"Unborn Child"

[Trolldor]

Depending on which stage you abort, that is applicable yes. But that's ignoring the fact that it is still human and, provided it's healthy, will grow in to a fully functioning human being.

[Tero]

Still, what is the point? We only need to produce our replacement units, even less would do. A human is no different form any other embryo trying to make a living off the planet.

[Trolldor]

That still doesn't explain why people won't admit to what's happening.

[RuleBritannia]

That still doesn't explain why people won't admit to what's happening.

Like who?

[Trolldor]

*sigh*

Go back to post 1.

[RuleBritannia]

Depending on which stage you abort, that is applicable yes. But that's ignoring the fact that it is still human and, provided it's healthy, will grow in to a fully functioning human being.

The same is true of every sperm and egg. Masterbation and periods are genocide!

[RuleBritannia]

*sigh*

Go back to post 1.

*sigh*

That doesn't answer who.

[Trolldor]

You want a name? Maybe an address to go with it?
Here's a phone number.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Depending on which stage you abort, that is applicable yes...

I disagree. I don't personally believe consciousness worth the name starts to assemble itself until post-birth.

...But that's ignoring the fact that it is still human...

Without human consciousness, "human" in this regard is merely a biological species label, nothing more - and is therefore not worth a damm with regards moral arguments.

...and, provided it's healthy, will grow in to a fully functioning human being.

So what? An acorn is not a tree.

What something will be (which in itself can never be a matter of certainty), is irrelevant for determining what currently is, and therefore what status (moral or otherwise) is to be currently assigned to it.

[Trolldor]

Depending on which stage you abort, that is applicable yes...

I disagree. I don't personally believe consciousness worth the name starts to assemble itself until post-birth.

...But that's ignoring the fact that it is still human...

Without human consciousness, "human" in this regard is merely a biological species label, nothing more - and is therefore not worth a damm with regards moral arguments.

...and, provided it's healthy, will grow in to a fully functioning human being.

So what? An acorn is not a tree.

What something will be (which in itself can never be a matter of certainty), is irrelevant for determining what currently is, and therefore what status (moral or otherwise) is to be currently assigned to it.

This isn't a moral arguement at all.
As a human being you look foward at what 'will be' all the time, including but not limited to matters of law. That's what a conspiracy charge is, isn't it? Charging for something that 'will be'?
Secondly, 'human' is only ever a biological label. 'Human consciousness' is a biological process that begins well before birth. Why would a premmature child be considered concious while an unborn child not be at equal weeks of development?

I disagree. I don't personally believe consciousness worth the name starts to assemble itself until post-birth.

I happen to think that there's no possible way Twilight could be successful, but reality says otherwise.

So again, why refuse to use the term 'unborn child'? Why refuse to acknowledge that's what you're killing?

[JOZeldenrust]

It's not an unburn child, it's an unborn human. "Child" has all kinds of affective connotations.

Is it just me or has the quality of your argumentation gone down the drain since you assumed your new moniker?

[Trolldor]

At what point does it stop being 'just a human' and start being a child then?

20 weeks? 24 weeks?

For all the rhetoric, you're awfully unspecific.

[JOZeldenrust]

Why does it matter? I don't object to calling it an unborn child, I don't care much about names. If I had to put a boundary on being a child, I'd put it at about eighteen months after birth, when they start talking.

You want to argue that people object to the use of the term "unborn child" because they don't want to think of the foetus as human, but child != human. You're argument doesn't support your position.

[Trolldor]

Oh well, because you say it doesn't that clears everything up. Thank you. Now if you'd like to actually present an argument I'm waiting.

[RuleBritannia]

This thread is pointless.