#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.
|
Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
I am wondering what some of you think. Do you think it is a human?
Yes
Side Score: 329
|
No
Side Score: 221
|
|
5
points
4
points
4
points
3
points
2 human DNA combined to produce a single cell that has its own DNA that is different from its mother. Hence, its already a human and not a tissue the question is not if the embryo/fetus is human, but a human being. There is a huge difference here. Your fingernail clippings are as human as you are, yet you are a human being and the fingernail clippings are not. Side: No
3
points
Now, I see a reason to Dispute. the question is not if the embryo/fetus is human, but a human being. There is a huge difference here. Your fingernail clippings are as human as you are, yet you are a human being and the fingernail clippings are not. My fingerclipings, hair and skin cells has my own DNA,sure. But a fetus is cell which was produced by combining 2 genes to form a being which has an independent string of DNA from its mother. An egg or sperm is a mere extension of the human body. But a fetus is not. It is a human being in its first stage of life Side: Yes
2
points
sigh The characteristics of a living being are 1. Knows how to organize 2. Knows how to acquire energy 3. Responds to their environment 4. Has the ability to reproduce 5. Has the ability to adapt 6. Contains genetic information. What differs a fetus from a normal cell is the fact that it came from a single cell that has learned how to reproduce itself by acquiring their mothers energy. They know how to respond to their environment and adapt to it. And they know how to organize their still growing organs. It is a stupid argument to compare an ordinary cell with a developing human being Side: Yes
1. All "human beings" are the young of the human biological parents who created them. 2. Likewise, a human child - even in the first days of their life is the biological young of the parents who created them. So, they (prenatal children) are what their parents are. They are human beings as well. Side: Yes
It has the genetic code of a human. I don't know people can deny this. The only things I can think of are extreme ignorance and extreme self-centeredness, which has psychologically blocked one from accepting that abortions kill innocent humans. What else is it, if not a human? Is it a giraffe? Is it a penguin? Is it ant? Is it ocelot? Is it a hippopotamus? Is it a rhino? Side: Yes
I don't believe people are on the no side because of those two options given. A human is defined as "1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person 3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals 3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans 4. Having the form of a human. 5. Made up of humans." In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo. So you can't really distinguish it from another animal. And as for the "subject to the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans," and "Having the form of a human," it can't have the weakness, imperfections, nor fragility of a human because it technically can't. It also doesn't have the form of a human. Where are the arms? The legs? The face? It doesn't look, act, or have the same flaws like us. Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, has a 96% DNA match with us. Even humans have a DNA difference. We have a 99.9% DNA match with eachother. So whos genetic code does that embryo have? Mine? Yours? Side: No
In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo. So you can't really distinguish it from another animal. So becaues a fetus doesnt look like a human it cannot be human? Even though it comes from a human? It doesn't look, act, or have the same flaws like us. Again. Looks determine what can be human? Is that moral? Even humans have a DNA difference. We have a 99.9% DNA match with eachother. So whos genetic code does that embryo have? Mine? Yours? I do not see why you would ask such a question. The fetus shares DNA with the parents. The fetus is born as a combination of the mother and father's DNA. Side: Yes
3
points
"In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo." Wow, you still believe that lie spewed out by Ernst Haeckel which was disproven 100 years ago? Click the attached link and scroll down and you'll see pictures of a human and a chicken embryos. Side: Yes
The Law of Biogenesis: that which "is" is from that which is the same. Therefore, if the parents are human, then the child too will be human. It doesn't matter what it looks like or acts like, otherwise you could do the same for deformed already born humans. Under your own logic, then army veterans who have been deformed from bombs and do not function properly are, therefore, no longer humans. Side: Yes
Well of course we did my dear primate. I don't care what kind of delusional rationalizations you use to reject the what the empirical sciences say, but whether we are made of star dust is not a question of evolutionary biology. That's a question of astrophysics. So unless you want to be nonsensical, you have admit that we originated from star dust. Side: No
"Evolution is not empirical but entirely fictional" Is this a self-explanatory-logical-truth, or do you have logically sound arguments to support this claim? Also, please tell me why the evolution / creationism debate is relevant to the fact that the atoms in the human body stem from stars exploding. Side: No
I already rebutted evolution by asking one question for one event that evolution uses as evidence to support itself. That is my sound argument: you can have millions of years of evidence to support something but if one thing comes and falsifies it, then it cannot be true, regardless of how much "evidence" has been used to support it. It is relevant because you brought it up by saying we evolved and because of that, then they too deserve the life. Moreover, everything, in all debates and in all categories, comes down to one simple question: "Is God real and if so, which one?" Side: Yes
1) So you are saying we have a piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. You say that if one piece of evidence contradicts evolution then evolution is falsified. I agree with the second premise, but your first is decidedly not true. We have no evidence that shows that sexual organisms couldn't have evolved. If I am wrong, I would like you to refer to a scientific source supporting your claim that there is evidence that contradicts evolution. 2) It is not relevant because even if we evolved from or were created from star dust, we are still made of star dust. Your argument appears to be that since the fetus comes from a human being it is a human being with all its inherent rights. Since the first human (if you are a creationist) or the first single celled organisms (if you are an evolutionist) is made up from star dust, the rights of the first human should be the same rights that are assigned to star dust. So the truth value of what I am saying is independent of which position is true. So you can argue all you want, but no matter how true creationism is, it won't contradict what I am saying. That is to say; your argument is irrelevant to the point I am making. Side: No
You don't understand the argument..... not all primates have the same chromosome count. Actually, if I am correct, I believe that only humans have a different numbers than all other "primates". Therefore, along the path to homo sapiens, just starting the logic from primates, you would not be able to reproduce. Look up facts, please. Side: Yes
And do you know what happens when they reproduce? The new born goes back to the original... it does not stay as the new. The new is never passed down because of, guess what, natural selection. The new chromosome count is weeded out. You said it yourself that they reproduce fertile offspring. Side: Yes
English is my fourth language and I'm replying to you from my cellphone. Side: No
1
point
3
points
1
point
Are plants alive? Living simply means that it can take in from its environment and grow and sustain itself, in a sense. What does this sense mean? It means that it can take nutrients from its surroundings and keep itself functioning. A fetus and embryo are both taking in, though it be from the mother, and grow and sustain themselves. Therefore, they are alive. Side: Yes
1
point
Are plants alive? Yes. Living simply means that it can take in from its environment and grow and sustain itself, in a sense. Yes, this is the definition thank, you for that. What does this sense mean? I assume you're getting at the fetus being alive, and I'd say yes. It means that it can take nutrients from its surroundings and keep itself functioning. A fetus can do that so I think I'm right, yes! A fetus and embryo are both taking in, though it be from the mother, and grow and sustain themselves. Yes, I was right! Therefore, they are alive. You done? We've established the fetus is alive, that was no debate at all. What we can't seem to agree on for some reason is that the fetus, is not a human being it's a human fetus. Get this, semen, is in humans. It is in fact alive, in how it takes nutrients from it's surrounding, and it moves on it's own, it's a cell of a human, and it's alive. Does that mean it's a human being? Hell no! It's a human semen, still. A human has characteristics, that semen, and a fetus just don't have...yet. Side: No
You done? We've established the fetus is alive, that was no debate at all. What we can't seem to agree on for some reason is that the fetus, is not a human being it's a human fetus. A human being is simply a human. A being is that which "is". It comes from the root of to be. Therefore a human being is semantically "is human". A human fetus is, therefore, a human being. Get this, semen, is in humans. It is in fact alive, in how it takes nutrients from it's surrounding, and it moves on it's own, it's a cell of a human, and it's alive. Does that mean it's a human being? Hell no! It's a human semen, still. A human has characteristics, that semen, and a fetus just don't have...yet. Sperm is from the parent; a fetus has it's own genetic makeup. It doesn't matter if it is a person or not. The mother has no justified reason to kill the being. Furthermore, the law of biogenesis clearly states that which "is" is from that which it came from in regards to reproduction. Therefore, because it is a new organism with its own genetic code, then it is a human being. Side: Yes
1
point
It could be argued that the mother has no objectively justified reason to allow a fetus to live in her body, either. Any way you slice it, you're digging into subjective morality. Morality is objective. Even if one were to argue that the child is an independent human being and that the mother is simply making it such that she is not the carrier of it, which makes the child die, since it cannot survive, it does not make it right. I don't care if she wants to have a choice about what to do: keep it or not. She has an obligation to do it. Side: Yes
1
point
Morality is not objective, it is subjective to the individual. Just because there is a general consensus that a certain thing is immoral does not make it so objectively. A culture that practices child sacrifice, for example, may be in conflict with your personal morals, but well in keeping with their own. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? I have to ask- objectively speaking, what obligation does the mother have to the child? And I mean objectively. That means that religion, culture, and legality do not apply, as whether something is accepted by a religion, a culture, or a government are subjective and specific to said groups. An atheist (or a member of another religion, for that matter) doesn't answer to god. A member of another culture does not answer to the values of your own culture. A member of another nation does not answer to the laws of your own. Side: No
Morality is not objective, it is subjective to the individual. Just because there is a general consensus that a certain thing is immoral does not make it so objectively. Morality is objectively objective. This means that we all have a sense of what morality is, but we do not always do it, making it appear as if morality is subjective. A culture that practices child sacrifice, for example, may be in conflict with your personal morals, but well in keeping with their own. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? And they would know deep down that they are doing wrong, to a certain sense. I have to ask- objectively speaking, what obligation does the mother have to the child? And I mean objectively. That means that religion, culture, and legality do not apply, as whether something is accepted by a religion, a culture, or a government are subjective and specific to said groups. An atheist (or a member of another religion, for that matter) doesn't answer to god. A member of another culture does not answer to the values of your own culture. A member of another nation does not answer to the laws of your own. It is her obligation to give birth to the child. Wait, what? Religion is that which displays what objectivity is. Side: Yes
1
point
Morality is by no means objective. Different individuals have different values. Different groups have different values. Different cultures have different values. Different nations have different values. I highly doubt that you could find any two people who had an identical concept of morality. It is not an appearance of being subjective- it is in fact subjective. For what reason do you feel justified in making the claim that a culture that practices child sacrifice would see that action as being wrong? You did not answer my question, so I repeat it. Objectively speaking, what obligation does the mother have to the child? In other words, what obligates her to carry the child to term and give birth? Religion is many things, but I contend that it has never been, nor ever will be objective in the slightest. Side: No
Morality is by no means objective. Different individuals have different values. Different groups have different values. Different cultures have different values. Different nations have different values. Everyone has the same values. The issue is whether they accept their deep moral basis, or whether they don't. The law is written on our hearts. I highly doubt that you could find any two people who had an identical concept of morality. It is not an appearance of being subjective- it is in fact subjective. We all have the same sense of morality. The issue is whether they accept what is morally good, or whether they transpose their own desires over it, claiming that to be moral. For what reason do you feel justified in making the claim that a culture that practices child sacrifice would see that action as being wrong? They have a deep down understanding of what they are doing; everyone has a deep sense of that which is good and just and godly. The question is whether they want to accept it or not: whether they decide to rebel or not. You did not answer my question, so I repeat it. Objectively speaking, what obligation does the mother have to the child? In other words, what obligates her to carry the child to term and give birth? It is morally her obligation to care for those who cannot care for themselves. This is not just her own child, but also everyone she knows. We are intended to be God's image: care for and love others. We would not be loving this child if we throw it to the side, saying that it can care for itself. That is not love at all. Religion is many things, but I contend that it has never been, nor ever will be objective in the slightest. It is that which helps us understand that which is morally written on our hearts. Side: Yes
1
point
Nope. Everybody does not have the same values. I don't know of anyone else who believes that. If you are asserting that all values are the same and morality is universal, please provide some evidence to that end. Sorry, but your assertion that this hypothetical woman is under some form of obligation is based on your own moral framework. As such, it is not really applicable to anyone else, except insofar as legislation has been passed supporting some issues of morality that are generally agreed upon. She is not under any obligation to love that child, and she may not even believe in love. Side: No
1
point
Oh, and just as a clarification: a cell is not a human. Thank you, that's kind of the point I've been making. A fetus is cells, not yet a human. A human is the collection of cells that aggregate into one. So two cells is a human? So regardless of whether this number of cells is tiny or many, the collection of cells is the human. From a secular standpoint of course. So you believe two cells IS a human. Hm. Side: No
