ToZaraWithaZ:
My friend, dafuq are you talking about? 40 weeks?! That should be ten months, if I'm not mistaken? Who aborts at ten months? Do you even read your own posts?

And I did say there should be a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Because a baby is human virtually in every sense of the word.

Mr man when we say fetus it means from 12 to 40 weeks. So stop saying its Okay to abort a fetus. I deliberately showed you what a fetus is classified as.

vaxx:
I welcome your opinion...

But what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.?..what do you mean as member of society? Is it when foetus become full fledged human or after delivery

Read my responses to butterflyl1on. I think they should answer your questions. Thank you.

butterflyl1on:



The debate is all about life. Plants do not have flesh. Animals are not homo sapiens so the issue of abortion or murder is all about life and when it actually can be termed as a human life.

Those laws you refer to are often put in place by selfish humans. Imagine if these same set of humans had foreknowledge of abortion when they were yet fetuses do you think that even they would approve their own deaths as fetuses?

Every human creature has the inherent desire to live and would fight for this right to live. Even as fetuses they fight to live. You fought to live and you succeeded. If you were to decide your own fate or you could communicate with your mother while in the womb while she was debating keeping or aborting you what do you think you would have told her?

When anyone is gasping for air it's an attempt to live. A craving for life. Anyone would fight you if they could if you tried taking their lives away. If they decide to end their own lives by themselves then they exercised their personal rights to either retain or end their existence. Besides that nobody should make this choice for anyone be they fetuses or birthed.

What is this guy talking about?

butterflyl1on:


Mr man when we say fetus it means from 12 to 40 weeks. So stop saying its Okay to abort a fetus. I deliberately showed you what a fetus is classified as.

Is that so? Then different terms should be created to make that distinction, since a fetus doesn't remain the same throughtout the nine months in the womb. Finito.

ToZaraWithaZ:
What is this guy talking about?

Something you obviously need to understand!

ToZaraWithaZ:
Is that so? Then different terms should be created to make that distinction, since a fetus doesn't remain the same throughtout the nine months in the womb. Finito.

No! Different terms are not needed. As long as it is in the womb it is a fetus. Be it at 12 weeks or at 40 weeks.

If you had the right to give life to someone would you not do it? Would you erase anyone who suddenly becomes a socio-economic or political issue?

butterflyl1on:



Something you obviously need to understand!

You don't expect me to take that post seriously, do you? You were talking about "life", and when I showed you how invalid that line of argument is, you changed it to "Homo Sapiens" and then weaved in some unrelated crap.

I don't like that game. I'd rather play Sudoku.

butterflyl1on:


No! Different terms are not needed. As long as it is in the womb it is a fetus. Be it at 12 weeks or at 40 weeks.

If you had the right to give life to someone would you not do it? Would you erase anyone who suddenly becomes a socio-economic or political issue?

I think something is wrong with you. I'm tapping out of this right now. I've made my point clearly enough.

ToZaraWithaZ:
You don't expect me to take that post seriously, do you? You were talking about "life", and when I showed you how invalid that line of argument is, you changed it to "Homo Sapiens" and then weaved in some unrelated crap.

I don't like that game. I'd rather play Sudoku.

Nothing changed and you rendered nothing invalid.

My distinction was homo sapiens you were the one who drifted to plants and amoeba when plants or amoeba were not the focus of discussion.

Your comment is below

The debate is not about what "LIFE" is - plants are alive too, and so are all the animals we kill for meat. You can't use "life" as a basis for criminilizing abortion. Being alive doesn't automatically make you a human being with rights. An amoeba is alive too!

When you said the above I then had to bring your focus back by deliberately telling you that the focus is on home sapiens and what point is life as we know it achieved in order to decide if abortion is murder or not.

If we kill animals it is not murder but when we kill living humans it is murder so at what point is a fetus considered alive and human? That is the question

ToZaraWithaZ:
I think something is wrong with you. I'm tapping out of this right now. I've made my point clearly enough.

You seem to have problem with discussions. If your opinion is not agreed with you get extremely upset as if you must always be right. Well I disagree with you and I believe just as a fetus should have, I have a right to disagree with anything I find questionable.

You are not a final authority and even the law is not an authority because the law can change and we have seen this happen often. Laws are amended daily so even the law isn't final in a lot of scenarios.

butterflyl1on:



Dude I do not even know you and neither do I think I have ever had a conversation with you so how then am I trying to save you?

Did I preach Jesus to you here?

You need to quit deluding yourself into thinking anyone is out to get you. Your hallucinations must be on fleek. You would do well by telling your shadow to quit looking over its shoulder.

At least I'm taken serious. Your comments are general. In as much as you've said it to one person you'd expect a response from anyone who cares to.

