this is obviously a point we just disagree on because you have clearly failed to offer any evidence whatsoever that a fetus or child is made out of anything other than preexisting matter from the bodies of its parents.
There is no need to 'show evidence that a fetus is made out of anything other than pre-existing matter from the bodies of it's parents'. It hardly dropped out of the sky. But that it required a womans egg and a mans sperm is not the issue here, nor was it part of the discussion between you and I. The statement made by you, (that I responded to), was that a child is part of the woman's body. I argued that the child is not 'part' of that body, but inhabitant of it. There is a clear difference. A foot is a 'part' of the body, headlice are not. They dwell on the body, using it for their own needs. A child dwells within the body and uses it to ensure it's own survival. Sure, the child originated from the act of sex between the man and woman, but your point was about viability, (as you proceed to explain):
"i was discussing viability as it relates to how we define a living being."
I have already shown that definition of "living being", includes a fetus.
You also argued that it is only after birth that a child becomes a "distinctly separate physical being", but I have shown that to be wrong. It might be sitting inside the woman, using her to further it's existence, but it is undeniably a separate physical being.
The fact that it took sperm and egg does not really contribute to the argument. Sure, it can be used as a "well, I put the work in so I can kill it" argument, but that very same argument would hold true for anyone with parents - whether he be 3 months old or 50 years old.
if you dont have another explanation for why its not about that
But.. we weren't even talking about that. I have no need or desire to argue against the fact that a child requires the joining of sperm and egg. I think you've wandered from the frame of discussion.
than who cares what you say about it.
It's a discussion based upon personal ideals and opinions. It is not a request that you care. You do as you see fit to do, that is your right, and.. nor do I care.
You argue that because it takes sperm and egg, that a child is part of you. But a 10 year old child, a 50 year old child of your still took sperm and egg. So, how do you establish when the child is no longer your property? Judging from your arguments, that comes with "viability as it relates to how we define a living being". I have already clearly shown that a fetus is by definition a "living being" - and thus is not your property, but a separate physical being - working to ensure it's own survival at any cost.
let it be noted that you have just defined a child as a parasite and i did not.
I am aware of that, but thanks all the same.
i explained how a fetus grows inside of its mother and why i think that connects the fetus to her body.
The connection between the fetus and the woman is something that the fetus uses to ensure it's own surival. The link is placed for that very reason, and the fetus does an exceptional job of taking all the nutrients etc that it needs from her - without consent and without her having a choice in the matter, (other than to kill the fetus).
i was not talking about a parasite of a different species and i did not say that under all circumstances the fetus brings harm to the "host" being the mother.
I know you weren't, I was. Much like the parasite of any species, a fetus uses it's host to feed from, to gain nutrients from, to ensure it's survival. It's very fight for survival - against the will of it's 'mother,' shows that it has the express right to life. The mother, or host, can fight to combat the parasite, (in this case get an abortion), but that is murder. To kill the being that fights for it's own survival is nothing but murder.
so dont put words in my mouth and then attempt to prove your assessment of the argument based on things i never said.
Eh? I never put words in your mouth, I never attempted anything using anything you ever said. Let's get this straight shall we? If we go back to your last post we see this question:
"if a child isnt a part of a womans body while its in the womb, then what is it?"
You asked me to explain what a child is, if not a part of a woman's body. I did just as you asked, and you now try and accuse me of putting words in your mouth etc etc?
Charles: "..then what is it"?
Snake: To all intents and purposes, it is a parasite..
See? Understand?
another point of just plain old disagreement. its not a FACT that it is a human, its an opinion.
But wait a moment there Charles... The statement was made using
your criteria. You said:
"viability as it relates to how we define a living being"..
I showed and explained how a fetus is classifiable as a "living being" by the definition of the words. As we can now define it as a "living being", we must classify what type of "living being" it is. I can tell you now that it isn't a giraffe. So, you were saying about it being an opinion that this specific "living being" is not human.. What species is it then?
do not argue opinions as if they were facts
I didn't do anything of the sort. What I did do was discuss an issue with you, using your own criteria for definition, your own "opinions" as to what classifies life to non-life, and human to non-human. If you don't like it, change your opinions.
