If a piece of broccoli was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is eating broccoli not murder?
Honestly, I don't know why this made me laugh so much.....
Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of this post.
No one denies that an embryo/fetus is biologically alive. The debate is about when it changes from simply a multicellular organism to a human being with rights.
Everyone has a right to live
You're not following. There is a difference between "living" and "having a life."
The difference is sentience. Cancer cells are living, but they lack sentience, and therefore don't have "a life." Tiger cubs are living, have sentience, and therefore do have "a life."
For your example, unicellular organisms found on another planet are living, but they don't have "a life." When it comes to abortion, the zygote/embryo/fetus is living, but for the first 20-24 weeks it lacks sentience, so there is a debate about when exactly it has "a life."
It has the potential to become sentient though. A cancer cell doesn't.
A newborn baby has the potential to become a mass murderer. That doesn't mean you're going to send it to prison the moment it is born. Judge things by what they are, not what they might be later on.
Not necessarily. About 1 in 4 pregnancy's end in miscarriage.
Well yeah it is, the point was made that you should judge something by what it is not what it is going to be. Judge an embryo as an embryo because not every one is going to become a person and there is absolutely no certainty that it will be.
A fetus is human, and a fetus is alive. Neither one of those facts is questionned. However, as was previously stated, cancer cells are alive, and the only reason being human should matter is if you believe that humans were created by God to be superior to other animals.
It is obvious in my opinion that I am superior to you in intelligence. That doesn't mean I deserve more rights than you do.
I really doubt that a fetus is in any way superior to an elephant, but you would object if I used fetuses to make musical instruments. Humans are superior to animals, but because of our intelligence, and our care for each other's lives (neither one of which is present in a fetus), not because of our genetic structure.
You have every right to believe that we were created to rule, and that even in the fetal stage a human life is priceless. However, not everyone in the world, or even the country, believes that, and you have no right to force your beliefs on others.
Forcing beliefs is what pro-life means. You can't say "It is now against the law to have an abortion, but don't worry, I'm not forcing you to give birth." I never said that if I was female and pregnant, then I would get an abortion. I'm just saying that it's not up to me whether or not anyone gets an abortion.
If you have any scientific support or reasoning for your belief, then I might agree with you. Otherwise you're not much better than Hitler or the KKK.
I exaggerate a lot. You're still way better than the KKK, but the idea is similar.
You should not be forcing people to go through extreme pain because of what you think is immoral. This isn't an all-Christian nation (actually I don't know what country you live in, but very few countries are), so if you want to justify something, you need to use logic.
Human (Homo Sapiens)
Civilized, Sentient, Independent, Alive
Killing one is a crime against society.
Dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris)
Uncivilized, Sentient, Independent, Alive
Kill them if you have to, but make it as painless as possible.
Maple Tree (Acer Cappadocicum)
Uncivilized, Inanimate, Independent, Alive
Kill them whenever it benefits you, but replant them so you do less damage to the Earth.
Unborn Human (Homo Sapiens)
Uncivilized, Inanimate, Parasitic, Alive
Killing one is a crime against society.
Do you not find this even the slightest bit selfish?
This is not basic morals and ethics. It makes sense if you believe that we are the chosen ones, or that human DNA is sacred, or that we develop souls at conception.
I know Christians aren't the only ones who are pro-life. That doesn't mean pro-life is right. Popular opinion is not always in favour of the right decision. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one. Don't try to stop everyone else from having them.
Did you not read any of my comment?
The only thing a human has in common with a fetus and not with a tree is its DNA. One is sentient, the other is not. One feels happiness, sadness, and compassion, and the other does not. One is an independent organism who in most cases will make an effort to avoid hurting others, and the other is not.
A human and a fruit fly have 50% of their DNA in common. Two humans have much more DNA in common. What's more, two white straight male right-handed humans with blond hair and blue eyes have even more in common. That doesn't mean they shouldn't respect anyone but each other.
The DNA is irrelevant; what's important is the result of that DNA: an intelligent life form, with the ability to feel pain, and the desire to prevent others from feeling pain. If I learned that spiders were as civilized as humans, I would respect them more than I respect a fetus.
The only reason being a homo sapien is important is if you believe that the Lord created humans separately from animals, and humans get souls at conception whether we're sentient or not. I will not challenge this belief until we discover life on other planets, but don't force it on others.
Even if it was certain that a fetus would become sentient, it isn't yet. We don't make laws to protect what something will become. If you're about to write an essay, and you grab a sheet of paper and a pencil, the chances of it not becoming an essay are about the same as the chances of a miscarriage. If I take the paper away from you and rip it up before you start writing, you're not going to say "Hey, you ripped up my essay!"
