[Zimphire]

Again, my spiritual beliefs make me believe otherwise. But like I said, that was just MHO.

[Stradlater]

Well Zimph, you've bored me with the usual gr�ce; hope you learn, one day, to actually answer questions. Till later,
S.

I await better arguments from others.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Again, my spiritual beliefs make me believe otherwise. But like I said, that was just MHO.

And there is absolutly nothing wrong with that. We are all entitled to our own opinions about issues. Whats important is that our opinions don't conflict with the rights of others who hold a different opinion. My opinoin is that most abortions are wrong, some are needed and that the worst part of the entire issue is the business part of it.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Well Zimph, you've bored me with the usual gr�ce; hope you learn, one day, to actually answer questions. Till later,
S.

I await better arguments from others.

I answer questions at least once. And I am sorry if you don't like the way I am answering them.

Tough luck I guess.

Originally Posted by Athens

And there is absolutly nothing wrong with that. We are all entitled to our own opinions about issues. Whats important is that our opinions don't conflict with the rights of others who hold a different opinion. My opinoin is that most abortions are wrong, some are needed and that the worst part of the entire issue is the business part of it.

My opinion as to why abortions should be strictly used for specific purposes in small cases has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

It's the same reason I was against abortion before I was spiritual. It's the same reason I am against the Death Penalty unless it's 100% proven that person is guilty.

We don't know when life begins, and until then we shouldn't be doing it. Just in case we are wrong.

If we don't know for 100% sure someone did the crime, they shouldn't be put to death just in case we were wrong.

Now you can say what you want about my beliefs, but at least I am consistent.

You know, instead of say, being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I answer questions at least once. And I am sorry if you don't like the way I am answering them.

Tough luck I guess.


My opinion as to why abortions should be strictly used for specific purposes in small cases has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

It's the same reason I was against abortion before I was spiritual. It's the same reason I am against the Death Penalty unless it's 100% proven that person is guilty.

We don't know when life begins, and until then we shouldn't be doing it. Just in case we are wrong.

If we don't know for 100% sure someone did the crime, they shouldn't be put to death just in case we were wrong.

Now you can say what you want about my beliefs, but at least I am consistent.

You know, instead of say, being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

I was never attacking your spirituality, I didnt even know you where. And your argument about not knowing when life begins is a very good argument.

[Athens]

The point you made about me being consistant, my only argument with that is this. When it comes to abortion its a issue of womans rights, first off its her body, she has to carry this baby for 9 months. A woman should have the option to say yes I want this baby or no I don't want this baby. I believe the second sperm and egg mix the life is created, I don't believe that its contious life since what makes that hasent formed yet. Its a life in construction, forming. Which is why im totally oposed to late term abortion. I personally believe all cells in its own is a form of life. On the issue of the death penality mistakes do happen and have happened and its something that can't be undone and since a person who is already born and is fully contious is aware that they are going to die, I find that cruel in itself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Yes, that poor woman just so happened to get invaded by this "parasite". I'd say she welcomed in the "parasite" at the same moment she welcomed the penis into her vagina (to put it bluntly).

I don't care what you think about it, what she thinks is this is an outrage, and that's (part of) what would make a far worse ordeal than 9 months in prison.

Have you ever heard of mothers who promise to give their baby up for adoption when it's born but then when the see it the emotional attachment is so great that they want it themselves (I doubt this only happens in the movies)? I would assume this would happen to a mother that would have aborted too.

Whether your assumption is true or not, it would only happen after the pregnancy. The preceding 9 months is still on par with torture.

Well if they ever do meet then they qualify for the second category...

Yes, so they (gametes) do have a certain chance of becoming a person.

Let me make an unrelated example to show you: If I say a gun can never kill someone with[out] meeting the bullet, that would be true (excluding beating them to death with it). A bullet can never kill someone without meeting a gun. A loaded gun can kill someone. What you're saying is what if the gun does meet up with the bullet, then it could kill someone. But then it falls into the second category of loaded gun!

Yes, an unloaded gun and a bullet, residing in the same vicinity, have a chance to kill someone.

Why would there be a % cutoff? Why not if there is any chance then the zygote should be taken to term? As I said, the sperm and egg separately have zero chance of becoming a child, so they don't qualify.

Just look at your above 2 examples! Gametes do have a chance of becoming a child, when they are in the same vicinity with their opposite sex counterpart. So if there is no cutoff, it is just as wrong to use spermicide during sex as it is to terminate an early pregnancy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

How does that not make sense? I oppose abortion, so I am on the pro-life side, which is where I said someone who opposes abortion should be. If I was on the pro-choice side then it wouldn't make sense.

I will break down my understanding of what you said, and you can tell me where I read you wrong.
Deej:
1. Opposing abortion means you consider abortion murder ("I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks that abortion is taking a potential child's life and still supports it being legal just doesn't make sense. You'd be advocating murder.")
2. I (Deej) am opposed to abortion, but I don't consider abortion to be murder.

Part 2 directly and specifically refutes part 1! That's why I said it makes no sense. Please tell me where I misinterpreted you.

I can't envision anyone who thinks the death penalty is wrong, but still thinks it should be legal.

What a funny thing to say. http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...50#post2482307

I already gave 4 examples of people who would be against abortion but who would not want it outlawed. My favorite was the 4th, someone who objects for religious reasons, but objects even more to religious reasoning being used to draft US law. What was your explanation for the existence of all those people?

I'm sorry, no. You can't just redefine words in the language as part of a debate. And even if you could, you didn't

.Context dammit! It was in context. If I remember correctly, the first time I used it I did not point out that I meant legalized abortion. However, I later clarified (didn't "redefine", just clarified) that I was talking about legal abortion.

Read again. You can't. And even if you could (which you can't), you didn't (when you started this exchange by using it for the first time). You can't redefine words in the language for your own purposes for use in debate.

Why do both sides have to agree? I can call my movement whatever I want and if the other side objects I don't have to change my name

If you name your own group something inaccurate it reflects that you couldn't come up with a name that is completely accurate and still short enough to be manageable. If the other side names your group something inaccurate it reflects that they don't understand what your group is all about.

