The debate "Pro life often times means a middle-aged man telling women what they can do with their bodies" was started by
October 17, 2015, 4:18 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, omactivate posted 38 arguments, PsychDave posted 43 arguments to the agreers part.
AstroSpace posted 12 arguments, Alex posted 68 arguments, historybuff posted 13 arguments, stevenchen posted 2 arguments, Hitmenjr posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
omactivate, Skeetc15, PsychDave, Yuki_Amayane, true_debate_life, komalsaeed, pajrc1234, KicknRush and 18 visitors agree.
Alex, historybuff, Naiju, Hitmenjr, wmd, Ryan, stevenchen, vipul, elson, andrewkorman, AstroSpace and 12 visitors disagree.
So you say. Unfortunately for your position, you have yet to make a logical case for why you say so. You compare a fetus to someone who is brain dead and on life support, which means that an abortion can be acceptable as pulling the plug on the comatose person can be. You claim that they have all of the organs and brain function to be a living person before they are 1 oz in spite of the fact that this is patently untrue.
When do you intend to make a case supporting your position that actually supports your position?
the main point is that it is human life.
The main point is that this fetus doesn't have a mind or full body of its own
what is your point? you keep changing it.
so you are proving my point?
that's what I ment he's right. I think that he's right it does not do those things, sorry I was not clear.
you think wrong. it doesn't do any of those things.
I think so.
it moves itself but does it think, eat, drink, speak, or have any awareness? no
your previous posts do not make sense and don't answer the question.
I am tired of you ignoring all arguments and evidence and talking in circles. We have covered this repeatedly, and you still just repeat the same thing. If you have a new argument, great. If not, just reread how I responded the last time you posted this and imagine I'm posting it again.
the baby moves and beats it's heart itself. the mother does not move it or beat it's heart.
except a fetus' brain is only just beginning to develop. it doesn't do stuff. it isn't running its own body.
but they can't survive out of it.
a person on life support is like a fetus at 10ish weeks. has a brain that does stuff, yet can't survive without being hooked up to stuff. how can one be alive and nor the other.
if they are on life support they still have a functioning brain. you're just going in circles.
but a person on life support can't function out of life support, even of the brain is alive. the car is busted up and about as good as a piece of metal, yet alive.
A kidney bean sized fetus does not have a functional brain. Their mother's organs process everything for them. At this point they ate STARTING to develop the things needed to live. If I take a piece of metal and hand it to you telling you that it will someday be a car, cam you drive off down the road on it? No, it has to actually turn into a car first. A fetus is not a person, it is what could potentially turn into a person.
having a bearing heart, moving that takes a functioning brain.
Your reading comprehension seems to be getting worse.
at 19 years old the brain is not fully devolved I guess they are not humans.
Beyond that simple fact, having some semblance of a brain is not what we ever equated to life. We said a functional brain. You actually specified that it should be capable of waking. Even by your own measure, you are wrong.
Have you actually looked into this? Are you honestly so misguided that you think a brain is fully developed at 8 weeks? Having something that eventually turns into a brain does not equal having a functional brain. It is very simple. You are simply wrong. The only question is if you are honestly ignorant, or intentionally being misleading and pretending to be ignorant.
No I'm saying it has a brain, so if the brain=life theory is true, then the fetus is life. very simple
There is a difference between being able to care for yourself and being capable of breathing unassisted. Are you legitimately saying you think a fetus at 8 weeks is indistinguishable from an infant?
it would survive until something else killed it. starvation etc. if you took a fetus out of the womb it would die instantly. that is the point. we aren't saying a baby can care for itself. but it is able to fulfil its biological requirements by itself. it can breathe, it can digest, it can poop. it needs people to bring it things, but it is alive all by itself. a fetus cannot survive outside the womb.
if I put a newbaby somewhere had no other humans around, but some food and water in the room in a bowl would it survive? no.
yes. of course it can. it lives independently of another person. it does not rely on another person's lungs to breathe for it etc. it is an independent organism. a person. a fetus does not have the organs necessary to live outside the womb.
Use rational thought instead of just arguing please, it will make this less painful.
