It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth
Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone.
I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize.
Well a full grown person still has personhood, no matter the state of their body and that should be respected
Think of robin hood. Was he heroic or villainous?
Well we can't quantify whether emotions are "worse".
The only cases in which inflicting death is undeniably wrong is when the participant is unwilling.
In the case of abortion specifically, to me, there must be a personal existence for death to be considered either bad or good.
You've been rejected by parents, so you are denied the typically unconditional love of parents.
Which can be described through personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.
foster care adoptions cost between 0-2000.
Does a fetus have personhood? If not why not?
If he did that now, it would be villainous because he robbed from those that earned their wealth. However, since he did it in the midevil times, when the monarchs inherited and taxed their way to success, I would consider him a positive figure. I don't know too much about him, so I might change my mind.
It is safe to say that being stressed out for 9 months is better then being dead.
The fetus is unwilling.
A fetus has personal existence. A fetus exists.
The parents can write a letter stating why they aren't taking care of you. This can include the economic reasons and the hope that someone who is more financially stable can take care of you.
Or can be defined by something like chromosomes and cell specialization.
A poor person isin't spending $2000 on a kid they can't afford to raise. There are other ways the foster system makes sure your fiscally and morally ready to raise a child.
I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize.And how the fuck would you know that?Science considers it to be about 23 weeks
As always I know that you have no right to any woman's body uninvited
Keep your nose out of women's bodies you misogynist.
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),This is the same Keith Moore who believes that Muhammad is a messenger of God. Do you give credence to all of his beliefs
Truth and facts do not change because their repeated.
Read my lips/text again. Umpteen times Ive stated yes, fetus/baby is human and of course it is alive. Ive never ever stated otherwise.
#313--You are okay with killing them (condoning murdering another human being).Read my lips/text:I'm ok with pregnant woman deciding what she does with a non-breathing human being that,1} is inside her as a non-independent/individual human fetus/baby,
2} is an organism of that woman via her body inherenlty directing all nutritional sustinence to that non-breathing, non-independent/individual, non-breating human fetus/baby,
3} non-independent/individual, human fetus/baby, that, exists in many/multiple and rapid transistional phases that have not yet lead to,....3a} not being born-out,.....3b} not taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen,
So, why not apply that standard to yourself?1} I asked you to behave as a rational, logical common sense adult, and you keep refusing to do so ergo I cannot repeatedly keep this line immature, irrational illogical lack of common sense with youas the info I give you;
....1a} It goes in one ear and gets lost in a black hole, or,.....1b} goes out the other ear with no reading compreehension along the way through.
Are you okay with those who make laws and legislate the unborns death determining you are unfit to live because the elite does not see you are as advanced in some manner as they are?I'm ok with mature adults who use rational, logical common sense and exhibit moral integrity. This is not you or any radical religious etremist and/or Trumpanzee.
If you recognize they are alive and they are human beings (I believe I could find many posts that you argue against them being suchBS and you have not nor will you ever find such posts by me.
Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you examine your own position.Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you stop virutal rape{?} of all prenant woman by sticking your immoral nose *v* into their bodily business. Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so. Take a hike. I cannot repeatedly keep responding to your lack of moral integrity, immature irrational, illogical lack of common sense.
I am not asserting. I have given you what scientists say. Not only this, it is obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization.May I ask what you have read in this field of debate?Why is it obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization? What is the rationale?
This is my problem with your references to scientists. When it comes to global warming, people are able to point to scientists, who are then able to point to specific facts and figures that show abnormal temperatures. And that's all fine and dandy. Your examples merely describe characteristics and then assert their opinion as truth. You then carry over that opinion and then exclaim "These opinions come from scientists. Obviously this must be objective truth!". But if you don't have the rationale, and the scientists you link don't have the rationale, what am I supposed to do with this? Take it as blind gospel? It's the blind leading the blind.
It is obvious to most scientists that a new human life begins at conception or the process of fertilization. It is not extraordinary, it is common sense. An egg contains 23 chromosomes and so does a sperm. When the sperm penetrates the egg the two sets of chromosomes unite to form a distinct human being, different from either parent. These are facts.If it is obvious as you claim, then you can make a perfectly reasoned argument as to why a newly fertilized egg is indeed a human being without resorting to "it's obvious", "it's common sense" and "most scientists".
Would you like a formal debate on this subject?Now listen to what you are saying: "a beginning of a human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself."What do you mean? This makes no sense to me. Explain it, please.I can state that a germinated seed is the beginning of a new tree. Which is perfectly true. Given time, a seed may become a tree and a germinated seed marks this beginning. However a germinated seed is not a new tree in itself. Does this make sense?
The links give specific embryologists and scientists. I listed a couple.I'm not going to bother until you give me a list of credible scientist who is experts in the field of embryology that state from conception onwards the unborn is not a human being.Which is perfectly reasonable for a scientific argument. My argument is philosophical, so here are some resources for that view.
