I was waiting a little bit to bring this up, but, alas, you have beat me too it. I was going to see how foolish she could make herself before I did that So, a living organism is not alive? You are full of contradictions aren't you? And what is stopping you now from looking at those sites? Still eating are you? If so, I'd recommend visiting a dr., you may have some sort of disorder. Question, deep inside, does it hurt you that your mother could have aborted you simply because she didn't want to be bothered with you?
the problem is you following a simple logic and trying to avoid the answer. i never said fetus is not alive. i say fetus is not a human being. it becomes a human when it is born and takes its first breathe. it is you that want to deal with weather or not it is alive. on your other question, i do not think about abortion. it is a resolved issue for me. and i looked at the sites no big deal to me. was expecting some bloody mess like a nose job
Did you look at the galleries? And, according to you a human being needs to take a breath of air? What about the biological DNA that says its a human? There is no refuting that. But, alas, you will just continue to contradict yourself and we will go around and around in big circles. You have tried saying things, biological make up of a human being was presented to you, and you refuse to admit it. You say it is not living, but, then in the very same sentance you said it is living . It's ok, when backed into a corner people generally say the same things over and over again.
human tissue has human dna. but a hand is not a human. life as a human starts as birth. before that is a tissue. like hand or foot or lung. they are alive also. in a way. but they are not a human being. just parts.fetus is just like that. a part of mother body. she makes the decision about it as about her nose . or the fat around her belly. there is never a human being in her body. it becomes a human being at birth. you want to make a hole in this logic . you want to say it starts before that just because the shape of fetus. fetus is a natural process of reproduction. it is not completed till birth. there is no reproduction till birth. it becomes a human after birth. after the first breath. not even when it comes out but after the first breath of air. if it does not bread it is not human. it remains just tissue. just like any tissue that is removed from the body. the same physical and biological things happens to it. only if it breaths it takes a new direction, different from the fat that is removed in a lypo. there is never a human inside another human. anti abortion people try to create an arbitrary point to say the fetus becomes baby at a point and they have hard time finding this point. that is because they are looking in the wrong place in the time line where there is no real breaking point. breaking point is after birth. at the time of the first breath. that is very easy to see. very easy to distinguish. very scientific. very clear. very logical
I'm pro choice, but not in denial like others who are either trying to make themselves feel better about it or justify not being required to have a child if you get pregnant. It's an individual human being in it's early stages of life without a doubt. The mother is providing nutrients and a place to grow and develop through those early stages. Of course the earlier the stage, the less likely the child has developed significant brain activity. I do feel it's the mother's choice but don't expect me to respect those who don't want to be responsible for their own actions. You don't just randomly wake up pregnant one morning, 99.9% of the time it was unprotected sex on their own will. You can't tell me they're too stupid to know how babies are made.
No. the fetus is not a child or human. pregnancy is the reproduction mechanism of humans. the reproduction process ends at the end of pregnancy when fetus leaves the body and starts breading. at this stage a new human is produced. not before.humans are air breading mammals. fetus although has a lot of human characteristic, it does not breath air so it is not human. the reproduction process does not complete until the baby is born and starts breathing. the mother's body is not the place that the fetus resides in to grow. mother's body is creating a baby. it is not providing nutrition but is reproducing a human being. it is not about how advance the process is or how similar the fetus is to a human. time is not the issue. completion of the process is a little after the baby has left the mothers body. to say that mother provides a place for the baby to grow is a disregard to actually what is going on and ignores reality. it is where the falacy of youir argument is. the mothers body is completing the creating of the baby. there is no baby untill the creation and reproduction is complete.
what part of natural process of human reproduction is so hard to understand. it starts with coupling of the egg and sperm and it ends with birth. the reproduction is not complete till birth so no human is produced till birth. how do you want to make an arbitary point in the middle of this process and say the reproduction is complete and the fetus has entered the growth phase. and why? growth starts at birth not before that. i thought athis respect nature.
Good lord. You're like a brick wall. I explained it all, I have studied Biology since I was in, and left high school (which means 4 years of highschool and then college) and I am now 24 (that's six years by the way). I know what the fuck I am saying - but do you?
yes i do. you have learned nothing worth a fucking dime. it is very simple. reproduction of a human being ends with birth. at this stage another human being is created. before that there is no baby. just fetus at different stage of development. what part of this you do not get.
But you're saying it is: 1. Not alive Which you later admitted to it being alive 2. Not a human What is it? An Elephant then?
i never argued that fetus is not alive. just not human or living human or alive human. only once i said life without mentioning the word human and in that i meant human life. read my arguments again. and you call me thick. lolz. go start from the beginning. read it again i say that it is not alive in the meaning of human alive. it is alive in the form of body part alive. like hand is alive.
