Coil managed to put together a post conveying exactly what my opinions are on the entire matter, I simply couldn't put together the exact words to express them myself. Good job on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 27 2003, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 27 2003, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wasn't even replying to coil. coil's arguments aren't compatible to be matched against mine. We just value different things. I'm just trying to argue against the "unborn baby isn't sentient, therefore not human" type of arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think there is any debate of it not being human at that point, the debate is if its self aware enough to feel pain of know what its going through.
Here is a completely biased article about abortion: - <a href='http://impiousdigest.com/op-ed.htm' target='_blank'>http://impiousdigest.com/op-ed.htm</a>
Where are the videos of the starving children on the street, and the people in jail that have been there since they were 17, and how about the kids with broken limbs from abusive parents, or portray the inside of one of the many orphanges packed with unwated children set to haunting music interwined with clips of starving children in Africa.
I dunno I think Monkeybonk hit it on the head (And Coil too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) about it not having ever been sentient.
Furthermore, until it reaches sentience, it's really nothing more then a parasite. An abortion is the same as removing a tapeworm...
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 27 2003, 10:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 27 2003, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've never tried to argue that unborn babies sentient, just that they are destined to become so if they aren't killed. I do consider it murder. I don't consider killing animals murder because a) they are not human b) there is no evidence that any animal will become sentient in its lifetime through natural means c) their deaths are usually mandatory for our survival, while killing another human being (including an unborn baby) is the exact opposite.
I don't consider the unborn baby a part of the mother because it has its own genetic make-up. The unborn baby is a growing organism and that, God willing, will one day be born and grow into a sentient being. Arguments about the unborn baby not being sentient in its current state are kind of flawed because a baby that is born isn't either.
I'm only repeating myself because people seem to be ignoring my earlier posts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would imagine that born babies are sentient? Have I been mislead D:\
btw dr.d teflon has the right to his opinion, everything depends on perspective, if he wishes to view the fetus from the perspective of a foreign body consuming resources otherwise going to the host [ie a parasite] he has every right to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That was crude at best Teflon. You don't have to make posts that are blatently inflametory in fact it is against the rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the fetus is a parasite while still in the womb, comparing it to a tapeworm was a bit harsh but I didn't the idea that Teflon said that to be inflammatory.
People say things that don't always make you happy, doesn't mean its against the rules. Its already been said that this forum is up for good so thats not anything you have to worry about. The mods will take care of anything they deem innappropriate.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Aug 27 2003, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Aug 27 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would imagine that born babies are sentient? Have I been mislead D:\ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A born baby is as sentient as an unborn baby in its early stages. They do percieve stimuli but they aren't consciously aware of them. Of course, their brains do grow and they learn.
<!--QuoteBegin--Teflon+Aug 27 2003, 10:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Teflon @ Aug 27 2003, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I dunno I think Monkeybonk hit it on the head (And Coil too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) about it not having ever been sentient.
Furthermore, until it reaches sentience, it's really nothing more then a parasite. An abortion is the same as removing a tapeworm... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You have every right to compare an unborn baby to a parasite. But I hope you are aware of the paramount differences between the two. To be truthful, I'm happy someone said this, it shows the character of some of the supporters for pro-choice.
(I'm probably going to get a lot of "they suffer more if born, you're the bad one" arguments because I said this)
It all breaks down to whether, yes or no, you believe in killing another human. Sentient or not, it is <i>undeniably</i> human, and until you can understand the situation in that aspect, you are going to find a very unrealistic perspective of the situation.
I do believe I have found something new to add to this. Hard to believe given the amount of posts here.
Sometimes whether an unborn baby is a person or not is decided purely upon whether it is wanted. Take a case in Australia for example.
A man and a woman were in a de facto relationship. Contraception failed them and the woman became pregnant. The woman wanted the baby, then man didnt. They broke up. The man tracked the woman down and snap kicked her in the stomach which caused the baby to abort. That man was convicted of murder (the woman survived bear in mind). Now that man tried to argue that legally that baby could have been aborted so it cant have been a human and thus he couldnt be tried for murder. Strange precenden to be setting - its only a human if the mother wants it.
