Shes Pregnant ...

[Wig44.]

I'd much rather a young girl think before she has sex as opposed to having sex and then simply having an abortion for her own convenience as many do nowadays. With adoption vs being aborted, i'm actually sure most people would rather be alive or at least be given the choice as opposed to having it made for them. I am a libertarian, i'm naturally for personal choice - but with abortion, the 'choice' is a false argument because in my eyes the 'foetus' (a nice latin word) is actually a human being which is clear from the way pregnant women talk about their baby whilst its still in the womb. The DNA of a foetus would show as a homo sapiens, as thats the common way to define a human being I think that is the best benchmark as nobody else has come up with a better definition so far.

You may find this interesting on the subject of abortion, its what mainly changed my stance upon it not all that long ago; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbaEXDl4uqU

As for the topic poster, I do wish him and the girl well and i'm glad they are confronting the mistakes they've made and not putting their own mistakes on the child to avoid the inconvenience of bringing up a child as so many people selfishly do.

As for your first point; we can reach an agreement. I think any woman who has an abortion because of her own fault (note for the idiots out there: this does not include rape) is at wrong.

In that video, Hitchens was on the offensive at the start but ultimately failed to answer questions posed later on.

A foetus is not sentient, thus I do not classify it as a human. If you extract DNA from cells making up a flake of skin on someone's bed, the DNA will identify as that of a human, this does not make the cell a human. A foetus is, essentially, a bundle of cells before the abortion cut-off point and to say that it is a human being and aborting it is morally wrong is about as meaningful as saying the termination of cells from a human's body is wrong, an example being chemotherapy or an amputation. Cells with human DNA but without sentience die for the benefit of the human being from which they originate all the time, a more natural example being apoptosis.

I'm interested in how you would argue against this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As for your first point; we can reach an agreement. I think any woman who has an abortion because of her own fault (note for the idiots out there: this does not include rape) is at wrong.

Indeed.

In that video, Hitchens was on the offensive at the start but ultimately failed to answer questions posed later on.

Well to be fair he did answer it, that science has been unable to define when a 'foetus' ends and a baby begins.

A foetus is not sentient, thus I do not classify it as a human. If you extract DNA from cells making up a flake of skin on someone's bed, the DNA will identify as that of a human, this does not make the cell a human. A foetus is, essentially, a bundle of cells before the abortion cut-off point and to say that it is a human being and aborting it is morally wrong is about as meaningful as saying the termination of cells from a human's body is wrong, an example being chemotherapy or an amputation. Cells with human DNA but without sentience die for the benefit of the human being from which they originate all the time, a more natural example being apoptosis.

However a foetus is fertilised, it *is* or is to *become* a human being. As its hard to define when the baby starts or the 'bundle of cells' ends (in a way we are all a bundle of cells) then the only logical way to define it is from fertilisation of the cells in the womb as nobody has so far been able to come up with a more logical way to define a baby. The very fact is has the potential to become a human being (on its own) shows to me that it is infact a human being just as a baby de facto becomes an adult.

As he states, these are attempts to dehumanise it in order to kill/abort it.

[Hollie.]

Awww, congratulations! You shouldnt be worrying you should happy, and try to make it work with your ex for the baby

[Wig44.]

Indeed.



Well to be fair he did answer it, that science has been unable to define when a 'foetus' ends and a baby begins.



However a foetus is fertilised, it *is* or is to *become* a human being. As its hard to define when the baby starts or the 'bundle of cells' ends (in a way we are all a bundle of cells) then the only logical way to define it is from fertilisation of the cells in the womb as nobody has so far been able to come up with a more logical way to define a baby. The very fact is has the potential to become a human being (on its own) shows to me that it is infact a human being just as a baby de facto becomes an adult.

As he states, these are attempts to dehumanise it in order to kill/abort it.

When the foetus is sentient - that is, it has a brain large enough and developed enough to experience pain, form abstract thought and feel basic emotion. I have no doubt that at the late stages of pregnancy the foetus is sentient. For the record, a foetus cannot become a fully formed baby on its own.

