because I never expect much from you. One cannot expect much from a person who doubts that they experience doubt but is certain that they cannot be certain. I’ll throw this argument in with your growing list of childish, irrational positions. Side: True.
I’m always impressed when you make good arguments because I never expect much from you. One cannot expect much from a person who doubts that they experience doubt but is certain that they cannot be certain. I’ll throw this argument in with your growing list of childish, irrational positions. A typical childish outburst from you who gets into a temper tantrum at the thoughts of women having the right to choice , I dismissed the rest of your gibberish as typical of your usual rants Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
While that is true. There are those who denie it. Then we come to the position of war. War kills ppl. But ppl dont care about our soldiers. They come back, being hated and booed. Being called assholes, being disrespected. Ppl kneeling during the anthem because they think the US is built on hate. But, the funny thing is, is that these are the exact same ppl who are pro choice. They’ll protest war and shit, but when it comes to fetuses they don’t give a fuck. Why’s that? Side: True.
1
point
Abortion is one of the greatest vote getting tools the GOP has ever had. The GOP can count on you and all of the other anti-abortion minions to march to the polls and vote GOP because they constantly tell you that if you vote for them they'll outlaw abortion. They won't. They never will. Why do you suppose it is that when the GOP holds not only the White House, but BOTH Houses of congress, you don't hear one little peep about doing what they've promised you they'd do which is to ban abortion? It's because they know that KEEPING ABORTION LEGAL means that they can CAMPAIGN AGAINST IT over and over, election cycle after election cycle FOREVER, because you never catch on. Decade after decade they lead you around like you've got a ring in your nose and get you to vote GOP with the same old lie. Here's the other thing: THINK for a minute about what the real implications of an abortion ban would be. It would create huge social upheaval. Pretty young middle class white girls would start dying again from back alley abortions, and the mothers of those girls would be RIOTING in the streets. The bodies of every single one of those dead girls would be hung around the necks of the GOP AND the EVANGELICAL movement and the Republican party would cease to exist - forever. Of course the GOP leaders know this, which is why the LAST entity to actually bring about an end to abortion is the GOP. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Then why is the Democratic party around? Gay marriage was used extensively by the left to get votes, and then it was made legal. I assume Republicans fill all three houses because Republicans were tired of how terrible the Democratic reps were. Besides, the GOP has plenty of other issues to address like taxes, terrorism, gun control, etc. Side: True.
The Gay rights issue has always been a vote LOSER for the Dems but they pursued it anyway because it was the right thing to do. They lost a lot of middle of the road and Christian Democrat voters over it. The election cycle we just went through was a freak. You'll never see anything like it again and it's done untold damage to the Republican party. Trump has been and will continue to be the worst thing that's ever happened to the Republican party. All signs point to a big turnover in Nov. Better hitch up your trousers. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Yes, it's true that they lost Christian Democrats. But, you did gain a bunch of socialists because of Sanders. I'll agree that the election cycle was terrible, but that was because they had a socialist mixed in with the Democratic party when it really he should've been independent, and because the candidates for the 2016 election were two of the most disliked in history. I don't think Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to the Republican party, considering we had Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon (an actual criminal), and Gerald Ford. Maybe there will be a big turnover, although I don't believe any Democratic or left-leaning candidates in general will be very well-liked. Side: True.
