LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[United Muscovite Nations]

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

And a great many would disagree with that, especially around the first-trimester.

Even if we accept the "clump of cells" argument, it's still undeniable, the fetus has life, as Pretantia already showed. Once we reach the point of conception, there's no magical boundary at which it makes sense to say it's alive or not alive.

[Genivaria]

Because A) the parent(s) already decided it was better to have the child than not, despite their own socioeconomic conditions, B) the child is medically and scientifically considered conscious and alive, compared to the first-trimester fetus which wouldn't be considered those things, C) they were forced to have the child because the state dictates that or jail for an illegal abortion, or D) any combination of those things.

Question: Do you believe a fetus has value as a person?

No, at least not before the first trimester.

[Torrocca]

Because A) the parent(s) already decided it was better to have the child than not, despite their own socioeconomic conditions, B) the child is medically and scientifically considered conscious and alive, compared to the first-trimester fetus which wouldn't be considered those things, C) they were forced to have the child because the state dictates that or jail for an illegal abortion, or D) any combination of those things.

Question: Do you believe a fetus has value as a person?

Sure, when it starts showing more advanced signs of personhood around the second trimester. Until then, it's merely a clump of cells that has a parasitic bond with its mother host that have the potential to develop into something human, but by all means, could die off before then.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?

It's not only an organism, it's a human.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Honestly, the one difference of opinion that's the crux of the pro-life vs pro-choice argument is lifers think an unborn child is alive, while choicers don't. That's really all it comes down to. The rest is just dressing. If people could stop calling the others murderers or misogynists, when all it comes down to is a difference of view of what constitutes being alive, that would be nice. Not saying people are doing that here, just giving an observagion.

[Luna Amore]

Because it's just another way of saying "poor people shouldn't have children."

Except that no it's not.
If a couple don't feel like they can support children who are you to demand that they do?

Because people should be responsible for their own actions. Minimize your risks and take responsibility if you end up pregnant. Increasingly we're looking at poverty as this illness that just indiscriminately infects people that we can cure which is nonsense. A significant portion of the solution has to come from the people impoverished. If you are continually making bad decisions, you will continually have bad results. Stop doing that. Other people cannot solve your problems without your effort. If you can't have kids, do everything you can not to have kids. If you are pregnant, sorry, you now have a life on the way. You shouldn't get a mulligan because you don't feel ready for it.

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

I...don't understand how it could.

If we can't kill someone who is already in a destitute situation, then why is it ok to kill a child who may or may not end up in a destitute situation?

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?

Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

[Genivaria]

And a great many would disagree with that, especially around the first-trimester.

Even if we accept the "clump of cells" argument, it's still undeniable, the fetus has life, as Pretantia already showed. Once we reach the point of conception, there's no magical boundary at which it makes sense to say it's alive or not alive.

Okay and? So what?
Again so is bacteria, so is someone who's in a vegetative state.

[Torrocca]

And a great many would disagree with that, especially around the first-trimester.

Even if we accept the "clump of cells" argument, it's still undeniable, the fetus has life, as Pretantia already showed. Once we reach the point of conception, there's no magical boundary at which it makes sense to say it's alive or not alive.

It's not even recognizably human until it's somewhere past the first trimester. Until then, it literally is just a clump of cells.

[Genivaria]

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?

It's not only an organism, it's a human.

Sure it has the genetic code of a human, so what?

[Torrocca]

It's not only an organism, it's a human.

Sure it has the genetic code of a human, so what?

Don't cancer cells also have the genetic code of a human?

Guess that means we shouldn't try and destroy those.

[Jelmatt]

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?

Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

Even just using a condom also terminates a process (fertilization) that, if left alone, creates a baby.

I'm not going to take any side in this debate, but I don't think this point is particularly convincing.

[Genivaria]

Except that no it's not.
If a couple don't feel like they can support children who are you to demand that they do?

Because people should be responsible for their own actions. Minimize your risks and take responsibility if you end up pregnant. Increasingly we're looking at poverty as this illness that just indiscriminately infects people that we can cure which is nonsense. A significant portion of the solution has to come from the people impoverished. If you are continually making bad decisions, you will continually have bad results. Stop doing that. Other people cannot solve your problems without your effort. If you can't have kids, do everything you can not to have kids. If you are pregnant, sorry, you now have a life on the way. You shouldn't get a mulligan because you don't feel ready for it.

I...don't understand how it could.

If we can't kill someone who is already in a destitute situation, then why is it ok to kill a child who may or may not end up in a destitute situation?

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?

Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

1. Your first point is entirely centered around punishing the woman with pregnancy, this is not a valid argument on any basis.
2.

If we can't kill someone who is already in a destitute situation, then why is it ok to kill a child who may or may not end up in a destitute situation?

As far as I'm aware we're not killing a child in either situation.

Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

And why does that matter?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even if we accept the "clump of cells" argument, it's still undeniable, the fetus has life, as Pretantia already showed. Once we reach the point of conception, there's no magical boundary at which it makes sense to say it's alive or not alive.

It's not even recognizably human until it's somewhere past the first trimester. Until then, it literally is just a clump of cells.

It has human DNA and is developing as a human, that's pretty recognizably human.

[Genivaria]

Sure it has the genetic code of a human, so what?

Don't cancer cells also have the genetic code of a human?

Guess that means we shouldn't try and destroy those.

Essentially yes, so do fingernails and hair follicles.
The fact that one BECOMES a full grown human at some point seems...like an odd argument.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Honestly, the one difference of opinion that's the crux of the pro-life vs pro-choice argument is lifers think an unborn child is alive, while choicers don't. That's really all it comes down to. The rest is just dressing. If people could stop calling the others murderers or misogynists, when all it comes down to is a difference of view of what constitutes being alive, that would be nice. Not saying people are doing that here, just giving an observagion.

Boi, that's a lot of replies.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not only an organism, it's a human.

Sure it has the genetic code of a human, so what?

It doesn't just have the genetic code of a human, it is an individual that will develop into a member of society.

[Genivaria]

It's not even recognizably human until it's somewhere past the first trimester. Until then, it literally is just a clump of cells.

It has human DNA and is developing as a human, that's pretty recognizably human.

They are human cells sure, again so what?

[Genivaria]

Sure it has the genetic code of a human, so what?

It doesn't just have the genetic code of a human, it is an individual that will develop into a member of society.

WHY. SHOULD. WE. CARE?
What does it matter if it will BECOME a person?

[The South Falls]

It's not even recognizably human until it's somewhere past the first trimester. Until then, it literally is just a clump of cells.

It has human DNA and is developing as a human, that's pretty recognizably human.

What about that kid in Tennessee who was born from an embryo frozen for 24 years. She can celebrate her birth with a martini, according to you. Does this make sense?

[Luna Amore]

Because people should be responsible for their own actions. Minimize your risks and take responsibility if you end up pregnant. Increasingly we're looking at poverty as this illness that just indiscriminately infects people that we can cure which is nonsense. A significant portion of the solution has to come from the people impoverished. If you are continually making bad decisions, you will continually have bad results. Stop doing that. Other people cannot solve your problems without your effort. If you can't have kids, do everything you can not to have kids. If you are pregnant, sorry, you now have a life on the way. You shouldn't get a mulligan because you don't feel ready for it.


If we can't kill someone who is already in a destitute situation, then why is it ok to kill a child who may or may not end up in a destitute situation?


Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

1. Your first point is entirely centered around punishing the woman with pregnancy, this is not a valid argument on any basis.
2.

If we can't kill someone who is already in a destitute situation, then why is it ok to kill a child who may or may not end up in a destitute situation?

As far as I'm aware we're not killing a child in either situation.

Left alone it becomes a baby. No matter where you draw the line during pregnancy, that fact is undeniable. It becomes a baby. You are terminating the process that if left alone creates a baby.

And why does that matter?

1. No, I'm holding women (and the father) responsible for their actions.
2. Which is biologically wrong.
3. Because it is a baby. You are ending the natural process of it becoming a baby. Where ever you try to draw that line, that process remains the same. You can't compare it to any other living thing (like a blade of grass or a tumor) because no other thing turns into a human baby if left alone. That 'clump of cells' does.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't just have the genetic code of a human, it is an individual that will develop into a member of society.

WHY. SHOULD. WE. CARE?
What does it matter if it will BECOME a person?

My argument is that it is a person, it is an individual.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It has human DNA and is developing as a human, that's pretty recognizably human.

What about that kid in Tennessee who was born from an embryo frozen for 24 years. She can celebrate her birth with a martini, according to you. Does this make sense?

Being frozen freezes development, so no. But it would be wrong to kill that embryo, which is precisely why the Orthodox and Catholic churches forbid IVF.

[Genivaria]

WHY. SHOULD. WE. CARE?
What does it matter if it will BECOME a person?

My argument is that it is a person, it is an individual.

That is IS one? Okay fine, on what basis?

[Genivaria]

1. Your first point is entirely centered around punishing the woman with pregnancy, this is not a valid argument on any basis.
2.
As far as I'm aware we're not killing a child in either situation.

And why does that matter?

1. No, I'm holding women (and the father) responsible for their actions.
2. Which is biologically wrong.
3. Because it is a baby. You are ending the natural process of it becoming a baby. Where ever you try to draw that line, that process remains the same. You can't compare it to any other living thing (like a blade of grass or a tumor) because no other thing turns into a human baby if left alone. That 'clump of cells' does.

So is it a baby or is going to BECOME a baby? Because I can see you trying to use both synonymously.

[United Muscovite Nations]

My argument is that it is a person, it is an individual.

That is IS one? Okay fine, on what basis?

That it is a human being that will become a member of society. It has its own bodily processes and its own life.