HOME | DD
Kotego — Stamp - Not Even Close
Published: 2011-04-22 22:44:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 4384; 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
Oh, well as long as you treat us better that means you can say whatever vile misogynistic shit you want for free.
You realise how stupid this is, right? You're spouting disgusting misogynistic rhetoric. Just because you claim to treat women better doesn't change the fact that you hold vile, reprehensible misogynistic beliefs.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Thinking women should die for enjoying sex is extremely misogynistic, no assumptions were necessary to draw that conclusion. You tried to justify your position long before you gave in and said men should die too, but it's still an extremely retarded viewpoint to say people should die if they have non-reproductive sex. You'd be wiping out most of the human population and probably cause the species to go extinct.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Surface population needs to be reduced anyway.Too many resources being used by unproductive, irresponsible people. Also there's something called contraceptives that make abortion rarely necessary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If the population needs to be reduced so badly, then what is your problem with abortion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I actually don't have much of a problem with it. I only have a problem with rapists and people who don't take responsibility for their actions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I hate rapists too. But abortion is a way to take responsibility, it requires you acknowledge that you're pregnant, even if you don't agree with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
In many cases to me, it just seems like a safety net for the irresponsible. "Oh I got pregnant again, oh well let's go get another abortion."
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's been said, but you're a misogynistic idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's not really the case at all. Most women who get abortions already have children and just want to be able to take care of their already-existing kids. Abortion isn't just something most women do on a whim, it's a last resort. Do you really think getting an abortion is easier than using birth control? Because it's not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So you're a-okay with wiping out the population with people you don't like, but Earth forbid we remove a clump of insentient cells from a woman's uterus? LOL, nice logic there.
And contraceptives can fail, they're not 100% effective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's more of a matter of people who deserve to die, dying. Someone who never had a chance to live never gets a chance to prove if they deserve to live or not.
And you're right that contraceptives can fail. Notice my saying "rarely."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Fetus' are isentient. It's like killing someone with no brain function to begin with. It never knew it lived or died.
In my opinion, the only ones who need to die are the rapists and irresponsible whores.
LOL, that's not very pro-life
It's not similar to killing a person while sleeping at all. A person who is sleeping is still sentient, they still have a personhood within them, and your brain is still very active while you sleep.
An embryo isn't sleeping, it's completely insentient. It has the same level of consciousness as the chair you're sitting on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's a steam cell? lol
And no one ever said a stem cell (which I'm sure you meant to say) is a fetus
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Okay, why is this here then? For science?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Why did you bring up stem-cells in the first place?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This stamp has nothing to do with stem cell research
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think those definitions were the problem, or even in question. It was "is it human". Society says killing other humans is bad wrong, or wrong bad, (badong), and little humans or helpless humans especially so. The question is, and it always will be, is it human? When is it not human? That sort of thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think personally that there's a difference between a human and a person.
For example, a dead corpse is technically a human, right? It's a human corpse. But is it a person? No not really, they're dead now.
They may be human embryos but are they really human persons? Do they have a sense of personhood? Not until a certain point, no.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don't think sentience or a sense of knowing what you are makes you what you are. A dog or a bunny or a rock is what it is, regardless of whether or not it cognitively knows it. Things are what they are because an outside force decided that is what they were, though some of us do have the ability to look at ourselves from the outside and choose what we are on our own. A dead person is a dead person, which will decompose without renewing itself and return to baser elements. They have no rights save for the ones given to them by those around them. The same goes for a child, or a baby, or a fetus, or an embryo. They are the opposite, building themselves into what we call fully aware humans.
Personally, I'm angry. Angry at biology in general I guess. Women get the short end of the stick when it comes to reproduction. It can be hell even when outside forces are at their best, (this I know personally), and I pity those who don't even have that security. I am torn because I see the line of humanity at conception, yet wish for more for the women who have to carry that burden, and especially for those who don't want to or can't, or shouldn't. When it comes to some cases I see a life taken whichever choice is made- that of a physical life with no choice, or that of an emotional one with little choice. But I don't want either of those things. I want them both to live, through pain and suffering for as long as they can, but I want them to live as best they can. These things often don't coincide, and are not possible. I also don't want once side of the argument to influence the other, because they are both arguing different things. So I leave others to make their own choices, to see what is best for themselves and their own. I can only act on my own actions, and can't and won't force my opinions on others. But I will remain angry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I don't think sentience or a sense of knowing what you are makes you what you are."
That's...not what I actually SAID at all, though. I said that a human and a person aren't the same thing. A person requires personhood. The things that actually make you a person include sentience.