Second - as for the "street kids" and masses of ruined lives because of the adoption system. Heres an idea, take a knife and try and kill one. See if s/he resists. You will find out that they very much want to be alive. If their lives are so worthless as failures of the adoption system, why dont we kill them now. You are claiming that to be terminated (as an embryo) beats being a street kid. So why dont we terminate them now?
Look the figures for adoption failures are NOT that high. Certainly not above 50%. Lets give them a chance hey. I'd rather be given the option to live and take my chances with becoming a derelict.
par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st) n. Biology. <b>An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--Teflon+Aug 28 2003, 09:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Teflon @ Aug 28 2003, 09:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st) n. Biology. <b>An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Works for a newborn baby too, if "on" is sufficient.
Of course, if you think it's all right to kill newborn babies as well, I won't argue with you. [edit]Seriously. It's perfectly possible to build a good case for it being morally acceptable, or at least legal, to kill babies.[/edit]
The unborn baby is contributing to the survival of the hosts genes (or at least it will be). I guess that's why people never considered offspring parasites.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you say putting a child through foster care, having the child feel unwanted, and not knowing what kind of parents the child will end up with is better than terminating the evolution of dividing cells?
I've said my peace on this topic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to adopt, as well as months and sometimes years of waiting...so I'm pretty sure you are off-base in your assumption that "any Joe Schmoe can walk in there and leave with a foster child"
*edit*
My stance on abortion is this: I feel it's wrong, because in my opinion the destruction of something that's growing into a human is tantamount to murder. I think killing a newly-fertilized egg and throwing a newborn baby into a dumpster is morally equivalent. I'm okay with abortion "in self defense," but I think that the government's role should not be to insure an individual against the consequences of your own conscious decisions. You had unprotected sex? Fine, but you made the choice yourself, you understood the risks, and you went ahead.
It's not the government's job to give people a free ride; pregnancy is a personal decision and responsibility. People that argue that "abstinence" isn't an option for people because "they don't feel like it" are completely ignoring the simple fact that when you do something, you're responsible for the outcome (unless it wasn't by your choice). If you're going to deny that premise, then you really can't argue that a murderer or a thief should be jailed, and you can't use the "but murderers and thieves hurt other people" argument, because of the moral equivalence of abortion to killing a child. I think that creating an arbitrary "point" at which an unborn fetus becomes a "human" is bunk; the moment it is fertilized, it is a human. An argument can be made for regarding a fetus that hasn't differentiated into specialized cell groups yet, but by that logic you would be able to drink, vote, and drive underage because *eventually* you'll be 18 or 21.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 03:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 03:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm very open-minded but I don't buy into the "I can do whatever I want with my body." First of all, in a civilized society, you can't. Second of all, it isn't only your body there is a growing organism inside you. Why is it so abnormal to consider an unborn baby alive? The distinction with sperm/egg and an unborn baby is that unless you do something to stop the baby's growth (like killing it), it will one day be born. Sperm and eggs are a tool of life and I see no way how an unborn baby can be considered the same.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing. Also THOUSANDS of these collections of cells die in artificial insemination clinics every day because they are not used and are therefore destroyed. If not for the ban on stem cell research these cells could be used to do some good and help cure other people's diseases insted of just being eliminated.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some people are forced into intercourse through something called rape. Masturbation kills sperm are you gonna say everyone who does it is a murderer? eggs and sperm are cells nothing more or less. For the first few weeks after conception the "unborn" is but a grouping of cells like skim cells. I have no objection to people who don't want to or cannot have children do to financial problems getting rid of these cells. I do believe getting rrid of the "unborn" is wrong after the central nervous system and spinal column have begun to form.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 10:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 03:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 03:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm very open-minded but I don't buy into the "I can do whatever I want with my body." First of all, in a civilized society, you can't. Second of all, it isn't only your body there is a growing organism inside you. Why is it so abnormal to consider an unborn baby alive? The distinction with sperm/egg and an unborn baby is that unless you do something to stop the baby's growth (like killing it), it will one day be born. Sperm and eggs are a tool of life and I see no way how an unborn baby can be considered the same.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some people are forced into intercourse through something called rape. Masturbation kills sperm are you gonna say everyone who does it is a murderer? eggs and sperm are cells nothing more or less. For the first few weeks after conception the "unborn" is but a grouping of cells like skim cells. I have no objection to people who don't want to or cannot have children do to financial problems getting rid of these cells. I do believe getting rrid of the "unborn" is wrong after the central nervous system and spinal column have begun to form. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> we've already discussed this, abortion from rape is (generally) considered to be an act of self-defense, and the consensus is that it should be allowed under these circumstances.
