Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

ramunematt wrote:Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

Well, my natural environment thankfully is not inside another human body. May I ask where the natural environment of a human fetus is, if not the womb of the mother?

Are you saying that since the mother's body is the fetus' natural enviornment, that it automatically gets to live off of her efforts without her permission?

Going by that logic, you would have to let a tapeworm live inside you if it manages to get in... right?

ramunematt wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

ramunematt wrote:Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

Well, my natural environment thankfully is not inside another human body. May I ask where the natural environment of a human fetus is, if not the womb of the mother?

Are you saying that since the mother's body is the fetus' natural enviornment, that it automatically gets to live off of her efforts without her permission?

Going by that logic, you would have to let a tapeworm live inside you if it manages to get in... right?

And by your logic a test-tube baby has far less rights than the test tube.

zoegirl wrote:

ramunematt wrote:Nice straw-man. Did I say I would murder a 3-year-old? No, I didn't. That goes under the assumption that I would kill something that can't survive on it's own, which I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

It was a very easy conclusion. You stated that the reason it is not considered a separate human individual is that it depends upon the mother...which very obviously means thta anything that depends upon another human is not really a separate individual.

The only difference between a fetus and a baby born 1 minute old is it's location. So I must assume that your litmus test is dependency.

Again, you're trying to tell me that I think you should kill something that depends on another human being. Where did I ever say that? You made a strawman by saying I think you should kill a 3 year old, and now you just made another strawman to cover it up.

Your point? Different DNA does not mean it is a human being.

Then what is it??

Pre-human. You're saying a small part (DNA) of something makes a whole (human). That is a logical fallacy. It's comparable to saying a skin cell is a human.

If we were to go by that logic then I could say a mosquito has a human being inside it because of the human DNA it got from sucking on human blood.

Umm, no, because the number of chromosomes is completely distinct. The mosquito has it's own unique number of chromosome and eating some of our cells does not mean it is that organism

It does by your logic. You said since the fetus has different DNA, that it is human. Even if we were to go by different DNA of the same species, your logic would still allow me to say the DNA of the last person you kissed, which got transferred to your mouth, is a human because it's inside you and has different DNA than your own yet is still human DNA.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission.

Other than the initial conception, much of the pregnancy is controlled by the fetus. The hormone levels, the immune response,the amount of bone loss of the mother to provide calcium to the baby, even the birth is triggered by the fetus. For the duration of the pregnancy, that baby has essentially taken over her body...it does not require her permission to be sustained.

What makes you think conception was permissive? What if it happened on accident? Or rape?

Actually, it is the brain of the mother that controls the hormone levels, immune response, bone loss, etc. A fetus does not have the ability to control any of that, the mothers body controls it. All the fetus does is take in whatever it gets. I have NO idea where you got the idea that the fetus controls the mothers body. The mothers brain and body are what order all the necessary mechanisms for the fetus to survive. I'd like to see an article from a reliable source supporting what you just claimed.

Hypothetically speaking, even if the fetus DID have control over the mothers body, it is still the MOTHERS body. The fetus does not have the right to live off her efforts if she does not give it permission. I can't stress that enough. But if you still disagree, then maybe I can go volunteer you to get your lung surgically removed so they can give it to somebody who needs it in order to survive. Then I'll be happy to hear what you think about people living off of your efforts without your permission, I'm sure it'll be interesting.

This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body.

Permissions are not rights. Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

So you are saying that by the simple fact that it is located inside the womb, we are given the right to kill.

A simple question....Is it alive or not? Is it a separate human being. If it isn't then pray explain why it isn't considered alive and if it isn't a separate human being.

If it is, then you are now condoning murder. Simple as that. Either it is alive and a separate human or it's not.

[/quote]

"Right to kill"? Trying to make it sound scary? Don't play innocent. I'm sure you've KILLED a mosquito or tick gorging on your blood more than once. I'm sure you'd KILL a botfly or tapeworm if one were living inside you. I'm saying that since it is located inside another human being without their permission to do so, that the host has the right to have it removed.

Second, you can't murder a fetus. Here is the official definition of murder

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

Notice something? Abortion is legal, therefore it cannot be unlawful so it is impossible to categorize it as murder. If you are going to try to use euphemisms to make abortion sound worse than it actually is, at least make sure it fits in with the official definition.

And about this false dichotomy that you presented, " Either it is alive and a separate human or it's not". It is NOT a human. A zygote is not a human, and a fetus is not a human. They are prehuman. Whether it is alive or not is irrelevant because either way it doesn't have the right to enslave the mothers body. If it is human, then why doesn't the census count it as a human? How come the a fetus of a miscarriage doesn't have a funeral? How come when someone pregnant is asked how many kids they have they say "we have two children and one on the way" instead of "we have three children"? How come when statistics are counting up how many people die every year, they don't count the fetus'?

