Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind
Posts
Total:
500
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.
1st -We kill humans all the time. The US carries out drone strikes in lots of countries. America executes criminals. Police kill people every day. The US government kills people constantly. So pretending like killing is somehow always wrong is a little hypocritical.
2nd - A fetus isn't a human being yet. It has human DNA and is alive, but so is a tumor or a vestigial twin. A fetus might one day become a human being, but until it crosses that threshold I reject the notion that it is one and should have the protections of a human being.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am pretty sure that you are against capital punishment and drone strikes and think they are morally wrong. Why are you using them as an argument?
Not trying to get into another abortion debate, they never go anywhere. Just teasing ;)
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never said killing is always wrong. Plus, abortion is murder and the things you described are killing. There is a difference. Murdering a baby is morally wrong.
A tumor is not an organism, it is abnormal growth of cells. Organisms are living beings, an entity that is complete human, not part of a human like cells. What do you define as a human being? When is the "threshold?" What happens when the baby is in the birth canal to when it is out to make it a "human being?"
An unborn baby is a human being. Just because it is at an early development of life does not mean it is any less.
Think about it like this. If a person is in a coma, let's say for example, 9 months, and is not functioning in the coma but it is going to once its out of the coma, should we kill it?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Whether or not you call it a baby at the early stages of development does not matter. Science shows us that this is a unique, human life that, already in the first trimester, has begun to develop its own heart, brain, and circulatory system.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I never said killing is always wrong.
You said "Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed." This would include all the things I listed.
Organisms are living beings, an entity that is complete human
A fetus isn't a complete human. It is unable to survive. It is essentially a parasite.
What do you define as a human being? When is the "threshold?"
I don't claim to know the precise moment a fetus becomes a person. I know it is not a person at the moment of conception. I know that it is one the moment it is born. At some point between those 2 moments it became a person. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester.
An unborn baby is a human being. Just because it is at an early development of life does not mean it is any less.
Of course it does. An acorn is "an early development" of a tree. But it is not a tree. It is an acorn. It might one day grow into a tree, but it isn't one yet. A fetus is not a person. It might become one some day, but it isn't yet.
Think about it like this. If a person is in a coma, let's say for example, 9 months, and is not functioning in the coma but it is going to once its out of the coma, should we kill it?
Your example is irrelevant. The person in the coma crossed the threshold to become a person. They gained the rights and protections of a person. A fetus has never been a person. It has not attained personhood.
-->
@HistoryBuff
A fetus isn't a complete human. It is unable to survive. It is essentially a parasite.
That is a gross comparison. Being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. Babies can't survive on their own, neither can elderly people who need assistance for everything they do. Should we kill them too? A fetus is a human. Science says so. That is an objective fact.
I don't claim to know the precise moment a fetus becomes a person. I know it is not a person at the moment of conception. I know that it is one the moment it is born. At some point between those 2 moments it became a person. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester.
Then it is very dangerous territory for you to make moral decisions on the matter of killing innocent babies if you don't even know when person-hood starts. Again I ask you, what constitutes a person and why? How do you know it is not at conception? Why is it before the third trimester? Using subjective feelings on the abortion debate is not a good place to be. This is a life, a baby we are talking about.
Of course it does. An acorn is "an early development" of a tree. But it is not a tree. It is an acorn. It might one day grow into a tree, but it isn't one yet. A fetus is not a person. It might become one some day, but it isn't yet.
First off, an acorn is a tree nut and acorns do not grow into trees lol. The question as to whether this is a baby is an irrelevant one because the bottom line is that this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things.
Your example is irrelevant. The person in the coma crossed the threshold to become a person. They gained the rights and protections of a person. A fetus has never been a person. It has not attained personhood.
Again you have not yet even defined personhood. This is relevant because a person in a coma is not thinking or processing anything, like a fetus, but it will when it gets out of it.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Abortion is a viable form of population control.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@HistoryBuff
Pro lifers are usually hypocrites. Concentrating on only one aspect of social function relative to their own personal data conditioning.
