Mr anony:
No it doesn't an analogy doesn't have to be factual. In fact most analogies aren't. what matters is the validity of the argument they are trying to convey. Surely you must know this. . .or perhaps you were only being deliberately irrational.

Mr anony:
I only asked you a question so as to determine how pro-choice the pro-choice movement really is. Here it is again: As science improves the age of viability has gone steadily lower and lower. Why would a pro-choice advocate deny a woman her "right to choose" just because science improved? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with choosing to kill babies in the womb?

Mr anony:
I thought God didn't exist for you. Do you also believe in the virgin birth now?

Mr anony:
It is not my fault that you conveniently skipped my answers only to ask me the same question again.

I answered the same question directly here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1292227/abortion/1#15763616

Now answer my question. Here it is again:

What amount of dependency do you think is appropriate? Can we kill one week old babies? how about 2 year olds? Where do we draw the line on dependency? and why should we draw it there?

Mr anony:
And I asked you if the inability to feeling pain is justification for killing?

Mr anony:
How did you come to this conclusion? Why do you think the foetus is not human?

wiki:

Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3] Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. This mental capability, combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.

wiki:
Is a woman allowed to kill here one month old baby too? Because at one month it will still be totally dependent on the mother.

wiki:
It is funny how you can call an entirely different person an organ just to justify killing him/her. What does this "organ" do?

Mr anony:

Lol, I don't think that arguing that something is objectively morally wrong is "emotional".

Premise 1: Murder (the unlawful killing of another human being) is evil.
Premise 2: The baby in the womb is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore killing it is evil

Does the above sound better to you?

thehomer:
Analogies are to draw comparisons, if what you think is an analogous comparison is incorrect, then you cannot use that analogy.

I've told you what it is. You disagreed with me. Now why don't you tell me what you think it is before you start trying to read other people's minds? You have to first say what you think it is before jumping on to something else for us to be sure your conception is even correct.

No I don't but you ignored the valid point which is that mutations are the source of the difference. Or do you think cancer cells are human beings?

You haven't answered the question. You said it is a unique and different being not that it is a human being. Unless you think that all unique and different cells are human beings, then you haven't answered the question.

Now please answer by relating your response to the conclusion that what you're talking about is a human being.

wiegraf:
Let's take wiki

wiki:

Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3] Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. This mental capability, combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.



This definition I'm fine with. Fetuses are incapable of any of that, they've not developed any (or most) of the tools.

No, baby can eat, piss, shit, breathe, etc on its own. They have the capability to do the above listed. All the tools are there, even if they're just fresh and new, learning, etc. At that point it's a full human being. In fact, somewhere along the late term I would say it becomes 'human'.

What's this, some sort of emotional blackmail?

It's funny how you can call an 'organ' a person just to trample over people's rights, while ingratiating yourself with god so you could continue slaving in heaven. See how stoopidly simplistic that sounds?

I hope you're not calling me a murderer because of your silly religious whargarbl?

Mr anony:
You have not shown that the analogy is incorrect. You merely state it.




pro-choice (advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)) wordnetweb.princeton.edu

pro-choice Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-choice

Again I ask: As science improves the age of viability has gone steadily lower. Why would a pro-choice advocate deny a woman her "right to choose" just because science improved? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with choosing to kill babies in the womb?


the mutations are caused by cancer viruses. therefore these cancer cells are not human as they lack the potential of ever becoming people.


Will you at least grant that there are is such a thing as a human cell distinct from the cell of another organism?


Would you also grant that you are still the same person even though more or less all the cells that constituted your body when you were 2 years old are now dead?

If the above is true then I am justified in saying that
a zygote is the same person as the embryo at 1 week old,
the same person as the foetus at 6 months old,
the same person as the baby at 1 year,
same as the teenager at 15,
the same as the adult today
and will still be the same as the elderly person 40 years from now.
All that happened is that this zygote grew.

Now if you accept that you are the same person that was born to your mother, then I don't see why that baby is not the same as the zygote that was fertilized. [b]You are the same human being all through your life from conception to death [/b]regardless of which parts of your body you may lack or have lacked at any point in time.

If you reject this, then I'll have to ask you to tell me precisely when you became a human being and what exactly was the defining factor.

Mr anony: By your definition, 1 week old babies do not count as human since they are incapable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects.

In fact monkeys are this stage are considerably more human according to you.


Are you arguing that a human being is only human as long as it has the right body parts? Are amputees therefore less human than those with complete limbs?


No it is not, I'm only bringing you face to face with your thesis.


Yawn, you still haven't explained why it is an organ and not a human being? What does this organ do for the body exactly?


religious? no I am wondering what else to call a person who thinks it is morally acceptable for women to have the right to kill there own children.

OLAADEGBU:

Do we all agree on absolute morality? and if not whose moral code should we follow? Am sure some believe its OK to kill babies just as others who equally think that they should kill people of other religions.

striktlymi:

Oh boy ye...this pikin just dey remind me of those days wey I dey come first for debating society in the year 1925.

Mr anony: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/kermit-gosnell-found-guilty-murder

The reason for opening this thread lies in the link above. The story is about Dr Gosnell who was convicted of first degree murder for killing babies minutes after delivery.
If only he had killed them while they were yet in the womb or partially delivered, he would have been an innocent man.