To be honest with you, I had little else to work with. Your other arguments have generally been pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things. For instance, you argued that because a child will die if left alone in a field it seemingly has no right to life. As I, and others, have pointed out - this would surely also include the handicapped, the mentally ill and my, (becoming somewhat famous), grandmother. Aside from that you mentioned the poor woman who can't afford her rent and that because the child got a copy of his parents genes that he is now their express property.
I must say out of these I consider the viability argument as being worth more of my time. As that is the case I have done just that and shown, (using your own criteria), that a fetus
is an individual "living being".
not only do i not see it the way you do, but mercifully, i dont have to see it that way.
You don't have to do anything you want to. You can continue seeing it any way you'd like. That's the beauty of being an individual "living being".
i think that at the earliest stages of development a cluster of cells is a potential human and because it is so different in every other crucial aspect of physical makeup and mental capacity it should not be accorded the same exact rights as a fully developed and born person.
Of course not. And it doesn't have the exact same rights as a fully developed and born person. It can't have sex, vote or watch 18 rated movies. It can't drink alcohol, drive a car, or run for president. However, It cannot be denied it's express right to life. It's very goal is to survive, and nobody has the authority to deny it that right - regardless to whether it's a human or a monkey. The right to life is the first right of any living being - and we as humans must acknowledge that right. To end the life of something that wants to live and fights to live, is murder. End of case. Ok, it cannot be classified as "murder" if it's animal life, but we are not talking animal life, we are talking human life - unless you would now argue that this "living being" is not human, but perhaps gorilla or kangaroo.
but i havent seen a bit of logical proof that refutes it
Well, the same is certainly true in reverse. You have made bold statements, of that there is no doubt - but have not yet shown anything to quantify those statements. You have spoken at length about poor women and helpless children left in the local park, but nothing that could be considered worthy of a case for legal abortion. However, I have argued your "viability" and "separate entity" statements adequately without yet having seen a return rebuttal to those arguments. Instead you now seem more focused on telling me that I speak opinion - which was surely clear from the onset? (and the same for everyone else in such debates). What we are left with is to go by those have shown that a fetus
is a "living being" with the express right to life given it's undeniable fight to survive. We perhaps could pass up on those rights if it was a dog or an armadillo, but it isn't.. it is human.
ive just seen a lot of speculation on what a zygote or fetus could become if allowed to and some fulminations of religious doctrine.
Not by me. Religious doctrine is entirely irrelevant to anything, and whether a fetus could be Einstein or Hitler is inconsequential. The very fact that it fights to survive, to live, and that it is definable as a "living being" shows beyond any doubt that it does indeed have the right to life.
this does not pass for logical proof of sentience as far as i am concerned.
It seems you're arguing with me about other people's posts. What is it's relevance to me?
I don't get what you're trying to say here.. You think I cannot get involved in a discussion without losing sleep? Would you like me to agree with everything everyone says just to save petty statements such as the one you have just made?
Of course, given the placement of your statement, it seems you are asking me to deal with other people making posts you disagree with concerning religious doctrine, a child's future job role, and that it doesn't class as proof, logical or otherwise, of sentience. I would suggest you take it up with them, or indeed tell them to deal with whatever it is you want them to deal with, considering they were the ones that made those posts.
Just a suggestion.
you took my statement out of context in order to refute it. brilliant.
What are you talking about? You asked a question - that I answered, and then - for the mere sake of interest, followed up with some pointers on how hard it is to actually get pregnant - and that a fair compromise would be to make abortion illegal and make having ovulation predictors and after morning pills a legal requirement. What exactly did I take out of context? You later go on to say that abortion is not the "preferred" method, (you even go so far as to state it in caps). My point in response to that is then to make abortion illegal, and opt for something that is preferable. Of course you go back to the "population control" argument, and yet a couple of posts later and I still await the statistics. As I stated earlier to you, I cannot properly debate this specific side of the issue without certain data. As you seemingly have access to it, I would be very grateful if you could provide it. This would include abortion rates/adoption rates/ and death rates. Thank you.
i didnt say two people didnt have a hand in its creation.