Okay..So what's stopping you from agreeing that "pro-abortion" can mean "pro-legalized-abortion"? You can't say it's because of what's implied because, as I've pointed out, certain things are implied by "pro-choice" as well. If people could get over those implications for "pro-choice" why can't you get over these for "pro-abortion"?

The pro-choice side agreed on a name for which the potential misunderstandings would not be believed by any intelligent person (for instance, no one thinks "pro-choice" means they want the choice to commit rape or armed robbery). The potential misunderstandings from "pro-abortion," however, would be believed (and have been many times in this thread), and so it is an inadequate simplification. The fact that you don't think so shows that you don't understand the pro-choice platform (it's along the lines of "legal abortions are the lesser of two evils," whereas you seem to think it's "I like abortions").

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

How does a woman who gets an abortion to save her life know that she needs that abortion to save her life? Because a doctor tells her. Why would this be any different in a system where only these and similar abortions are allowed?

Your faith in medicine warms my heart, but the fact is you (the doctor) don't always know when a pregnancy will be life threatening until it's too late. And just based solely on statistics, a woman might want to decrease her risk of death by (what was it?) 3400% by getting an early stage abortion instead of going through childbirth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

My lifetime of poor diet habits and my vacation in the amazon won't create a life. Sex can.

Not washing my hands after going to the bathroom can create a life (or a million). I think what you meant to say is that sex can create a person, to which I would say "not if you abort it before it becomes a person."

Unlike Zimphire, I agree that technically life doesn't start. However, a life starts. That life would be the baby's. The point is no one knows when that life becomes separate from the 2 that created it.

Again, "life" is far too vague. "A person," unless you can suggest something better. And to say that a fertilized egg is a person, we must make a list that defines the properties of a person. A life is a person if and only if....? I'll start with my ideas, and maybe someone can add some things or give reasoning to refute others.

1. the signs of personhood at the end of life: heartbeat and brainwaves (I'm not exactly clear if this distinguishes higher function brainwaves from autonomic ones).
2. being descended from other persons (a recursive property I know, but that is the very nature of life).

That's all I can think of. Ideas anyone?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Sperm and egg are still part of the one life of their owner's (unless you think every individual cell is considered one life).

The second part would be more accurate. They are mechanically distinct from the parent organism (I know, so are the likes of blood cells), and never in their existence do they ever serve a function to the parent organism other than to go forth and become offspring.

That reminds me: What was wrong with the DNA argument? I didn't understand what you were saying. I wonder because that's a scientific way to prove that a new life is created. That "ball of cells" has different DNA that it's parent cells.

(starting with the small ones, but the real killer is at the end). The ball of cells has all the DNA of the gametes that combined to create it. Also, in normal humans, many cells have different DNA. For instance, immune cells have their genome scrambled in order to find antibodies to new antigens by trial and error. Most cells that aren't stem cells have parts of their genome lost or inactivated. In females, one whole X chromosome is inactivated, semi-randomly which one in each cell. Cancer cells by their nature have mutations that differentiate their DNA from other cells in the same organism. There are several strains of human-species laboratory cell lines (derived from cancer cells and others from stem cells) that are literally just a collection of cells, that are all independent (for survival; they respond to environmental signaling molecules which is largely what makes them useful), immortal (in the bacterial sense of the word), and contain a complete human genome. Under no set of criteria would these cell lines be distinguishable from a grown human based solely on the properties or sequence of their DNA.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I assume to follow the left-wing agenda of forcing men to still be responsible for the actions of women, while allowing the women an unequal amount of choices and power. I can't think of any other reason, given that "choice" is what is supposed to be the most imporant thing here.

Don't you think it would answer your questions to find out?

[Athens]

I like to think of it this way, the EGG is the life, and every month when the woman ejects a egg from her system its self abortion.

I also like to think of it this way
The EGG and Sperm when together form a contract to make a baby.
Abortion is just the termination of that contract.
Since mom is the CEO of her body, any unauthroized contracts by the departments in her body, in this case the reproductive department should be allowed to be terminated.
A Successful baby is a end product of the contract.
A handicaped baby is a defective product of that contract.
So when the product is defective who gets sued, mom or dad LOL

[ebuddy]

That painful fact of the matter is that this is not a case of rape, incest, or health of mother. It rarely is. It is estimated that 96-98% of abortions are convenience abortions. This is a travesty. This is how irresponsible behavior manifests. When a woman "chooses" to have sex with a man for which she has no desire of long-term relationship, no desire of child-rearing, and no desire to even use precaution when engaging sexual behavior; she is in fact entering into and agreeing to the terms regarding the primary purpose of sex. This is not even debateable as hard as some have tried. The purpose of sex is to propogate the species. The benefits of this feature are clearer skin, euphoric feelings, attachment, bonding, etc..., but the primary purpose is to bear children. If this aspect does not appeal to someone, they need to reconsider whether or not they are conducting themselves in an honest and disciplined manner. A woman's vagina is not a Venus Fly-trap going about unwittingly gobbling up penus' and sperm. Abortion, STD's, ABC link to breast cancer, botched reproductive organs, over 300 women dead at the hands of the abortion doctor, abortions performed on women who were NOT even pregnant, depression, guilt, counseling, and suicide are all the direct result of irresponsible sex. Period.

Now I get to see the usual suspects point a finger at me for advising against unprotected, irresponsible sex, just know that you are offering a drunk another drink. At the end of the day, the only resolution to this problem is discipline. The more we move away from teaching the llife-changing aspect of sex, what it's primary function is, and what happens to people that engage it irresponsibly, and the more we try to make excuses for stupid moves, the more we increase the behavior that will increase the abortion rate, and decrease the value of life and the importance of discipline.

I offered up the opportunity to have one legal abortion, no repeat. This would cut the overall rate of abortion in half and would be wholly in line with many that claim; "no one has an abortion without careful consideration." Well, consider for a moment if you knew you were only going to be allowed one abortion. IMHO, you'd definitely now seriously consider whether or not you'd want to have one. This would also generally blanket the case for rape, incest, and health of mother. Why does this not work??? I've not really heard an argument against this proposition that made a lot of sense. "But ebuddy, then we'd have a whole lot more poor people and consider the tax burden with these 'undesirables' in society."


It seems to me that a woman who continuously puts herself in "harms way" as Uncle Skeleton likes to put it; is probably not fit to choose anything. Generally, we would recommend some time in a mental institution for an individual who continues to engage in torturing one's self.

