Kid killers

A fetus is not born. That is correct, but I don't see how that proves your point.

Yes, you are also correct. A seed is not a tree. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. All this proves is that fetuses are not adults, and guess what- that's correct! But that still doesn't show how abortion isn't murder or that it is acceptable.

So... you back this up by saying "I like even more varieties of killing." Great.

And I do support the death penalty in very specific circumstances, so don't make sweeping assumptions.

I don't believe people should be running around maiming and dismembering people 24/7, but I don't want to try and stop that because if that's what they want to do, that's their choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ekPehWTBY

How, though? You've simply made blind assertions.

And I'm not talking about language. Obviously a fetus is not an infant, in the same way an adolescent is not an adult. I'm talking about value as human beings worth protecting.

I do. So please offer evidence to back up that claim.

Very specific circumstances, as in "only way to stop people from killing again." Otherwise I do oppose it. Otherwise, I can't see any justification for abortion, since the death penalty involves people guilty of murder or some other heinous crime, while the unborn did nothing wrong.

Just because you said "might' doesn't mean it's not a sweeping assumption.

Okay, so let me ask you something. Suppose a woman has a two-year old child. She decides she does not want that child anymore, and so kills him. She justifies this by saying, "Well, it's my business, so stay out of it." Would this be morally acceptable?

Unless you're really out there everyone draws the line as far as "value as a human" somewhere. Is a sperm worth protecting? Is it immediately after conception? A day after? 2 weeks? Where you draw the line is a matter of opinion... I essentially say the line is the va**na (once it is born). I guess a psychopath would not recognize any line. Not sure where you would say it is or what "evidence" you would provide to support your opinion on where you think it is.

How about serial pedophile rapists who do not kill their victims? No death penalty?

"Might" implies it could go either way. You might or you might not. I wasn't sure if you would think it's murder or not. Kind of weak for what I'd consider a "sweeping assumption". And I just thought of another one that I'm also not sure what you think about it too so brace yourself for another "sweeping assumption".... War/the military. Are our men women and whomever else in uniform murderers or nah?

Your example is kind of like the Casey Anthony situation... (Unless you think she was innocent (?)... idk.. ) And no, I'd say a two year old is well past the window. A 2 year old is clearly not a fetus, has been born, and is an entirely separate entity outside of the mother... with some actual experience of the world we live in and possible memories of it some time in the future. I would not feel bad calling the police.

Exactly.

No, because a sperm cell isn't a living human organism.

Yes, because that's when it becomes a separate human organism.

Okay, so once it is born? Why do you say that? And when during birth does the baby get to live? 1%? 10%? Maybe only 100%?

Yeah, that falls under "heinous crimes." Try again.

Sometimes. But to assume that someone believes a whole bunch of things based on their opinion of one issue is pretty sweeping to me.

I'm not talking about anything specific, just an example.

A two year old is not a fetus. It is also not inside the mother (though it was a separate entity from conception onward). That is correct. But what makes it wrong to kill that child?

Yes what? Conception?? Well that is definitely not what I'd consider human life. The moment of conception is still something akin to a bug to me.

"when during birth does the baby get to live? 1%? 10%? Maybe only 100%?"
?? I'm not sure what exactly you're asking me. How many survive birth?

"Heinous crimes try again"? Once again you are going to have to be more clear what you mean.

Well calling abortion "murder" is a pretty strong opinion. Makes me wonder if you might be a Christian. Or a Buddhist.
:o

It's wrong because that's clearly a live human. So much closer to my experience of life than a fetus. Definitely more conscious. If my experience of life was ever reduced back to that of a fetus, I can't imagine wanting to remain alive. That sort of existence seems like it would be something akin to being in one of those pods plugged into the matrix.... minus the manipulated perception of the matrix experience. (Clearly I can't remember but still)

You. To say "development plays a role" implies there just be some sort of development that denotes a person from anything else. So I'm asking what that is.

WoW yOu GoT mE! (Not...)