We've also already addressed the reason why a fertilized egg is morally and philosophically (as well as perhaps legally) different from a sperm or an egg by itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Aug 25 2003, 04:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 25 2003, 04:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm I think if we are mature enough this won't turn into a flame fest. My take on it is this. I feel anyone should be able to do anything they want as long as they are not negativley impacting anything/one else. For example. Abortion. People argue that that clump of cells is NOT human. They say "Oh it turns human" OF COURSE I WILL ITS NOT GONNA TURN INTO A CHICKEN OR SOMETHING. Thats why I feel it is human from the moment its conceived. What else can it turn into besides human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It turns human but it isn't yet. Most chicken eggs you eat are of course unfertilized but those that are(fresh from a farm with a rooster) are still EGGS. Would you say eating an egg with 1 extra cell attached to the egg on the yolk is like eating a whole chicken? Is eating a watermelon seed eating a whole watermelon?
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It turns human but it isn't yet. Most chicken eggs you eat are of course unfertilized but those that are(fresh from a farm with a rooster) are still EGGS. Would you say eating an egg with 1 extra cell attached to the egg on the yolk is like eating a whole chicken? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's a fertilized egg, then yes. It is like eating a whole chicken. Not quite the taste, nor as much nutrition, but the same <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I shrug off almost all arguments for anti "pill" and the like because most all are all based on religious grounds about whats so special about two cells together. If however these two cells grow to a certain point where they begin to develop into small bodies then I'd say yes they are special, they're humans.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I shrug off almost all arguments for anti "pill" and the like because most all are all based on religious grounds about whats so special about two cells together. If however these two cells grow to a certain point where they begin to develop into small bodies then I'd say yes they are special, they're humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And therein lies the problem of "but where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to kill a 5-month 30 day old fetus, but not a 6-month old one?" It's much simpler just to say that once the egg is fertilized, it's a baby human.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 28 2003, 11:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 28 2003, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I shrug off almost all arguments for anti "pill" and the like because most all are all based on religious grounds about whats so special about two cells together. If however these two cells grow to a certain point where they begin to develop into small bodies then I'd say yes they are special, they're humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And therein lies the problem of "but where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to kill a 5-month 30 day old fetus, but not a 6-month old one?" It's much simpler just to say that once the egg is fertilized, it's a baby human. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>?
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus?
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 28 2003, 11:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 28 2003, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not talking about that I'm talking about 1 week old fertilized eggs. I doubt they can be aborted that soon but still I say those ar't human even if it doesn't matter cause they can't be aborted. Oh yes and I would say it is less human but I'd say it is STILL human.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 04:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 04:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Aug 28 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To tell you the truth, I see the 5-month old fetus as being a month less human than a 6-month old one.
Comments
My point was don't tell people to not ignore your posts if you don't reply to some yourself.
I don't think there is any debate of it not being human at that point, the debate is if its self aware enough to feel pain of know what its going through.
It has some nice quotes at the bottom half.
