Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[SoulMonster]

He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being

No, I have never claimed a fetus and a tumour are equivalent to eachother, without any limitations. Is this insistence on not accepting the stated limitation to the comparison your way of escaping a discussion you lost altogether? Like with the human growth control discussion you have now distorted my argument to make me the "crazy scientist guy" rather than actually discussing the comparison with its inherent limitation, and are going to refer to me in years ahead as the person who once argued that fetuses and tumours are identical, both malign, awful things we should "eradicate" as soon as possible? Yeah, that is exacty what I think you will do from now on.

[SoulMonster]

I am just curious to what's your idea of an early fetus Soulmonster?

To me, when not for medical reasons the time to make it possible should be brought back drasticly.

Before the 22 week of gestation. That period where abortion is allowed.

I believe this varies a bit from country to country, some might allow later abortions, some may not allow abortion at week 22. Ideally, it is better for the mother that is happens as soon as possible, both because of the procedure required at different stages of gestation and because of the emotional strain of terminating a pregnancy the further it has proceeded.

As for my opinions on when this limit should be. I have no idea. I rely on whatever the experts have decided in this case, those who know more than me on fetus development. But of course, and as I have stated previously, an abortion is always a failure, and ideally as soon as possible, for the benefit of the pregnant woman.

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

Great post.

And you didn't need to insult people and type 22 paragraphs of nonsense in yet another attempt to "educate" and "ridicule" people.

No, be more like Apollo, try to insult people in very short and concise posts

Seriously, if you think anything I have written is nonsense, then engage in the discussion. Don't stand at the sideline shouting insults at people.

[SoulMonster]

Here's a reboot of teh discussion since people are too hung up on the fetus and tumour comparison.

Here are some arguments against abortion that I think are wrong. I think the arguments lacks scientific or logical merit, yet they are among the most common arguments seen in this debate. I will list them and explain why I think they are wrong. If you think I am wrong, please explain why.

"Fetuses are humans"/"abortion is killing of babies":

Just read the entire thread, I have gone throug this numerous times. The essence is that fetuses at those early stages wher abortion is allowed, lack the neural system required for thos peculiar characteristics that define humans, including consciousness, emotions, self-awareness, etc. They are "humans in development", but at those stages they are simply not humans. This is a matter of definition, but anyway they don't have those characteristics that is so special to humans and the basis for why we as a species is eligble for special rights and protection.

"Okay, but they have the potential to become humans, and abortion is a killing of this potential":

Yes, that is right, but personally I don't think a potential of something should be treating as the realization of that potential. That's on a philosophical level. A potential IS different from whatever it has the potential to become. Otherwise we wouldn't distinguish between them. And if whatever it has the potential to become deserves special rights, these shouldn't automatically be transferred to the potential. If so, since an embryo has the potential to become a fetus, shoudln't embryos too, have human rights? And since a zygote has the potetial to become an embryo, shouldn't zygotes too have human rights? And since an egg cell has the potential to become a zygote, shouldn't that too have these same rights? This is slippery slope argumentation.

"Forget about consciousness and emotions and all that, what is more important is that fetuses have soul":

That is just something you believe without any real evidence. It can perfectly well be an argument for why YOU can't go through an abortion -- feel free to be swayed by any irrational beliefs -- but don't push your religious rules on people who don't share your beliefs.

"But my god says 'no'":

See the above.

Then there are GOOD reasons for why abortion is always a failure, including but not limited to the emotional strain on the pregnant woman, and to a lesser extent the emotional stain on the man involved, and the physical strain on the pregnant woman from the procedure.

[Apollo]

I am just curious to what's your idea of an early fetus Soulmonster?

To me, when not for medical reasons the time to make it possible should be brought back drasticly.

Before the 22 week of gestation. That period where abortion is allowed.

I believe this varies a bit from country to country, some might allow later abortions, some may not allow abortion at week 22. Ideally, it is better for the mother that is happens as soon as possible, both because of the procedure required at different stages of gestation and because of the emotional strain of terminating a pregnancy the further it has proceeded.

As for my opinions on when this limit should be. I have no idea. I rely on whatever the experts have decided in this case, those who know more than me on fetus development. But of course, and as I have stated previously, an abortion is always a failure, and ideally as soon as possible, for the benefit of the pregnant woman.

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

Great post.

