Abortion

Another point would be identical twins. At conception they were one person. The mass of cells divides in two and one day becomes two people. Not one person split in half.

So biology clearly says that a fetus in it's early stages is something at least not entirely human. Right. But what about "spiritually"? I mean, is a fetus a small person, or isn't it? The nervous system is normally developed enough to control some functions first after 18 weeks, and a fetus doesn't even feel pain until the third trimester. I'm not sure when it becomes disallowed to have an abortion, but the third trimester usually occurs at around 26 weeks, if I'm not mistaken, and no one is going to wait that long to have an abortion. And in any case, it's not even a fetus until the 11th week. Sure, that's some more biology, but even so, a fetus is little more than a tabula rasa.

But, it's still connected...

But what about "spiritually"?

What about it? Well first, what is it?.

And human is a hard thing to define in itself. Does cutting off you hand make you 98% human?
Does replacing your hand with organic materials engineered to be identical to the one you lost make you 100% human again?
Does replacing your hand with a fully functional and quite ideal prosthetic limb make you whole again?

Well, I think more of person than human, as that is probably the concept anti-abortionists want to project onto the fetus. And that is a flawed argument, since you can't really ascribe anything onto a fetus. It has neither personality nor life experiences. It has yet to even experience being born, for heaven's sake.

This girl kept telling my girlfriend all sorts of fun things about abortion until she cried. Thankfully this was right before we debated abortion in social studies. The girl started crying half way through the argument because every point she brought up was either b.s. pro life propaganda, or simply things unrelated to anything.

She really lost it when she described the little tiny life inside someone, then I showed two pictures of clusters of cells and she couldn't even point out which one was the "baby"

Well, I think more of person than human, as that is probably the concept anti-abortionists want to project onto the fetus.

What?

Take the usual anti-abortionist propaganda, and ask yourself whether they want to portray the fetus as human, which is technically true, but beside the point, or whether they want to portray an abortion as killing an actual person.

Take the usual anti-abortionist propaganda, and ask yourself whether they want to portray the fetus as human, which is technically true, but beside the point, or whether they want to portray an abortion as killing an actual person.

I don't see those two things as conflicting.

Perhaps, but as I said, it's beside the point whether the fetus is human or not. What else would it be?

Perhaps, but as I said, it's beside the point whether the fetus is human or not. What else would it be?

A cluster of human cells.

Yes, but it is still technically human, since it has human DNA. Whether or not it is a human being, is another question, and that's the Person v. human argument.

Yes, but it is still technically human, since it has human DNA. Whether or not it is a human being, is another question, and that's the Person v. human argument.

So, if I put human DNA into a frog, it's now a human?

Quote from: Wendigo on November 21, 2008, 03:19:50 AM

Yes, but it is still technically human, since it has human DNA. Whether or not it is a human being, is another question, and that's the Person v. human argument.

So, if I put human DNA into a frog, it's now a human?

Well if you exchanged its DNA for human then, A)it's dead and that hardly matters B) it'd be a bunch of dead human DNA containing frog cells, with mitochondrial DNA more resembling frog mitochondrial DNA than human mitochondrial DNA, but now I'm just being picky.

Protip, staying up all night and browsing 4chan will lead you to seeing things that your mind slowly convinces you were a dream. i saw a man shitting on a baby.....

I mean that it's DNA is 100% human.

I mean that it's DNA is 100% human.

Don't we share DNA with other species?

Yes, your point being?

Yes, your point being?

How do you propose that it's 100% human then...?

Because no matter what human you take, it's DNA still shares more similarities with that human than with any other organism. Why are you being stupid on purpose? Of course a fetus is human, the difference is that it's not a human being. A cancer tumour is human too.

Sigh, this will take too long. I give up.

Sigh, this will take too long. I give up.

This debate has been going on for centuries.

So lets get fucked up and die. Sorry music is playing.

Anyways, you will never change someone elses mind on a forum unless the issue is completely a non issue to them. Someone get the arguing on the internet/special olympics pic and reference.

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

And under that definition so is cancer, and a host of other things in our bodies that we kill and laser off. That wart you got cut off was human.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2008, 09:09:07 AM

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

And under that definition so is cancer, and a host of other things in our bodies that we kill and laser off. That wart you got cut off was human.

Murderer!!

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2008, 09:09:07 AM

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

And under that definition so is cancer, and a host of other things in our bodies that we kill and laser off. That wart you got cut off was human.

That's why I disagree with his definition. This doesn't mean the structure of his perspective is invalid though.

Of course a fetus is human, the difference is that it's not a human being. A cancer tumour is human too.

Quote from: Raist on November 21, 2008, 09:10:27 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2008, 09:09:07 AM

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

And under that definition so is cancer, and a host of other things in our bodies that we kill and laser off. That wart you got cut off was human.

That's why I disagree with his definition.

Quote from: Wendigo on November 21, 2008, 08:27:42 AM

Of course a fetus is human, the difference is that it's not a human being. A cancer tumour is human too.

Considering it can split apart and make two human beings, I don't think it is.

Considering it can split apart and make two human beings, I don't think it is.

I agree...

I think abortion will never be a good thing however it is often the lesser of two evils and on that basis it can be used. Whatever happens it's only a minority who consider it easy to have an abortion the person will probably feel guilt and very few people step into the decision lightly, if we have the knowledge and ability to help someone can't we leave the morality of it up to them?

Quote from: Raist on November 21, 2008, 09:10:27 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 21, 2008, 09:09:07 AM

If we define human to be an organic arrangement of cells, or a cell, with DNA closer to the average homosapien than any other species, than yes a fetus is a human. I don't think that is the connotation given to the word though. I think that 'people' and 'humans' are interchangeable in today's language.

And under that definition so is cancer, and a host of other things in our bodies that we kill and laser off. That wart you got cut off was human.

That's why I disagree with his definition. This doesn't mean the structure of his perspective is invalid though.

Quote from: Wendigo on November 21, 2008, 08:27:42 AM

Of course a fetus is human, the difference is that it's not a human being. A cancer tumour is human too.

I don't think you understood me. I used the word 'human' as an adjective, not a noun. There is a difference between human and a human. That's what my Person v. Human argument was all about. Thereby, I don't think that person and human are interchangable.

No misunderstanding. I just prefer the definition of human that makes it interchangeable with person.
I didn't think that you meant tumor and human (person) could refer to the same thing.