It's important because without it, you have nothing to lose. Not only does an embryo not have consciousness, but it also doesn't have relationships, or memories, or a personality, or anything it can call its own at all. Without being able to perceive anything at least once, it's taken nothing into its mind. It has nothing. It loses nothing by dying. And before you say "potential," it does not care about any potential. And we don't grant current rights based on potential.
The thing about declaring personhood at conception is that it raises a whole 'nother can of worms. What about identical twins? They are formed when a single embryo splits into two (that's why they are genetically the same, aside from any genes that get switched on/off due to their environments) does that mean twins are really only one person, because personhood was granted at conception and they split off from each other after that? What about Chimeras (People who had a fraternal twin in the womb but the two embryos fused together forming a single person with a different set of DNA in certain body parts) are they really two people because two conceptions took place and they have two sets of DNA? What about conjoined twins? They are technically only a single organism, but if they have two separate consciousnesses, then the law considers them to be two separate people. If consciousness doesn't matter as much as what you technically are labeled as, then why is this the case? Should they just be considered one person?
Considering personhood isn't as simple as drawing some arbitrary line where two haploid cells become a single diploid cell.
And yeah, women get shafted in biology...but that's one of the reasons I speak so strongly against them getting shafted by the law too.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Ah, you separate humanity and personhood. I didn't get that on the first read through. I don't, so thus my line of logic I guess.
As for the life at conception thing, I see it as human, though not complete. They are only cells, but they are growing human cells that can become two people or be absorbed into another. They don't have a consciousness yet. They're working on it. At that point it would be wrong to kill them precisely because they are working on it. I'm not going to suggest they have a soul at conception, or something that makes them sentient. I'm saying that it is human in that it is always growing to become itself, a human, and that it is alive. I see no difference in those small group of cells or in the larger ones that I use to walk around in because of that.
The argument that the egg and the sperm meeting creates humanity, and perhaps even eventual personhood if you like, is a bit more stable than the line drawn by most governments today. Viability does not a good argument make when arguing humanity or even personhood. Because it means, with my line of reasoning anyway, that while you are alive and after you have lived your life for a while you could loose that in a tragedy. You cease to be a person because of your dependence.
Anyway, that's a lot of blah from me, take or leave what you will. I kindof like talking with you, you're one of the few pro choice (I'm guessing) people that didn't breathe fire on me on sight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"They're working on it" can be such a broad meaning you can apply it to sperm cells or egg cells, they're "working on" becoming an embryo when they're formed and attempt to find an egg cell to fertilize or when the eggs pass in order to become fertilized. That would make it murder to not get women pregnant at every chance you get to save all the sperm and egg cells you possibly can from dying. It makes about as much sense as the "potential" argument (since that's pretty much exactly what it is actually, you just used different wording)
If we granted rights based on potential, that means 5 year olds should get the right to vote, drink, and smoke, because they're "working on" becoming adults. It just doesn't work that way.
Do you REALLY see NO difference between a person and an embryo? Honestly? Really? Then, does that mean you celebrate conceptiondays instead of birthdays, and hold a funeral every time someone you know has a miscarriage? I don't think many people actually view an embryo the same they do a person, even if they claim they do, to be honest.
The idea that you suddenly magically gain personhood when you become a diploid cell rather than two haploid cells is pretty trivial, not really "stable," just simple. It's an arbitrary distinction that only exists because it's easy to determine and understand, not because it actually has any real meaning. What really makes a diploid cell a person? What does it have that the two haploid cells didn't, that isn't completely trivial? It doesn't have any more consciousnesses or awareness than it did before they joined, or anything. All that stuff comes later.
Here's the thing about that, though. Once you gain a consciousness the only way to truly lose it is becoming brain dead. Sure, you can go into a coma or whatever, but who you are is still within your brain until the brain completely shuts down and fails for good, even if you can't remember everything, it's still there. Your personality, your feelings, everything, still exists, until it stops. And being brain dead pretty much makes you just dead anyway.
An embryo doesn't have those things yet, it's not at the stage in which it can, it can't lose any of those things because it never had them.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don't apply the same logic I tried to get across to egg or sperm cells. If you leave them alone in their original environment nothing happens. They can't become human by themselves. In a different way embryos can't either, but neither can young infants or those on life support and one has to draw the line somewhere. I draw it there, and mostly for slippery slope purposes. There isn't any basis other than my own common sense.
