HOME | DD
Kotego — Stamp - Not Even Close
Published: 2011-04-22 22:44:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 4386; Favourites: 178; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
Fetus (first trimester):[link]: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
Baby:[link]
: An infant; a newborn child.
A fetus is not a baby. Not even close.
Stamp base by --> [link]
Related content
Comments: 782
but still. a plant is not a human with a heartbeat. i don't see why the government can ban euthanasia killing for criminals, but then SUPPORT the murder of innocent developing humans that have done nothing wrong in their short little lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Weird how you pick "heartbeat" to make life important. Why do you get to decide what makes some life important and others less important?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They have no life. That's why. To kill is to take away a life, its a not a life if its not living.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A fetus is a human being at an early stage of development, with a heart that beats from less than a month after conception, and the same DNA as he or she will have for life.
That life would be an awful lot longer for millions of fetuses if people recognized their personhood. Unfortunately, you are hurting this cause. Do you need me to start quoting from "Horton Hears a Who?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Oh, great. More people. That's all we need.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yes. We need more people to fund social security and medicare/medicaid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But we need significantly less people in order to make human activity sustainable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I disagree. We need to use fewer resources per person, not have fewer people. If we have fewer people, the survivors will simply consume more per person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That will only work up to a point. We can't keep increasing forever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It will work for a very long time. The planet can support about 48 billion people, and we aren't even a quarter of the way there yet. As it is, I'm not against sensible population control, but killing the unborn is not the answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So... what are these 48 billion people going to burn for electricity? We've only got a finite amount of fossil fuels, and by the time 48 million of us are around, there won't be so many trees around, let alone animals. Abortion may not be the best solution, but its a start.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of the new energy will be renewable, have no fear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Mr. Giesel was very upset when people started using "A person's a person, no matter how small," for abortion.
He in no way intended for it to be used in that manner. So STFU.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We don't know his views, although to be fair, his widow did not approve of such use. Giesel himself was upset that they never paid him for use of his copyrighted material.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It wasn't just his widow, if you Google hard enough, he said he absolutely did not want it to be used for abortion rights. It's also in black and white (print,) so I'm not relying on just the internet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have never seen that said, but I shall look. The fact that you had to "Google hard" implies that it was never made very clear, or else you would not have had to conduct such a hard search.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I said "Google hard," I meant that I found more than on source saying that Giesel did not want his line exploited in such a way. I would not have responded to you had I not done my research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Google by itself is no research. Anyone can put anything on the internet, girl. I agree that he did not want people selling t-shirts, caps, stickers, and other merchandise using his work without permission and royalty payments.
Also, a parasite has to live out its lifecycle by means of a host; an unborn animal by definition will leave its mother after a point in time and never return.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know that anyone can do so. I didn't half ass this search and go onto just any site. As I state previously, I found a few columns in magazines reiterating what I have told you.
Doesn't a fetus technically live out its life cycle through its mother? And, when you think about it, though it does not return to its mother bodily, it uses its mother as a means to live, even when it is old enough to fend for itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope. A fetus doesn't live out the lifecycle in the mother. Not at all. The rest of the life is lived outside. It helps to understand that a fetus is only a single stage in a lifecycle.
And again, anyone can print crap in magazines. Try medical journals instead. The kind that are peer-reviewed perhaps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A fetus is not a person. It isn't even sentient.
Unfortunately, you are hurting this cause
Maybe because I don't stick to emotion and use facts for my argument, and also see reality rather than stick to the "omg, laiiiife is soooo wunderfoooool" perspective?
Do you need me to start quoting from "Horton Hears a Who?"
Horton Hears a Who was meant for voting rights, no fetuses, hun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was probably not for voting rights. Kinda hard how to see saving a race on a speck from genocide has anything to do with rights at the ballot box.
As for sentience, I don't stick to emotion for my arguments. I never did. I wouldn't been able to get into law school if I did, let alone graduate from college. Sentience is a hard to define concept, but it is fair to say that human life trumps sentience. A person in a coma isn't sentient either, nor is a person who is unconscious, by the strictest definition.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was probably not for voting rights. Kinda hard how to see saving a race on a speck from genocide has anything to do with rights at the ballot box.
Yes it was. Go research it yourself.
Sentience is a hard to define concept, but it is fair to say that human life trumps sentience. A person in a coma isn't sentient either, nor is a person who is unconscious, by the strictest definition.
Are you aware of the scientific defintion of sentience? When you're in a coma or simply unconscious you still have the ability to perceive the world, you still have emotions and memories. A fetus has none of these, its brain doesn't even funtion till the third trimester.
It has no idea it's even alive, let alone being aborted possibly. Nor will it care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did the research and found conflicting information. Since there is no definitive answer, I shall have to go with what is most probable.
