and I asked you to stay on topic. There is never an abortion of a single celled human being, so you are throwing about a red herring, AGAIN. So, is a fetus a human being? Yes or no, you can feel free to elaborate on your answer as well. I see compelling evidence of a serious reading comprehension deficiency in your post. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, mentioned a single cell human being anywhere here except you. But, if "Baby" is not a strictly defined term (and we all know it isn't), then you have no logical basis for stating that a child in utero isn't one. You seem to be alleging that "baby" is a scientific term, which only makes you look foolish. Your boy Fugazi above even schooled you on that point. Science is continually correcting itself because it frequently is based on errant assumptions anyway, so science alone is clearly not the way to approach any debate. Logic and reason are far more reliable.
LOL You can not answer that question with anything other than avoidance and fallacy. So what is your claim here. That the single cell at conception has nothing to do with the abortion debate ? At what stage would you like to claim constitutes a living human such that it can be aborted ? We can start there.
Report away if you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Your claim that the status of the zygote has nothing to do with the abortion debate is comical. You are the one claiming that a fetus is a living human such that it should be afforded legal protection. It is up to you to justify your position. Since you do not agree with my starting point, then give what you think should be the starting point. Back to my question which you have been avoiding. At what point do you think the fetus is a living human, and why. So far you have not even given an argument for your premise, never-mind a valid one.
IS A FETUS A HUMAN BEING? At least the forth time I have asked you this question and you have dodged it each and every time. Is a fetus (the entity who is actually aborted during an abortion) a human being?????????????????????? Simple question! NOW ANSWER IT or take your trolling elsewhere. A human fetus is OBVIOUSLY always a living human being, unless it dies or is killed.
First a comment on what an "argument" is. An argument is a "premise" - your statement of claim, followed by reasons by which you come to this conclusion. I see your premise ( the fetus is always a living human) but you give no reasons by which you came to this conclusion. " Its obvious" is not a reason btw. I will demonstrate. My premise: "in the early stages of pregnancy a fetus can not be shown to be classifiable as a living human" Now comes something that is lacking in most of your posts. The reasons for this conclusion ! First thing that should be mentioned is that a Fetus is 8-9 weeks after fertilization. I take it that prior to this you do not classify the entity as a living human. There are good reasons for not classifying the embryo as a living human. A living human is classified on the basis of traits or characteristics. For example all living humans are Homo Sapiens. In order to gain membership into this club a number of characteristics are required. Here are a few of the required characteristics Large brain, Large size, Long arms, Long curved fingers, Very stable elbow joint, Relatively spherical humerus head that allows for 360-degree shoulder rotation, High limb mobility, Long and robust clavicle, Bony broad sternum, Short and stable lumbar region of the back, Broad pelvis, No tail. As we can see, a embryo in the early stages does not even have a brain, sternum, shoulders and so on. Now to the fetus. I would argue that a fetus in the early stages is not a living human on the basis of not having significant brain function. Even a dead human has living cells ( similar to a fetus) but it is classified as dead on the basis of not having significant brain function. A person in a coma for example has significant brain function. Significant brain function (cortical brain waves) is generally accepted to have developed around 20-24 weeks. We can safely say that at 16 weeks significant brain function does not exist. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/fetlpain/PainNEJM1987.htm Conclusion - No living human exists until at least after 16 weeks
As you know, I hav posted my support fror my premise that a fetus is always a human being mutliple times, Your apparent dishonesty seems to be keeping you from acknowledging this fact. Fetal is a stage every human being is in the early stages of development. There is not one solitary human being alive that did not grow through this stage of development. There is no logical classification to place such a human being under than "human being". The term "living human" is one you seem to have made up and then claimed it to have some significance in this debate, it certainly doesn't. A fetus is obviously living, and id obviously human, so your pet term doesn't seem to fit your agenda at all. In fact, it lends more credence to my premise than yours. The "characteristics" you listed are for a full grown human being. Any rational person knows that human beings develop considerably even after birth, and they certainly do before as well. Your "support" for your premise is severely lacking in logic and reason.
Sigh, do you know what etymology is? It is the history and evolution of words, all words have a beginning .. I showed you history of the word baby simply to show you that no where in its origins has it any link to the fetus. The word baby also means other things today, such as a man saying about his car "this baby can do 150mph", does that mean his car is actually a 'baby', no it doesn't, it is an emotional attachment he gives to the car .. it invokes a mental image in those he is talking to, an image of an item that he gives attention to . .the same is true of the woman who say "my 'baby' is due ..", it is to invoke a mental image in others and to show her emotional attachment, it is no more a correct term to attribute to a fetus that saying a pregnant woman is a mother. Though I know this won't make the slightest difference to you as it is obvious that you have very little understanding of the usage of correct terminology. - - - Updated - - - <<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>
Nope, you proved my point even further. A word that changes in meaning and has no strict widely accepted meaning like baby, can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Anyone who makes an assertion that "baby" does not mean this or that is just making himself look foolish. BTW, it isn't my side that routinely bastardizes the definitions of words to make their position seem reasonable, it is yours. homicide, human being, person, and many others. You and yours make up definitions du jour to suit whatever inane argument you dreamed up that day.
Restating your premise over and over again is not an argument. "there is no other logical classification" does not in any way show that the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is a living human. . LOL .. What is wrong with the term living human. Still confusing your nouns with your descriptive adjectives I see. The fetus has living cells and it is a human entity, but this does not make it a living human. A heart cell is also both living and human, but it is not a living human either, nor is it a human being (noun) A fetus has most of the characteristics listed, an embryo does not. In the process of creation a fetus is closer to a living human than an embryo. The characteristics listed are what is required in order to be classified as Homo sapiens. If it is not Homo Sapiens it cant be a living human now can it ! If this is the case then show where the logical flaw is. The nice thing about a real argument is that reasons for the conclusion is given which gives you an opportunity to refute those reasons. Stating "its not logical" without stating why is not a refutation to anything. You did not present an argument in support of your premise so there is nothing to refute. Your premise is merely you blurting out your opinion with no support.
YES! It is all about LOVE....I LOVE the fact that a woman who doesn't want a child won't have one, and an unwanted child won't be born. I LOVE that if a woman can't afford a child she can choose not to have one. (and stay off public assistance) I LOVE that one less poor baby is born. (being born poor isn't nice, it's hard and ugly) I LOVE Freedom, Liberty, and human rights. I LOVE......period. Maybe you should try it sometime.........
Translated: "I love that a woman can choose to commit homicide to avoid the unwanted consequences of her bahavior" "I love that said killing may lower my taxes" Someone who "Loves...period" doesn't advocate intentional homicide.
Standing up on a soap box and repeating hour premise over and over again is not "support" for your premise. Not responding to or refuting information that shows your premise to false is not support for your premise. If you can justify our premise, perhaps you should change it !
