Appeal to emotion, no true scotsman, and ad hominem all in one paragraph. Lovely.

So, under your definition of life, are people in comas no longer human? Are midgets no longer human? The burden of proof is upon you to prove that embryos are NOT human, despite being biologically human, being shown to react like humans, and being conceived by full humans.

I do know that pregnancy is an extremely hard time for a woman. That does not justify the murder of innocent children. Do I have the right to shoot kindergartners because I had a caboose rammed up my ass and was forced to eat graviola?

A hard time for putting up to adoption, during which the child may experience some unavoidable discomfort, as the mother, IS STILL BETTER THAN THE KILLING OF A ALLAHDAMN CHILD!

I'm sick to bloody death of the "right to choose" argument. I'm a social libertarian, but Allah Muhammad screwing a camel on top of a carousel, your rights end at the next guys nose. Pedophilia is always wrong, because it harms innocent people. Abortion is always wrong, because it harms innocent people. Murder of innocents is wrong, because IT HARMS INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Stop assuming everyone who opposes abortion must be a Bible-thumping, homophobic dipshit. My opinions are based not only on my Catholicism, but my basic sense of human decency.

Before you inevitably pull up the death penalty canard, that is totally different. The killing of murdering rapist pedoscum is totally on a different level to the murdering of children. And if you pull up the wartime bombings argument, the bombings there are normally not intentionally designed to target kids. Abortion is a medical procedure deliberately designed to terminate a pregnancy and kill the unborn.

And to debunk another argument, one of the pro abortion choice movement's favourites, the almighty coathanger. First, the burden is on you to prove an unborn human is not a human being. Without that, you cannot prove that abortion is not morally evil, and thus keep abortion on the same level as murder.

I suppose since thievery is hard and often dangerous, we should legalise it? After all, many poor people thieve because they are in poverty and to feed their families? Many rich people make their living by thieving, and feed their families and keep their lives by doing same.

They're not people because they can't survive outside of the womb at all. They are fetuses. Mass collections of cells that have the potential to be human, but aren't human at the present state.

So they walk like ducks, look like ducks, and talk like ducks, but ain't?

Yeah, unfortunately fetuses just look like babies though.

It's called a metaphor, son.

I'm very, very grateful that no one has given the inevitable misandrist bullshit of;

"STFU! U NEVER WERE PREGNUNT EVA! IT"S TEH WIMMYNS ROIGT 2 CHOOSE, STUPID PENIS MAN! DIE DIE DIE DIE! U GO GET PREGGERS AND THEN FEEL, EVIL CATHYLICK MISOGYNIST COOOOW!"

Or the fundie unempathy of

"BURN EBIL WOMEN! YOU HAVE CHOSEN DEATH, AND SATAN WILL ASSRAPE U FR ALL ETERNITY! YOU EVIL SINNING SATANIC BITCH, GO SERVE YOUR NEAREST MAN AND ROT IN HELL! LOLZORZ!"

Also used;), why does it make someone less human if he/she cannot survive outside of a specific environment? Are people in comas non human? People like Stephen Hawking with Motor Neurone Disease? People with terminal cancer?

And a pretty bad one.

They were all completely healthy beforehand though. "Human" if you will, and I meant surviving outside of the womb. Not any specific environment, just the womb.

ugh, but this is beside the point. As Havoc said earlier, a small little glob of cells does not deserve to be called "human." The potential for one, yes, but as of when that little glob is still a glob, it cannot talk, it cannot walk, and can't interact worth a shit. It's like calling a seed a tree.

(http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...argument1.html)

I think the mistake here is in referring to fetuses as 'human' or 'not human'. Perhaps we should talk about 'alive' or 'not yet alive'.

If you're walking down that path then let me show you how a 4 week old fetus looks like and then you can decide if it's human or not. Looks more like fish to me.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhi...-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

However by your definition, it would be illegal to even remove the egg only a second after a sperm managed to get in there because it would then by definition be human, wouldn't it?

There's a difference between a fetus and a baby.

Baby: Fully grown child OUTSIDE the womb.
Fetus: Living developing organism that can not survive outside the womb.

While still a fetus it can not be considered a human life. It doesn't even have shape or personality yet. In fact, at this point it's disposable. I agree that at a certain point, ala 7 or 8 months into pregnancy, you enter a grey area. But if you decide to abort at 4 or 8 weeks, then the fetus is as good as disposable.

Havoc

I'm Christian, and even I think Patrick's being retarded. As havoc and many other have said, life only begins when it's able to live outside the womb. Otherwise, it's either just a collection of cells or a paracite.