Thank you, that's kind of the point I've been making. A fetus is cells, not yet a human. A fetus is not a cell but a collection of cells. So two cells is a human? Is they have aggregated together with a new genetic sequence, then yes. So you believe two cells IS a human. Hm. Yes, as long as they are not identical to another organism, if you are thinking of sperm being separate from the host. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
It has the genetic code of a human. I don't know people can deny this. Does this imply that all human genetic codes are the same? What else is it, if not a human? Is it a giraffe? Is it a penguin? Is it ant? Is it ocelot? Is it a hippopotamus? Is it a rhino? If not a human? It could logically be everything there; few and far in between. Technically. No, not all at once. Side: No
2
points
This is a rediculous question from the standpoint of science. It is simple, the sperm has half a chromosome, the egg has the other half, when they meet they form a complete human chromosome. A new DNA structure is made that is unique and this makes the fetus an individual being. Sure it isn't fully developed yet, but neither is a 5 year old. Side: Yes
So because it contains human DNA that makes it human? Only 10% of the human body is actually human cells. The remaining 90% of cells are foreign bacteria, some of which are necessary for the health of our body. So basically, if it's only a human because it has human DNA wouldn't it be true that only 10% of the human body has natural rights? Wouldn't it then per se be alright to kill those 90%? I don't really think all this gobbledygook about the human genome and human DNA really does much to explain why the fetus is a human being. Side: No
1
point
The point isnt that it has a DNA code in it, the point is its a new DNA code different from the mothers and is multiplying which means two things: since it has all the information to make a fully functional human beings (something a blood cell or skin cell doesnt have) and since it is growing that means it is alive and human. Second, since its DNA is different from the mothers it is not part of the mother therefore she has no right to kill it. Side: Yes
I am afraid that doesn't really answer my implied question. You say we haven't got the right to kill a human fetus because it has the information to make a fully functional human being. But those 90% of cells I am talking about haven't got the information to develop into a human being, so shouldn't it be alright to kill them, just like it's alright to kill deadly diseases with penicilin? It appears to me, that since we don't think it's alright to kill those 90% a human being is constituted by something more than genetics. So since genetics aren't sufficient to argue that something is human, your genetical argument is not sufficient to argue that a fetus is a human being. Side: Yes
You should edit your debate, Lizzie. I think you intended to ask "Do you believe a human embryo/fetus is a human being." It was clear (to me) what you were asking, but you can see how the trolls jumped at the chance to create some diversions with it too. I more than believe a human being in the embryonic and or fetal stage of their life is a human being. They are human organisms just as we all are and just as we all were when we too were in that stage of our own developments. Just as an amoeba is a living creature and a living being (even though they are only one cell in size). So, too is a human being when we are about that size. Finally, the clincher (in my view) is the fact that a human being in the first days of their life, growth, development, etc. is the young of the parents who created them. A biological father becomes a biological father at conception. Side: Yes
What has the potential to be therefore is. You are stunting out a life, possibilities, simply because you can't handle the idea of being responsible. If you want your body - we have C Sections and the ability to prevent scars. If you don't want your child, even if the product of some horrible act that is certainly not that child's fault, you can adopt. Side: Yes
1
point
An embryo/fetus is certainly human, and given they are not a portion of a whole, but rather their own whole (as opposed to, say, fingernails or dead skin), they would be a human being as well. The better question would be, do you believe the embryo/fetus is a person? I do not, based on a number of factors. A fetus is human, and a human being, but personhood is something more nebulous that requires significantly more development to arise. Even an infant is not yet a person, strictly speaking. Personhood entails individuality and consciousness, which aren't yet present even at birth. Side: Yes
Yes I've never accepted the argument that it isn't life, or that it isn't human life, and I've said that multiple times on this site already. But I've also never accepted that aborting it is murder. Killing, yes indeed. It is killing. But to be murder then by definition the society has to declared it an illegal form of killing. The fact that it isn't illegal means it isn't murder. The pro lifers then will trumpet how horrible that supposedly is, but they're wrong again. Human society has many examples where killing is allowed or considered justifiable. You can't be absolute about the life of a fetus but then not give a damn about police or soldiers killing, or excessive force home defense, or high risk surgeries resulting in death, etc. Side: Yes
1
point
What is a human being? Let's start there. A human being is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. They are alive. Understand? Okay. To be alive means your heart must be beating. Is your heart beating? Yes? Therefore, you are alive. You are a human being. This debate is about whether or not we should classify a fetus as a human being. Fetus:an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. That is the definition of a fetus. A human baby. A fetus' heart start's to beat 3 weeks after it is conceived, and it is classified as an actual human baby 8 weeks after conception. So, to answer your question: Yes, a fetus is a human being. Side: Yes
|
3
points
No, it is a human fetus. I've said this before, but if you keep making debates about this, I'm gonna keep saying it. Human nails, human blood, human hair, human teeth, human saliva, human skin, human semen or human fetuses are all human, but that doesn't make them a human being. Side: No
2
points
1
point
Okay then. I don't think anyone can say the fetus is a human being before the 5th week. Before the 5th week, the fetus has not developed any kind of organs and on top of that it is unconscious. You can say, like chuz, that it is a human in a fetal stage of it's development - yeah sure. But can you prove it? No. Side: No
There is no offical time to when its life starts. It is a living organism. It is a human. A man in a coma is unconscious. Is he no longer human? Do you determine humaness by what is conscious? You made the claim therefore the burden is on you to show me that it is not a human. Side: Yes
2
points
It is a living organism. Lots of things are living organisms. It is a human You can't prove that A man in a coma is unconscious. Is he no longer human? He has a human brain, human developed organs and body - so yes, I would consider him a human. You made the claim therefore the burden is on you to show me that it is not a human. I am the negative, so I would say it was your burden to prove that it is, but whatever. I can't prove to you that it isn't a human being. But I can't prove to you that my saliva isn't going to develop into a human being either, should we stop killing saliva by spitting it out or swallowing it? Side: No
But I can't prove to you that my saliva isn't going to develop into a human being either, should we stop killing saliva by spitting it out or swallowing it? Saliva is mostly just a liquid. It cannot replicate cells and become an organism. Lots of things are living organisms. Yes. Like a human fetus. He has a human brain, human developed organs and body - so yes, I would consider him a human. So you judge a human by the quantity of organs they have? Is that fair? If a man is missing an organ he is less human? By your logic this is the case. Side: Yes
1
point
Saliva is mostly just a liquid. It cannot replicate cells and become an organism. You know stem-cells? You know what it is? Stem-cells have the ability to turn into other cells - like sperm-cells. Stem-cells you can find in almost anything. Like skin, which makes your skin a potential for developing into a human being. Yes. Like a human fetus. So we shouldn't abort fetuses because it is an organism? So you judge a human by the quantity of organs they have? Is that fair? If a man is missing an organ he is less human? By your logic this is the case. I mostly go by the brain and consciousness. If you're missing both those things I would not consider you a human being. Side: No
You know stem-cells? You know what it is? Stem-cells have the ability to turn into other cells - like sperm-cells. Stem-cells you can find in almost anything. Like skin, which makes your skin a potential for developing into a human being Yes. But skin and saliva by itself will not replicate cells and become a human. It doesnt have the potential. Skin by itself dies. I dont see why you even claim it to have potential. So we shouldn't abort fetuses because it is an organism? This isnt about abortion. We are discussing if the fetus is a human or not. I mostly go by the brain and consciousness. If you're missing both those things I would not consider you a human being. Again an unconscious man isnt human by your logic and the baby born without a brain isnt human either. That isnt a proper way to judge a human. People with mental disorders or who have brain injuries are less human by your logic. That isnt a fair way to determine what is a human. Side: Yes
2
points
Yes. But skin and saliva by itself will not replicate cells and become a human That doesn't take away the potential life. Skin by itself dies. But whilst alive it has the potential. I dont see why you even claim it to have potential. Because it contains stem-cells, which can turn into sperm-cells, and sperm-cells are potential lives. This isnt about abortion. We are discussing if the fetus is a human or not. Okay, it doesn't really take away my point anyways so let me ask again. The fact that the fetus is an organism, is that enough for you to call it ''human'' ? Again an unconscious man isnt human by your logic and the baby born without a brain isnt human either. That isnt a proper way to judge a human. People with mental disorders or who have brain injuries are less human by your logic. That isnt a fair way to determine what is a human. No, I never said an unconscious man isn't human. I said if your missing both a brain and consciousness, then in my opinion, you are not a human being. And brain injury - no that is not what I said. A man with a brain injury still has a brain, that is what makes him human. Human beings can be defected. Do you have a brain? Do you have a consciousness? If yes to both, you are human. Do you have a human brain and no consciousness? Still human. Do you have no human brain, but somehow still a conscious? Then you must be human. Do you have no human brain and no consciousness? Then no, I don't think you are a human being. Side: No
That doesn't take away the potential life. Yes. Yes it does actually. In adult they are only used to repair the body or replenish tissue. Not become it's own organism. But whilst alive it has the potential. You are not understanding a stem cell. The stem cells of skin are used to repair damage to the skin not make an entire organism. Because it contains stem-cells, which can turn into sperm-cells, and sperm-cells are potential lives. Sperm cells are not potential lives. Sperm cells die in about a few days after their creation and when they go to the egg they just transfer DNA. Okay, it doesn't really take away my point anyways so let me ask again. The fact that the fetus is an organism, is that enough for you to call it ''human'' ? What other kind of organism is it? It is a human organism and just a human being. You are an organism. A fetus is an organism. A fetus is a human being. No, I never said an unconscious man isn't human. You said the fetus isn't conscious and thus weighed humanness on consciousness. I said if your missing both a brain and consciousness, then in my opinion, you are not a human being. Again. So the child born without a brain in not a human? That is a little mean. Weighing consciousness shouldn't determine if you are human. A man with a brain injury still has a brain, that is what makes him human. So a human has to have a brain? Is that really correct? Almost every species on earth has a brain. Almost every species. Are they more human depending on brain size or something? Do you have a brain? Do you have a consciousness? If yes to both, you are human. Do you have a human brain and no consciousness? Still human. Do you have no human brain, but somehow still a conscious? Then you must be human. Do you have no human brain and no consciousness? Then no, I don't think you are a human being. Honestly that isn't even a fair system of judgement. Obviously the fetus is still human. You are just saying that a brain and consciousness makes you a human. There is no definitive answer to what makes a human a human. I guess it goes by opinion. According to you though the baby born without a brain isn't human which I find very saddening. Side: Yes
1
point
Yes. Yes it does actually. In adult they are only used to repair the body or replenish tissue. Not become it's own organism. That is false You are not understanding a stem cell. The stem cells of skin are used to repair damage to the skin not make an entire organism. It has the ability to turn into other cells, so yes. I understand enough of stem-cells to know that they are able to turn into sperm. There have been experiments on it- Sperm cells are not potential lives. Yes they are Sperm cells die in about a few days after their creation and when they go to the egg they just transfer DNA. Just because something dies doesn't take away their ability whilst alive. Everything dies - in those few days sperm is alive, it has the potential to create life. A potential life. What other kind of organism is it? It is a human organism and just a human being. You are an organism. A fetus is an organism. A fetus is a human being. A plant is an organism - what's your point? You said the fetus isn't conscious and thus weighed humanness on consciousness. That was about half of the entire sentence I said. Don't say I said something I didn't say. Again. So the child born without a brain in not a human? That is a little mean. Weighing consciousness shouldn't determine if you are human. Again - if you are missing BOTH. BOTH for god's sakes. Not one, both. If you are missing both, I wouldn't consider you a human being. Almost every species on earth has a brain. Almost every species. Are they more human depending on brain size or something? Only one specie has a human brain. Obviously the fetus is still human. I never said it wasn't. There is no definitive answer to what makes a human a human. I didn't say that there is. I just said I wouldn't consider a thing without consciousness or a human brain a human being. According to you though the baby born without a brain isn't human which I find very saddening. No, that is apparently what you understood by my statement, which also is saddening. Side: No
