Political Crossfire Forums

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: ...All a fetus is up till the very late stages of development is an extension of her body. She should always be allowed to remove that extension unless it is capable of surviving outside (in which case it is a human).

If a fetus were just an extension of the mother's body, then it would have the same DNA. Every single cell in your body has your DNA.

The fetus actually has its own separate DNA independent of the mother. It has it's own brain, is metabolizing on its own and is a completely separate entity. It is it's OWN body which happens to live inside of its mother's body.

Just thought I would clear up that misconception.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

I'm not saying whether or not a fetus is a 'human'. No matter what you call it, it has a BODY. Unlike a sperm which is a single cell.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

A conceptus is a single cell too.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Good for it.

But my argument is: "if a fetus were an extension of the mother's body, it would have the same DNA as the mother."

I don't see how a conceptus refutes that since we are not talking about a conceptus.

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

Ok looks like some clarification is needed. A fetus, while it's not the same as the mother, relies fully on her for it's survival. If you were to take it out, it would die. I believe that until it can survive outside the woom, it's not a human being.

You may disagree, stating your belief that human life begins at conception, and we could go on all day arguing and not get anywhere simply because of our different ideas on when a fetus becomes a human being. I have no issue with that, you can believe what you want, and so can I.

What I DO have an issue with is how our current administration preaches for abstinence AND abortion. Not educating people about birth control and condoms isn't going to do anything but cause more unwanted pregnancies, and in turn, more abortions. I personally would like to see less abortions performed, but that simply wont happen until we get a competent president (Hopefully '08!)

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: I personally would like to see less abortions performed, but that simply wont happen until we get a competent president (Hopefully '08!)

I don't know.. It's looking like the dems ticket may go to either Howard or Hillary. Both incompetents who don't represent the democratic party. Maybe the republicans have something better, and your wish will come true!

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 104 Location: Your bathroom!

(Speaking of the original topic)
Ha! That is a flawed definition. I mean, if someone can't breathe without a respirator, it doesn't mean the person is an extension of that respirator. Again, this is all a game of convenience for pro-choicers. Living by what's easiest is hardly a way to live. Human life growing inside you is not an inconvenience, it is a gift...
(To clarify, if you choicers are getting dull, I believe medical abortion is perfectly acceptable, if it is prescribed by a medical professional.)

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: (Speaking of the original topic)
Ha! That is a flawed definition. I mean, if someone can't breathe without a respirator, it doesn't mean the person is an extension of that respirator. Again, this is all a game of convenience for pro-choicers. Living by what's easiest is hardly a way to live. Human life growing inside you is not an inconvenience, it is a gift...
(To clarify, if you choicers are getting dull, I believe medical abortion is perfectly acceptable, if it is prescribed by a medical professional.)

Er interesting point, but the two are different. Inside the woom, the fetus is created and begins to grow, whereas a person is only hooked up to a respirator when they have severe medical issues. The way I see it, human life begins at 26 weeks of pregnancy, before that, the fetus isn't worth any more than pond scum. Sure it's alive, but it certainly isn't a human at that point.

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

straw man wrote: CommiepinkoLefty wrote: I personally would like to see less abortions performed, but that simply wont happen until we get a competent president (Hopefully '08!)

I don't know.. It's looking like the dems ticket may go to either Howard or Hillary. Both incompetents who don't represent the democratic party. Maybe the republicans have something better, and your wish will come true!

In all honesty, neither party has a strong candidate, although I think the country needs a president far more intellectual and liberal then Bush to fix our soiled internaltional reputation, Impose more environmental restrictions, and try to pay off our brand new record deficit.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: The way I see it, human life begins at 26 weeks of pregnancy, before that, the fetus isn't worth any more than pond scum.

This is a pretty bad comparison. Perhaps if you ONLY consider the present moment and nothing more.

However...

A fetus (at any stage) is on its way towards becoming a fully conscious and sentient human being. Unless you kill it, it's going to be as much of a human being as you or I. Pond scum, on the other hand, isn't going anywhere and has no such potential. The two aren't even in the same ballpark.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

potential value has been argued before, but sperm have potential and so do ova, you have the potential to be dead, rights cannot be derived from potential.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Selfish_Meme wrote: ...but sperm have potential and so do ova...

Not on their own they don't. A sperm only has potential if it unites with an egg and vice versa for the egg. On their own they have as much potential as that pond scum, so still don't compare to a fetus, which is developing into a conscious human being (unlike the sperm or pondscum which is not).

Quote: ...rights cannot be derived from potential.

Not rights, value. The comment I was responding to was the "worth" of the fetus being the same as pondscum.

It would be like comparing a stagnant stock, one which never gains anything and does not rise, to a stock which is growing every day and on its way to becoming a blue chip. It is clear which one has more "worth".

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Thats like saying I don't have the potential to procreate because I need a partner. Just because you don't have all the components right then and there to become something else doesn't mean you don't have the potential.

This is why potentiality is not a good argument in the abortion debate. A sperm has less chance of becoming a human being than a conceptus does, but then is it 'worth' less because it is more challenged? Think what that might imply.

Match Strike · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 25 Location: Portland, OR

straw man wrote: Good for it.

But my argument is: "if a fetus were an extension of the mother's body, it would have the same DNA as the mother."

I don't see how a conceptus refutes that since we are not talking about a conceptus.
We consider things extensions of the body, or part of the body, even if they have the same DNA. Organ transplants come to mind. I might get my friend's liver, with his DNA, but it becomes an undeniable part of my body. really it's simply the reverse.

That leaves your only argument one of potential, which was shot down in the posts directly above mine.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

Selfish_Meme wrote: Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

"You have many other beings living inside you"? (((What?!!)))

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

"You have many other beings living inside you"? (((What?!!)))

Bacteria.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

"You have many other beings living inside you"? (((What?!!)))

Bacteria.

So now the product of human reproduction is comparable to bacteria?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

If the unborn are extentions of the woman's body, abortions would be called amputations.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

AllAmericanMan wrote: CommiepinkoLefty wrote: Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Your right, it is a seperate being, but so is a sperm or ova. Any definition of when something becomes human is arbitrary, essentially you as a 'human' are not a single cohesive being anyway you have many other beings living inside you.

"You have many other beings living inside you"? (((What?!!)))

Bacteria.

So now the product of human reproduction is comparable to bacteria?
There are comparisons to be made, they have many common attributes. They are not the same though and it would be wrong to think so.