You miss the point. A hypothetical is there to show you that your logic is wrong. If it can't apply to the hypothetical, it probably has something wrong with it, and it very likely does not apply to the real situation either.
He said the definition of living is "has a heartbeat". This is not true. ... And, oh, btw, whether is true or not is irrelevant -- From now on, dead things have heartbeats too!
Ok, that is true. What he should have clarified is does having a heartbeat necessarily mean that it is alive, by definition. (i.e. not all things that are alive have a heartbeat, but everything with a heartbeat is alive)
Only actualised human beings can have rights and the definition of an actualised human being is a separate being who can interact with the world independently of another being. Once the human being is actualised, it no longer needs its mother to survive. Now, anyone can take care of it.
Being alive does not grant you rights. Viruses, bacteria, skin cells, cancers, animals and insects are alive too. In a sense, plants are alive too. Life is not what is essential to the topic.
What about when it is human life? And has a brain and a heartbeat? What exactly are the criteria it has to have to be considered a person? Can you show those criteria you demand still apply to all persons? (many types of special situations, but where we all agree it is a person)
Great! We have now established that the word 'living', specifically with regard to humans, can be defined as "having a heartbeat". I assume that you are also okay with the definition of the word 'human' as "of the homo sapien species"?
No. That is a very bad definition. If it is to be accepted, cats "can be defined as" human too. Using the word "homo sapiems" to pretend your opposition has a basis in science, eh?
That's a total dodge. We say, "Should there be a law against X?" or "Should the speed limit by 35mph" as common constructs. In no way does that imply that to do otherwise would be a violation of some moral code. You "should" go back and answer the question. And, the reason isn't some moral code. It's that if you don't, you can't be considered as taking the issues in this thread seriously. And, our bodies include lots of living tissue. The existence of living tissue, even a heart beat are not definitions of being a living person.
No a fetus is a fetus. However, the standard of value is the woman. If she is willingly pregnant and you terminate it against her will, you are violating her rights.
One would have to have a legitimate hypothetical for that to be the case. And, those are seriously scarce on PF.
All of those omelettes being made every morning. So sad that we allow this to happen to lives who never asked for it.
No, that's not a legitmate definition of living. My little toe is living. And, it doesn't have a heart at all! My little toe is homo sapien, too. I'd also point out that dead people can have heart beats. ==> And, let's remember that a fetus doesn't necessarily have a heart - or a brain, for that matter. Your whole "biology" direction is just plain poorly thought out and quite irrelevant. You are desperately trying to justify your beliefs in terms of biology so you can impose your beliefs on others through laws against women. There is no honesty in that.
We may disagree on a lot. But, thanks for recognizing that a healthy fetus doesn't necessarily have a brain or a heart beat! A person has been born and is no longer physically attached to its mother.
NO, SAID : FoxHastings said: ↑ The fetus has whatever value the woman it's in places on it... But YOUR very "imaginative desires" hold no weight at all
LOL, I have to hand it to you , you sure can SQUIRM out of accepting facts …. So you do agree that LEGALLY no one can force another to give them their heart or a blood transfusion.....??? And you believe that pregnant women SHOULD be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another even though no one else has to LEGALLY ????
