☭proletarian☭;1842638 said:
How can you be so purposely stupid? Doesn't it hurt? It sure hurts to read it.
The sperm and ovum cease to be as distinct entities when they combine to form a new human organism. neither is a human organism- they are simply human germ cells. A fetus is a distinct living organism that is genetically human- a human being by definition.
This has been explained countless times and either you're purposely being retarded or you're simply not smart enough to caerry on a meaningful and honest discussion.
The fetus is not a distinct entity. To be distinct, or a human "being", or an organism whatsoever, one must be capable of adapting to different environments, which zygotes cannot do. HUMANS can survive in air, and cannot survive in an perpetual underwater state. Zygotes can ONLY survive in the uterus. Thus, a zygote is NOT THE SAME THING as a human being because it CANNOT hold its breath, and breathe air.
A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater.
Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so.
And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either. They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD. There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live.
I have already pointed out that the “women are life support systems” is a failing defense for late and partial birth abortions, which you have stated you support. As a viable fetus (not the 20 week fetus you tried to straw man but a fully functioning 8 or 9 month old fetus) can be removed with a c-section and live completely disconnected with few complications.
I understand that entirely- but the fact that they CAN be removed does not mean that they SHOULD be removed. Remember again.. A right to live is not an entitlement to.
Also, an 8 or 9 month fetus can also "die" in the uterus, or be born at full term, as a stillbirth. So I have to say that this is not necessarily a fully functioning organism. I do agree that it would be pretty dumb and cold to abort something that late in the game, but I don't hate on people for doing it. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. I brought up the 20 week thing, because I am sick of hearing about "viability", and want to hammer that point home. You are not ONLY against 8 and 9 month abortions, but are against much earlier abortions as well, as you have said. I want to help cover those seemingly gray areas for you, as much as you need. Clearly, discussing it and asking for links and facts, you WANT us to give you truths that you are not getting from your anti abortion sites or friends or groups. We are happy to educate you, here. =)
Should We Get Genetic Counseling?
Memorializing Your Infant after Miscarriage or Stillbirth
Stillbirth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have also covered the distinct organism argument earlier. A fetus IS a distinct organism by ANY definition. The debate is over when it receives protection. A few believe at the moment it is created, some like me and pre believe that brain development is the defining factor and it seems you believe that breath is what defines its rights. What I fail to understand and what you have put no points against is WHY breath is this defining factor. There is no difference between a child moments before the first breath and moments after. YOU CANNOT ‘STICK IT BACK IN’ as you have said earlier at any point after birthing has starts and I cannot see the reasoning that a fetus’s ability to survive IN the womb has any bearing on abortion. I at least understand the viability argument, though I do not agree.
I have put facts forward as to why the breath is a factor. Once it fucking breathes (lather, rinse repeat) it CANT go BACK INSIDE OF THE WOMAN. Hence, it is self supporting, self sustaining, alive, a LIFE, and individual, an entity, a human being. How many times do I have to repeat this? The air in the fetus' blood is NOT it's own air. It is the mother's air, that is a SHARED resource, and if she LOSES her ability to breathe, then the fetus stops growing. Hence, a fetus is NOT an individual, it is not self supporting, it is not an entity in and of itself, it is not a LIFE, or a being. I have only said this about a thousand times in this thread. Ignore it if you want, but do not claim that this is not factual information or that I am not backing my claims up.
What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..
That is a piss poor example as it would require you to permanently loose a part of your body and is not part of the natural process of child birth. A better example would be your parents. They were likely born before Infant formula existed. Do you, then, feel that it would be perfectly acceptable for a mother to withhold her breast milk and allow her newborn to starve to death since, after all, breast milk IS part of the motherÂ’s body and the child has no right to it.
[/QUOTE]
A newborn would not HAVE to starve to death, just because the mother chose not to breastfeed, or in many cases, could not breastfeed. This is a social expectation, not an entitlement or a requirement on the mother's part, for a born baby to survive, even if formula did not exist. In many societies, and even in the US, there are women available who are more than happy to continue pumping their own breasts, long after their own babies have been weaned, or breastfeeding another person's baby if needed.
It DOES take a village. Always has, always will. The child does NOT have a "right" to the breast, or any other portion of someone else's body. To say otherwise is completely lacking respect for women, and expecting women to lose all of their own personal respect.
A child can also be adopted by a family who is pregnant, or breastfeeding and that woman can breastfeed the adopted baby. Do you deny any of these facts??
You have to accept that the rights to a body are individual, and autonomous. Everyone has the right to make their OWN decisions as to who does what with their body parts and fluids. Nobody, not even their offspring, is entitled to any piece of that pie.
Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed, and generally most people like this get their emotional knee jerk reactions from a bunch of pictures of fetal porn posted by websites like priests for life and abort73, operation rescue, etc.. Priests for life has circulated pictures of an anti abortion protester holding an "aborted fetus", which was said to be like 3 months gestated, when in actuality, based on it's size, and later confirmed, it was a LATE term stillborn fetus, not even an aborted one in the first place. 
