Do you agree that pre-born humans are NOT entitled to any rights or even the right to live?

[progressive hunter]

You’re not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now you’re saying that you’re going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because I’m pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.

Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.

Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by location… Do you see how idiotic that is? That’s not scientific at all, it’s completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.

I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a human being regarded as an individual

in·di·vid·u·al
/ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   single; separate

That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them

ok answer me this
are conjoined twins two individual humans or one?

I was referring to the fetus needing the mother for basic survival. Such as oxygen and consumption. Dependency.
Conjoined twins are 2 individuals.

you left out food for basic survival,,

Again, I am referring to biology
You dense fuck

doesnt matter what youre talking about because none of it is good reason to murder your own child,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

Think like a good, decent, moral, intelligent person would...make it real simple on yourself...think accountability and cause and effect. THE END

ok. Done

 

[Slade3200]

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

 

[TRFjr]

I just read it, nice try but that’s not the way reality works. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.

You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone “separate” which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like you’re just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, he’s not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. It’s silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again it’s just an opinion.

Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word “individual” is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.

As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.

Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.

You’re not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now you’re saying that you’re going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because I’m pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.

Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.

Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by location… Do you see how idiotic that is? That’s not scientific at all, it’s completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.

I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a human being regarded as an individual

in·di·vid·u·al
/ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   single; separate

That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them

ok answer me this
are conjoined twins two individual humans or one?

I was referring to the fetus needing the mother for basic survival. Such as oxygen and consumption. Dependency.
Conjoined twins are 2 individuals.

some conjoined twins share one organ and wouldnt be able to survive if separated not much deferent then the unborn being dependent on its mother

 

[TRFjr]

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

difference being it was nonconsensual sex there for she isnt in any way responsible for that pregnancy

 

[progressive hunter]

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

although I do understand the emotional aspect its still not the babys fault,,,and she is still the mother,,

 

[Kilroy2]

Probably the same way a nuclear bomb kills innocent people

Probably the same way the state executes people

probably the same way 3.1 million children die from under nutrition each year

People like to judge others and make decision for them

despite believing in a final judgement

fix these problems and the rest will follow

 

[progressive hunter]

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

On a second thought about rape,,
she knows when she was raped so its no problem at that time to get the morning after pill,,,problem solved,,,OH and I would hope she also calls the cops,,,

 

[buttercup]

I just read it, nice try but that’s not the way reality works. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.

You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone “separate” which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like you’re just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, he’s not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. It’s silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again it’s just an opinion.

Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word “individual” is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.

As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.

Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.

You’re not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now you’re saying that you’re going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because I’m pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.

Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.

Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by location… Do you see how idiotic that is? That’s not scientific at all, it’s completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.

I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a human being regarded as an individual

in·di·vid·u·al
/ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   single; separate

That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them

I thought we already went over that. YES, single or individual, but not in the way you’re thinking. A pre-born baby is a distinct individual human life that has a separate set of DNA, THAT is what makes the pre-born an individual, a single human life.

You seem to be going by physical separation which is asinine. You say you aren’t but yes, you ARE going by location as your determining factor for personhood, which is arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and simply false.

No. I'm going by the fetus cant live without the mother. It depends on the mom for the most basic human functions like breathing. It cant even consume.
So my separation is BIOLOGICAL.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, you claim that if the preborn can't survive without the mother, then he's not a person. So if we are going by viability as the determining factor, then as I previously stated, premature babies have survived outside the womb as early as 21 or 22 weeks. So, if viability is the determining factor (which it isn't, but for the sake of argument) then you are being inconsistent by claiming it's OK to kill a baby PAST the point of viability. You claimed it was OK to butcher a full-term baby just minutes before delivery. That is long past the point of viability.