And you didn't need to insult people and type 22 paragraphs of nonsense in yet another attempt to "educate" and "ridicule" people.

No, be more like Apollo, try to insult people in very short and concise posts

Seriously, if you think anything I have written is nonsense, then engage in the discussion. Don't stand at the sideline shouting insults at people.

Regardless of what you might think you are not a mod and it isn't your place to dictate to others what they can or cannot post. Or when they should post. Maybe you should simmer down a bit and remember you don't run this forum.

[SoulMonster]

I am just curious to what's your idea of an early fetus Soulmonster?

To me, when not for medical reasons the time to make it possible should be brought back drasticly.

Before the 22 week of gestation. That period where abortion is allowed.

I believe this varies a bit from country to country, some might allow later abortions, some may not allow abortion at week 22. Ideally, it is better for the mother that is happens as soon as possible, both because of the procedure required at different stages of gestation and because of the emotional strain of terminating a pregnancy the further it has proceeded.

As for my opinions on when this limit should be. I have no idea. I rely on whatever the experts have decided in this case, those who know more than me on fetus development. But of course, and as I have stated previously, an abortion is always a failure, and ideally as soon as possible, for the benefit of the pregnant woman.

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

Great post.

And you didn't need to insult people and type 22 paragraphs of nonsense in yet another attempt to "educate" and "ridicule" people.

No, be more like Apollo, try to insult people in very short and concise posts

Seriously, if you think anything I have written is nonsense, then engage in the discussion. Don't stand at the sideline shouting insults at people.

Regardless of what you might think you are not a mod and it isn't your place to dictate to others what they can or cannot post. Or when they should post. Maybe you should simmer down a bit and remember you don't run this forum.

It was nothing but an encouragement to share your thoughts on the matter of abortion and not just share insults.

[rock4eva]

I dunno, something thats a few weeks from being a human being is already a human being as far as I'm concerned...or close enough to one for me to not want it on my consience.

Its more than a fucking tumour, when your missus misscarriages or comes back from having had an abortion emotionally shattered does it confuse you as to why, I mean seeing as we're talking about something equivalent to a tumour, the bitch should feel like shes got a new lease of life.

'What you crying about love, when my Great Uncle Cyril had his tumour removed he pulled a 32 yr old cocktail waitress and went up West, why we hadn't seen him this happy since they signed the Armistice!'

I think I agree with you Lenny & you're coming from a male point of view so kudos to you.

From the moment pregnancy was confirmed I started to form an attachment to that 'little clump of cells" and as time went on & I could feel the baby inside moving I bonded with it. It wasn't a fetus but a baby, I could tell what was a kick and what was a punch. I don't know if all females feel the same but the bond was very strong, it was a being that I had to protect by eating sensibly & taking care of myself to give it the best chance in life.

Yet some people are given devastating news early on in the pregnancy where a choice has to be made whether to terminate the pregnancy or keep it going, in some cases I know of it's the law to terminate the pregnancy if you have a genetic test and it comes back that the baby is positive for the mutant gene.

I'm not talking about Down Syndrome or Dwarfism where a person can have a reasonably good life with one and pretty much a normal life with the other, my cousin is a dwarf & of course he's in the acting business with stage plays. I'm talking about devastating conditions where the baby will suffer, has little chance of survival, brain dead etc. The choice to terminate is usually for the best you can do for that baby & as Lenny points out the parents are completely shattered to make that decision.

Unfortunately people seem to think girls have abortions as birth control but there are reasons it's done to save the baby being born with cerebral palsy, seizures and strokes until it passes away naturally. Multiple births also are high risk as a baby could be taking the nutrition of another which could cause a spontaneous misscarriage of both if one isn't taken early. There may be women who will agree they too bonded with their unborn baby, it's natural but if you don't that's not unnatural either.

Sorry SoulMonster, I generally agree with most of what you say in your posts but with this one I don't. It's a personal journey for each woman.

[SoulMonster]

Sorry SoulMonster, I generally agree with most of what you say in your posts but with this one I don't. It's a personal journey for each woman.

Don't be sorry, nothing of what you wrote is in contradiction to what I have written in this thread. As a parent myself, I know about the emotional bonds formed between women, and to a lesser extent, men, and the fetus and baby to come. If you see my last post, you will se that this is one of the reasons why abortion is such a hard decision to make.

