Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[Asher]

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.

Now we're just playing stupid games with terms.

If a developing mammal is a mammal, why the qualifier for developing mammal? Clearly there is a distinction, why pretend there isn't?

[Hauldren Collider]

We can add "basic biology" to the list of things Asher stubbornly refuses to understand, which also includes international politics and the idea that economics is a perfectly legitimate way of placing a value on medical treatment.

[Asher]

I'm not the one who takes the supposed moral highground on abortion only to laugh in the face of universal health care.

You seem to care a lot more about the health of a fetus than a real human. Part of the ****ed up situation the US is in right now.

The fact that you also think the issue of abortion is purely biological also speaks volumes about your comprehension of the situation.

[Tupac Shakur]

Fetii have much more left to give society than Baby Boomers.

[Hauldren Collider]

The fact that you also think the issue of abortion is purely biological also speaks volumes about your comprehension of the situation.

I don't think abortion is purely biological, I think that your insistence that fetuses are parasites and not actually humans is astounding in light of its obvious falsehood.

[Asher]

Let's apply logic to the situation, HC.

Situation 1: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it stays intact. Had you not worn this condom, a child would be born in 9 months time.

Situation 2: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it breaks. The woman gets an abortion in the second trimester.

What is the end result of both situations, and why are they different? Note: You cannot at all refer to philosophical or religious arguments, unless you are freely admitting you are advocating legislating your personal philosophy and/or religious morals.

[Asher]

I don't think abortion is purely biological, I think that your insistence that fetuses are parasites and not actually humans is astounding in light of its obvious falsehood.

A fetus is certainly a homo sapien. It is also certainly a parasite. What defines being a "human being" is not a biological question, but a philosophical one.

par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/Noun
1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Seems to me that it is you that does not understand biology, or philosophy.

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher

This has been explained several times already. I'm not falling into the trap of explaining something to you an additional time so you can completely ignore it and continue ranting in ignorance.

[Asher]

Asher
This has been explained several times already. I'm not falling into the trap of explaining something to you an additional time so you can completely ignore it and continue ranting in ignorance.

If it has been explained, please link to it. I've not yet seen anyone address it without an ample amount of hand waving.

[Asher]

Let's apply logic to the situation, HC.

Situation 1: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it stays intact. Had you not worn this condom, a child would be born in 9 months time.

Situation 2: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it breaks. The woman gets an abortion in the second trimester.

What is the end result of both situations, and why are they different? Note: You cannot at all refer to philosophical or religious arguments, unless you are freely admitting you are advocating legislating your personal philosophy and/or religious morals.

SPOILER ALERT: The net result of both actions is the lack of a child being born.

At least the Catholic Church is consistent in their condemnation of contraceptives. Because they're right. There's fundamentally no difference between using condoms to prevent fertilization and aborting a fetus in the 1st/2nd trimester to prevent birth. Either way you are actively preventing a future child from entering the world.

[Felch]

A parasite, by definition. But certainly not distinct.

No, a parasite, by definition, is a different species than the host animal.

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.

Sentience refers to the ability to sense. Numerous studies, already cited in this thread, indicate that fetuses are sentient beings.

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.

Again, it's not a parasite. And if being human isn't sacred, then it's safe to say that you reject the very notion of "human rights."

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.

It doesn't deserve any consideration. A society that would rather terminate pregnancies than figure out how to feed a few million more mouths is undeserving of being called civilized. The influx of foster kids is well within the ability of society to handle, through increasing benefits to foster parents, or other schemes. Using the cost to justify inhumanity is disgraceful.

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

Ignoring your error there, why do humans deserve any rights at all? What makes us special? Why shouldn't I just go out and kill anybody who I think doesn't deserve to live?

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

Read the ****ing thread. A fetus is distinct because it has its own genetic code, and its own rate of senescence. It is not the same organism as the mother.

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.

You're wrong. A human's life cycle begins at conception. There's no point where a fetus which will grow into a human being is not biologically human.

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.

Not everyone is correct. Some people think that global warming is a hoax and that man never stepped on the moon. They're entitled to their opinions, but we shouldn't base our laws on inaccurate beliefs. The fact is that human being can be defined, biologically. A human fetus is a human being. It is a mammal. It is alive, and it is a distinct organism from its mother. Terminating the pregnancy ends the life of a human being. These aren't opinions, these are facts, that any honest biologist will confirm. If you're okay with terminating an early term pregnancy because the fetus is not yet sentient, then that's your opinion. It's an opinion that I can respect, even if I don't agree with it. But basing your opinion on pseudo-scientific horse**** like, "A fetus is pre-human," or "A fetus is not distinct from the mother," just makes you look pathetic and unwilling to face the real issue. And deciding that society would be better off without useless mouths to feed makes you sound like the worst kind of selfish jackass. You're smarter and better than that.