That is false Okay then. Since you deny fact. Show me an instance where an adult's stem cells becomes an entire organism. It cannot. If you make the claim then prove it. I would like to see it. Because if you took biology you would know this. It has the ability to turn into other cells, so yes. I understand enough of stem-cells to know that they are able to turn into sperm. There have been experiments on it- Yes. Sperm is an organism. The cell on its own will not do so. It will replenish what other cells cannot do. That is the point of a stem cell. Yes they are Prove it. Potential lives implies that it will become something else. It dies after a few days and dies during fertilization. Just because something dies doesn't take away their ability whilst alive. Everything dies - in those few days sperm is alive, it has the potential to create life. A potential life. Potential life and the potential to create life are two different things. Potential life means that the organism or object will become an functional organism on its own. A sperm cell on its own will not evolve into anything. Yes it has the potential to create life. A plant is an organism - what's your point? My point? This organism came from a Homo sapien. Same for a plant, or fish, or bird, or almost anything. It is a human. That was about half of the entire sentence I said. Don't say I said something I didn't say. That is exactly what you claimed. You said the fetus isnt conscious and so I said you judge humanness by consciousness. Again - if you are missing BOTH. BOTH for god's sakes. Not one, both. If you are missing both, I wouldn't consider you a human being. No. I said that the baby born without a brain isnt a human by your logic. I am positive it is still human regardless of the fact that it has no brain. It is sad to see that you say that that mother's child isn't human. Only one specie has a human brain. Excuse me? I am aware of that. Did I say almost every animal has a "human brain"? No. I said a brain. Not a human brain. I dont even see why you decided to say that. I never said it wasn't. Sorry let me correct myself. It is still a human. I didn't say that there is. I just said I wouldn't consider a thing without consciousness or a human brain a human being. I know. That is why I brought up the bit about the baby being born without a brain. I am 100% positive it is still a human being. No, that is apparently what you understood by my statement, which also is saddening. Umm yes. By your logic it isn't human. It has no brain and isn't conscious. It is sad that you deem it as "not a human". I perfectly understood your belief and I acknowledge it. So I applied your logic to the brainless baby. Side: Yes
1
point
Okay then. Since you deny fact. Show me an instance where an adult's stem cells becomes an entire organism. The sperm on its own will not do so. Did I ever say that? Potential life and the potential to create life are two different things. Potential life means that the organism or object will become an functional organism on its own. A sperm cell on its own will not evolve into anything. Yes it has the potential to create life. Does a sperm have the possibility to turn into life? Yes. Potential life. My point? This organism came from a Homo sapien. Same for a plant, or fish, or bird, or almost anything. It is a human. The two bottom layers of skin are organisms too, the top layer is dead organism. And that has human DNA too. That is exactly what you claimed. You said the fetus isnt conscious and so I said you judge humanness by consciousness. No, that is not what I said. No. I said that the baby born without a brain isnt a human by your logic. No, that is not my logic. It is sad to see that you say that that mother's child isn't human. ??? Well .. it's easy to debate when you put false accusations in my mouth. Quote the place I said that a mother's child is not a human, please I beg you. Excuse me? I am aware of that. Did I say almost every animal has a "human brain"? You asked me if every animal with a brain is considered human. I made a point that only human beings have a human brain, and that is what makes them human. That is why I brought up the bit about the baby being born without a brain. I am 100% positive it is still a human being. Do you have proof? Now you made a claim, you have the burden, remember ;) Umm yes. By your logic it isn't human. It has no brain and isn't conscious. It is sad that you deem it as "not a human". I perfectly understood your belief and I acknowledge it. So I applied your logic to the brainless baby. Yes now you said the right thing. But in your argument you say that I don't consider a child without a consciousness a human, and I don't consider a child without a brain a human. This is false, as I numerous times said, that I think when you are missing both those parts, that's when I fail to see it being a human being. Can I ask, out of curiosity, if the brainless baby has a consciousness? I believe it has, since the mother of the brainless baby claims the baby knows when it's mother and when it's the grandmother that holds him. So I believe it has a consciousness, so I think it is a human being. A 5 week old fetus as no brain, has no consciousness, has no organs of any kind. I don't see why it's a human. By stating the obvious point with ''it being an organism'' I fail to see the logic in that, when practically anything alive is an organism. Plants, flies .. cells. Side: No
turned stem cells into eggs in mice, which went on to give birth to healthy and fertile offspring. The technique can either be used with stem cells taken from embryos, or ones created artificially from other adult cells such as skin, according to their study published in the Science journal. Your site manipulated the stem cells in order to make an egg. Like I said. A stem cell on its own will not become an organism. Did I ever say that? Yes. You claimed that it was potential life. Does a sperm have the possibility to turn into life? Yes. Potential life. The sperm will not turn into life. It will help create life. It will not evolve into anything else. Again I don't think you are understanding what the difference between potential life and the potential to create life is. The two bottom layers of skin are organisms too, the top layer is dead organism. And that has human DNA too. Skin is a component of an organism. It is a cluster of well structured cells. Your skin is not an organism. It is simply a component. It is not a living organism. It is a organ but not living. No, that is not what I said. Do I again have to tell you that all I did was apply your logic to the fetus? You said if it isn't conscious or has a brain it isn't human. No, that is not my logic. Really? Did you not say this: *Do you have no human brain and no consciousness? Then no, I don't think you are a human being. The child has no brain. It is not conscious. That fits your definition of human. ??? Well .. it's easy to debate when you put false accusations in my mouth. Quote the place I said that a mother's child is not a human, please I beg you. Sorry. Say should be think. Not say. I only applied your logic to the baby. You asked me if every animal with a brain is considered human. I made a point that only human beings have a human brain, and that is what makes them human. No I didn't. I made a statement. My question was "Are they more human depending on brain size or something"? I never asked you if every animal with a brain is considered a human. Do you have proof? Now you made a claim, you have the burden, remember ;) Anencephaly. That is the term for it. Also like you once said. It has organs. They wouldn't call it a baby if it wasn't human. Again this is only logic. Check this out: http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=109731 This pretty much shows you well enoughthat it is human. Also again this is my opinion. Yes now you said the right thing. But in your argument you say that I don't consider a child without a consciousness a human, and I don't consider a child without a brain a human. Look at wiki and look at symptoms. It is listed that it isn't conscious. This is false, as I numerous times said, that I think when you are missing both those parts, that's when I fail to see it being a human being. The child is missing both parts. Can I ask, out of curiosity, if the brainless baby has a consciousness? I believe it has, since the mother of the brainless baby claims the baby knows when it's mother and when it's the grandmother that holds him. So I believe it has a consciousness, so I think it is a human being. No. The brainless baby has no consciousness. Sorry. A 5 week old fetus as no brain, has no consciousness, has no organs of any kind. I don't see why it's a human. By stating the obvious point with ''it being an organism'' I fail to see the logic in that, when practically anything alive is an organism. Plants, flies .. cells. It is alive. It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. These are properties of a living being. It is a Life. It is growing and will grow a brain. Just by that I can see how this would logically be considered a human. Although I think this is coming down to opinion. Side: Yes
1
point
Did I ever say that? Yes. You claimed that it was potential life. I didn't claim it was potential life on it's own, no. potential life and the potential to create life is. What is the difference, tell me? Because I don't think there is. a potential to be life and a potential to create life ... ??? Skin is a component of an organism. It is a cluster of well structured cells. Your skin is not an organism. It is simply a component. Anything alive is an organism It is a organ but not living. The top layer of skin is dead, but the two layers underneath are not. Do I again have to tell you that all I did was apply your logic to the fetus? You said if it isn't conscious or has a brain it isn't human. That is not your original statement of what I said. No I didn't. I made a statement. My question was "Are they more human depending on brain size or something"? I never asked you if every animal with a brain is considered a human. This is your original statement: So a human has to have a brain? Is that really correct? Almost every species on earth has a brain. Almost every species. Anencephaly. That is the term for it. Also like you once said. It has organs. They wouldn't call it a baby if it wasn't human. Again this is only logic. Check this out: http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=109731 Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. And a fetus younger than 5 weeks does not have organs, a brain or consciousness and those are the fetuses I'm talking about. Look at wiki and look at symptoms. It is listed that it isn't conscious. By whom? Wikipedia??? Like that is a reliable source. But whatever, no brain and no consciousness?? Not a human being in my opinion. It is alive. Flies are alive It’s growing Plants grow It’s developing Caviar develops. My point? The things you've listed aren't proof of a fetus being a human being. It is growing and will grow a brain You can't prove that. Side: No
I didn't claim it was potential life on it's own, no. This is your statement. Me: Sperm cell are not potential lives. You: Yes they are. Sounds like a claim. What is the difference, tell me? Because I don't think there is. a potential to be life and a potential to create life ... ??? Potential life is for the organism itself. When you say it has potential life that means that it has the potential to live. The potential to create life is different. You as a woman have the potential to create life. Anything alive is an organism Skin isn't alive. It is a component. It is like hair. Hair is a component. It is made up of cells. The organism is you. The top layer of skin is dead, but the two layers underneath are not. Your skin isn't "alive". It is a cluster of cells. By itself it will do nothing. It is not alive. It is a component. If you are going to claim it is an organism then show me an article that says skin is an organism. That is not your original statement of what I said. Of course not. I just told you what I did. I explain my actions. This is your original statement: So a human has to have a brain? Is that really correct? Almost every species on earth has a brain. Almost every species. Thank you. You just proved me right. I never asked if animal has a human brain. You just proved me correct. Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. And a fetus younger than 5 weeks does not have organs, a brain or consciousness and those are the fetuses I'm talking about. I never said potential life is what the baby is. I said the child was a human. What are you even saying? By whom? Wikipedia??? Like that is a reliable source. But whatever, no brain and no consciousness?? Not a human being in my opinion Wow. Like you could scroll down to check the sources to see if they were telling the truth. Literally. Who takes the time to write fake stuff about Anencephaly? Flies are alive I was aware of that. Plants grow I am aware of that. Caviar develops. My point? The things you've listed aren't proof of a fetus being a human being. Caviar isn't alive and it doesn't grow once made. So making that statement is useless. You can't prove that. Oh okay. Even though as a fetus develops it is supposed to grow a brain. I see. I had no idea that a fetus can't develop a brain. How did you get a brain? It didn't just spawn there. You had to develop you brain as a fetus. A fetus will typically develop a brain. Side: Yes
1
point
I didn't claim it was potential life on it's own, no. This is your statement. Me: Sperm cell are not potential lives. You: Yes they are. Sounds like a claim. That is a claim. But not a claim that sperm is a potential life by itself. Potential life is for the organism itself. When you say it has potential life that means that it has the potential to live. The potential to create life is different. You as a woman have the potential to create life. Okay, do you remember how we got to debate about the potential thing? I'm a little bit confused by now :p I think we got ourselves into a dead end with this debate. Skin isn't alive. It is a component. It is like hair. Hair is a component. It is made up of cells. The organism is you. The top layer is like hair, not the two layers underneath. Your skin isn't "alive". It is a cluster of cells. By itself it will do nothing. It is not alive. It is a component. If you are going to claim it is an organism then show me an article that says skin is an organism. Lol, when I tried to google ''organism skin'' the only thing I got was stuff about orgasms. This is proof that our world is seriously fucked up. But again to the skin thing. I do not have an article, sorry :) But the bottom layers of skin are not dead, they are living cells. Thank you. You just proved me right. I never asked if animal has a human brain. You just proved me correct. You said that you didn't even understand why I mentioned that only one specie has a human brain. Because you said ''almost all species on earth have brains'' that is why. I never said potential life is what the baby is. I said the child was a human. What are you even saying? Whatever, I can't keep updating you on the things you said yourself, makes this too complecating. Wow. Like you could scroll down to check the sources to see if they were telling the truth. Literally. Who takes the time to write fake stuff about Anencephaly? I don't know, I just pointed out that wikipedia is not a reliable source. I didn't say your article was fake. Caviar isn't alive and it doesn't grow once made. So making that statement is useless. Caviar is practically ...fish fetus. Or to say it differently, if we wouldn't have caught those fish eggs and eaten them, they would have turn out to be real fish. Oh okay. Even though as a fetus develops it is supposed to grow a brain. I see. I had no idea that a fetus can't develop a brain. How did you get a brain? It didn't just spawn there. You had to develop you brain as a fetus. A fetus will typically develop a brain. It is supposed to grow a brain yes, and typically it does, yes. But can you prove that a currently 5week pregnant lady's fetus IS going to develop a brain? No. Side: No
That is a claim. But not a claim that sperm is a potential life by itself. Potential life is only for the organism itself. Okay, do you remember how we got to debate about the potential thing? I'm a little bit confused by now :p I think we got ourselves into a dead end with this debate. You didn't know the difference between potential life and potential to create life. The top layer is like hair, not the two layers underneath. Okay? It still isn't an organism. Lol, when I tried to google ''organism skin'' the only thing I got was stuff about orgasms. This is proof that our world is seriously fucked up. It is okay. I had the same exact problem and accidentally clicked on a link thinking it said "organism". But again to the skin thing. I do not have an article, sorry :) But the bottom layers of skin are not dead, they are living cells. The cells are active yes. However a cell is not an organism. It is a component. You said that you didn't even understand why I mentioned that only one specie has a human brain. Because you said ''almost all species on earth have brains'' that is why. Yes. I didn't speak of "human brains". You brought that up with didn't parallel with what I said. Whatever, I can't keep updating you on the things you said yourself, makes this too complecating. Well thats because I never said the brainless baby was potential life. A fetus is. I baby is not. You just made that up. I don't know, I just pointed out that wikipedia is not a reliable source. I didn't say your article was fake. That is why I told you to go to wiki. They have plenty of sources. Caviar is practically ...fish fetus. Or to say it differently, if we wouldn't have caught those fish eggs and eaten them, they would have turn out to be real fish. Caviar is a product. It is made from salt-cured fish eggs. Caviar cannot grow. It isn't alive. It is supposed to grow a brain yes, and typically it does, yes. But can you prove that a currently 5week pregnant lady's fetus IS going to develop a brain? No. And that is what I am claiming. A fetus will typically develop a brain. Why argue with me on that? Side: Yes