Yes I have. Please describe how I haven't debunked your simplistic "a seed is not a tree" argument.

And you say a person is when a baby passes through the mother's cervix. What makes more sense, to say a new person exists when a new human organism exists, or when that same organism changes locations?

True, but the reason we celebrate birthdays as opposed to conception-days is because we don't know exactly the point we were conceived, because other people could see us outside the womb, and our relationship with our mother changed. It's NOT because that's when we became "people."

That's a nothingburger argument like the ones following the proposed amendment to Colorado's State Constitution. You have absolutely no evidence, and, as a "Repub" I will tell you that that is ridiculous.

Congratulations. You like infanticide. But, may I ask you, what "reason" would that be that you are speaking of? Wouldn't it be better to deliver the child and let him live as opposed to killing him?

So what circumstances do you agree with abortion under? And are you truly in agreeance of "very specific circumstances" or are you just using this to support abortion on demand (aka NOT specific circumstances).

It's an ad hominem attack. Generally people make that attack to say that pro-lifers are just crazy religious zealots, and distract them from the real debate.

If you don't know how to explain it, then your view is no different than the racist; the only thing he knows about those with different skin tones are that they don't deserve the same basic rights as him." Your view is quite bigoted, considering you're from the "party of equality."

And now I'm telling you there is no specific development. A child born is obviously more developed than a fetus. And no, I'm not saying it instantly becomes more developed compared to the minute pre-birth.. but as soon as it comes out it IS almost instantly more experienced. Breathing air outside, crying, feeling the outside air, eventually opening its eyes and everything else.... Kinda like us.

A seed is not a tree, a fetus is not a child. There's a reason we have the word "fetus" and "seed". They are less developed than their counterparts... Theyre different. To debunk that would mean proving a fetus is the same as a child or a seed is the same as a tree. If you have done that, I must've missed it.

The person comes from the fetus. Think egg and chicken. It's not a "new chicken". The egg becomes the chicken.

*Shrug* I never met anyone -32 days old.

No evidence of what ? Repubs banning it nationwide? Y'all still think it's "murder", correct? Also Lindsey Graham actually has already proposed a nationwide abortion ban... I think it was sometime last year.

"Congratulations. You like infanticide. But, may I ask you, what "reason" would that be that you are speaking of? Wouldn't it be better to deliver the child and let him live as opposed to killing him?"

? If you're not going to quote me, be more specific.

I'm saying some circumstances make me have absolutely no problem with abortion. Saving the mother's life, rape, substance abuse problems, for a few examples.. I tend to not think a woman would have an abortion unless she had good reason but I don't want to impose my morality on her so ya. If her life may be at risk I don't think she should be forced to (or not to). If she's doing it because she simply enjoys killing fetuses then morally that would be problematic. But I don't view the vast, vast majority of women as being like that.

I like how you're going on about how I attacked you by thinking you might be a Christian (which apparently you are)..... Meanwhile you're like... "congratulations you like infanticide"... And "..your view is like a racist". Lol

How so? What level of development must be reached? Like what degree does someone become a person?

Yes, we already discussed this. I debunked your argument. You've merely blindly asserted this with no evidence.

100% huh? So it would be acceptable to kill a fetus whose foot was still inside the mother? Geez, and they call US the crazy ones.

My position is not that people "should be killed" but rather that killing is moral under very specific circumstances. Someone can oppose unjust killing (such as abortion) and support just killings (such as those done in self-defense). Either way, even if I just killed people indiscriminately, would that disprove my position? No, because that's an ad hominem attack.

Same here. Another ad hominem attack. My Catholic faith does not prove or disprove my argument.

Okay, define what you mean by "like... life."

TBH I've never seen The Matrix. I've heard they're good movies but I've never had the chance to watch them.

