|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 20, 2010 3:08:03 GMT
I'll let someone else start, I'm better with rebuttals.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 20, 2010 21:24:04 GMT
Oh, I should have thought of that.
The problem with this issue is the warrant. Pro-abortionists have a warrant that fetuses aren't a "human life", and Anti-abortionists have the opposite. It's an entire argument based on something so vague as "When is a human considered a human?", and as such I shall not participate.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 6:31:43 GMT
Technically speaking a fetus is a human, but it is not alive. Organic beings are only alive if they are self sustainable, which a fetus, especially in the first trimester (when abortions are usually considered acceptable).
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 21, 2010 6:39:39 GMT
You have to define alive. Then you have to clarify on the consciousness of the thing when it is alive. Then you have to indicate if it is self-conscious by then, and then I'll start stating researched points and, to some extent, opinions (mainly on others' definitions of said terms).
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 6:47:45 GMT
Organic beings are only alive if they are self sustainable... "Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution." - Wikipedia Note that even though that is only part of the definition, it is the main statement disproving the point of a fetus being alive. Since a fetus is completely dependent on the mother, it is not alive.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 21, 2010 7:03:03 GMT
True, but what about a small baby? They wouldn't live very long without anyone around either.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 22, 2010 3:18:01 GMT
Yes but they are still self sufficient. An unconscious person wouldn't live very long if left in a dangerous area alone yet they are still alive. Self sufficient merely means your body supports itself by intaking nutrients and expelling waste. It has nothing to do if whether or not you have the ability to obtain nutrients.
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Nov 28, 2010 16:44:18 GMT
i wouldn't squeeze a baby out of me if i didn't want it
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Nov 28, 2010 19:45:41 GMT
I believe they suck it out, not squeeze it out.
|
|
|
Post by MegaLoler on Nov 29, 2010 22:47:04 GMT
What makes killing someone "bad"? If it is because to hurts that person, then it does not apply to abortion because the fetus does not even know what it means to die. If it is because it hurts people emotionally attached to the person, then it may or may not apply to abortion, depending on the family. If it is because you are ruining a chance for a human being to do something good, then it would not apply to the fetus, because a fetus alone without parental guidance cannot learn what is needed to do something good. Even killing a toddler would not be "bad" if this was the case. None of the above always apply to abortion, but the second one may or may not apply. If it was all of the above, or any combination that includes the second one, then abortion would only be a crime if the family decided it was. So you would have to consult the family before aborting.
|
|