There is no single, agreed upon scientific definition of sentience. It is truly a big debate and neither you nor I have the answers. The brain of a fetus functions well before the third trimester. Don't give me lies. It will care if it dies, but that is not the question. The question is whether or not society will care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sentience is agreed upon, just the life of a fetus is debatable. And no, the brain does not function at that time; you really need to research this stuff, and not on anti-abortion sites.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, sentience is not agreed upon. The very definition isn't agreed on either. I took philosophy in college, and have studied the concept. You need to get an actual education.
But medically, the first brain function is from eight weeks. 50-56 days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Except "Horton Hears a Who" had nothing to do with abortion and you guys almost got sued over using that line.
A fetus isn't sentient. Just because its heart is beating doesn't make it the same as an adult human. It doesn't have feelings or even the brain function to have them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The only reason for the suit was because it was used without paying him for the rights. And it was evangelicals, not Catholics like myself who were sued. Your attack is somewhat misdirected.
And as above, an unconscious person doesn't have sentience either, if you go by feelings and brain function needed to interact with the world. A fetus would become sentient by your definition if he or she were not killed. As it is, a fetus has human DNA, and probably CAN feel pain, btw. The more we learn about the unborn, the more we realize that the level of development is much faster than we had previously given them credit for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
A leech doesn't have sentience either, but each one has a different set of DNA than the other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
but a leech does not have human DNA, unlike an unborn child
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So only humans matter.
And what about cell cultures? Are those full people because they have human DNA?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are making an unjust inference here.
And human DNA is only half of it; there has to be potential for human life, that is, it has to be an arrangement of human cells such as you or I are, or as an unborn child is. It is in the nature of an unborn child to grow and express the human form, while human cells taken from scrapings or something would not ever develop into a fully-grown human being.
You know this. Stop messing around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, like I said before, it only matters if it's a human fetus with human DNA.
Additionally, what about spontaneous miscarriages and birth control? Technically every ovum and sperm have the potential to develop and grow into a human being, right?
I am not at all messing around. I'm asking you questions because I want to know how you answer them. I'm not trying to irritate you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An ovum and a sperm don't have full human DNA by themselves, you know. That's why they don't have human rights. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But they do have the potential to become human beings, isn't that what you said was important? D:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, they don't. Not by themselves. A sperm or an ovum will never, ever, ever become a human unless they unite. The moment they do this, they cease to be a sperm and an ovum. You just aren't paying attention.
Are you always such a bitch to everyone you meet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh, nope. Just to you. I totally went out of my way to annoy you today, you are my special person.
Sarcasm aside, I actually seem to be paying more attention than you. Ignorant as I will confess to being, I definitely know that a fetus will not develop into a fully functioning human being by itself, otherwise pregnancy would be entirely unnecessary and we would lay eggs. Your comment about DNA is irrelevant, as every cell in the human body apart from gametes contains a full set of human DNA, and yet we don't consider each individual cell a person. Therefore, DNA alone does not make a human, and capability to achieve life as we recognize it also does not make a person. I get the impression that you haven't really asked these questions, you're just going with your gut.
Which is fine. To be totally honest, I would be pro-life too if I didn't find the idea of forcing a woman to have a baby utterly repulsive. If you're just outright morally opposed to abortion because you think killing is wrong, I respect that and find it logical. It's when people start justifying it with DNA and Potential for Life and other almost-science that I start to ask questions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Left to itself, a fetus will develop into a human being, assuming the mother does not die or suffer some sort of health crisis sufficient to terminate the pregnancy.
I find abortion utterly repulsive. It is murder. It is wrong. To deny people their personhood is worthy of Hitler.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hitler was pro-abortion, fool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love Hitler~ He's my great great grandpa's leader. He has great K/D ratio, 11,000,000 kills to his one death. Zeig Heil
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Left to itself, a fetus will die. Survival requires the mother. So many variables have to perfectly converge to sustain a pregnancy and produce a viable child. Sometimes I think that people fail to realize the effort a body goes through and the physical costs undertaken to produce a child. It seems like everyone assumes the fetus just takes care of itself until it pops out. It isn't like that, and that's why I find it literally a godsend whenever someone I know has a healthy child.
If you don't mind being the one to tell the rape victim that she has to carry and birth her attacker's child on top of the fear and abuse she has already endured, then I think that should be your job. You seem like you would be good at it. I personally do not want to tell anyone what to do, especially on such a massively important issue. I just can't force myself in my mind to face someone and determine, without allowing them a say, what is going to happen for the next two years of their life, what will happen to their body without their consent, and what will affect them until they die. In the lovely spirit of invoking horrible scary people for scare-tactics, I find that worthy of whatever fascist you prefer at the moment. Which I guess, is Hitler. I don't know why everyone always picks Hitler. There have been worse people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, you are giving undue attention to the less than 1% of pregnancies that are the result of rape, treating them as if every other pregnancy was the result of rape. You are doing a disservice to women and to the truth itself.
