Until the fetus becomes a being, it is an object. And, a fetus is obviously not the same as a box of cereal, but it is not a being, it cannot feel, experience, etc. The woman has the inalienable right to abort it, like she can have any other medical procedure performed for her benfit.
Until the fetus becomes a being, it is an object. And, a fetus is obviously not the same as a box of cereal, but it is not a being, it cannot feel, experience, etc. The woman has the inalienable right to abort it, like she can have any other medical procedure performed for her benfit.
I'm sorry, I simply disagree with you; a fetus is a developing life. Aborting it is immoral. That doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. I think you are using an invalid argument for making it legal. There are many practical reasons that women should have access to safe abortions. As I say below people should decide not courts.
I don't care whether you agree or not, the fact is that until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a mere object, like any other collection of cells in a woman's body and she can do with them as she pleases. She is a being and they're not, they are objects. All cells are alive, but not beings.
Repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
And you repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
Nonsentient fetuses are NOT beings and have no rights and cannot be used to infringe on the rights of women to control their lives or bodies.
But he wasnтАЩt disagreeable to you. He disagreed with you. You did both. You repeated тАЬa fetus is a mere objectтАЭ four times.
IтАЩm strongly pro-choice within the limits of Roe v. Wade. Yet I do not feel that my argument depends on the notion that a fetus is the same as a bunion, that all is known here and no nuance, even 1%, is necessary.
"Yet I do not feel that my argument depends on the notion that a fetus is the same as a bunion"
The differentiation is whether the thing is a being, has the capacity for experience, or is an object, does not have the capacity for experience. So, both the nonsentient fetus has as much capacity for experience as a bunion and a bunion can be excised at will. So too the nonsentient fetus because the woman is a being.
Yes, and the effectiveness of your arguments is shown by the fact that no matter how many times you repeat them, people make counterpoints тАУ a wide range of counterpoints тАФ and you shout them down. these last three tweets of yours make me believe youтАЩre a clown. The way you dogmatically hurl around a nuanced term like тАЬa beingтАЭ adds to that impression. Have a good day. If thereтАЩs a way to block you on this thing, I will.
Deniers and conservatives are definitely a big problem, always willing to infringe on people's rights for stupid reasons. I will repeat to correct their arguments.
That is not true. A fetus does feel and experience. There is graphic video of fetuses trying to get away from the suction tube during an abortion. There is evidence that a baby recognizes its father's voice at birth. How is that possible unless they already were hearing things from inside the womb? Those points of "cannot feel or experience" is a total lie from start to finish. An ultrasound proves that.
I'm talking about prior to its brain developing enough to feel. Cells sense their environment and react to it but do not feel. Feeling, experiencing, is consciousness, sensing and reacting are not. Roombas sense and react. Fetuses become beings when their brains support feeling. You are talking about time after that point.
Until women are able to create a fetus without the additon of a male packet of DNA, it is an independent life worth defending. It has independent DNA, and is not a "clump of cells." It takes a deliberate act to form new life, and just because it is not sentient does not mean we don't defend it. We defend the elderly and mentally ill who are arguably no longer sentient, we defend people in a coma. Why not defend what is a demonstrably individual life?
I'm genuinely curious why you consider a life an "object"? It makes no sense. We don't call bacteria or any other life an "object." This is the weirdest take I've seen on it yet.
Because all life is complex molecular systems, such as a cell. Life becomes being when it has the capacity for sentience, such as multi-cellular life with a brain sophisticated enough to support mind. Bacteria are objects as in they are not conscious nor have the capacity for consciousness. Look at what mere objects do do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RUHJhskW00.
Because life is an object if it has no consciousness. A cell is alive but cannot experience, it is a complex molecular system that a) maintains itself, (b) senses the environment, (c) reacts to sensory stimulation, (d) metabolizes resources for energy, but has no capacity for feeling. We, including all nonhuman animals, do possess sentiency, we feel. However, that takes a sophisticated brain and until that develops the fetus cannot feel.
Okay, thank you for responding. I don't think we can have a further discussion on this topic because we fundamentally disagree what constitutes life. For me, life begins at conception.. I can tell I won't be the one to change your mind.
Life already exists at conception! The sperm and egg are already alive. What you propose allows me to make it punishable for you to have surgery because I believe that your cells are alive and surgery will kill them or to take medication that might harm some of your cells.
What you propose ignores that women have any rights whatsoever simply because you believe something. The fact is that only beings have rights, objects do not, and what differentiates a being from an object is consciousness and so until the fetus develops consciousness it is an object and cannot be used to infringe on the rights of women. that is fundamental
Negative. What I propose is women have no right to end a new and objectively different persons life because that person resides inside them. You're twisting my view to fit your opinion of me. Abortion started as, and still is, a demonic eugenics program.
There is no person at conception. The new life is not capable of experience and so is an object. Abortion was practiced long before eugenics and it is a woman's inalienable right and is not eugenics as she is making up her own mind, it is not being forced on her.
Until the fetus becomes a being, it is an object. And, a fetus is obviously not the same as a box of cereal, but it is not a being, it cannot feel, experience, etc. The woman has the inalienable right to abort it, like she can have any other medical procedure performed for her benfit.
