Is a fetus a human being?

[Felicity]

I can't believe there is so much debate over the fate of a parasitical organism the mother doesn't want.

Tune in next week as we discuss why intestinal worms have a right to life!

Symbiotic...NOT parasitic...I thought you said you read a lot....

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Symbiotic...NOT parasytic...I thought you said you read a lot....

A Fetus is not symbiotic, rather parasitic. There's nothing that the Fetus does to contribute to the heatlh and maintenence of the mother. The mother is the full and only provider of the Fetus, while she gets nothing objective in return. It doesn't make her healthier, it doesn't maker her have more resources or survive as an individual. It does nothing but leech like a little digestive worm.

Oh...because you say so....and you read a lot.... silly me.

So that means you can say who deserves human rights...and who doesn't...that's logical.

Yes. Reading and study are usually what people to do gain knowledge. That's what I pay thousands for at college. I don't go because I like the scenery.
This excercize is pointless. Regardless of WHY I justify my position, you will always say, "cause you say so and you read a lot." You are like dealing with a Sophist.

 

[Caine]

I have noticed that you have failed to answer my question Felicity.
Why is this?

 

[Felicity]

A Fetus is not symbiotic, rather parasitic. There's nothing that the Fetus does to contribute to the heatlh and maintenence of the mother. The mother is the full and only provider of the Fetus, while she gets nothing objective in return. It doesn't make her healthier, it doesn't maker her have more resources or survive as an individual. It does nothing but leech like a little digestive worm.

apparently you missed the studies concerning increased protection against breast cancer, and improved maternal mental health for women who have babies? Read some more TU...

Yes. Reading and study are usually what people to do gain knowledge. That's what I pay thousands for at college. I don't go because I like the scenery.
This excercize is pointless. Regardless of WHY I justify my position, you will always say, "cause you say so and you read a lot." You are like dealing with a Sophist.

no--I'm dealing with a person with tunnel vision--and because you WON'T consider another perspective--that's why you blurt "sophistry" and dismiss the perspective. Quite elitist of you....:roll:

 

[Felicity]

I have noticed that you have failed to answer my question Felicity.
Why is this?

No...I answered it. Killing human beings is wrong...

Maybe a quote from a Dr. Suess book would be more your speed....

"A person's a person, no matter how small...."

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

apparently you missed the studies concerning increased protection against breast cancer, and improved maternal mental health for women who have babies? Read some more TU...

Who cares? It's not your business to decide what the woman wants. It is up to her preferences to "expose herself" to the mental consequences of her own actions. It's her preference utility.

Drinking can have consequences to the self. It's your body. Do as ye will. Perhaps people would rather go through pain of life =D.

no--I'm dealing with a person with tunnel vision--and because you WON'T consider another perspective--that's why you blurt "sophistry" and dismiss the perspective. Quite elitist of you....

There is no rational position that would ever change your mind. I could easily change mine if the fetus was shown to have personhood. Yours, however, remains constant regardless of any logical argument thrown against it. It's the brick wall syndrome.

 

[Caine]

No...I answered it. Killing human beings is wrong...

Maybe a quote from a Dr. Suess book would be more your speed....

"A person's a person, no matter how small...."

Well, me, I would have rather died when I knew no pain and suffering as a fetus, than to be placed in child services system and bounced from home to home, where I would endure emotional pain and suffering, and an overall feeling of rejection.

 

[George_Washington]

I fail to understand why the complexity of something gives it rights? An automobile is complex. Should we give them rights? Bonobo Chimpanzee's are extremely complex, and they share about 97 to 98% of their genetic code with humans--so much so that they are realistically thinking of putting the Bonobo into the Homo category.

Do they deserve rights simply because of complex DNA? I would say they deserve consideration morally because of their mental capacity and personality.

Yes, I think we should give them rights because of their complex DNA out of respect for our species. Just because other species share our genetic code doesn't mean they are homo sapiens nor are they as superior as us. It's about having a love and compassion for your own species.