But like you said it is biased : )
Furthermore, until it reaches sentience, it's really nothing more then a parasite. An abortion is the same as removing a tapeworm...
I don't consider the unborn baby a part of the mother because it has its own genetic make-up. The unborn baby is a growing organism and that, God willing, will one day be born and grow into a sentient being. Arguments about the unborn baby not being sentient in its current state are kind of flawed because a baby that is born isn't either.
I'm only repeating myself because people seem to be ignoring my earlier posts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would imagine that born babies are sentient? Have I been mislead D:\
btw dr.d teflon has the right to his opinion, everything depends on perspective, if he wishes to view the fetus from the perspective of a foreign body consuming resources otherwise going to the host [ie a parasite] he has every right to.
Well the fetus is a parasite while still in the womb, comparing it to a tapeworm was a bit harsh but I didn't the idea that Teflon said that to be inflammatory.
People say things that don't always make you happy, doesn't mean its against the rules. Its already been said that this forum is up for good so thats not anything you have to worry about. The mods will take care of anything they deem innappropriate.
A born baby is as sentient as an unborn baby in its early stages. They do percieve stimuli but they aren't consciously aware of them. Of course, their brains do grow and they learn.
Furthermore, until it reaches sentience, it's really nothing more then a parasite. An abortion is the same as removing a tapeworm... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have every right to compare an unborn baby to a parasite. But I hope you are aware of the paramount differences between the two. To be truthful, I'm happy someone said this, it shows the character of some of the supporters for pro-choice.
(I'm probably going to get a lot of "they suffer more if born, you're the bad one" arguments because I said this)
Sometimes whether an unborn baby is a person or not is decided purely upon whether it is wanted. Take a case in Australia for example.
A man and a woman were in a de facto relationship. Contraception failed them and the woman became pregnant. The woman wanted the baby, then man didnt. They broke up. The man tracked the woman down and snap kicked her in the stomach which caused the baby to abort. That man was convicted of murder (the woman survived bear in mind). Now that man tried to argue that legally that baby could have been aborted so it cant have been a human and thus he couldnt be tried for murder. Strange precenden to be setting - its only a human if the mother wants it.
Second - as for the "street kids" and masses of ruined lives because of the adoption system. Heres an idea, take a knife and try and kill one. See if s/he resists. You will find out that they very much want to be alive. If their lives are so worthless as failures of the adoption system, why dont we kill them now. You are claiming that to be terminated (as an embryo) beats being a street kid. So why dont we terminate them now?
Look the figures for adoption failures are NOT that high. Certainly not above 50%. Lets give them a chance hey. I'd rather be given the option to live and take my chances with becoming a derelict.
n.
Biology. <b>An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.</b>
n.
Biology. <b>An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Works for a newborn baby too, if "on" is sufficient.
Of course, if you think it's all right to kill newborn babies as well, I won't argue with you.
[edit]Seriously. It's perfectly possible to build a good case for it being morally acceptable, or at least legal, to kill babies.[/edit]
How can you say putting a child through foster care, having the child feel unwanted, and not knowing what kind of parents the child will end up with is better than terminating the evolution of dividing cells?
I've said my peace on this topic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to adopt, as well as months and sometimes years of waiting...so I'm pretty sure you are off-base in your assumption that "any Joe Schmoe can walk in there and leave with a foster child"
*edit*
My stance on abortion is this: I feel it's wrong, because in my opinion the destruction of something that's growing into a human is tantamount to murder. I think killing a newly-fertilized egg and throwing a newborn baby into a dumpster is morally equivalent. I'm okay with abortion "in self defense," but I think that the government's role should not be to insure an individual against the consequences of your own conscious decisions. You had unprotected sex? Fine, but you made the choice yourself, you understood the risks, and you went ahead.