They generally give little regard to wider issues pertaining to "life".
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. Babies can't survive on their own, neither can elderly people who need assistance for everything they do. Should we kill them too? A fetus is a human. Science says so. That is an objective fact.
You're right, being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. It is part of the definition of being alive. If a life form cannot exist on it's own then it shouldn't be considered a person. And i don't mean being fed. i mean not needing to be connected to another living being to be alive.
Again I ask you, what constitutes a person and why?
People have been asking this exact question for thousands of years and they will continue asking it for thousands more I am sure, assuming humans still exist that long. Pretending like I need to know the answer to a question no one can answer or I am somehow wrong is a childish argument.
How do you know it is not at conception?
Because a fertilized egg has none of the characteristics of being a person. It is just a cluster of cells.
Why is it before the third trimester?
Because in the 3rd trimester it does have the characteristics of a person. At that point if you were to remove it from the woman it has a chance of being able to survive on it's own.
Using subjective feelings on the abortion debate is not a good place to be.
I'm not using subjective feelings. You are the one attempting to use moralistic arguments.
First off, an acorn is a tree nut and acorns do not grow into trees lol.
Umm, oak trees do grow from acorns. Here is an article about how to grow them.
The question as to whether this is a baby is an irrelevant one because the bottom line is that this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things.
And an acorn will become an oak tree if nature takes it's course. But stepping on an acorn and killing a tree are not the same things. A fetus is could become a person if allowed to progress. If you prevent that progression then a human never comes into existence.
Again you have not yet even defined personhood.
The definition of personhood is "the quality or condition of being an individual person." People have been struggling with this question since the dawn of time. You are trying to argue that because I can't tell you the answer, that somehow makes you right. That is childish.
-->
@Greyparrot
Abortion is a viable form of population control.
This is simply not true. With additional people comes additional creativity and resources. Citing the overpopulation wager by Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in the 80's, "despite the increase in population (and subsequently demand), commodity prices have actually decreased thanks to increased creativity and production drawn from a larger population base."
Ok, now lets say overpopulation was a real threat, why would we kill of the youngest when we can kill off people who are already proven to be a drain on resources.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
there's not a single person sitting in traffic for hours thinking "if only we had more babies in the world"
-->
@Greyparrot
there's not a single person sitting in traffic for hours thinking "if only we had more babies in the world"
Do you sit in traffic and think about how to get rid of babies? That's creepy man.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I mostly think about your mom, but I'm not thinking about making babies.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're right, being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. It is part of the definition of being alive. If a life form cannot exist on it's own then it shouldn't be considered a person. And i don't mean being fed. i mean not needing to be connected to another living being to be alive.
Then babies aren't people. It doesn't matter whether its connected to another human being, it is the same thing and same results with a baby. Neither could survive on their own. You could say elderly people needing assistance all the time is essentially like being connected to another living being. This is all the same stuff. Just because you are connected to another human being does not mean your right to life is taken away.
People have been asking this exact question for thousands of years and they will continue asking it for thousands more I am sure, assuming humans still exist that long. Pretending like I need to know the answer to a question no one can answer or I am somehow wrong is a childish argument.
Well no, there is an answer. It is scientific. Life starts at conception. My point is you shouldn't be having a debate about this if you don't even know in your opinion when personhood starts. That is simply foolish. Like I said, science shows us that this is a unique, human life that, already in the first trimester, has begun to develop its own heart, brain, and circulatory system.
Because a fertilized egg has none of the characteristics of being a person. It is just a cluster of cells.
This couldn't be a more false statement. This shows how uneducated and loose a position you have on abortion. A fertilized egg is indeed a person. It has its own, unique DNA, separate from anyone or anything in the world. Saying it is just a cluster of cells is foolish. Again, this is an organism, not PART of the organism.