How do you know it even exists, this is not a generic you it is you the golfer, how do you know this growth exists?If it is human and it is alive
I have explained it to you many times already but your bias keeps you from understanding the argument.Two human DNA codes combine to create something different from either parent.
Individual photos have captured the process from fertilization onward. That is factual yet you refuse to acknowledge it.Would you like a formal debate on this subject? I can set it up.
Or you could make a perfectly reasoned argument that it is not. Go ahead, and provide documentation instead of just your own opinion. That is all I have read from you.Are you denying it is a human being at conception?
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundingsHence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being
A tree is a mature germinated seed.
Summarize each one to the points you want me to dispute.
If this were true (and you just make a claim without any support)
280 days later
I indeed like Pence a lot. Good guy from Indiana
Just because religion believes a certain thing doesn't mean we should do the opposite. We shouldn't have a theocracy, but we shouldn't have an anti-theocracy; something that legalizes everything religion prohibits. Otherwise, murder and staling would be legal because religion prohibits this. Granted, some of the religious laws are incompatible with America, like stoning for adultery, but we shouldn't care about religion when making laws.He just wants religious rules to be law. Which is a horrible, horrible idea.
Just because religion believes a certain thing doesn't mean we should do the opposite. We shouldn't have a theocracy, but we shouldn't have an anti-theocracy
Science backs up why a fetus is a human being.
Although he cites the bible way more than he should, on issues like abortion, there is a science pro life argument.
The left and most atheists often ignore it and pretend like the only pro life arguments are religious based, which is incorrect.
Science backs up why a fetus is a human being.No, no it doesn't.
Therefore they want to pass laws based on their religion.
Why not? A fetus´s cells specialize at 5 weeks. Since they got chromosomes and the cell specialization, they are human beings.
Not applicable to all pro lifers. Not applicable to me, or Ben Shapiro, or Stephen Crowder. They and I cite science to back up the claim that a fetus is a human being.
But if you want to keep abortion legal, there are secular arguments too that have to be addressed and refuted adequately to keep abortion legal.
Doesn't it matter what the law being proposed says?But when a right wing politicians talks about instituting religious laws that happen to be chrisitian, they don't care at all. That is massive hypocrisy.
I dislike the Muslim law that requires a petty thief to be dismembered, but like the Christian law that says a petty thief should recompense the victim. Is that hypocritical?
When the specialized cells are arranged in a certain way, and if they are a certain type of specialized cell, then they are human cells. If I grow a human lung in a lab, it´s a human lung. If I grow a fetus in a lab (if it were possible), then that fetus is a human being.Because cells don't make a person. We can grow specialized cells in petri dish.
For example saying that a fetus has cell specialization. That might be true, but it has absolutely no bearing on where or not it is a person.Person is different from human. Person is a legal term. We can´t accurately call a fetus a human now for the same reason we couldn't call African slaves in the US in the 1700s people; the law stated otherwise. Human is a scientific term. If you meet the requirements, you are human. Because of this, a fetus now is as human as an African slave during the 1700s.
The vast majority of americans understand that a woman has the right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy.
yes, yes it is.
If you are against being ruled by religious law, then you should be against it. You shouldn't object to one religion but want another religion to rule people.
If I grow a human lung in a lab, it´s a human lung. If I grow a fetus in a lab (if it were possible), then that fetus is a human being.
Because of this, a fetus now is as human as an African slave during the 1700s.
It´s not the vast majority. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx hows that the ratio between pro choicers and pro lifers in the US is about 1:1.
There is a big leap from human cells to human being.
Again, this is just your opinion. It is not based in science.
Describing yourself as "pro-life" doesn't necessarily mean you want to ban abortion.
The large majority of young people are pro choice. The large majority of people over 65 are anti choice. Therefore as we go forward this shift is only going to go against you. So society is going to shift to more pro choice, not less.
Humans are composed entirely of cells. When the fetal cells are specialized, how is this different from a human being?
What makes someone a human being is if they have the chromosomes and their cells are specialized. If you disagree, that´s fine, but what counts as a human being in your opinion?
It means that you want most already legal abortions banned.
Abortions are already becoming less common and they aren´t going up anytime soon, so once abortions are gone, I predict Roe V Wade will be overturned and abortion might eventually be banned.
And trees are made of wood. But wood is not always a tree.
It has to be capable of living.
That is how you interpret that term. But there is no way to know how the people who answered the question interpret it
Abortions are going down because of things right wing people oppose. Family planning, sex education etc.
But when the nut is fertilized, it is no longer part of the tree, it is a seperate tree, even if it were to somehow get nutrients from the original tree.
The consistency test applies. Unemployed people can´t live on their own; they need welfare.
You can´t be against the death penalty and pro choice at the same time because pro choicers want to sentence unwanted fetuses to death rather then support adoption for the kid.
It´s an unbiased question.
80% of pro lifers support the right to birth control, including myself, so the notion that the right opposes birth control is not accurate.
Humans are composed entirely of cells. When the fetal cells are specialized, how is this different from a human being?
