HOME | DD
Kotego — Stamp - Not Even Close
Published: 2011-04-22 22:44:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 4405; 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
you don't have to have a brain to react to stimulus....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But that isn't the question here, is it? An unborn child has a brain. This much is not in question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no shit sherlock
so do fucking animals
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and your point is?
they're still living creature
so what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They are living creatures, but an unborn child is also a human, with human DNA, and the potential for a great life. It is also a life that did nothing to deserve to die, especially without chance to do much of anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nothing you can do about aborted fetuses, if a woman chooses to abort the thing from GER body she can do so, because it is HER body
what someone does to their body is their business, not yours, not mine, and definitely not the governments. if she doesn't want that leech in her body then she has every right to take it out.
EVERY life has great potential, just because we're talking hairless apes doesn't give us a ticket to being "the greatest"
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It is another person's body she decides to have killed, not hers. Worse, it is her own child that she decides to killed. It is the business of everyone who considers it a moral issues, and that includes ME.
We are not just hairless, we are also the dominant species on the planet, and the only sentient one. That gives us a de facto ticket, a power, and a responsibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I guess that's just too bad then, huh?
People get killed, so fucking what?
You people cry over a goddamn fetus that gets aborted, but when it comes to children, or adults that are murdered all you can say is "oh well that's too bad, I'll pray for the family," but when a fetus gets aborted you have a fucking cow and try to fight tooth and nail for over it. A moral issue my ass.
And NO, humans aren't the only sentient creatures on the planet. We ARE nothing but hairless apes with a thumb and the ability to form a complex language system. Having a thumb and being able to create buildings and talking doesn't make us better. We're only dominant because we breed like crazy, destroy our habitat, and kill off other animals, to make more room for ourselves and above all we think we're the best, but when it comes to surviving without our precious technology we're no better than a goddamn hog in the middle of a jungle ready to be eaten by what ever can hunt us down. Most of us don't even know how to plant our own food, let alone hunt for it. Also, there are animals that have "language" try doing your research. A lot of animals are also self aware. Don't put something below you because you don't fully understand it. You sound like those christians who think everyone who isn't christian is automatically below them. And humans have no responsibility. If we do then what the hell is it? Because I see no responsibility being held now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that you don't care if people die shows your lack of fitness to participate in a reasoned discussion. That extreme indifference to human life borders on sociopathy, if not crossing the line into it.
And guess what? It became a moral issue the moment anyone decided to consider the morality of the issue. It has been a moral issue for millenia, and will continue to be so, no matter what side you take.
The rant you give me in the second paragraph does you no better. Humans are the only sentient life because we are the only civilized creatures, and the only ones with the capacity to shape our environment and not be shaped by it. Even termite mounds, beehives, and ant-hills are dependent on their environment in a way human settlements never were.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I care about human life. But I'm not going to fight to keep someone alive when we already have 7 billion of us anyway. Too many, why make more, people need to learn how to control themselves.
Would I abort? No, unless I was raped or if the child was going to live long anyway. I'm actually am careful when I have sex, and when I do ever become pregnant I'll take care of it. I rather adopt anyway.
Because fetuses have the potential to become a human being doesn't mean they are. They're nothing but a leech pretty much. I was a leech when I was a fetus, you where, everyone was. So what.
They don't feel anything if they are being aborted
If I was aborted, oh well, I wouldn't be here nor would I have cared because I wouldn't have felt anything to begin with. Physically or mentally.
Oh what ever, moral oral, I don't care. What someone does to their body I don't care, she can kill the fetus it's her right it's in her body... Or since you bitch so much about the morality case, maybe she should sell it to a scientist and have them keep it in a tube till it is old enough to be fostered. If you care that damn much, but you guys would probably bitch over that too.