Now use your noodle here. You have 2 babies. Baby 1 is 22 weeks, OUTSIDE the womb. Baby 2 is 40 weeks, still IN the womb. BOTH are past the point of viability, yet by your own words, baby 1 is a person and baby 2 is not. Do you see why I was saying that for you it's not actually about viability, it's about location? If you truly DO believe that viability is the determining factor, then you should be against abortions past 22 weeks, but you are not. So you seem to be confused about your own position.

Secondly, viability is still arbitrary, for a few reasons, one of them being because the point of viability changes over time. And at some point we could have the technology for an artificial womb, so according to you, those zygotes, embyros or fetuses in that scenario are persons, right? So if that's the case, you're going by something extrinsic, not something intrinsic to the baby.

"Personhood" is not cut and dry, and obviously people have different ideas on who is a person and who isn't. What isn't fuzzy, philosophical and arbitrary is the scientific FACT that preborns are human beings, simply in a different stage of life than you and I. And as I stated repeatedly, a person is simply a human being, an individual, and again that word means a distinct human life, which the preborn absolutely is.

Since we are talking about life and death here, any decent person would want to err on the side of life. Yet you claim it's OK to butcher a full-term baby who is really no different than a newborn, simply based on location, which is beyond silly and NOT what determines our humanity.

 

[Slade3200]

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

difference being it was nonconsensual sex there for she isnt in any way responsible for that pregnancy

agreed. So since she isn’t responsible for the pregnancy does that justify murdering the baby in your opinion?

 

[Slade3200]

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

although I do understand the emotional aspect its still not the babys fault,,,and she is still the mother,,

That is all true, it wasn’t the babies fault and she is the mother. So if a 15 year old is raped after school and becomes pregnant, it would be your position to force her to carry the child. Is that correct?

 

[Slade3200]

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

On a second thought about rape,,
she knows when she was raped so its no problem at that time to get the morning after pill,,,problem solved,,,OH and I would hope she also calls the cops,,,

this post right here that you made shows how completely out of touch you are. The fact that you came up with that “after further thought” is just the cherry on top

 

[there4eyeM]

Parents have the right to defend a baby. The baby has no means of doing so.
Rights are things humans ascribe, and exercise where and when possible.

 

[JoeB131]

They're humans not little "blobs". A blob would have no human dna.

They took out my tonsils once. They looked like blobs to me, but they had human DNA.

 

[Unkotare]

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

...The baby is literally a part of her body ...

No, it’s not.

 

[TRFjr]

They're humans not little "blobs". A blob would have no human dna.

They took out my tonsils once. They looked like blobs to me, but they had human DNA.

not separate from your own there for part of you unlike the unborn that has its separate unique DNA separate from the mother and father

 

[progressive hunter]

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

difference being it was nonconsensual sex there for she isnt in any way responsible for that pregnancy

agreed. So since she isn’t responsible for the pregnancy does that justify murdering the baby in your opinion?

NO

 

[progressive hunter]

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

On a second thought about rape,,
she knows when she was raped so its no problem at that time to get the morning after pill,,,problem solved,,,OH and I would hope she also calls the cops,,,

this post right here that you made shows how completely out of touch you are. The fact that you came up with that “after further thought” is just the cherry on top

so do you agree or not??

 

[Slade3200]

theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very different

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

On a second thought about rape,,
she knows when she was raped so its no problem at that time to get the morning after pill,,,problem solved,,,OH and I would hope she also calls the cops,,,

this post right here that you made shows how completely out of touch you are. The fact that you came up with that “after further thought” is just the cherry on top

so do you agree or not??

No of course I don’t agree with that nonsense

 

[progressive hunter]

then she shouldnt get pregnant cause a big ass and swollen tits is no reason to murder a child,,,

and if she was raped?

On a second thought about rape,,
she knows when she was raped so its no problem at that time to get the morning after pill,,,problem solved,,,OH and I would hope she also calls the cops,,,

this post right here that you made shows how completely out of touch you are. The fact that you came up with that “after further thought” is just the cherry on top

so do you agree or not??

No of course I don’t agree with that nonsense

can you explain why??