My contributions in this thread is not to argue against the existence of this bond or downplay or dismiss it, but argue against what I consider the flawed arguments for why abortion is wrong.

[DieselDaisy]

He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being

No, I have never claimed a fetus and a tumour are equivalent to eachother, without any limitations. Is this insistence on not accepting the stated limitation to the comparison your way of escaping a discussion you lost altogether? Like with the human growth control discussion you have now distorted my argument to make me the "crazy scientist guy" rather than actually discussing the comparison with its inherent limitation, and are going to refer to me in years ahead as the person who once argued that fetuses and tumours are identical, both malign, awful things we should "eradicate" as soon as possible? Yeah, that is exacty what I think you will do from now on.

I actually did exactly that. I used your own philosophy of science (not religion, ethics, etc) - your thing - and established that the analogy is absolutely hopeless and incorrect.

[SoulMonster]

He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being

No, I have never claimed a fetus and a tumour are equivalent to eachother, without any limitations. Is this insistence on not accepting the stated limitation to the comparison your way of escaping a discussion you lost altogether? Like with the human growth control discussion you have now distorted my argument to make me the "crazy scientist guy" rather than actually discussing the comparison with its inherent limitation, and are going to refer to me in years ahead as the person who once argued that fetuses and tumours are identical, both malign, awful things we should "eradicate" as soon as possible? Yeah, that is exacty what I think you will do from now on.

I actually did exactly that. I used your own philosophy of science (not religion, ethics, etc) - your thing - and established that the analogy is absolutely hopeless and incorrect.

So how is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans? THAT is actually what you have to counter if you are to dismiss my comparison with its limitations. What you have done, though, is to hang on to them not being IDENTICAL, which is not something I have ever claimed they are. What you are doing is formally called ignoratio elenchi, or just "missing the point", and presumbaly it is caused by a lack of intellectual courage to accept that what I am saying is completely correct -- both tumours and early fetuses share the lack of these human traits -- so instead you continually insist on the erroneous interpretation that I have claimed tumours and fetuses are identical.

[Len Cnut]

I'm gonna have a run at some of this Soulie but you're the science kiddy so put me right if I'm going wrong anywhere yeah?

"Fetuses are humans"/"abortion is killing of babies":

Just read the entire thread, I have gone throug this numerous times. The essence is that fetuses at those early stages wher abortion is allowed, lack the neural system required for thos peculiar characteristics that define humans, including consciousness, emotions, self-awareness, etc. They are "humans in development", but at those stages they are simply not humans. This is a matter of definition, but anyway they don't have those characteristics that is so special to humans and the basis for why we as a species is eligble for special rights and protection.

So...they're humans in development and not completely done ergo they ain't human, they're a clump of cells? In the same way the bits and pieces of a bike ain't a bike until you put em together and you've got a bike? The problem for a lot of people with this is you're not talking about something mechanical, or even something abstract, you're talking about a human life and the human race believes in the sanctity of human life, thats it a precious thing, so for some people the rules of this shit ain't comparable to a production line putting together a fuckin' a Dodge Challenger or something, the same cold pragmatism cannot be transplanted from one idea to the other, what applies down at Ford or General Motors production lines ain't the same as what goes for human beings. Spunk is cells, Egg is cells, put the two together, spunk fertilises egg then what you have because more than a clump of cells precisely because it has the potential to become a human being, thats a little baby person in the making and the same rules that apply for it ain't the same as a half-built go cart. It's hard for me at the moment to get into explaining this without using the language of religion which I'm trying not to do because it just distorts what I'm trying to explain but like...human beings are not the same as some fuckin' do it yourself airplane kit or something, when human beings die we respectfully bury them, have funerals, it's not like when your bikes done and you chuck it on a scrap-heap. Look at it this way, i think the cut off point of an abortion, the latest you can get an abortion is what, 24 weeks? So girl 1 over here has an abortion at 24 weeks and it's a clump of cells, girls 2 over here miscarriages after 24 weeks and then give the child a grave and a name and grieve its passing...why? If it's a lump of cells and nothing more at the stages upon which abortion is legal then why would they do that? Because when you do it on purpose you rationalise it for the sake of your sanity and when fate does it to you then you respond naturally to that shit I guess.