[Asher]

No, a parasite, by definition, is a different species than the host animal.

What difference does that make? It's an organism leaching nutrients off a host. Is there another word for that that fits better than parasite?

Sentience refers to the ability to sense. Numerous studies, already cited in this thread, indicate that fetuses are sentient beings.

The general consensus is that occurs in the third trimester, which is why I've mentioned first and second. I know some pro-life advocates say that they experience pain in the first and second, but I've seen that disproven more times than I want to get into again.

Again, it's not a parasite. And if being human isn't sacred, then it's safe to say that you reject the very notion of "human rights."

I didn't say being human isn't sacred. I said the potential to be human isn't sacred. Sperm isn't sacred, eggs aren't sacred, fetuses aren't sacred.

It doesn't deserve any consideration.

Yes, because we all live in a happy world without consequences. Such is the life of a pro-life activist

Ignoring your error there, why do humans deserve any rights at all? What makes us special? Why shouldn't I just go out and kill anybody who I think doesn't deserve to live?

1) No error there
2) Because humans need to work together to survive. If it is all of our best interests to maintain a healthy population and work together where possible.

Read the ****ing thread. A fetus is distinct because it has its own genetic code, and its own rate of senescence. It is not the same organism as the mother.

I guess you just use a non-standard definition of distinct. I don't see how something that is completely dependent on another and physically attached can be claimed to be distinct.

You're wrong. A human's life cycle begins at conception. There's no point where a fetus which will grow into a human being is not biologically human.

You're confusing homo sapien with humanity.

Not everyone is correct. Some people think that global warming is a hoax and that man never stepped on the moon. They're entitled to their opinions, but we shouldn't base our laws on inaccurate beliefs.

So you agree religious morality pertaining to abortion should not form any laws.

The fact is that human being can be defined, biologically.

No, homo sapien can be defined, biologically. Humanity is a philosophical concept.

[Felch]

Let's apply logic to the situation, HC.

Situation 1: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it stays intact. Had you not worn this condom, a child would be born in 9 months time.

Situation 2: Let's say, and this is obviously hypothetical, you meet a woman who would let you have sex with her. You choose to wear a condom and it breaks. The woman gets an abortion in the second trimester.

What is the end result of both situations, and why are they different? Note: You cannot at all refer to philosophical or religious arguments, unless you are freely admitting you are advocating legislating your personal philosophy and/or religious morals.

In Situation 1, no human life is created.

In Situation 2, a human being exists and develops for a number of weeks, and then its life is terminated.

The end result is outwardly the same, but in one case there was a human being alive whose fundamental human rights were then violated.

[Asher]

In Situation 1, no human life is created.

In Situation 2, a human being exists and develops for a number of weeks, and then its life is terminated.

The end result is outwardly the same, but in one case there was a human being alive whose fundamental human rights were then violated.

This is an implicit appeal to religious morality. The concept of every potential human life being sacred is a religious one. The fact that you've tried to use the phrase "human rights" to mask that doesn't mean this isn't so.

[Felch]

What difference does that make? It's an organism leaching nutrients off a host. Is there another word for that that fits better than parasite?

My working definition came from the wikipedia article which specifies that the organisms are of different species.

The general consensus is that occurs in the third trimester, which is why I've mentioned first and second. I know some pro-life advocates say that they experience pain in the first and second, but I've seen that disproven more times than I want to get into again.

Fair enough.

I didn't say being human isn't sacred. I said the potential to be human isn't sacred. Sperm isn't sacred, eggs aren't sacred, fetuses aren't sacred.

Sperm and eggs have the potential to be human, but a fetus already is.

Yes, because we all live in a happy world without consequences. Such is the life of a pro-life activist

It's not without consequence, but it's part of being a decent human being. We wouldn't machine gun refugees just because they're burdensome, we'd scrounge up the resources to feed them.

1) No error there
2) Because humans need to work together to survive. If it is all of our best interests to maintain a healthy population and work together where possible.

1) I was including late term fetuses, you weren't. Honest misunderstanding.
2) Why do we all need to work together? What if killing a rival tribe was in your tribe's best interests? Would it then be okay to murder and pillage in order to get the resources you need? This thinking brings us back to the Israelis and Palestinians. Obviously human rights are based on something other than self-interest.

I guess you just use a non-standard definition of distinct. I don't see how something that is completely dependent on another and physically attached can be claimed to be distinct.

Distinct means not the same as or not identical. Since a fetus has a different genetic code from its mother, it is a distinct organism.

You're confusing homo sapien with humanity.

I don't distinguish between homo sapien and humanity. Do you?

So you agree religious morality pertaining to abortion should not form any laws.

I agree. I would base abortion laws on respecting the human rights of the fetus.

No, homo sapien can be defined, biologically. Humanity is a philosophical concept.

Again, I regard humanity as consisting of homo sapiens, or humans. I don't see any other way of looking at it.