Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#523 - Slicernicer (02/22/2013) [-]
What about the life of the unborn child? Doesn't the fetus have rights?
#641 to #523 - rodneyabc (02/22/2013) [-]
Of course not, that would be stupid.
User avatar #566 to #523 - jallious (02/22/2013) [-]
One MORE thing. All eggs and semen would have rights using your logic, since they all have the ability to become a human. Anyone here wanna outlaw menstruation or masturbation?
#618 to #566 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand the fundamental difference between an unborn child (with genetically new material that relates specifically to the viability of our species) and a sperm and egg...
User avatar #643 to #618 - ariakon (02/22/2013) [-]
Because a few thousand fetuses are necessary for the viability of our 7,000,000,000 strong species.
#689 to #643 - smittyslayer (02/22/2013) [-]
But that fetus could become somebody and be elected president that actually does something or the next great actor or actress or the person that finds a cure for cancer but I know they might be the next cause of a massacre or a horrible fad but we may never know now since they have been ******** in the womb and not have the chance to experience life
#607 to #566 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
That's completely illogical, seeing as an egg can only become human after being fertilized by sperm. Neither cell can become a human until conception. However, once it is fertilized, that egg is certain to become a fetus, then infant. (Barring a miscarriage from natural causes)
User avatar #580 to #566 - teamrocketninja ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Okay, now thats just exaggerating his argument to the point of irrelevance. He's saying a human zygote, which is a unified egg and sperm, has rights. Not just an unfertilized sex cell.
User avatar #622 to #580 - jallious (02/22/2013) [-]
No, it's not exaggerated. It's just extending the line of ridiculousness this Slicernicer person said, which I'll point out, has a comment above us that collectively has been thumbed down.
User avatar #638 to #622 - teamrocketninja ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
It has, but I believe he is defining an unborn child solely as a viable fetus, which has a distinct genetic code, not as sperm or an egg, which clearly have either the mother's or fathers. Also, Im sorry about your comment being red thumbed. Id remove it, but Im thumb banned for some reason.
#633 to #622 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
Slicernicer has an entirely valid point...

Yours is absolutely delusional and resorts to an appeal to mockery.
User avatar #537 to #523 - BerwindTwentyFour ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
technically not until it's 14-16 years of age.
User avatar #615 to #537 - alhemicar (02/22/2013) [-]
are you kidding me?
So a 5 years old child doesn't have basic human rights?
User avatar #639 to #615 - BerwindTwentyFour ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
at least the right to choose
User avatar #649 to #639 - alhemicar (02/22/2013) [-]
choose what?
User avatar #531 to #523 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
A fetus hasn't developed into a human being yet, so it has no rights.
#606 to #531 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you fully understand what you wrote.
#546 to #536 - fnerkfnerk (02/22/2013) [-]
...probably doesn't support the right to drink large sodas either.
#535 to #531 - Slicernicer (02/22/2013) [-]
But it will be a human and the process has already started.
User avatar #565 to #535 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
It's genetics.

A human isn't a human until it has developed certain features/traits.
#614 to #565 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
Right, because up until that point, it has the potential to develop into a chicken or a turtle right?
User avatar #635 to #614 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
Scientifically, yes.
#640 to #635 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
Logically, no.
#593 to #565 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
Take a minute and read what you just wrote...
User avatar #632 to #593 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
"It" being the fetus.
#655 to #632 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
I think you're missing the point...

There is no set definition on "human traits"....

Tell me... what are human traits... and don't give me your uninformed-liberal-dogma of an opinion.
User avatar #672 to #655 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
My point:

There are stages of human development where the fetus is not yet a human being.

It's just a sack of pre-development, so it has no rights.
#703 to #672 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
"It's just a sack of pre-development, so it has no rights. "

Wrong... on so many levels...

First off rights are a legal term. They do not exist. Legality and morality are entirely separate concepts.

Secondly , the only difference between you and I is several trillion cells. Yet you assume we should receive rights. Sorites paradox my friend.
User avatar #727 to #703 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
I honestly don't know what we are arguing about.
#749 to #727 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
You are claiming a fetus is pre-development and that it doesn't deserve rights...

First off I said rights are a legal concept that do not exist.

Second point I made was the only difference between you, me and a fetus is several trillion cells (I accidently left fetus out the first time but replied to my comment correcting it). I commented on how your beliefs are essentially a Sorrites paradox. On one hand you say you and I should receive rights (which are a legal not moral term) yet deny an unborn child them.

I'd also like to point out there is no such thing as pre-development. You begin developing the instant you are conceived.
User avatar #771 to #749 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
I'm talking about how people say that fetuses should have rights, and that the mother isn't rightfully able to abort it; which i do not accept.
I'm also going off of governmental rights.
#707 to #703 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
you and I and a fetus**
User avatar #544 to #535 - mtandy (02/22/2013) [-]
By your logic, committing suicide is ****** . Not suicide, ****** . As you're killing the teeny would-be babies that live inside you. They would be human by the process that has already started.
#625 to #544 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
No, those cells (sperm or eggs I'm assuming) that you are talking about cannot become human until the moment of conception. Now a pregnant lady committing suicide, yea you could make a case for ****** . But an unfertilized egg or sperm cell? No, that's like saying drinking is ****** because it kills brain cells.
User avatar #798 to #625 - mtandy (02/22/2013) [-]
So you would have a two celled organism protected from " ****** " because of something it one day will turn into?
#1416 to #798 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
I'll have it protected because of what it is. It is a human and nothing less than a human. From the moment of conception, that child's unique genetic code is written. It will not become human, it is human.
User avatar #651 to #625 - JunkTea (02/22/2013) [-]
"I want this woman arrested for ****** !"

"Sir, she's dead."

"Oh."
#656 to #651 - powerfapping (02/22/2013) [-]
I said you could make a case, I'm fairly certain she wouldn't be tried for obvious reasons.
User avatar #542 to #535 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
How do you know it will be a human, what if the mother has a miscarriage?
#597 to #542 - unusualrex (02/22/2013) [-]
How did you get two thumbs...?

It is human regardless of if it is miscarried or not. Read a biology textbook...
User avatar #712 to #597 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
More importantly, what textbooks have you been reading?

There isn't a set time a fetus becomes a human, but most people agree its around 24 weeks.
Its a very difficult question, as for something to be alive is generally has to:
undergo metabolism
maintain homeostasis
possess a capacity to grow
respond to stimuli
reproduce
adapt to their environment

Now, as a fetus can't perform all of these until around 24 weeks (it is of course different for ever fetus, but its a good guideline), it is generally not classed as a life until 24 weeks, so if it were miscarried up until this point would not have been a human as it would have not been alive.

Thats also the reason Abortion is legal in most counties up until the 24th week, as the fetus is not considered alive up until this point. If it was to be described as anything, a parasite would probably be a good definition (as the definition of a parasite is "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.")
User avatar #556 to #542 - miscarriage (02/22/2013) [-]
**miscarriage gasps**

I hope the mother doesn't have me.
 Friends (0)