Abortion? The final conclusions?

[steverino]

I think it should always be allowed.

It is the best way to use natural selection to get rid of the genes of persons who are such worthless to society that they would want and ask for an abortion and get themselves into a situation where they would think of having an abortion.

They should spay the women free of charge if they ask for it when they get an abortion too.

The obvious response is that your mother should have terminated your inferior ass, Dr. Mengele. So I am to accept that Bill Thompson is the arbiture of taste on which women are worthless and which women have worth? In other words, we are no longer talking about a "worthless fetus," but "worthless pregnant women." And YOU or government or whom ever is going to decide who has worth and therefore who gives birth and who is required to terminate? You are sick.

 

[AWPrime]

I was simply clarifying for TBK, not making a statement on abortion. The difference between a being and a human being is that a being is any living creature, where as a human being is a person.

I really do need to repeat myself: Just because most human beings are persons doesn't mean that anything with human DNA is a person.

If you say otherwise, please come with an argument.

 

[Demigorgon]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that anyone who supports "abortion without any restrictions" has never been present during a child-birth.

 

[bob_kark]

I really do need to repeat myself: Just because most human beings are persons doesn't mean that anything with human DNA is a person.

If you say otherwise, please come with an argument.

And I believe you really need to pay attention to what I'm saying and possibly purchase a dictionary.

human being
One entry found for human being.
Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
: HUMAN

Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

When we refer to a being, we're referring to the generic, an amoeba is a being. When we refer to a human being, we're refering to a human person. I'm not calling a fetus a human being. I'm simply stating that a fetus is a being in that it is a living thing. So, yes, a human being is a being, but a fetus is a being too. I don't need to prove that as it is the actual definition of the word being.

 

[bob_kark]

A being is sapient.

A being is wise? What are you talking about? If a being is wise, what is a life form?

Because it's dependant on a host body.

No, that would mean that it is not independent, not that it is not an individual. The leech does not become the host when it is feeding on a host. In fact, the host can painfully remove the leech, showing that the two do not become one.

An infant can survive without a host body, it is actually independant of any host bodies. It is not attached to any host body.

Try harder, because your childish arguments are rather boring and pointless.

My goodness, I would think child services would disapprove of your parenting skills. You're telling me an infant is independent enough to take care of itself? That's a bit disconcerting.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it is ok to have an abortion if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

No, I'm saying that it's ok to have an abortion because the fetus is INSIDE the womb. It's a growth, an organism that is still part of the host body. Thus, the host body has every right to terminate it.

Whew, you know, I don't know anyone who could live with themself after making that call.

I do. Me and my wife both agree on this issue.

Who is so great to decide that their life is more important than a future life.

The one carrying the "future life" to term.

What give you the authority to make that decision that a future person does not get a crack at a full life that you have had.

The fact that the host body is sapient and the fetus is not.

He or she might have a better life and be worth more.

It could also grow up to be the next hitler. Let's not play this fantasy game of "what if's" about the future of an unwanted pregnancy. The woman's choice about how to treat her fetus is between her, her doctor and her loved ones, NOT you and not the government.

All the more reason why I think my idea of providing tieing a woman's tubes if she gets an abortion is a good idea.

You haven't come up with a logical reason yet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A being is wise? What are you talking about? If a being is wise, what is a life form?

Let's not play stupid... maybe you're not playing. Sapient refers to a being that thinks.

No, that would mean that it is not independent, not that it is not an individual.

The fetus was never an independant being, it grew from the host body and is still growing from the host body. Thus, it is not an individual.

My goodness, I would think child services would disapprove of your parenting skills. You're telling me an infant is independent enough to take care of itself? That's a bit disconcerting.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that an infant is independant enough that it's not dependant on a host body.

 

[Tailgater]

The obvious response is that your mother should have terminated your inferior ass, Dr. Mengele. So I am to accept that Bill Thompson is the arbiture of taste on which women are worthless and which women have worth? In other words, we are no longer talking about a "worthless fetus," but "worthless pregnant women." And YOU or government or whom ever is going to decide who has worth and therefore who gives birth and who is required to terminate? You are sick.