No you didn't, you asked me "where the hell does it come from?"
I answered. What more do you want? Pictures?
learn to fucking read for comprehension.
I will return that statement to you, but without the "fucking". That's generally a sign that one is struggling to say something of value.
i said the man donated the sperm to the equation and that gives him a partial claim to the body of the potential child growing in the womb of his partner.
To the "body" of the potential child... Right here you show that the "body" of the child, potential or otherwise, is different to that of the parents. The child is
not a part of it's mothers 'body', it is it's own 'body', using the mothers body to ensure the survival of it's own body. Your whole argument here is that the mother and father own that individual 'body' because they provided a bit of sperm and an egg towards it. But then, a mother and father provided an egg and sperm to the life of their 10 year old son too, and their 50 year old son. Do they own them aswell? Right about now you would argue that it's different for a child inside the mother - but then I fail to see exactly what you're getting at. The child dwells temporarily inside it's mother, gets its nourishment from it's mother and so on. But then so does a 10 year old child. The parents provide it's food and a place to dwell until such time where it is big enough to go out on it's own. In both cases the child has the express desire to survive. You have no say over whether it has the right to or not.
My daughter spent 9 months getting bigger in my wife's womb, and will spend the next 10 years getting bigger in my house. What's the difference?
here again we get to the heart of your misunderstanding of my position.
If so that would probably stem from the fact that you have spoken of little more than children stuck in a field unable to walk, and mothers who are on welfare. It is hard to judge exactly where your argument lies.
i said that i believed its legality was crucial to us in order to both control our population and preserve our freedom of choice as it relates to what to do with our own bodies.
A) I still await statistics concerning abortion/population/deaths and adoption.
B) You have already stated yourself in the quote I just recently pasted, that a fetus/child is
not your body, but it's own body. Sure, it inhabits your body for a few months, but it is not your body.
C) I have never argued against a persons right to do as they please with their own body. As I mentioned to you in an earlier post, I wouldn't have anyone telling me I can or cannot get tattoos - or anything that is a part of your body. An individual "living being" that inhabits your body is
not your body. It is it's own body, using yours.
i argue for the right to abort because i see it as a freedom of choice issue and i do not accept as truth that a human is alive from the point of conception
So you are stating that it is dead from the point of conception? You are stating that it isn't human but giraffe perhaps? Every human acknowledges that they are carrying a human. When pregnant they do not state "I am carrying a bunch of cells", but "I am carrying a child". Acknowledgement of what is inside of them is absolute from the moment of conception, the moment they are aware they are pregnant. They carry a child, a human child. We can argue semantics, and say that for a little while it doesn't resemble a human, but it is still human.
im not asking anyone to kill. you should understand that by now. im actually not asking anyone to DO anything at all.
I suggested a compromise whereby murder can be stopped. By stating that people should be allowed to kill, you are infact condoning that killing. I'm sorry, but the argument that a child can't survive alone in a forest is not sufficient to justify abortion as being legal, it has already been shown, and you unwittingly agreed, that the 'body' of a child is separate to that of it's parents, we cannot deny that it has the express desire to live and that it is human. You're not asking anyone to DO anything, but I am - and that is to make abortion illegal.
i am expressing a line of reasoning that supports the legality of a choice to either engage in or not engage in a specific course of action.
Although we've been down that road a few times now, let's explore your "line of reasoning"..
A) A child can't survive alone in a field. My response: Neither can my grandmother.
B) "i was discussing viability as it relates to how we define a living being." My response: A fetus is by definition a "living being".
C) A woman can't afford her rent. My response: O..k, it's relevance to whether abortion should be legal or not?
D) But! The population will increase! My response: 1) Kindly show some statistics, and 2) Kill paedophiles instead.
Do you honestly call that a 'line of reasoning'?
but the morning after pill isnt free unless you qualify for it to be free, at least not in my state.
