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)