Chances are the fetus will feel happiness, sadness, and the other stuff I said, but until then it is as sentient as a table, and does not need to be treated any better unless your relgious beliefs say otherwise. You can respect it, but you don't have to.
It could be through someone's fault, you don't know that. And is taking the morning after pill or even some contraceptives that work by stopping the zygote from implanting also wilfully denying human life?
Derp, I don't think you know what a zygote is, it is a fertalised cell.
Yes?... but that is completely besides the point and I never claimed that it would. The morning after pill works by stopping a fertalised egg (zygote) implanting, as does some other types of contraceptives. Isn't that just as wilfuly denying human life as an early term abortion?
So you're saying that even if a woman gets raped she shouldn't take the morning after pill because the possibility that some cells may grow into a person over rides the woman's choice to not be pregnant?
And there are other contraceptives that work by stopping the zygote implanting.
It is wrong to use someone's body against their will.
the fetus is not part of a women's body. It has separate DNA as humans don't produce asexually.
Can it live not being in her body? No. Therefore her body may be being used against her will.
But why? We know why using someone's body against their will is wrong. A zygote, embryo and even a fetus until a certain point has no sentience it isn't aware of anything it has no thoughts it can not feel pain, while a pregnant person does.
Because it IS just mass of cells, an embryo, or a fetus. We have to judge things as they are not what they may be later, but now we're just going around in circles.
It's no more than a seed is a tree.
That's ok, you're allowed to have your own opinion. But you are not allowed to force other people to make decisions based on your opinion, which is what pro-life people want to do.
our point is not to be 'right' or to make people do what we want. we are standing up for the voices of the babies that cannot be heard.
So if you don't want to make people do what you want you're pro-choice Babies have voices and can be heard, they cry all the time.
Human life is far more valuable than a tree.
I don't believe an embryo is more valuable than a tree that provides clean air, shelter and food for animals.
Against their own will? It's not like we shoved the baby in them and are forcing them to give labor.
just because it dies does not make it less of a human
Julius Caesar, baby.
that's a stupid argument, just because you can't add when your 2 doesn't mean you can't be an engineer when your 30. What a fetus IS is a life. You may have a longer body and bigger organs but you have the same DNA you had when you were 15 weeks old and if you took away those first 15 weeks you wouldn't be a person
Your first analogy makes no sense. I didn't say a fetus can't become a person, I just said it's not a person yet. What a fetus IS is a life. What a spider IS is a life. What a bacterium IS is a life. A fetus causes much more damage than a spider or a germ, and all three are organic and alive, but we kill spiders by the hundreds and bacteria by the billions.
Again, you people are going on about DNA. Please read the other arguments people made before you reply to me. There are laws in our constitution against judging people by their DNA. We don't judge based on gender, disability, sexuality, or race. We shouldn't judge based on species either. The reason we treat animals as less than humans is because they are not civilized, intelligent, or compassionate. No lion has ever looked at its prey and thought "How would I feel if I were just minding my own business and someone jumped out and tried to kill me? Maybe I shouldn't just be killing things." Humanity is sacred, but human genetic structure isn't.
A baby becoming a mass murderer would be nature vs nurture not abortion
I took a genetics class. The teacher gave us a senecio and asked us if the baby should be aborted. The baby would be born blind, and many other negative things that would be a 'burden' on society. Most of the class voted for the baby to be aborted. She told us we just killed Beethoven.
People with birth defects can be te greatest people. It's not up to the parents, it's up to that person. It's unfair to assume who they will be from the womb.
Your teacher could've just as easily shown you Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. The point is that it DOESN'T MATTER. The fetus has just as great a chance of being a horrible person as being a good person, so that shouldn't even be on anyone's radar screen. It's honestly a stupid discussion to have, and your teacher's presentation was biased, manipulative, and just plain dumb. Abortion shouldn't have anything to do with what the future of the fetus might look like in the decades to come; it's about the here-and-now situation of the mother.
it is not about the mother. The baby and the mother are two different people, the baby does not have the same DNA and it's not like a cancer. The mother did not make this baby on its on. One person pays the real consequence of abortion and that is the fetus.
Thats what my teacher said, I'm not trying to fool anyone.
You haven't got the first idea what nature vs nurture means and you clearly didn't understand the comment you were replying to.
You clearly don't understand what nature vs nurture means. A person can grow up in the most nurturing lifestyle ever and still become a bad person due to nature.
No it doesn't, nature vs nurture is a psychological debate as to whether a person's personality is defined by what their DNA says or what they have experienced in life. I mean what you said didn't even make sense in context.
