Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

The Grandmaster wrote: straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.

Cancers and fingers aren't embryos, and you don't need me to point out differences. Comparisons such as these are intellectually dishonest at best. The neurological view of life? Never heard of it. I know some biology though, and it just so happens human beings are formed at conception.

[straw man]

The Grandmaster wrote: No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive."...

Actually that very claim was made.

Quote: If a functioning brain is the measure by which something is deemed alive (and you haven't sought to refute that so far) then your position is a moral one.

That's the only reason I said anything.

[Nice Geod]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.

Cancers and fingers aren't embryos, and you don't need me to point out differences. Comparisons such as these are intellectually dishonest at best. The neurological view of life? Never heard of it. I know some biology though, and it just so happens human beings are formed at conception.

The fact is that a cancer cell is just as alive as a human - it is not the same, but it is just as alive. I do not believe that he was saying that a cancer cell is the same as an embryo, only that it is just as alive. Life does not affect morality in any way - just because something is alive does not mean that it can differentiate between events or feel happy or sad. As such, one action done to it cannot be wrong and another right.

[Iandefor]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.

Cancers and fingers aren't embryos, and you don't need me to point out differences. Comparisons such as these are intellectually dishonest at best. The neurological view of life? Never heard of it. I know some biology though, and it just so happens human beings are formed at conception. No, but an embryo is an undifferentiated mass of cells. It's not a human. It does not qualify for the Linnaean classification of human. It is a mass of cells that is, in fact, of Homo sapiens sapiens, but that does not make them human. That is what I was getting at with the finger analogy. You keep twisting my words. I never said that an embryo was a finger, I never said anything to that effect. I said that a grouping of cells of a given species does not make a specimen of said species.

[coolcreep]

you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: t is a mass of cells that is, in fact, of Homo sapiens sapiens, but that does not make them human Actually, yes, it does....


Quote: an embryo is an undifferentiated mass of cells.
OK lets go over this from the beginning. Pay attention to every word because they are all important.

A naturally conceived human embryo is an organized system of cells, resisting entropy and possessing its own metabolism. It is offspring from the natural male and female counterparts. It is a living human being actively engaged in human development and it resides in its natural habitat unless violence is committed against it.

Once the zygote is conceived, offspring exists in the womb. By some definitions(not everybody's) once the zygote is created the women is pregnant. Being pregnant means you are carrying offspring. You can not be pregnant without carrying your species inside your body. In essence, there must be more than 1 body present.

As you can see, an embryo is ANYTHING but an "undifferentiated mass of cells." Its a human being with its own body its own life therefor under our laws it must be given the basic right to live unless it is endangering the mother.

[racer4484]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I am going to start this long post by stating that I am pro-life. I don’t believe abortion is a moral issue at all, but a civil liberties issue. It took me a couple days to gather the information and write this out. Please respect that.

That's cool, weather you think its moral or not that's good to see that there are liberals that are pro-life, and maybe more will start to see your way. :)

[Iandefor]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: t is a mass of cells that is, in fact, of Homo sapiens sapiens, but that does not make them human Actually, yes, it does.... How so? How is it that a grouping of cells from a given species qualify to be a specimen of that species? What you just argued is that a mass of cells of a given species constitutes a specimen of that species. By that definition, my previous analogy of the finger applies.

Quote:
Quote: an embryo is an undifferentiated mass of cells.
OK lets go over this from the beginning. Pay attention to every word because they are all important.

A naturally conceived human embryo is an organized system of cells, resisting entropy and possessing its own metabolism. It is offspring from the natural male and female counterparts. It is a living human being actively engaged in human development and it resides in its natural habitat unless violence is committed against it.

Once the zygote is conceived, offspring exists in the womb. By some definitions(not everybody's) once the zygote is created the women is pregnant. Being pregnant means you are carrying offspring. You can not be pregnant without carrying your species inside your body. In essence, there must be more than 1 body present.

