An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[November Adam]

Akka, personhood shouldn't be the basis for decideing on the morality of abortion. As the definition of personhood is too ambiguous, you define it as someone with a mind. For you it is okay to terminate the life of someone as long as they are not possessing a mind. For me it is not, as the one to be terminated has the very real potential of possessing one. Not some fantasy la, la thing about all human cells having the potential of possessing a mind. It time isn't an important factor as some are trying to imply, than why is it necesarry to terminate this life within 9 months?

Akka you didn't address the other points I brought up. You only said you were offended when I asked you what a "person" is.

Uhm Richeliue what do you mean "step back"?

I was trying to draw a comparrison between someone who had lost sentience, and would recover it to an embryo which would devlope it.

Of course if people knew that someone who was brain dead (lost sentience), but would recover it, they would want to keep the people on life support until they recovered. Even if they only had the "potential" to recover it. How is this different than an embryo, or fetus?

[CygnusZ]

I have a question for the pro-lifers in here.

Do you consider a fetus to be a person in the same way you consider yourself to be a person? Isn't there a difference between being homo sapien and being human?

I for one believe that humans are more than just animals, defined by more than their genetic code.

[blackice]

I fail to see why men debate this issue when ultimately you have no say what so ever...

[Sixchan]

A not so long time ago, slavery was not considered bad. If it was not for some people that tried to open the mind and share their ideas to other, we could still live in a world were slavery would be acceptable.

But didn't this, at least in America, eventually involve brute force in the form of a war? The south was forced to abolish slavery, because they thought slavery was moral, and couldn't be convinced otherwise.

And blackice has a point, although, even I'm not likely to get pregnant. At, least, I don't think I can...

[November Adam]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I have a question for the pro-lifers in here.

Do you consider a fetus to be a person in the same way you consider yourself to be a person? Isn't there a difference between being homo sapien and being human?

I for one believe that humans are more than just animals, defined by more than their genetic code.

A person.... yes.

I too believe that a person is very much the mind of the human animal. Yet I also believe that the human animal has to be protected for the mind to develope. Thus me being against abortion. The human animal (fetus) is developing and should have the freedom to do so with out its life being threatened.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by blackice
I fail to see why men debate this issue when ultimately you have no say what so ever...

true, but we can still have an opinion on the matter, besides if we got her pregenant we should have a say in the process as well.

[CygnusZ]

I for the most part tend to agree with you. The only thing is that can you consider taking something from somebody that never had it to be immoral? Can you really be blamed for destroying something that doesn't exist?

You used the analogy of someone that got very sick lost his mind (or as I would say, his humanity) but is going to recover. I would say the difference is that the person lost something and is going to regain it, while the baby never had it in the first place.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by blackice
I fail to see why men debate this issue when ultimately you have no say what so ever...

Because men make the laws.

[Sixchan]

It's nice for you, you don't have to go through the morning-sickness, mood swings, extra weight, and the excuciating pain at the end of it.

And luckily, neither will I!

[Akka]

Originally posted by November Adam
Akka, personhood shouldn't be the basis for decideing on the morality of abortion. As the definition of personhood is too ambiguous, you define it as someone with a mind. For you it is okay to terminate the life of someone as long as they are not possessing a mind. For me it is not, as the one to be terminated has the very real potential of possessing one. Not some fantasy la, la thing about all human cells having the potential of possessing a mind. It time isn't an important factor as some are trying to imply, than why is it necesarry to terminate this life within 9 months?

So you consider that something which have the potential to become a human being, as to have to same rights (or close to the same rights) as a full human being.
I completely disagree with this potential idea. Perhaps that the embryo has the potential to get a mind later. Still it does not exist yet. I can't hurt it, I can't steal from it, I can't kill it, because it just does not exist.
Why something that does not exist should have any right ?

Akka you didn't address the other points I brought up. You only said you were offended when I asked you what a "person" is.

Of course. I was not about to repeat myself when you just had to finish to read my previous post to find your answer.

If you really want your answer then here they are :

1) "abortion is killing a human in its embryotic stage"

It's not a human yet, as it has no mind.


2) "You are arguing that it is okay to kill a human as long as it is not a "person"."

I'm not saying killing is okay as long as it is not a person. I say that it's not a killing as long as it's not a person. Do you consider cutting your finger being a killing ?

I was trying to draw a comparrison between someone who had lost sentience, and would recover it to an embryo which would devlope it.

Someone never lose sentience. You can be asleep or in the coma, but if you ever awake, you will retain your memories and your personnality, at least to some extend. You can loose consciousness, not sentience.

Of course if people knew that someone who was brain dead (lost sentience), but would recover it, they would want to keep the people on life support until they recovered. Even if they only had the "potential" to recover it. How is this different than an embryo, or fetus?

Someone who is braindead is considered dead. The ones that stay plugged on the life support are the one who are in deep coma, but whose brain is still alive. Hence, his mind is still alive, though unconscious.
The difference is then that an embryo has not yet a mind, and then there is nothing bad about destroying the embryo.
The people in coma has still his mind, he is just unconscious.

[blackice]

besides if we got her pregenant we should have a say in the process as well.

I agree but we do not, heck in Ontario we do not even have the right to name the child...

[November Adam]

Akka fair enough about the coma issue.

I don't consider cutting myself killing, as I am only injuring myself. I can remove parts of my self without killing myself. I am an individual organism.

An embryo is an individual organism so if you remove it from its environment you are killing it.

An embryo is human, but not a person.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by blackice

besides if we got her pregenant we should have a say in the process as well.

I agree but we do not, heck in Ontario we do not even have the right to name the child...

Ya I heard about that, what a crock o' dung that is.

Not good enough to name the child, but man if the money is required, look out.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I for the most part tend to agree with you. The only thing is that can you consider taking something from somebody that never had it to be immoral? Can you really be blamed for destroying something that doesn't exist?

You used the analogy of someone that got very sick lost his mind (or as I would say, his humanity) but is going to recover. I would say the difference is that the person lost something and is going to regain it, while the baby never had it in the first place.

I believe the embryo is like the foundation in a building project, if you destroy it, while you didn't destroy the full building, you still did destroy the partial building.

[Akka]

Originally posted by November Adam
Akka fair enough about the coma issue.

I don't consider cutting myself killing, as I am only injuring myself. I can remove parts of my self without killing myself. I am an individual organism.

An embryo is an individual organism so if you remove it from its environment you are killing it.

An embryo is human, but not a person.

Exactly : an embryo is human, but it's not A human. I don't give to a human part any rights. Hence I consider that anything the mother do to the embryo before it get a brain is only her business.


BTW, on a side note : a cancer cell is regular cell that sustained DNA changes which made it "crazy". Hence the cell divide anarchically itself and become a disease. It has effectively become an individual organism, like the embryo. Of course it has not its potential to become a baby one day, and is harmful to the person that have it, unlike the embryo. But technically, they are the same.