Um no. We use things around our environment to shape our environment we don't pull metal or wood out of our ass and start building buildings, and we aren't the only creatures to shape our environment according to our will. Jesus really? ants do it, bees do it, we travel to gt our steel, bees and wasps travel to get their hive building material, burrowing animals shape their environment according to their will, BIRDs do, anything that builds it's own goddamn house so it can have a shelter creates it's OWN environment according to its own will, with the environment around it. Because we use steel and glass does not make us better. What are you going to bring up weapons next? animals use weapons too want me to give you a list of that too? How about animals that form their own language and even have been recorded to make different calls or sounds for different objects or predators, What else? Having the ability to talk, making skyscrapers, a thumb doesn't make us any better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Better" is a subjective term. Able to realize we are alive and able to react and respond to the world around us is one thing, but being able to truly have a sense of self, or the potential to do so is something only humans have on this planet. We have the ability to make choices that animals do not have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
we are not better, we are god-like compared to them, we are not more advanced, we are nothing but equal to other lifeforms on this planet.
Animals make choices, animals have a sense of self, have you even even heard of the mirror testings, god what do you not know shit about animals? For one, if I do not completely understand a creature or object, or culture, or ethnic group or race I do NOT put them under me and call them lesser beings because I am a "miss-know-it-all-about-the-universe-and-think-I'm-better-than-you because I can do something someone else cannot do."
You can keep living on in your little fairytale of a being holier-than-thou human being, thinking you're top shit compared to other creatures. Keep on living out that little fantasy of yours.
After all the earth is flat and the universe revolves around the earth RIGHT?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All you have are insults. Are you disturbed, or just rude? To accuse me of fantastic things while going on these long rants makes me wonder how stable you are upstairs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No just I'm rude, and I don't take too kindly to arrogant, selfish, and egotistical people who think they're top shit, when they know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about. It's like telling a christian who never read the bible or studied their own religion about their religion and watching them cry about how much they're right, without doing any research what-so-ever.
And not once have i insulted you, but oh no you insult me by calling me unstable, while I am giving my opinions based on actual fact with multiple studies behind them, while yours is just based on personal opinion and personal opinion alone. Since you seem to think that animals are basically furry rocks that react to stimulus.
keep living out your little fairy tale
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are the only rude and egotistical one here. I could say the same about your own little fairy tales, in which dogs are the equal of humans and they all should vote by that logic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not putting anyone or anything below me because I don't understand them unlike you are, so how does that make me egotistical?
I'm not putting you below me because you have a fairytale opinion, so what? you can keep it, it doesn't change FACT.
and yes i am rude, Got a problem with it? Deal with it, I'm not here to impress you.
Why are you bringing up voting? What the fuck does voting have to do with an animal being sentient or not?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you think humans are no different than other animals, it implies that other animals ought to have the same level of rights as we do, including voting. I'm just showing the utter absurdity of your arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
but what ever KEEP living your fairy tale
you're never going to change my mind, I'll just stick behind my fact and you can stick behind your beliefs
and we'll call it a day.
Until u can prove me wrong then there's no use in continuing this conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sentient has nothing to do with voting, has nothing to do with being able to drive a car, ride a bike, fly a plane, write, read, human activity
every species of animal has their own activity
participating in human activity is restricted to humans only.
you don't see a human participating in elephant activity, or dolphin activity, the only time when an animal and human cross each other's path in participating in each other's activity is when they are playing or helping one another. What the fuck did voting come from. People don't even need voting to be sentient, there studies of animals "voting" members out of their group too, so fucking what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
apparently you think having to vote makes one sentient,
oh ok
then before voting was invented humans weren't sentient apparently
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, if you poke a plant or an animal or bacterium, it reacts. That implies perception and sensation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But not brain activity... because neither of those have any brains.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Animals have brains. :buckteeth:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You said plants and bacteria, neither of which is an animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't say animal? I'm sorry, I thought I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In any event, an animal is not (usually?) sentient, even so, you would not want to kill an animal just because it is not sentient, right? I don't support killing animals for anything but food, protection of one's flock of cows/sheep/goats, and maybe if it was a society with no other means, for clothes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I had an animal I did not want to give birth to inside me, yes, I would kill it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do realize that the "animal" is you own offspring, right? From an evolutionary point of view, that is self-defeating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lovely thing is I don't give a shit about evolution when it comes to my body.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't kill your child's body either. Technically, that is what you would be doing, even if your child is the size of a raisin and is totally helpless to fight back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Unless it was at the stage that it wasn't actually a child but a fetus or embryo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Technically, the fetus has half of your DNA, so yes, it is your child if it is in you... unless you would be some sorta of surrogate mother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I meant it is not yet a child, but a fetus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fetus still has half of your DNA, and comes from a cell within you, and one from a man. That is still your offspring, something you ought to love, not kill.