[Marv]

You are very articulate. However, when you reduce human beings to some class that you call "neocons" you are dehumanizing people, in this case, for a point of view that does not fit your profile of what is "correct thinking."

Simply put, you are acting like a bigot.

Marv

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Athens

The point you made about me being consistant, my only argument with that is this. When it comes to abortion its a issue of womans rights, first off its her body,

Well her body, and another human's body

she has to carry this baby for 9 months. A woman should have the option to say yes I want this baby or no I don't want this baby.

She has the option to say no, before she has sex without birth control (Which is why most abortions are performed)

I believe the second sperm and egg mix the life is created, I don't believe that its contious life since what makes that hasent formed yet. Its a life in construction, forming. Which is why im totally oposed to late term abortion. I personally believe all cells in its own is a form of life. On the issue of the death penality mistakes do happen and have happened and its something that can't be undone and since a person who is already born and is fully contious is aware that they are going to die, I find that cruel in itself.

Well that is your opinion. Not based on fact. We don't know.


And as far as treating the pregnancy like a jail sentence, or a baby like a parasite, pathetic. Simply pathetic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Being against abortion isn't a religious thing.

Separation between church and state has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Originally Posted by zerostar

the way I see it aborting a zygote is no different then unused sperm or a montly cycle design to KILL an egg.

They are both life, they are both alive.

Difference is, one is a growing living human being that may or may not have a living soul (we don't know), one is not, and does not.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, Zimphire, but based on the above I would have to conclude that you are a bald-faced liar. How do you reconcile these two contradictory quotes about your beliefs?

Not to mention this:

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Now you can say what you want about my beliefs, but at least I am consistent.

You shouldn't be badmouthing other people when your own ethical motivations are so fuzzy

[Uncle Skeleton]

Hi ebuddy, welcome back. A few things were discussed while you were gone that are relevant to your post. First of all, we have realized that your same old mantras (word for word repetition? you can do better) are irrelevant without deciding whether a 10 week fetus* is a person, or just a bunch of cells with human DNA. In order to make that decision, I have proposed that a list of conditions for which an organism is a person if and only if it meets them. If you would like to propose a list of your own, refute any of the items already given, or debate the premise that a list is needed, I would enjoy hearing your opinion.

* Since I notice you like to throw out statistics and majorities, I did a little digging and it seems that the vast majority of abortions are before 10 weeks.

Now you did mention a few things that I am curious about:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

regarding the primary purpose of sex..is to propogate the species. Abortion, STD's, ABC link to breast cancer, botched reproductive organs, over 300 women dead at the hands of the abortion doctor, abortions performed on women who were NOT even pregnant, depression, guilt, counseling, and suicide are all the direct result of irresponsible sex.

1. Re: risks of sexual intercourse. Are you implying that abortion is comparable to STDs, breast cancer, etc? Would you say we should outlaw treatments for these things too? Because if your reasoning is that they are the result of irresponsible sex, and that is what makes abortion wrong, it seems to follow that all of these things should be allowed to run their course without medical intervention.

2. Re: "irresponsible sex." I notice that you increasingly use this term exclusively over plain old "sex." I must ask you to please explain what falls under your definition of "irresponsible sex" as opposed to the other kind. Otherwise there is no point in debate since everyone might just be thinking we're talking about different things

3. Re: sex only for procreation. I thought you gave up on that trash. Your last word on it seems to have been "Overall, sex is a very good thing for couples that are committed to one another for various reasons including bringing into existance, another of their own." That is contradictory to the notion that sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation. What new injection of misinformation has made you forget that whole exchange?

would be wholly in line with many that claim; "no one has an abortion without careful consideration."... Why does this not work???

You just said that many claim no one has an abortion without careful consideration, and didn't dispute it. Then you offered a solution for a problem you just said doesn't exist. I don't see what you're driving at.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Marv

You are very articulate. However, when you reduce human beings to some class that you call "neocons" you are dehumanizing people, in this case, for a point of view that does not fit your profile of what is "correct thinking."

Simply put, you are acting like a bigot.

Marv

Sorry for what will sound like a stupid question, but who are you talking to?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

or a baby like a parasite, pathetic. Simply pathetic.

Do you even know what a parasite is? From dictionary.com: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Word for word applicable to a fetus. As I said before, this is also true of a planned pregnancy, but in that case the state of being a parasite is forgiven in exchange for the future reward of a child.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I answer questions at least once. And I am sorry if you don't like the way I am answering them.

And I brought up new questions or asked for specific elaborations based on vagaries in your answers. You still haven't answered any of the newer questions, so don't lie.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I don't want to jump to conclusions, Zimphire, but based on the above I would have to conclude that you are a bald-faced liar. How do you reconcile these two contradictory quotes about your beliefs?

Not to mention this:

You shouldn't be badmouthing other people when your own ethical motivations are so fuzzy

He's consistently inconsistent.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That painful fact of the matter is that this is not a case of rape, incest, or health of mother. It rarely is. It is estimated that 96-98% of abortions are convenience abortions. This is a travesty. This is how irresponsible behavior manifests. When a woman "chooses" to have sex with a man for which she has no desire of long-term relationship, no desire of child-rearing, and no desire to even use precaution when engaging sexual behavior; she is in fact entering into and agreeing to the terms regarding the primary purpose of sex.

When you make an argument, you can't just state your opinion and assume you've won the debate. You'll have to offer up some convincing reasoning. You may argue that childrearing is the primary biological purpose of sex, but this "It's not nice to fool mother nature" kind of reasoning seems to go against medicine in general. It's natural to get pregnant from sex just like it's natural to die of cancer. Should we abandon both mothers and the cancerous?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I offered up the opportunity to have one legal abortion, no repeat. This would cut the overall rate of abortion in half and would be wholly in line with many that claim; "no one has an abortion without careful consideration." Well, consider for a moment if you knew you were only going to be allowed one abortion. IMHO, you'd definitely now seriously consider whether or not you'd want to have one. This would also generally blanket the case for rape, incest, and health of mother. Why does this not work???