But like you said, you don't know me. So I'll take it your reference to hallucinating is an off the cuff statement - you know, a shadow without evidence.

budaatum:

At least I'm taken serious. Your comments are general. In as much as you've said it to one person you'd expect a response from anyone who cares to.

But like you said, you don't know me. So I'll take it your reference to hallucinating is an off the cuff statement - you know, a shadow without evidence.

And I would take it that your comment about me and saving you was also an off the cuff statement and a shadow without evidence.

butterflyl1on:


And I would take it that your comment about me and saving you was also an off the cuff statement and a shadow without evidence.

I stand guilty as accused.
I am glad you don't mind me going to hell.

budaatum:

I stand guilty as accused.
I am glad you don't mind me going to hell.

People make choices daily. Be they destructive or constructive however at the end of the day it boils down to personal choices. Why would I deny you that? We see option A and option B and we choose either A or B so as far as I am concerned your choice is yours and I am perfectly fine with whichever appeals to you.

Enjoy!

CatfishBilly:

You conveniently left out the census part. Abi women aren't counted in census again? That's by the way sha

There is no convenient left out here, the point was simple: a human is no more defined as someone who can be counted in a census any more than it is defined by someone who has rights to a property.

My definition of human is biological and on that biological note i base my arguments, unborn babies are as much human as any of us

Within the confines of the definition of murder which is a legal construct, you have to define a human being based on the law. So, if the law says muder is the killing of a human being, you have to find out what is legally defined as a human being. Is a fetus considered a human being under the law? The answer is no.

Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal) I have seen gross abhorrence legalised and quite the reverse made illegal, yes this gives credence to the subjectivity of human moral outlook.

legal is not necessarily good as much as illegal is not necessarily bad.

Again i do not base my definition of human on your so called legal definition of human if there is such a thing.

We become human when we breathe in air for the first time outside the confines of the womb. There's a process to get to being labeled a human being. You can't pick an arbitrary point during this process and term it a human being.

This i contend in every way, drawing your first breathe free of the womb does not define human, classified under the homo sapiens specie does.

If that were so, all the embryo that that weren't implanted during assisted reproduction like IVF and are subsequently destroyed could be said to have been killed and the person destroying them charged with murder.
That's crazy

I am arguing on a traditional biological sense, none the less still find this action abhorable

butterflyl1on:


This is a fetus at developmental stages. From 12 to 40 weeks it is known as a fetus. At 40 weeks can you tell me that this fetus is NOT a person?

I have attached the developmental stages picture and a lone picture of a 40 week old fetus. Tell me if the 40 week old fetus you see in the picture is a zombie or a robot and not a person

12 weeks is 3 months pregnant. Most abortions happen before that

JackBizzle:



I cant believe that you too have followed the felixomoron/Butterflylying method of half-truth logic.


As wirinet pointed out- a person is made up of cells but a union of cells is not necessarily a person.

I am pretty sure the post i quoted didn't bear this quote above, languages present the context of an argument. Saying simply "a cell is not human" requires further clarifications since humans are still just cells every inch of us.

union of cells is not necessarily a person statement depends on which cells we are talking about here.

JackBizzle:


12 weeks is 3 months pregnant. Most abortions happen before that

The train has left you behind. Run and catch up

johnydon22:


I am pretty sure the post i quoted didn't bear this quote above, languages present the context of an argument. Saying simply "a cell is not human" requires further clarifications since humans are still just cells every inch of us.

union of cells is not necessarily a person statement depends on which cells we are talking about here.

Good. Maybe i missed the context of the argument.

butterflyl1on:


The train has left you behind. Run and catch up

Lol.....the fact remains the same wherher the train is in the station or has left

JackBizzle:



Lol.....the fact remains the same wherher the train is in the station or has left

You are telling Johnydon that MAYBE you missed the context of the argument. Truth is that YOU MISSED THE CONTEXT OF EVERY ARGUMENT HERE ON THIS THREAD.

johnydon22:
There is no convenient left out here, the point was simple: a human is no more defined as someone who can be counted in a census any more than it is defined by someone who has rights to a property.

My definition of human is biological and on that biological note i base my arguments, unborn babies are as much human as any of us



Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal) I have seen gross abhorrence legalised and quite the reverse made illegal, yes this gives credence to the subjectivity of human moral outlook.

legal is not necessarily good as much as illegal is not necessarily bad.

Again i do not base my definition of human on your so called legal definition of human if there is such a thing.



This i contend in every way, drawing your first breathe free of the womb does not define human, classified under the homo sapiens specie does.