If you don't think Trump is the worst, you're still in the fog of the Trump cult of personality. Once the fog clears you'll see it all and that day is arriving one straw on the camel's back at a time. I don't know what your problem with Gerald Ford would be except maybe the pardoning of Nixon. The first time I voted, I voted for Ford BECAUSE he pardoned Nixon. The country was in turmoil and I felt that Ford put an end the misery by getting Nixon off to San Clemente and out of the evening news. I've regretted that vote since because I realize now that pardoning Nixon was bad for the country in the long run. Now Presidents think they can do anything in office and get away with it. I think Trump is going to turn that notion around. The thing about Ford I dislike the most is that he was part of the Warren Commission which was nothing more than a cover-up of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy but I didn't realize any of that back in 1976 when I voted for him. But there have been other bad ones, Harding was terrible, Grant was bad but none of them created the Nation threatening chaos that Trump has and none of them were ever under investigation for what could very well turn out to be treason. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I don't think Trump is the worst Republican politically. I don't like Trump as a person, but his policies aren't terrible. My only problem with Gerald Ford is he wasn't elected to office. That's it. He ended the Vietnam War, and he helped the U.S. recover after Watergate. I don't think of him as a good Republican president, though, since he wasn't ever elected to the office. Again, Trump is a con artist and a generally bad person, but he's a very liberal Republican, if that makes sense. He never really should've ran with the Republican party, and he didn't the first time. The first time he ran for president, in the early 2000s, he ran as a Democrat. Side: True.
First of all I agree with you on the most part. But in the 2016 election, it was basically voting for the better of the two evils. That's what I heard from my parents, but now they support and like Trump. I know that Trump's policies are good, but I wouldn't really say he's a bad person. I've seen his speeches, and they were really inspirational speeches. He's done some good things for the country, and he's also trying, and that's what I like. To be honest, I've seen him in the election, and he wasn't all that nice, but then again, he was in an election, and he was trying to win. But I was never sure why people didn't like him. I've just heard people insult him, call him names, make fun of him, call him racist, and all that, but when I see people (conservatives) ask questions to those anti Trump people, they usually get stumped, and never have evidence to back up their claims. Side: True.
1
point
Trump's policies are good, but he isn't the morally best human. To be fair, he is a dirt monster so nothing can affect him, but there's that thing with the pornstar, the Trump University thing, and the Russia thing which I think is BS. Point is, he's a bit of a con IMO. Funny how everyone insults Trump, but no one ever talks about Bernie Sanders, or Marco Rubio, or Hillary Clinton. Especially Clinton, considering she's only still married to Bill Clinton to stay relevant. Side: True.
Yea, I don't see anyone talk about anyone other than Trump. But really all that Trump needs to do is focus on what's good for the nation. As long as he's improving our country, that's all that matters. I know Trump has done some good things, but no one seems to acknowledge those things he's done. All that the media does is talk about random stuff he does, or insult him. Side: True.
1
point
That's true. And just like with the phases of insect life, they get eaten or stepped on or simply killed and that's just the way life goes (or doesn't). If one wants to argue every life is sacred then they probably ought to protect larva just the same as they want every fetus protected. Side: True.
|
1
point
Actually, it is a human life, just like me and you, the only difference is that it's not fully formed yet, because it's still growing to eventually become grown enough and then be born. It's attached to her, but it's because of the umbilical cord. It's not some "extra body part." You're not gaining an extra limb or anything, but simply just a fetus that's attached to the mother because it literally needs that to live. Side: True.
2
points
Potential human life, but still a life, yes. And, if it really is just an "extra body part" like so many pro-choicers say, then why can't people get prosthetic fetuses? And, if the mother gets to kill the fetus simply because it relies on her, why can't hospitals murder patients living off of machines/in a coma? Side: True.
I am not saying that the mother gets to kill a fetus just because it relies on her, but that it is not YET a stage of human life. The fetus is illegal to kill because it WILL provide help to the society, not because it is immoral. I can even argue that it is not immoral to kill a fetus because it has no feelings. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
but that it is not YET a stage of human life. I disagree. Before being a full on human, you have to start from scratch, just like a bug. I can even argue that it is not immoral to kill a fetus because it has no feelings. Fetuses begin to develop pain receptors 8 weeks into a pregnancy. 20+ weeks and you've got a fetus that can feel. As for being immoral, I disagree there as well. Killing is immoral, no? Side: True.