Is the mother's brain what causes a baby to inhale, or allows for digestion, or sends the rest of the signals that allow survival? If you think so, you are incredibly ignorant of biology. A baby is not able to forage or hunt, but it is able to survive when cared for. That is the difference we have been trying unsuccessfully to get you to see. There is a difference between a baby and a fetus. Cam you admit that much at least or do you honestly think that a fetus the size of a bean is indistinguishable from an infant?
what about a baby? can it think enough to survive? no.
Keep following the train of thought, don't just get to the track and stop. Having a brain is step one. Having a brain capable of functioning would be step two. We are back to the fact that you have no concept of how a fetus develops. At 8 weeks a baby is about the size of a kidney bean. Do you think that this size would allow for a brain capable of thought?
yes I would be dead, so you believe the brain life theory. a fetus has a brain at 8 weeks so it must be alive, according to you
Do you believe that you would be dead if your heart was removed, or your brain? What makes you think these two are mutually exclusive?
Dave what life definition theory do you believe. the brain life or the must survive on its own
Just going to say...we arn't getting any where...Because we have different definitions of human "Life"...I say that human embryonic cells are human "life"...you say a self sustaining child is human "life".
Neither can the majority of people since they don't grow their own food. That is very different than relying on someone else's organs to oxygenate your blood and process nutrients.
a baby can't survive outside without help
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
but a baby cannot surviv
Yes, and in between it should hit a point where it, and the body, are developed enough to be a self-sustaining person. Interestingly this happens around the 24th week. Remember where we saw that number before? That's right, that is the point when you can no longer get an abortion.
Are we done with this line of argument yet or are you going to continue to claim that humans can live without a brain?
the brain is not fully devolved till age 21, the brain starts to develop around 5 weeks.
You may want to keep reading that paragraph. The brain structure controlling body temperature, among other things is STARTING to develop. The fetus weighs approximately 1 gram or 4/100 ounces. What percentage is brain is irrelevant, the brain is still not functionally developed.
at 5-6 weeks the nerve cells and brain starts to form, and at 8 weeks is about 43% of the fetus weight. it is growing rapidly and the brain is not fully devolved until around 21 years old.
Do they have a functional brain, or is the brain starting to develop? Are they able to have thoughts and consciousness?
let's say I agree(I don't, but let's say I do) with the brain life theory.
a fetus has a brain at 8 weeks, and abortion takes place well after 8 weeks. so if at 8 weeks it is according to you life then abortion is killing life.
Someone without a functioning brain is brain dead. By medical definition, they are not alive. Why do you feel that you are qualified to redefine this?
unless living human cells working together to form organs and had a beating heart is not an alive human. that would be extremely illogical to say.
I did give you one.
I am asking for an example of a living human with no brain. You do not have one.
so are you. you are saying it's not alive because you say so. science does not say a fetus is dead, but rather it is a working group of cells forming organs with a beating heart. you say that's not alive. very rational
Try something other than your self serving argument based purely on your opinion. You have defined that as being alive, which is the only reason it could serve as an example. What I am asking for is an example that demonstrates that your opinion is valid.
Essentially you are claiming that you are right because you said so, which is not a rational argument.
Could you give me one logical example of someone living without a brain?
you don't need a brain to live, you just can't live with a dead brain.
That is circular logic that is self defeating. A brain is needed to live except when that would be inconvenient to your argument.
the brain once formed must be kept alive. if the brain dies you die, however in a fetus the brain is not dead, it's just forming. the fetus is still alive. now when it devolves the brain the brain cannot die or so does life.
So my point is life can't survive with a dead brain it can survive without a brain if the brain is not firmed yet.
So you don't consider a brain important to being alive? Do you consider your brain expendable?
so no part of them is dead, if a human is not dead them it's alive.
They don't have a functional brain at all.
because they are dead.
a fetus has a heartbeat and is alive human cells. a person in a coma with a dead brain is dead. a fetus does not have a dead brain.
So after determining that even by your own standards a fetus is not alive you are moving the goalposts? You said waking and dreaming, we didn't. In what way do you think a person without a brain is alive?
Furthermore, if someone is in a coma with no brain activity they are not considered alive. That would be the point at which the doctors pull the plug. So again, by your own standards, it is not alive and abortion is morally acceptable.
If you want us to reach another conclusion, perhaps you should stop giving examples that contradict your belief.
why do you need a brain to be a human. being a human isn't enough for you?
because they are asleep. they have a functioning brain. a fetus does not.
ok, ya I didn't see that till now.
does it need to wake or sleep to be alive. someone in a coma is not waking yet is considered alive.