I find the above story absurd. As someone put it, "It is like sentencing a Nazi soldier to prison for beating a Jew to death instead of conveniently sending him to the gas chamber as he had been trained to do.

I'm interested in your thoughts especially those who are in favor of abortion.

OLAADEGBU:

It is funny that those who are pro choice think it's alright to kill babies in the womb but would balk at the idea of Adolf Hilter sanctioning the killing of 11 million people in the Holocaust.

Mr anony:
What stimuli if I may ask? I hope you realize that "spontaneous" by definition means that it isn't a response to any stimuli.

Mr anony:

If we cannot agree that murder is absolutely wrong, we cannot even begin to have a conversation at all.

OLAADEGBU:

It is funny that those who are pro choice think it's alright to kill babies in the womb but would balk at the idea of Adolf Hilter sanctioning the killing of 11 million people in the Holocaust.

Mr anony:
That's precisely what I want to bring them face to face with on this thread.

Logicboy03:


lol........a spontaneous abortion is what?



Is caused by nothing? No stimuli abi?


See ignoramus.

frosbel:

From a high level position we are in agreement, it is indeed murder.

However, what happens if it has been confirmed that a baby is to be born with 3 heads, 5 legs and 3 hands, what decision should be made in this instance ?

OLAADEGBU:

As you might have discovered, atheists don't agree that killing babies in the womb is murder because they don't think they are killing human beings while some followers of the "religion of peace" would think that it is perfectly right according to their faith to kill adherents of other religions. So whose moral code should we agree on? Who is to say what the moral code should be?

Mr anony:
Wonderful! so it is now up to the courts to determine if you are human or not?
So by your logic human beings didn't exist until 1948 when the Universal declaration of human rights was made?
In which case Hitler didn't kill 6 million human beings because he only killed them in 1944 a good 4 years before they could be human.


Or your "points" are failing


But according to you God does not exist. How can someone that doesn't exist commit murder?



Nonsense. Inside my room, I am not physically present to the outside world. does that mean I don't exist?




Lol, if I have a one year old and I'm broke, am I allowed to kill him so that he doesn't suffer from starvation?

Secondly, if abortion is not a bad thing why would you describe it as something to escape from?


Again, if abortion is not bad, why survive it?



ad hominem has started showing up. It seems your rational tank is now empty

thehomer:

One can be in favour of abortion and be in support of Dr. Gosnell's conviction.

Paschal007: In a situation where the baby has to be aborted to save the mother's life due to one complication or the other, is it right? Is it still murder?

OLAADEGBU:

Are you saying there's justification for killing babies in the womb?

frosbel:

Although I am very much against abortion, let us tread carefully and not take the high horse position when we have not experienced anything near these sorts of abnormal situations.

It's always easy to take the moral high ground , when we have never been put in a precarious position.

For us who are Christians , we believe that God can rectify any situation, but what about the lost , who do they go to ?

Mr anony:
I don't know what this has to do with your initial claim that dead people spontaneously move in response to stimuli.

Judging by the amount of mockery you are spewing, it appears that you are really low on rational juice at the moment.

OLAADEGBU:

The lost can speak for themselves. The question you are yet to answer is: What justification is there for killing a baby in the womb?

OLAADEGBU:

The lost can speak for themselves. The question you are yet to answer is: What justification is there for killing a baby in the womb?

Logicboy03:
See this one remix and spin master

1) Are you now an atheist? lolol.....If abortion is murder then, the God you believe in is a murderer since there are natural abortions- the way we were made. You forget that abortion is natural.

2) My point was that courts decide a lot on humanity or things that make us humans. But feel free to stretch it anyhow you want

3)Remix and spin all you want- christians like you are ready to force a depressed and financially poor woman (example-she lost her husband) to have a child (instead of aborting). You christians dont care if the woman can take care of the child. It is okay if the child survives abortion only to die later of constant child abuse (beatings) or starvation due to the mental health of the mother.

Simple. What of overpopulation? You want Chinese to outlaw abortions? Let see you make that argument.

Logicboy03:

lol......you are the one that is low on juice.


Dead people move due to chemical reactions and stuff.

Simple point which you foolishly tried to somehow debunk with "stimuli"


Edit- dead bodies

EatmyShorts:

Morality is Subjective. There is no definite definition of what is Moral and what is not Moral. Your environment decides what is Moral and what is not. Therefore the morality of Abortion is subjective.

frosbel:
The question to you is this , if you knew that your baby ( God forbid it be so ) was going to be born with 5 heads, 12 legs , no hands etc, would you not mind bringing this baby or babies into the world in this form ??

Mr anony:
This question has already been answered. Deformity does not justify murder.

Logicboy03:
The life of the mother? Yo want two people to die instead of one?

You seriously cant think outside your one dimension....life is in 3 dimension, bro

Mr anony:
It appears you a having difficulty maintaining a consistent argument. Why do you think it is God, why not Santa Claus and your flying spagetthi monster?


All I did was face you with the implications of your "points"


Interestingly this was more or less Dr Gosnell's defence. Why "help" them only when the kids are still in the womb? It is not too late to help them now. Let's go and kill their grown-up children so that they don't suffer child abuse.


If you really want to kill Chinese people, you don't have to do it while they are still in the womb. You can always go Sandy Hook on them.