1
point
But individuality is not defined by spatial separateness. We know this because we could view two adult conjoined twins as two separate human lives. The fact that we intuitively are able to separate the two indicates that there's likely some other factor besides being disconnected that makes an entity individual. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
You're right in one sense. The fetus is part of the mother in so far as it's physically connected to the mother via an umbilical cord and the placental interface. However, this is still different than an ear or eye or any other body part. That's because the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother (while an ear or eye are not). Why? DNA is how biologists separate species and individuals within a species. You and I are the same species, but distinct individuals because of our unique genomes, the exclusive versions and combinations of our genes (alleles). Accordingly, once an ovum or egg (gamete from mom) is fertilized by sperm (gamete from dad), the DNA from the two gametes fuse together. This means that the new cell (zygote) has its own DNA. It is no longer mom or dad; it's a combination of both, and it's own distinct individual organism. Also, in response to the claim that a fetus isn't a human life: On the contrary, I would argue a fetus (and even a fertilized egg) is a human life. In biology, cells are the basic unit of life and are living when they show metabolism and growth (there are ~7 characteristics of life in biology including these - the fetus does all of them) - you're living because your cells are doing just that. The fetus is no different. From the time it's a zygote, the new entity developing in mom is biologically alive. All that is to say - yes, the fetus is a human life and not part of the mother (at least in the same sense as an organ like an anatomical part e.g. eye or ear). Side: True.
I would argue a fetus ( and even a fertilized egg ) is a human life Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You incorrectly apply the "begging the question" argument from the pro-choice action network (http:// Side: True.
Ok , read that last part again as you're still begging the question..... There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. Either way I have been through this argument 100's of times on here and do not wish to keep reapeatng myself , I do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise. That's not the same thing as stating a fact. To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective. This is indisputable and self-evident. Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus. I say it does. If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder. Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy. To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well. If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it). If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed. The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters. If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer, or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one. The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box. Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else? Side: True.
Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise. Yes That's not the same thing as stating a fact Yes . To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective. My statement regarding a fetus is that it’s a potential human Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus. As in your definition and mine may differ but even if I accept your definition most keep missing my point and thus the whole thrust of my argument If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder. It’s matters to me that a fetus seems to be given a right as in a right to life which takes precedence over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy , why should that be ? Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy. Why do you use the term “ murder “ when applied to a fetus ? To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well. Good that signifies you’re open to a dialogue that may be fruitful If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it) No , I don’t agree that a pregnancy is violating a woman’s rights nor did I state that , again why the term “ murder “? . If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed. “Compelling “ to you no , to me yes , I don’t understand what you mean by “good willed “ as in to who ? The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters. Yes , I agree If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer, But why would hope for that ? Why is what you define as “ truth “ on the matter the be all and end all ? or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one. You see again you seem to be claiming anyone that disagree with your position is “ close minded “ hardly fair is it ? The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box. Well at least that is a more balanced observation Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else? Ok I’ve read that and I find it not really worth commenting on as it’s just another’s opinion on the matter which fails to address my basic argument which everyone totally ignores in favour of addressing what I’ve repeated ad nauseum........ A fetus is reliant on a mother for sustenance , a fetus has zero rights to sustenance from a woman , a fetus is granted this sustenance by permission of the woman , this permission can be withdrawn at any time Why do people assume that they can tell a woman she cannot abort and thus deny a woman a right over her own body in favour of an assumed right a fetus should have ? If a fetus had a right to life why should it’s right supercede that of the woman ? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving They aren’t assuming. Their conclusion is based on premises. Their conclusion is because of other facts. Therefore the conclusion is neither assumed, nor is it begging the question. Why is a fetus a human life? Because it is known to be alive (so that’s one half of the question), and we now know that it’s genes are human. If it’s genes are human, and it’s alive, then it is either a human life, or human life requires more than being a living thing with a human genome. It is reasonable to think that a human life is a living thing with a human genome. What is a more reasonable definition then that? Side: True.
