Abortion

a group of cells is hardly a "living person".

 

Financial system is not the same as social programs. A financial system is like the banking system or lending system that is controlled by the Federal Reserve and isn't the reason why we have went into deficit.

 

Meeh false.

You're asking socratic questions^^^. You're implying that a fetus being a homo sapien is meaningful (if not just because it is therefore a human being). That is also a transitive fallacy.

What? The united states is in debt because of the trillions we've spent on "the war on terror", and the trillions we've spent bailing out financial institutions. Also just because the USA is 15 trillion in debt doesn't mean our economy is failing. You're a complete hypocrite, the credit crisis/housing collapse fucked us over, not government borrowing.

 

So you're not a group of cells then?

 

I support abortion, its the mother's choice and sometimes its the best option.

 

Thats a transitive fallacy. A human being is a group of cells, but a group of cells isn't necessarily a human being.

Banking and lending are pretty much synonymous. Banks are the reason why we're 15 trillion in debt.

 

Doesn't matter. His argument was that fetuses aren't human because they are 'groups of cells'. We are groups of cells though, so it's invalid.

Therefore my old point stands - why not kill all impoverished individuals?

 

I am not implying this at all. Never did I once say that a fetus being Homo sapien is meaningful. I was just flummoxed when you said the fetus isn't part of our species!

You said a fetus is not a human life. A human life is by definition a Homo sapien that is alive. A Homo sapien that is alive is by definition a human being.

Assuming that it is alive (which it is), then that if it is NOT a human being (what you postulate), then it isn't a Homo sapien (what I'm saying it is).

There is no analogy, I am stating concrete facts in my syllogism and using modus tollens.

I'll ask the question again. Is the fetus a Homo sapien? If no, what species is it part of?

 

Strawman. Few people say they don't know about a fetus' personhood.

 

One could say that people have their own opinions but we don't know the actual truth (assuming there is one true answer).

 

There is an innate difference in the concept of Homo Sapien and Human being. A homo sapien is a species where as a human being is a philosophical entity.

 

Not all human beings have philosophical personhood, but all human beings are Homo sapiens, scientifically and colloquially speaking.

That said, there probably was a confusion of terms here. Though, initially, there were 2 claims made by snatchmasta, the first was that a fetus is not a human life/alive, and the second was it isn't a human being which followed the first one. Notwithstanding that, the colloquial definition of human being is more or less:
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

 

You are missing the entire point of the argument which is a rebuttal against saying that the aborted baby might cure cancer which is like saying your ticket will win the lottery. Unwanted pregnancies that aren't rape occur between stupid people the vast majority of the time, and stupid people reproducing makes (SPOILER ALERT) more stupid people.

The right to life is meaningless because in order to have life you need to be born, before you are born you are little more than a parasite that sucks nutrients and oxygen away from your mother. Also in order to have a right to life you also have to define what life is, which in most cases is an object that has signalling and self sustaining processes. A fetus DOES NOT have a self sustaining process but rather drains from its host until it reaches a critical mass where it can sustain itself.

So therefore the conclusion you drew is illogical and non-lineal.

 

What about babies that are born though c-sections weeks to months before it should be born? Can we just throw them into the garbage? Also, babies after being born are still parasites - just not directly. You leave a baby by itself to maintain it's own life after it's born - it won't die or anything.

 

This topic isn't exactly black and white, so I'm not going to make an argument, which will lead to a debate that probably will never end.

I'll just add one fact:
During the process where the baby/fetus is being scraped or cut, it will squirm around to try to avoid its killer.

 

in general if the argument is that the fetus is a "human" than think about this. Can you remember anything before you were 3? how about before 2? 1? born maybe? the point is that we can't argue the child isn't human (because genetically it is) all we can argue is that the child isn't self-aware.

so does an ant before you kill it

 

It should be legal. If someones having a hard time then they should be able to do it.

 

Do you understand how to read? No clearly you don't you just see words you might understand and rage. What do you not understand about the words CRITICAL MASS? Oh wait all of it. So here is a definition for you:

The minimum required to start or maintain a venture

In this case the venture is life, and it would mean starting. Also abortions occur BEFORE the critical mass, thus the fetus is not alive, again your point is moot and useless.

Also to those who are saying that a fetus is alive before it reaches its obvious critical mass, lets compare it to a robot.

Assuming robots are living entities, there are several important components for it to function. Those are Memory, a CPU and a Powersupply (yes there are more but for the sake of argument those are the three important ones). Say you built a robot but there was no Power supply is it a living computer? No it isn't because it does not have the ability to power itself. Say there is no memory, once it turns on nothing happens because it has no programs that allow it to do anything. How about no CPU? well it would just be an expensive hard drive then, no sentience.

How does this correlate to a fetus? Well a fetus has no functioning brain until it hits a critical mass, which is essentually the processor and memory in one, so it cannot repeat processes to keep itself alive under any circumstances when removed from the host. It also has no power supply, if the mother dies or the umbilical cord malfunctions the fetus stops its growth. When a baby is born or "ready" to be born it has a brain and its digestive system is its power supply and thus it is alive. Assuming there is food to be found it has the ability to keep itself alive.


Furthermore the correlation exists in that a robot is not "alive" or a sentient species until it is built, which is the same with a fetus which is essentially a "building" human.

 

What exactly do you think the 'right to life' entails; what does it mean?
Also, why does the foetus, or now, just born baby have the right to life?
Is it simply because it's alive or?

 

The right to life doesn't mean anything, because its too idealistic and underdeveloped to work in reality. According to most people who discuss these subjects the right to life is the right to not be killed once you are alive. Since the right to life essentially is hand in hand with abortion it sort of neuters itself on the grounds the the fetus is not alive.

I don't believe in such subjects but the right to life seemingly applies to everyone who is alive the same way basic rights do in that because you are a living human you have "earned" this right.