Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says

[syrenn]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

 

[JBeukema]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights.

Wow... so

x exists
therefore
x has rights


All existent things have right? Spoons, rocks, the AIDS virus...


You've rendered the concept of rights meaningless.

 

[JBeukema]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

When sperm and egg combine to form a new entity, a new human life begins.

Such is a matter of biological fact.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If it's not an existing life than why would one need to abort it in order to rid oneself of it?

That question is irrelevant and senseless. Your appendix is not an existing life yet people need to "abort" it in order to rid oneself of it. It is not uncommon for people to remove tissues from their body which could later be troublesome. Now I'm sure you'll use this as an opportunity to misdirect the discussion away from the horrible point you just made and focus in on what defines "troublesome", taking things in a completely different direction, but your point still fails.

An embryo isn't an existing life? What is it?

An appendix is a fixed thing, it is not growing and changing and removing it if it becomes diseased hardly compares to aborting a growing human inside a pregnant woman.

Try again.

 

[syrenn]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

When sperm and egg combine to form a new entity, a new human life begins.

Such is a matter of biological fact.

Yes i know that. I am asking to see where QW thinks a fetus has "life"

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. If anyone believes that a child in the womb isn't life and has no right to life, because it perhaps does not feel pain when you tear its limbs off while aborting him/her, then you yourself pal are not worthy of life itself.
2. And I think there should be a law, where we can then *Afterlife Abort*, people like you.
3. Because if life has no worth or rights in the womb of a women, then why should we respect your life now?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Zoom-boing]

The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.


The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights. To suggest otherwise is absurdity.

Your POV is that the 'baby' doesn't have rights until it meets your criteria for 'person hood'. . . . yet you refer to that 'clump of non-human-person' cells as a baby, i.e. a human fetus. Interesting.

Please cite where I said the foetus doesn't exist

Here: The cells themselves have no rights and the mind can have no rights prior to the point at which it becomes existent- a nonexistent thing can not possess rights.

At what point does the fetus exist? For me, from conception. Perhaps I misread your post.

human =/= person

Human = person.

Not what I said. Go read it again.

Your post: The baby has rights once the baby' comes to mean a person- that is, once the system gives rise to a sentient mind and 'the baby' is used to refer to that individual as well as the system (its brain and the body that acts to support and maintain its existence) that gives rise to it.

You pov is that the fetus becomes a human being/person once the baby becomes aware and its brain/body act to support/maintain its existence. If that isn't correct, what is your pov on this?

and perhaps a way to ease one's conscious

about what, pray tell

About justifying abortion to oneself.

and, quite frankly, a cop out.

right... I'm the only one in this thread to provide an honest and logically and ideologically consistent argument.


No, you're not.

.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow, 387 posts and we still haven't resolved this issue?

I am shocked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consciousness is not where rights reside, if a person is in a coma they still have rights, even though they are not conscious.

The sentient mind still exists even when we are not aware of our surroundings. The blind man is no less existent for his lack of awareness of the visual spectrum.

Trying to change tracks again?

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Sentient - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The sentient mind only exist when we are aware of our surroundings. By definition the sentient mind is the conscious mind.

I will accept that you are admitting I am correct by trying to imply I am wrong in my definition of consciousness and pointing out that people in comas have rights, even though they are unconscious. It is nice to know that you can be wrong, even if you are unable to admit it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights.

Wow... so

x exists
therefore
x has rights


All existent things have right? Spoons, rocks, the AIDS virus...


You've rendered the concept of rights meaningless.

Twasn't me that did that.

 

[Ravi]

Wow, 387 posts and we still haven't resolved this issue?

I am shocked.

There are probably 387 gazzlion posts about this out there on the internets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...I'm the only one in this thread to provide an honest and logically and ideologically consistent argument.

Why do you keep trying to move your goalposts then?

 

[syrenn]

A fetus exists, it therefore has rights. Did you get confused somewhere along the way and forget what we are discussing, the fundamental right of every living thing to exist?

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

Cesarean section.

If both the woman and the cells have life. Then cesarean section removal at any point is a viable options yes?

 

[Immanuel]

Wow, 387 posts and we still haven't resolved this issue?

I am shocked.

There are probably 387 gazzlion posts about this out there on the internets.

I imagine your estimate is probably at least 2 or 3 gazillion posts short.

Immie

 

[Jon]

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

Cesarean section.

If both the woman and the cells have life. Then cesarean section removal at any point is a viable options yes?

Yes, let's cut out all babies and watch them die.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So I have a question QW.

Where does this "life" begin in terms of a fetus for you?

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

Cesarean section.

If both the woman and the cells have life. Then cesarean section removal at any point is a viable options yes?

We could dance around this for a while and you will eventually pin me down to the point where I will give definite answers, or you can simply accept that I don't have the answers, and do not claim to. Both sides of the discussion have valid points, but I tend toward the anti abortion side of the issue because the pro abortion side of the issue likes to lie about their goals, ignore the fact that abortion is a major medical procedure with physical and emotional consequences, and call the other side ignorant boobs because they disagree with them.

I do know that both sides are guilty of that, but at least the anti abortion side has the fact that they believe they are defending human life as an excuse for their passion, while the pro abortion side is trying to claim the unemotional high ground and science is on theirs. If you are on the side of science you do not need to lie. That told me they were hiding something, so I went out and looked.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If it's not an existing life than why would one need to abort it in order to rid oneself of it?

That question is irrelevant and senseless. Your appendix is not an existing life yet people need to "abort" it in order to rid oneself of it. It is not uncommon for people to remove tissues from their body which could later be troublesome. Now I'm sure you'll use this as an opportunity to misdirect the discussion away from the horrible point you just made and focus in on what defines "troublesome", taking things in a completely different direction, but your point still fails.

Tranlation: I haven't got a logical reason to try to refute the statement so I must insult the poster.

 

[syrenn]

Not really sure. I do know that many things are considered to be alive despite the fact that they are dependent upon something else for their existence, so the fact that a fetus is dependent on its mother of its existence does not preclude it from the definition of life.

Cesarean section.

If both the woman and the cells have life. Then cesarean section removal at any point is a viable options yes?

Yes, let's cut out all babies and watch them die.

No, pro life people claim that those cells have life. Cesarean section is a from of non painful humanitarian birth. You see i am not saying abortion.

If the woman doesn't not want it and the lifers claim that it is life. Have the woman give up all rights to it, C- section it out and see if it lives.


Rather simple.

 

[syrenn]

We could dance around this for a while and you will eventually pin me down to the point where I will give definite answers, or you can simply accept that I don't have the answers, and do not claim to. Both sides of the discussion have valid points, but I tend toward the anti abortion side of the issue because the pro abortion side of the issue likes to lie about their goals, ignore the fact that abortion is a major medical procedure with physical and emotional consequences, and call the other side ignorant boobs because they disagree with them.

I do know that both sides are guilty of that, but at least the anti abortion side has the fact that they believe they are defending human life as an excuse for their passion, while the pro abortion side is trying to claim the unemotional high ground and science is on theirs. If you are on the side of science you do not need to lie. That told me they were hiding something, so I went out and looked.

Then how about i just pin you down for the answer now and forget the dancing?