Plus, unlike a man, you can be 100% sure it is yours by default, unless you are taking part in a surrogate maternity program.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why should I love my offspring, hmm?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because that is what nature intends. People who love their children tend to keep the kids alive, and they have happier lives, stronger families, and things just tend to work better. Not to mention, I shouldn't even have to be asked that. It really is one of those things that ought to be accepted as a given.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How does anyone know nature's intentions? And no, it's not a given. Lots of people don't love their children. If I was forced to give birth to something I didn't want, I probably wouldn't love my child unless my body released those feel-good bonding chemicals that many women get after giving birth. Anyway, the point is moot since a fetus isn't an actual child.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Those people who don't love their children have serious issues. They are acting against human nature.
As for how we know it, that is simple. We see in nature that even birds fight to the death the protect their unborn young in the nest. Just try getting between a mother hen and her chicks; despite being outmatched, she will fight like mad.
The point is not moot because an unborn child, a fetus, embryo, or even a zygote is a child, just one at an earlier stage of development. Whether you choose to believe that or not changes nothing.
Love is more than chemical; even parents of adopted children can love the kids. Your cynicism appalls me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
>whether you choose to believe that or not changes nothing
It changes everything. A fetus, zygote, and embryo does not have the same rights as a child, and I have no obligation to love it.
I never said love is only chemical(well, actually, it is, as it originates in chemical reactions in the brain). Rather, I said that if I was forced to give birth to a baby I didn't want, the only way I would love it would be the bonding chemicals released after giving birth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do realize that love is not chemical, right? The reaction you describe is attraction (of the non-sexual kind), not love. Now, you have an obligation to love your offspring, as does the father of the child. This is human nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Love is chemical. Every emotion is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain. This doesn't mean that love is any less beautiful.
Human nature = obligation? What? I think you mean it's human nature to love one's offspring. And it surely is, except when A) someone is, say, a psychopath, or B) someone is forced to give birth to a baby they don't want. Why would you love something you don't want?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Love is more than chemical. How else to explain love between people who are unrelated and don't wish to procreate (i.e. adopted children, charity, love of humankind in general)?
Obligations to each other is a part of human nature. It's called compassion, something that appears in human traditions all over the globe. As for being "forced", you have to keep in mind that one's body does it automatically in the presence of the opposite reproductive cell, so it is better to say "involuntary" than forced.
And we often love what we don't really want. I know that is odd, but it is part of life. It is hard to explain. Most people have more of a heart and love their children anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're not understanding what I'm saying. The feeling that we describe as love occurs as a chemical reaction in the brain. This includes love between unrelated people. The mind is just a result of massive chemical reactions in the brain.
By 'forced' I mean being legally forced to not have an abortion and thus give birth to an unwanted baby.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, unless you were raped, you consented to sex. You ought to be held accountable for the consequences for what you consent to.
And love is not chemical. I've been over why already, but you aren't even bothering to address it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A possible child shouldn't be seen as a consequence. 
I did address it. You seem to think I'm talking about love as the chemical bond between a birth mother and baby, but no; I'm talking all sorts of love. Let's use an example, okay? The levels of serotonin in the brain affect, among other things, mood. A certain amount results in depression; another amount results in anxiety. There also appears to be correlation between high levels of serotonin and aggressiveness, but that is neither here nor there. Love between all people can be felt, and it is real; all I'm saying is that its origin is in the marvelous organ we call the brain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A child is not a consequence, but the pregnancy is. There is no loss of autonomy if she consents, you know. Consent means autonomy after all. I think you are confusing consent with rape.
Love is not a chemical reaction. Again, it is a deeper thing than that. It can be abstracted, and at times, misdirected, such as loving money. I simply state that there is no chemical origin of love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>