Because in the 3rd trimester it does have the characteristics of a person. At that point if you were to remove it from the woman it has a chance of being able to survive on it's own.
Why is this the criteria for a person? Just because it is at an early stage of life, where the baby is innocent and vulnerable, does not mean we should kill it. This is discrimination against babies. They have no way to defend themselves. You have no right to take away the baby's life. It is a unique being. NOT a cluster of cells.
I'm not using subjective feelings.
You absolutely are. You are basically guessing when a fetus becomes a person without any evidence to show why or how.
And an acorn will become an oak tree if nature takes it's course. But stepping on an acorn and killing a tree are not the same things. A fetus is could become a person if allowed to progress. If you prevent that progression then a human never comes into existence.
This example is a stupid one, but it actually makes my argument better. An acorn(the egg) does not grow into a tree on its own. If let to the natural course of things, it does nothing. It is only when people take care of it and put it under certain conditions(sperm) does it then grow into an oak tree. In comparison to a fetus, it is not a cell. It is a unique being with unique DNA. Once an egg is fertilized, then by the natural course of things does it grow into a fully grown human. However I generally do not like this example because we are comparing a tree, with no moral significance, to a baby, with tremendous intrinsic value.
The moment an egg is fertilized is when a human comes into existence. This is science. That is when life begins. Please explain to me why this unique baby, an organism different from anything else, should be killed.
-->
@Greyparrot
there's not a single person sitting in traffic for hours thinking "if only we had more babies in the world"
So? This does not prove anything. Another feelings argument. This is about murdering innocent children. I would hope you have an actual argument instead of resorting to logical fallacies.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Urban congestion is solved with population controls.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Then babies aren't people.
Did I not just say I didn't mean being fed? it's like you don't read my response and just respond to what you wish I had said. A baby is able to live for hours, if not days on it's own without being cared for. A fetus is not able to exist outside of the womb at all. If you removed it, it would almost immediately die. It is not able to maintain it's own basic functions, a baby can.
Well no, there is an answer. It is scientific. Life starts at conception.
That is the religious answer, not the scientific one. At the moment of conception a zygote has none of the characteristics of being a human. It has DNA and is alive. It has no organs, no consciousness, nothing we would recognize as human at all. Once you accept that a cluster of cells is not a human, then you can have a real discussion about when it becomes one. If you insist that a fertilized egg should have all the rights of a human being, then there really is no room to have any discussion.
Saying it is just a cluster of cells is foolish. Again, this is an organism, not PART of the organism.
I never denied it was an organism. I denied it was a person. A fetus is alive. It is an organism. However it isn't a person yet. And at the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells.
Why is this the criteria for a person? Just because it is at an early stage of life, where the baby is innocent and vulnerable, does not mean we should kill it.
I can see that this is not a conversation that is going to go anywhere. You clearly have decided that DNA makes something a human. Nothing anyone can say will change your dogmatic view. If you are unwilling to try to look at things from other people's perspectives, then you will never be able to have a conversation about this.
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is the religious answer, not the scientific one. At the moment of conception a zygote has none of the characteristics of being a human. It has DNA and is alive. It has no organs, no consciousness, nothing we would recognize as human at all. Once you accept that a cluster of cells is not a human, then you can have a real discussion about when it becomes one. If you insist that a fertilized egg should have all the rights of a human being, then there really is no room to have any discussion.
There is absolutely nothing religious about this. It is completely scientific that life starts at conception. Again, you keep un-intelligently saying that it is a cluster of cells. If you refuse to accept this is a unique organism, then we can't have a discussion. Again, this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things. So whether it is a person or not is irrelevant.
A fetus is not able to exist outside of the womb at all. If you removed it, it would almost immediately die. It is not able to maintain it's own basic functions, a baby can.
They would both die. Simple as that. Whether a baby lives a day longer is irrelevant. When left to their own, they both die.