Well, besides having no apparent logic behind its conception (Why is one the optimal number? Why not two? Why should this one abortion be open to everyone, regardless of need?), it seems to assume that these edge cases of rape, incest and health problems can't arise more than once, or at least it asserts that we don't care about the second time they do.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I don't care what you think about it, what she thinks is this is an outrage, and that's (part of) what would make a far worse ordeal than 9 months in prison.

I doubt that there is even one woman in the world who would rather spend 9 months in prison than 9 months pregnant. Especially considering that people become pregnant voluntarily all the time, but no one asks to go to prison.

Whether your assumption is true or not, it would only happen after the pregnancy. The preceding 9 months is still on par with torture.

Okay...then it would be the same for regular mothers too. You think that even mothers who want their child consider it torture to be pregnant, until the child is born?

(I think we should stop discussing how terrible pregnancy might be, since none of us could possibly know. Unless we get a woman who has had a child in here to tell us, I don't think you can say what pregnancy feels like.)

Yes, so they (gametes) do have a certain chance of becoming a person.

You are making no sense. I already said that the 2nd category has a certain chance of becoming a person. The first one doesn't. A sperm will never become a person no matter what you do to it. The only way it could is if you combine it with an egg. But then it isn't just a sperm anymore, it's a fertilized egg.

Yes, an unloaded gun and a bullet, residing in the same vicinity, have a chance to kill someone.

But then they are a loaded gun. They are no longer 2 separate entities. They have combined.

Just look at your above 2 examples! Gametes do have a chance of becoming a child, when they are in the same vicinity with their opposite sex counterpart. So if there is no cutoff, it is just as wrong to use spermicide during sex as it is to terminate an early pregnancy.

Once the sperm and egg combine, they are no longer just sperm and egg, they are fertilized egg. Sperm and egg individually have no chance of becoming a child, but a fertilized egg has a large chance of becoming a child. I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I swear you're being purposefully dense just so I have to argue in circles.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I will break down my understanding of what you said, and you can tell me where I read you wrong.
Deej:
1. Opposing abortion means you consider abortion murder ("I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks that abortion is taking a potential child's life and still supports it being legal just doesn't make sense. You'd be advocating murder.")
2. I (Deej) am opposed to abortion, but I don't consider abortion to be murder.

Part 2 directly and specifically refutes part 1! That's why I said it makes no sense. Please tell me where I misinterpreted you.

I'm a special case . But seriously, even if you oppose abortion and don't consider it murder, like myself, then you would still be pro-life (again, like me). It's not necessary that you consider it murder (I shouldn't have said murder), because even if you don't and still oppose abortion, like myself, you would still be pro-life. Now, if you can find me my counterpart (someone who strongly opposes abortion, but doesn't necessarily consider it murder) who is strongly pro-choice, you might have an argument.

[quote]What a funny thing to say. http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...50#post2482307

1. If I am opposed to all abortion on a religious level, but I believe that the separation of church and state is more important than imposing my faith on others, are you saying you would call me "pro-abortion?"

2. If you are saying that "pro-abortion" means the same as "pro-legalized-abortion," doesn't that mean the word "legalized" is meaningless? If you don't think the aspect of it being legal is of any importance, wouldn't that mean that it doesn't matter to you what the law is, and you should leave the decision on what the laws are to people who do think that the law is important?

3. If you were outside an abortion clinic protesting, and a doctor came out with a fresh zygote and offered to implant it in you for you to nurture until birth, would you accept his offer?

1. If you believe in the separation of church and state that strongly then you must be one of those people who thinks we shouldn't have "God" in the pledge of allegiance, or on money. Well, the courts already ruled against you on that, so I don't think that church and state are that separate. But yes, I would call you pro-abortion (by my definition).

2. Pro-abortion means pro-legalized-abortion because that's how I've used. Just the same as pro-choice means the pro-legalized abortion and not pro-choice-to-rape: because people say it does.

3. Answered before.

I already gave 4 examples of people who would be against abortion but who would not want it outlawed. My favorite was the 4th, someone who objects for religious reasons, but objects even more to religious reasoning being used to draft US law. What was your explanation for the existence of all those people?

I don't believe these people really exist. Anyone who thinks church and state should be that separate should move somewhere else, because it isn't going to happen here. Certain states have already made laws against gay marriage, so obviously religion is going to be a part of politics no matter what you do. Anyone who seriously thinks they can be completely separated is just unreasonable.

Read again. You can't. And even if you could (which you can't), you didn't (when you started this exchange by using it for the first time). You can't redefine words in the language for your own purposes for use in debate.

Okay then; every time you say "pro-choice" then I'll take that to mean people who think rapists should be able to choose to rape people, since you don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings.

If you name your own group something inaccurate it reflects that you couldn't come up with a name that is completely accurate and still short enough to be manageable. If the other side names your group something inaccurate it reflects that they don't understand what your group is all about.

Okay...so I can say that pro-choice didn't choice a name that was completely accurate?

The pro-choice side agreed on a name for which the potential misunderstandings would not be believed by any intelligent person (for instance, no one thinks "pro-choice" means they want the choice to commit rape or armed robbery). The potential misunderstandings from "pro-abortion," however, would be believed (and have been many times in this thread), and so it is an inadequate simplification. The fact that you don't think so shows that you don't understand the pro-choice platform (it's along the lines of "legal abortions are the lesser of two evils," whereas you seem to think it's "I like abortions").

An intelligent person might think that's what pro-choice means. The only reason anyone knows exactly what it means is because that's what people defined it as. If someone came from another country that didn't have this debate and you told them you were pro-choice they would have no idea you were were for choosing. They might not think you were for the choice to commit rape, but they would have no clue you were for legal abortion.

Pro-abortion hasn't been misunderstood by anyone in this thread other than the pro-choicers. And I never said pro-choice or pro-abortion meant people like abortions, you said that.

I'll get to everything else probably tonight. I've gotta go for now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I doubt that there is even one woman in the world who would rather spend 9 months in prison than 9 months pregnant. Especially considering that people become pregnant voluntarily all the time, but no one asks to go to prison.

Well, people do confess to crimes for which they know they will be sent to prison. But I will repeat, who said it would be ok to sent women to prison all the time?

Okay...then it would be the same for regular mothers too. You think that even mothers who want their child consider it torture to be pregnant, until the child is born?