Sir or madam, I am a psychology major. We have discussed this in every single one of the psychology classes I have taken thus far. The example I used is a very common one. Sometimes it is in a person's DNA to do bad things. Therefore, in that case, it is nature over nurture. I agree with Golfwang in respect to the fact that some impulses are programmed and no amount of nurture can change that.
You kind of make me want to try to make cancer cells sentient. I could destroy the world!
Right, except if it isn't a person, which is exactly what he said.
Just throwing this out there:
Why does anyone have the right to exist?
I responded to this twice above. Besides the universal law, I believe God has a will for everyone. We can't determine who has a right to live, that's just morally wrong.
Please respect my opinion.
The words "I believe" usually are what invalidate arguments. But while a lot of us probably do respect your opinion, that respect can only go so far when you try to prevent others who may not necessarily agree with those beliefs from doing something that they may feel is necessary. And sometimes, it is necessary.
Lol since when am I making anyone do anything? You think all pro-lifers just want to control people. That's not the point. That's like me saying all pro-choicers are baby killers; I know that's not true. No one does respect my opinion. But that's not my problem
It's the fact that the majority of pro-lifers want to outlaw abortion, which is controlling people. Telling people that what they choose to do is wrong simply because you believe it is can be considered controlling people and not respecting THEIR opinion.
It's what bothers me most about the abortion debate. Everyone has different opinions about it, but they're just that: opinions.
Well I can say the same thing about you. Since you're allowing people to have abortions, you are encouraging people to be murderers.
I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything. The whole thing about being pro-choice is that I want women to have the CHOICE to have an abortion or not. No one should be allowed make that choice for them.
i'm not controlling anyone to do anything. the whole thing about being pro-life is that i want babies to have the CHANCE to live, no one should be allowed to make that choice for them.
But you are. You're making the decision for the mother. Maybe she can't afford to keep the baby. Maybe she has health problems that will cause the baby to die anyway. Maybe the baby is causing the health problems. Maybe she's just not ready. There's a plethora of reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion, and none of them are easy decisions to make.
And don't give me that "you can just put them up for adoption" bullshit, either. As I said in another comment on this post, the adoption system is flawed and there are millions of children already needing homes. We don't need to add to that number.
Who exactly stood up on a pedestal and proclaimed aloud for the world to hear that apparently, "everyone has a right to live"?
Honestly, who spoke those words? Who declared as fact that a non-sentient being is entitled to a contract explicitly stating that they are owed a life at conception? No one "deserves" life. Life is not entitled. The worthiness of life is subjective. Your opinions don't hold true for other people.
"If you're going to say God said life was sacred, well you kinda looked over the fact that God was the #1 leading cause of death for thousands of years!" -George Carlin
John Locke actually.
or if you don't trust wikipedia
It's a universal custom that everyone has the right to life, liberty and property.
Yeah, I can agree with that. Everyone on this earth deserves life, liberty, and property.
But that isn't enforced in all places and doesn't affect everyone, can you say the US Constitution applies to fetuses as well?
Okay then. Let's kill you
I wouldn't have a problem with it if I were aborted as a fetus.
I didn't do anything to deserve life. My mother chose to carry me to term, and here I am today. I wouldn't have told my mother that she'd better give birth to me because I deserve life, dammit.
I only think it's murder if the person is clearly expressing desire to live or if they are unable to do so, they have expressed that desire before. You can't just assume everyone wants to live. For example, I don't believe assisted suicide or euthanasia is murder. However if you were to kill me right now, that's obviously immoral, as I definitely want to live.
Being a fetus is not like me being how I am right now except wrapped up in a person's uterus. I would have literally no thoughts or comprehension. This is hard to explain, but it's not murder in the sense that the fetus would purposely reject it if asked to give an opinion. It...isn't thinking. In my fetus stage I would basically be in a state of existence, not "life" as we know it; thinking and understanding. Like they were in a coma, I suppose. As a fetus, I literally would not care if I were terminated or not, because I wouldn't care about anything at all. I wouldn't even be capable of caring.
Ots not about whether or not you want to live. You are stating that if you haven't done anything to deserve life that it's okay to get rid of you. That's obviously not fair to someone or something that hasn't had a chance to do anything to "deserve" life.
And when you say that the right to live isn't something everybody has you open the door to anarchy and genocide.
Just because you don't want a right or care to excersize it DOES NOT mean you forfeit that right. Just because I've never used to right to a trial by jury doesn't mean that it simply doesn't apply.