I'm not trying to make a pro life argument here I'm just saying that it just boils down to ways of seeing things and just because it doesn't yet have neural or cognitive abilities or isn't yet a human being in terms of the textbook definition of this being independently existing and developing a brain ain't enough reason for people to feel that its so far from a human being that it warrants being refered to as a lump of cells or comparable to a tumour. Perhaps some people see it as a lump of cells that is 'x' amount of weeks from being the thing that they will love and cherish and hold dear the most out of anything in this world. Like literally THE most important thing in their lives ever, more than anything ever, literally the most valuable entity concievable for them, something that no money could buy, no price is worthy of...it becomes something a little greater than just a lump of cells, it is something you yourself would die for, killing it, potential or otherwise, would be the most unspeakable crime imaginable. And y'know what? I can't fault people who think like that, i cannot.

What bothersome about it the most to me is the idea that perhaps its a rationalisation, when you want it then it's your little baby growing in a womb and when you don't it's a lump of cells, there's something cold about that to me. It bothers me writing half this shit in case some poor girl whoose had an abortion has to read some 32 yr old lummox spouting off about this shit off the top of his head like this.

"Okay, but they have the potential to become humans, and abortion is a killing of this potential":

Yes, that is right, but personally I don't think a potential of something should be treating as the realization of that potential. That's on a philosophical level. A potential IS different from whatever it has the potential to become. Otherwise we wouldn't distinguish between them. And if whatever it has the potential to become deserves special rights, these shouldn't automatically be transferred to the potential.

See these ideas work as far as being a line of logic goes, they work on paper...but the rules for something having the potential to grow into a living person are different than for just about any other kind of instance of being you can think of. Why, because as human beings we believe in the sanctity of human life, this is why we weep over massacres in Paris or feel for people when they hurt, you cannot transfer the ideas that exist for human beings and equate them to other instances of inanimate objects or even living things like animals and plants and what have you.

I'm not making an anti abortion case here because i don't think it's my right I'm just saying theirs shades to this shit and just cuz you see it one way because 'x' theory is acceptable to you don't make it right. The way i see it is the worlds a fuckin' ugly place and lifes a hard toke and thats it. If more pro choice people came off with that kind of thinking, instead of 'no it's fine because 'x' theory says so!', if there was more heart to the perspective, if it was just like, look, there is no rationalisation for this, it's a crazy contradictory thing because thats life but i can't say the idea of it doesn't break my fuckin' heart, if i heard a little more of that kinda compassion in your position i might find it easier to swallow...but i don't see that, i just see crude analogys comparing them to a tumour or something.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

I'm gonna have a run at some of this Soulie but you're the science kiddy so put me right if I'm going wrong anywhere yeah?

"Fetuses are humans"/"abortion is killing of babies":

Just read the entire thread, I have gone throug this numerous times. The essence is that fetuses at those early stages wher abortion is allowed, lack the neural system required for thos peculiar characteristics that define humans, including consciousness, emotions, self-awareness, etc. They are "humans in development", but at those stages they are simply not humans. This is a matter of definition, but anyway they don't have those characteristics that is so special to humans and the basis for why we as a species is eligble for special rights and protection.

So...they're humans in development and not completely done ergo they ain't human, they're a clump of cells? In the same way the bits and pieces of a bike ain't a bike until you put em together and you've got a bike? The problem for a lot of people with this is you're not talking about something mechanical, or even something abstract, you're talking about a human life

No, more like, well, a seed growing into a tree, because with a bike you have all the parts already its just a matter of putting them together the right way. With a seed something new must be created out of the recipe found in the seed. With fetus lots of new features must be formed for it to be a human, especially brain tissues and neural systems. A zygote is an embryo in development, just like an embryo is a fetus in development, just like a fetus is a baby in development. But none of these are the same, they are all different. Of course this is just semantics, you can define "human" any way you want, even with a such a broad definition that a fetus is covered. No problem. And in daily speech we do just that, we refer to a "baby in the stomach" etc, basically giving the "pro life" movement the ammunition to use their "don't kill babies" argument. But my point is that a fetus don't have those peculiar characteristic of self-awareness, consciousness, emotional spectre, cognititvy, which are inclusive to humans and the basis for giving us special rights and protection, hence regardless of what definition of "human" you prefer, a fetus is not identical to what comes after birth, and hence this differentiation of protection. That is why abortion is allowed in many countries.

