This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - fatchance
« on: May 02, 2006, 01:32:02 AM »
Fatchance you say that its a person before its born. You say that viability shouldnt be an issue. My question to you is, does this mean that sperm is alive? It has a chance at developing with a little help into a human. Wouldnt condoms and birth control be just earlier stages of abortion?
A sperm has 23 chromosones a fetus is complete with 46 and can have a different blood type from the mother, and has its own unique DNA. No birth control is not abortion, just as not planting a seed is not ending a life.
« on: May 02, 2006, 01:27:28 AM »
What's the term for "boring conversation that ended up in a worthless debate over terminology."
I agree, that is why i tried to pick my terms carefully to not get this very result.
Anyway, if you have good arguments (i may or may not) you can use any terminology.
« on: May 02, 2006, 01:21:47 AM »
For someone who balked at my happyface you seem to be quite liberal with your own faces (which are not in goodwill by the way)
Nevermind though, I just would expect the person who started this thread to not lose it the first happyface he gets. You could temper your posts with a bit more tolerance.
So why is viability the issue. I dont think that disqualifies the fetus of personhood. Diabetics are not viable, they depend on insulin, yet remain persons. Scuba divers and astronauts depend on oxygen from some other source- not viable? Hospitals are full of people who are not viable and rely on all kinds of machinery to sustain life, yet we cannot go around unplugging them.
« on: May 02, 2006, 01:05:05 AM »
« on: May 02, 2006, 01:02:22 AM »
Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.
All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.
From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:44:58 AM »
I am not bright enough to get even one of these.
I am not bright enough to go to bed. It's 5:30 in the morning. I can't figure out what nascar's ancestor was. I keep trying to peddle my desk like it was Fred Flinstone's car. It's not working.
Do not fret Captain- a clue for you.
another way to say "cattle"
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:37:43 AM »
Fetus can be also a loaded term. I just try to avoid terms that seem to presuppose the very argument they are making. Baby, fetus, child and embryo all seem to do this. I use "unborn" because it is the opposite of "Born" which all would agree is a baby. I think the opposite of "Undead" would be "unalive". I use unborn simply because ..it is not born yet. But like I said to Hppyweesl, for the sake of getting back to the debate, we can use any terms one wishes. I wouls place the violatile happyface here, but to avoid problems, please take this in good will.
As far as the meaning of "beg the question" I really dont know what it means, I simply hear it in the context of "presupposing something" so I might very well be using it incorrectly.
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:23:49 AM »
City 2 syls
1 -nascar ancestor
2 -Dorothy's destination
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:06:03 AM »
Seeing or feeling have nothing to do with personhood. You didnt defeat my argument, you merely repeated yours. I cannot see or feel you, do you forfit your own personhood?
I chose the word Unborn for neutrality. I dont call them babies (since that begs the question) because you dont think they are babies. Calling it an embryo assumes the very position you are trying to prove. No matter, call it what you wish.
As for the embryo being underdeveloped, I believe this misses too. Teenagers arent fully developed but we cannot use them as doormats. People with birth defects arnet fully developed, they are still persons. Developement does not matter.
As far as the smiley face goes, I simply meant to show good will. This debate can get ugly sometimes and I was trying to keep it kind.
As far as being Anti-choice (which seems a bit loaded) I prefer anti-abortion (since pro life would be loaded too).
« on: May 01, 2006, 11:26:08 PM »
Im confused about the see or feel question.
What does seeing or feeling have to do with anything?
If you cant see someone are they not a person? Shall we aquit a blindman of a crime just because he cannot see? After all he cannot see them, they must not be persons?
And feeling falls the same way.
Also, I cannot see you right now, but you are still a person.