It's not the government's job to give people a free ride; pregnancy is a personal decision and responsibility. People that argue that "abstinence" isn't an option for people because "they don't feel like it" are completely ignoring the simple fact that when you do something, you're responsible for the outcome (unless it wasn't by your choice). If you're going to deny that premise, then you really can't argue that a murderer or a thief should be jailed, and you can't use the "but murderers and thieves hurt other people" argument, because of the moral equivalence of abortion to killing a child. I think that creating an arbitrary "point" at which an unborn fetus becomes a "human" is bunk; the moment it is fertilized, it is a human. An argument can be made for regarding a fetus that hasn't differentiated into specialized cell groups yet, but by that logic you would be able to drink, vote, and drive underage because *eventually* you'll be 18 or 21.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing. Also THOUSANDS of these collections of cells die in artificial insemination clinics every day because they are not used and are therefore destroyed. If not for the ban on stem cell research these cells could be used to do some good and help cure other people's diseases insted of just being eliminated.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people are forced into intercourse through something called rape. Masturbation kills sperm are you gonna say everyone who does it is a murderer? eggs and sperm are cells nothing more or less. For the first few weeks after conception the "unborn" is but a grouping of cells like skim cells. I have no objection to people who don't want to or cannot have children do to financial problems getting rid of these cells. I do believe getting rrid of the "unborn" is wrong after the central nervous system and spinal column have begun to form.
The liberal side of America is so afraid of alienating the feminists that they just give into this without considering it. Isn't it a woman's choice to have sex anyway? That's where your "rights" are, in the intercourse. You have the right to not risk pregnancy by not having intercourse, and if you are forced to then those who forced it on you are to be punished. And I know people will think that it isn't fair because men don't bear responsibility in the real world, well responsibility isn't much about fairness, it is about doing the right thing.
Roe vs. Wade was a big mistake, in my opinion. Hopefully, one day we will correct it (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ - Roe has a change of heart). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people are forced into intercourse through something called rape. Masturbation kills sperm are you gonna say everyone who does it is a murderer? eggs and sperm are cells nothing more or less. For the first few weeks after conception the "unborn" is but a grouping of cells like skim cells. I have no objection to people who don't want to or cannot have children do to financial problems getting rid of these cells. I do believe getting rrid of the "unborn" is wrong after the central nervous system and spinal column have begun to form. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
we've already discussed this, abortion from rape is (generally) considered to be an act of self-defense, and the consensus is that it should be allowed under these circumstances.
We've also already addressed the reason why a fertilized egg is morally and philosophically (as well as perhaps legally) different from a sperm or an egg by itself.
It turns human but it isn't yet. Most chicken eggs you eat are of course unfertilized but those that are(fresh from a farm with a rooster) are still EGGS. Would you say eating an egg with 1 extra cell attached to the egg on the yolk is like eating a whole chicken? Is eating a watermelon seed eating a whole watermelon?
It turns human but it isn't yet. Most chicken eggs you eat are of course unfertilized but those that are(fresh from a farm with a rooster) are still EGGS. Would you say eating an egg with 1 extra cell attached to the egg on the yolk is like eating a whole chicken? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's a fertilized egg, then yes. It is like eating a whole chicken. Not quite the taste, nor as much nutrition, but the same <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And therein lies the problem of "but where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to kill a 5-month 30 day old fetus, but not a 6-month old one?" It's much simpler just to say that once the egg is fertilized, it's a baby human.
And therein lies the problem of "but where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to kill a 5-month 30 day old fetus, but not a 6-month old one?" It's much simpler just to say that once the egg is fertilized, it's a baby human. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>?
Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus?
Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about that I'm talking about 1 week old fertilized eggs. I doubt they can be aborted that soon but still I say those ar't human even if it doesn't matter cause they can't be aborted. Oh yes and I would say it is less human but I'd say it is STILL human.
Easier yes, but is it <i>right</i>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you feel confident in your judgement that a 5-month old fetus is less human than a 6-month old fetus? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To tell you the truth, I see the 5-month old fetus as being a month less human than a 6-month old one.