ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 05:20 PM

Krystal

Apr 2 2014, 05:01 PM

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 04:47 PM

It's selective, because it has to be. It's impossible for something in this case to match up with every definition in existence. (Take the google definition above, for example) Not even children fit that definition of being human.& You have a really good point there. However, if a fetus technically fits a few definitions of being human, I don't really see why it shouldn't be seen as one.

No, I get that they are human embryos, but are embryos themselves humans? If you can go simply by semblance to their adult form and the potential of life they have, why is eating an egg hardly considered animal cruelty while butchering chickens receives so much vitriol?

Human embryos are basically the equivalent to a human vegetable. Just because human vegetables aren't conscious, does it mean that they're a different species? No, of course not! That wouldn't make any sense at all. Fetuses have all the criteria to fit certain definitions of being a human. Just because they're not conscious, it doesn't mean that we should rename their species and view them as inferior.

& That's a very interesting point of view. I never really thought of it from that perspective. However, I still disagree with you.

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 06:07 PM

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that a human vegetable is a human being. Hence it's name. We can't go by personal definitions of what's human and what's not. We have to use official definitions.

Krystal

Apr 2 2014, 07:16 PM

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 06:07 PM

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that a human vegetable is a human being. Hence it's name. We can't go by personal definitions of what's human and what's not. We have to use official definitions.

I'm not saying that fetuses aren't human fetuses, but there is a huge difference between a human who has had a lifetime of decisions and consciousness that were suddenly extinguished and an embryo who has yet to establish anything. If Hitler or someone who committed multiple atrocities slipped into a coma, I doubt there would be people rallying to save them simply on the basis that they are a human being. Heck, our own thread on Fred Phelps being near death was met with a fairly general lack of sympathy. Therefore, the right to life seems to gauged by a lot more than simply being a human.


While it is sad that an aborted fetus may not have the chance to do good, you cannot say that they can ONLY do good. If they are born into a situation where they will be underprivileged, unloved, and unwanted, you can't guarantee they won't turn out to be someone you are more hesitant to say deserves to live.

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 07:53 PM

Krystal

Apr 2 2014, 07:16 PM

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 06:07 PM

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that a human vegetable is a human being. Hence it's name. We can't go by personal definitions of what's human and what's not. We have to use official definitions.

I'm not saying that fetuses aren't human fetuses, but there is a huge difference between a human who has had a lifetime of decisions and consciousness that were suddenly extinguished and an embryo who has yet to establish anything. If Hitler or someone who committed multiple atrocities slipped into a coma, I doubt there would be people rallying to save them simply on the basis that they are a human being. Heck, our own thread on Fred Phelps being near death was met with a fairly general lack of sympathy. Therefore, the right to life seems to gauged by a lot more than simply being a human.


While it is sad that an aborted fetus may not have the chance to do good, you cannot say that they can ONLY do good. If they are born into a situation where they will be underprivileged, unloved, and unwanted, you can't guarantee they won't turn out to be someone you are more hesitant to say deserves to live.

Of course nobody would save Hitler.& An innocent little fetus is nothing like him. Therefore you shouldn't compare the two.

I never said that fetuses can only do good after they're born. If that were the case, murderers, child abusers, rapists, ect. wouldn't exist.

& Their upbringing is completely irrelevant. A very large part of my childhood sucked and I turned out fine. You don't see me committing mass murders or anything like that. It doesn't matter how bad the child's upbring would be. They'd eventually build a bridge and get over it.

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 08:19 PM

Krystal

Apr 2 2014, 08:04 PM

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 07:53 PM

Krystal

Apr 2 2014, 07:16 PM

ice1994

Apr 2 2014, 06:07 PM

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that a human vegetable is a human being. Hence it's name. We can't go by personal definitions of what's human and what's not. We have to use official definitions.

I'm not saying that fetuses aren't human fetuses, but there is a huge difference between a human who has had a lifetime of decisions and consciousness that were suddenly extinguished and an embryo who has yet to establish anything. If Hitler or someone who committed multiple atrocities slipped into a coma, I doubt there would be people rallying to save them simply on the basis that they are a human being. Heck, our own thread on Fred Phelps being near death was met with a fairly general lack of sympathy. Therefore, the right to life seems to gauged by a lot more than simply being a human.


While it is sad that an aborted fetus may not have the chance to do good, you cannot say that they can ONLY do good. If they are born into a situation where they will be underprivileged, unloved, and unwanted, you can't guarantee they won't turn out to be someone you are more hesitant to say deserves to live.

Of course nobody would save Hitler.& An innocent little fetus is nothing like him. Therefore you shouldn't compare the two.

I never said that fetuses can only do good after they're born. If that were the case, murderers, child abusers, rapists, ect. wouldn't exist.

& Their upbringing is completely irrelevant. A very large part of my childhood sucked and I turned out fine. You don't see me committing mass murders or anything like that. It doesn't matter how bad the child's upbring would be. They'd eventually build a bridge and get over it.

I didn't compare an innocent little fetus as something like Hitler, except for the fact that they are both human beings, and you were arguing until now that they are human and should thus not be aborted. That is, as you just said, no longer true because you admitted that nobody would save Hitler, even though he is human.

Now that we're not stuck on the "Since they're human they should live" sentiment, the argument can continue.

While the fetus hasn't done anything bad, the effects of an unwanted pregnancy can cause a woman to become depressed or suicidal, and this can spread to her friends, family, and multitudes of others who depend on her living. What exactly has the fetus done that makes it more worthy of life and happiness than the people around it who are already deeply rooted in life?

I don't care that Hitler's human. I wouldn't save him. Fetuses are a completely different ball game cause they didn't do anything.

&If a women became suicidal because she was pregnant, then good for her. She'd receive no sympathy from me. If she can't think clearly about her actions and the consequences that follow, then what good could she possibly contribute to society?

Father Brofist

Apr 2 2014, 08:33 PM

You girls got it bad don't you? I mean less importance than a fetus. Thank goodness for my penis because at this point its only a matter of time before we start raising the females on sex farms and selling them to the highest bidder.

Ice1994

 

It's the same with a fetus. The fetus is basically a child in a coma, but you know he'll be all right once he's born. What's the point in killing your child, just because you didn't make your partner wear a condom or you changed your mind about wanting a kid? It's simply unreasonable and childish.