Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
Ok we go silly

Blame Cloud9, I'm not the one who said that blood cells are human beings.

why obviously because nither and or your decription started to form life....again welcome to life in the food chain.......

Again, "started to form life." Life is not continuous, therefore it is not unreasonable to claim that an embryo that fails to resemble a human in anything but DNA structure is not a human, just as it is not unreasonable to claim that sperm/egg cells that also fail to resemble a human are also not human.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

BLACKICE, perhaps you can explain this to him better. I'm no good with science anyway. I'm outta this debate.

[blackice]

I'm arguing that a zygote is not a human.

Again because it can not tell you it is?

Sure, sperm are alive too, so is an egg cell, so is a zygote or an embryo. Doesn't mean that masturbation, nocturnal emission, or menstruation are murder any more than aborting a zygote or embryo are murder.

Ok really lame arguement we have established obviously when a human starts to form it will "chances are" become a human...

So are sperm/egg cells human? If not, then you cannot deny that "human life" is discontinuous. If you do argue that sperm/egg cells are human, then see my post to Cloud9 about how this means that bleeding amounts to mass murder.

So, and you don't have to admit this...when was the last time you had a dabate with "blood" Back to define a human...other than the parts....

[blackice]

0

[blackice]

-

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
Again because it can not tell you it is?

A newborn can hardly say that it's alive any better than a zygote can. Sure, it can scream, but so can a lot of animals. The reason that a newborn is human is because it possesses all characteristics that are human (notably, human DNA), and it can survive independently of any other life form (such as its host, its mother). Prior to its birth, particularly during its embryonic stage, the embryo/fetus is a parasitic life form and is therefore not human.

Ok really lame arguement we have established obviously when a human starts to form it will "chances are" become a human...

When an embryo forms then it will, if uninterrupted, eventually produce a newborn human being. This does not mean that the embryo is human; not only does it lack many vital characteristics that are human (i.e. a brain, a heart, etc.), but it also cannot survive independently of its host (its mother); this is the key factor to why it is not "human".

So, and you don't have to admit this...when was the last time you had a dabate with "blood" Back to define a human...other than the parts....

Do you mean, when was the last time I had a debate with somebody who claimed that blood cells were human beings? To be honest, this is the first time that I have ever heard such a claim.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I never said that blood cells were human beings. I said that blood cells are a part of a human being.

And as for being out of this debate: I lied.

[orange]

And what about the womyn who are part of the right, oh simplfying one?

How the mighty have fallen :tisk tisk:

[blackice]

A newborn can hardly say that it's alive any better than a zygote can

And that as I pointed seems to be the meat of the arguement...If one can not stand up and "humanly" defend one's self they are not human...Mentaly retated people who can not I assume based on this arguemnet are not humans?

The reason that a newborn is human is because it possesses all characteristics that are human (notably, human DNA), and it can survive independently of any other life form (such as its host, its mother). Prior to its birth, particularly during its embryonic stage, the embryo/fetus is a parasitic life form and is therefore not human.

it will be you simply deny it's right to tell you...

(its mother);

Or test tube I will point out for the lame an infant can not survive without human intervention also...lame again welcome to life in the food chain...I have a 4 year old she needs my help to survive according to your logic she is not human?

(notably, human DNA)

So does sperm...

[blackice]

And as for being out of this debate: I lied.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I support the idea of abortion. I do not subscribe to the idea that life is sacred or untouchable. Life does have a value attached, and in some cases that value can be extremely high or extremely low. I do not believe that a woman should ever have to bear a child that she does not feel she wants to bring into the world. I also believe that "fates worse than death" do exist, therefore the concept of abortion is not the worst fate possible.

However, I am less certain of the idea of the death penalty. This relies heavily on the concept of whether incarceration is a preferable alternative, both for the suspected criminal and for the society that supports them. Society has been proven to be wrong in its judgements before, and you can never bring a dead man back to life.

The obvious question here is "If Allie Cove supports killing off a foetus, why doesn't she support killing off adults left right and center?" My response is that, a human being is the sum total of his or her experiences. If you clone somebody, you get the same genetic makeup, but the clone is a different person since their experiences are not the same as yours. Following this logic, a foetus does not have the same background of experiences as an adult, and therefore the humanity that is killed off is of a lesser magnitude than the adult death.

