The fetus is hardly the same entity False assumptions lead to false conclusions. - - - Updated - - - I agree. It is Whaler that seems to think baby is not a medical term.
You seem to miss the important part of this, the fact that the comment is talking about a future event, so yes they are going to deliver a baby. Exactly the same when a women says to her husband/partner "I am pregnant, we are going to have a baby", or when others ask a pregnant woman "when is you baby due", they are all referring to a future event. Do they, care to provide some evidence to that assertion? Pro-abortion people may very well say that .. pro-choice people however don't.
Well we all know that you are wrong here. you have posted nothing at all to support your silly notion. To suggest that the fetus in its earliest stage is not the same person or human being as that same fetus in a later stage of fetal development is idiotic. You seem very confused when it comes to word definitions. The same does not mean identical. for example, an infant is the same person as the adult he grows up to be , although he is not identical in every way.
I hope you do not believe a premise that is based soley on the argument "We all know" . "We all know" is logical fallacy (appeal to the masses) . The claim "we all know" is wrong because clearly " we do not all know that a fetus is a person" (notice I will now suport my premise with a valid argument) If we did all know that the fetus was a person there would not be a significant proportion of th population that believes the contrary. The whole reason the abortion debate exists is that "we do not all know" or believe that a fetus is a person. A debate is making an valid argument that supports your premise. All you are doing is restating your premise which does not constitute a valid argument. Restating a premise as support for the same premise is, by definition, logical fallacy and an invalid argument. What is idiotic is thinking that the statement "we all know" constitute a valid argument for the premise (the fetus is a person). The confused are the ones that think restating a premise constitutes a valid argument.
In all human societies, everywhere, always, human life begins at birth. Until then, the potential person is a part of its mother and none of anyone else's business. Why do American extremists deny all history and all sense in their obsessive longing to enslave women?
When someone is weak and afraid and has no self worth they try their darndest to enslave/control/demean others so they have something, ANYTHING, to make them feel good about themselves.
I already have posted information that shows this assumption is incorrect, as yet you have failed to find anything to dispute that evidence. In the earliest stages of development it is impossible to say what will become the "person", but just in case you missed it the first time round here it is again; Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst So your assumption that it is a person, or human being from conception is not strictly correct, part of the cells produced from conception will become a human being, the others will not, they will form the placenta.
You make a number of good points. I just wanted to add a couple more. None of the cells of the early blasticyst will ever be cells that make up the structure of the eventual human that is being created. It is not until the embryoblast that cells that make up the structure and various parts of the eventual born human (assuming the process goes to completion). Even if we were to claim that the totipotent cells that form the blastocyst are a potential human. This statement in itself is not quite technically correct because each one of those cells has the capability to create an individual human. Thus, whenever more than one totipotent cell is present that group should be refered to as a group of potential humans. (not the singular human). It is of course possible that only one human will potentially be created but that is not the only possibility. If any one of the these totipotent cells is implanted in an egg, an new human will potentially be created. To clear up any confustion, the group of cells that form the early stages of the blastocyst should be classified as "potential humans"
I don't know about other posters but I'm just smart enough to never argue with someone who can use the word "totipotent". I did have some "totallypotent" whisky once. OK, I'll go back to "serious"....
You pro-aborts kill me. Pun intended. One second before its born its a fetus....and the second its born its a baby. That is hilarious. No doctor would consider...and i so NO....at least the life after a viability as not a baby. Even our courts use the term in its rulings. You are way off on this.
What? So that which has been growing in the womb is not human? Let me ask you this. If a forensic scientist was examining a fetus that was found in the woods....do you think he would be able to tell if it was human or animal?
Do you honestly not understand the distinction between actual and potential? Come on, you are just striking attitudes, and you know it. Some of us remember about holy dictatorship, knitting needles, gin and backstreet abortions, and we don't want it back kid. It was SICK!