So I am NOT talking about a human life. I believe human lives are sacred. I am talking about a fetus. And I don't see why they should be considered sacred.

I'm not trying to make a pro life argument here I'm just saying that it just boils down to ways of seeing things and just because it doesn't yet have neural or cognitive abilities or isn't yet a human being in terms of the textbook definition of this being independently existing and developing a brain ain't enough reason for people to feel that its so far from a human being that it warrants being refered to as a lump of cells or comparable to a tumour. Perhaps some people see it as a lump of cells that is 'x' amount of weeks from being the thing that they will love and cherish and hold dear the most out of anything in this world. Like literally THE most important thing in their lives ever, more than anything ever, literally the most valuable entity concievable for them, something that no money could buy, no price is worthy of...it becomes something a little greater than just a lump of cells, it is something you yourself would die for, killing it, potential or otherwise, would be the most unspeakable crime imaginable. And y'know what? I can't fault people who think like that, i cannot.

You can call it whatever you want, you can you beautiful poetry to describe it, that is not the point. The point is that regardless of what you call it, it still isn't a human being in the sense that it has those human chatacteristics that are so amazing. It is as advanced as a potato (more or less). Now I assume people are going to say I think fetuses and potatoes are the same.

And since it doesn't have those peculiar characteristics, why shoudl it be eligble for that same amount of protection we only bestow upon humans? And if your answer is, because it is a baby-in-development, then I refer to the slippery slope argument I have already discussed.

[Len Cnut]

And my point was that the POTENTIAL for conciousness and cognitivity are enough to afford a fetus more regard than one would for...well just about any other gestative entity you can concieve. Because the potential to become a fully grown human being is more than the potential to become...a potato or something.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

"Okay, but they have the potential to become humans, and abortion is a killing of this potential":

Yes, that is right, but personally I don't think a potential of something should be treating as the realization of that potential. That's on a philosophical level. A potential IS different from whatever it has the potential to become. Otherwise we wouldn't distinguish between them. And if whatever it has the potential to become deserves special rights, these shouldn't automatically be transferred to the potential.

See these ideas work as far as being a line of logic goes, they work on paper...but the rules for something having the potential to grow into a living person are different than for just about any other kind of instance of being you can think of. Why, because as human beings we believe in the sanctity of human life, this is why we weep over massacres in Paris or feel for people when they hurt, you cannot transfer the ideas that exist for human beings and equate them to other instances of inanimate objects or even living things like animals and plants and what have you.

I'm not making an anti abortion case here because i don't think it's my right I'm just saying theirs shades to this shit and just cuz you see it one way because 'x' theory is acceptable to you don't make it right. The way i see it is the worlds a fuckin' ugly place and lifes a hard toke and thats it. If more pro choice people came off with that kind of thinking, instead of 'no it's fine because 'x' theory says so!', if there was more heart to the perspective, if it was just like, look, there is no rationalisation for this, it's a crazy contradictory thing because thats life but i can't say the idea of it doesn't break my fuckin' heart, if i heard a little more of that kinda compassion in your position i might find it easier to swallow...but i don't see that, i just see crude analogys comparing them to a tumour or something.

There is plenty of heart to the matter of whether to have an abortion or not. But when it comes to whether a fetus is a baby, there really isn't. That is a matte of how we define it. And when it comes to whether a fetus has those cognitive powers, then again it is not a matter of heart, it is just a matter of knowing your shit.

So again, I am not dismissing emotional arguments for why we should or shouldn't accept abortion, I have already pointed to what I consider valid arguments against abortion, but being agaist it because "you are murdering babies" is not a valid argument, not when using normal definition of what a baby is, nor when you look into the specifics of babies/humans and why we are special and eligble for rights and protection.

I am sure the killer from the first post in this thread was convinced that he was attacking baby murderers. Why? Because he believes a fetus is a baby.

[Len Cnut]

Why are you constantly clinging to this 'fetus is a baby' idea, whoose saying that?

[SoulMonster]

And my point was that the POTENTIAL for conciousness and cognitivity are enough to afford a fetus more regard than one would for...well just about any other gestative entity you can concieve. Because the potential to become a fully grown human being is more than the potential to become...a potato or something.

And that's the slippery slope argument I have already discussed.