My argument is that it is up to the individual to decide what it is and is not. Sure, there is a truth, but we will never fully know that truth in a concrete way and unfortunately THAT is the dilemma. I see murder, where as you do not. We can only make the world better for ourselves and perhaps influence those around us, we shouldn't force convictions on topics that will always be in debate. There are horror stories triumphed by both sides and they are all equally tragic. Those individuals need tangible help, meanwhile many of us are stuck in an endless debate helping nothing.
Not that I'm saying you personally aren't doing anything, I'm just generalizing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You basically just admitted that your own logic falls apart because nothing can really develop without assistance, but choose to draw an arbitrary line anyway based on the same logic because it's "common sense" and can slip into a "slippery slope?" How did you know that the acceptance of contraception didn't end up being a "slippery slope" leading to abortion? I'm sorry, but that is no sense, at all.
The thing is, when you have sex, if left alone to just do what happens naturally, then those sperm and egg cells have a good chance of becoming human. That would make contraception, condoms and birth control murder.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Not everything equals another. Because I think or feel or believe one thing does not automatically mean I think or feel or believe another, so do not presume such a thing. Much of what I believe appears to have contradictions, but I do not see it to be that way, (please keep that in mind when you read the next paragraph), and it is not because I have twisted things to fit, but have looked at them from various angles. I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear, I didn't intend everything I typed to be combed through so diligently. Most of what I said was off the cuff, and not meant to be read between the lines.
My stance on contraception is that it is not murder. There is no such thing as destiny, only things that could be and things that are and now that they have happened they always were going to happen.
But enough about little ol' me. I see flaws in your argument as well. You say the first cells splitting is arbitrary, but what isn't in our life cycle then? New born babies are stupid stupid creatures made only of instinct and impulses, helpless and thoughtless, (trust me I've had one), yet I dare you to say they aren't human or aren't persons, especially to their parents. At what point does a switch turn on that makes them people? What makes them human? Does viability automatically equal humanity? Only a week or so makes that line distinguishable. What is the difference really between that logic and mine? Why not start at conception? Is that not when a human begins to grow? Wouldn't stopping that growth be tantamount to death? And if it is human, wouldn't that be murder? This is my argument, and there is no other agenda attached to it. It is what it is. I have refined it the best I can. I hope you can at least understand, even if you disagree.
I will be blunt now. No one will win this conversation. This is not something that can be won. Besides, this is the internet, we are faceless and inconsequential to each other. We have both decided for ourselves what the truth is, whether it is or not. What is it you want? For me to understand you? I understand your line of reasoning, and find it childish and lacking in the end. I really do want to understand the other side of this, and talking to others is the only way to really find out. As you have paid little attention to the spirit of my message, (that of tolerance in the face of this sort of thing, when the stakes are high and both sides demonise the other), and have picked apart my personal views some more instead of trying to find a common understanding I have nothing more to say really. Do whatever you want, but I have already figured out this stuff for myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've seen countless arguments where pro-lifers compare a fetus to a baby.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well, if one feels that a fetus is a human it would be easy to make that jump. And if one doesn't then they feel as though they're being labeled as murderers of babies, so they use other terms to make it look less bad, like fetus or cells.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, if one feels that a fetus is a human it would be easy to make that jump
That's more on an emotional level.
And if one doesn't then they feel as though they're being labeled as murderers of babies, so they use other terms to make it look less bad, like fetus or cells.
Well, the thing is, that's what fetus' are, a cluster of cells.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
we are sentient clusters of cells
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it deosnt matter, it has the potential to become a person even if you do only consider it a fetus
if someone had the potential to get a kidney transplant they needed would you deny them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
So you would force someone to give up their kidney against their will to save someone who's dying of kidney failure? Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
Sperm cells have the "potential" to become a person too so that argument kinda fails unless you're out impregnating every woman you possibly can to save every sperm cell you possibly can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
hey hey, guess what organ donations are voluntary!!!! (incase you didnt know)
and no, once it is a fetus it has already started to take form. there is a really big difference between fetus and a single cell
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Yes, they are voluntary. But you didn't understand my point. Why should organ donations be voluntary but childbirth not?
It's not even called a fetus until 8 weeks, more than half of abortions take place before then. And after conception? It's still just a single cell, just a diploid one. Learn your biology kid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
because the concept of getting rid of a perfectly good almost baby is different than forcing a person that is completely healthy to give up a kidney
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
As opposed to someone who is perfectly healthy being forced to do permanent damage to her body via pregnancy?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
when your making life, its a good thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
your right. when your spawning demons from hell its a bad thing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
um, okay, reply again when you have a point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know, this argument has gone on long enough. Howabout we take some chill pills. So... bye, LBJ
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
XD lol I think men loose a lot of sperm without causing "humans" in their life-times
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, that they do...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>