1
point
Okay? It still isn't an organism. It is. The cells are active yes. However a cell is not an organism. It is a component. No Yes. I didn't speak of "human brains". You brought that up with didn't parallel with what I said. We were talking about human having brains and all of a sudden you say ''almost all animals have brains'' .. I didn't bring anything up. Well thats because I never said the brainless baby was potential life. A fetus is. I baby is not. You just made that up. I just made that up?? You just now made that up. I never said fetus isn't a potential life, actually I said it IS. And I never said a baby is or isn't a potential life. You keep bringing things up that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. That is why I told you to go to wiki. They have plenty of sources. And are those reliable? Caviar is a product. It is made from salt-cured fish eggs. Caviar cannot grow. It isn't alive. Haha, I'm not talking about caviar as a form of food. I'm talking about caviar before it has been caught. Fish eggs. And that is what I am claiming. A fetus will typically develop a brain. Why argue with me on that? So you won the debate? The fetus is human because it will typically develop a brain? Side: No
It is. I already told you it wasn't. Scientifically it isn't. You haven't shown me anything. No Yes. We were talking about human having brains and all of a sudden you say ''almost all animals have brains'' .. I didn't bring anything up. No thats not how it went. I made an analogy and you made a response that didn't make sense. You brought up the human brain thing. I just made that up?? You just now made that up. I never said fetus isn't a potential life, actually I said it IS. And I never said a baby is or isn't a potential life. You keep bringing things up that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Yes. Show me were I said the brainless child was a potential life. Otherwise you made that up. I never said you never said the fetus isn't potential life. You claimed that I said the brainless baby was "potential life" and you tried to correct me for something I never said. Haha, I'm not talking about caviar as a form of food. I'm talking about caviar before it has been caught. Fish eggs. Oh. Well then before that it grew, had a typical path of evolution, so yes that is an organism an I call it what ever species it came from. So you won the debate? The fetus is human because it will typically develop a brain? I never claimed a victory. Side: Yes
1
point
I already told you it wasn't. Scientifically it isn't. You haven't shown me anything. Neither have you You brought up the human brain thing. I brought up the human brain because you brought up the animal brain - so as a practical way to know what we were talking about, I added the ''human'' since you added the ''animal''. Show me were I said the brainless child was a potential life. You claimed that I said the brainless baby was "potential life" Why? Did I claim you said that? Show me where I claimed that you said that, and then I will show you where you claimed it. Oh. Well then before that it grew, had a typical path of evolution, so yes that is an organism an I call it what ever species it came from. It develops, it grows - is it a human now ? Since you have trouble remembering your own claims, I am referring to this claim of your: It is alive. It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. I never claimed a victory. Just sounded like you came to a conclusion. But answer my question. Is it a human because it typically develops a brain? Side: No
Neither have you I explained it ti you. Skin is a component. Skin has cells. Those cells make up the organism which is you. Not your skin. I brought up the human brain because you brought up the animal brain - so as a practical way to know what we were talking about, I added the ''human'' since you added the ''animal''. No. I brought up the analogy saying that all animals have brains. Not animal brain. Why? Did I claim you said that? Yes. Indeed you did. It develops, it grows - is it a human now ? A fish egg? No. It is a fish. Never said the fish was a human. I said it is whatever species it is. Since you have trouble remembering your own claims, I am referring to this claim of your: It is alive. It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. Just sounded like you came to a conclusion. But answer my question. Is it a human because it typically develops a brain? Nope. That is just to counter your argument. My opinion is different from yours. Thanks. Yes. These traits make up a human. Side: Yes
1
point
Yes. Indeed you did. No I never said that. Please show me the quote where I accused you of saying that. You keep putting false accusations on me. I explained it ti you wow .. No. I brought up the analogy saying that all animals have brains. Not animal brain. Yes you mentioned animal brain - you said Almost all species have brains. Almost all species. And by species .. that must mean animal right? Or what else were you implying? Plants? A fish egg? No. It is a fish. Never said the fish was a human. I said it is whatever species it is. You didn't say it was human. Although you said it grows, it develops .. blah blah blah then you ended with ''it's human''. So the conclusion of that sentence would be ''if it grows and develops and all the other things you listed, then it's human''. Thanks. Yes. These traits make up a human. Okay. With the logic ''it will typically develop a brain, makes it human'' then that must mean that 5 year old's typically turn into 6 year old's. Does that make them 6 years old at current point? Side: No
No I never said that. Please show me the quote where I accused you of saying that. You keep putting false accusations on me. You:Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. Me: I never said potential life is what the baby is. I said the child was a human. What are you even saying? wow .. It isn't hard to understand. You skin is a component. Not an organism. Yes you mentioned animal brain - you said Almost all species have brains. Almost all species. And by species .. that must mean animal right? Or what else were you implying? Plants? You do know species goes for any organism right? Even plants? Yes. Almost all species have a brain. Your standard brain. I didn't specify myself to an "animal brain". You didn't say it was human. Although you said it grows, it develops .. blah blah blah then you ended with ''it's human''. So the conclusion of that sentence would be ''if it grows and develops and all the other things you listed, then it's human''. Yes. The fish egg when fertilized is a fish. Yes. If a human fetus can do all that I deem it a human. then that must mean that 5 year old's typically turn into 6 year old's. Does that make them 6 years old at current point? That isn't my point. When I said traits I was referring to the it grow, it makes waste, etc. Not the typical brain thing. However a 5 year old will typically turn into a six year old. Side: Yes
1
point
You:Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. Me: I never said potential life is what the baby is. I said the child was a human. What are you even saying? How am I accusing you of saying brainless babies are potential lives with Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. ?? It isn't hard to understand. You skin is a component. Not an organism. No it's not hard to understand, but it still false. You do know species goes for any organism right? Even plants? Yes. Or else I wouldn't ask you if you were implying that plants have brains, would I? I didn't specify myself to an "animal brain". So did you specify to a plant's brain? However a 5 year old will typically turn into a six year old. So then, by your logic, he is a 6 year old at current point. Because if fetuses is a human, because it will typically develop into a human, then a 5 year old is actually a 6 year old, because 5 year old typically turn into 6 year old's. Side: No
How am I accusing you of saying brainless babies are potential lives with Doctors call fetuses younger than 21 weeks potential lives, not babies. ?? You corrected me on something I never said. No it's not hard to understand, but it still false. A human has no mutualism with skin. Skin is a component. Yes. Or else I wouldn't ask you if you were implying that plants have brains, would I? Good. Glad you understand that. So did you specify to a plant's brain? No. So then, by your logic, he is a 6 year old at current point. No. You aren't understanding how I judge a fetus as human. This is how I judge a fetus as a human: It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. Thats what I claimed. Because if fetuses is a human, because it will typically develop into a human, Nope. Because of this: It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing You completely and utterly missed my point when I claimed this. So the "logic" you are playing off is random. Side: Yes
1
point
You corrected me on something I never said. And somehow, by that correction, you thought I claimed you saying ''Brainless babies don't have the potential of life'' ?? What the fuck, if I may ask? A human has no mutualism with skin. Skin is a component. A multicellular organism. No. Then what were your intentions with ''Almost all species have brains'' ? This is how I judge a fetus as a human: It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. Almost all species do that - are all species human? Side: No
And somehow, by that correction, you thought I claimed you saying ''Brainless babies don't have the potential of life'' ?? What the fuck, if I may ask? You corrected me on something I never claimed. You had to had believed that I said it. You pretty much claimed that I did by correcting me. A multicellular organism. Did you just claim that skin is a multicellular organism? Wow. Skin is an organ. Not an organism. It is an organ of the integumentary system. Skin has cells in it. Like mesodermal cells. Skin itself it not an organism. It is an organ. The fact that you claimed that Skin is an organism goes against all forms of human anatomy. That is ridiculous. Skin is an organ. An ORGAN. Not an ORGANISM. Almost all species do that - are all species human No. It is whatever its species is. If we are talking about a whale fetus then its a whale. If we are talking about a cat fetus it is a cat. If we are talking about a human fetus then its a human. Now. Please for the sake of all human anatomy. Please realize that Skin is not an ORGANISM. It is an organ. Side: Yes
1
point
You corrected me on something I never claimed. You had to had believed that I said it. You pretty much claimed that I did by correcting me. You didn't answer my question. How did you get ''Brainless baby has not the potential of life'' out of ''doctors claim that fetuses under 21 weeks are potential lives'' ? And no - I never believe you said ''Brainless babies have not the potential of life''. I don't know where you got that from, that has GOT to be the most random thing I've ever heard. No. It is whatever its species is. If we are talking about a whale fetus then its a whale. If we are talking about a cat fetus it is a cat. If we are talking about a human fetus then its a human. Okay, so now you got that when something is a certain species being, it is ''developing, and all the other stuff you listed'' right? So because it develops now, because it does all the other stuff now, how does that prove it to be a human being? Because you can only prove the 5 week old fetus is developing and growing. You can't prove what it is growing and developing into. Which still brings me back to my earlier point .. if you think that because a fetus growing and developing at current point is proving it to be a human, then that must mean that because a 5 year old is growing and developing at current point, it proves he is 6 years old. Side: No
You didn't answer my question. How did you get ''Brainless baby has not the potential of life'' out of ''doctors claim that fetuses under 21 weeks are potential lives'' ? You corrected me for something I never said. You said "not babies" which implies that I claimed that potential life was for babies. I don't know where you got that from, that has GOT to be the most random thing I've ever heard. Calling skin an organism is in fact the most incorrect, random, thing that has ever been spoken it this debate. Okay, so now you got that when something is a certain species being, it is ''developing, and all the other stuff you listed'' right? Yes. It is developing into a more complex functioning organism. So because it develops now, because it does all the other stuff now, how does that prove it to be a human being? Because humans do the same thing. Because you can only prove the 5 week old fetus is developing and growing. You can't prove what it is growing and developing into. That makes no sense. We know it is developing into. If its a human fetus it is developing into a more complex functioning human. You cant even claim that. Which still brings me back to my earlier point .. if you think that because a fetus growing and developing at current point is proving it to be a human, No. Again. You just dismissed all of the other properties I applied. You deliberately avoided them. What are you doing? then that must mean that because a 5 year old is growing and developing at current point, it proves he is 6 years old. No. It means he is human. You analogy isnt sound with what I said. If he is five going on to six he is a human. That is my claim. Your claim is like saying an embryo and a fetus are the same since the embryo evolves into a fetus. No. Thats illogical. That cannot even be brought up. Also what happened with the skin thing? You claimed skin was an organism. Show me that it is an organism. Because it is not. It is an organ. Not an organelle, not a organism, but an organ. Please tell me you weren't serious in claiming that. Side: Yes
1
point
You corrected me for something I never said. You said "not babies" which implies that I claimed that potential life was for babies. That doesn't explain at all where you got the brainless stuff from. Btw, I wasn't correcting you, I made a statement. That makes no sense. We know it is developing into. If its a human fetus it is developing into a more complex functioning human. You cant even claim that. Indeed I can. We only know what it typically develops into, we don't know what the current 5week old fetus is developing into. Can you prove to me that it is developing into a human being? Can you prove to a currently 5week pregnant mother that her baby is going to develop into a human? No. It means he is human. You analogy isnt sound with what I said. If he is five going on to six he is a human. That is my claim I'm just saying what your logic says. You say that a 5week old fetus is human because it is growing. Then a 5 year old child is an adult because it's growing too. Side: No
That doesn't explain at all where you got the brainless stuff from. Btw, I wasn't correcting you, I made a statement. Sure. Indeed I can. We only know what it typically develops into, we don't know what the current 5week old fetus is developing into. We don't know what it will become? Will it do anything different like turn into a turtle or bird or something? That makes no sense. Can you prove to me that it is developing into a human being? Yes. Grab the woman and do an ultrasound. Can you prove to a currently 5week pregnant mother that her baby is going to develop into a human? Yes. I will show her that her child only has her and her fathers DNA which is of human origin. The expected result, if the fetus doesn't die or get aborted, is that it will be human. I'm just saying what your logic says. No. You made that up. You say that a 5week old fetus is human because it is growing No. Again you dismissed everything else I said. What are you even talking about? Remeber this: It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. It is currently a human. We are talking about traits vs species. Your example is trait vs age. That doesnt work. My logic would be that that 5 year old is human because he has the traits I listed above. Therefore he is human. You didn't quote my logic. Now. Will you admit that skin is not an organism? It is not a prokaryote. It is a component. Side: Yes