I am arguing on a traditional biological sense, none the less still find this action abhorable

So in your opinion abortion is wrong in all situations?

butterflyl1on:


You are telling Johnydon that MAYBE you missed the context of the argument. Truth is that YOU MISSED THE CONTEXT OF EVERY ARGUMENT HERE ON THIS THREAD.

Dont derail with your stupidity.

Q

JackBizzle:



Dont derail with your stupidity.

Q

Your stupidity is a natural thread derailing component. Go away from Nairaland, threads thrive. You return, threads suffer!

You are the missing link to rule number 1 on Nairaland

johnydon22:
There is no convenient left out here, the point was simple: a human is no more defined as someone who can be counted in a census any more than it is defined by someone who has rights to a property.

My definition of human is biological and on that biological note i base my arguments, unborn babies are as much human as any of us



Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal) I have seen gross abhorrence legalised and quite the reverse made illegal, yes this gives credence to the subjectivity of human moral outlook.

legal is not necessarily good as much as illegal is not necessarily bad.

Again i do not base my definition of human on your so called legal definition of human if there is such a thing.

Definitions could be biological and legal, for example, adult has a legal definition and a biological definition.
So, if you say abortion is murder, then we've entered the area of law, so you'll have to prove that fetus are humans under the law. But if you say abortion is killing a fetus, now we've left the law, we can now discuss it outside the confines of the law.
Saying abortion is murder is a moot point in my opinion.

This i contend in every way, drawing your first breathe free of the womb does not define human, classified under the homo sapiens specie does.



I am arguing on a traditional biological sense, none the less still find this action abhorable

So, at what point is the fertilized sperm and ovum called a homo sapien in your opinion?


If you consider destruction of unused embryo abhorrent as well, what would you rather be done to them?
Declaring abortion murder would have far reaching consequences in the medical world. It would affect assisted reproduction, scientific research into ways of curing genetic diseases, the list is endless.

CatfishBilly:

Definitions could be biological and legal, for example, adult has a legal definition and a biological definition.
So, if you say abortion is murder, then we've entered the area of law, so you'll have to prove that fetus are humans under the law. But if you say abortion is killing a fetus, now we've left the law, we can now discuss it outside the confines of the law.
Saying abortion is murder is a moot point in my opinion.





So, at what point is the fertilized sperm and ovum called a homo sapien in your opinion?


If you consider destruction of unused embryo abhorrent as well, what would you rather be done to them?
Declaring abortion murder would have far reaching consequences in the medical world. It would affect assisted reproduction, scientific research into ways of curing genetic diseases, the list is endless.

So the fetus are the guinea pigs? The pregnant women are unknowingly being used as guinea pigs right? They are encouraged to kill what they term as defective and retain the whole.

I thought evolution was meant to be a continues process still? Who says the allegedly defective fetuses are not evolution still ongoing? Random mutations are supposed to aid evolution so why are we not allowing this randomness to continue? Why kill the mutated fetuses?

Proudgorgeousga:


So in your opinion abortion is wrong in all situations?

Nope not in every situation

CatfishBilly:

Definitions could be biological and legal, for example, adult has a legal definition and a biological definition.
So, if you say abortion is murder, then we've entered the area of law, so you'll have to prove that fetus are humans under the law. But if you say abortion is killing a fetus, now we've left the law, we can now discuss it outside the confines of the law.
Saying abortion is murder is a moot point in my opinion.

Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal)

and for clarity sake can you produce a legal definition of "HUMAN BEING" with credible link there be, i will like to read on that.

So, at what point is the fertilized sperm and ovum called a homo sapien in your opinion?

Oh at the very conception. it's a life circle and that is the beginning of a homo sapiens.

If you consider destruction of unused embryo abhorrent as well, what would you rather be done to them?

Not making more than was required in the first place.

Declaring abortion murder would have far reaching consequences in the medical world. It would affect assisted reproduction, scientific research into ways of curing genetic diseases, the list is endless.

Maybe during world war 2 German scientists were right after all to use kids for medical research, after all such research could also have medical implications.

So which union of cells are we talking about here as being a person? Blood cells, liver cells or organ, zygote, embryo or foetus?

johnydon22:

Nope not in every situation

ok.
that's to say in case of rape or congenital disorder you are pro choice?

Proudgorgeousga:


ok.

that's to say in case of rape or congenital disorder you are pro choice?

Yes in a broad sense and also conditions where the mother's life is threatened, i also advocate for a certain degree of discretion for rape cases since considering it the child is also a victim.


Just say that i advocate for life to be given a chance.

a fetus is same as a human but in the case of complications during delivery or high risk pregnancy the mother's life is more precious

But once the baby is born and their is famine war or danger the babies are prioritized because they are more fragile and innocent and precious. they get attention 1st

why

OMG if you type ? thrice it becomes an emoji wow!