You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A human fetus is the young of the parents who created them
I notice that some here don't like books and references and all, but I have no other way to help you see your own denials. So, I hope you will reconsider the use of some scientific and other objective information that I share and use to support my claims.
Note that these are NOT abortion related websites.
Placenta Cream "The placenta nourishes the young while in the womb, transferring food and other essentials for life from the mother to the growing fetus. "~ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-placenta-cream.htm
"preg•nant1 (ˈprɛg nənt) adj.
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal."~
Charles Darwin "The shape, also, of the pelvis might affect by pressure the shape of the head of the young in the womb." ~ Charles Darwin in "Origin of Species" ~ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
"the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'"
As you can see, your side has already lost the legal debate on whether or not a child in the womb is a child.
Of course, you are more than welcome to challenge the U.S. Code (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) but until you successfully do, the definition stands.
Young is: "offspring, especially of an animal before or soon after birth". So yes I suppose it 'the young'.
However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child.
This thread is only about whether or not it's the young of its parents and I thank you for recognizing the fact that it is.
As for your comment: "However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child."
We have already gained some legal recognition of the fact that a child in the womb is a child - under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and many State's Fetal Homicide laws which use the same language.
I understand that you may disagree with their definitions and conclusions. But you can't deny that they have been established.
Well I guess there will be another debate to follow and I can argue against you in that. A point that might also support your arguement is found in english law (I'm a law student):
section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:
“(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:
Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.
Your picture doesn't make sense to me because trees don't have fetuses. But humans do and they are young humans. So what's up with the other side? Good job on making them look foolish.
Because obviously when a child is growing up, you tell it that a caterpillar is a butterfly, not that one day it will change in to one.
I suppose you're going to tell me that a sperm cell is also a child? In which case you ought never have sex again, or you'll be responsible for the deaths of millions of children.
Jungle. Human beings do not morph out of one organism and into another. If you look up any reputable scientific reference and study 'metamorphosis' you will see that it uses butterflies and frogs as examples but not mammals. That's because mammals (including humans) unlike frogs and butterflies are the same organism throughout our life cycle.
I'm not going to tell you that a haploid sperm cell is a child because it's not. It's just a reproductive cell that has half the potential to create a child.
Are you not going to listen to other people's opinions?
So a foetus is a human in the very early development stages. So what? It's less complex than a gnat at the moment. Potential doesn't matter if you don't or can't use it. And overpopulation is a huge issue, bigger than global warming.
You have already answered the question of this thread, Elvira. This was posted in the "Science" category. I understand that it will have ramifications in other debates but those are for discussions in other debates.
One of the first steps - dealing with population issues might be to recognize the way humans are created, when and how their lives begin, etc.
Or would you rather we all ignore the biological information?
It has potential, and I said I don't care about potential. Everyone has whacky potential threads streaming off everywhere that will never be followed, so what?
I don't know what you mean by 'it has potential.' We all have potential. How does that have anything to do with whether or not a fetus is the young of its parents?
I'm tempted to use that to get some digs on a few trolls here...
I never claimed that the young in the womb is sentient and I don't see how it would be relevant to this discussion anyway. Sentient young or non-sentient young. They are still the young of their parents. Right?
If the 40 Year long controversy about Roe isn't a compelling enough argue for you to appreciate the importance of this... I can't imagine what else would convince you.
It is pretty much self evident that a child in the womb is the child or the young of the parents who created it. But, it will be interesting to see the denials from those who are inconvenienced by these biological facts.
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
Parasites do not attach to their own kind and because pro-creation and gestation is necessary for the survival of a species and for a bunch of other scientific reasons, the mother child relationship is more one of mutualism & symbiosis and not of parasitism.
Though technically, it's not that either because symbiosis like parasitism requires the two to be of a different species from each other and a mother and child are of the same species.
"Symbiosis is a close ecological relationship between the individuals of two (or more) different species. Sometimes a symbiotic relationship benefits both species, sometimes one species benefits at the other's expense, and in other cases neither species benefits."
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
So what? Whether or not a fetus deserves to proselitize some hazy terminology perhaps pertaining to some vague, extristic predetermined notion of "life" or "personhood" is NOT unctuous or even germane to the abortion debacle; per contra, the brouhaha is entirely equidistant to one inperitive inquiry: which is stronger, the personhood of the begetter or that of the begetted?