From a philosophical viewpoint I simply don't think you should treat something that only has a potential for being something like as it already was. I don't see any other instances where we do that. The raw materials of a clock is considered to be worth less than a clock. You treat things for what they are, not what they can potentially become. I don't see what we should amke an exeption for a fetus.

And from a regulatory viewpoint, it becomes very hard to draw a line in the sand if even things that has the potential to become humans should be treated as they are. What about embryos then? What about zygotes? What about sperm? What about stem cells? What about skin cells? And so on. Shoulf all of these be reated as humans because they could potentially become humans? What about nutrients? Sure, these are at very different stages of becoming humans, but they share the very fact that neither of them ARE humans. You could always set some arbitrary line, but it fails to make regulatory sense.

Why are you constantly clinging to this 'fetus is a baby' idea, whoose saying that?

That belief is at the core of large portions of the pro life movement. It is one of the reasons crazies like the one in this thread shoots up abortion clinic.

[Len Cnut]

You're right, there are no other instances where you'll find this kind of thinking, the reason an exception is made for fetuses is because human life is the most precious thing on planet earth ergo the value of its potential is beyond that which would be applicable to any other entity on earth.

I dunno what a Zygote is but the reason semen doesnt get the same regard is because in and of itself it aint really shit, it is what happens when it fertilises an egg that is of value, a sperm isnt on the path to being human until it plays with a girlie egg and then becomes a human being in the making.

And my point was that the POTENTIAL for conciousness and cognitivity are enough to afford a fetus more regard than one would for...well just about any other gestative entity you can concieve. Because the potential to become a fully grown human being is more than the potential to become...a potato or something.

And that's the slippery slope argument I have already discussed.

From a philosophical viewpoint I simply don't think you should treat something that only has a potential for being something like as it already was. I don't see any other instances where we do that. The raw materials of a clock is considered to be worth less than a clock. You treat things for what they are, not what they can potentially become. I don't see what we should amke an exeption for a fetus.

And from a regulatory viewpoint, it becomes very hard to draw a line in the sand if even things that has the potential to become humans should be treated as they are. What about embryos then? What about zygotes? What about sperm? What about stem cells? What about skin cells? And so on. Shoulf all of these be reated as humans because they could potentially become humans? What about nutrients? Sure, these are at very different stages of becoming humans, but they share the very fact that neither of them ARE humans. You could always set some arbitrary line, but it fails to make regulatory sense.

Why are you constantly clinging to this 'fetus is a baby' idea, whoose saying that?

That belief is at the core of large portions of the pro life movement. It is one of the reasons crazies like the one in this thread shoots up abortion clinic.

Yeah but im not arguing that and nor is anyone else in this thread.

[SoulMonster]

if i heard a little more of that kinda compassion in your position i might find it easier to swallow...but i don't see that, i just see crude analogys comparing them to a tumour or something.

When it comes to whether a fetus is a human being, that is a purely technical discussion. But realizing this doesn't remove compassion or emotions from the larger question of whether one should have an abortion, because that difficult question comes with more valid emotional arguments - which I have already discussed.

Interpreting my dismissal of the argument "fetuses are humans" as me not being emotional about abortion or compassionate with women who face this often hard and painful descision, is disingenious at best. I am consistently only looking at a few of the arguments I see used by the pro life movement that I feel doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not at all dismissing other more valied emotional arguments, no actually make a case against or for abortion. And just because I strictly stick to my topic and don't spend additional time trying to convince you all about my feelings and emotions on the subject, just to make you all sure I have feelings because otherwise you can't "swallow" it, doesn't in any way take away from the strength of my argument. And if it still does to you, if you are just so swayed by the lack of touchy-feely off-topic sentences on the horror of abortion in my posts that you can't swallow the argument I present, then that is entirely on you. As I referred to it earlier, it is obvious that many brains here shut down as soon as they saw "tumor" and "fetus" in the same sentence, letting shock overide sense, and that observation in itself is pretty interesting.

You're right, there are no other instances where you'll find this kind of thinking, the reason an exception is made for fetuses is because human life is the most precious thing on planet earth ergo the value of its potential is beyond that which would be applicable to any other entity on earth.

I dunno what a Zygote is but the reason semen doesnt get the same regard is because in and of itself it aint really shit, it is what happens when it fertilises an egg that is of value, a sperm isnt on the path to being human until it plays with a girlie egg and then becomes a human being in the making.

