CDZ POLL: An Abortion Kills a Child

[Blues Man]

So now you decide to define your terms why didn't you just do that when I asked you?

I have no idea about what terms you think I have defined. The biological facts, definitions and terms are what they are. It is not in MY terms that I make my conclusions on. It is by the biological terms that are already established in the reference materials that are equally available and (I think) applicable to all.

And I know where you want to go with this.

You are trying to lead me into the argument that a zygote is a genetically unique human organism

True enough but I am open to evidence you might have that might lead me to conclude otherwise.

that will if all goes as specified become a child therefore the zygote should be treated as a child.

False.

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will ser how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

Now a zygote is not a child so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child

I already told you when I think that is

 

[sartre play]

As presented the answer would be no, not killing a child. if presented as killing a fetus that has a strong possibility of becoming a child the answer is yes. the problem is not that simple. the abortion question is very complex.

 

[Blues Man]

As presented the answer would be no, not killing a child. if presented as killing a fetus that has a strong possibility of becoming a child the answer is yes. the problem is not that simple. the abortion question is very complex.

Which is what I was trying to say in my first post.

I've always been of the mind that there is a point during gestation where the fetus becomes a child

There is a very real difference between aborting a 9 day old fetus and an 8th month fetus

 

[sartre play]

I

 

[sartre play]

Would like to see this conversation to be extended to the reality's of life, what happens when a woman is forced to have an unwanted child, rape incest. or has no ability to financially support, love or nurture. if they are just a child them self. what happens to that baby? and what about power to control her own body. or the lack of power. power men enjoy because they can not become pregnant. do you believe that if men got pregnant there would be no political support to forced pregnancy ?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

 

[Blues Man]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.

They are not the same thing.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Well, since I have the basic intelligence to note that a fetus is not a child, by definition, I voted the obvious 'no'.

 

[Chuz Life]

Would like to see this conversation to be extended to the reality's of life, what happens when a woman is forced to have an unwanted child, rape incest. or has no ability to financially support, love or nurture. if they are just a child them self. what happens to that baby? and what about power to control her own body. or the lack of power. power men enjoy because they can not become pregnant. do you believe that if men got pregnant there would be no political support to forced pregnancy ?

Ok.

So, PLEASE go ahead and start a new thread on THOSE topics.

This thread has been doing quite well, so far, with what we already have in the OP.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, since I have the basic intelligence to note that a fetus is not a child, by definition, I voted the obvious 'no'.

This has already been addressed at least once.

What do you say about the definitions that actually do define a human fetus as a child?

Webster's Medical Dictionary, for example.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Well, since I have the basic intelligence to note that a fetus is not a child, by definition, I voted the obvious 'no'.

This has already been addressed at least once.

What do you say about the definitions that actually do define a human fetus as a child?

Webster's Medical Dictionary, for example.

I will go by the medical and legal definition. End of story. Though pro-choice, I am very much revulsed by abortion except in serious health situations. Does not mean I am going to redefine terms to fit my feelers.

You can call a tangerine a Buick all day long. Does not make it a Buick.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, since I have the basic intelligence to note that a fetus is not a child, by definition, I voted the obvious 'no'.

This has already been addressed at least once.

What do you say about the definitions that actually do define a human fetus as a child?

Webster's Medical Dictionary, for example.

I will go by the medical and legal definition. End of story. Though pro-choice, I am very much revulsed by abortion except in serious health situations. Does not mean I am going to redefine terms to fit my feelers.

You can call a tangerine a Buick all day long. Does not make it a Buick.

I can give you BOTH medical AND legal definitions that define a child in the womb and recognize them as such.

Cherrypicking your definitions to the point of ignoring or dismissing the definitions that actually challenge your views does not make you look very intelligent.

 

[Blues Man]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

You agreed (at least) for the sake of this argument, that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

Didn't you?

Organisms more than "potentially" exist.

Organisms "actually" do exist.

Organisms are MORE than "potential" beings.

Now, if you want to view un-united haploid reproduction cells
(sperm and eggs) as mere "potential" organisms? You will little to no argument from me on that.

However, once they (sperm and egg) unite and a new organism (zygote) is created? Their combined "potential" to create a new organism has been realized.

What else would make your biological parents YOUR biological parents? Or biological relationship to mine? Or anybody else's?

A potential human being would not physically exist. A child / organism in the womb (even in the zygote stage of their life) biologically DOES physically exist.

 

[Blues Man]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

You agreed (at least) for the sake of this argument, that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

Didn't you?

Organisms more than "potentially" exist.

Organisms "actually" do exist.

Organisms are MORE than "potential" beings.

Now, if you want to view un-united haploid reproduction cells
(sperm and eggs) as mere "potential" organisms? You will little to no argument from me on that.

However, once they (sperm and egg) unite and a new organism (zygote) is created? Their combined "potential" to create a new organism has been realized.

What else would make your biological parents YOUR biological parents? Or biological relationship to mine? Or anybody else's?

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

 

[Chuz Life]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

You agreed (at least) for the sake of this argument, that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

Didn't you?

Organisms more than "potentially" exist.

Organisms "actually" do exist.

Organisms are MORE than "potential" beings.

Now, if you want to view un-united haploid reproduction cells
(sperm and eggs) as mere "potential" organisms? You will little to no argument from me on that.

However, once they (sperm and egg) unite and a new organism (zygote) is created? Their combined "potential" to create a new organism has been realized.

What else would make your biological parents YOUR biological parents? Or biological relationship to mine? Or anybody else's?

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All good questions.

I don't have enough time to go through them right now. Work unfortunately happens.

 

[sartre play]

In response to post 109, that is why your desire to make abortion illegal falls short. treating it like their are no other options, & the topic doesn't require a more detailed look in order to if not agree to at least understand why people support keeping abortion legal.

 

[Chuz Life]

In response to post 109, that is why your desire to make abortion illegal falls short. treating it like their are no other options, & the topic doesn't require a more detailed look in order to if not agree to at least understand why people support keeping abortion legal.

This is not the thread for that discussion.

Please.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The answer is "No." Merriam-Webster simply offers "HUMAN" as its definition of "human being" so there's no argument there. As your liberal use of "parents" well demonstrates where considering a broader perspective appears to help your case, abortion actually remains far from limited to humans. Nor is it logical to presume every fetus "alive" or viable. Also, like it or not, applied to humans, it remains a highly debated legal matter which demands reasonable legal specificity when conflating terms like zygote, embryo, fetus, and child. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Eta: Abortion is termination of pregnancy accompanied by a dead embryo or fetus. A "child" must be born. Embryos and fetuses are borne until birth unless aborted.