1
point
Yes. Grab the woman and do an ultrasound. So by an ultrasound you can tell the woman this fetus is in fact going to develop into a human being? Do I need to show you the rate of miscarriages in the first trimester? Yes. I will show her that her child only has her and her fathers DNA which is of human origin. The expected result, if the fetus doesn't die or get aborted, is that it will be human. That only shows it is a fetus made by her and her partner. It doesn't prove that the fetus will actually turn into a human being at some point. No. You made that up. Yes, using your logic It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. It is currently a human. Is a 5 year old growing? I would think so. Is a 5 year old developing? I would think so Is a 5 year old responding? I would think so Is a 5 year old functioning? I would think so Is a 5 year old burning food and oxygen? Hopefully No you can prove it being an adult, because you proved a fetus being a human being by that logic too. Side: No
0
points
No . Yes The combining of the chromosomes of the spermatozoon and of the oocyte generates what every authority in human embryology identifies as a new and distinct organism. Whether produced by fertilization or by SCNT or some other cloning technique, the human embryo possesses all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth. Unless deprived of a suitable environment or prevented by accident or disease, the embryo is actively developing itself to full maturity. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.ii The human embryo is, then, a whole (though immature) and distinct human organism – a human being. The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. July 2002 Side: Yes
So by an ultrasound you can tell the woman this fetus is in fact going to develop into a human being? Do I need to show you the rate of miscarriages in the first trimester? Did you really think that all fetuses die or something? A typical fetus will turn into a breathing human being. That only shows it is a fetus made by her and her partner. It doesn't prove that the fetus will actually turn into a human being at some point. Have you seen any shapeshifting fetus'? The only thing it can do it become a breathing human. That is all it is capable of doing besides dying. No you can prove it being an adult, because you proved a fetus being a human being by that logic too No. Its Traits vs Species. Not Traits vs Age. Traits vs Species is my logic. Traits vs Age is something you made up. You keep avoiding the fact that you called skin an organism. Will you admit it? Because it isn't. It is an organ. Also if you are not going to quote my logic correctly then I cant debate with you. Your analogy makes no sense. You are not using my logic. Side: Yes
1
point
Did you really think that all fetuses die or something? A typical fetus will turn into a breathing human being. That doesn't prove that the current 5week old fetus is in fact going to develop a human brain. Have you seen any shapeshifting fetus'? The only thing it can do it become a breathing human. That is all it is capable of doing besides dying. This is my point - you can only argue with what we have seen in the past. You can not predict the future, you can not prove that the current 5week old fetus is in fact going to develop into a human being. Side: No
That doesn't prove that the current 5week old fetus is in fact going to develop a human brain. Of course not. Sometimes it doesnt develop a brain. I thought we were discussing beings but alright. This is my point - you can only argue with what we have seen in the past. Yes. We have studied enough fetuses to know that the only thing a fetus can do is attempt to become a breathing human. You can not predict the future, You can actually try. you can not prove that the current 5week old fetus is in fact going to develop into a human being. With past evidence and observances we know that it is only capable of turning into a breathing human and nothing else. That is all the proof we need to know that is everything goes well we will have a breathing human. Side: Yes
1
point
Of course not. Sometimes it doesnt develop a brain. I thought we were discussing beings but alright. We are, you claim fetuses are beings. etus can do is attempt to become a breathing human. Really? Proof? With past evidence and observances we know that it is only capable of turning into a breathing human and nothing else. With past evidence and observances we know that almost all past fetuses have tunred into breathing human. Side: No
We are, you claim fetuses are beings. Oh well you said brain so that threw me off. And yes. A being is just conceivable as existing. A fetus is in existence. It is a being. Really? Proof? Are you serious? It's biology. The cells will multiply and attempt to become a match of the parent organism. If we have a human fetus then all it will try to become is a walking, breathing, human. With past evidence and observances we know that almost all past fetuses have tunred into breathing human. Yes. And it is only capable of becoming the same species and the parent organism. Side: Yes
This is how I judge a fetus as a human: It’s growing. It’s developing. It’s responding. It’s functioning. It’s burning food and oxygen. It’s giving off waste products. Its cells are reproducing. I would add to this that it is the YOUNG of the parents who created it. It is an organism in its own right and the life it is living is its own. That all of our own lives can be traced back to that point (conception) and that science has determined that human beings do not morph out of one organism and into another (like frogs and butterflies do). Side: Yes
Skin is a component of an organism. It is a cluster of well structured cells. Your skin is not an organism. It is simply a component. Anything alive is an organism It is a organ but not living. The top layer of skin is dead, but the two layers underneath are not. Question - 2.Is cell an organism by itself? 2. Some organisms are cells but all cells are not organisms. ex; amoeba is an organism a skin cell is not Answered by: Walter Hintz Expertise Science teacher for over 50 years. MSc. in biology. I can answer questions in general biology, zoology, botany, anatomy and physiology and biochemistry. Experience in the area I have a MSc in biology and have been a science teacher for over 50 years. At present I am a faculty member at a college and a science consultant at seven catholic schools. Publications The Ohio journal of Science Momentum-The Journal of the Catholic Education Association Side: Yes
1
point
False. A cell is an organism, but there is another type of organism that is called multicellular organism, which need two or more cells to become one organism. Either way - stating that a fetus is an organism isn't really helping you, since a plant is an organism too. Side: No
False yourself: Congress registers its support for human embryonic stem-cell research " ... the legal analysis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the NIH. It’s 1999 legal opinion states that: “Pluripotent stem cells [including human embryonic stem cells] are not organisms and do not have the capacity to develop into an organism that could perform all the life functions of a human being. They are, rather, human cells that have the potential to evolve into different types of cells such as blood cells or insulin-producing cells. Pluripotent stem cells do not have the capacity to develop into a human being, even if transferred to a uterus. Based on an analysis of the relevant law and scientific facts, federally funded research that utilizes human pluripotent stem cells would not be prohibited by the HHS appropriations law prohibiting human embryo research, because such stem cells are not human embryos.”* Side: Yes
1
point
0
points
You are such an epic fail when it comes to simple logic and reasoniong. 1. You are claiming that human skin cells are human organisms. True or false? 2. A human stem cell can become a skin cell. It has the potential to do that. True or false? 3. The Congression study concluded that human stem cells are not human organisms and that stem cells don't even have the capacity to become a human organism. True or false? 4. So, that would include an instance of a Stem Cell becoming a Skin Cell. True or False. The logical conclusion then is that a Skin Cell is also not an organism... because if it were, then the Congressional study would be wrong. Now.... You can hold onto your claim that human skin cells are human organisms if you want to.... and you can by doing so, also claim that the Congressional Study was wrong with their conclusions.... But unless you can support your claim that the skin cells that stem cells might become are in fact organisms? I'm going to conclude that you are full of shit. Side: Yes
0
points
0
points
Stem cells are organisms, they're multicellular organisms. The Congressional study I showed you declared them NOT to be organisms. It went on to say that a stem cell can't even beome an organism. That means that not even a skin cell is an organism (as you claim). Now, are you going to answer those questions or not? Side: Yes
0
points
1
point
1
point
0
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
Now we go back to my heap arguememt from awhile ago. Now that we have established that consciousness is not present even in newborns to about 2 years old, why is it needed? http://www.scientificamerican.com/ Before you start the skin, hair, and nail rant, these cannot produce a baby if attached to an umbilical cord, a fetus can. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
1
point
While there is a lot of truth in what you said.... it's also true that when courts rulings that are not scientifically sound (and truthful)... they are quickly challenged and even overturned. So far, no one has challenged the courts rulings on the rights of anencephalic children and until they are challenged and overturned, those rulings will stand. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Alrighty.... but you aren't being clear. Is an amoeba a living being or not? Maybe this will help. Any living being consisting of a single cell. Most are invisible without a microscope but a few, such as the giant amoeba, may be visible to the naked eye. The main groups of unicellular organisms are bacteria, archaea, protozoa, unicellular algae, and unicellular fungi or yeasts. Some become disease-causing agents pathogens. Side: No
1
point
I'm wearing glasses... and I can see very clearly that you have yet to say outright that an amoeba is a living being. It's clear WHY you are being so reluctant.... but seriously, You can afford to acknowledge that an amoeba is a living being (brainless and one celled though it is) and still be ""pro-choice"" on abortion. Hell, you could even cut to the chase and admit that an abortion kills a human being (like Dana does) and remain pro-choice on abortion if you want to. Your reluctance has helped me refine some points and hopefully reach some others who might have been on the fence though... So, it's not been a total waste of time. Side: No
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
Do you have no human brain and no consciousness? Then no, I don't think you are a human being. "Baby K Baby K was born on October 13, 1992, with anencephaly, a condition involving absence of the cerebral and cerebellar portions of the brain, for which there is no curative or ameliorative treatment. Baby K was permanently unconscious, could not hear or see, and apparently could not feel pain, but did have sucking, swallowing and coughing reflexes (consistent with the condition of anencephaly). She had difficulty breathing at birth and was placed on a ventilator. Hospital personnel encouraged Ms. H, Baby K’s mother, to enter a DNR order and to discontinue ventilator treatment for Baby K. Ms. H refused to permit either. Baby K was eventually weaned from the ventilator and transferred to a nursing home, where she had several subsequent episodes of respiratory distress requiring rehospitalization and a tracheotomy. Ms. H continued to seek aggressive care for Baby K. The hospital filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory ruling and injunctive relief to the effect that its future refusal to provide Baby K with life-sustaining medical care (primarily the ventilator), would not violate the following laws: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "Rehab Act"), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, and the Virginia Medicine Malpractice Act. The court denied the hospital the relief it sought under EMTALA, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act,... Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I live in the Danish Kingdom, and over here the law says you are allowed to abort until the 12th week of your pregnancy. And if we didn't have time to make up our mind whether we want to keep the baby or not by the 12th week, we can always take a trip to our neighbor-land, Sweden, that allows women to abort till 18th week of pregnancy. Side: Yes
For your consideration... New Danish law: human life begins at conception. A new law has been passed by the Danish Parliament, establishing an ethical council. The law has caused considerable debate in Denmark, particularly because it states that 'the work of the council shall build on the basis that human life takes its beginning at the time of conception'. Side: Yes
1
point
For my consideration? 1. I don't know what you're trying here. But you can disagree with laws, it's illegal to not obey them, but you can still disagree with them. So even if abortion was illegal in the Danish Kingdom, it wouldn't change the fact that I support choice. 2. I don't know what you've just posted, but abortion is legal in Denmark. Abortion is actually recommended by doctors when the mother is bearing a child with down syndrome. You can ''post'' all you want, but I am pregnant now, I visited the doctor recently, and he asked, because of my young age, if I wanted an abortion. Abortion is legal in Denmark, this is a fact, I live here. Side: Yes
The link was posted to show you that it is not only the laws in our country (the U.S.) that support our claims that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a human being... your laws do too and they do so in spite of the fact that abortions (for now) remain "legal." Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
1
point
3
points
1
point
2
points
yes I can prove ot. Studies have been done and brainwaves can be sensed in just over a month. Besides, its obvious it has a body. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Considering over 30% of abortions are done after 8 weeks, that should be a concern. My point is not that its a child at 8 weeks, I was merely refuting what you said in your last post. At conception, the baby has all the DNA to function as a human being. It is no longer a part of the mother therefore she has no right to kill it. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
1
point
No, I don't. People don't understand what I mean :) But I've just given up on explaining. You see skin is not just one thing. Skin is made out of three layers. Only the top layer, the layer you see, is dead. The skin underneath are living cells, and a living cell is an organism. Side: Yes
1
point
How does them having everything to make them human- a heart, a brain- not make them human? Is it just because they haven't been exposed to the outside world? Does that not make them a human being? They are inside of the womb, growing every single day, gaining something new every week, whether it be fingernails, or knuckles, or even a small mole on the side of their leg. They are growing, human beings. Their hearts are beating, they are alive. If that isn't human enough then I don't know what is. Side: Yes
If a fetus can be of any mammalian species then the fetus is not strictly a human being. If embryo can be that of any mammalian species then embryo is not strictly a human being. The question makes the objective statement that the embryo/fetus is a human being. This is not true because a fetus can be that of any mammalian species and so can an embryo. The words embryo and fetus are subjective words used to describe the stage of development for the young of the subject. So no, I do not believe the embryo/fetus is a human being.I believe a fetus is a fetus and an embryo is an embryo. Side: No
