The debate "Abortion must be treated like killing" was started by
March 31, 2016, 9:56 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 29 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
fadi posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
president posted 3 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 4 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 7 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
fadi, Anjali, bennie, SwaggerPoptart, DB8101, blakelovesjesus, Delta_Force01 and 10 visitors agree.
djchivers, president, PsychDave, danielle, Sosocratese, supercat, R_o_h_i_t, RyanWakefield, Skeptical_Hedonist, Pugsly, Upbeatethan, burntoast2000, JanavanRooyen, cancer_wins, BhargavSharma and 14 visitors disagree.
So you are asserting. I am saying that the potential for life is not the same as life. I can back that with scientific, medical and legal support. I can give the parallel example of when life ends. I can support my position with something other than my own opinion. Can you do the same?
if a human cell which has the potential to become a child is destroyed it is a crime because you are killing a child of the future
How? You are stating that human DNA defines life without ever justifying why. If you have human DNA after death how does it prove life? If police find a drop of blood at a crime scene, is it alive because it has human DNA? You need to do more than just state your opinion.
well it is our identity and yes a good way to determine when life begins
human DNA is an important part of human life. but it does not prove life. it is rediculous to try to use it to say when life begins.
if you don't have humans genes then you might become an elephant a dear or any other living thing right ?
well but they can't on their own
So if a child has human DNA, what should we do if they have to brain activity? What about a stillborn child? They still have human DNA, but they haven't lived a long life. What should we do, since if they have human cells they are alive?
The problem is that you picked an arbitrary feature of humans and set it as your benchmark for life. The feature you picked, DNA and cells, doesn't change when someone dies, so your claim that it confers life is obviously flawed. Unless you can demonstrate a difference after death, you cannot claim that it is proof of life.
egg cells are human cells that may develop into a human
a person who has died ,had fun and lived before he died and the time has come for him to die but to destroy a cell that will develop to a human is a crime
I am aware they are not normal, that is why I bring it up as a flaw in your argument. You are arbitrarily deciding that life is having human DNA. The problem is that someone with no brain activity who is on life support still has human DNA. For that matter someone who is dead still has human DNA. If life exists as long as there is human DNA, how can life end while that DNA still exists?
parturation is birthday ryanwakefield
they are considered not normal humans but still humans because their extra genes are human genes
they are people who are not normal a normal person has 46 chromosomes if a person has 47 he is abnormal
Fadi, are people with Down Syndrome people in your opinion?
not standard humans but certainly still humans. if we accepted your defininition then they would be a separate species, which is rediculous. your defininition is obviously wrong.
being abnormal means you do not represent the normal form of a human
The question isn't about normal, it is about being defined as a person. By your definition, anyone with chromosomal abnormalities is not human, which us obviously wrong.
he is what you can call a super human no he is not normal
So by your definition, anyone with Down Syndrome is not human?
yeah exactly well it must have been called day of birth and not birthday
think about that Ryan. birthday= birth. lol some people.
you're now just shaping the definition of a human to fit your opinion. Do you celebrate your birthday as the day you became an embryo?
but their genes are not that of a human if you 46 chromosomes that have human genes in them then you are a person
by your logic, a sable antelope and a reeves's muntjac are humans, as they have 46 chromosomes.
well as long as there are 46 chromosomes it is a person or in other words a human cell
well it is scientific fact you are not human if you do not have 46 chromosomes can i ask you how many chromosomes do you have how many chromosomes does every person around you have
? 46 right so it is a special thing for every human right ?
Do you see how I supported my claims with reason and evidence? You absolutely failed to present a single counter argument. And worse yet, you tried to dismiss it via a simple assertion.
When debating you have to actually justify your claims otherwise they are worthless. Why should I accept a claim which isn't backed up by any sort of argument or evidence? Why should you be able to reject my argument without any sort of counter point or evidence to the contrary?
Please learn to actually argue rather than just making claims.
Why does that constitute personhood. You still haven't given an argument for it. You've simply asserted it.
well if the the cell with 46 chromosomes is given a chance it might implant itself and become a fetus
You're saying it like there is some sort of consensus about this statement. This is probably one of the most contested statements in the whole abortion debate. You need to actually justify this statement.
The controversy really is that most fertilizations don't end in pregnancy. About 70-80% of fertilized eggs don't actually implant. So then the next step is to usually argue that life begins at implantation. This means that at least the invitro process of terminating old samples wouldn't be considered an abortion.
The whole idea that life begins at conception is rather new. The traditional view is that human life begins with an event called the quickening. The quickening is an event market by the first time a mother can feel it's baby kick. This is usually around 20 weeks or so. In Britain and other Christian countries allowed abortions to be performed up until this point. So there is a religious tradition that supports early term abortion.
There is also the question of what makes a person. Personhood needs to be strictly defined and qualified. I will stick with the standard argument that a concept of self differentiates sentient life from non-sentient entities. The concept of self rests on the principle that one is able to differentiate oneself from the world around them. Essentially the thought "I am" is consciousness. The first measurable brain waves of a fetus occur at about week 20-21. That is the earliest we can possibly say that a fetus could even begin to have a notion of self.
My argument is thus as follows:
There are philosophical and biological cases to be made which are along the lines of religious tradions that support the concept of early term abortion and reject the idea that personhood begins at conception.
no it is not if it does not have 46 chromosomes it is not human right ?
an egg is very much alive. it is living tissue. an egg is still human cells. so no, your argument makes no sense.
no an egg has 23 chromosomes so it is not alive however if that egg unites with a sperm a human cell is formed so you are committing murder
then you could say menstruation could be seen as committing murder
it has been discussed earlier fadi.