Yes, it's not pretty, but I feel that one can attach a value to life. If human life were truly sacred, the method of obtaining it seems rather unusual: women lose an egg cell every month, and men lose several hundred million sperms every time they beget a child.

Why should human life be so much more sacred than animal or plant life? Is it through a collective sense of guilt for our consumption of other life forms, that we evince such a distaste for risking our own? Why should this collection of cells be deemed any different from any other interloper? Can you argue that a womb-located parasitic worm has any less right to survival than a child?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
And that as I pointed seems to be the meat of the arguement...If one can not stand up and "humanly" defend one's self they are not human...Mentaly retated people who can not I assume based on this arguemnet are not humans?

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that a newborn is human despite the fact that it cannot verbally defend itself.

it will be you simply deny it's right to tell you...

No, an embryo cannot survive without its host, therefore it is not human; it survives as a parasite.

Or test tube I will point out for the lame an infant can not survive without human intervention also...lame again welcome to life in the food chain...I have a 4 year old she needs my help to survive according to your logic she is not human?

Does she take her nutrients straight from your blood stream? Does she take her oxygen straight from your blood stream? Does she live within your amniotic sac? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, then she eats, breathes, and moves independently of you, so by my logic she is human.

So does sperm...

So do blood cells, so does a severed finger, etc. None of these can survive independently of their host, therefore they are not human. Similarly, an embryo cannot survive independently of its host, therefore it is not human.

[blackice]

I do not believe that a woman should ever have to bear a child that she does not feel she wants to bring into the world.

And the father of the child? Again do not ignore 50% of the population please. Now have the chaild and ask it's opinion///

I also believe that "fates worse than death" do exist, therefore the concept of abortion is not the worst fate possible.

Fate is what the living decide give them the right to decide thier fate....it is not a crystal ball, tarot cards fate is action....

My response is that, a human being is the sum total of his or her experiences.

Based on what an invalid mentally challenged person may not have experiences nor does an infant...

Why should human life be so much more sacred than animal or plant life?

it is not yet lab rats have more choices than humans in this debate...welcome to life in the food chain...it seems eat or be eaten is the "human way"

Can you argue that a womb-located parasitic worm has any less right to survival than a child?

It would depend on your view it seems that both can be erraticated simply because it is annoying or demend "non human"

[blackice]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that a newborn is human despite the fact that it cannot verbally defend itself.

No I am saying it will be a human you have denied it's right to tell you that...

No, an embryo cannot survive without its host, therefore it is not human; it survives as a parasite.

Redundant nor can an infant...

Does she take her nutrients straight from your blood stream? Does she take her oxygen straight from your blood stream? Does she live within your amniotic sac? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, then she eats, breathes, and moves independently of you, so by my logic she is human.

Ok back to rediculous does she feed herself, find food, learn to walk without help PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE. You have kids?

None of these can survive independently of their host, therefore they are not human. Similarly, an embryo cannot survive independently of its host, therefore it is not human.

Niether can an infant or a invalid menatlly challenged child. You seem to ignore this "fact"...tell me should we "abort them too"

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
No I am saying it will be a human you have denied it's right to tell you that...

It isn't, at the time of its abortion, a human. It cannot surivive independently of its host.

Redundant nor can an infant...

An infant does not gain nutrients from a host's blood stream. An infant does not gain oxygen from a host's blood stream. An infant does not live within a host's amniotic sac. I'd hardly call this "redundant" with the parasitism of an embryo.

Ok back to rediculous does she feed herself, find food, learn to walk without help PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE. You have kids?

So she gains nutrients from your blood stream? She gains oxygen from your blood stream? She lives within your amniotic sac? No. She lives with your assistance, but does not practice parasitism; she is not attached to your body, she lives independently of it, as her own human life form.

Niether can an infant or a invalid menatlly challenged child. You seem to ignore this "fact"...tell me should we "abort them too"

Do they gain nutrients from somebody else's blood stream? Do they gain oxygen from somebody else's blood stream? Do they live within somebody else's amniotic sac? If not, then you're drawing false parallels.