I'm sorry, I simply disagree with you; a fetus is a developing life. Aborting it is immoral. That doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. I think you are using an invalid argument for making it legal. There are many practical reasons that women should have access to safe abortions. As I say below people should decide not courts.
I don't care whether you agree or not, the fact is that until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a mere object, like any other collection of cells in a woman's body and she can do with them as she pleases. She is a being and they're not, they are objects. All cells are alive, but not beings.
Repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
And you repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
Nonsentient fetuses are NOT beings and have no rights and cannot be used to infringe on the rights of women to control their lives or bodies.
I assume you have given orders to your legal representatives to allow you to die when your non-core brain function ceases.
The law already recognizes that.
But he wasnтАЩt disagreeable to you. He disagreed with you. You did both. You repeated тАЬa fetus is a mere objectтАЭ four times.
IтАЩm strongly pro-choice within the limits of Roe v. Wade. Yet I do not feel that my argument depends on the notion that a fetus is the same as a bunion, that all is known here and no nuance, even 1%, is necessary.
"Yet I do not feel that my argument depends on the notion that a fetus is the same as a bunion"
The differentiation is whether the thing is a being, has the capacity for experience, or is an object, does not have the capacity for experience. So, both the nonsentient fetus has as much capacity for experience as a bunion and a bunion can be excised at will. So too the nonsentient fetus because the woman is a being.
He's wrong. I will repeat myself as many times as someone makes incorrect statements to correct them.
Yes, and the effectiveness of your arguments is shown by the fact that no matter how many times you repeat them, people make counterpoints тАУ a wide range of counterpoints тАФ and you shout them down. these last three tweets of yours make me believe youтАЩre a clown. The way you dogmatically hurl around a nuanced term like тАЬa beingтАЭ adds to that impression. Have a good day. If thereтАЩs a way to block you on this thing, I will.
Deniers and conservatives are definitely a big problem, always willing to infringe on people's rights for stupid reasons. I will repeat to correct their arguments.
Again with the "conservatives", out of nowhere. You have an unhealthy fixation. Not everything is about your pet issues, dude.
Not from nowhere. Conservatives are THE problem here.
That is not true. A fetus does feel and experience. There is graphic video of fetuses trying to get away from the suction tube during an abortion. There is evidence that a baby recognizes its father's voice at birth. How is that possible unless they already were hearing things from inside the womb? Those points of "cannot feel or experience" is a total lie from start to finish. An ultrasound proves that.
I'm talking about prior to its brain developing enough to feel. Cells sense their environment and react to it but do not feel. Feeling, experiencing, is consciousness, sensing and reacting are not. Roombas sense and react. Fetuses become beings when their brains support feeling. You are talking about time after that point.
Until women are able to create a fetus without the additon of a male packet of DNA, it is an independent life worth defending. It has independent DNA, and is not a "clump of cells." It takes a deliberate act to form new life, and just because it is not sentient does not mean we don't defend it. We defend the elderly and mentally ill who are arguably no longer sentient, we defend people in a coma. Why not defend what is a demonstrably individual life?
Sorry, but as the woman is a being and the nonsentient fetus is an object, she has the inalienable right to end the pregnancy.
I'm genuinely curious why you consider a life an "object"? It makes no sense. We don't call bacteria or any other life an "object." This is the weirdest take I've seen on it yet.
Because all life is complex molecular systems, such as a cell. Life becomes being when it has the capacity for sentience, such as multi-cellular life with a brain sophisticated enough to support mind. Bacteria are objects as in they are not conscious nor have the capacity for consciousness. Look at what mere objects do do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RUHJhskW00.
Look. We disagree. You'll not convince me that killing an unborn person is okay. I won't convince you that it's wrong. Let's move on
Then simply stop posting.
Haha, that's what I suggested earlier today you ignoramus.
LOL! Then listen to your own advice, idiot.
Because life is an object if it has no consciousness. A cell is alive but cannot experience, it is a complex molecular system that a) maintains itself, (b) senses the environment, (c) reacts to sensory stimulation, (d) metabolizes resources for energy, but has no capacity for feeling. We, including all nonhuman animals, do possess sentiency, we feel. However, that takes a sophisticated brain and until that develops the fetus cannot feel.
Okay, thank you for responding. I don't think we can have a further discussion on this topic because we fundamentally disagree what constitutes life. For me, life begins at conception.. I can tell I won't be the one to change your mind.
Life already exists at conception! The sperm and egg are already alive. What you propose allows me to make it punishable for you to have surgery because I believe that your cells are alive and surgery will kill them or to take medication that might harm some of your cells.
What you propose ignores that women have any rights whatsoever simply because you believe something. The fact is that only beings have rights, objects do not, and what differentiates a being from an object is consciousness and so until the fetus develops consciousness it is an object and cannot be used to infringe on the rights of women. that is fundamental
Negative. What I propose is women have no right to end a new and objectively different persons life because that person resides inside them. You're twisting my view to fit your opinion of me. Abortion started as, and still is, a demonic eugenics program.
There is no person at conception. The new life is not capable of experience and so is an object. Abortion was practiced long before eugenics and it is a woman's inalienable right and is not eugenics as she is making up her own mind, it is not being forced on her.