Abortion? The final conclusions?

[Francesca R]

It is not separated from its mother. You said that in that case it is not a human being. Why do you not think it is OK to terminate it?

 

[Katana]

It seems to me that you simply don't know what a contradiction is. Individuality is just one of the factors. If you don't like that, the go somewhere.

If the fetus is no longer inside the womb, it's no longer in the domain abortion.

The question is what you meant by the statement: "Only after it's separated from the mother."

An infant who has been born but who still has an umbilical cord attached is not separated from its mother unless the placenta has delivered, too, but that can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to 30 minutes or more depending on whether there is a problem.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is not separated from its mother. You said that in that case it is not a human being. Why do you not think it is OK to terminate it?

Are you claiming that the baby is dependant on the umbilical cord at that point?

 

[bob_kark]

It's just one factor. Several factors come into my opinion.

If a child is born without sapience, doesn't even develop sapience until it is at least a year and a half old, and you claim:

A being is sapient.

Then either an infant is not a being either or sapience can not be a factor in determining whether a "thing" is an individual human being.

It's as if you are claiming that an item must have three connecting sides, three angles, and be green in order to be a triangle. I'm trying to advise you that there are many triangles that are not green. You're replying that being green was only one of the factors involved. You don't seem to understand that the color makes no difference at all in determining whether or not an item is a triangle.

It seems that you are the one that is unable to understand my points. That's YOUR problem. I can't fix stupidity.

I know you're trying hard TBK. I don't think you're stupid though. I think you're simply ignorant. You're attempting to create a distinction that doesn't exist between a human being and a human life-form. Now, I have no idea how an entity that you state can't even be considered a being can be considered a human but not a human being... It is rediculous. If you want to write the word "being" after the word "human," everytime I use it, feel free to.

I have not backpedalled. You are trying to assign a position to me that states that fetus is not human. I never made that statment. A fetus is human. A baby is human. A zygote is human. Individual beings is what I'm talking about.

Whatever you want to call them today...

We're talking about creatures that have never been individual, not ones that were.

Ok, so now it is not the fact that they are dependent, just simply that they have never been independent...?

I subscribe to no such stipulation.

You don't subscribe to the stipulation that a fetus can be old enough to survive outside the womb? You're either making no sense at all or avoiding the question yet again, let me state it again:

Well, you still have to remove the fetus from the womb, whether or not the fetus is still alive, or else the mother will die. Therefore, both mother and fetus are dependent on it exiting the womb. Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it a human being?

 

[Francesca R]

Are you claiming that the baby is dependant on the umbilical cord at that point?

It is not separated from its mother. You said that in that case it is not a human being. Why do you not think it is OK to terminate it?

 

[bob_kark]

Deleted.

I'm not going to be more of a jerk.

 

[steverino]

I just wanted to point out that not all things are fluffy and wonderful when people have children. Someitmes it turns out like crap. different options are good for different people, and I think a society that respects that would be beneficial to children.

Yeah, I understand just what you mean. My marriage turned out like crap. No, I did not kill my wife. We got a divorce.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is not separated from its mother. You said that in that case it is not a human being.

It is not inside of the womb, though. That is another factor.

 

[Katana]

It is not inside of the womb, though. That is another factor.

I guess I would repeat my question then.

The question is what you meant by the statement: "Only after it's separated from the mother."

An infant who has been born but who still has an umbilical cord attached is not separated from its mother unless the placenta has delivered, too, but that can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to 30 minutes or more depending on whether there is a problem.

Before the cord is cut, the infant is not technically separated from the mother.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Deleted.

I'm not going to be more of a jerk.

So the true motivation of your posts come out. Thanks for the admittance.



1. A fetus/zygote/embrio is not sapient.
2. These things exist inside of a sapient being, the host mother.
3. A sapient being should have sole authority on everything that goes on inside of itself.

Because of these reasons, I think there is nothing wrong with abortion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Before the cord is cut, the infant is not technically separated from the mother.

Technically, it is because the cord is a useless tether at that point. The umbilical cord serves no purpose after birth.

 

[bob_kark]

So the true motivation of your posts come out. Thanks for the admittance.

You mean post, in fact a portion of one post, in response to your childish remarks.

1. A fetus/zygote/embrio is not sapient.
2. These things exist inside of a sapient being, the host mother.

Just fixing your statement for you. You're muddying the waters. Stick to what's pertinent.

