Jump to content

What a Baby is Alive?


Blank

Abortion is wrong...  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Abortion is wrong...

    • Always. (Anytime after conception).
      8
    • Never. Go ahead and abort me now, see if I care.
      2
    • Anytime after the baby is out of the womb.
      1
    • A few months after conception.
      3
    • After the middle stages of being in the womb.
      1
    • After the latter stages of being in the womb
      0
    • After the first twelve months subsequent to conception (aborting a little later than that is okay if absolutely necessary).
      0
    • After a year subsequent to birth.
      1
    • Sometime between one and two years subsequent to birth.
      0
    • Heck, as I see it, if a toddler is being at all annoying, undesirably rowdy, or generally pugnacious, it's okay to abort him/her/it.
      4
    • Le option where you explain why you voted for this option in a post you make belowzers.
      1


Recommended Posts

If you have any more ideas, feel free to share them. Or if you chose the "share below" option, go ahead.

 

I just was in a curious mood, and wanted to say, "What a baby is alive?" Which is a funny way of saying, "When is a baby alive?" That question, however, can be considered to have little or much significance on the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. Which is why I am not asking that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The baby at 10-11 weeks old can urinate.

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no parent, nor do i plan to become one in the near future. And i'm not exactly encouraged to become a loving parent when i see the general attitude among kids today.

 

So yeah, no cookies for guessing my choice in the poll.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a fetus alive? Sure it is. Isn't that obvious? That's really not the issue with abortion. The issue is whether or not the fetus is a person worthy of protection or consideration. If being alive informs one's right to exist, then concessions have to be made far beyond abortion. We wouldn't be able to cut down trees, or eat meat, or some vegetables for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand, a fetus lacks intelligence, a recognizable consciousness, and is utterly physically dependent upon the mother to a degree that it can't survive under any circumstance after being removed up to a certain period of development. A zygote is no more a person than a piece skin.

 

On the other hand, I don't know that I hold life even that sacred. It's just a good idea for social development to encourage that idea.

 

So, who cares, kill 'em all!

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

Cloning? :-"

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

Cloning? :-"

Actually... this.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is often the case with such topics, I will only offer once the need to step with respect and compassion in this discussion.

The universe is change;
your life is what our thoughts make it
- Marcus Aurelius (161)

:dragon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

:-

 

That's not the same thing. A terminally ill person is still a person. A zygote is not the same as a piece of skin because a piece of skin is not something that develops into a person if left alone to grow.

 

As for your other point, yes human beings cut down trees and kill animals for food. But we do it for our own survival as a species. We do it because it's necessary. It's not the same thing as killing a baby simply because a person doesn't want to have one.

 

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

Cloning? :-"

Again, not the same thing. It doesn't happen naturally. And even still, it's not the piece of skin itself that grows. It's just DNA taken from those cells and put into a living zygote inside a mother host.

Edited by Dark Moth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

 

You wouldn't have to consider them as non-humans, just dead humans.

 

Oh wait, but then wouldn't we have to just consider everyone as dead humans because we all eventually die?

Edited by thepixiesrock

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

 

You wouldn't have to consider them as non-humans, just dead humans.

Same thing. They don't have potential futures, they don't have value. If we want to consider them people we have to have some different criterion for personhood.

 

Oh wait, but then wouldn't we have to just consider everyone as dead humans because we all eventually die?

Sure. Thus no one has value or rights. Who are you arguing with?

Edited by Pop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing against anyone, I was just pointing out. I just finished writitng my debate for this topic for tomorrow, I think that's why Blank started this topic.

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, wait.

 

That's not the same thing. A terminally ill person is still a person. A zygote is not the same as a piece of skin because a piece of skin is not something that develops into a person if left alone to grow.

That's not an assertion of potential future as a paradigm for personhood. We can reasonably say that a man with ALS has no future. A zygote does. If we say then that the man with ALS is a moral agent (or "person") with the same value as a zygote, we're denying that potential future has anything to do with whether or not we consider someone a moral agent. We're making an argument from humanity, which is much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the same thing. You're making two big logical errors here. First, you're trying to say that just because one principal applies to one then it must apply to everything. Secondly, you're making it seem like potential future is the only thing that applies to both a zygote and a terminally ill person. Besides, the original point was not comparing a zygote to a terminally ill person. The point was comparing a zygote to just a piece of skin and explaining why a zygote could have more value than it. A terminally ill person is an entirely subject altogether - which is why it's pointless to try to compare the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your other point, yes human beings cut down trees and kill animals for food.  But we do it for our own survival as a species.  We do it because it's necessary.  It's not the same thing as killing a baby simply because a person doesn't want to have one.

Except we don't. Humans don't need paper to survive. I won't argue against wood for building materials, because that's just so convenient. Humans also don't need meat to survive, we can survive healthy and efficiently off fruits and vegetables.

 

And do another thing you posted, why is the criteria the ability to develop into a whole organism while nurtured in the womb? Why not the criteria be the ability to develop outside of the womb? At least the latter is more recognizable as an organism.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're human when you make it into the phone book, not before

People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except we don't.  Humans don't need paper to survive.  I won't argue against wood for building materials, because that's just so convenient.  Humans also don't need meat to survive, we can survive healthy and efficiently off fruits and vegetables.

 

And do another thing you posted, why is the criteria the ability to develop into a whole organism while nurtured in the womb?  Why not the criteria be the ability to develop outside of the womb?  At least the latter is more recognizable as an organism.

It's still a concept of survival, no matter how you look at it. And some people are against the killing of animals for meat anyway, so that's a moot point. As for your second point, the issue is not whether or not it's outside the womb, just it's ability to grow into a whole new organism. Also, see my post above.

Edited by Dark Moth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...