It probably hadn't shown up when you started typing.
Read the second response.
about what? at the time of an abortion a fetus has a beating heart, arms legs feet and a head.
An early term fetus is not able to wake, or sleep.
Then you are lying.
nope, I'm not I'm pointing out the things a fetus at the time of abortion has
So as an early term fetus does not do all of those things are you finally agreeing that they are not yet a person?
someone in that state who is waking and sleeping moving and blinking and so on, do you consider them alive? I do.
So pulling the plug on someone in a persistent vegetative state is premeditated murder?
my point is you don't need all your organs or brain to be life.
Are you intentionally missing the point, or honestly not understanding that an early term fetus does not have all of the organs needed to survive, not brain function? Comparing it to single cell organisms has absolutely no bearing on the conversation. We have repeatedly explained this point. Either accept our explanation, or come up with a new response.
what about a unicelled orginism? is it a complete creature?
why not? it has united cells, making a body with a head arms feet and a beating heart at the time of abortion.
A baby is a complete creature. A fetus in early pregnancy is not.
it has the cells to, it just hasn't learned to
Excuse me? A baby can't live on its own...an adult can...babies can't live with the current state because it doesn't havw the abillity to survive on its own.
a baby has all cells necessary to live
Hell...with that logic 5 year olds don't have all their cells...They are still growing stem cells...
neither does a baby. they don't have nearly as many cells as an adult.
100% of the cells that are there but a fetus doesn't have all its cells
Those are separate human cells, not all the cells in the human. Abortion is the killing of all the cells that make up the human. you can put cells in a petri dish, as long as it don't kill anyone. abortion kills because 100%of the cells are killed.
So cells in a petri dish are human life? They are living human cells. If someone undergoes an organ transplant, they are removing living human cells. Is that murder?
let's compare both sides
life starts at conception reasoning "if it is human life then it is human life, and alive human cells are human life"
life starts at sometime around week 24 "I don't want to have a baby so what can we do to kill it legally?I know let's say humans must have to know their alive to be alive"
Why should you get to decide?
why do you get to decide that one must have a functioning brain to be human life? a fetus has a beating heart and can move at the time of abortion.
but as we said. a fetus is not yet a person. it has never developed a consciousness. a person on life support has. until their brain ceases to function they continue to be a person.
what I said was if someone is on life support and HAS hope of recovery a docter can't kill them. A fetus Has a good chance for life but a docter can kill it.
Sorry Alex, I was working and not able to respond right away. You are completely wrong. Doctors can and do remove people from life support without their prior consent. What you are describing without understanding is a DNR order (do not resuscitate). This is used when someone has a condition that resuscitation and placing them on life support will only extend their pain and not give hope of recovery. Try to research a bit before asking questions and making comparisons that undermine your point.
no it's the first stage in eventually becoming life
but a person on life support can't survive on its own yet is alive. We add your rule it was alive before, the fetus nope, not alive before, but you said unless at the beginning of life. guess what the fetus is, the beginning of life.
when the fetus can survive on its own it's alive
conception and a fetus is the unless you are talking about.
at conception life just started
yes, unless life just started
so back to my unanswered question
so your saying for life to be present one must have had elf suporting life in a former state?
You must be able to survive yourself at some point in your former state
wait a minute. it's ok to kill someone on life support? don't you need the someone's permission in advance to do so? it's more like suicide then murder. a docter cannot pull the plug on someone who has a chance to survive.
my argument is showing how the argument you must be able to survive yourself is false
Your argument about life support shows how desperate you are to find any rational reason, and are failing. It is not murder to pull the plug on someone on life support, so by that you must agree that, by your own analogy, abortion is acceptable.
so your saying for life occur it must have been alive first?
a fetus has never been alive
They are alive because there is a possibility for them to live by themselves in the future.
I thought that a fetus was not alive because of the same reason, it is only a possibility for life. why then is life support victims alive, while a fetus is not?
so they are alive?
while they still are on life support there is the possibility they will live
Someone on life support may likely die. therefore not being alive again. So there not alive?
They will never be alive again
so is a dead person alive? because they have been alive?
if you are on life support you have been alive. that counts
"They can" "they can't"
what? if u pull the plug out and throw the person on life support out will they survive, or be able to survive.
