Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[Al B. Sure!]

Their refusal to eat unfertilized eggs would probably have more to do with not wanting chickens kept in captivity. But this is just speculation on my part.

What about free range eggs? I don't see too many Vegans going for them, either.

[Tupac Shakur]

As long as you're okay with the inconsistency.

I am. If you're desperate for consistency, however, I can always support First Nations/Nugent rules: eat what you kill.

[giblets]

What about free range eggs? I don't see too many Vegans going for them, either.

I don't know. They also refuse to drink milk, and I don't think they consider milk an animal.

[giblets]

I am. If you're desperate for consistency, however, I can always support First Nations/Nugent rules: eat what you kill.

Sounds like a good compromise

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, the pre-human being part.

You missed the part where I said that we can tell the difference between a fetal pig and a fetal human. So this is wrong.

Sperm is part of the development process, too.

Indeed, which is why we have peternity laws, because sperm comes from the dad.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can do what you want with your body, stop trying to tell other people how to use theirs.

Again, you are assuming that there is only one person here. If there are two, then by your argument, you would have to concede that abortion is wrong.

[Asher]

You missed the part where I said that we can tell the difference between a fetal pig and a fetal human. So this is wrong.

Can also tell the difference between pig sperm and human sperm. So that makes it also wrong?

Indeed, which is why we have peternity laws, because sperm comes from the dad.

So you've admitted the biological stages have some arbitrary line over when it is considered a child. Yet you refuse to consider that other people may have the line placed differently.
That doesn't matter to you -- big government does. You'd rather legislate how people draw their own lines pertaining to their own body.

[Asher]

Again, you are assuming that there is only one person here. If there are two, then by your argument, you would have to concede that abortion is wrong.

I'm not assuming anything. There is only one person there.

If you consider sperm, egg, or fetus a person, that's your prerogative. But don't be arrogant enough to legislate your opinion and pretend you're not all about big government regulating every ****ing social issue in your life.

To me, sperm, egg, and fetus are all potential people. Many others share my beliefs. Who are you to tell me I am wrong and how to run my life?

[Asher]

I also notice no one even tried to counter my practical stance for abortion. I guess you wouldn 't care if your taxes got raised significantly for the state to raise all of those unwanted children. Raise taxes! It's the conservative way!

[Felch]

A fetus is not yet a human being. A fetus is biologically defined as a mammal in development, but not yet a mammal.

"A fetus is a developing mammal." It is whatever species it is: human, pig, goat, whatever. That is to say, a goat fetus will not ever become a dog.

If you've got a source that says otherwise, I'll check it out. Wikipedia certainly isn't the final authority on anything.

[Asher]

Developing mammal is a stage prior to "mammal". What's the confusion?

Human sperm will never become a dog, either.

[Asher]

I am a developing marathon runner, because I am training to try to become one but cannot yet run one.

[Felch]

A fetus is an organism that is biologically part of the woman until it breaches. True or false?

What does "biologically part of the woman" mean? If you mean that the fetus is a body part, then no, that's retarded. If you mean it is attached and shares resources with the mother, then that is true. It is undeniably a distinct organism though.

Yes, the pre-human being part. Sperm is part of the development process, too.

Sperm and eggs are gametes, not humans. A fetus is a human.

I've philosophically and practically explained my support for early term abortions. If you are incapable of reading that, chalk it up to another failure of yours.

Your explanation is based on putting dollars over human lives. It was hardly philosophical. Also, in this post I ask you where you think human rights come from. You haven't explained.

The point is, no matter how you try to justify banning it, it comes down to personal opinion more than anything else. Not everyone agrees. This is why legislating it wholesale is flat out wrong. You can do what you want with your body, stop trying to tell other people how to use theirs.

Feel free to advocate it, but that makes you part of big government in some of the most invasive ways imaginable. You are all terrible conservatives.

Certain things are down to opinions, but others aren't. It's not a matter of opinion that a human fetus is a living human organism, distinct from its mother. That's biology. So the argument that it is a woman's body is therefore flawed. There can be no denying that a fetus is attached to a woman, and the woman has some say in the matter, but it's not an entirely private matter at all. It involves competing interests between two human beings, only one of whom enjoys legal personhood.

[Felch]

Developing mammal is a stage prior to "mammal". What's the confusion?

Human sperm will never become a dog, either.

It's not prior to mammal. It is a mammal in development. Mammal is a class of vertebrates. A mammal zygote is still a mammal.

EDIT: As far as gametes go, there is room for hybridization. A donkey sperm could become part of a donkey, or it could become part of a mule.

[Asher]

What does "biologically part of the woman" mean? If you mean that the fetus is a body part, then no, that's retarded. If you mean it is attached and shares resources with the mother, then that is true. It is undeniably a distinct organism though.

A parasite, by definition. But certainly not distinct.

Your explanation is based on putting dollars over human lives. It was hardly philosophical.

No, that was practical. The philosophical argument was the one where I argue sentience is a prerequisite. I value sentience over how biologists would classify. I value the life of a cat more than that of a fetus, because it is more sentient and it is more intelligent and more independent. That's philosophical.

I don't think it makes sense to assume just because something will become a person means it's sacred. It's a parasite attached to and using resources from a woman. The woman has a right to terminate that. They should continue to have the right to terminate that.

The practical argument deserves a lot of consideration. You need to figure out how to deal with that system with the overwhelming number of unwanted babies. Unless you have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the influx of foster kids, it's completely and utterly irresponsible to even posit abolition of abortion.

Also, in this post I ask you where you think human rights come from. You haven't explained.

From sentient humans, obviously. A fetus is not one.

Certain things are down to opinions, but others aren't. It's not a matter of opinion that a human fetus is a living human organism, distinct from its mother. That's biology.

It's certainly not distinct. It is physically connected and completely dependent on the host. That's not distinct.

So the argument that it is a woman's body is therefore flawed. There can be no denying that a fetus is attached to a woman, and the woman has some say in the matter, but it's not an entirely private matter at all. It involves competing interests between two human beings, only one of whom enjoys legal personhood.

Nope. Because sentience is a prerequisite to being a human being. The fetus is certainly a precursor to homo sapien, but it's not sentient in early terms.

Not everyone defines human being the way that you do. Hence the differing opinions. And hence why you should not legislate your opinion as more correct than anyone else's.