(05-13-2022 12:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (05-12-2022 05:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (05-12-2022 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (05-12-2022 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-12-2022 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: You don't even realize you are doing it.
Children look different at different stages. So?
lad is having the same problem with having a fetus defined as 'human' as he does with the definitions of 'discrimination' and 'racism'.
And, lad, the `s are used to offset the issue as a word.... just so you dont ***** a blue moon over a misquote or somefink.
Where have I said anything about defining a fetus as a human?
I’ve explicitly only taken issue with calling it a child. I don’t think calling a fetus a human is problematic, since you’re classifying the type of being there, not a developmental stage.
Misquoting me without the quotations.
Seriously, if you’d like to have a conversation, let’s have it. But don’t throw **** around and have a tantrum.
An immature human is called a child.
So, let's go at this another way.
What do you think is the difference between a fetus and a child? Is it legal rights? A given size? The ability to die?
What happens to change a fetus into a child?
To me personally, it would be the ability to survive outside of the womb with care that is unrelated to prenatal development. Once a fetus hits that developmental milestone, it makes sense, to me, to call it a child. Prior to that, it makes sense, to me, to call it a fetus.
To me, using the term “child” definitely denotes something about a developmental stage in life, one is which a human has developed and matured to a point where, regardless of medical illness, could survive outside the womb and mature into an adult.
I think people are plenty rational to believe that a fetus “changes” into a child upon birth. I think it’s less rational to consider a just fertilized egg a child, but I understand why some people do, given that it could eventually grow and mature into a living, breathing child.
I wonder, why do you find it difficult to understand this concept? Or are you trying to change my opinion with these questions?
I am trying to get you to stop using artificial mental constructs such as the one in your first paragraph where you draw the line on when it is a child.
The idea that viability outside the womb defines a child is about as silly as the idea that my sister's lack of viability on her own outside the Assisted Living Center means she is somehow less of a human than me or you. Viability defines a child in the same way a parka defines climate change. Viability was/is a legal definition, not a medical one. Follow the science.
does calling it a fetus make it easier for you to support killing it? Would calling it a child make it harder for you to support killing it? That is exactly the usage of euphemisms that I presented earlier and that you denied.
Heck, call it an elephant if it makes you feel better. I am sure you would feel worse about a woman shooting an elephant.
I have been presented, by others, with the idea that the child/fertilized egg is just a bunch of cells, no different from a malignant tumor, so the abortion is of a tumor, not a child. My response? Malignant cells do not develop into Little Leaguers, they develop into cancer.
Yes, like many topics on this forum, I would like you to use some common sense, but I cannot compel it in any other way than by demonstrating to you the illogic of your position. In turn, you have demonstrated no reason I should convert to your position other than your own mental unwillingness to accept a fertilized egg as the earliest stages of childhood. No science, no logic, just the old legal term of viability.
Lad, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My defining of the fertilized egg has zero effect on the abortion debate, at least for me. For you, it appears the definition is very important, since the word "child" evokes such a determined response from you. I recognize the right of the mother to kill her child, up to a point, a point that will be the subject of debate in 50 state legislations, just as it is/has been in dozens of national legislative bodies. Her decision, because that is the law. Not murder, because that is the law. But it is the legal ending of a human life, no different from the death penalty.
I cannot make you see the light,, especially when you have dug in your heels refusing, and you have not even tried to make me see anything. let's let it go and go our ways. More important things to discuss on this forum, anyway. IMO.
Have a good day
.
/
Rice Quad Supreme Court / Legal Decisions Thread