As you can see, an embryo is ANYTHING but an "undifferentiated mass of cells." Its a human being with its own body its own life therefor under our laws it must be given the basic right to live unless it is endangering the mother. Alright, I've researched more closely the definition of an embryo. I seem to have been under a false impression. Fine. An embryo is apparently nothing more than an unborn member of a species- from zygote to fetus. However, you've argued that a zygote is equivalent to a human. A zygote is a single cell. It's not even a mass of undifferentiated cells. When the zygote divides, it's a pair of blastomeres- which are two cells of identical type; hence, undifferentiated. A collection of 32 blastomeres is called a morula. Again, same cell type, hence, undifferentiated. In humans, the morula stage tends to end around 4 days after fertilization. At that point, it's referred to as a blastocyst, which is composed of two differrent types of cell- one of which becomes the placenta, which isn't an integral part of a human being. The inner part is still composed of undifferentiated cells. The inner part, called the embryoblast, isn't even a grouping of stem cells yet. They're just blastomeres. However, the cells begin specializing after this point- to a small extent- which is called the gastrula phase. One grouping becomes the endoderm, which will eventually become the digestive tract, one becomes the ectoderm, which will develop into the integument and the nervous system, and the mesoderm, which will later form all non-integumental, nervous, or gastric organs. Again, specialization is extremely limited, which is demonstrated by the lack of any difference (At this stage) between the cells which will develop into the nervous system and the integument. Once this structural change occurs, Histogenesis occurs, and you finally get a differentiated mass of cells- what you argue occurs from the zygote on. This all occurs during the first month. By the end of the second month, a brain will have begun developing. It will have started the process of becoming a brain, in other terms. By the 38th week- birth- it will be a fully functioning human being, in the pure biological sense. Development of biological structures is pretty much done inbetween the 23-26th week, and they also begin functioning in this period; this is pretty much the break-off point for premature fetuses to be born- ie, if they're born before this point, the odds are *extremely* high that it will not be viable. After this point, it's just unlikely, getting more and more likely up until birth. As you can see, cells don't even begin differentiating until the end of the first month. They're not even fully functional biological structures until the 23-26th week. So, tell me, how is a zygote a human being? I would hope the definition of a human is a little more narrow than a single cell. If it weren't, I could argue that brewer's yeast is human and therefore deserving of all the same rights as me. By the way, it doesn't really work to call a woman pregnant up until implantation, which doesn't occur until the end of the first month.

[gritty1212]

With the clear, and almost certain fact that noone on issues of this level of controversy has more than a fraction of a chance of convincing those on the other side of the debate in mind, let me offer my view. Leaving the scrutinous scientific definitions of at what stage a cluster of cells can be considered a "human being" out of this arguement. Have all of you who claim that these cell clusters, begginings of life, whatever you want to call them experienced their being? Have you had a conversation with a zygote? Have you been told the of their pain and joy? Have you witnessed anything that clearly demonstrates their indepedant existence, or proof of conciousness? If you attempt to argue that you have, please go get on some antipsycotics for your healths sake. I personally am in strong support of a womans right to choose whether she will harbor a to be baby in her body, and face the following task of supporting and caring for the human infant that eventually is born of her. I will say that certain methods of abortion, like partial birth, are cruel and dispicable, and should be outright banned. There should be strict timetables assigned that define at what stages these clusters of cells can be terminated, and prevent people from birthing immature fetuses and sucking thier brains out with basically a point straw, or some other inhuman method of execution. Terminating a potential life that resides inside of a woman, and is therefore DEPENDANT on her for its 'existence' is neither immoral or contradictory to civil liberties. Unfortunately, moral conservatives apparent main goal in life is to pose their SUBJECTIVE views on everyone around them, of course because THEY HAVE TO BE RIGHT. I suppose maybe i am just a 'bleeding heart liberal', in that i believe as human beings capable of independant thought, we should not all be subjected to the wills of the conservative masses. I believe that within certain bounds on topics that concern in any way our bodies and our lives WE need to be the deciders of what we do, not have our actions dictated to us by tighwad holier than though conservatives. If you people are so pro life, what is your stance on animal slaughter? Will you argue that animals are not alive, and intitled to liberty and the right to exist? If you wont go that far (i hope you would not suggest that animals are not alive), then you either sympothise with those opposed to killing of animals (which you may, but i doubt it), or you simply assert that human life is of more importance. Given that assertion, that even pro lifers admit to assigning more or less value to the lives of various species, you openly are admitting that you believe some life is more important than others. With this is mind, the door is opened to challenge your views as to which life is more important, that of a cluster of cells, or that of a living, breathing, thinking, feeling homo sapien? Which of these 2 forms of "life" has more precedence over another? Does something that cannot exist on its own claim a right to civil liberties afforded to "all men"? It does not even have a gender. And dont attempt a hypothetical rebuttal of "what if we are killing the next einstien, or other great/intelligent/whatever person?". You, making an arguement of this nature, are simply (and ignorantly) ignoring the possibility, and likelyhood that these people are made not born. Circumstance combined with blessings of nature create the exceptional, would you not acknowledge that as a possibility? And what are the effects of a pro life world? Even MORE overpopulation? More abandoned children forced into a wretched system for orphans? You idealists suggest adoption as an alternative, go adopt 5,000 kids and see what a mark you make on the amount of kids without parents. Practice what you preach, or dont preach at all. THese arguements, including mine, are as close to meaningless as pointless as can be, so attack it all you want, and i will attack your counterarguements, but chances are, noone will change their mind.

