To What Extent Do You Support Abortion?

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

killing 17 million is not a good thing

anyone saying it is

is morally bankrupt

So what are you going to do with them because they will never be used.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

So what are you going to do with them because they will never be used.

not kill them

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

when the glob of cells is a human it's related

that glob of cells you are fine with killing, will become aware of it's existence in short order

like someone waking up from a coma

is it cool to kill people in a coma that will wake up in a predictable amount of time, in your world?

because that's immoral too

all of the lines you draw can apply to fully grown humans in certain circumstances

and those circumstance being the case doesn't make killing them not immoral

you have no logical line you can draw that makes it okay, outside of killing in self defense

The comparison to a person in a coma is ridiculous. 

[Chrissy1979]

.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Chrissy1979

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not kill them

That isn't what I asked. It's you who are insisting they be kept so what are you going to do with them. If the state insists they be kept forever, the state should be responsible for storing them forever. 

[traveler52]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Did you bother to read the link? You should start dealing with reality.

Well to paraphrase from a very good Western,  "Reality, I Don't Need No Stinkin' Reality."

[Yzermandius19]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The comparison to a person in a coma is ridiculous. 

no it isn't

a person in a coma doesn't have consciousness

but if they come out of it they do

same as an unborn child

you don't argue to kill the comma patient if there is a near certainty they will regain consciousness in a few months

therefore you should apply that same standard to an unborn child

killing someone before they gain inevitable consciousness doesn't make it moral to kill

you just don't like any comparison between an impaired adult and an unborn child

because it draws your devaluing of human life using arbitrary criteria into question

Edited July 10, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That isn't what I asked. It's you who are insisting they be kept so what are you going to do with them. If the state insists they be kept forever, the state should be responsible for storing them forever. 

I don't have a problem with the state storing them

if no one else wants to

that's a way better plan than killing them

Edited July 10, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I don't have a problem with the state storing them

if no one else wants to

that's a way better plan than killing them

How many millions are you going to store? You realize that you could be altering history by using embryos left by people who were dead decades ago. 

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How many millions are you going to store? You realize that you could be altering history by using embryos left by people who were dead decades ago. 

as many as it takes

killing them is worse than your imaginary scenarios

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

as many as it takes

killing them is worse than your imaginary scenarios

What's imaginary? Most embryos aren't used. If they are kept indefinitely and used long after their parents are dead, you and your ideology are the one messing with the natural order of things.  The notion that a mere fertilized egg constitutes a person is absurd. 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What's imaginary? Most embryos aren't used. If they are kept indefinitely and used long after their parents are dead, you and your ideology are the one messing with the natural order of things.  The notion that a mere fertilized egg constitutes a person is absurd. 

the notion that it isn't a person is absurd

any biologist worth their salt will tell you it is

killing people is more upsetting to the natural order than preserving some fertilized eggs

why would people being born after their biological parents are dead be a bad thing?

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the notion that it isn't a person is absurd

any biologist worth their salt will tell you it is

killing people is more upsetting to the natural order than preserving some fertilized eggs

 

It's a fertilized egg, that's all.

 

Quote

why would people being born after their biological parents are dead be a bad thing?\

So I take it you are also a fan of cloning and stem cell research. Good for you.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It's a fertilized egg, that's all.

 

So I take it you are also a fan of cloning and stem cell research. Good for you.

a fertilized egg is a human being with own unique DNA

I'm not a fan of killing people to do that research

but I don't see a reason to oppose it if that isn't happening

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

a fertilized egg is a human being with own unique DNA

I'm not a fan of killing people to do that research

but I don't see a reason to oppose it if that isn't happening

So now the mere existence of DNA constitutes a human.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So now the mere existence of DNA constitutes a human.

the existence of a human being begins at conception

gaining functionality as it goes does not magically turn it from a non-human into a human

just as taking functionality away from a human does not magically turn it from a human into a non-human

Edited July 11, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the existence of a human being begins at conception

gaining functionality as it goes does not magically turn it from a non-human into a human

just as taking functionality away from a human does not magically turn it from a human into a non-human

We will never agree on this.

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We will never agree on this.

science agrees with me

your opinion I don't care about

it's stupid and feelings driven

with no logic whatsoever

Edited July 11, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

science agrees with me

your opinion I don't care about

it's stupid

 So you do support cloning and stem cell research.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Aristides said:

 So you do support cloning and stem cell research.

when it doesn't involve killing babies

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

when it doesn't involve killing babies

A fertilized egg is not a baby. 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

A fertilized egg is not a baby. 

a baby is a child

an unborn child is a baby who is not yet born

a child is a young human before puberty

a fertilized egg is a young human before puberty

a fertilized egg is a baby

all of the above are human beings

Edited July 11, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

A fertilized egg is not a baby, it is a fertilized egg.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

A fertilized egg is not a baby, it is a fertilized egg.

a fertilized egg is a baby and a fertilized egg

the definitions are not mutually exclusive

same with zygote, embryo and fetus

them having more specific labels to refer to them during different stages of development

does not mean the general label does not still apply

Edited July 11, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the existence of a human being begins at conception

It is the potential existence of a human.

A fertilized egg is not a person.  It only has the potential to be a person.