Insofar as you won’t answer my question, you are avoiding it. To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question. If you want to say that it is a potential human life, that’s fine. But then you must articulate what is potential about it. Is it the DNA or the life? If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable. If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why. Saying that she simply does is begging the question. But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters. If it didn’t, you would have no issue with answering it. So, is it potentially human DNA; or is it potentially alive? Side: True.
insofar as you won’t answer my question, I did answer it as in a fetus is a potential human life and if aborted well it’s no longer “ potential “ is it ? To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question. Incorrect , they do not make it a human life as it’s still a potential human life If you want to say that it is a potential But then you must articulate what is potential about it. Is it the DNA or the life? When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable The fetus has zero rights to sustenance from the mother and if you think otherwise , why would you assume this ? . If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why. My argument from day one on the issue is simple and plainly put but everyone attempts to re - state it or find a “ gotcha “ so here it is one more time ...... I believe the choice is purely a woman’s and no one else’s I couldn’t give a fuck if she aborts or not , it’s not my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do regarding the issue , her body , her choice Saying that she simply does is begging the question I never said that But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters. I haven’t avoided it , the answer I gave from the off suffices Side: True.
When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition I must assume you agree that a fetus has human DNA. Though the fetus is also most certainly alive, your contention is that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born. If this is incorrect, I’m sure you’ll let me know. Side: True.
You refuse to use exact words or give direct responses. However, you did not deny the premises that a fetus has human DNA and is living. You simply added that “if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition”. This implies that a human life is not alive if unborn. You can’t answer directly without contradicting one of these three premises. Side: True.
No , I don’t , I’ve made my position perfectly clear your contention was , You claimed I said , .......that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born..... I asked .... I’m still asking please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ? So maybe you can post the proof where I actually said this ? This implies that a human life is not alive until born Everything is “ alive “ sperm is alive a flake of dandruff is alive , do you call a fetus a human ? Side: True.
please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ? It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it. A fetus is living. A fetus has human DNA. It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you. There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable. I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it. So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make , remarkable you cannot just admit your error A fetus is living. What do you mean by " living "when does life begin ? A fetus has human DNA It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you. There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable. Abortion being one I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to simply clearly state that a fetus is a potential human life that it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill Let's just for argument's sake say I agreed with this position as you put it I would still say yes abortion is perfectly acceptable even you want to call a fetus a baby as many do , abort away or don't Side: True.
So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make It is very telling about the nature of this exchange, the fact that you believe that I claimed you said anything direct, and worse, you felt that this is an accusation. When I said “There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable” you replied Abortion being one. Now I’m glad you finally accept the logical, scientifically derived position that a fetus is a human life. I’m going to let that sit for awhile, maybe it will germinate. But since you reverted and contradicted your position here in the very next sentence, I don’t have hope for further discussion. Stomping your foot and repeating yourself does not make a valid argument. Well child, I’ll let the more patient adults take it from here. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I did say potential human life and you knew exactly what I meant as your failure to address what I actually said is again typical of you , maybe you should try debating gun rights again as in your swimming pool v gun deaths argument as that argument demonstrates your irrationality beautifully also Side: True.
1
point
Where did you get that from? The ear is a part of the fetus, not meant to separate. The fetus, on the other hand, is supposed to separate and therefore receives nutrients directly, as opposed to all the different appendages receiving nutrients and combining into a Power Ranger Megazord-esque organism. Side: True.
No. The difference between the two is an existential one. No one disputes than an ear is a human life because ears exist to serve the organism as a whole. It's functional, it's an organ designed to serve the organism. A fetus is different because it's existence is not tied to serving an organism as a whole. It is the organism; it has organs. My point in saying that the fetus has different DNA than mom and dad was that it's not just an organ like an ear or eye. Side: True.
1
point
but rather a part of the mother If it's part of the mother, then why does it have separate cells? Yes, it gets nutrients from the mother, but it isn't the same as an eye or an ear, as you claim. you cannot move your ear freely, just like you cannot move a fetus freely Right, but an ear doesn't float around your head like a fetus does the womb. Side: True.
1
point
|