They can. They just won't because of failures in their bodies.
a person on life support can not survive on its own. so they are not alive?
I consider bacteria alive because they can survive by themselves by finding a host and feeding off it. The fetus is not because it is given a host and cannot survive on its own by finding its own host
what about someone on life support? they breath and eat through tubes. the tubes are not part of them, so are they human life?
Until a human fetus is able to be viable, it is not a separate person. Anything that is alive is capable of survival. It may require assistance (young animals and infants) but it is able to survive as a separate entity. Everything from bacteria up to elephants fit this criteria. But a fetus in its 2nd week is not. It is using its mothers digestive system to eat and her respiratory system to breathe. Your appendix is composed of living human cells, is it a person? Is removing it murder? You are equating the possibility of becoming a person with being a person, which is not a realistic position. If it were, any man who ever masturbates is guilty of genocide. Until the fetus is viable, at around the 24th week, it is not a separate being.
A virus isn't considered alive (I think we all know what the definition of a virus is). My point is how can you consider bacteria alive but a human fetus not?
so are you implying that a human fetus isn't more like a virus feeding off its host?
OK so bacteria or a. single celled organism is alive but a human fetus isn't?
he has also ignored that not having organs necessary to be humans makes you not human
Alex, you are basing your opinions and arguments on emotions and appearance. "Looking like a baby" does not make something a person. I explained both when and why abortion stops being legal, and you have ignored it because it doesn't fit your beliefs. You also have completely ignored historybuff's questions regarding whether cells removed from a person become a person. They are human cells, they ate alive, therefore by your logic a petri dish containing human cells is a person.
if it doesn't have all the necessary organs
so your saying If it doest have all the organs it can't be hunan life?
so it's not fully aware or able to survive. not a living human
does it have all 5 vital organs 12 organ systems and 78 total organs
seperate live human cells are not a person.
however inside of a woman hunan cells are together and resemble a baby clearly at week 12. they are also together before but at week 12 the fetus looks like a baby.
single-celled organisms are not the same. They are asexual organisms that are not consumers or producers. they are completely different. what I'm saying is a single human cell is not a live human it's a live clump of cells that can't function like and isn't a human
I don't know what he's talking about. but it being live human cells doesn't make it a person. it needs to be a full person to be a person. it needs a functioning brain and a consciousness. you can get live human cells in a petri dish, I guarantee you it isn't a person.
Look at the picture of a 12 week old. not seperate. looks like live baby.
aside from that I guess you have never taken any kind of biology because cells are alive. even one cell by itself is life. so are two cells.
so are you saying single-celled orignisms are not alive?
separate cells without a companion of other types of cells aren't alive because they can't work
ok now your saying cells are not alive. got it.
the fetus isn't alive. the fetus doesn't have living tissue. It's missing some of the things that make us live
a fetus is not a human because it is alive human cells- logic
he still has a functioning brain. lots of people wake up from comas with full brain function. they are similar to someone who is dreaming. fetus' have never had consciousness. they are not a person.
but he's legally alive and in some type of brain awareness
So...Is a man in a coma not a person? He is not aware...
is a chunk of you liver removed from you its own person? it is living human cells. it meets your definition of life. human cells are not a person. you have to have a brain, a consciousness to be a person. a fetus doesn't have that.
historybuff what you are saying is that alive human cells do not mean human life.
how are human cells not considered human life.
hangnails grow too, they aren't people either. just because something is growing doesn't make it a person.
If the baby is growing, it is alive dumbasses
Ya because telling women that they cant kill their OWN BABY is such a horrible thing
if get a chunk of your liver taken out it will still be alive. they are live human cells. they are not however a person. a fetus is a group of human cells. those cells are alive. the fetus is not a person. it is not self aware. it does not know it exists.
.gov that ok? look at 12th week picture still same as the .com
you say for human life you need
1. to be human
2. to be alive
3. to be aware
1. to be human
2. to be alive
why do we need to be aware?
I still don't get how alive human cells are not human.
You can't just trust any .com website
does it have any awareness whatsoever? no
the requirements to be human life are
1. be alive
2. be human
you think those are wrong?
guess what a fetus is alive human cells.
how can alive HUMAN cells not be human?
just does not make sense
the baby looks like a real baby has arms, legs, feet, a head. not a cluster of cells. also the baby is moving around at week 12.