Since you have subscribed to the veryily deplorable but igniomouosly samey method of censoriously gagging any perspective that does not run ecclestesically congruent to your fasticious one-trick shetland pony that you have decided to term a worldview depite the fact that there is risible, extant proof that it is nothing but mealy and stillborn-- such is the erudite quantity of bupkis predilectations that you have contorted into its metaphorical cloaca--, I am going to use this post as a brusque summa of my arguments, as I have been coaxed into neurotic fear that I will be forced into tautology, such is the brevity of the corrospondence.
Incumbently, my valedictorial argument is that our entire system of aspirational lactations that we have vaguely defined as a demoncracy rely on one simple axiom: that we each have a right of defence, a right to solemnly apprehend any who dares impair our equilibrium. The parental embodiment and the foetal embodiment each have conflicting interests and therefore it is their scientific right, almost their naturalistic duty, to brawl over docility. If a foetus's right to life-- I am not denying that it exists, I am merely saying that it is barely potent-- interrupts that of a mother, the foetus has commited an indelible wrong that should morally be resolved with the appropriate finesse. You, on the other hand, want to assign preponderant rights to the unborn foetus simply because of your own altrustic belief system.
My progeny to that argument is that if the mother gives the foetus to perpertually command her body, this consent can also be vetoed. For me, the relationship between mother and foetus is like the unilatterally fragile relationship between a government and the plebarians it commands; if the foetus starts to erode the mother's liberty and fraternity until only a stochastic iota of pastoral flotsam is still a utensil, then that foetus is totalitarian and may be abscounded.
Lastly, albeit alarmist as it seems, we must consider the conseptualisation that prohibiting a woman from having an abortion is lionised rape. Pregnancy is essentually a medical prognosis brought on by sexual congress, and if any aspect of sex is nonconsensual then that sexual conduct can be declared to be rape.
It's funny that you wrote such an epic novel on this- because I didn't see any need to read past those first two words.
If you don't care?
Why should I care?
EDIT: I went back and skimmed your post just to make sure there was nothing else I wanted to respond to and it seems you missed the original question too. It's one of science not philosophy.
Is a creature that is in the 'fetal' stage of their life the young of the parents who created it - or not?
No, you don't look at an acorn and tell people " this is a tree!" You tell them, with time, this will morph in to a tree!
The same can be said of a fertilised egg. It is not a human being, as much as if you take a bit of cartilage out of someones foot and say " this is a human being."
It will grow in to a human being, but given all the characteristics of a human being, in term, an egg could be any other mammal.
Because once the Foetus-Baby-Child has reached adulthood, it is in that stage of life until the day it dies. It will get older yes, but it is still a human. An egg on the other hand is not. What characteristics does this thing have for you to call it "A Human"?
It has human genes in it, and is forming in side another human. However this thing is not a human, it will turn in to a human. Would you look at a nut and say " This is a tree" or would you say " This will become a tree"?
Heads up, if you say yes to the first question, you loose.
1. I never claimed that an egg cell is a human being or child.
As for the 2nd half of your comment? We already have laws and legal definitions which that favor our claims that it is a child and even a legal 'person' at any stage of their life.
I digress.
This debate is only about whether or not a child in the first days of their life is the biological young of the parents who created it.
"Human beings are the same organism at conception that they are at 80 years of age (providing they live that long)"
That's pretty much saying that a fertilised human egg cell is a human being."
It is!
If you disagree, then what kind of organism or 'being' is it?
" Obviously the egg belongs to the parents yes, but no, it is not and I make this very clear, not a child. "
Denial is a piss poor argument and this question is not about whether it's a child or not.
FOCUS!.
Is it the young of the parents who created it?
Better worded,... what makes your biological father your 'biological father' if you were not his young (or even child) at the moment of your conception?
His part in becoming your biological father was pretty much over at that point.
My word how many more times must I drum this in to your skull, a few embryonic cells is NOT a child, can you not see this? It is as less a being as can be!
One more time. This thread and debate is NOT about whether or not a creature in the fetal stage of their life is a "child."
Read the original question again.
"Is it the YOUNG of the parents who created it?"
As for your sidebar denials about it being a child?
If you want me to accept that as fact? You are going to have to get the writers of several medical Dictionaries and now Lawmakers to change the definitions that I am using to support my claims.