Look, we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue just because of a difference in opinion and that's what boils down to. That math equation you gave wasn't neccessary. There is no math equation one can use to prove that it's logical to let women have unbridled abortions. You should realize that your view is an opinion rather than the, "allmighty logical revelation of truth." Just like mine is also just an opinion. We just look at the issue from two different viewpoints. Although I will admit that you have offered some very good points and I respect your arguments for being intelligent and concise.

Caine, on the other hand, you've added little to this debate except for curse words and childish terms like, "retarded" and "stupid". You seem really angry. If pro-life people anger you that much, then I suggest you find a way to deal with that.

 

[Caine]

Yes, I think we should give them rights because of their complex DNA out of respect for our species. Just because other species share our genetic code doesn't mean they are homo sapiens nor are they as superior as us. It's about having a love and compassion for your own species.

Look, we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue just because of a difference in opinion and that's what boils down to. That math equation you gave wasn't neccessary. There is no math equation one can use to prove that it's logical to let women have unbridled abortions. You should realize that your view is an opinion rather than the, "allmighty logical revelation of truth." Just like mine is also just an opinion. We just look at the issue from two different viewpoints. Although I will admit that you have offered some very good points and I respect your arguments for being intelligent and concise.

Caine, on the other hand, you've added little to this debate except for curse words and childish terms like, "retarded" and "stupid". You seem really angry. If pro-life people anger you that much, then I suggest you find a way to deal with that.

And what exactly have you added to the debate?
The same words of those who have posted before you.
There must be a pro-life website that has exact words why they support thier claims because everyone seems to say the same thing.
"it is going to become" a human....
Humans have "Complex DNA"

Neither one of those, in my opinion, are strong basis to take away a womans choice of whether to have an unwanted baby or terminate the pregnancy in order to keep a child from living a life of emoational pain and suffering (if she chose to give it up for adoption and put it into the already over crowded child services system), or keep it and not be able to take care of the child in the proper manner, which in many cases of those people in poverty, this could cause higher crime rates and gang activity, or, the mother will eventually throw her kid into a river somewhere and let it drown (this would actually BE murder).
If abortion were outlawed, the child services program would be so over thier heads, they would need a whole lot more funding, which would take away from other govt. programs such as social security (if it ever survives), welfare (like we really need it), and many many more (im not in the mood to list a bunch of them).

 

[George_Washington]

Well, me, I would have rather died when I knew no pain and suffering as a fetus, than to be placed in child services system and bounced from home to home, where I would endure emotional pain and suffering, and an overall feeling of rejection.

Yes, we all have hardships in life. You don't think rich people do as well? Everybody has hardships, no matter what their economic status is. A rich kid can actually suffer just as much as a poor kid but in different ways. That's why rich people commit suicide just like everyone else.

 

[Caine]

Yes, we all have hardships in life. You don't think rich people do as well? Everybody has hardships, no matter what their economic status is. A rich kid can actually suffer just as much as a poor kid but in different ways. That's why rich people commit suicide just like everyone else.

LOL, whoah, that was just an example... it didn't really happen to me.

I WAS almost aborted, my mother was thinking about it, but changed her mind after she had to watch some kinda video, it must have really discouraged abortions.

 

[cnredd]

LOL, whoah, that was just an example... it didn't really happen to me.

I WAS almost aborted, my mother was thinking about it, but changed her mind after she had to watch some kinda video, it must have really discouraged abortions.

Is this our loss or our gain?:2wave:

 

[Caine]

Is this our loss or our gain?:2wave:

Well, I would say gain, since I served 4 years to my country in the US Army as a paratrooper no less, even lost full mobility in one of my big toes for this country (not like thats such a big loss, but since im fortunate enough not to have a purple heart from my experiences in Iraq, I can at least be proud of this).
Even though one individual soldiers effect doesn't hold much water in comparison to the millions of members of the armed forces.