This is not true because a fetus can be that of any mammalian species and so can an embryo. The words embryo and fetus are subjective words used to describe the stage of development for the young of the subject. This debate is for a human fetus. It is quite obvious if you read the other arguments. Regardless of label we are arguing if we should acknowledge it as a human being of equivalent value to other human beings. Side: Yes
This debate is for a human fetus Actually this debate is if i believe its a human being Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being? It is quite obvious if you read the other arguments. If the debate is asking me a personal question expect personal answers. Regardless of label we are arguing if we should acknowledge it as a human being of equivalent value to other human beings. Does a deer fetus deserve to be acknowledged as a deer? Side: No
Oh so you now admit that the fetus is on the equivalent scale as everyone else is? I never said it wasn't I said that the label fetus cannot be a human being because it is subjective when a member of a species is objective. They're humans only if the off spring is human but the fetus itself is not human. The species of the child is what makes it human. Side: No
I said that the label fetus cannot be a human being because it is subjective when a member of a species is objective. They're humans but the fetus itself is not human. The species of the child is what makes it human. You contradicted yourself. The species of the fetus is human if we are discussing a human. It is a human fetus meaning it is human. It came from no other species. A human fetus is human if the species it came from determines if what it is. So now you just admitted that a human fetus is indeed human. Side: Yes
You contradicted yourself. The species of the fetus is human if we are discussing a human. I did not contradict myself. I was actually thinking of a variety of fetus from a variety of species. You are discussing human I was not. I was discussing fetus and embryo being human. It came from no other species. A human fetus is human if the species it came from determines if what it is. How would I know that based purely on the question? So now you just admitted that a human fetus is indeed human. I am admitting that a HUMAN FETUS is a HUMAN. I am not admitting that THE FETUS and THE EMBRYO is a HUMAN without MORE CLARIFICATION. Side: No
We have established that a fetus is human. Okay. Why is an embryo not? No, we have not. We have establish that a fetus CAN BE A HUMAN. You may as well leave me alone OddHannah. you are arguing with a straw man. Unless you aren`t meaning to misrepresent my argument in which case you can correct yourself. Side: No
You do not have the capacity to understand my argument You just admitted a fetus is a human. You never said anything that just utterly made me confused. In fact you have just been running around barely answering anything. You are the one that doesnt have the capacity to understand my arguments. Side: Yes
No i didn`t. We established that it can be a human. You never said anything that just utterly made me confused. You are obviously confused. In fact you have just been running around barely answering anything. That's not true. You are the one that doesnt have the capacity to understand my arguments I understand your argument just fine OddHannah. You are claiming that if a member of the homo sapian species has concieved a child. That embryo and that to be fetus is a human. YES!. That is correct. However, just saying that the fetus and the embryo are human does not make that argument valid because I can define the fetus and the embryo The: Definition Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique Fetus:An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal embryo:An unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development. Good bye Oddhanah. Side: No
2
points
You seemed to be the confused one. You are arguing against her yet your argument supports her. Does that make any logical sense? That's not true. Actually it is. You go from admitting she was right to complete technical terms. However, just saying that the fetus and the embryo are human does not make that argument valid because I can define the fetus and the embryo Do you understand the point of this debate? He argument was valid. Your argument validated her argument. You are arguing against yourself. Side: Yes
You seemed to be the confused one. You are arguing against her yet your argument supports her. Does that make any logical sense? WOW are you fucking retarded? Do you not know how to read? I'm saying that the fetus can be human but, this fucking question is not that fucking specific. Actually it is. You go from admitting she was right to complete technical terms. Actually, it isn't she isn't arguing against my argument. She's misrepresenting it. Do you understand the point of this debate? He argument was valid. Your argument validated her argument. You are arguing against yourself. Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being? <---------- the point of my argument. Her argument is not valid against mine our argument validated her argument. You are arguing against yourself. No I'm not. You don't get it. The question is unspecific. You assume the specifics. I did not and now I got 3 people trying to tell me I'm wrong and arguing against myself when you all clearly do not understand what I'm arguing. Side: No
3
points
WOW are you fucking retarded? Do you not know how to read? I'm saying that the fetus can be human but, this fucking question is not that fucking specific. I am sure the creator of the debate meant for it to be about the human fetus only. Also you could have just looked around and seen that we are talking about a human fetus. No I am not mentally handicapped. I did learn how to read. Actually, it isn't she isn't arguing against my argument. She's misrepresenting it. She understood your argument. You just decided not to attach yourself to her argument. You didn't want to be wrong. Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being? <---------- the point of my argument. Her argument is not valid against mine The creator of this debate was only referring to a human fetus. There is no use in arguing about any other animal. That should be easy to identify for you. No I'm not. You don't get it. The question is unspecific. You assume the specifics. I did not and now I got 3 people trying to tell me I'm wrong and arguing against myself when you all clearly do not understand what I'm arguing. The creator of this debate doesn't have to be specific. It is implied that when debating we are talking about the most relevant fetus, which is the human fetus. You should know that. You knew. OddHannah's arguments hinted them at you multiple times. The other debater around here only spoke of a human fetus. You knew the whole time and just didn't want to be deemed incorrect. Side: Yes
I am sure the creator of the debate meant for it to be about the human fetus only. Also you could have just looked around and seen that we are talking about a human fetus. No I am not mentally handicapped. I did learn how to read. Listen PhotoDragon, I don`t care about if I am supposed to assume something or not. I answered the damn question the way it was presented. That is it. End of story. I don`t need you and Chuz, to fight this girls battle for her when you are all now clearly in the wrong. Also you could have just looked around and seen that we are talking about a human fetus I don't care what you were talking about. I WAS ASKED A QUESTION AND WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT. She understood your argument. You just decided not to attach yourself to her argument. You didn't want to be wrong. If she understood my argument she wouldn't be arguing with me. She would accept it and not say that "Oh well, we all assumed that the author was talking about a human child so it's wrong that you didn't too". The creator of this debate was only referring to a human fetus. There is no use in arguing about any other animal. That should be easy to identify for you. There isn't any reason to be arguing with me in the first place. My argument only helps you. A fetus is a describing word of time frames. Embryos too. but they are words referring to a variety of animal species. I help you by saying if that species is human. Then yes, that particular fetus would be a human. The creator of this debate doesn't have to be specific. It is implied that when debating we are talking about the most relevant fetus, which is the human fetus. You should know that. You knew. OddHannah's arguments hinted them at you multiple times. The other debater around here only spoke of a human fetus. You knew the whole time and just didn't want to be deemed incorrect. Specifics are everything. This debate gave me no indication that the fetus in question was objectively human. So I took the most objective answer. SORRY I DIDN`T CONFORM TO EVERYONES GOD DAMNED ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. You should know that. You knew. LIES! OddHannah's arguments hinted them at you multiple times. The other debater around here only spoke of a human fetus. You knew the whole time and just didn't want to be deemed incorrect. That's not the truth at all. Side: No
3
points
Listen PhotoDragon It's PhotonDragon. Not Photo. I don`t care about if I am supposed to assume something or not. I answered the damn question the way it was presented. That is it. End of story. I don`t need you and Chuz, to fight this girls battle for her when you are all now clearly in the wrong. You are in the wrong. The debate implied human fetus. Everybody else seems to have realized that but you. I don't care what you were talking about. I WAS ASKED A QUESTION AND WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT. You went for the "technical" argument so you can't be wrong. The debate implied a human fetus. If she understood my question she wouldn't be arguing with me. She would accept it and not say that "Oh well, we all assumed that the author was talking about a human child so it's wrong that you didn't too". She argued because you admitted it in one of your earlier posts showing that you understood that it was about a human fetus. There isn't any reason to be arguing with me in the first place. My argument only helps you. A fetus is a describing word of time frames. Embryos too. but they are words referring to a variety of animal species. I help you by saying if that species is human. Then yes, that particular fetus would be a human. How does that help me? I may not think it is a human being. Specifics are everything. This debate gave me no indication that the fetus in question was objectively human. So I took the most objective answer. SORRY I DIDN`T CONFORM TO EVERYONES GOD DAMNED ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. Everyone else understood what was implied but you. That's not the truth at all. It isn't? Everybody else didn't start off debating about a human fetus? OddHannah told you what the debate was about. You still failed to get the picture. Side: Yes
Idiot. You know as well as anything that she is talking about a human fetus.... she shouldn't have to specifiy that it's a human in the fetal stage for every post. Anyone can just see that you said only one post ago "I am admitting that a HUMAN FETUS is a HUMAN." She's arguing with a straw-man alright... though I'd be surprised if you even have that much of a spine. Side: Yes
Idiot. You know as well as anything that she is talking about a human fetus.... That doesn't stop me from being critical about what I'm agreeing to or not agreeing too. That also doesn't make me an idiot. she shouldn't have to specifiy that it's a human in the fetal stage for every post. Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being? Then I don't have to accept that it is a human in the fetal stage. though I'd be surprised if you even have that much of a spine. What does that mean? An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Side: No
He did the same thing with me before.... I called him on it and he denied it... so either he was extremely ignorant or extremely self-centered, which means that his psyche is forcing him not to acknowledge that he messed up..... Or he is trolling. I'd say that it is the second one... he believes that there is nothing wrong with slaughtering unborn children.... He is worse than Hitler................................. Side: No
The technique is called "rope a dope". Muhamed Ali used to use it a lot in his fights... when he was getting tired and had no idea what else to do, he would just tie up his opponent by trying to wear them out, leaning on them and keeping them busy until a chance to make a move presented itself. (like most other pro-aborts) He knows as well as anyone else does - that an abortion kills a child. They know its more than just a semantic case that can be made... They just can't afford to let it be known and so maintaining the denials and playing rope a dope is basically the only two plays they know. Side: No
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If sperm is an organism, and it is human in nature, why is it not a human being? A little after fertilization it becomes an organism. It doesnt matter if it is separate. It is still an organism. You are absolutely correct. It is an organism, that organism is a fetus. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
I didn't create this debate Uhh... Okay, I don't see how that was relevant to anything I asked. If you don't want to answer or don't know that's okay. It would be nice to get an actual answer though. Still a human being is a human. Yes but, why would you make two words that mean different things mean the former? Isn't it illogical to have an unnecessary word that has meaning have no meaning and only be used for extra syllables? I don't understand. On top of that I believe human being is looked at as one word. With a space in the middle. No Hyphen. Side: Yes
1
point
Uhh... Okay, I don't see how that was relevant to anything I asked. If you don't want to answer or don't know that's okay. It would be nice to get an actual answer though. You posted this: "why say human being?" I didn't say human being any time before that so I assumed you were talking about the creator of the debate. If you agree then why are we arguing? Side: No
1
point
I didn't say human being any time before that so I assumed you were talking about the creator of the debate. Uhh... You asked what the difference was between human and human being. Then proceeded to tell me that they are the same thing. I didn't understand that "human being" as it was actually one word as it seems to be two different words with two different meanings. I then asked why would you need to say human being to mean "human"? It sounds rather redundant to add two extra syllables. I'm just curious is all and you just avoided my question twice. I'm assuming to see if I will make a mistake in trying to get a straight answer from you? Side: Yes
1
point
Uhh... You asked what the difference was between human and human being. Then proceeded to tell me that they are the same thing. I didn't understand that "human being" as it was actually one word as it seems to be two different words with two different meanings. I then asked why would you need to say human being to mean "human"? It sounds rather redundant to add two extra syllables. You do understand that I asked in order to get an answer out of him right? And begin my debate from there? Thats it. If you don't have anything to debate with me about Fetus' then we are finished. Side: No
1
point
You do understand that I asked in order to get an answer out of him right? Yes. Do I not have the right to speak? Looking at this debate as a whole you had no problem doing what I have done. And begin my debate from there? Do you mean begin the discussion from the question I first responded too? Thats it. No need to get decisive. If you don't have anything to debate with me about Fetus' then we are finished. Well, that was a rude way to end the conversation... Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
2. the body of a human being. Being: 1.Existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being". 2.Living; being alive. Existence: The fact or state of living or having objective reality. So, that means you are agreeing with me that "human being" is a reference to a living human and not a dead human. Correct? If you are agreeing with me then the two terms have slightly different meanings. Correct? If A and B are correct, then thank you. Side: Yes
2
points