People would describe me as Atheist, however, surprisingly for most, I am completely opposed to abortion. Here is my reason: Science at the moment cannot determine whether consciousness - or life for that matter - starts at a particular moment in time, therefore, the most logical action, if we are to ensure that no conscious life is to be terminated, is to 'play-safe' and avoid ending the life, at any stage, in the womb. It sickens me that there have been foetuses which have been found in bins alive - some of which were rescued and now live as adults today! Insane. Imagine knowing you were once cast aside to die in a bin when you were meant to be aborted. It evades me why only religious people should be pro-life. Just because some of us don't necessarily believe there is a deity is certainly no reason to have a problem with killing new life. Everyone should cherish life, regardless of ideological affiliation, or lack of. I believe human rights should apply to those unborn. We don't execute murderers, paedophiles et al here in England, but we end the life of the unborn, when they are the purest of the pure; the utmost innocent. A person once said: "As long as there are slaughter-houses, there will be battlefields", I think it's safe to say that 'slaughter-houses' is synonymous with other things, such as 'abortion clinics'. I think splitting hairs and arguing either way is utterly pointless. At the end of the day not one person in here will change their mind, so all I can say to those who support abortion, or at least don't actively oppose it, is that unless you have, could go through with an abortion, or witness your partner experience it, you shouldn't agree with it. It troubles me when people claim that it's about "choice" and that the woman has the right to choose; I think choice has nothing to do with it. Does the unborn choose whether to die? When another being is in the equation, the woman loses the right since it's no longer just her body. Under Common Law we have contractual due care for strangers, so why not our own offspring? If we terminate those who are yet to even make a single decision in our world, how can we ever begin to right other wrongs around us?
you can not find the point that life starts because you look at the wrong part of the time line. human life starts when fetus takes its first breathe of air. after birth. not before. just like it ends after the last breathe of air. breathing is directly related to living as a human being. that is the point that i am trying to make. maybe badly nevertheless the only logical way of trying to figure out when human life starts. that is the time fetus stops being just living tissue not before that. go to church you are not atheist. just anti religion maybe.
That's not a scientific fact now, is it? Let's not confuse personal opinion and scientific fact. Mm? I don't understand this part. I've never attended a church sermon, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-religion. I don't care what other people do with their spare time. Now, you're saying that human life begins when a foetus takes his or her first breath. This would mean that you believe the definition of 'Life' would mention breathing somewhere. According to dictionary.com, the word 'Life' has several meanings: There is not one reference to breathing, but instead a series of functions. I recall, as a child, being taught that all living organisms experience at least one of the living processes: M.R.S.G.R.E.N. (GCSE Biology there ) Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, Nutrition. Now, can you explain how a foetus is not 'alive' before taking a breath, when foetuses clearly experience several of the above well before. It seems I am correct in claiming that what you have given is only your opinion. We cannot allow serious decisions such as abortions, to be based on opinion, can we?
human being that does not breathe air. do you know what a definition of mammal is. i meant for yourself not other people not alive as a human. living tissue it is. but since humans are air breathing and fetus is not, fetus is not human until it is born and takes its first breath. just because fetus has some characteristics of human it does not make it human. any tissue also has some of these characteristics. some other animals also have some of these characteristics. to be human you have to have all of the human characteristics not some. just being alive is not being human. baby is a live human. fetus is a live organism.an organism that will eventually evolve and completes to be a human when it is born and takes its first breath of air. i say this question of when should be when human life begins not life. and human life begins after birth. after first breath of air. not before. there is a clear line if you look at it that way.
hmmm, not only have I studied Biology (which in none of my classes was air breathing mentioned as a requirment nor in the books). A quick google search confirms this. This is the most common definition right here after visiting every site in the first 3 pages. Hmm, no where does it say anything about breathing air being a requirment for life. Which brings us back to the whole, that is just your opinion not based nor backed up by scientific fact. Apparently, as I suspected, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Way to prove us all right.
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals.html unfortunately the education has deteriorated since i went to school. please do not twist what i said. breathing air is required to be human. and it is required to be alive for humans. so fetus is not a live human. yet. it becomes one after birth.
Utter bollocks. Humans respire, so does a foetus. Humans grow, so does a foetus. Humans excrete, so does a foetus. Humans absorb nutrition, so does a foetus. Humans move, so does a foetus. Humans react to stimuli, so does a foetus. Seriously, just give up now. That applies EXACTLY the other way around. Just because a developed human has some characteristics an undeveloped human does not, such as a foetus, certainly does not make it not human. Your argument is flawed. Guess which characteristic an adult human has which a baby human does not? The ability to reproduce. You mustn't think before you post. All your arguments make no sense and are based entirely on what you think, not what is actually true. Foetuses do not evolve into humans... they develop. There is a vast difference. How do you expect people to take you seriously or even read what you have to say on such a subject when you make unfounded and uneducated claims? I'm sure there will be many things if we look at it your way mate, but people here are actually looking at facts, not your version of facts. The fact of the matter is that we cannot be certain when life begins. Religious people may believe that life begins at or even before conception, whilst some others, like myself, believe that we cannot be sure, so it's best to be careful and avoid any mistakes of killing life, consciousness or sentience by opposing abortion. Proof you do not know what you're talking about: If a foetus inside a woman's womb is not human, then why would this statement claim humans experience a foetal stage? Surely it would say: "A foetus develops into a human" or something similar? Debunking your mammal theory: It appears your twisted definition of a mammal does not exclude a foetus. It may be developing, but by hell it's still a mammal.