Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
It’s funny; you want to argue semantics instead of the real issue. Fine, re-read my statement and insert fetus where I wrote baby. The point is the same. Does that change your interpretation of what I was trying to say?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
It does change the interpretation. I'm not arguing semantics. A baby is very much a live human being. A fetus is not.
|
How many times do we have to do this??? How do you know that a fetus is not alive??? Given the multitude of opportunities, you have not indicated when “consciousness” comes about. If you don’t know when this time is, then you cannot say that a fetus is any different than an infant, child, adult, etc. Again, you entire argument hinges on this piece of information.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
A person can have brain activity but be unconscious. You don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
Even an unconscious person still has a consciousness. They are merely unconscious at the present time. I don't know why you are arguing my point though. Brain waves would come earlier than other instances so would actually make abortions be performed later. Sorta helps your cause.
|
My point is that brain waves do not equal consciousness. So are you are changing your definition of life? Which is it? I’m just trying to get you to commit to one of your definitions of life. We’ve been discussing this topic for some time now and you’re still not sure when life begins.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
It must be a specific instance, not a range! It’s obvious that you do not know this specific time, because you have failed to answer this question several times. Therefore your argument is done.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
I could quote you multiple specific instances now if I wanted. Every study I've read has different answers from 8 weeks to 6 months. Thats why I say we need a definitive unbiased study.
|
Tell us the sources. I’d like to read them. Really, I would. I guess it doesn’t really matter because they are so contradictory to one another.
So you agree that Abortion should stop until we design an experiment where by we can determine the first onset of “consciousness”?
Do you think that you are the first person to pose such a ludicrous idea? As I’ve said before, take this idea of yours to a medical / ethics committee and see what they say.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
If we tried what?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
To actually discuss science instead of throwing around political/religious agendas. I'm talking about the study.
|
Science will tell you that sex between a male and female human can produce another human. This is called reproduction. It is very scientific and natural. Stopping it is unnatural. You don’t have to “throw around a political / religious agendas” to be for or against abortion. I believe life begins at conception. There is nothing political or religious about that statement. If anything, it is supported more by science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
It responds to stimuli.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
I would like to hear more about this part and when it occurs. Still, responses don't necessarily mean conciousness but could.
|
Two quick examples are when you press on a pregnant woman’s abdomen the fetus often responds with movement or a kick. Or if she drinks something cold and sweet, the fetus will often respond with more movement. Your right, a response doesn’t mean consciousness, but it does mean brain function. So are you going with your “brain function” or “consciousness” definition of life?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
That doesn’t make one stage worth more than another. Despite the stage, they are all phases of a living human being. A fetus is just another stage of human life.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
Some are worth more than others when it comes to the issue of murder. A corpse or fetus cannot be murdered.
|
First of all, you have yet to tell me when life begins so by your own definition, it IS possible to murder a fetus. All you have to do is tell me a specific time! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
SO, if you believe that a fetus(living) and a corpse(already dead) cannot be murdered, then what are the remaining stages of human life that are worth more than others when it comes to the issue of murder??? (child, adolescent, elderly, etc?)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
And, as if said before 32 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. Not 50% homicide or 75% homicide…regular old 100% homicide. LOL.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
And 50 states, or 100% do not recognize abortion as homicide. Whats your point?
|
Don’t you think it’s interesting how if a murderer kills a pregnant woman they could face two counts of homicide, not just one. But on the other hand if the mother elects to terminate the unborn baby through an abortion, it’s perfectly fine? If the fetus is not alive like you say it’s not, then there should be no penalty for causing a woman to miscarry. Right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roux-en-y
So what do you mean by not as significant? Is it…say, 50% as significant, or maybe 75% or 99%. What do you think? How much significance is required to be worthy of life? LOL.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by offspring13";p="
Don't look at me, its not my Bible. It just clearly says that harm to fetus < further harm to the mother.
|
No. You’re wrong. Please read more carefully. You are not comparing apples to apples. If someone ACCIDENTALLY causes a woman to miscarry, then a fine must be paid. Key word ACCIDENTALLY. The Bible does not discuss what the consequence of INTENTIONALLY causing a woman to miscarry would be. Again, common sense would say that it would be more severe than a fine. What that punishment is, we don’t know. Maybe eye for an eye? An abortion is INTENTIONAL not ACCIDENTAL. Do you see my point?