Ok, well I'll refer back to your question. The egg does belong to the parents yes, who else would it belong to? But, as for it being the 'young' as you so handsomely put it, Uhh..? WRONG. It is NOT the young of the parents, badly worded. There's no point arguing about something if you need to rely on so many books, as you stated instead of actually knowing the answer. Besides, you should remove that picture, as it stands against everything I have just told you about the group of cells not being a child, WHICH IT ISN'T. Perhaps you ought to look up the word denial because you are showing the exact traits, completely bypassing everything I have told you. Me saying one thing as appose to another is not denial, it is a fact. But I see arguing with you is a waste of time as you have nothing of interest to say.
" There's no point arguing about something if you need to rely on so many books, as you stated instead of actually knowing the answer."
Wow that was quite a rant. I'm surprised that you have such a disdain for books and for my use of sources to prove a point in a debate no less.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the one or two (seemingly well educated) pro-choicers who have agreed that a human in the fetal stage of their life is the young of the parents who created them?
What would you say to them?
"Me saying one thing as appose to another is not denial, it is a fact. But I see arguing with you is a waste of time as you have nothing of interest to say."
I know you don't like books and references and all, but I have no other way to help you see your own denials. So, I hope you will reconsider the scientific and other objective information that share and use to support my claims.
Note that these are NOT abortion related websites.
At the risk of looking like a complete and utter ignoramus, I must ask, have you edited your debate description? Because it looks different to the first time I saw it. Same goes for the title. If not then I suppose it goes to say I have been arguing for a lost cause, cough cough.
Its isn't a child yet. It could stop growing like some acorns do. They just suddenly do nothing or die. When its born and between that age and puberty you have child. Other than that not so much. The reason I think that its not really a big deal is because like trees how many eggs is a woman born with? A lot. How many acorns do trees produce? Enough to make plenty of trees and feed many squirrels.
Oh then still no. Make it in a lab. It won't belong to you. It will not be your young. Sorry I misread the question and looked right at the picture. My fault.
No. Humans have been able to make amino acids. Also your link is a picture. A clone is not yours. A clone can have a baby of course. A clone is not yours.
Not that I owe you an explanation... but when you jump in calling people idiot, TROLL or saying that a scientific question is to "force raped girls to have babies?"
I take it that he said that you were for forcing raped girls to have babies from the rape, no? You came in an compared me to someone who would be for killing anyone that was in a coma, obviously I would disagree with that but I didn't report you, and I wouldn't have banned you if it was my debate. Same thing with the situation you seem to be talking about, in your opinion that is not apart of your political opinion, however you banning him because of that makes you a hypocrite.
When you start a debate, you get a message that says "You are the Debate Moderator. You can BAN abusive participants."
I wanted to have a discussion and maybe even an agreement with at least some pro-choicers on the fact that a 'fetus' is the young of the parents who created it.
You can see what I got instead.
I got the very kind of abusive posts that the 'ban' function is provided for.
I will admit, I don't approve of such things as what he said, I don't approve of that tactic, however how can you ban people whom you feel are abusing you, when you do the same thing yourself? A lot of these people didn't even abuse you (I am not denying some haven't), some people mocked you knowing how uncivil you have been. Plus what you consider abuse may not be abuse to someone else, and I have to say, you are using the function a little too much here. You banned some people for debating abortion instead, so is them thinking that this was supposed to be about abortion really means to ban someone?
It's done and I did what I could to keep my debate from being abused and derailed.
What if they felt that the debate about abortion was applicable here? What if they genuinely disagreed with it being called "young" and they felt that their political opinion happened to be simultaneous with their opinion on this scientific matter?
I don't think you told some of them that you this wasn't supposed to be politically related.
It obviously failed and the trolls, vote bombers and pro-aborts won. (they got their votes up)
How is which side won, relevant to your efforts to keep this debate abuse free?
They can't wash away the facts nor the point made in the image.
So, in the end? I feel good that my point has been made.
Because you banned almost everybody...
Their (your?) reactions only reaffirm that I am making a good point that makes those in denial squirm a little.
Your actions point to that to a much greater extent.
"What if they felt that the debate about abortion was applicable here?"
What if they did?
"What if they genuinely disagreed with it being called "young" and they felt that their political opinion happened to be simultaneous with their opinion on this scientific matter?"
If they worded their comments like that, it would have been a great debate. Instead I got comments like "this is just a bullshit way to force rape victims not to abort"
"How is which side won, relevant to your efforts to keep this debate abuse free?"
I thought the vote bombing would have been obvious to -everyone- by now.
Do you think those numbers are really reflective of who does and who does not agree that a fetus is the biological young of the parents who created it?
"Your actions point to that to a much greater extent."
"How is which side won, relevant to your efforts to keep this debate abuse free?"