In England it is. Maybe we care more? But regardless to that, if you decide to bonk in that 4 day window, you should be able to gather what.. $2? to prevent the future murder of a "living being" that doesn't want to die.
not all tumors kill you, many are benign.
I am aware of that, but it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
why i said it was like a tumor is because a tumor can contain any type of tissue found in the human body, in fact they have removed tumors from people that contained fingernails and teeth.
So do you.. Are you like a tumor? Does a tumor suck it's thumb and cry after a couple of months?
the woman does a lot more than lie on her back (biology class)
My apologies, I thought I'd simplify it for you considering you asked me how a child got there in the first place.
it is made out of her body and the (although small) body of her mate. so yes i do believe that constitutes their being in a position to make decisions about whether or not to bring it to term.
You're talking pizza. I made the pizza, I can eat the pizza. It's just a shame we're not talking about pizza, but an individual "living being" with the express desire to survive. A being that does not have the right to vote, but does have the right to life. You'll probably retort with some more: "It can't walk or talk", but I'd rather not have to mention my grandmother again. And that is all you have at the end of the day - that this "living being" has no right to life because it can't talk and you owned the sperm. Simply ludicrous.
i made an intelligent argument that you chose to oversimplify and ignore. thats not my fault.
That's a debate all of it's own, but I'm finding it difficult to find the intelligent arguments amongst all the "It can't walk" arguments.
if i cant claim to know what a fetus desires and so do not have the right to "kill" it, how can you claim to know that it desires to live?
"because of its actions?"
actions not occuring through the work of any voluntary processes whatsoever?
Kinda like my heart. I have absolutely no say over what it does. It goes boom da da boom whether I like it or not and whether I care or not. I can sit here for the next year asking it kindly to stop going boom da da boom, but it doesn't change anything. My body keeps me alive. I do what I can to help - such as jogging in the morning and eating Weetabix, but it is largely out of my hands. I blink whether I want to or not, I breathe whether I want to or not - and find that my body always wins in the end if I try and hold my breath, that my kidneys, liver and whatever else does what it does without me telling it to and so on and so forth. Unlike the fetus, I can voluntarily jump off a cliff or shoot myself - but that is not what defines a living human being.
i said you didnt borrow space from your mother, and in truth you didnt. she GAVE you the space, allowed you to inhabit it, and chose to feed herself so that you could be fed in turn.
Ah yes, like I gave my child a house to live in, and food to eat? Do I have the right to kill my child? But why ever not, it is
my house that I allow her to inhabit, and
my food that I allow her to eat.
"But, but! There's a difference.. an unborn child is inside the woman's body!"
Does that make it any less human?
all you did as a fetus was involuntarily react to environmental stimuli.
The very first thing you did when you were born is suck a breast. It was not a voluntary choice, but a reaction to environmental stimuli.. chances are your mother brushed it in your face and you instinctively sucked. Does she have the right to kill you? That is but one example, there's a lot more.
if that was all that needed to be said, there would be no such thing as a national debate over abortion.
The debate is over whether they have the right to life, not whether they fight to survive. Big difference.
when you are born you physically seperate from your mother.
Most certainly, but before that time you are still classifiable as a human being.
a bot fly is not trapped inside of a dead person and made out of matter from that dead persons body and dependent on only that body as its one available food source. you cant seem to seperate the issue clearly. the existence of the bot fly isnt the result of a natural process of the dead body it feeds on. not to mention that the body itself is dead.
Well, let us first clear up the confusion...
A bot fly lays its eggs inside a
living being, not a dead one. The eggs will then hatch after development inside the carrier and proceed to work their way outwards. You could argue that the bot eggs are 'part of the woman's body' but they are not. They are inhabitants of her body until such time when they are developed enough to exit the hosts body. A fetus is also an inhabitant of the woman's body, but not a part of her body. Yes, it took two people to put it there, but it is a distinctly separate "living being". When it has used the woman's body to complete the development of it's own body, it will exist and do the rest outside.
If it's all the same with you, I shall continue this tomorrow - It's been a long day. Thnx.