Actually, on the subject of life and death. If you really care about life, then you would not be against abortion. Abortion has saved the lives of both women and the fetus', it helps stem cell research which is the closest solution we have to curing cancer as well as genetic therapy, and it severely decreased the amount of illegal abortions which were far more fatal. Also, I guarantee you that pro-choice people will NEVER bomb abortion clinics.

What I support is choice. What you support is telling someone what they can and can't do with their own body. Give me one good reason why you think you should be allowed to tell someone what they can and can't do with their own body.

Byblos wrote:

ramunematt wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

ramunematt wrote:Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

Well, my natural environment thankfully is not inside another human body. May I ask where the natural environment of a human fetus is, if not the womb of the mother?

Are you saying that since the mother's body is the fetus' natural enviornment, that it automatically gets to live off of her efforts without her permission?

Going by that logic, you would have to let a tapeworm live inside you if it manages to get in... right?

And by your logic a test-tube baby has far less rights than the test tube.

Your point?

It is genetically distinct, immunologically distinct, blood types are different, brain waves are different, fingerprints are distinct. The only difference between that fetus and a 1 month old is its location. That one month old will die without *someone* being inconvenienced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgq7WiHbh4&feature=fvw

It is distinct: it is human...it is not prehuman (what in the world does that even mean?? just because it happens to be in a womb?). It is human, not a tapeworm to be killed.

So ultimately the question is whether someone decides, JUST BECAUSE IT IS AN INCONVENIENCE, that another distinct individual is too much of a bother to live and so had the right to end a life.

This is a scary attitude of society, ultimately the decision to let someone live comes down to whether *someone else* thinks so, not because it is human.

I love the disparity of the "it's my body and I should have control over it", considering that the vast majority of abortions are because *she* couldn't keep her pants zipped. So because SHE *didn't* have control of her own body she now gets to decide to forfeit the existence and life of another.

Consider the disparity over the idea of whether that baby is alive when we consider whether that baby is wanted. As soon as that woman wants that baby, that baby could be 5 weeks in the womb and it is alive. And yet somehow her not wanting it suddenly makes it "prehuman". Please...what a rationalization.

You need much more than that for a human being. In order for it to be a human being, it is required that is has means of independent physiological existence. That characteristic is mandatory. A fertilized egg represents a potential, not an actual human being. An acorn isn't an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn't a chicken. You're just begging the question by saying a fetus is a human being. The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory. Now don't get me wrong, I know there are similarities between a baby and a fetus. But you seem to be ignoring all the differences while only promoting the similarities, most of which aren't even developed until 30 weeks gestation.

You cannot force pregnant woman to keep their fetus'. How would you feel if the state forced you to donate blood? Or some of your organs just for the sake of other people, even if it put you in danger? We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman, her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term. It is not just a mere "inconvenience", as you put it. People have the right to have non-procreational sex. Sex is not a contract for pregnancy. Your argument for this is sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. And as I said before, being pregnant is not a mere inconvenience.

And have you seen a fetus at 5 weeks?



It doesn't look remotely human. This had to be magnified because of how small it was.

ramunematt wrote:

Byblos wrote: And by your logic a test-tube baby has far less rights than the test tube.

Your point?

This says it all right here. 'nuff said.

Byblos wrote:

ramunematt wrote:

Byblos wrote: And by your logic a test-tube baby has far less rights than the test tube.

Your point?

This says it all right here. 'nuff said.

I don't get the problem. Potential life is not just stopped by abortion. What about a girl who doesn't have sex on her period and gets pregnant. That's a potential life gone. Why does the egg have any less rights than the fetus? It's a potential fetus that's a potential human after all.

By your logic, all sperm cells lost through resorption, seminal emissions, mastubation, and those that just didn't make it were murdered.

Egg and sperm cells themselves cannot make a human. A woman whose egg is unfertilized may have lost a chance at conceiving but she certainly has not ended a life.

zoegirl wrote:By your logic, all sperm cells lost through resorption, seminal emissions, mastubation, and those that just didn't make it were murdered.

Egg and sperm cells themselves cannot make a human. A woman whose egg is unfertilized may have lost a chance at conceiving but she certainly has not ended a life.

Potential life. Just like a fetus.

HOw is a fetus not human life? By what definition?

The fact that it's a parasite. A pre human. Not a developed person. Etc.

Support your assertion, what makes it not human? Stop just making statements and elaborate and support them.

Vice wrote:The fact that it's a parasite. A pre human. Not a developed person. Etc.

A pre human? If a fetus is a "pre human", when, in your mind does it become human?

Vice wrote:The fact that it's a parasite. A pre human. Not a developed person. Etc.

IMO, a chain reaction (sperm and egg meets) leads to a self-amplifying chain of events. This happens once sperm and egg meets. Nothing more is needed, life has begun.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.

Vice, if what you say is true, then by your definition does this make you a parasite? After all, you are the one feeding off of us.

By the way, when does a human cease to develope? Even after a child is born it continues to develope.

My two cents. Thanks again