Subj : Re: The US election To : Rob Swindell From : jimmylogan Date : Fri Nov 08 2024 07:47 pm -=> Rob Swindell wrote to jimmylogan <=- RS> Re: Re: The US election RS> By: jimmylogan to Rob Swindell on Fri Nov 08 2024 06:07 am > -=> Rob Swindell wrote to jimmylogan <=- > > > How do you define embryo or fetus? > > RS> I'm fine with the standard definition used by biologists. > > Can you supply that? I see several variations and no 'standard.' RS> I'm not a biologist, so I'd just go with the wikipedia definition. No RS> need to copy/paste that here. A newly developing human is typically referred to as an embryo until the ninth week after conception, when it is then referred to as a fetus. So it is a human! > > I say it's a stage of development. You > > are also a bunch of cells. What stage of development are you? > > RS> I'm an adult. > > Do you agree you are also a 'bunch of cells?' RS> Yes, but I'm not *just* a bunch of cells: my bunch of cells interact RS> with the world and other animals and humans will miss me when I'm gone. RS> The same can't be said of embryos or fetuses. So you're saying I don't miss our first child that was lost to a miscarriage? > > Embryo, fetus, something else, baby, toddler, pre-teen, teen, adolescent, > > adult, elderly - they describe development, but they all have one thing > > in common. They are human beings. > > > If an embryo or fetus is not a human being, then what is it? > > RS> It's a human embryo or fetus. These are kind of elementary questions > RS> you're asking. > > Yes they are, but I'm asking what YOU say it is. I'm trying to find out > where you actually stand on this. If it's 'human' then why is it not > worth defending? RS> It's not yet a human being until it is born and living independant of RS> its mother. Unborn babies are not babies. I don't see the logic, but okay. > > RS> I think we collectively make humans at a fast enough rate already, > > RS> we don't need superstition-based laws insuring we make more > > RS> unwanted/loved ones. > > > Then why not start killing off the excess after birth too? > > RS> Why change the subject? We're talking about abortion of embryos or > RS> fetuses, not born-live human babies. > > It's not a change of subjedt. We are talking about live humans in both > cases. Just because the location is inside the womb does not make it > less human. The birth is a change of location, not a change in > species. RS> I disagree: unborn babies are not yet live human beings. Okay. Can't murder something that's not yet a 'live human being.' I think I understand your position clearly. > > RS> An aborted embryo or fetus makes the uterus available for the > > RS> creation of another, more planned/wanted/loved child. What's more > > RS> important: 1. an unwanted embryo/fetus 2. a wanted child? > > > You have a baby and find out it is autistic and probably will never talk. > > What's more important, keeping that unwanted child or tossing it aside > > and trying again? > > RS> You want to kill learning disabled children? You're sick. > > No I don't, and I don't want to see people kill children in the womb. I > didn't say *I* wanted anything - I'm asking you to tell me what the > difference is. RS> The difference is children are born. You can miss a child. You can't RS> miss a fetus. > > Couple of things - superstition based laws - so I take it you don't > > believe that we are created in the image of God? > > RS> No, there is no god, yours or any other religion's: Gods are > RS> constructions of human imagination, not unlike the gods of Greek > RS> mythology or any other discarded belief system. I expect this will be > RS> offensive to you (and possibly other believers), but you since you > RS> asked, there it is. > > Nope - not offensive to me at all. Follow up question - where do you get > your morality from then? RS> I treat others as I wish to be treated. Is there an objective morality then? > > What do you believe? Random chance and evolution? > > RS> I believe that more than some old man in the clouds that judges us and > RS> controls our fate and some fantasy afterlife. > > Same question then - where does your morality come from? RS> Same answer. > > That leads to the answer of the 'wanted' child and society, so answer > > that one first please. > > RS> It seems you want to change the subject or topic. You said you voted > RS> for an immoral disgusting narcisist to lead our country because he's > RS> promised that he'll continue to strip the rights of women to control > RS> their own reprodutive organs, justified by the teachings of Jesus? That > RS> seems like a sick hypocrisy. But you do you. -- > RS> digital man (rob) > > As I said above, not changing it at all. I'm trying to get to the ROOT of > the same subject or topic. > > And I like the spin you put on it - saying that I said those things. Nice. > :-) RS> I think the ROOT is that you believe there's some sacred spiritual soul RS> that comes into existence at the moment of human conception. I RS> disagree: It's a fertilized egg: No more special than the fertilized RS> chicken egg that I choose to fry and eat rather than incubate and RS> hatch. It had the *potential* to be a chicken, but it's not a chicken. RS> Jesus doesn't care. -- RS> digital man (rob) Okay. Curious about objective morality though... .... Feel lucky???? Update your software! --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52 * Origin: Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com (1:105/7) .