And you base your entire argument off of people's expressions about whether or not the want to live. But how does this apply to something that cannot express itself? Just because it can't tell us it wants to live or die doesn't give us the ability to assume either way. Let it grow and express itself the way it wants when it wants. As it turns out, most people are satisfied that they are alive and in fact don't want to die so we can't assume that a fetus would
What gives you the right to live, what have you done? You simply existing or something having the capability to live doesn't mean it has a right.
i'll repost what i posted above:
Don't send me a long ass article and expect me to read the whole thing, copy and paste what's important.
everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property. established by John Locke. universal unalienable law.
While I agree with some of what Locke says, it's the opinion of one man that wound up being generally accepted. Just because Locke said that everyone is entitled to life doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
I mean, I can write a book and say that everyone is entitled to free ice cream on Wednesdays, and I can even get people to agree with me and rally behind me and claim that what I say is right, but it doesn't make it true.
"Everyone" only refers to people. "People" refers to sentient, civilized beings. Fetuses are no more sentient than the bacteria you wash off your hands after you take a shit. Animals, on the other hand, are sentient, yet we kill them by the hundreds for our own convenience.
Exacly the point of my post. It's sad we don't consider it life
It is considered a life though, no one refutes that. Just people don't consider the life of a few cells as more important than the rights of a sentient being.
You really sent me a long ass article just to get that across? And as someone already stated: just because a historical figure said it doesn't make it true. It's an opinion.
Its a univercally accepted law. I broke it down for you, no need to be rude
They also don't own buses or wear hats.
If the stipulation for life is a single cell, then every male should be convicted of cereal killing every time they masturbate.
I was waiting for someone to point that out..... I wanted to, but you already did :(
OP. Answer this. I want to see what you come up with.
And they didn't even address it. Wow.
My post is aimed at those who don't consider a fetus life. It is. And if you have an abortion open your eyes and atleast admit that you stopped a life.
Actually, your post is aimed at those who don't consider a zygote a life. The fetal stage is in between the embryonic stage and birth. It's only a single cell for a few milliseconds before it begins dividing into a morula. So HeartOfFeS2's point still stands.
Are we really going to do this again? No matter what any one says, no one is going to change the mind of a pro life or pro choice person.
your hair is extremely sexy in that picture
Aw shucks, thank you :3
I see where you're going but I disagree...I know people who have changed their minds. But for the most part you're right
that was never really my goal with this post. i just thought it was a good observation
Killing dandelions isn't murder, and it's life too. A single cell in a uterus is no more aware than a dandelion.
Doesn't apply. A single living cell doesn't have a brain and therefore cannot think. It sounds as if you're telling us you think everything deserves to live, including that cow you ate at McDonalds yesterday.
DanielJames beat me to it. But I'll say it anyway. No one is saying that a single cell isn't life; of course it is. It is a living cell. But some people (like me) believe that just because that cell is living doesn't make it a human.
it is considered life according to biology.......some people just like to ignore that though
I don't think anyone ignore's that it's alive. Some people just don't think it's a person, which is the whole debate.
So it's alive but not human. What is it than? A seahorse?
Not one of those people who says it is not a person can't even remember being born. How do they know? I mean really how do they KNOW.
No, dickhole. It's a clump of biological cells. God fucking dammit.
A zygote isn't sentient. it can't think, it can't feel, and it can't do shit. by the time it can do all these things, abortion is not an option. If potential is the debate, then you're killing millions of bacteria by moving and breathing in your lifetime. all of these have the potential to become sentient in a few billion years. fucking murderers.
Do want to know the difference between a human and a very early stage human embryo? That embryo is not sentient(conscious). It's the equivalent to a pencil. It doesn't feel anything.
Did you really just ask me if a pencil would ever become a human? That's fucking stupid.
it was obviously a rhetorical question. thats really stupid if you legitimately thought he/she was asking you that.
i think their point was an embryo is far more valuable than a pencil, and is developing into a human.
Of course an embryo will develop into a human. But destroying it isn't morally wrong. You're not hurting anybody.
Does that embryo give a fuck? It's the mother's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It's not the government's, church's, or protester's decision.
Not to be irrelevant or anything, but isn't it stupid how some scientists claim that there can be no life on certain planets due to the temperature, atmosphere, etc. ?
I highly doubt that foreign 'organisms', or aliens if I should say that, is some sort of humanoid creature or anything like the organisms on our planet so we can't say that it is impossible for life to be found on certain planets because we know nothing about the other life forms. They could be made of 'Zloof' and may be just evolving right now for all we know.
Predicting what elements would work to create life other than the ones we know (carbon, oxygen, the works) seems pretty difficult so you can't really blame them for going off what we know. And the diversity of life on Earth is already astounding, so it's not like those elements are severely limited.