Who said there was a specific degree that determines it? I said it's part of it. Maybe I'm not the only one who needs to work on their reading comprehension. And no, you haven't debunked anything. You seem unaware that this discussion about what makes a person a person / abortion is a matter of opinion. You say a person is a person when a sperm enters an egg, I say a person is a person when they're born. That's when we begin counting their age. If repubs want to ban abortion nationwide as I suspect they do (despite going on and on about "states rights" following the roe v wade flip) I imagine their next move if successful, might be changing how we measure age. Basically if you're a person at conception why do we only begin counting age at birth?

I wouldn't say it's acceptable to kill a fetus with it's foot still inside the mother and I didn't say it but I assuUuUmed this would be your next move.... Nobody sane would kill a fetus with 1 foot still inside the mother without reason. The only thing I can think of if it was stuck and somehow that was endangering the mother's life but that seems incredibly unlikely (if not impossible?) considering the other 95% or whatever is larger than the foot and already exited. But to be fair I'm not a doctor so idk, maybe there are circumstances where that could happen. If so, I assume they'd find a way to pull it out or cut it off first. Killing it should and most likely would be the last option (again if that situation was even a thing)... but again I'm not a doctor.

"My position is not that people "should be killed" but rather that killing is moral under very specific circumstances."

^I more or less agree with that but with abortion as well (although less specific... )

When did I say your religion proved or disproved anything? I said it's an assumption I had.

"Like... Life.." being a live human living your life. Idk exactly how to explain what I mean as far as that.. maybe what it is not. going around on a cart or something with your foot still inside your mother for example.. Lol I mean yes, you would technically be "alive" and I assume conscious and so on but idk if I'd consider that exactly a "life" if that makes sense.

The Matrix is a bit violent with the guns and such but the premise and camera tech is unique/ interesting.... (or it was at the time anyway.)

Duh.
So something's level of development makes it more or less of a person?

No. I mean, at what point during birth does the baby become a "person" in your view? When it is only 30% delivered? Maybe it's only a person if it is delivered 100%? When, exactly, does this occur?

You asked me if these people should get the death penalty. In the previous comment, I said I support the death penalty for "murder or SOME OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES." You're going to have to work on your reading comprehension.

And so is the view that it's okay to kill unborn human beings. Also, so what if I'm a Christian?

What do you mean by "live human"? The unborn are just as alive as those that are born.

More conscious? So what level of consciousness means "human"?

I'm not understanding why you included that last part, but either way it's kind of... well...

Yes. Development is for sure part of it... And we've already basically been over this. A seed is not a tree and so on.

How far out of the va**na?? 100% (unless it comes out dead obviously).

Ya I see now you added that in the 2nd response about it. Sorry these conversations about abortion are a bit boring at this point. In any case you're willing to have people killed under some circumstances so I guess you're not a complete hippie about killing.

If you're christian (or buddhist) it wouldn't be a surprise. I'd be more surprised if you weren't either one. Christian seems more likely though tbh. Oh no sweeping assumption.. moving on.

I mean to me that is not what it means to be a live human. That is technically alive but not like.. life. The last part I thought maybe you'd understand what I meant if you had by chance seen the movie the Matrix. The people in the matrix "life" or their actual reality consists of "living" in a heated pod filled with goo/liquid where their body is pumped with some sort of sustenance.. you cannot actually see anything and can barely move. That seems similar to the existence of a fetus.. (minus whatever amount of type of brain activity / consciousness.)

And that's where my comparison comes in. Your argument is like the racists- the only thing he knows is that "people of different skin tones aren't people." If you can't even tell me what about a fetus (Latin: "little one") disqualifies them from being considered people, other than "Development plays a role" (What role? What level of development? Why that level of development?) then why should I even listen to you and fight to keep abortion?

Those are irrelevant differences, like racial or sex differences, they do not negate humanity. (Ironically, race or sex is a common reason for abortion)

A seed is no more a tree than a fetus is an ADULT. A sapling is also not a tree in the same way an adolescent is not an adult, but we don't support killing them, do we? A seed is a tiny plant in its embryonic stage, and a fetus is a very small human. And besides, it doesn't matter how many trees we kill because they aren't people, like a fetus is.