Here's a representation of my understanding. Say you could measure your mood on a score card with some kind of point system. The distress of pregnancy puts you down 3 points, at -3. The joy of (potentially) having a child puts you up 5 points, back to +2. If instead of joy over the child, you feel anxiety, bitterness and oppression, those +5 points are converted to another -3, for -6. The values of the numbers are negotiable obviously, but you can't dispute that most mothers who decide to have a child get a substantial emotional reward from the child, and I doubt you'd dispute that that reward is greater than the emotional (and physical) deficit incurred from pregnancy itself. But for people who don't feel joy for their child, you can't force thm to be joyful so they've been put in a very negative position on the scale. Does that explain how the same act can be rewarding for one person and torturous for another?

(I think we should stop discussing how terrible pregnancy might be, since none of us could possibly know. Unless we get a woman who has had a child in here to tell us, I don't think you can say what pregnancy feels like.)

Agreed.

You are making no sense. I already said that the 2nd category has a certain chance of becoming a person. The first one doesn't. A sperm will never become a person no matter what you do to it. The only way it could is if you combine it with an egg. But then it isn't just a sperm anymore, it's a fertilized egg.

If B can become C and A can become B, then A can become C (after it has become B). What's wrong with that logic?

Once the sperm and egg combine, they are no longer just sperm and egg, they are fertilized egg.

And once the fertilized egg has become the zygote, it is no longer a fertilized egg. Ditto for the child, and the adolescent, and the adult. There is no qualitative difference between a zygote becoming a child and a pair of gametes becoming a zygote. Each step is a precursor to the one after it.

[budster101]

It's murder.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by deej5871

(I think we should stop discussing how terrible pregnancy might be, since none of us could possibly know. Unless we get a woman who has had a child in here to tell us, I don't think you can say what pregnancy feels like.)

I think I understand medical science well enough to feel sure that being shot in the gut is an unpleasant experience even though I've never been shot myself. Describing it precisely, no, but we can generally say that some things are painful and some things aren't just because it's a medical fact.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

even if you oppose abortion and don't consider it murder, like myself, then you would still be pro-life

So now you're telling me what I would believe? That would be like saying "oh, you oppose privatizing social security? you must be a democrat."

<if you find> (someone who strongly opposes abortion, but doesn't necessarily consider it murder) who is strongly pro-choice, you might have an argument.

No, I have an argument for someone who opposes abortion (at all) and is pro-choice (at all). Because if you have someone who opposes abortion, and you call them "pro-abortion," it means that either you don't understand the meaning of the prefix "pro" or you don't believe them because you are deluded.

What a funny thing to say. http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...50#post2482307

You might recall that this was a response to your death penalty comment, which I had just recently addressed. The 3 points on the "pro-abortion" nonsense were directed at someone else.

1. If you believe in the separation of church and state that strongly then you must be one of those people who thinks we shouldn't have "God" in the pledge of allegiance, or on money.

Again, you can't tell me what to believe. But in this case it's obvious you are wrong. There are plenty of people that support the separation of church and state when it is in regards to making laws about personal freedoms, but don't care a lick what words are printed on their money. To take your example of gay marriage, you can't correlate the same people who oppose gay marriage (an issue of freedom of action) to those who oppose the word "god" (an issue of pettiness). No, the ACLU does not count, they don't have a constituency.

Anyone who thinks church and state should be that separate should move somewhere else

I think you are getting hung up on the slogan "separation of church and state." It's important to remember that that doesn't mean you can't be religious, it means that the government can't establish a specific religion. As far as I know, the soul is a purely christian construction. If I am christian (I'm not, but if), and I think the zygote has a soul, and that is the only reason it should not be killed (but it's not murder per se), I would be against abortion. But I also believe the government has no right to force everyone to believe in the soul, and it must have more logical and/or universal reasons for enacting laws (what the gov prints on money or what it says the national anthem is are not laws). In that case, I am not a fanatic for separation of church and state, I just don't think the state can enact laws based on the beliefs of just one religion.

The USA is designed to prevent theocracy (rule by one specific religion), not to prevent religion at all, and for many people the issue at hand falls under the first situation, not the second.

Besides which, the gay marriage thing is not settled yet. People are always afraid of change, but just as many states voted against gay marriage, several have acted to instate it (even if those actions have been rejected later by others). It shows that the issue is not closed yet.

Okay then; every time you say "pro-choice" then I'll take that to mean people who think rapists should be able to choose to rape people, since you don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings.

Go ahead and do that, you will be removing yourself from serious debate. There are already people in this thread that jump in with nonsensical one-liners and are rightfully ignored. You are free to join them.

If someone came from another country that didn't have this debate and you told them you were pro-choice they would have no idea you were were for choosing.

That's a good point. It shows that "pro-choice" has no reason to exist except to avoid (what they feel is) oppression from potential pro-life legislation. If a person from outside the debate came in and didn't understand it, it would only be the pro-life side that would need to convince them of anything, since it is only the pro-life side that endeavors to impose their will on everyone else. I won't point out that to such a person "pro-life" would be equally unenlightening, because I don't care about that.

Pro-abortion hasn't been misunderstood by anyone in this thread other than the pro-choicers. And I never said pro-choice or pro-abortion meant people like abortions, you said that.

I never said the meaning of the wrongfully applied term was misunderstood. I said the meaning of the group that had it wrongfully applied to them was misunderstood.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Okay then; every time you say "pro-choice" then I'll take that to mean people who think rapists should be able to choose to rape people, since you don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings.

You've confused definition with context.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You've confused definition with context.

Deej confuses things in general.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by budster101

It's murder.

As I posted before: the way I see it aborting a zygote is no different then unused sperm or a montly cycle design to KILL an egg.

They are both life, they are both alive.

Is it not the same as the murdering of thousands of living cells that happen every single day?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Surely you'd care to elaborate.

Sure. A fetus can be in-utero and be "viable" outside the womb. It can live outside it's mother for quite some time prior to birth. For instance, the fetus the was inside my wife was removed a month before it was scheduled for natural birth and is currently a healthy and happy child. As well, this viable life can be legally snuffed out based soley on convenience.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Don't you think it would answer your questions to find out?