And, hopefully, to the communities of Charlotte, NC where I am to be a police officer starting in January of 06.

 

[cnredd]

Well, I would say gain, since I served 4 years to my country in the US Army as a paratrooper no less, even lost full mobility in one of my big toes for this country (not like thats such a big loss, but since im fortunate enough not to have a purple heart from my experiences in Iraq, I can at least be proud of this).
Even though one individual soldiers effect doesn't hold much water in comparison to the millions of members of the armed forces.

And, hopefully, to the communities of Charlotte, NC where I am to be a police officer starting in January of 06.

You really know how to take the fun out busting chops...:roll:

 

[Caine]

You really know how to take the fun out busting chops...:roll:

Ain't it great?

 

[Felicity]

Who cares? It's not your business to decide what the woman wants. It is up to her preferences to "expose herself" to the mental consequences of her own actions. It's her preference utility.

I just want to point out that you called a fetus parasitic...I corrected you by saying it was symbiotic--you said no--the women gets nothing--I explained two things she "gets" out of the relationship and your reply is "Who cares?" Great debating style you have there TU! Almost as good as Caine's "f" bomb! Same method...but her's was a tad more colorful.

There is no rational position that would ever change your mind. I could easily change mine if the fetus was shown to have personhood. Yours, however, remains constant regardless of any logical argument thrown against it. It's the brick wall syndrome.

Well...please explain why you reject the status of personhood as being inherent in the nature of the human species and thus all members of the human species are persons. Your response to that was basically "because I say so" and when I pointed that out you just said "anything I say--you'll say that.." Try me. Give a rational explaination that explains why some human's have personhood and some don't.

I see that "utilitarian" is part of your screen name--and I've got issues with defining Personhood based on utilitarian principles--but....I'll let you answer....

 

[Felicity]

Well, me, I would have rather died when I knew no pain and suffering as a fetus, than to be placed in child services system and bounced from home to home, where I would endure emotional pain and suffering, and an overall feeling of rejection.

Ahh....but if you had been aborted--YOU wouldn't have had the opportunity to make that CHOICE--now would you? Can you imagine that others might choose differently than you? and oh well...mom aborted them--no CHOICE for them!

 

[Caine]

Ahh....but if you had been aborted--YOU wouldn't have had the opportunity to make that CHOICE--now would you? Can you imagine that others might choose differently than you? and oh well...mom aborted them--no CHOICE for them!

Since they can't do anything for themselves, including think, they don't know the difference, and neither do we.
Had I been aborted.... I wouldn't know the difference cause I wouldn't have been able to think in the first place to know the difference.

Thats the point, a zygote doesn't go through pain, a fetus, maybe, but it doesn't know the difference.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I just want to point out that you called a fetus parasitic...I corrected you by saying it was symbiotic--you said no--the women gets nothing--I explained two things she "gets" out of the relationship and your reply is "Who cares?" Great debating style you have there TU! Almost as good as Caine's "f" bomb! Same method...but her's was a tad more colorful.

And you are wrong, since Fetus is not a symbiot, but a parasite. There's no proof that it's a symbiot either. Anyone can say anyting; you have to prove what you say. I will not auto-assume it is one. It does not contribute resources or health to the host; It takes. It makes you sick, it makes you unhappy, irritable, it makes you vomit, and it sucks your resources untill you just want it gone. You are just using the same cookie cutter anti-abortion arguments that have been refuted time and time again that state a fertilized Egg has rights. That's why "who cares!"

Well...please explain why you reject the status of personhood as being inherent in the nature of the human species and thus all members of the human species are persons.