That seems like something you could either look up or think back to the several other times we have had this debate, but generally abortion is illegal once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, at around 24-26 weeks depending on state laws.
Yes, a fetus is not a human life until it reaches the developmental milestones to meet those criteria. Was there some part of this that remains unclear to you?
according to you how many weeks should an abortion take place. or what is the latest?
yues, because they at least have a brain and are in some sort of dream state
what about a person in a coma? are they alive?
Life doesn't start at conception. If you're unaware you're not alive
You said life doesn't start at conception?
Or are you arguing that bacteria should have the same legal rights as a person?
Life, yes. Human life, no.
So Dave, if we found microbes on Mars, is that life?
And that still isn't 100% effective. Unless you can demonstrate a 100% effective form of birth control there will always be accidental pregnancy even though precautions were taken.
You are arguing against the scientific community, the legal system and a large portion of the population with your argument that life start a at conception.
Fetuses that are aborted have measurable brain waves, have a beating heart, and yes, they do have a brain. Lol. There's also birth control pills in case you're afraid a condom won't work.
The fetus isn't even aware. The woman is very aware of the extreme pain during labor. If they want to avoid the pain by aborting the fetus they have that right
And I don't want to watch sausages being made either. it doesn't make it wrong to eat one. a fetus isn't a person. it has no brain and no self awareness. it is a clump of cells.
you missed his point. 1 in every 10,000 condoms, when used perfectly, will fail. add onto that when someone accidentally uses a condom imperfectly and you're talking about tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies that they took precautions against. so you're idea that all unwanted pregnancies are just people who didn't use condoms is wrong.
Unaware clump of cells? Watch a video of a large fetus getting aborted and tell me it's just cells.
If condoms worked 100% of the time, no one would get pregnant if they used them. It seems that you didn't think about that. 99.99% is not the same as 100%, because there's still chance for it to fail. Even when not using a condom, pregnancy is not even close to guaranteed. I just find it disgusting that some people are too lazy to use protection or take pills and are not responsible enough to not have sex without protection. Seriously, is it that hard to do?
Your argument that since condoms are 99.99% effective meaning that women don't get pregnant if they use one shows that you really haven't thought it through. That means that 1 out of every 10, 000 tomes someone somewhere has sex and uses a condom properly, they will still get pregnant. How many people are of childbearing age in the US? If each if them had sex only once, how many would get pregnant, even though they took precautions? It's simple math that you seem to not have bothered to do before claiming that 99.99% was the same as 100%.
The fetus is an unaware clump of cells. It's just some skin tissue
What is a person's body made of? It can't be cells....
the fetus isn't a person. it isn't a person's body. it is a clump of cells.
but what about someone else's body(the baby)? should we let people kill themselves because they can do whatever they want with their bodies?
accidents happen, it is a part of life. no one has a right to tell her what go do with her own body.
Or they could just be responsible and not recklessly get knocked up and get abortions...
sometimes a woman might make the wrong decision. You have made some wrong decision before. Women no matter how they get pregnant have the right not to be forced into labor
Rape, there's birth control pills, but only in this case should abortion be allowed. If the man refuses to wear a condom, no sex. Plain and simple.
what about situations of rape or refusal to take precautions by the man
First of all, its spelled condoms, not condums. Second of all, condoms work 99.9% of the time, so a woman/man not taking the proper responsible precautions is just asinine.
condums don't always work. Women no matter how they get pregnant should have the right to wend that pregnancy
How about those irresponsible losers tell their partner to where a condom or dont have sex. Unless they're prostitutes who can't take responsibility and decide to murder babies.
I don't want to sell fetuses on the black market. I want women to be allowed to chose if they want to go through the pain of labor
What makes you the decider of what's alive and what's not? How do you know? The bigger the baby, the more money they pay you.
A baby? no, an unborn unaware fetus. Women get to choose not you
You think it's your "Right" to kill your kids huh?
Pro choice often means it's OK to shove a scalpel in a baby's face and watch it's legs kick and die, then selling the parts over the black market for money.
I said often not always. That is true though.
no. it's religious people telling women what they can do with their bodies. a bunch of them are old men. but there are young people and women too. but its generally the old men in power attempting to block women's rights.