As I've said, the only reason I can find is the one I've listed (though it is neither constitutionally fair, or logical). I was hoping someone who supported "choice" could explain it to me in a way that would pass most logic tests. I never have been able to find anyone who could.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Sure. A fetus can be in-utero and be "viable" outside the womb. It can live outside it's mother for quite some time prior to birth. For instance, the fetus the was inside my wife was removed a month before it was scheduled for natural birth and is currently a healthy and happy child. As well, this viable life can be legally snuffed out based soley on convenience.

Can you elaborate on the "legally snuffed out" part? I wasn't aware that 8 mo.-old abortions were legal.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Can you elaborate on the "legally snuffed out" part? I wasn't aware that 8 mo.-old abortions were legal.

Since when? There was an attempt to outlaw some of them, but I believe that those laws have been thwarted by the courts. As it stands, it's perfectly legal to kill a viable fetus. What law forbids it?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Since when? There was an attempt to outlaw some of them, but I believe that those laws have been thwarted by the courts. As it stands, it's perfectly legal to kill a viable fetus. What law forbids it?

I thought there were statutes in most States that prohibited 3rd trimester abortions that aren't a danger to the mother's life. Sure, some still probably occur, but I don't think they're legal or nearly as common as earlier abortions.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Your faith in medicine warms my heart, but the fact is you (the doctor) don't always know when a pregnancy will be life threatening until it's too late. And just based solely on statistics, a woman might want to decrease her risk of death by (what was it?) 3400% by getting an early stage abortion instead of going through childbirth.

So let's stop births all together and just abort every pregnancy. That would be the safest route.

Just tell me how stopping life-threatening pregnancies would be any different in a system where they were the only allowed abortions. Not pregnancies that *might* become life-threatening. You're effectively saying the baby is a murderer and we don't know if he will or will not strike, so we better just kill it to make sure.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Not washing my hands after going to the bathroom can create a life (or a million). I think what you meant to say is that sex can create a person, to which I would say "not if you abort it before it becomes a person."

And I to which I would say "we don't know when it becomes a person, so aborting it before that is impossible".

Again, "life" is far too vague. "A person," unless you can suggest something better. And to say that a fertilized egg is a person, we must make a list that defines the properties of a person. A life is a person if and only if....? I'll start with my ideas, and maybe someone can add some things or give reasoning to refute others.

1. the signs of personhood at the end of life: heartbeat and brainwaves (I'm not exactly clear if this distinguishes higher function brainwaves from autonomic ones).
2. being descended from other persons (a recursive property I know, but that is the very nature of life).

That's all I can think of. Ideas anyone?

A think that a fetus possesses both of those qualities, does it not? I realize that a fertilized egg doesn't, but as I said before, as of right now I think that once brainwaves appear is when it should be considered a person.

(Yeah...I am arguing that a fertilized egg could be considered a person right now, I realize, but that's also partly an argument with myself. Right now my official belief is still brainwaves.)

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The second part would be more accurate. They are mechanically distinct from the parent organism (I know, so are the likes of blood cells), and never in their existence do they ever serve a function to the parent organism other than to go forth and become offspring.

I suppose. I guess we'll have to go with what you said: when it becomes a "person".

[Why DNA is not a good argument.]

You've convinced me. I won't go there.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think I understand medical science well enough to feel sure that being shot in the gut is an unpleasant experience even though I've never been shot myself. Describing it precisely, no, but we can generally say that some things are painful and some things aren't just because it's a medical fact.

But you don't know how unpleasant. Is it on par with torture? If you get shot and then kill the guy who shot you does that emotional experience help take away some of the pain?

Aside from this, I don't see how you can say pregnancy is on par with torture. A quick Google search reveals many news stories of people giving birth who didn't even know they were pregnant. Where was the torture there? Could it be, it isn't as bad as it's made out to be? There's even a site (has a mostly nude pregnant woman at top...it's a weird site) that talks all about unassisted births and how many times women feel almost no pain. But I thought that pregnancy was "on par with torture"! Give me a break.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Okay then; every time you say "pro-choice" then I'll take that to mean people who think rapists should be able to choose to rape people, since you don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings.

You've confused definition with context.

That's what Skel's been doing with "pro-abortion"...That's why I said it at all. I'm not seriously going to do that.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I'm not sure I'm going to bother arguing with logic that barely stands up, but here: I never said a zygote wasn't alive. And why would I admit that? If you admit the same by that logic, you'd have to admit that any man who has ever ejaculated has committed genocide.

It may be alive, but it isn't a human life. A human that's dependent on machines is still considered a human, why not a human dependent on its mother?

"Why 2 year olds?" Because it was Zimph's example.

It was rhetorical...

Besides: While a newborn baby (why 2 year olds? Newborns are alive too) might technically be able to survive without its mother, a fetus* at near the end of the nine months, but not born yet, could also technically survive via an incubation chamber (alternatively, if it were early enough it could be put in a surrogate mother). Both would still be dependent however, because the fetus obviously is still being helped, and the newborn would still need help because its muscles and other systems are not developed enough that it could even possibly go get food and survive by itself.

As far as your fetus-in-the-third-trimester argument goes; firstly, this fetus could still not survive on its own (you admit the necessity of an incubation chamber for the fetus to live). But that's not really my argument (just revealing some holes in yours), my argument would be that most abortions occur long before the fetus is this developed. Any legal abortion would remain in the first trimester. So let's move on, since you're not really making a point here...

Yes, I did admit that the fetus couldn't survive on it's own. But I also pointed out that neither could a newborn, which is considered a human. Did you even read what I said?

My point was that just because fetus is dependent doesn't make it any less human. There are many people that are dependent on either machines or other people to survive. I'm saying dependency is not an argument.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Deej confuses things in general.

...What?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Well, people do confess to crimes for which they know they will be sent to prison. But I will repeat, who said it would be ok to sent women to prison all the time?

No one...where did that come from?

Here's a representation of my understanding. Say you could measure your mood on a score card with some kind of point system. The distress of pregnancy puts you down 3 points, at -3. The joy of (potentially) having a child puts you up 5 points, back to +2. If instead of joy over the child, you feel anxiety, bitterness and oppression, those +5 points are converted to another -3, for -6. The values of the numbers are negotiable obviously, but you can't dispute that most mothers who decide to have a child get a substantial emotional reward from the child, and I doubt you'd dispute that that reward is greater than the emotional (and physical) deficit incurred from pregnancy itself. But for people who don't feel joy for their child, you can't force thm to be joyful so they've been put in a very negative position on the scale. Does that explain how the same act can be rewarding for one person and torturous for another?