Why do you not think it is a human? Or better yet a being? Being: something conceivable as existing A fetus is obviously in existence. But I like to think it is a being after it has been born. That does make any logical sense. If being simply means something in existence and the fetus exists then why say it isn't a being? Side: Yes
2
points
The question becomes: "When is an organism (a human being) actually born in that respect? That is, "when does a human being first come into being (existence)? Consider scientific comments like this one: "This is why a single embryonic cell, born at conception, can differentiate into all the different structures of the body. So all the cells in the body have identical sets of chromosomes...." Side: Yes
How has the word 'birth' been destroyed by my asking you for clarification and for you to consider the fact that the word birth has more than one definition? It is you who is being dishonest when it is you who wants everyone else to ignore those other deffinitions and their applicabilities. Side: Yes
1. You haven't shown how I (or the scientists that I quoted) have used the word "birth" incorrectly. The "Big Bang" is thought to be the origin of or the "birth" of our Universe. Do you imagine a giant vagina with our Universe being pushed out of it? Conception is the "birth" of a human being in the way that the "big bang" is thought to be the "birth" of the universe. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Side: Yes
I could cut and paste my previous arguments for you but why bother? Side: Yes
any coming into existence; origin; beginning This does not mean that every coming into existence is a birth. That's not how definitions work. I know why you have been led astray. I didn't see a reason to discuss it because you are too stubborn for words. Hehe, "for words", we are arguing over words, that's funny. Side: Yes
any coming into existence; origin; beginning This does not mean that every coming into existence is a birth. That's not how definitions work. Bwahahahahaha! Just for the comedic value alone, I would love to see your definitions for the word any and for you to show how the all inclusive use of the word any does not or can not mean every. Side: Yes
First, I didn't see the any in your definition, my bad. But either way, animals don't work like ideas, so birth is different. Your definition makes birth happen multiple times for animals, kind of strange. Second: World English Dictionary birth (bɜːθ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n 1. the process of bearing young; parturition; childbirthRelated: natal 2. the act or fact of being born; nativity 3. the coming into existence of something; origin 4. ancestry; lineage: of high birth 5. noble ancestry: a man of birth 6. natural or inherited talent: an artist by birth 7. archaic the offspring or young born at a particular time or of a particular mother 8. give birth a. to bear (offspring) b. to produce, originate, or create (an idea, plan, etc)
— vb 9. to bear or bring forth (a child)
Related: natal When I looked up the definition of birth I found a slight difference. It appears you have to go to obscure sources to get the word any to show up in the definition. You wouldn't be cheating at all with your definitions would you? Side: Yes
You agreed that it is a child in the womb, remember? Can you explain how a child got to be in the womb of it's mother.... if it has not come into existence yet? You are refuting your own claims and you don't even seem to realize it. EDIT: The definition that you provided yourself says BIRTH 9. to bear or bring forth (a child) So, the logical question is.... "If not at and by conception, When was the fetal child in the womb "brought forth" into existence? Side: Yes
I say that not all coming into existence is birth. You say I agree that it is a child in the wombat conception. Then you want me to explain how the fetus doesn't come into existence. I don't care if it came into existence, I don't think it is a birth. The child is brought forth when it leaves the womb. Side: Yes
Webster's - no mention of coming into existence Oxford - "the beginning or coming into existence of something" no mention of the word any Stedman's - couldn't find Mosbys - couldn't find Findlaw - legal dictionary doesn't define birth Interesting how I can't find your definition. How are you not using a fake definition? Side: Yes
Your allegations against me were not limited to my use of the word born. You made the claim that I was inventing definitions period. When, all I actually do is quote existing definitions (from those and other sources) and I invite readers to examine the definitions for themselves. You still haven't answered my questions - by the way. You and I agree that a human fetus is a child in the womb. How did the child physically get there? What was their point of origin? How and when did they begin to exist? The definition that YOU provided says: BIRTH World English Dictionary 1. the process of bearing young; parturition; childbirthRelated: natal 2. the act or fact of being born; nativity 3. the coming into existence of something; origin 4. ancestry; lineage: of high birth 5. noble ancestry: a man of birth 6. natural or inherited talent: an artist by birth 7. archaic the offspring or young born at a particular time or of a particular mother 8. give birth a. to bear (offspring) b. to produce, originate, or create (an idea, plan, etc) — vb 9. to bear OR bring forth (a child) So, the logical question is.... "If not at and by conception, When was that child in the womb first "brought forth" into existence? Of course, I already know that a child in born at conception in those respects - even according to the definitions that you provided... The question is now about your honesty and ability to recognize the same. Side: Yes
See above... you've dodged my questions again. The definition that you provided actually supports my claim that conception marks the birth of an organism - in the sense that conception (not parturition) is when the child comes into existence (being), conception (not parturition) is when the new organism's life begins and conception (not parturition) is when it's life begins. You are the one who is confused by all of that... not me. Side: No
Let's just use birth to mark all of the stages of life so that it is a worthless word. At conception it's the birth of organism. At parturition it's the actual birth, that normal people use, and only abnormal people want to use birth for other things. Then when the baby transitions to solid food, it will be the birth of a solid food eating person. Then when the baby walks, the birth of a bipedal person. Then when the kid is old enough for school, the birth of the learning person. Then when the person is old enough to drive, the birth of the driver. What other births should we mark? Side: Yes
What's wrong with using birth to mark the beginning or origin of an organism instead of just the animal's emergence from the womb? And use it for eating, walking, driving, etc. Let's make the word mean everything. Why are you dodging my question by using an appeal to ridicule? It's a valid question and I'm asking it earnestly. Side: No
Let me try a more direct approach. 1. "A successful conception bring a new organism (in this case a human) into existence." True or False? 2. Asked another way: "Conception is the beginning of a new organism's physical being and of their life as such." True or False? Side: No
Do you think your evading the questions that get to the root of your denials is actually helpful to your side of the debate? Why are you trying so hard to deny the fact that conception originates a new organism? That conception is the beginning of that new organism's life and physical existence? That conception is in that respect, the birth of a new organism? Why does that fact bother you so much? Side: No
I don't understand how you can sit there and try to twist the word birth "popping out of a vagina" into something that it isn't using terminology I don't agree with. If I say birth is not the coming into existence, how is proving when something comes into existence proving birth. You are making huge leaps that don't make sense. Side: Yes
It's not a twist and your evasiveness shows that you know it's not a twist. The definition that you provided yourself - proves against your denials. Any intellectually honest person can see for themselves how conception is the birth (origination, beginning) of an organism and that parturition is the delivery of that already existing organism from the womb. Side: Yes
You are being dishonest again - because I'm not trying to claim that they are exactly the same at all. I am only trying to get you to agree to the fact that conception is the birth of an organism in the sense that conception is when it comes into being (existence) and in sense that conception is when (and how) the organism was originated. You can't do it though.... and I think that's both funny and helpful to support my claims about your prejudices and your denials. Side: Yes
You are trying to replace conception with birth. You have failed to show that you see these words as different. You can't do it though.... and I think that's both funny and helpful to support my claims (about your prejudices and denials). Of course I can't do it. At least one of us should be right. If I change sides we are both wrong. Side: No
1. I am not trying to replace one with the other at all. As I just explained to you above... "Conception" is the birth of an organism in the sense that ""conception" is when the organism first comes into existence (being) and conception is when and how the organism was originated. I still completely agree that the organisms isn't born in the sense that it hasn't emerged yet from the womb.... that moment doesn't come until several weeks later. Side: Yes
The dishonesty is in your want to deny a point when a point has been made. You won't even agree that semantically it can be said that conception is the birth of a new organism - even though you know it's much more than just a semantic case that can be made. So, You are the one being dishonest about it. Not me. Side: Yes
A new organism is born in the sense that it originates, comes comes into being, begins, etc. at conception. That same organism is born again at parturition when it finally emerges from the womb. You can continue to fool yourself into believing that is not the case but then you have to explain it - (at least to yourself) how the child can be in the womb if it hasn't even come into existence, yet. Side: Yes
The question was do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being? You have shown that you can cut and paste definitions before... so why can't you answer the question for yourself? If you conclude anything other than the fact that a human being in the embryonic or fetal stage of their life can be called an embryo and or a fetus? Let me know. Side: Yes
You have shown that you can cut and paste definitions before... so why can't you answer the question for yourself? I am confused at why you don't want to answer. If you conclude anything other than the fact that a human being in the embryonic or fetal stage of their life can be called an embryo and or a fetus? Let me know. I believe human embryos and fetus are human. Side: No
1. One of my aunts is a teacher. She helped me to understand that one of the best ways to teach someone something is for (someone) to help them to discover their answers for themselves. 2. So do I. So, when (if not at conception) did those embryonic / fetal human beings originate? When did they begin to exist? Side: Yes
I have shown how you are the one being dishonest in how you both cherry pick your definitions and how you refuse to accept that conception is the birth of a new organism. Never mind the fact that birth is a synonym of the word conception. Right? Side: Yes
Not only do I say both definitions are correct, I showed you how even your definition supports the fact that conception is the birth of an organism in the sense that conception is when the organism comes into being (existence).. when it originates etc. The only thing you have established is how you are able to deny even the most solid facts which prove against your denials - in order to maintain your denials. You are 0-2 not 2-0. Side: Yes
At worst I am 1-0-1 because conception and birth are not synonyms Are you claiming that the thesaurus is wrong? Main Entry: beginning Part of Speech: noun Definition: origin, cause Synonyms: antecedent, birth, conception, egg, embryo, font, fount, fountain, fountainhead, generation, genesis, germ, heart, principle, resource, root, seed, stem, well You should quit while you are ahead. Side: Yes
The words birth and conception are synonyms for the word beginning. True. So, when a child is conceived their life has began and that qualifies it as a birth in that respect. (namely, the origin and beginning of the child) You are the one who can't understand the applicability of the word. Side: Yes
By your own declaractions birth is when the child emerges from the womb. One would assume that would include children who are surgically removed (c-section) born children... So, why wouldn't that include children who are surgically removed by an abortion procedure? One is just as born as the other... aren't they? Though, it's true... an aborted child is born into the hands of their murderer.... they are still born in the same sense that a c-section delivered child is born.... right? So, tell me. How is an abortion birth control? Side: Yes
Ok, you are right. An abortion causes the fetus to be born, it just doesn't survive. You are also correct that a fetus isn't born until after the abortion. That's true but only in regard to it's parturition (emergence from the womb). Unless you are claiming that Parturition is also when the child's physical existence and life began? You are still running from the fact that they were born in that sense - much earlier. Side: Yes
I showed you how the words conception and birth are synonyms of one another where the beginning of something is concerned. Your telling me that I am wrong does not change the fact that I am right. Conception begins a new creature's life and existence.... You don't really deny that as fact. What you deny is that it (conception) is a birth in any sense of the word. That makes you a fool. When a fool thinks that I am weird? Well duh! It doesn't take much to fascinate a fool. Side: Yes
I showed you how the words conception and birth are synonyms of one another where the beginning of something is concerned. No, you are breaking the rules, you are wrong. The rest of your argument is invalid, so I didn't read it. I can't explain it to you any better. You are breaking the rules. Side: No
A posthumous child is one who was conceived before, but who is born after, the decedent’s death. Usually such a child can take as an heir of the parent, because posthumous children are treated as born at conception if they subsequently are born alive. Depending on state law this may apply only to children of the decedent and not with respect to other representatives. Side: Yes
The Modern Treatment of Syphilitic Diseases, The parent diseased before conception gives birth to a diseased child, which is then formed and developed in the womb of a tainted mother. Page 340 Side: Yes
FYI: "Hello! This is a receipt for a question you recently asked at allexperts.com, in category Biology. Most of our questions were answered in 3 days. Thanks for using our service! Your question was "Thank you for considering my question. Biologically speaking, when is an organism actually born? At Conception - when it comes into existence (being) and when it's life as a new organism begins? Or is it at Parturition (when it finally emerges from the womb?) In science, when is a new organism considered to be "born?"" Question was asked on 06/18/2013 Side: Yes
I should have predicted this. The so called "expert" tries to have it both ways. Answer: One definition of birth is coming into existance.The other is leaving the womb or egg. I was unable to bring up the first reference you gave. As to the second one it seems to me that with the term "born at conception" the word born is used in a different way then when considering the exit from the womb or egg. (no shit) The reason you cannot find support for the view of scientists that conception is birth of an organism is because the term "birth" is arbitrary and means different things to different people. Proponents of the belief that a fertilized egg is a person want to accept that conception is birth. This may be true but it is not a fact because it cannot be tested. " What an idiot. No shit, it's "used in a DIFFERENT WAY" - Nobody was claiming that a new organism goes through Parturition at conception. It's time to try another expert. Side: Yes