[whatchawant?]

until it takes its first breaths and gets unplugged from that umbilical chord it isnt a fully functioning self sufficient human. It is still a fetus and a fetus aint a person, its a fetus. You can blather on about 46 chromosomes and mitosis and myosis and gestation all ya want but its not a person until it gets shot out and the doctor snippy snips the old fuel hose and it blares out its first annyoing WHAAAAAA!!! to the world.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: A zygote is a single cell. It's not even a mass of undifferentiated cells. When the zygote divides, it's a pair of blastomeres- It's important to note that the zygote is never just sitting there. From the moment of conception it is busy developing. The process of cleavage begins immediately.

Quote: So, tell me, how is a zygote a human being?

While you have stated the science well for the most part, you answered this question early on. It's a member of our species. That is how we define what a human being is. All of us at one point, were nothing but a single cell. Amazing aint it? Conception is a miracle IMHO.
It's also important to note that as far as we know, twining begins at the 2nd cell devision, but we can't even be sure of that. It could start at conception for all we know. There's just no way for us to tell....yet.


Quote: I could argue that brewer's yeast is human and therefore deserving of all the same rights as me No, you cant. Yes we begin to live with a single cell. What you need to realize, is that defining life is more complex than looking at any singular trait. Scientists have tried to boil down the definition of life forever, and the best we can come up with is resisting entropy and possessing your own metabolism.

Then you're trying to define what a member of a species is and it grows more complex. You can't just say if anything is a single cell it can not be human. We know that the egg fuses with the sperm to form a single cell, and from that cell we live until we become adults. We can literally watch the entire process and see with our own eyes how the organism maintains its identity. You can not do that with yeast, or any other thing on this earth. Any comparison you make between a human embryo and ANY OTHER THING ON EARTH, I can point out differences. We are matured humans, embryos are immature humans. You can not define a human being by describing an adults physical traits. I can point out those same differences in us and a newborn baby, yet we assign babies the basic right to live.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: until it takes its first breaths and gets unplugged from that umbilical chord it isnt a fully functioning self sufficient human.
It isnt a self sufficient human afterwards either for another 18 years, can we kill them then in the 152nd trimester too?

[straw man]

coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest.

[Iandefor]

straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

[AllAmericanMan]

Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here.

[Iandefor]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here. Ah, so because they don't happen often means they're not worth seriously considering?

[Blinky]

Iandefor wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here. Ah, so because they don't happen often means they're not worth seriously considering?

I think it means that it is an ugly truth that makes it more difficult to defend his position and so he doesn't like it.

[Saf]

Do you understand what "born" means? It means came out of the vagina. It's not a life, period; goodbye thread!

[AllAmericanMan]

Iandefor wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here. Ah, so because they don't happen often means they're not worth seriously considering?

It means they shouldnt continuosly sidetrack the debate.

[AllAmericanMan]

Blinky wrote: Iandefor wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here. Ah, so because they don't happen often means they're not worth seriously considering?

I think it means that it is an ugly truth that makes it more difficult to defend his position and so he doesn't like it.

Ha theres been entire threads devoted to abortion in the case of rape, and Ive been defending my view on them for longer than most anyone who still comes to this section. It sounds like you don't even know my position.

The debate never goes anywhere. Lets focus on 90% of abortions which make up lifestyle abortions before we focus on situational abortions. The poster made a good argument and was deflected by the "what about rape" line. It is the pro abortion people who cant defend their point of view not me.