Do you know how biology works? How does a person COME FROM a fetus? The person IS the fetus.

Ah, the egg objection. Tell me, do fetuses hatch?

And?

No, that's something we should do. I was responding to something else in your previous comment. I have to find it- these orange and red threads are confusing.

Do I? You understood perfectly what I meant. I think you're just trying to be "witty."

Rape and the life of the mother are very rare cases that deserve their own discussions at a later time, but... substance abuse? Let me ask you something. In the southwest US, there is a problem with meth labs. Sometimes the authorities find children in these labs, some of whom are addicted to meth themselves. Should we euthanize these children in case they become future drug dealers or criminals?

You wouldn't want to impose your morality on her? How so? We would never say we are "imposing morality" on people who commit murder, rape, or some other heinous crime, so... what gives?

But WHY would that be "problematic"? After all, in your view, they aren't people, so it should be no problemo, right?

That's because that is an ad hominem attack against me. Both of my attacks are still- get this- against your arguments! Think about it. I'm not accusing you of being racist, I'm saying your arguments are similar. And as for infanticide... 18 U.S. Code § 1531.

"why should I even listen to you and fight to keep abortion?"

Didn't I tell you in the beginning this was most likely a waste of time? It's an opinion argument. I think a fetus is it not exactly a person and you don't. Part of that is it's development. They're clearly less developed in general. Anyways.. most people I know's life can't be ended by someone else taking a pill. You can think that and whatever else I've said is irrelevant but I don't.

Adult / adolescent / fetus... Different stages of development. And as far as tree stages call me crazy hippie if you want but I'd feel kinda bad chopping down a tree hundreds or thousands of years old... Maybe less so for a sapling.

A fetus if everything is right eventually develops into the person. And sure, fetuses don't hatch. Eggs hatch under the right circumstances.

Meth kids should clearly not be euthanized... but if you want more meth kids, continue with the march to outlaw abortion.

Murder is already a crime which I'm pretty sure the vast majority of all sides would agree is morally problematic. There is no real dispute on that. Abortion... Not so much.

18 U.S. Code § 1531.
"..kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both"

If a fetus was the same as a regular human, the possibility of simply getting a fine would not be a punishment option.

Just because I don't see it as exactly the same as a born baby doesn't necessarily mean I see no problem with someone repeatedly getting pregnant and having abortions for fun. IF that is even a thing for anyone it would be weird to say the least. Pretty sure you would agree that dogs aren't humans but if someone just enjoyed killing dogs that would be a bit much.

Sounds kinda like you're equating skin color with human development.. a pretty interesting argument for someone saying I sound similar to a racist but anyways... Talk about the southern border without sounding similar to a racist.

I’m asking, since you can't define your argument, why should I believe your argument?

Honest discussion is never a waste of time. But no, it’s not just an opinion argument. There is truth to be found in this.

WHAT level of development? An infant is also “clearly less developed in general.” Should they not be considered people either?

That’s… true? I don't see where your argument is. It doesn’t matter how many trees we chop down because trees aren’t people. I believe I said that before, but if I didn’t, I’m saying it now. I was merely extending your acorn analogy.

What do you mean “develops into the person”? The person is already there. It is a human being and of a rational kind, after all.

So if we agree that we shouldn’t kill born people just to prevent future possible suffering, then why shouldn’t we extend that same idea to unborn people? Also that last part is a red herring.

Murder is a crime. Your argument is…? That abortion shouldnt be illegal because it is controversial?

Most infanticide laws don’t allow for life in prison or whatever you may be thinking either. So should killing infants be legalized, or is it moral?

So you would condemn it because it is… “weird.” Interesting, considering it is your side doing all the “accept others’ choices” nonsense. But, may I ask you, why don’t you see the fetus as being as valuable as a born baby? All you’ve offered is “development plays a role,”

No, I’m not. I’m saying you are saying “x qualification just IS what makes someone a person.” (In your case, birth or “a level of development that I can’t actually define but just not a fetus,” and in the racist’s, a person’s skin color.)