I said to Chuckit: I don't see how you can say pregnancy is on par with torture. A quick Google search reveals many news stories of people giving birth who didn't even know they were pregnant. Where was the torture there? Could it be, it isn't as bad as it's made out to be? There's even a site (has a mostly nude pregnant woman at top...it's a weird site) that talks all about unassisted births and how many times women feel almost no pain. But I thought that pregnancy was "on par with torture"! Give me a break.

If B can become C and A can become B, then A can become C (after it has become B). What's wrong with that logic?

Okay, I'll run with this. Let's say this: A1 = sperm, A2 = egg, B = Fertilized egg, and C = person. B can and often does become C. A1 can become B iff it is combined with A2. A2 can become B iff it is combined with A1. If A1 combines with A2, and it becomes B, then it no longer is either A1 or A2, it is B, so the statement "A1 and A2 can never become C unless combined" is a true statement. Now, any problems with this analogy?

And once the fertilized egg has become the zygote, it is no longer a fertilized egg. Ditto for the child, and the adolescent, and the adult. There is no qualitative difference between a zygote becoming a child and a pair of gametes becoming a zygote. Each step is a precursor to the one after it.

Right. See my above example. Sperm or eggs alone will never become a child or zygote or anything unless they are combined. So, sperm or eggs alone should not be considered potential human lives.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I thought there were statutes in most States that prohibited 3rd trimester abortions that aren't a danger to the mother's life. Sure, some still probably occur, but I don't think they're legal or nearly as common as earlier abortions.

Last I heard, third trimester abortions where still legal in most states, and most courts have struck down any limitations in regards to a "mother's life" in favor of a "mother's health" which is essentially meaningless as a doctor could state that concern for her emotional well being was an emergency health issue.

I know that as of a couple of years ago, there were reportedly thousands of partial birth abortions done a year (someone who worked at a hospital that performed them testified in this regard), and very rarely where they for more than convenience issues.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

So now you're telling me what I would believe? That would be like saying "oh, you oppose privatizing social security? you must be a democrat."

If you were anti-privatizing social security and I shortened it to anti-privatization, would you have a problem with that? There are many interpretable meanings, but in the context it's obvious. So, if you were pro-legalized-abortion and I said you were pro-abortion, there may be many interpretable meanings, but in the context, it's obvious.

No, I have an argument for someone who opposes abortion (at all) and is pro-choice (at all). Because if you have someone who opposes abortion, and you call them "pro-abortion," it means that either you don't understand the meaning of the prefix "pro" or you don't believe them because you are deluded.

Pro-abortion = pro-legalized-abortion = pro-choice. You have a problem with the first half. I'm saying I said they were the same so in the context of whenever I said it, they were the same.

I've been pushing that pro-abortion is the same as pro-legalized-abortion in my messages. You're saying I can't use that because some people are anti-abortion and pro-legalized-abortion, which contradict what I said. Anyone who believes in stopping abortions would be called pro-life, even if they aren't. Maybe, like you said, they think abortion is a waste of resources and want it to stop, but they don't think that it is wrong to end a pregnancy prematurely. This person would probably be called pro-life, and that would be an accurate description, in my opinion, because in almost all cases pro-life simply means you want abortions to stop.

Again, you can't tell me what to believe.

And you're telling me that I can't shorten pro-legalized-abortion to pro-abortion.

But in this case it's obvious you are wrong. There are plenty of people that support the separation of church and state when it is in regards to making laws about personal freedoms, but don't care a lick what words are printed on their money. To take your example of gay marriage, you can't correlate the same people who oppose gay marriage (an issue of freedom of action) to those who oppose the word "god" (an issue of pettiness). No, the ACLU does not count, they don't have a constituency.

I think you are getting hung up on the slogan "separation of church and state." It's important to remember that that doesn't mean you can't be religious, it means that the government can't establish a specific religion. As far as I know, the soul is a purely christian construction. If I am christian (I'm not, but if), and I think the zygote has a soul, and that is the only reason it should not be killed (but it's not murder per se), I would be against abortion. But I also believe the government has no right to force everyone to believe in the soul, and it must have more logical and/or universal reasons for enacting laws (what the gov prints on money or what it says the national anthem is are not laws). In that case, I am not a fanatic for separation of church and state, I just don't think the state can enact laws based on the beliefs of just one religion.

Yeah, that part was dumb, seeing as it didn't address the beliefs. Withdrawn. See above for why group names might now always fit the person but still be accurate.

Okay then; every time you say "pro-choice" then I'll take that to mean people who think rapists should be able to choose to rape people, since you don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings.

Go ahead and do that, you will be removing yourself from serious debate. There are already people in this thread that jump in with nonsensical one-liners and are rightfully ignored. You are free to join them.

You're doing exactly what I said if you can't understand that when I say "pro-abortion" I'm talking about pro-choicers. You don't think we can redefine words from their implied meanings, and every time someone says pro-abortion you pounce and take it as the implied meaning. Doing so you must be "removing yourself from serious debate". Correct?

That's a good point. It shows that "pro-choice" has no reason to exist except to avoid (what they feel is) oppression from potential pro-life legislation. If a person from outside the debate came in and didn't understand it, it would only be the pro-life side that would need to convince them of anything, since it is only the pro-life side that endeavors to impose their will on everyone else. I won't point out that to such a person "pro-life" would be equally unenlightening, because I don't care about that.

Where are you going with this? Maybe the person wouldn't understand why there needs to be a group to prevent the killing of unborn children...

Pro-life could be misunderstood as well. I only used pro-choice as an example. You're the one that seems to think that pro-choice wouldn't need to be defined. I'm showing you it might need to be. I never said pro-life wouldn't be misunderstood either.

Even if they both were misunderstood, when naming either side you have to change implied meanings, which proves my point that you can redefine words from their implied meanings.

Pro-abortion hasn't been misunderstood by anyone in this thread other than the pro-choicers. And I never said pro-choice or pro-abortion meant people like abortions, you said that.

