Abortion

Originally posted by Juliet:
You're a bundle of cells, too, and in that regard, the only difference between you and a zygote is that you have more cells in your bundle. I don't see how that makes you any more alive than the zygote.

I- and several other people- have already been over the difference between a bundle of cells and a thinking bundle of cells. Did you not understand that argument, not read it, or not agree with it (and have ignored without explaining why?)

What the **** would a vietnam vet with no arms be doing in a Video Game Message Board?
That was really...REALLY original, dude.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

I- and several other people- have already been over the difference between a bundle of cells and a thinking bundle of cells. Did you not understand that argument, not read it, or not agree with it (and have ignored without explaining why?)

What does the abilility to think have to do with anything? A bundle of human cells is a bundle of human cells. So it has to be a thinking bundle of human cells? That's almost...bigotry.

[ June 10, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

Ok, now you seem to be actively trying to avoid reason. Just because they can't think...?! Do you think it's immoral to smash rocks, or to pick a flower? Obviously not. They don't care. You might be hindering the flower's growth a bit, but even if you were to kill it, there'd be no reason to feel guilty. Flowers place no value on their own lives. They are incapable of placing value on anything. A fetus, without a developed brain, is pretty much the same way. Let's say that during an organ transplant, the organ somehow died. You might feel sorry for the person who doesn't get an organ, but do you feel sorry for the organ itself? Or for any one of the huge number of cells that make up the organ?

sorry, double post.

[ June 10, 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: El Barto ]

Flowers place no value on their own lives. They are incapable of placing value on anything. A fetus, without a developed brain, is pretty much the same way.

Flowers will never have the capability to place a value on anything. A fetus grows into something that will. So really, you cannot compare the two, since they are very different.

[imported_AJ Middleton]

Why are fetuses coming into this discussion?

^ Does it really matter? It just proves that they don't know what they're talking about.

El Barto originally used the term "fetus". And I, in turn, said that a fetus is something that would grow into a living person. Which is true, because, as Bolt said earlier, fetuses are rarely aborted. So I am not incorrect in my use of "fetus".

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Just because they can't think...?! Do you think it's immoral to smash rocks, or to pick a flower? Obviously not. They don't care.

I actually do have problems with picking flowers. Unless there's a legitimate, do-or-die purpose to pick a flower, come on, let the thing live.

But "care" is not the issue. Humanity is the issue. So he doesn't know what's happening to him. Exactly how does that change or justify the fact that you're killing him? If you were in a coma, and didn't know or care about what was going on around you any more than a rock or a flower, would I have your permission to kill you?
If you ask me, the fact that an embryo doesn't "care" about his death makes abortion all the more corrupt. Think of it this way: We are taking advantage of an innocent creature's ignorance, something which it cannot help, to cheat it out of its life.

Conscious or unconscious, you don't kill your own kind. A blob of human cells, loaded with the potential to look a lot like you in a few years, is your kind. Maybe it's a less-developed blob of human cells. But so is a toddler.

[ June 11, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

Uh, good call on the word 'fetus.' Yes, that should read 'embryo.'

Now, the coma is an interesting example, and I'm afraid that I can't really use simple, concrete logic.

First of all, I believe that the fact that a mother has given a child life doesn't mean that she can take it away again. This isn't an uncommon belief. I don't think that the mother should be able to kill someone in a coma, or someone sleeping, etc. HOWEVER- I think that not giving life in the first place is ok. Now, I know what you're going to say- that is difference between an abortion and not having sex in the first place. But even though embryos are alive when they're killed, they are not alive on the level that an adult human or a baby are. They are still just very simple cells. So, no. I don't think killing someone when they're unconsious is the same as killing them before they've ever become consious.

[ June 12, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: El Barto ]

[imported_AJ Middleton]

Originally posted by Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless:

Conscious or unconscious, you don't kill your own kind. A blob of human cells, loaded with the potential to look a lot like you in a few years, is your kind. Maybe it's a less-developed blob of human cells. But so is a toddler.

Yet you're pro-war.

Don't give me that potential crap.

A blob of cells in an embryo isn't a toddler.