Now, what you have said about the mother is true, but also irrelevant. Totally. The child may have to live off of what the mother consumes, but otherwise, the child grows by itself, with no conscious effort or thought needed on the part of the mother. Left to itself, the natural process which even cats and dogs are capable of will run its course and the child will be born.
Something must be seriously wrong with you not to understand it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. It makes complete sense. There are many things wrong with me, but this is not one of them.
If you think it's bad to kill a fetus that isn't the result of rape (no matter how insignificant the percentage), but okay if it is, then you are a hypocrite. I'm sorry, but you are. So if you're not okay with forcing raped women to keep fetuses and can't picture YOURSELF being the one to deliver the news to said victim, hereby taking full responsibility for your opinions and views, then maybe you should take a good hard look at what you're saying. Additionally, I was doing none of the things you said I did. You read into it what you wanted to hear. If I had meant that, I would have up and said it, because I say precisely what I mean.
It is not irrelevant that the fetus can't grow by itself. You said that, left alone, a fetus would develop on its own. That is not true and I called you out on it. Everything follows its DNA plan, so even if the child did spontaneously generate, its development would be nothing remarkable in that regard. Additionally, the fetus puts no "conscious effort" into developing because it has no consciousness to speak of for the majority of the time it's in utero. The fetus isn't constantly thinking "Grow, grow! Develop brain! Develop soul, etc! FINGER APOPTOSIS GO!!!" It's just doing what was genetically programmed in the first place. So minimizing the mother's involvement in "conscious effort" in the way that you did also minimizes your implications about the fetus's autonomy.
P.S., Have I said there's anything wrong with you? No, because it's irrelevant to the argument. And yet you've compared me to Hitler, called me a bitch, and in every one of your posts you basically label me an ignorant idiot. I don't know why you have such a huge problem with me, especially since this is only one issue. You know nothing else about me and yet somehow I'm already at the "Hitler" ranking. This has fast become a stupid butting of heads. I don't know why I still try to talk to people about this. Unless you have something to say or clarfy about your position that isn't about how retarded I am, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we're done here.
TEXTWALL END.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are thinking about this in the wrong terms. That is why you are ignorant. If you thought about this in terms of killing something versus letting something live, you would not come to the misguided conclusions that you do.
It does not matter if an unborn child grows with or without the mother; the fact is, the unborn child will grow, and the mother's body will aid the child in this if both mother and child are left alone. This is nature's way of doing things. Even dogs, cats, birds, bears, and mice do this. There is nothing more natural in the entire world than that.
The autonomy of the unborn makes it all the more important to protect them, as they are unable to beg for their existence, as far as we can tell, or if they are able to do so, their pleas all too often fall on deaf ears.
As for the rape stuff, let me put it to you this way; two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot respond to rape with murder, nor is it right to kill someone for something they never did.
The fact that you obsess with minutia like "can the fetus live on its own"? shows that you are desperately grasping at straws, hoping that you can somehow justify murder. That's right, murder. Killing. The taking of innocent life that never did anything to deserve the fate brought on him or her by the heartlessness of another. Even if a woman agonizes over an abortion, that makes it no better. Even Macbeth agonized over killing king Duncan, and that did nothing to diminish the severity of the crime.
I think I can predict how you will respond. You'll get mad, not believe half of what I say, and when you are unable to effectively respond to half of it, you will either ignore it or declare it "irrelevant" because "I am right and he is wrong", despite the opposite being the case. You KNOW that to be true.
Is it relevant whether or not there is something wrong with you? Well, yes. You may be in a position one day to authorize the taking of innocent life. That is something that I cannot stay silent about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I will never authorize anything. You can be assured that I feel absolutely no need to tell anyone what to do or what not to do with their life. I am in control of my life, and my life only. The only time I will act is when a creature capable of feeling pain is abused, which is why I fight so vehemently for women's rights. That includes not forcing anyone to be pregnant against their will. It also includes not forcing anyone to have an abortion against their will. I thought about this for a long time, and it was a hard decision, and I did not take it lightly. (By the way, I am opposed to abortion beyond the point at which such neural connections necessary to feel pain are developed - not that I think that has any bearing on the argument, just wanted to pre-emptively clarify the 'fetuses feel pain too' reaction.)
I realize I have been going about this in a somewhat roundabout way, but what I am trying to establish is what you think constitutes a human being. After all, that's what this whole debate is centered on - yes? So far, I got "full set of human DNA" (addressed) and "will develop into a human on its own" (addressed). If I missed one, sorry for the misunderstanding and if you think it's important enough than by all means, respond. I may not reply, though, if it seems like we're just going to degenerate into a name-calling competition.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The definition of sentient: "having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious."
FETUSES in no way have sense perception or sensation, nor are they conscious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, if you poke them, they react. That implies perception and sensation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
If you poke them then that is called reacting to stimuli. A plant can move when you poke them, and plant isn't sentient and neither is a fetus.
Because something moves doesn't mean they have a conscious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A plant has no brain, but an unborn child does. That makes a huge difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>