Into the Night
Verified User
LIF. Grow up.
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
I ask the audience to notice that IBDaMann didn't respond to my point about how a human zygote is far removed from a born baby.
Everyone agrees that the deaths of human sperm and human eggs isn't such a big deal. Why does that change for so many people once the 2 are joined? At least in its initial stages, the difference is minimal.
Into the Night
Verified User
Lile.
Lie.
Lie. Strawman fallacy.
Lie.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Redefinition fallacy.
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevance fallacy.
Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
RQAA.
Lie.
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevance fallacy.
Strawman fallacy. Repetition fallacy.
Because they ARE living human beings.
Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
Scott
Verified User
I think the audience can see that IBDaMann is trying hard, whether consciously or unconsciously, to try to ignore the rift not only with me, but with his own side here. gfm and Into the Night both apparently believe that a human life begins at conception- IBDaMann, on the other hand, believes that a human life begins once the embryo gets a heartbeat. IBDaMann, gfm and Into the Night all like to ignore the fact that the first stage of human development is the Gamete stage, that is, human sperm and human eggs.
Scott
Verified User
My definition of a living human includes embryos and fetuses with a heartbeat. My definition also includes human sperms and eggs, as well as fully mature humans.
Scott
Verified User
No. Why do you ask?
Scott
Verified User
I'm not setting anything aside. The fact that sex may result in pregnancy doesn't change the fact that any jurisdiction that doesn't allow abortions is forcing females to be embryo and fetus growers. The U.S. has come a long way in giving more rights to females, such as the right to vote, but when it comes to abortion, well, it still has a long way to go in many states.
Scott
Verified User
Alright, we agree so far...
Again, I think the problem here is that you fail to recognize the vast difference in intelligence between the unborn child and the pregnant female. Also, the vast difference in current potential as well. I have a friend who told me that she has an aunt that got an illegal abortion and because of that, she almost never had a child because the abortion was done badly. She finally was able to conceive, I believe through IVF, but my point here is that a woman who -wanted- to have children almost wasn't able to just because when she -didn't- want to have a child, she had to get a hack job due to it being illegal in the country she was at during that time. Unborn fetuses can do nothing except grow. They have no capacity for producing fetuses themselves. It's time we recognize just how valuable fertile females are- instead of forcing them to grow fetuses when they don't think they're ready, we should be allowing them to have abortions, as many may well be ready later on. As I've mentioned in the past, forcing females to carry pregnancies to term frequently does the fetuses no real favours in the long run as well:
**
Millions of children die every year
The scale of child mortality is immense and can be hard to grasp. Around 5 million children under five years old die annually.That’s around 14,000 deaths every day, or ten every minute. Or, thinking of it another way, 5 million is the population of Ireland or Norway.<span>5</span>
This enormous loss of life is also a tragedy felt by people around the children – their parents, siblings, friends, and communities.
**
Source:
Child and Infant Mortality
Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.
ourworldindata.org
Scott
Verified User
No, Charlie Kirk -was- a living human. That changed the moment he died.
Wikipedia disagrees. For the audience, take a look at the right hand side of the following page on the stages of human development:
Development of the human body - Wikipedia
According to who? If we're defining human as any stage of human development, then it most certainly is.
Homo sapiens can at least be found in a dictionary, unlike living human, though Homo sapiens are more commonly referred to as humans, Homo sapiens being the scientific name for humans. Interestingly, in Wikipedia's article on humans, it said this:
**
The human life span has been split into various stages ranging from three to twelve. Common stages include infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age.
**
Source:
Human - Wikipedia
I find it interesting that they would start at infancy, as that's technically the -5th- stage of human growth and development, after gametes, zygotes, embryos and fetuses. The following page gets into -all- stages:
Development of the human body - Wikipedia
Something I didn't notice before, but that I do agree with is that after "old adult", there is the stage of "dying". While it's certainly something that happens to all humans that I know of, I suspect that putting it in as a stage of human development makes sense- it seems more like an end that a stage of human development.
Anyway, getting back to the subject of good terms for what we're talking about, if you want to use a term that seems to exclude the human stage of gametes, I think that natural person is your best bet. Again, here's the link for the term:
Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
Natural Person defined and explained with examples. Natural Person is a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.
legaldictionary.net
I'll even quote the part that I imagine you'd be interested in:
**
Natural Person and Fetal Rights
The issue of whether an unborn fetus is considered a natural person, with all of the rights and protections associated with that status, has been a hot-button issue for a very long time. In the U.S., this issue is commonly referred to as “fetal rights,” and deals with not only issues of right to life (anti-abortion), but with protections related to the health and safety of the child from conception to birth. This is a complicated issue, with some people attempting to place a fetal age at which the baby can be considered “viable,” or alive; and others claiming that the baby has a right to life and protection from the moment of conception.**
Scott
Verified User
Me too
They generally are, but I can easily see some dictionary deciding to take a partisan stand. But as I've already said in this post and in others, if you want a term that automatically excludes human sperm and eggs, just pick natural person. I think we'd save ourselves a lot of time by ending this increasingly tedious debate on how "living human" should be defined.
Yakuda
Verified User
Right because it's not a human life. That's why people don't go to jail for killing mosquitos even when its premeditated murder.
Scott
Verified User
If I've learned anything from my time here on JPP, it's that A LOT of people will NOT agree with me.
In fact, I don't even agree with some of my own past posts.
I also have changed my mind on some things. Here's to hoping that we can eventually focus on the term "natural person" rather than "living human", as natural person would just avoid us arguing endlessly about its "lower range"- I fully accept that natural persons can't start before conception.
Yakuda
Verified User
Sperm and egg combine to create a separate life. You don't get to kill other human life. Intelligence is irrelevant not the discussion. Not but a distraction
Yakuda
Verified User
It's about life and should we terminate human life for the convenience of a person who freely entered into activity that has the potential of producing human life.I haven't changed the goalposts. I usually say level of intelligence instead of quality of life. That being said, there is something to be said about quality of life too. Producing a human fetus is a lot easier than raising a born child. If anyone should have the choice as to whether to terminate a fetus, it should be the pregnant female, and usually, that's indeed the person who chooses to do so. I personally don't think we should have yet more born children who die before the age of 15:
Child and Infant Mortality
Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.
As to mosquitos, yes, I agree, they're not human. More importantly, though, their level of intelligence is far below that of a human- perhaps even below that of a human fetus, at least one that's a few months old. But there are larger animals that can rival and even surpass the intelligence of a human fetus:
