Are you stupid? at 9 months its still inside her and ATTACHED. The separate human being is not "SEPERATE" at all.you're stupid and a liar.
I agree. Human life is defined by consciousness. Thats why stabbing people who are asleep should be legal. haaa
Meh yet they are still thinking beings whilst they are asleep yes they may not by definition be conscious but you fully understand the point made
Yes because pesky definitions dont matter. I get the point you have to now move the goalpost to "thinking".And lets just ignore the multiple peer reviewed articles that demonstrate embirotic awareness which implies thought. I mean after all if we can ignore definitions, we can surely ignore science. Besides, we all know already a 4 month old baby can't think, its not of the womb yet.
Lol there is no moving of goal posts lol simply me useing the wrong word and then correcting myself and for as many peer reviewed articles there is as many that will cite that that information is wrong as most if not all are theory last time I checked there is no actual proof that the fetus is fully aware and think just evedance that it's possible
Further, while someone is unconscious they aren't exactly thinking either. The closest you get is a dream state. EVEN THEN they dont have insight nor self reflection. But lets not let facts get in the way.
But I already stated that the wording I used was incorrect so continuing to hammer home dropped point is irrelavent
None of them claim "FULL" awareness. And yes there is demonstrible proof thay they are aware. It was repeated in labs. Its as factually objectively observable as gravity. But i know you probably question gravity too.
Well I will have to read it for myself then as I'm pretty sure it's not a objective truth at what point is the fetus aware sorry?
Yes. Everytime someone makes a claim and it gets falsified, it was just wrong wording. Thats not a post hoc justification at all. Therefore it couldnt possibly be you now moving the goalposts. I accept your evidence. Seems legit. lol.
No I stated that what I said was wrong and clarified what I actually meant
So it matters not wheter you used consciousness or thought. In both cases when humans are inconscious they aren't FULLY aware either.FAIL.
They are not fully aware but that's due to being put in a state of unconsciousness yet are thinking being and again at what point is a fetus aware and thinking sorry was just wondering?
1. The word fetus means small child. So the question is incoherent. 2. No Objective truth values have been universally demonstrated and accepted by everyone. So that claim is also incoherent. Technically gravity hasn't been demonstrated as an "objective truth"3. I think you mean to say "objective truth" is something which can be visually repeated and verified" Thats not what that really means, but according to YOUR definition The tests have been repeatedly verified, to the degree of dropping a ball and it falls to the grouns is "objectively true" that gravity exists.
No by law the word fetus is used to describe a unborn child so again please can you tell me when it becomes aware and thinking because you find it easy to state many other things yet you won't answer this
Yes. Everytime someone moves the goalposts its a matter of post hoc "clarification".I often got to changes answers to a math test in school because after i got the problems wrong i corrected them with "clatifications".I got 100% on every test!
Yet this is a discussion not a test where things are not submitted and can be changed do you live your life thinking one way till you die or can your thoughts and opinions not change but still I would like a answer to the question asked as much as you are trying to derail what I asked
No. Human beings are only POTENTIALLY thinking beings AFTER they come out of unconciousness. Labeling them as thinking beings is no better than a pro lifer calling an embrio a child. (at least according to pro choicers point of view)
Lol why are you still choosing not to answer this 1 thing you stated you know that the fetus is aware and that it's scientifically proven so again at what stage does that happen
No. Laws dont detemine word useage nor do they determine where the words come from.To use "LAW" as your etemology source is laughable. Fetus has its roots to mean small child, REGARDLESS of how SOME legal people use it. Words are defined typically by popular use, not teams of lawyers.
Lol popular use yet most people use the word in that manner by that logic mob opinion can change the definition of a word lol
And again but I will st8ll need a answer if you don't mind or is thay proof you speak of not available
Simply because i have yet to answer a question does not prove i "wont answer it" that is an argument from ignorance, specifically, an argument from silence fallacy.Its also provably false with the following response: The embrio GAINS in awareness throughout its entire development. Its level of awareness greatly increases at the moment of conception. Prior to conception there are still levels of awareness compariable to plant life. At conception the awareness changes from essentially plant level awareness to HUMAN unconscionscious awareness. NOT "full" awareness. awareness is NOT binary.
