I challenge Unifier to debate the morality of abortion

So what? A fly you trap and squat is also a 'defenseless victim.'

Why?

Why would anyone think that? What a ridiculous non sequitur of an argument.

 

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

It is virtually impossible to debate abortion without defining the idea of a human being. I dare anyone here to define what a human being is. I just read a wonderful sci-fi book on this very subject called 2312. It dives deeply into the definition of humanity. In this story, humanity expands beyond earth to fill the solar system. Technology has advanced to the point where sexes no longer matter, live expectancy is 200 years and AI has become commonplace. In it, AI systems start to appear conscious. If you are interested in subjects like this, read this astounding book.

The reason I mentioned it though was that the author spent several hundred pages exploring what it means to be a human being and never really defined it. Before anyone can label abortion as bad because it destroys human beings, you must first define the term.

 

I find the definition of human being irrelevant to this debate actually. But since you ask;

A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human-being

 

I should have known better. I can see that you are not even remotely interested in the subject. Thank you for your superficial reply to one of the most difficult questions in philosophy.

 

so what is your scientific threshold that fetus needs to process so to then to be determined a human being there for allotted the same rights as any other human has

 

LOL Really? How did you reach that conclusion?

Its not a difficult question. Point out the superficiality of my response. If a human is a member of the species homo sapien, a fetus is a human. My point was, whats so important about being a human? I dont see why being a human makes one particularly special, let alone entitled to rights.

 

They need some sense of being a sentient entity that has the capacity to value being alive and having some rights. This is evidenced in a capacity for such interests - usually in demonstration of autonomous action identification of oneself as a separate entity, concept of past, present and future, and other examples of adequate mental function. Test include, mirror test, reactions to external social and physical stimuli and scenarios testing memory and other mental functions. If you read bio-ethics papers amongst others they note the various tests they perform. I by no means think they are 100%, but one thing is clear, a fetus does not have the mental capacity to conceive of itself, mentally, as its own entity. Most studies have found a child exhibits enough cognitive function after a couple of weeks, but I think its better to act cautiously and stop abortion upon birth.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain why the same logic is not properly applied to laws against murder ex utero.

 

Are you referring to partial birth abortions?

 

One of the precepts of Buddhism.

Buddhism is not a theistic religion by the way, they don't believe in God.

Even if we make the assumption a fetus is not human, it is a life...and abortion ends the life based upon a premeditated action which knowingly takes this life. It is therefore an unethical action. It is disrespecting another life form. If the response is, this life disrespects the host, and is no more than a parasite...keep in mind this "parasite" was created by a process initiated by the host. The host essentially brings this upon themselves, creates a new life, a new being and then disrespects it by killing it.

 

Is that the only murder that happens ex utero?

 

If you want a discussion, then engage. Ex utero means out of the uterus. Are you trying to claim that abortion needs to be viewed in the same way as a person who has been born hence the question? If so, then say it and we can stop playing games. The problem with this is that murder has always been about killing a human being. A human being has been someone that has been born, not a fetus. A fetus is not legally a human being except after the third trimester or in case of the health of the mother. If you are arguing that two cells splitting into four cells is a human being then I would like to know how you define a human being. That is the point of my post which seems to have gone right over your head.

 

Obviously not. I'm asking a perfectly direct question; so if you want a discussion, why the hell don't you answer it?

If you insist on using legal definitions formulated back in the good old days when nobody knew the embryo had a beating heart at 4 weeks after conception, it behooves us all to wonder why.

Neither were Jews in Nazi Germany, so what the hell's your point?

 

I have had similar pointless discussions with others that seem to think answering a question with a question is a proper way of discussing a very complex subject. I usually give up because it is just a rhetorical tactic and nothing more. If you want to respond to my point that any discussion about the morality of abortion should first start with the definition of a human being, then I welcome your attempt. Greater minds than ours have struggled with this for thousands of years. I doubt very much if some evangelical pro-lifer has been able to improve upon the debates and thoughts of some of the philosophical genius's that have tackled this issue. Since it is my belief that it is almost impossible to truly define a human being given the state of science today, the prudent way is to do exactly what the courts did and make a line which sets the bar. I have a feeling you do not like that line and want to make it start at fertilization. If this is accurate, your definition of what is a human being is pretty broad. Personally, I see it as tissue. That is also what the law has said for thousands of years. The same people who wrote the bible practiced infanticide as a matter of course. The disabled were killed, left in the desert to die or buried alive not that long ago and by the very same people who supposedly revealed the word of God to the pagans "civilians" of their time. Have we evolved in regards to life after birth today? Yes thankfully. Will we evolve to treat a zygote the same as we do a one month old child? I sure hope not.

 

Who gives a damn?

I don't know if you can possibly imagine how little I care for what you do or do not welcome. The only thing I'm interested in right now is your response to #59; and if you haven't got stones enough to do so directly, you can go to the devil for all I care. Hope that clears things up for ya.

 

What a charming person. Thank you for your lack of contribution to an adult conversation.

 

I ain't here to charm anybody, pilgrim. I'm here to expose lies and liars for what they are.

Insofar as that is implicitly defined to include tolerance of weaselly evasion and dissembling, you are more than welcome to include me out.

 

Soon enough people will be desensitized enough to start promoting the next phase of this trend of legalizing murders of convenience:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

http://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...nticide-this-week-in-leading-medical-journal?

It will become all the rage among the fashionably PC 'progressives', and many right wingers as well.

 

So there is one overriding philosophy.

All life is sacred.

The opposite of that is that no life is sacred. I am not sure anyone wants to live in a society that believes no life is sacred.

That doesn't mean that you don't kill from time to time for things like food or self defense. You have to make rational and just choices.

The Fetus is an extension of life, the mother and father's life and by itself represents life as a combination of two living beings.

That doesn't mean you should never kill a Fetus but you kill it for good reasons only and you don't try and rationalize that it is not life. In other words, people that want abortions for selfish reasons are trying to avoid the personal responsibility and guilt of killing when that is exactly what they are doing.

 

There is no "desire" for food, in a fetus because they are not deprived of food. They get it from their mother. They have a physical need for it, but no desire. To desire something, you have to do without it.

 

To desire something, you have to know it exists.