He did not say that anyone would be "required" to do it. As bad as his statement was, I would have to defend him on that. He said that abortion should be allowed any time. The reasons he gave for it is what was offensive. He also said tying their tubes was a choice and should be free of charge, also for offensive reasons.

 

[bob_kark]

Let's not play stupid... maybe you're not playing. Sapient refers to a being that thinks.

Look, you're the one muddling up your terms. A being is not sapient, a human being is, there is a difference. I want to be clear when we speak about this. You state that there is a difference between a being and a life-form. Let me define this difference for you. A being is a living thing, a life-form is an organism, an organism is a living being, therefore a being is a life-form. Nice circle there eh?

The fetus was never an independant being, it grew from the host body and is still growing from the host body. Thus, it is not an individual.

Please note, independent and individual are two totally different concepts. Simply because a being is dependent does not cause that being to become one with the being it is dependent on. The fetus is a distinct entity from the mother, therefore it is an individual being.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that an infant is independant enough that it's not dependant on a host body.

So there's a certain level of dependence at which it suddenly becomes a human being in your eyes? What of a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb? Is that a human being?

 

[steverino]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that anyone who supports "abortion without any restrictions" has never been present during a child-birth.

Well, according to thaiboxerken an Bill Thompson, they would say that during childbirth, if the baby, I mean, fetus, is even outside the mother, but with the umbilical cord still uncut, the "thinggy" would be a parasite and therefore the, er, fetus, could be terminated without moral or legal consequence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Look, you're the one muddling up your terms. A being is not sapient, a human being is, there is a difference. I want to be clear when we speak about this. You state that there is a difference between a being and a life-form. Let me define this difference for you. A being is a living thing, a life-form is an organism, an organism is a living being, therefore a being is a life-form. Nice circle there eh?

Whatever you want to call it, a fetus is not sapient. That's my point and that's one of the premise for concluding it's not an individual human being.

Please note, independent and individual are two totally different concepts. Simply because a being is dependent does not cause that being to become one with the being it is dependent on. The fetus is a distinct entity from the mother, therefore it is an individual being.

No, it's not a distinct entity from the mother, no more than a mole is. It's is a part of it's host's being.

So there's a certain level of dependence at which it suddenly becomes a human being in your eyes?

Yes. It's at birth.

What of a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb? Is that a human being?

Only after it's seperated from the mother.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that anyone who supports "abortion without any restrictions" has never been present during a child-birth.

Sounds like an entirely emotional argument on your part. Sorry, bub, but appeals to emotion don't work and shouldn't even play a part of a rational, logical debate or discussion.

 

[steverino]

Sounds like an entirely emotional argument on your part. Sorry, bub, but appeals to emotion don't work and shouldn't even play a part of a rational, logical debate or discussion.

So you yourself are in no way appealing to our emotions with your positions?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you yourself are in no way appealing to our emotions with your positions?

Actually, no.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The final conclusion is that civilized parts of the globe have become...well, civilized. Some have been left behind, but we still root for them, including the US.

 

[bob_kark]

Whatever you want to call it, a fetus is not sapient. That's my point and that's one of the premise for concluding it's not an individual human being.

Ok, well, if a being must be sapient in order to become a human being, that would mean we don't become human until we reach 18-24 months. What does it also say about humans with mental defects or in vegetable states? Are they no longer human?

No, it's not a distinct entity from the mother, no more than a mole is. It's is a part of it's host's being.

Wait, I thought it was sapience that made them human, this is just getting so confusing. So, a being doesn't become a human until the umbilical cord is cut?

Yes. It's at birth.

Wait, now it's the child's position in space that makes it a human?

Only after it's seperated from the mother.

What? So, even though it is no longer dependent on the mother, it still isn't human? You're not being very consistant. I have to ask, is your opinion based upon logic or is it based upon a desire to have this opinion?

 

[King of the Americas]

My counter point man, has abandon this discussion, so I'll interject a few points toward:

Bob_kark

&

Bill Thompson

Comparing fetuses to leeches is an incorrect. Dependence and 'absolute dependence' are VERY different.