I'm not sure what your status on the foetus is now, as you mentioned believing it to be a potential human? I can certainly understand the viewpoint that it is a potential human, as there is no denial of this fact. I don't believe this fact should have any consequence on the decision of whether someone has an abortion or not, the fact that it is not a human being in my mind takes priority.

[N-Dubz]

a* to you for not even mentioning abortion to her lol.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When the foetus is sentient - that is, it has a brain large enough and developed enough to experience pain, form abstract thought and feel basic emotion. I have no doubt that at the late stages of pregnancy the foetus is sentient. For the record, a foetus cannot become a fully formed baby on its own.

No I don't accept that because it cannot feel emotion, or pain and so forth that its not a human. That is comparable to saying that somebody who is brain dead is not a human being when we know they clearly are. As Hitchens describes in the debate, its an attempt to dehumanise so it can be killed.

It may not be able to do the things we can do and may be dependent (as is a small baby unlike other mammals), but that does not mean it is not a human being just as it does not mean a small baby is not a human being.

I'm not sure what your status on the foetus is now, as you mentioned believing it to be a potential human? I can certainly understand the viewpoint that it is a potential human, as there is no denial of this fact. I don't believe this fact should have any consequence on the decision of whether someone has an abortion or not, the fact that it is not a human being in my mind takes priority.

Depends what you define as a human and/or a person. I would simply stick with homo sapiens/a human being, which a foetus is from the moment it is fertilised. The DNA of the 'animal' would thus prove this and science has been unable to come up with another viable alternative of how to define what matter is.

[Glen Coco]

I'd much rather a young girl think before she has sex as opposed to having sex and then simply having an abortion for her own convenience as many do nowadays. With adoption vs being aborted, i'm actually sure most people would rather be alive or at least be given the choice as opposed to having it made for them. I am a libertarian, i'm naturally for personal choice - but with abortion, the 'choice' is a false argument because in my eyes the 'foetus' (a nice latin word) is actually a human being which is clear from the way pregnant women talk about their baby whilst its still in the womb. The DNA of a foetus would show as a homo sapiens, as thats the common way to define a human being I think that is the best benchmark as nobody else has come up with a better definition so far.

You may find this interesting on the subject of abortion, its what mainly changed my stance upon it not all that long ago; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbaEXDl4uqU

As for the topic poster, I do wish him and the girl well and i'm glad they are confronting the mistakes they've made and not putting their own mistakes on the child to avoid the inconvenience of bringing up a child as so many people selfishly do.

Just wanting to but in but isn't a little bit rude you calling it a 'mistake' ? I for sure would rather be called an accident then a 'mistake' like you're acting this baby to be like.
Have you not thought of maybe rape? It's not always the girls fault that she's pregnant. Have you also not thought of protection not working?
I agree with anti-abortion when the foetus is no longer just a bunch of cells and the older the foetus is the more I disagree with abortion, however, if it is only a few weeks old and it is simply a bunch of cells should the mother not have a choice?

[Wig44.]

Just wanting to but in but isn't a little bit rude you calling it a 'mistake' ? I for sure would rather be called an accident then a 'mistake' like you're acting this baby to be like.
Have you not thought of maybe rape? It's not always the girls fault that she's pregnant. Have you also not thought of protection not working?
I agree with anti-abortion when the foetus is no longer just a bunch of cells and the older the foetus is the more I disagree with abortion, however, if it is only a few weeks old and it is simply a bunch of cells should the mother not have a choice?

Can you read? He isn't talking about the OP...

[beth]

yr the same age as me, and i've got so many friends (mainly female but yaknow) doing a sterling job of bringing their kids up on very little money with very little help. you'll do it, because you gotta do it. start saving and planning now.

good luck!

[Glen Coco]

Can you read? He isn't talking about the OP...

Clearly I can read, what a stupid question.
And now you look like a fool because he did indeed say "I am glad you are doing sometihng about your mistake", or something along those lines.
So sit down and back the **** up.