And unless Zloof is a compound, it doesn't exist.
All I'm saying is that it'd have to be a really complex compound to exist because every element that doesn't require a particle accelerator to make has been discovered.
Well in hindsight if any living organism is considered life then it should be illegal for men to masturbate or even for us to cut down a tree, trees are plants, plants are living organisms, trees make money, you used money to buy the computer or device your commenting on, you helped in the process of destroying life...you bastard
I agree with the first part. I don't really want to get into the last part.
While I don't agree, I do think this is a good point
It is considered life. Some just don't believe it is morally wrong to end that life when it is so early in development.
While it is life, it's not sentient life. Being an embryo is the equivalent to being in oblivion, you don't comprehend anything.
I know, I was just saying. I don't think it's morally wrong to kill it.
Oh I agree with you. I was just expanding on what I thought you were saying.
You wanna go, bitch?!? Haha jk, I just found it funny how defensive I got. I'm very argumentative.
The problem with the pro-life argument is that it's so fragmented. The pieces are accurate, but it's impossible to put them together and make a valid overall argument. So yes, a zygote/embryo/fetus w.e. is living. So is a blade of grass. Yes, the fetus is human. So are my skin cells. Yes, the fetus could grow up to lead a revolution for the greater good. It could also lead a genocide.
There is no cohesive argument against abortion; each individual point can be easily dismantled.
Ok so kind of off topic but here's my opinion anyway:
You shouldn't just have an abortion because you don't want the child. You should have an abortion if you can't afford to have the kid, if it will cause you physical illness to give birth, or if there's a high chance that the kid will be too ill to live. But in the case of the 1st one, adoption is totally an option (lol adOPTION) and there are women (and men?) out there that would kill to have kids so...
The only problem with adoption is that making that choice just adds to the millions of kids around the world that are stuck in a broken system. Adoption could be a possibility for millions of possible parents if it wasn't so expensive, too. It's a flawed system that needs to be fixed before we can just advocate for people to put their unwanted children up for adoption.
I agree with that but I don't understand why it's necessary to control the circumstances in which you have an abortion. An abortion is an abortion, a fetus is terminated regardless of the situation. The end results of a rape victim having an abortion and a irresponsible young adult having one is the same. A fetus is no longer alive. So why do we feel the need to make ourselves feel better about what we just did by outlining the specific circumstances?
Because wouldn't you rather do something bad for a legitimate reason rather than doing something bad because you really don't give a fuck?
If it's so bad, it wouldn't have a legitimate reason, now would it?
All the reasons for doing something bad are selfishness or greediness. Now, I'm pro-choice, but you can't justify doing something bad even if you know it's bad. I just flat out do not believe it's bad, so I think I'm justified in my stance.
Even if you were raped (p.s. i hope you aren't because that's not cool) you would stand where you are now and keep the kid even if you weren't ready for it and had no probable options to take care of it?
No, I likely would abort it. I'm pro-choice. I think everyone needs control over their bodies.
I'm saying I don't understand it when people are against abortions except in cases of rape because even though a rape victim went through serious trauma, the same result comes out of it, so why not allow it for everyone?
You m'dear, are a genius with your words!
Everyone on earth comes from this cell. How is it not your beginning? How is it you can say it is not a person when you don't remember? Most people can't even remember when they were two. Anyone who has rasised children can see the different PERSONalities in each infant. A bunch of deceived people. Wow.
Stop it with all of this abortion stuff! Some people do think it's a life, (or with human rights or whatever) like me, so stop trying to explain it's not, and vice versa. Just vote yes or no and leave it alone.
You do realise you are on on a website that is designed for people to post and discuss different opinions right?
People have opinions and they're going to share them. If you have a problem with that then you need to get off the internet.
How screwed up has our society become to try and point out that 'not everyone deserves a life?' Thats not even normal.
1. It depends on your definition of 'everyone'. If you mean every living thing, then I'm sure you'd have to make some significant lifestyle changes in order to avoid hypocrisy. If you mean every person, which I suspect you do, then that's where the definition of 'person' must be examined.
2. It's absolutely true that 'not everyone deserves a life'. I don't know what idealistic universe you live in, but I live in one with serial murderers, serial rapists, genocidal dictators, and many other depraved people who do not deserve to continue living.
3. While it's cute that you want to make some general statement about society that will surely cause us all to take a step back and shake our heads at what's become of our world, your words are in fact vague and cliched, and they carry no real weight.
(I'd like to add as a sidenote that I am against the death penalty because while I do believe there are those who do not deserve to continue living, I don't believe it is within our capacity as humans to discern who precisely these people are or aren't.)