So by what your saying the life of a fetus as soon as it's made is equal of a fully grown human
Defintions are created by popular use. Read a book about dictionaries. Nowhere have i claimed "because most people use the word therefore thats what it means" Words are descriptive not prescriptive. The point i was making is dictionaries are a BETTER method than legal use. Besides, laws are typically VOTED for.
Yet there are different dictionaries that will vary with the definition of a word so how is that any better
Its better because its not a voting system necessarily, and even those differing dictionaries have a hirarchy based upon context and word useage. Legal use is very context based, dictionaries are broader.
But via that I can still find dictionaries defining a fetus as being unborn
So you're saying an apple with a worm in it is not an apple because it has a worm in it? The phrase in principle means "relating to the definition of" not relating to particular circumstances so if an apple has a worm in it ITS STILL AN APPLE. If a baby isn't fully developed yet ITS STILL A BABY. Everthing that an embrio has at conception is there at conception.To argue its different because of age is to say a 7 year old has less value because his pre frontal cortex hasn't been formed and won't until around 21. Its a logical error in principality and an error in value measurement.
Lol yet we do that as a norm more value is put on children over adults just because you see it as a fetus bei g equal to a baby don't mean that's a fact again leading back to the whole discussion on what we count as a human and the difference between a fetus and baby
And what u just said don't make sence it's more like saying a seed in a Apple is a Apple
The fact that you can find the defintion you prefer in the dictionary is an argument for dictionary use. its not an argument against dictionary use.
Nobody is arguing that people place more value on one thing vs another. Even though we do, the fact that a 10 year old has am underdevloped brain does not mean he therefore is not a human being nor that he isn't alive. In principal, he's still a human, and alive in spite of the "circumstance" of not being fully developed.As for your strawman seed analogy...The seed would yes still be a seed, even if there was a hole in it. The reason why your seed analogy fails to a baby and why my apple one SUCEEDS is because the seed would be analogous to the sperm or the egg.The apple is what is there AFTER all the parts are there. A small unripe apple is still an apple even if its not fully developed. An embrio is still an embryo regardless of age.You just argued "that makes no sense because of sperm".NOPE.
No because saying a worm in a Apple makes the Apple still a Apple is irellavent because no one said the Apple is not we are discussing in your situation if the fetus/worm as you put it is a Apple the the situation you gave and clearly it's not as simple as everyone thinking the fetus is a human otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation that is also happening around the world
Wrong. A worm in an apple is 100% applicable. What it says is something is still that thing in principle REGARDLESS of circumstances. Circumstances like age or development. The fact that something is "complex" doesn't mean its false. And many things can have simple explanations. And it is that simple. To argue against a claim because people disagree is to say all psudoscience has merit because it disagrees with mainstream science
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Concepts often dont make sense to dumb people. If you're going to claim its incoherent the burden of proof is on you to prove that. Second, whether im mad or not is irrelevant.Third, Its easy, either you think a woman has a right to choose to stab her baby after 9 months or you dont. If you dont, then you aren't pro choice.
Lmao, sis is now salty.First of all sweetheart, judging by your comments 50% understood your question, and 50% didn’t. That means that, at least grammatically, your question is lacking something.Second of all, calm down. Would you? No need to be so defensive and butthurt. I’m just a little girl on the internet
Lol. You mistake hilarious mocking with being salty. Also, 50% of people is as good of odds as a coin flip. Third. How they comment is not demonstative of not understanding the post. Unless they specifically state "i dont inderstand this post" 50% of them haven't.
Because you're a transphobic coward hiding behind a cartoon avatar. People are who they identify with. Bigot.
that's the typical shemale response