"Life; animation: the condition of living or the state of being alive"
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ition&ct=title)

Here you go again, quoting a bloody book for your opinions. Just because the dictionary says something doesn't mean you have to take it so literally you numbskull!!!

I'm fine with PV quoting books. In fact, I can think of no better argument.

But I really don't get what that quote was meant to prove. I mean... you're using a word to define itself. Doesn't explain anything about the fetus condition.

Fetuses are alive. Debunk that!

While I normally hate dictionary arguments (anti-gay-marriage numbskulls use them a lot) in this case I think they are valid, as if a fetus is life, the termination of the fetuses life is murder.

People have already pointed out that fetuses (in the initial stages) are not self-aware, have little (if any) movement or self control and (most importantly) can not survive outside of the womb.

Compare this to a person who is legally braindead, who is not self aware, has little (if any) movement or self control and can not survive without life support machinery. In that situation, it would be legal (and more than moral) to shut off the life support.

All that said, you have repeatedly put the burden of proof on the pro-abortionists without providing any evidence that fetuses are alive.

My definition of life is "not dead". Fetuses are living, breathing creatures, and the termination of human life is murder. I fail to see how people who are braindead or fetus people are not humans.

Of course they're human. As I said in a previous post, I have no problem calling them human. However, they are not alive.

Fetuses, to all intents and purposes are not alive either. I won't use the word 'dead' because that implies that something had previously been alive. There really isn't an appropriate word for what they are - the closest I can come up with is pre-life. But pre-life is not life and the only thing lost in an abortion is potential life, not life itself.

Oh... ouch. Score one for Nate... I didn't even come up with that one :|

Patrick, you are stubbornly avoiding evey post made against you.

The scientific definition of life backs up Pat's claim that fetuses are alive, but he has yet to prove they are self-aware or thinking beings.

Thus, fetuses are simply something alive. They are not human, nor are they capable of being an identity yet.

And so, this tells me that killing fetuses is not stricly speaking 'human murder', as they are neither human nor any kind of live organism. They are simply 'a fetus'.

What you fail to grasp, Patrick, is that fetuses are not human yet.

And don't give the bullshit excuse, 'Oh, so since it's not human that gives you a good cover for killing it?'

Everyone kills something at least once everyday, be it the pig slaughtered for that ham sandwhich you ate for lunch, or the bugs that got crushed accidently while someone in Peru or Columbia was crushing coffee beans for your coffee this morning.

Things die, and you cause it. Get over it.

That's your opinion. There is much debate on the subject of whether life begins at conception or not and I refuse to accept you as a qualified entry into it. I'm not defending Patrick. He's said some fairly ridiculous things in this conversation but for you to claim that you have some kind of grasp on the truth here while he is floundering around in the dark is also ridiculous.

I never said I was scientifically certified to define the term 'fetus'. I'm not scientifically certified in any of these areas.

Like you said, these are only my thoughts on the subject.

In my opinion, it is totally illogical to state that a biologically alive, biologically human thing isn't human. It's like saying Stephen Hawking isn't a person, because he is crippled.

No thanks are necessary, Patrick. Seriously, it's okay. Really, you're embarresing me.

That fish-fetus hardly passes as a human to me. Life technically begins at conception. Sure, it may not seem like a human, more like the aforementioned fish-fetus, but it is human. However, to say that the murder of said fish-fetus would be infanticide seems inacurrate. It's not like you are going around stabbing babies or anything. If a woman is raped, I think the best option would be to take a birth control pill the next day. But if something comes up or she just forgets, abortion might be acceptable to me. This topic is touchy and I don't have any major side. If it is illegal, women will get it done in alleyways with unsteralised equipment. Then, both the mother and the fish-fetus die. There is never an easy answer.

Life begins before conception. Entire civilizations have crusted and perished in my gymn socks.

Thanks, Bill.

There is a difference between sapient and nonsapient life, Jim.

That was a Bill Hicks referance and a joke. Thanks for responding so quickly and smarmily to it.

I know, just pointing out that the logic is flawed. Also, do you consider Mutual Friend smarmy? As he makes me look like Mother freakin Theresa in comparison.

Patrick, do you even bother reading the posts past the part that makes you want to reply?

Yes. Your argument is that something that supposedly isn't self aware and cannot survive outside the womb is not alive. FOR SOME OF YOU (not Nate), your argument seems to be that nonhuman cells magically become human after some time.