The vote-bombing is because the people on the this side are all getting banned, and people are upvoting those that are mocking you for it. It's not like everyone on this site conspired against you. Plus almost everyone on this side got one vote, how is this vote bombing, prod got 5 votes plus the one he started out with, but that is just one person that happens from time to time. Cuaroc on the other side got 4 votes plus his automatic. Almost everyone on the other side all got voted up.
Do you think those numbers are really reflective of who does and who does not agree that a fetus is the biological young of the parents who created it?
It was not vote bombing, if anything it was a lot of spam, because people see you as a troll.
HUH?
When you ban people so easily it shows that you are not willing to debate them, thus have nothing to argue with, some of these people who you banned were serious.
What happens if I report all of your argument because you keep reporting people. They aren't really "abusive" I would advise slowing down your rate of reports.
I won't report you at all. That's not me. Who are "the mods"? I guess all I can say is try to make a new debate about something you like. I think you may get a different result.
Up to two weeks after conception, a fetus can divide into multiple people. Therefore, you cannot call that botttom picture one living thing as it may be multiple living things.
Just like chicken, we spend our life in our mothers womb in an egg type thing.
If you take an egg from a chicken, you will see that inside that egg is not a chicken (unless of course, the egg is at an age where there is a chicken inside), there is only particles that are about to create a chicken, it has yet to become a chicken.
To consider fetuses as human beings, is like considering eggs as chicken, and caviar as fish.
As a matter of fact, I would definitely consider it to be a young chicken in an egg if I were ever to get my hands on a fertilized one. Thankfully, that's a very rare occurrence when you get your eggs in most grocery stores. Most egg farms don't even have roosters on the premises.
Oh you would consider them young chickens - so now all of a sudden the ''opinions'' do count, and not just facts?
Cause in the other debate you were unwilling to discuss my opinions. I guess as long as the opinions aren't the same as yours, you aren't willing to comment - but whatever.
But, I really want to ask, and this has nothing to do with the topic, but you said this, I quote:
Thankfully, that's a very rare occurrence when you get your eggs in most grocery stores.
Why did you use the word ''thankfully'' - are you thankful for that the only eggs we can get nowdays are the disgusting eggs you find at the supermarket?
Yeah - thank god they give us disgusting eggs instead. I would much rather have all my eggs being produced without hens or by millions of hens put in one waay to small room, than find an occasional chicken in the egg.
I like scrambled eggs and I used to scramble them in the skillet. When I dumped one in there that has an embryo, it made me quick eggs for months! It wasn't just one bad egg. It ruined all of them.
But are you aware of how gross the eggs you find in the supermarkets are?
I mean - they are not better, if that's what you think.
They might look okay, but they are sprayed with a bunch of disgusting hormones and stuff like that. .. ugh .. just the thought of it makes me puke. I am vegan, so I don't touch supermarket eggs, nor farm eggs. But farm eggs don't creep me out.
Plus, I try also to keep things in perspective. So, when I weigh my concerns over hormones, trees, animal rights etc. against human rights and our Constitutional rights?
Well actually .. I don't think it is really about agreeing.
It is a fact that most of the food you buy in the supermarket is not good for you, as it contains a lot of stuff, that in great amounts are considered deadly poison.
A lot of people know this, but don't really care, and a lot of people just like to ignore it. And I can understand that - living a vegan lifestyle is tough. Most of the things normal people eat is off my diet, I have to make my own meals, when my family sits down to eat theirs.
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
Your information has been submitted. CreateDebate takes great care in ensuring that this site is free of abusive content and will review your submission and take action as appropriate.
i'm surprised you haven't banned Quoic yet he has been kicking your butt on other debates but then again it doesn't take much to beat a troll like you.
You set up a debate, a debate for people to discuss your statement, and all you do is tell people " No, you're all wrong, and if you don't agree with me I will ban you." What kind of imbecile does that? Look, I'm sure there are other sites on the internet for other pompous and grandiloquent people out there. This, however, is a place for people to discuss and exchange ideas on things. Telling other users that they're " in denial" because they don't agree with you is simply idiotic!
I have given you the information so that you can see for yourself - that you are in denial. It really doesn't matter to me if you agree with me on this question or not. I already know what the facts are. I just posted multiple links to multiple sources for you to see. I would love to see what information you have to refute them. If you can prove to me that a human in the fetal stage of their life is not the young of their parents? I'll give it my fullest consideration. But then, you should afford my provided information the same consideration. Shouldn't you?