I never said the meaning of the wrongfully applied term was misunderstood. I said the meaning of the group that had it wrongfully applied to them was misunderstood.

The meaning of the "wrongfully applied term" is pro-legalized-abortion, because that's how I use it. Is that not the meaning of the group that I applied it to? That might be misunderstood, but as has been pointed out, "pro-life" or "pro-choice" could be misunderstood as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by deej5871

That's what Skel's been doing with "pro-abortion"...That's why I said it at all. I'm not seriously going to do that.

The term "pro-abortion" means "supports abortion." This is not true in any context of all abortion-rights supporters, many of whom categorically oppose abortion. On the other hand, "pro-choice" means "supports choice," which, within the context of abortion rights, is 100 percent accurate. That's why I think it's a better word.

Not that it really matters. I'm just a language geek.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by deej5871

It may be alive, but it isn't a human life. A human that's dependent on machines is still considered a human, why not a human dependent on its mother?

A spermatozoon, a zygote, a fetus. What do they have in common? They're all things that can become a human individual.

And the machine thing is a whole different controversy. Whether or not we should keep someone on life support when they have significant brain damage or are in a coma is as up for debate as this current topic of discussion. Anyways, the person that relies on machines is fully-developed and was, after birth, an individual...if we ever considered the person a human, they are still a human later (albeit a shadow of their former self). The "human" that is dependent on its mother has never been able to exist outside of this reliance�it is not a fully-developed human (just as a sperm or egg is not) and it is not an individual that can survive without this specific parasitic reliance.

Originally Posted by deej5871

Yes, I did admit that the fetus couldn't survive on it's own. But I also pointed out that neither could a newborn, which is considered a human. Did you even read what I said?

A newborn has developed enough that it can survive without its mother. I mentioned this before, but a newborn can breathe on its own, eat on its own, drink on its own (though people, mother or other, usually bring spoon or bottle to mouth). A zygote cannot breathe on its own. Neither can a fetus. Put a newborn in a crib and leave it for hours without worry. Put a zygote or a fetus in a crib and tell me what happens.

Originally Posted by deej5871

My point was that just because fetus is dependent doesn't make it any less human. There are many people that are dependent on either machines or other people to survive. I'm saying dependency is not an argument.

A fetus is less of a human individual, because it lacks that latter word: individual. A sperm and an egg is less of a human individual, as well.

Sperm, egg, zygote, or fetus: all are less complex than a human individual, none can survive long outside of a host body.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The term "pro-abortion" means "supports abortion." This is not true in any context of all abortion-rights supporters, many of whom categorically oppose abortion. On the other hand, "pro-choice" means "supports choice," which, within the context of abortion rights, is 100 percent accurate. That's why I think it's a better word.

Not that it really matters. I'm just a language geek.

"Pro-abortion" in the context of whether abortion should be legal or not would mean "wants abortion legal". That's how I'm using it, in that context.

Yeah...it doesn't matter. Why I let myself get involved in this I'll never know...

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

A spermatozoon, a zygote, a fetus. What do they have in common? They're all things that can become a human individual.

And the machine thing is a whole different controversy. Whether or not we should keep someone on life support when they have significant brain damage or are in a coma is as up for debate as this current topic of discussion. Anyways, the person that relies on machines is fully-developed and was, after birth, an individual...if we ever considered the person a human, they are still a human later (albeit a shadow of their former self). The "human" that is dependent on its mother has never been able to exist outside of this reliance�it is not a fully-developed human (just as a sperm or egg is not) and it is not an individual that can survive without this specific parasitic reliance.

So, they are human if they are dependent now and will continue to be for x amount of time, but weren't before; but they aren't human if they are dependent now and will stop after y amount of time (9 months or less)?

A newborn has developed enough that it can survive without its mother. I mentioned this before, but a newborn can breathe on its own, eat on its own, drink on its own (though people, mother or other, usually bring spoon or bottle to mouth). A zygote cannot breathe on its own. Neither can a fetus. Put a newborn in a crib and leave it for hours without worry. Put a zygote or a fetus in a crib and tell me what happens.

It's the amount of time it can go not being dependent that matters? So there is a certain number of hours that if you can't go without help, you aren't human? Obviously that newborn will need help sometime.

A fetus is less of a human individual, because it lacks that latter word: individual. A sperm and an egg is less of a human individual, as well.

Sperm, egg, zygote, or fetus: all are less complex than a human individual, none can survive long outside of a host body.

And a newborn is not an individual because it can't survive for x number of hours without help from someone? Please, tell me what this magic hour is that you must be able to survive to be considered a person. Enlighten me.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by deej5871

So, they are human if they are dependent now and will continue to be for x amount of time, but weren't before; but they aren't human if they are dependent now and will stop after y amount of time (9 months or less)?

This doesn't have to do with time, it has to with the fact that one thing has been an individual and independent, while one thing has not. A zygote has never been individually independent and neither has a sperm or an egg. A fetus, zygote, sperm, and egg have more in common with each other than a baby has with any of them, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by deej5871

It's the amount of time it can go not being dependent that matters? So there is a certain number of hours that if you can't go without help, you aren't human? Obviously that newborn will need help sometime.

Time is not really the issue. Again: one thing depends on a physical, parasitic relationship and cannot breathe, eat, or drink on its own. The other thing is individually existent and possibly depends, from time to time, on another individual for help with the eating and drinking biz (though a newborn learns its way around a bottle quickly enough); a newborn can always breathe on its own and does not rely on umbilical relations.

Originally Posted by deej5871

And a newborn is not an individual because it can't survive for x number of hours without help from someone? Please, tell me what this magic hour is that you must be able to survive to be considered a person. Enlighten me.

You're missing the point.

No, a newborn is an individual. It does not PHYSICALLY depend on another individual. A zygote, however, is PHYSICALLY connected to an individual and depends on this parasitic link for nourishment. A baby can be raised by the mother it grew inside of, it can be raised by its father, it can be raised by a human with no direct relationship to it, it can be raised by a nanny or babysitter, temporarily. This has nothing to do with time and "x hours", it has to do with the physical nature of a dependence. Technically, a baby can breathe on its own, eat on its own, drink on its own, though it usually receives help for the second and third items on that list (though it still swallows what is given to it on its own, there's no physical dependence). A zygote cannot breathe, eat, or drink.