But I can do that last part:
The Southern Border has a lot of drugs coming in over it illegally, and unless we secure it that will continue, and cartels will have larger spheres of influence.

See? No racism!

You can believe whatever you want. We'll never agree on it.

Once again I said development is part of it. A fetus inside the womb is less developed. It looks like an alien. It is connected with the umbilical cord. And so on. Anyway once it comes out it shouldn't be killed. Unless it becomes a murderer, etc of course.

I don't know how you don't see what my argument is with the trees. A sapling is clearly less developed than a thousand years old tree. Size etc. You apparently would chop down them both equally without a second thought though so eh.

I mean it develops into a person. It's not a person yet though. Pull a 12 week old fetus out of the womb and watch what happens.

Because unborn people live inside and off of someone else already born.

Yes, Murder is a crime that we basically agree on as a society. Abortion we clearly do not.

"Most infanticide laws don’t allow for life in prison or whatever you may be thinking either." I bet it's a bit steeper than paying a fee though.

So should killing infants be legalized? Once again.. no.

My side?? Moving on...

If you want to argue that killing dogs, fetuses, etc for fun isn't weird go right ahead.

To go back to removing a premature fetus, viability outside the womb also plays a role.

Interesting fact .. if you keep asking someone what qualification makes someone a person they might tell you " x qualification is what makes someone a person.” ...and again I said that is part of it.

"See? No racism!"
? My argument also did not include racism. The standard you set here was "sounding similar to a racist". And no, you seem to have failed. What you said sounds similar to a racist.

(1) I agree. The First Amendment exists after all. But that doesn't mean there is not objective truth to be found.

But WHAT part? What part EXACTLY does the fetus become a "person"?

It "looks like an alien"? What exactly does that mean? There are also people with deformities that might "look like an alien" but are they less of a person because of it? And besides, who says something has to look a certain way to be a person? That same argument was used to justify putting African pygmies in human zoos because "they didn't look human." Of course, they look just like people are supposed to look in a certain part of the world, just as a fetus or embryo looks just like a human is supposed to look in a certain stage of development.

It is connected to the umbilical cord? How exactly does that make it not human?

Your argument originally was "A seed is not a tree, and a fetus is not a person." I pointed out the obvious flaw in that argument, namely, a seed is no more a tree than a fetus is an ADULT. That still doesn't prove your argument. I introduced a sapling to accentuate my argument by equating it to an adolescent. No, I do not see your argument. Is the sapling (or the seed, which is a tiny embry of a tree) any less of a tree than the large, fully grown one? And, again, it doesn't matter if we kill trees at any level of development, because they're trees. Human beings are different, and should not be killed at any level of development (the usual exceptions for self defense, just war, etc.).

How? You haven’t given me any evidence to think that’s true.

So someone’s degree of dependency upon another person makes them less of a person? Newborns are also entirely dependent on other people. If left on the hospital table, they would die in a matter of hours. Are they, too, to be disqualified from being people?

So because we don’t agree if something was wrong, that means it is not wrong, or that we should keep it legal? Okay. Imagine if that same take had been applied to other past issues like slavery, women’s suffrage, or segregation.

I agree. The punishment should be increased. But the absence of a strong punishment does not in fact mean the law is unwarranted.

(2) .... That’s… not what I’m arguing. I’m saying that according to your worldview, fetuses have about the same value as medical waste, and as long as they die before they “become people,” then killing them is a-okay. So, I ask you, what’s different about doing it multiple times? And isn’t it your side telling people to “not judge other people’s life choices”? And while we’re on the topic, over 600,000 abortion are performed in the US each year, so….

Okay, WHAT role? Your ambiguity is beginning to get annoying. We can’t actually discuss anything if you can’t even define your position precisely.

Okay, WHAT qualification, WHAT part does it play, WHY does this justify abortion and make the fetus less of a person?

How so? Please, I’d like to hear this.