There is no reason to a priori assume any being has inherent value. Rights don't even exist. They are social creations--abstractions. Since there are social creations, rights don't "live" inside you. You aren't born "with rights.' Nothing--no organelle, organ, tissue, or cell in your body produces some right. You aren't a magical creature imbued by God with some right either. Now, you will probably say, "prove this." Oh, but I don't have to, since it's logically impossible to prove a negative. I musn't prove that rights do not exist. You have to prove they do exist. OH, but that's a task for you, because rights cannot be:

1. Observed in nature
2. Falsified
3. Verified.

Why? They don't exist outside of your mind! Trying to find a "right" is like trying to find the principle of justice floating in the universe somewhere. That's absurd. Judging that it's impossible to find, verify, or falsify a magical "right," outside of your mind and then by studying that modern rights-ethics are contractual stemming from duty deontology, and natural rights ethics are regarded as having no foundation whatsoever, I already know where rights "come from." They were invented by philosophers for their usefulness in helping persons life free, happy lives, thus making society better. THe key aspect is "persons" which is a completely different ethical concern.

According to personhood (both in utility and deontology), that which is valuable in humans is the MIND. Without your mind, you are nothing. If you do not have the prerequisite BASIC qualities that make humans special, you don't deserve the rights-constructs that come with that status. If you gave those rights to the fertilized egg, you are ignoring what makes Humans valuable--instead of our mind, you are bestowing rights on the mindless, unself-aware. It never existed as a mind, and the mind is medically seen as the death of life, so it logically connects that if mind-death is the death of man, mindbirth is the birth of man.

Your response to that was basically "because I say so" and when I pointed that out you just said "anything I say--you'll say that.." Try me. Give a rational explaination that explains why some human's have personhood and some don't.

I just did, but I already know what you will say! GOD GAVE ME RIGHTS! I AM A HUMAN BEEEEEEEEEING! I HAVE DNA! But..but...Then we will take this around the maypole some more.

I see that "utilitarian" is part of your screen name--and I've got issues with defining Personhood based on utilitarian principles--but....I'll let you answer....

I am not basing anything on utilitarian principles. Utility theory gives no mention of how to determine personhood. That's a general concept in ethics not intrinsic to any one ethical theory. Utility applies once we apply personhood.

Ahh....but if you had been aborted--YOU wouldn't have had the opportunity to make that CHOICE--now would you? Can you imagine that others might choose differently than you? and oh well...mom aborted them--no CHOICE for them!

This is a fallacious argument. It's an appeal to emotions.

 

[Fantasea]

Then what stops a sperm from being human?

Don't you know?

 

[Fantasea]

No one should take abortion lightly ,but take care of your fetus and let others take care of theirs.
and mind your own affairs !
Would be a most logical approach .
Imposing your morals on others, dictating what you think is right or wrong based on an appraoch from one angle ,or another. Without looking at all the variables in the big picture
an approach that would send abortions under ground with clothshangers and other rusty utensils no thanks bubba
under certain circumstances abortions are a medical preceedure and a needed one
I am not an anti abortionist or an abortionist
but I dont impose my set of pricipals and morals on another
those that would like to do that whats the matter with you are you a comunist or facist
isnt america free or is freedom the right to limit others the way you see fit
according to your little bubble morality

No morality involved. It's simple biology. The fetus is a living growing developing human being. One human should not have the power of life or death over another.

 

[Fantasea]

Slavery has bee abolished in this country for a long time.
This is a person's right to choose.

What is the choice?

The choice is whether to permit the child living, growing, and developing in the womb to live, or to kill it.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

So you think the human right to life is immutable...Absolute? That's hilarious.

 

[Fantasea]

I agree. I'm against abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

As far as the argument of how the fetus isn't a child in the medical sense...the way I look at it is, the fetus WILL be a child. It's only a matter of time. So should we let time determine whether or not we will embrace something as a cherishable form of life?

The fetus IS a child. All that time provides is an interval during which the child develops and grows larger.

 

[Fantasea]

ideally, but you then have to acknowledge that if a woman takes a pregnancy full term, then she's less likely to give the kid up, and thus the kid would be more likely to live in a terrible place for a child to live.

Are we to believe that the child would prefer death?