Pro-choice

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It is in evidence. You had all your DNA when you were in your mother's womb. It was you, it wasn't anyone or anything else. You weren't Temujon or a bus or a transpixie, you were you a human being.
Yes it is in evidence
It has nothing to do with DNA. Whether an entity is a human being or not is not a scientific question; it cannot be addressed via science. It is a moral and legal issue.

And that the fetus is not a human being/person is still not in evidence.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Not interested in this childishness.
Well don't post then
At the moment you are denying you began life in your mother's womb during developmental stages we call embryonic and foetal. I cant think of anything more disturbingly childish than that
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Well don't post then
At the moment you are denying you began life in your mother's womb during developmental stages we call embryonic and foetal. I cant think of anything more disturbingly childish than that
False; I have nowhere denied such a thing, but by all means, keep making stuff up.
 

BMS

Well-known member
It has nothing to do with DNA.
It has everything to do with DNA. Your DNA determined what you are at your fertilized conception.

Whether an entity is a human being or not is not a scientific question;
Yes it is because if your DNA was giraffe you would be giraffe whether you identified as giraffe or not.
it cannot be addressed via science. It is a moral and legal issue.
It is defined by science and is also a moral and legal issue. When the science is discarded the moral and legal issues become deranged.

And so the fetus must be a human being because the human being has a foetal stage.
 

BMS

Well-known member
False; I have nowhere denied such a thing, but by all means, keep making stuff up.
Yes you have, you said"
It is not in evidence that the fetus is a human being/person.
It is in evidence. You had all your DNA when you were in your mother's womb. It was you, it wasn't anyone or anything else. You weren't Temujin or a bus or a transpixie, you were you the human being you are. .
Yes it is in evidence
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It has everything to do with DNA. Your DNA determined what you are at your fertilized conception.
Not at issue.
Yes it is because if your DNA was giraffe you would be giraffe whether you identified as giraffe or not.
Which is - yet again - not at issue.
It is defined by science and is also a moral and legal issue. When the science is discarded the moral and legal issues become deranged.
It is not defined by science.
And so the fetus must be a human being because the human being has a foetal stage.
False. You might as well say that since an oak tree has an acorn stage, the acorn must be a tree. It's not.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Not at issue.
Is the issue.

Which is - yet again - not at issue.
Which is the issue because if your DNA was giraffe you would be giraffe whether you identified as giraffe or not and as it happens your DNA, that you had when you were at your foetal stage, is not just that of a human being, but more precisely uniquely yours and you

It is not defined by science.
It is defined by science, science can tell us your DNA is that of a human being and more precisely you.

False. You might as well say that since an oak tree has an acorn stage, the acorn must be a tree. It's not.
The acorn is a tree at seed stage, and more precisely its an oak tree at seed stage. You might as well say you aren't a human being.
And so the fetus must be a human being because the human being has a foetal stage.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Is the issue.

Which is the issue because if your DNA was giraffe you would be giraffe whether you identified as giraffe or not and as it happens your DNA, that you had when you were at your foetal stage, is not just that of a human being, but more precisely uniquely yours and you

It is defined by science, science can tell us your DNA is that of a human being and more precisely you.
Not sure how many times this needs to be said to you. DNA defines that you are human (species). It does not tell whether or not you are a human being/person, which is a moral and legal consideration and not a science one.
The acorn is a tree at seed stage, and more precisely its an oak tree at seed stage.
Is an acorn a tree? Yes or no?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Depends on what you are calling the entity. Seeing as the human being begins life in embryo and foetal stages it isnt reality to claim the human being at foetal stage isnt the human being or a person. That is why pro-choice and the likes of yourself call the unborn human 'the fetus' as though it isnt the human being.
That is why you don't have sensible dialogue and you wont be able to know it.
You fail to show that human being is a synonym for person.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The early stages of the life of a human being are in the womb at stages we call foetal and embryo. So since we are the human beings at that stage pro-choice abortion kills human beings. Whether you and others dehumanise the human being by not recognising them as 'person' doesn't change that reality. One cant prove reality to someone who doesn't recognise it.
And we aren't interested in such dehumanising hatred.

So we have to persuade those who make laws to accept the reality.
The reality is what it is. I am content. You are not. I submit that it is you that is out of step with reality.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
God's law does apply, and one day you will find out, but you have been told.
As to the real world the human being starts life with embryonic and foetal stages so that is the reality whether you dehumanize the human being by requiring it to be a person in your sight or not.
My sight is irrelevant. What counts is whether lawmakers call the foetus a person. They don't. This idea has been specifically rejected by the courts in the UK. That is the reality. The unborn child is not a person.
 

BMS

Well-known member
My sight is irrelevant.
In your opinion, but when we give our opinion, its ours.

What counts is whether lawmakers call the foetus a person.
Well when it comes to the law, correct, that determines some people hatred, yet you keep telling us pro-choice laws are about the right of the woman to choose whether she aborts. (what you call the pregnancy and what we know is her unborn human offspring) As to the law the time a woman can end her pregnancy varies between 12 weeks to 24 weeks on the basis of sentience or survivability and the like, and as we have seen the criteria and reasoning isn't actually important to you, if it were you would be objecting to one or the other. No, the only thing that is important to you is allowing some women the ability to abort her offspring.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The reality is what it is. I am content. You are not. I submit that it is you that is out of step with reality.
Ok so that means you are saying the human being doesn't begin life in the mother's womb at embryo and foetal stages,. because that is what I said and you replied "that is out of step with reality."
So be it.
 
Top