The so called "expert" tries to have it both ways. Answer: One definition of birth is coming into existance.The other is leaving the womb or egg. It is not dishonest to seek a more definite answer to the question "when is an organism actually born." I challenge you to show how it is. Side: Yes
Fact: Expert replied in a way that nobody should have liked Fact: The Expert played it both ways and essentially said we are both right Fact: I have in fact acknowledged the expert's answer. I simply find it lacking and vague. Fact: It is not dishonest to multi-source your references when trying to get to a truthful answer to a question. Side: Yes
Fact: It is not dishonest to multi-source your references when trying to get to a truthful answer to a question. It is in fact dishonest to multi source your references after YOU have decided that your first reference wouldn't validate YOUR point. Are your pants on fire yet? Side: No
The expert did in fact validate my point. The only problem with his answer was that he was too vague about it. I already knew the definitions and use of the words. I expected that he (a supposed expert) would have provided something in the way of references himself. It didn't happen. So, the search for confirmation continues. The search for truth and clarification is never a dishonest act. Side: Yes
You have been shown where both medical and legal experts have used the word birth to mark the origin of an organism at conception. You have been shown the expert's comment and how it can apply to conceptions. You are now grasping at straws and trying to muddy the waters. It's your own dishonesty that is showing. Not mine. Side: Yes
Yeah he is quite the charlatan in fact if you go take a bit more in depth look to conception and birth being synonyms you will see they are only synonyms under the definition of 4. conception - the creation of something in the mind Side: No
This from the idiot's own link noun 1. understanding, idea, picture, impression, perception, clue, appreciation, comprehension, inkling He doesn't have the slightest conception of teamwork. 2. idea, plan, design, image, concept, notion The symphony is admirable in its conception. 3. impregnation, insemination, fertilization, germination Six weeks after conception your baby is the size of your little fingernail. 4. origin, beginning, launching, BIRTH, formation, invention, outset, initiation, inception It is six year's since the project's conception. Side: Yes
Wow, it actually has it listed as a synonym. I have always felt Thesauaruses were useless. Either way, it is only in the context of ideas. You can't say that because the conception of an idea is also the birth of an idea that conception of a child is also the birth of the child. The context matters, which is what we have been trying to tell you. Side: Yes
Conception is the BIRTH, origination, and beginning of a child and conception is the inception of the mother's pregnancy with the child. The sources I quoted earlier support this fact and the real idiots here are the ones in denial of the fact that conception is the biological birth of a new organism and the fact that parturition is only the emergence of the already existing child from the womb. Side: No
The sources I quoted earlier support this fact and the real idiots here are the ones in denial the only one in denial here is you so are you saying the only idiot here then? the fact that conception is the biological birth of a new organism Actually conception is the moment were the new organism starts to devolp Conception is the BIRTH, origination, beginning of a child Actually chuzzy Conception ( or at least the one we are talkign about) is con·cep·tion (kn-spshn) n. 1. a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote. the fact that parturition is only the emergence from the womb. That is also the main way birth happens Side: Yes
birth (bɜrθ) n. 1. an act or instance of being born: day of birth. 2. the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring; childbirth; parturition. 3. lineage; extraction; descent: of Grecian birth. 4. high or noble lineage. 5. heritage: a musician by birth. 6. any coming into existence: the birth of an idea. 7. Archaic. something that is born. v.t. 8. to give birth to. Idioms: give birth to, a. to bear (a child). b. to initiate; originate. Side: No
birth (bûrth) n. 1. a. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. b. The act or process of bearing young; parturition: the mare's second birth. c. The circumstances or conditions relating to this event, as its time or location: an incident that took place before my birth; a Bostonian by birth. 2. a. The set of characteristics or circumstances received from one's ancestors; inheritance: strong-willed by birth; acquired their wealth through birth. b. Origin; extraction: of Swedish birth; of humble birth. c. Noble or high status: persons of birth. 3. A beginning or commencement. See Synonyms at beginning. tr.v. birthed, birth·ing, births Chiefly Southern U.S. 1. To deliver (a baby). 2. To bear (a child). 6. any coming into existence: the birth of an idea. alright chuzzy i'll give you that one the birth and conception of an idea is the same thing. Side: Yes
1. When does a new organism come into being? (Conception or parturition?) 2. When is a new organism originated? (Conception or parturition?) 3. When does a new organism's life begin? (Conception or parturition?) 4. At what point does a pregnant women begin to bear her child? (Conception or parturition?) 5. At what point does the child emerge from the womb? (Conception or parturition?) In all of these ways save one, a child is born at and by conception. In only one way, is the child born in the sense that it emerges from the womb. Side: No
BIRTH: 6. ANY coming into existence: the birth of an idea. alright chuzzy i'll give you that one the birth and conception of an idea is the same thing. ANY adjective 1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like. 2. whatever or whichever it may be: cheap at any price. 3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter? 4. every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject. 5. (following a negative) at all: She can't endure any criticism. Side: Yes
BIRTH: 6. ANY coming into existence: the birth of an idea. alright chuzzy i'll give you that one the birth and conception of an idea is the same thing. ANY adjective 1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like. 2. whatever or whichever it may be: cheap at any price. 3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter? 4. every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject. Side: Yes
If we think about a baby, born at conception, the embryo needs nutrition,and the same asloiml, .,,ie.a child,a growing body,etc. And this body needs activity to strengthen every muscle possible. Even the baby in the womb/belly of a mother, exercises their lungs by breathing all the liquids he or she is completely submerged in. Side: Yes
BIRTH 6. ANY coming into existence: the birth of an idea. alright chuzzy i'll give you that one the birth and conception of an idea is the same thing. ANY adjective 1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like. 2. whatever or whichever it may be: cheap at any price. 3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter? 4. every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject. 5. (following a negative) at all: She can't endure any criticism. Side: No
Do you actually think that asking worthless questions will help your side? Oh wait, obviously you do, that's all you ever ask. Why are you trying so hard to deny the fact that conception originates a new organism? Irrelevant That conception is the beginning of that new organism's life and physical existence? Irrelevant That conception is in that respect, the birth of a new organism? My definition does not allow for this conclusion. Why does that fact bother you so much? If you are right, then all words are worthless and meaningless. If you are right every word means every other word. Side: Yes
My definition does not allow for this conclusion. Is it wise or honest to cherry pick your definitions so as to exclude the use of words? Wouldn't it be more wise to consider all of the definitions and to give consideration to their applicability? You show your bias when you dismiss the one that says any coming into existence... and you try to make the one that you quoted seem like it excludes animals coming into existence. It's obvious to me that you actually know the definitions are applicable to conception. So, you are only fooling yourself with your denials. Side: No
That fetus is a human being. Using a definition is using a fact or else it wouldn't be a valid definition. All we are debating about is facts. It is a human. Just by the definition we should be able to tell that it is. Your personal opinion wont change the definition. Side: Yes
Using a definition is using a fact or else it wouldn't be a valid definition. How do you know the definition is valid? All we are debating about is facts. Do you believe = opinion, not facts. Your personal opinion wont change the definition. Right, I wasn't trying to change it, yet. Side: No
How do you know the definition is valid? We parallel it with other definition and with the works of scientists. Do you believe = opinion, not facts. That is a weak thing to say. Thats like the religious arguments. Do you believe God exists? People argue facts. Opinions wont make it that far. Right, I wasn't trying to change it, yet. Alright then. Side: Yes
Fine, I call it a fetal human being now. But, I still think it is not a human being ;) de·lu·sion·al adjective 1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: 2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness. Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
No I do not. A human fetus is a human's fetus, but it isn't a human being. Yet. And before you try to give me the whole catch-twenty two there, I should remind you that the word 'human' can be used as an adjective, which can describe something that exhibits human-like qualities or is of a human. But that's like saying love is a human being because love is a human quality. Or... something. Fuck I'm tired. Side: No
It say that of course a human fetus is human because it says so in the name is called 'begging the question'. Its a circular logic based on undisputable definitions. If you start from the position that what is and isn't a 'human being' is quite difficult to define then this debate is far more interesting. Side: No
Is a fetus human is a very interesting question. That is my point. But saying that humans are humans is not engaging with the debate. The question is: does a fetus have the qualities that we attribute to being a human being. By saying 'human is human: does anyone disagree?' is not allowing any room for debate. Side: Yes
Considering the implications of being a human being, what is a good definition of a human being is. For example, the fact that all human beings should be given equal rights. Therefore, perhaps the definition of what it means to be human should include conciousness. The capacity to make decisions. Or perhaps it should include the ability to live without a host. Its difficult to know where to start in defining what constitutes a human being. I don't think any of these debates have really tried to do that. What do you have with the wording "a human being in the fetal stage of their life"? Anything To me its short hand. Its not engaging with the philosophical debate about what is a human being or not. This is very common in language. We can say, for example, "I love him" without being able to find exactly what love is - it is merely a helpful descriptive term. The same is happening here. We need to say human fetus because we need to distinquish it from other types of fetus but it does not engage with the question of whether it should really be termed a human being or not. And you were in the fetal stage of your own life once. Correct? Yes but at what time I became a human being / person is another issue. Side: No
Considering the implications of being a human being, what is a good definition of a human being is. For example, the fact that all human beings should be given equal rights. Therefore, perhaps the definition of what it means to be human should include conciousness. So you think it's okay to bring a bias or prejudice to the determination? I don't. As a realist, it is what it is... it's unacceptable to me to expect anything more than that. An un-conscious human being is still a human being. Isn't it? Like I said before - reality is not always convenient. Side: Yes
Again you're begging the question. Is an unconcious human being still a human being? What qualities does it have that makes it a human being? Thats a good starting point I feel. So you think it's okay to bring a bias or prejudice to the determination? Well, you have to start from some angle. Maybe it is not the best way but it is one way: that all human beings deserve equal rights, therefore what is a human being(?). Side: No
Can you tell me why the simple recognition of the fact that human sexual reproduction produces a new organism that is the young of the parents who created them is not the best way to determine whether their young are human beings or not? Do you have any evidence to support the thought that human beings undergo metamorphosis like butterflies and frogs do? If not, you have to conclude that we are the same organism at eighty (providing we live that long) that we were at the moment of our conception. Side: Yes
My countries are the UK and Spain. It is the philosophical human being that has the rights - and in your country too. A born human has different rights than a unborn humans or a, similarly, a human corpse. A patient that is completely brain dead also does not have the rights of someone that is not. I didn't follow the point in your second paragraph. Side: No
No. But please lets not go down the route of what the law says again :/ The law can say whatever it likes it achieve the effect it wants. If it wants having sex with a skeleton of a corpse to be treated as having sex with a living person it has to word it to say 'the word 'human being' in the definition of rape must also include human beings already deceased'. It wouldn't mean that the skeleton is a human being or that it should be given equal rights in other areas. Side: No
It say that of course a human fetus is human because it says so in the name is called 'begging the question'. Its a circular logic based on undisputable definitions. If you start from the position that what is and isn't a 'human being' is quite difficult to define then this debate is far more interesting. Side: No
Im not doubting that that is one of the definitions. If that the definition we're using then there is no argument that a human fetus is human. Its arguing that A = A and is a very boring debate. There are a number of books that are solely about trying to define what a human being is. So when people talk about whether a fetus is a human being they're using a far more complex, unknowable, definition. Side: No
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America. Side: No
1
point
Let's cut to the chase, this debate is about ABORTION. The Republican party will NEVER allow abortion to become illegal so you can just forget about that happening. You got that right, I said the REPUBLICAN party will NEVER allow that to happen. Why? Because the abortion issue is the best vote getting tool in the GOP arsenal. Every election cycle the GOP can count on the votes of the anti-abortion minions to march to the polls and pull the lever for the Republican party because they PRETEND to want to outlaw abortion. THEY DON'T. They don't because they know that the political blowback from outlawing abortion would wreck the Republican party forever because back alley abortions would soon begin to cause the deaths of pretty little middle class white girls and their mothers would RIOT IN THE STREETS. Also, if abortion were ever actually outlawed, many those same voters who would normally vote Republican would then vote more in line with their own interests which for working class people is the DEMOCRAT party, so banning abortion is a LOSE LOSE proposition for the Republican party. The GOP party leaders know very well that they want the abortion issue to stay exactly where it is, keep it legal so they can campaign against it and get that huge block of simple minded well meaning easily led Christian conservative voters into the booths to vote GOP but in reality the Republican party is the LAST entity that actually wants abortion banned. Side: No
|