Becoming or being an individual means that you are NOT 'abolutely dependent' upon another being. Thus a welfare bum in an individual because anyone could support him, just like a leech. If you took a leech off of a person, it doesn't die immediately. It can exist while it searches for a new food source.

A fetus 5 months old or younger is not capable of life outside the womb of its orginal host, period. This quality is what makes it a parasite, and NOT an individual life form. You become an individual when you are not absolutely dependent upon a 'specific' host...

Now, I read where someone wanted to tie women's tubes upon an abortion...

That's absurd. However, allow me to offer a more reasoned approach that could well end all abortions!

Upon birth, all boys and girls are 'fixed' in a reversable manner, so that they can have sex as often as they like, having only STD's to fear. Upon marriage, after taking child rearing classes, they are given a licence to conceive and bare children. Making it illegal to have a child outside of marriage, or to do so without having passed the requisit tests. Therefore, ALL pregnancies will result in births, and to '2' parents who are capable of raising said child.

If we are talking about tieing womens' tubes AFTER an abortion, I say we 'fix' the problem BEFORE it arises...

 

[bob_kark]

My counter point man, has abandon this discussion, so I'll interject a few points toward:

Bob_kark

&

Bill Thompson

Comparing fetuses to leeches is an incorrect. Dependence and 'absolute dependence' are VERY different.

Becoming or being an individual means that you are NOT 'abolutely dependent' upon another being. Thus a welfare bum in an individual because anyone could support him, just like a leech. If you took a leech off of a person, it doesn't die immediately. It can exist while it searches for a new food source.

A fetus 5 months old or younger is not capable of life outside the womb of its orginal host, period. This quality is what makes it a parasite, and NOT an individual life form. You become an individual when you are not absolutely dependent upon a 'specific' host...

You claim that there is a difference between dependence and absolute dependence and then fall back on the comparison to a parasite. In addition, you fail to prove that a parasite is not an individual life form. A ringworm is still a ringworm regardless of whether it is in a human body or not.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't believe you're making it well. However, I don't believe that this is your fault as individuality is not a function of dependence. For example, a person connected to a ventilator or a feeding tube is still an individual even though they are entirely dependent on the ventilator or feeding tube, they don't become the feeding tube or the ventilator.

Also, please do not misunderstand the intention of my argument. I'm trying to show TBK that the issue is not as simple as he has stated. That's it.

 

[King of the Americas]

A person on a vent, could be on ANY vent. A leech could attach itself to ANY warm blood animal.

A fetus can NOT be moved from or into or onto another host. Thus it's 'absolute dependence' on a 'specific' host, which is what makes it a parasite and not an individual or independent life form.

Ability is what defines one's individual or independness...

How can YOU argue that something that can't exist in ANY fashion away from or apart from a host, is an independent individual???

I don't 'get' that reasoning...

 

[bob_kark]

A person on a vent, could be on ANY vent. A leech could attach itself to ANY warm blood animal.

A fetus can NOT be moved from or into or onto another host. Thus it's 'absolute dependence' on a 'specific' host, which is what makes it a parasite and not an individual or independent life form.

Ability is what defines one's individual or independness...

How can YOU argue that something that can't exist in ANY fashion away from or apart from a host, is an independent individual???

I don't 'get' that reasoning...

How much more clearly can I make my point? I am not arguing that a fetus, a person on a ventilator, a person on a feeding tube, a parasite, or even a leech is independent in any way. So, can you please stop claiming that I am?

Let's not even bother with the term individual because you're misusing the term, which is understandable because both individual and independent can mean many different things. I.E. independent can mean seperate rather than not dependent. Therefore, you could say that an individual must be seperate or independent of another being to be considered an individual. However, dependence is not a determining factor of individuality. A fetus is still a distinct living entity apart from the mother.

Essentially, what you're trying to tell me is that you believe that because a fetus is dependent on a mother to live, it is not a human. So, what of a fetus that is old enough to live without the mother but has not yet been born? Can we count that fetus as a human?