??? Within the framework of this discussion being about humans (defined as "of the homo sapien species") Is a fetus alive? Do you accept "has a heartbeat" as the method of determining this? If not, how would you instead determine this?
I'm not talking about "little toes"; I'm talking about the homo sapien species. Do medical professionals not determine whether or not one is alive by whether or not one has a heartbeat? How do you determine whether or not a person is dead? I know how medical professionals do it... That's fine. I'm simply trying to find some common ground between us on what is considered to be a "living human".
Of course it is human. No one has ever said it is not and I have no idea why you keep repeating this nonsense. The real question is whether the fetus is a person or not and it is only with the mysticism of religious dogma that it can be seen as a person. The fetus is pre-human and the fetus has no - and cannot have any - rights. Suggesting the opposite is utterly ridiculous. As long as you keep ridiculing my position, I will keep making fun of- and dunking on your faith and I will not stop until you admit that your opposition against abortion has everything to do with religion and absolutely nothing to do with science. But, of course, you will never do that because you know that would mean you have lost the debate. So, I guess that we will just have to take 60 more pages of "tHe FeTuS is nOt a KiTtY cAt" and "iT hAs HeArTbeAt aNd DnA!" Ugh. .
I'm just trying to find common ground on what you consider to be a living human. How would you determine what species you and I are? How would you determine whether or not a human (as determined above) is alive?
Let's first agree upon what specific species we are discussing, as a fetus could be of any mammal. I suggest that we speak about the homo sapien species specifically. Are we good? You're getting into all sorts of irrelevancies yet again. I'm not talking about "other life forms"; I am talking about the homo sapien species specifically. How would you determine whether or not a homo sapien is "alive"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human This is the specific species that I wish to discuss. Are you okay with this definition of this species?
FoxHastings said: ↑ A human fetus is human (adjective). It can't be anything else. A living fetus is living. Why do you have to ask? You don't KNOW!!!!! Too bad you don't have any point after stating the obvious . Uh, something that's alive and human.... You're not sure !!??? By all the usual measures, breathing, pulse, etc.. Odd that you have to ask what "alive" means. I think you have no real point so are just blathering irrelevancies..
That is the premise on which we all have been operating since page 1. In fact, it is so self-evident that it does not even need to be clarified. Now, let's move on. Yalla, introduce your argument. You are giving me very broad definitions, so the fault is yours.
Come on, I have been waiting for days for you to make a friggen point! Just do it already. I am dying here.
Are fetuses alive? Yes (but, they can be dead too. Are we talking about human beings here? Yes. Is a human alive if they have a heartbeat? I guess, but that could mean they are braindead and since this is way above my pay-grade, I cannot say for sure how long one could survive if the heart stops. But, I will stop it right here because you will just never get to your point if I do not say "yes"... So, yes it is. Now, please, for the love of ice cream, make your case against abortion already!
Splendid. We now agree on the terminology, so answer my question: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die? Is making some third living human's life "more convenient" the justification for approving this choice? I'm not talking about persons; I'm talking about the human species. See both bolded statements.... How can a HUMAN ("of the homo sapien species) fetus be "pre-human", exactly? What species are you claiming this fetus to be at the "pre-human" stage?
Aaaaand back to square one we go. No. No. No personhood, no rights. Well, the suffix lets you know what species I am talking about and it is pre-human in that it is still developing. And also, "fetus" is a name for a later stage of development. Just so you know.
Call a midwife or visit a hospital if you are so curious about this. The only thing a pleb like me is familiar with is ultra-sound.
Let's get back on topic: Do you approve of forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will? A woman who has expressed no desire to be a mother? Is some mystical being in heaven the reason for this?
Perfect. So we are in agreement about what constitutes a 'living human'. Now, we come back to my question: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die? Is making some third living human's life "more convenient" the justification for approving of this choice?
I have answered that silly question...you just don't like the answer....but I am counting the number of times you ask it. I think you have no real point so are just blathering irrelevancies..
gfm7175 said: ↑ It is nothing at all like that question. That question is useful as a retort to one making a "guilty until proven innocent" argument. This is nothing like that. This is just asking whether or not you are in support of a particular thing. It is a simple straightforward question. Do you support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die? Can ask questions, gfm , but can't answer them ???
My highlights are in red and my comments are in purple... Are fetuses alive? Yes (but, they can be dead too. The red text is irrelevant, as I am only talking about "living humans". --- Here (combined with below), you and I agree that a fetus that has a heartbeat is alive (IOW, "living"). Are we talking about human beings here? Yes. Hold up. I'm not talking about "beings" or "persons"; I'm only talking about humans ("of the homo sapien species"). Let's stick with that. 'Human' means "of the homo sapien species", correct? Is a human alive if they have a heartbeat? I guess, but that could mean they are braindead and since this is way above my pay-grade, I cannot say for sure how long one could survive if the heart stops. But, I will stop it right here because you will just never get to your point if I do not say "yes"... So, yes it is. The red text is all irrelevant. A braindead person still has a pulse, and I am only speaking about a human fetus that has a pulse. A fetus without a pulse does not quality as a "living human" under my reasoning. Now, since we agree upon the terminology, answer my question: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die?
You answer 'no' to the question, yet you go on to explain how you approve of that very same choice... The question did not say "living human person", it said "living human". You cannot insert the word "person" into the discussion. Humans continue to develop even after birth. For example, it is known that a person's brain is not fully developed until about 25 years of age. Are you saying that a 24 year old ["it"] is a "pre-human"? Again, what species are claiming ["it"] to be? A human, as you admit ["it"] to be, cannot be a pre-human. You are in paradox.