And my point was that the POTENTIAL for conciousness and cognitivity are enough to afford a fetus more regard than one would for...well just about any other gestative entity you can concieve. Because the potential to become a fully grown human being is more than the potential to become...a potato or something.

And that's the slippery slope argument I have already discussed.

From a philosophical viewpoint I simply don't think you should treat something that only has a potential for being something like as it already was. I don't see any other instances where we do that. The raw materials of a clock is considered to be worth less than a clock. You treat things for what they are, not what they can potentially become. I don't see what we should amke an exeption for a fetus.

And from a regulatory viewpoint, it becomes very hard to draw a line in the sand if even things that has the potential to become humans should be treated as they are. What about embryos then? What about zygotes? What about sperm? What about stem cells? What about skin cells? And so on. Shoulf all of these be reated as humans because they could potentially become humans? What about nutrients? Sure, these are at very different stages of becoming humans, but they share the very fact that neither of them ARE humans. You could always set some arbitrary line, but it fails to make regulatory sense.

Why are you constantly clinging to this 'fetus is a baby' idea, whoose saying that?

That belief is at the core of large portions of the pro life movement. It is one of the reasons crazies like the one in this thread shoots up abortion clinic.

Yeah but im not arguing that and nor is anyone else in this thread.

Everybody who claims that a fetus is a human, is doing just that. And I believe there has been a few occasions of that in this very thread.

Even though a human life is the most valuable that exists, we shouldn't treat something that has the potential to become a human, or is underway to become a human, as if it were a human. It simply hasn't obtained that intrinsic value yet.

[Len Cnut]

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you, the pro choice extreme against the other polar extreme of the argument, people who claim abortionists are baby killers, sensible rationale people tend to argue in the middle ground somewhere.

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence, as comparable to vermin or a cancer or a tumour or something, maybe its just wrong and in poor taste and maybe people are concerned of THAT slippery slope? The slippery slope upon which we begin to regard or refer to states of the human experience in such terms, it engenders a frightening kind of lack of regard.

[Len Cnut]

Even though a human life is the most valuable that exists, we shouldn't treat something that has the potential to become a human, or is underway to become a human, as if it were a human. It simply hasn't obtained that intrinsic value yet.

This is precisely the point where we differ, the value of potential, i say the value of the potential to be or become a human (or rather the argument says) supercedes that of any other kind of potential due to the uniqueness and sanctity of human life which puts it in a position over and above other living entities and therefore the same logic cannot be applied across the board. Both lines of logic bear themselves out as far as I'm concerned, just one is all about cells and science and the other takes into account the human experience a little more.

[SoulMonster]

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you

That is not "reframing the argument", that is one of the flawed arguments of the pro life movement I wanted to discuss .

[SoulMonster]

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence,

But a fetus isn't a "human being" in "any stage of existence", unless you considers "not in existence" a "stage of existence" It is a human being in development. It isn't a human. Like you, I hold human life sacred. I don't hold non-human life AS sacred, including fetuses and other things that have the potential to become human.

[Len Cnut]

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you

That is not "reframing the argument", that is one of the flawed arguments of the pro life movement I wanted to discuss .

You wanted to have a discussion with yourself?

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence,

But a fetus isn't a "human being" in "any stage of existence", unless you considers "not in existence" a "stage of existence" It is a human being in development. It isn't a human. Like you, I hold human life sacred. I don't hold non-human life AS sacred, including fetuses and other things that have the potential to become human.

OK so replace stage of existence to stage of development, same applies still. How can something develop if it isnt alive to some degree? Edited November 30, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Even though a human life is the most valuable that exists, we shouldn't treat something that has the potential to become a human, or is underway to become a human, as if it were a human. It simply hasn't obtained that intrinsic value yet.

This is precisely the point where we differ, the value of potential, i say the value of the potential to be or become a human (or rather the argument says) supercedes that of any other kind of potential due to the uniqueness and sanctity of human life which puts it in a position over and above other living entities and therefore the same logic cannot be applied across the board. Both lines of logic bear themselves out as far as I'm concerned, just one is all about cells and science and the other takes into account the human experience a little more.