This is an absurd thing to say..and most laws in countries do NOT reflect this...certainly not the laws in America. And if you knew what science said about the unborn you would not have said something so wrong. Let me educate you here. Louise Brown was the worlds first test tube baby. SHE WAS TOTALLY CREATED IN A PETRI DISH...THAT IS WHERE HER LIFE STARTED. SHE WAS NOT APART OF THAT PETRI DISH. No life in the womb is A PART OF THE WOMAN. IT ONLY LIVES THERE AS A SAFE PLACE TO GROW. The fact is that a body part is defined by a common code, genetic one, that is not like its mothers. A mother might die...the child might live...or vise versa. What does this prove? That both are SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS. Who controls the pregnancy? The mother does NOT (unless she aborts it)...the child does. It takes an active role in its own development...even controlling it if left alone...the time of birth. You pro-aborts think that just because the fetus is inside the womb..the womb inside the woman that its part of the woman. This is just not true. Being inside something does not the same as being a part of something. And what the pro-life side says is that ho human being should be discriminated against because of their place of residence. There is NOTHING POTENTIAL ABOUT THE LIFE IN THE WOMB. Semantics affect perceptions, but don't change realities..a baby is a baby no matter what you call her. Every abortion does something...stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves. Although a fetus does not look entirely like a baby...the similarities are there and you can see them....they are unlike what you said, they are human in appearance. You can spin it anyway you want...but the fact is will always be...terminating a pregnancy is still terminating a life, a human life. lolo...you talk about enslaving women, that the unborn is not human...that its no ones business but the mothers. You support a womans choice to a late term abortion don't you? Because if you deny abortion at this time...you are doing what you say we pro-lifers have no right to do. what say you?
Well women can easily have the embryo/fetus removed and make it not apart of themselves once more if they choose to. Sounds like you might be stepping into the immigration realm here. Except if the embryo had not been placed into the womb it would have died, thus killing it's potential to become a human being. Without the womb the embryo is nothing but an embryo, the womb gives it the potential to become more. Yes, abortion kills the embryo/fetus. We are all aware of this. Until embryonic/fetal transplants are actually feasible abortion will always kill the living and developing tissue within the uterus. We're not spinning anything. Everyone here is fully aware that an abortion kills the embryo/fetus, we just don't think it's right to life should supersede her right to her autonomy.
I say you are not listening. Potentiality is not actuality. A potential person can be already present in a good husband's or a rapist's mind, let alone in sperm or eggs, but such potentiality is not actuality: people appear at BIRTH, as well you know. We may regret the end of such potentiality, but it is not for us to judge, but for the woman concerned. As we all know, for her and for her offspring the consequences of unwanted birth may be dreadful, and I think you are either ignorant or cruel to go on like this about what is not your concern.
Ok, perhaps you are correct. There are idiots and uneducated people out there who do not know that simple fact! - - - Updated - - - This is at odds with logic and reason and currently the law to boot! Even Roe V Wade is at odds with the nonsense you posted. Abortions are not allowed up to the point of birth. Why do you go such lengths to advocate and support intentional homicide of defenseless human beings?
Wikipedia that is your "source" ? Your nonsense doesn't hold water. The embryo/fetus is obviously the same person as the infant, toddler, adult the entity grows up to be. this is so blatantly obvious it needs no link. BTW, show me where I stated that every cell would remain in tact and become the adult person.
Perhaps "idiot" is a strong word. Not everyone is educated in biology. Even so, it does not take an expert in biology to figure out that a single human cell is not a living human. An idiot is one who thinks that repeating a premise over and over again constitutes an argument, dispite being shown repeatedly that this is fallacy. An idiot is one who claims their argument is logical, when they can not seem to form a valid argument. I see you have again restated your implied premise that a single human cell is a living human. Did you have a argument that supports this premise ? Preferably an argument that does not contain a logical fallacy such as your previous argument "Everyone knows"
You are attacking me not my position may I remind you. And I am NOT IGNORANT OR CRUEL and I have every right to voice my concerns. And you conveniently forgot to answer the question I asked you. ARe your for allowing women choice to abort anytime they wish...or does your position enslave the woman...based on your morality? It should be of no one concern...what someones life MIGHT BE LIKE. What right does anyone have to make the claim that someone would be better off dead? - - - Updated - - - Have you ever been pregnant? You just don't wake up and discover one day you are pregnant and then deliver that day. Nothing just appears at birth. You are judging if you want to deny late term abortion. Like you said...nothing is there until birth...I take that as your pro-late term abortion. Am I correct?
