[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

All of this is entirely dependent on the party that you're arguing with being receptive to your point of view. Who says that requirements x and/or y are acceptable to anyone besides you? If the party you're attempting to sway is deadset against you or your opinions, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of you convincing them. Why bother?

You're not defining homicide, but rather what the victim of a homicide in this case can be. You can go in circles over this issue for all eternity and still not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I don't think you see what the approach is here. If someone says having a heart makes one human, and zygotes not having one makes them something else, I can show that to be incorrect, since many animals have hearts but are not considered human.

That the statement is false is not a point of view. The logic doesn't require convincing to be accepted, but comprehension.

Defining what the victim is in homicide is defining homicide but I get the point. Earlier I made it clear that abortion being homicide is contingent on a human being dying, and that I believe a zygote to be a human being, human life, whatever you prefer. I presented what led me to that conclusion and invited others to challenge the logic. They have failed so far, but since it's entirely possible I've made a mistake, I sit and wait for the imperfection to be revealed.


---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Because you've decided that the very first cells are a person. No doubt they are alive. But how do you prove it's a person?

As person is a human classification, we can determine whether or not it applies to the very first cells.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I happen to believe that a zygote constitutes human life. Here's why:

It is alive.

It is genetically distinct human organism.

Most importantly, if permitted to carry out its living functions it will mature into a person.

At no point is its life interrupted. Now one might say that yes, it is alive, but not yet a human being, that it transforms into one later in its development. That's fine and a valid area of debate. But unless I'm mistaken, by current definitions it is a unique, human life form.

If it isn't a human life form, so be it. Aborting a zygote could not be considered homicide then.


---

Originally Posted by Alarica

Ashtray, if you insist on talking out of your arse at me, atleast have the intelligence to read the posts i have made before stripping from the waist and assuming the position.

Ok!

Abortion shouldnt be considered a 'convenient, easy way out' simply because women are too quick to get laid and see it as a form of birth control.

You repeat this over and over without explaining why it shouldn't be so. I asked out of curiosity, but if you're unable to provide an answer we'll drop it.

Abortion should be considered as a way to prevent bringing unwanted children into the world to suffer, in cases such as **** where the woman will probably never bond with or want the baby and cannot face 9 months carrying something she hates because of how it was created, and it IS considered the best option medically if a woman is found to be carrying a baby with a serious birth defect that would leave it with a very poor quality of life. FOR EXAMPLE A major chiari 2 malformation.

The fox hunting is much the same. but it should be done in a humane way. Terminations of pregnancy, is the name given to the procedure carried out from the 24th-32nd week of pregnancy.

That's wonderful.

If this is a problem for you take it up with a medical board, not me.

AshtrayWisdom: You've addressed your own point by mentioning the necessary evil of fox hunting. Just because abortion would be recognized as killing doesn't mean it would have to stop, nor would it mean any and every alternative would be preferable to it.

I'll draw it in crayon for you when I repeat it a third time.

I said that before brain life, it is not alive. In terms of human life the headless foetus was an identical twin. It appeared human from what had developed but it was missing its head AND brain and therefore was not viable with life. I am assuming, seeing as you spout so much bollox that you actually understand that from the point at which a live baby is cut from the womb and the umbilical cord severed, its brain takes over its functions. Therefore with no brain and no head you have a lifeless, headless body. Keeping it alive makes as much sense as keeping alive the body of JFK.

A bit of thinking will save you a lot of typing. I recommend you review the thread.

Albert Mond: You said that human life begins at conception. If a fetus can grow while dead, then being conceived hardly makes a 'living' human fetus alive.

AshtrayWisdom: The same goes for our fetus. That a headless fetus can continue to grow is of no consequence. Whether or not what's left grows or decomposes (or runs around like a decapped chicken does), the tenure of the human life is over.

I dont share your view on abortion being murder because it isnt that simple, but you have proven you dont really know anything other than a last minute attempt to search wikipedia for some development stages of the brain functions etc.

Grammatically correct flames are typically more effective (I cannot "know" a last minute attempt to search Wikipedia for some development stages). Even though you proceeded in the entirely wrong direction, you could have gone further.

Alarica: I don't share your POV on abortion, but all you've demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Frantically Googling brain development milestones does not make you the least bit more learned on this very relevant matter. You also smell of poo.