And at the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells.
This is just factually incorrect. Research before you make an absurd assumption like that.
You clearly have decided that DNA makes something a human.
Correct. You have decided nothing. You don't even know what constitutes human life yet it is your opinion that we can kill innocent children. If we can't answer a basic question of when life begins, then what are you doing deciding that innocent babies can be killed? Life starts at conception. I believe in the right to life. Do you not?
-->
@Greyparrot
Urban congestion is solved with population controls.
Again you have not responded to anything I have said nor have given any evidence for your position. If you want to have a discussion then don't half-ass a feelings argument.
Not only is suggesting we kill babies to "control population" logically wrong, but also very morally wrong. Taking away lives and killing babies is not the way to do that.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
If you refuse to accept this is a unique organism, then we can't have a discussion.
I have never said a fetus isn't a unique organism. I keep saying that it is. It just isn't a person.
They would both die. Simple as that. Whether a baby lives a day longer is irrelevant. When left to their own, they both die.
You are clearly missing the point. It is about whether an organism is capable of regulating itself. If it can't survive outside the womb, then it does not meet this requirement. A baby can regulate itself. It just needs to be fed.
This is just factually incorrect. Research before you make an absurd assumption like that.
I am not going to bother doing research you will ignore. You have shown no willingness to even read the things i write. You just answer some straw man argument. There is no point trying to discuss this with you as you don't actually care what I say. You will just keep repeating the same lines over and over and attacking straw man arguments.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I'm just saying there is no right or wrong position here, there are definite benefits to society for population controls.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, let's forget all of these side topics. Tell me, why is regulating oneself the deciding factor in what is human life? It seems that you are totally fine with killing life. The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience.
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just saying there is no right or wrong position here, there are definite benefits to society for population controls.
This is an abortion argument. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? To me it is disgusting and degrading to abort children as "population control," when that in of itself is a myth.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am not going to bother doing research you will ignore. You have shown no willingness to even read the things i write. You just answer some straw man argument. There is no point trying to discuss this with you as you don't actually care what I say. You will just keep repeating the same lines over and over and attacking straw man arguments.
Because there is no research to prove that a fertilized egg is a cluster of cells. It simply isn't. Cells are completely different from organisms.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Because there is no research to prove that a fertilized egg is a cluster of cells. It simply isn't. Cells are completely different from organisms.
Organisms are made up of cells. All organisms are clusters of cells. You knowledge of biology seems to be pretty much non-existent.
In fact I was actually too generous. In the 1st 12 hours after conception, a fertilized egg is actually just 1 cell. So even calling it a cluster of cells at conception is too much. It takes several days before you could really call it a cluster of cells. Do you honestly think that a single cell should be recognized as a human being?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Please respond to the other things I said.
The problem I have here is you use "cluster of cells" to devalue the unborn baby's life. It should be recognized as a life, a human organism, not just a random cell. And yes, an embryo is a unique life that has unique DNA. This is purely science. I don't think we should kill something based on whether it is a "human being," as that is a subjective topic with no universal definition. I believe that embryo is a life, which is something defined at the moment of conception. I believe everyone has the right to life, no matter how small or developed they may be.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I believe that embryo is a life, which is something defined at the moment of conception. I believe everyone has the right to life, no matter how small or developed they may be.
So you are a vegan, who strongly disagrees with wars or engaging in self defense? If you are morally opposed to taking any life under any circumstances, then I can at least respect that this is your opinion. I would still disagree with you, but I could respect your argument. However, most of the people I have seen use this argument are the same sort of people who are fully supportive of the US military and executing prisoners. So it is usually just massive hypocrisy.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience.
I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
This is an abortion argument. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? To me it is disgusting and degrading to abort children as "population control," when that in of itself is a myth.
That's a false dichotomy "pro life" and "pro choice"
Pro-society is the only proper stance for a utilitarianist, which is neither of these 2.