I agree that it supercedes any other kind of potential that I can think of, but not to the extent that we should give it protection as it it were actually a human being. In addition, I don't see any reasons WHY we should treat it like it was a human being. It makes little sense to me. But okay, you think this potential is so precious that we should treat it as it had actuallt already been realized, fine. There is really nothing to argue about.

So, do you agree with the 22 week line, then? Has the potential at that time become sufficiently large for the fetus to be deserving of protectiong as if it was a human being? Where do you draw the line? Do you think embryos should have this protection, too? Or what about the fertilized egg cell? Does it have enough potential to be as sacred as a human being?

Personally, I don't think the argument of potential functions at all, and think that 22 weeks is the very last, but ideally all abortions should happen much sooner in preganancies (which is the case, usually only a few percents of abortions take place after week 22 of gestation), but not due to the potential argument, but due to the argument of emotional bonds and argument of the development of budding consciousness in the fetus.

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you

That is not "reframing the argument", that is one of the flawed arguments of the pro life movement I wanted to discuss .

You wanted to have a discussion with yourself?

How on earth would I know no one would bite? I appreciate you having high thoughts on me, but surely you don't think I am a mind reader?

That being said, I am pretty certain some posters here actually considers fetus being babies, they just don't want to engage in that discussion

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence,

But a fetus isn't a "human being" in "any stage of existence", unless you considers "not in existence" a "stage of existence" It is a human being in development. It isn't a human. Like you, I hold human life sacred. I don't hold non-human life AS sacred, including fetuses and other things that have the potential to become human.

OK so replace stage of existence to stage of development, same applies still. How can something develop if it isnt alive to some degree?

Crystals, minerals, mountains, solar systems, etc develop .

But sure, a fetus is alive. II am not arguing against that. They are just as alive as a tumour t is just not alive as a human being. And being alive is not in itself deserving of protection as if it was alive as a human. A sperm cell is also alive. This connects wit the pro life argument that "life begins at fertlization" and hence abortion is taking a human life. I disagree, life is a contunous thing unbroken from sperm and egg cells to developing human. But this unbroken chain doesn't at all point consist of humans. The sperm cell is not a human being, neither is the fetus.

[DieselDaisy]

He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being

No, I have never claimed a fetus and a tumour are equivalent to eachother, without any limitations. Is this insistence on not accepting the stated limitation to the comparison your way of escaping a discussion you lost altogether? Like with the human growth control discussion you have now distorted my argument to make me the "crazy scientist guy" rather than actually discussing the comparison with its inherent limitation, and are going to refer to me in years ahead as the person who once argued that fetuses and tumours are identical, both malign, awful things we should "eradicate" as soon as possible? Yeah, that is exacty what I think you will do from now on.

I actually did exactly that. I used your own philosophy of science (not religion, ethics, etc) - your thing - and established that the analogy is absolutely hopeless and incorrect.

So how is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans? THAT is actually what you have to counter if you are to dismiss my comparison with its limitations. What you have done, though, is to hang on to them not being IDENTICAL, which is not something I have ever claimed they are. What you are doing is formally called ignoratio elenchi, or just "missing the point", and presumbaly it is caused by a lack of intellectual courage to accept that what I am saying is completely correct -- both tumours and early fetuses share the lack of these human traits -- so instead you continually insist on the erroneous interpretation that I have claimed tumours and fetuses are identical.

Already countered. I've already mentioned the forging of the matrimonial bond, chronological awareness and response to anxiety, none of which happens with an, ehh, tumour (cannot believe I'm having this conversation!).

[Len Cnut]

I dont have any beliefs on the matter, as i stated previously i dont have the right, im just arguing the principle here, i dont have the heart to take a position on this matter because i find it frightening and overwhelming and i dont think i can...look, who the fuck am i, what right do i have to say when something is or isnt a baby or when it should or shouldnt die, i dont have that ability, i cannot carry the burden of taking one position or the other on this matter, so i use the 'its a woman choice' way out cuz im too chickenshit to take a position on the matter, i cant do it, i cant look at your little girl or McLeods little girl or my little niece or any baby on this planet, look at em and then think I am qualified or worthy of having opinions on matters that having a bearing on whether babies like them get to where they're at or not so i cant really get into stuff like how many weeks are acceptable etc, i was just taking up the argument on the part of those who believe that, once fertilised, it is human enough to preserve it, an argument with which we appear to have reached an impasse so there it is.