3. A sapient being should have sole authority on everything that goes on inside of itself.

Why should a human have the right to kill another human if their life is not in jeopardy? Why should a sapient being have sole authority on everying that goes on inside of itself? Should people be able to inject themselves with heroin? Should people be able to drink to the point of inebriation and drive?

Because of these reasons, I think there is nothing wrong with abortion.

Should I take that to mean you're not going to respond to my other posts? Should we simply agree to disagree?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why should a human have the right to kill another human if their life is not in jeopardy?

Why should a human not have the right to say what happens inside their body?

Why should a sapient being have sole authority on everying that goes on inside of itself?

Because that is what freedom is. I believe that people should have freedom.

A fetus/zygote/embrio is not sapient. That's not mud, that's just a fact.

Should people be able to inject themselves with heroin?

Yes.

Should people be able to drink to the point of inebriation and drive?

Drink, yes. Drive drunk, no. Driving is not something done within the body.

I'll simply agree that you're wrong and can't demonstrate otherwise. You've built strawmen, tried to equivocate terms and used all kinds of dishonest fallacy in order to try and change my mind. It won't happen. I only respond to honest and rational posts.

 

[steverino]

The umbilical cord serves no purpose after birth.

I thought it was a viable resource for stem cells?

 

[bob_kark]

Why should a human not have the right to say what happens inside their body?

I would say a human does not have the right to say what happens inside their body if their right interferes with another human's right to live.

Because that is what freedom is. I believe that people should have freedom.

We do not have unlimited freedom. You're not free to kill whom ever you want to. You're not free to leave your trash on your neighbor's lawn. You're not free to steal money from a bank. Freedom has limitations.

A fetus/zygote/embrio is not sapient. That's not mud, that's just a fact.

An infant is not sapient so the fact that a fetus/zygote/embryo is not sapient either makes no diffence in the discussion.

Yes.

No.

Drink, yes. Drive drunk, no. Driving is not something done within the body.

So you agree that there are conditions under which we can not do whatever we want to our body then? We can not drink while driving because we risk the lives of other humans.

I'll simply agree that you're wrong and can't demonstrate otherwise. You've built strawmen, tried to equivocate terms and used all kinds of dishonest fallacy in order to try and change my mind. It won't happen. I only respond to honest and rational posts.

Simply because you make the claim does not make it true. Just answer the question:

Well, you still have to remove the fetus from the womb, whether or not the fetus is still alive, or else the mother will die. Therefore, both mother and fetus are dependent on it exiting the womb. Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it a human being?

 

[Katana]

I would say a human does not have the right to say what happens inside their body if their right interferes with another human's right to live.

The life of the fetus is not worth more than hers. Women still die in pregnancy. She should be able to decide whether to accept that risk.

 

[bob_kark]

The life of the fetus is not worth more than hers. Women still die in pregnancy. She should be able to decide whether to accept that risk.

I agree that a woman should be able to have an abortion if there are health concerns. If the mother dies, the child is likely to die to. No one wins in that situation. However, even if the child could live at the expense of the mother, the mother should have the right to choose to have an abortion.

 

[Katana]

I agree that a woman should be able to have an abortion if there are health concerns. If the mother dies, the child is likely to die to. No one wins in that situation. However, even if the child could live at the expense of the mother, the mother should have the right to choose to have an abortion.

Women still die in pregnancies in which there aren't obvious health concerns. Pregnancy is not risk free even to the healthiest of women.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I thought it was a viable resource for stem cells?

I could also be used to make sausage. However, let's try to stay on topic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would say a human does not have the right to say what happens inside their body if their right interferes with another human's right to live.

I would say the same about a person. A fetus/zygote/embrio is not a person.

We do not have unlimited freedom. You're not free to kill whom ever you want to. You're not free to leave your trash on your neighbor's lawn. You're not free to steal money from a bank. Freedom has limitations.

Yes, and they should stop where undue interference with another person's life is involved.

An infant is not sapient so the fact that a fetus/zygote/embryo is not sapient either makes no diffence in the discussion.

It makes a difference because it is one of the factors involved in my opinion.

So you agree that there are conditions under which we can not do whatever we want to our body then? We can not drink while driving because we risk the lives of other humans.

Of other persons, yes.

Simply because you make the claim does not make it true.

THe question is irrelevant.

Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it a human being?

If it's still in the womb, it is not an individual, sapient being.