Hypothetical.
Someone posted this on another board and completely stumped the f**k out of me.
Let's say you were forced to end the *edit* existance (not life) of one or the other. You have a fetus, containing all the physical aspects of a human, organs, flesh and skin with no mental awareness of a human. On the otherhand you have a ghost, with the extent of knowledge that any of us have and fufills all mental aspects a normal person would; yet it contains no physical properties of a human.
Which do you choose to live?
I kinda dont understand what you're asking, but if you're asking what I think you are, I'd rather be human. The whole mental aspect of life is what makes life great, but reproduction is something greater than we can all realize.
So, life starts at the general conception of the fetus? Rather than the conception of the mind? So, in essence, that would make **** murder.
A difficult question, for a difficult topic. Good answer.
So, life starts at the general conception of the fetus? Rather than the conception of the mind? So, in essence, that would make **** murder.
A difficult question, for a difficult topic. Good answer.
I think life starts at birth, and not conception, but I am kinda double-sided with this issue. 3 good reasons why a fetus isn't yet a human:
#1. A fetus cannot have legally have a name.
#2. A fetus can't breath in the oxygen that humans need. Fetuses(sp?) feed and live off of another human being. There are plenty other lifeforms that feed off of the human body (**** comes to mind). The only difference is, other lifeforms do not grow to become human beings. Those other lifeforms that feed off of the human are usually doing so in a harmful or fatal way.
#3. If the said fetus somehow ends up being seriously detrimental to the carrying woman, and kills the mother it feeds off of, the fetus has no way to be punished because it will eventually die since the woman carrying the fetus is ****.
Three good reasons why a fetus CAN be seen as a human being:
1. It is an actual living lifeform that can soon grow into a living, breathing person.
2. As the fetus grows, even before it is born, it can take on human emotions such as fear and saddness. You see how most of them are born crying? They were crying before it (or he/she) was pulled from the womb.
3. A fetus can actually carry another lifeform. Although this is rare, there have been instances where babies are born with an attached but undetected twin. One instance comes to mind where the person grew up to be an adult, and thought it had a cancerous tumor. Doctors then found that the "cancer" was actually what was left of their twin. The "cancer" had grown teeth, and an eye before it finally died.
This is a damn good topic. I actually sat and thought about this for a minute
Nice to see someone responding.
The human species that differentiates itself from all other species is the DNA or human genome that classifies us as **** sapiens, lamen term: human being. A fetus contains that same genome, therefore they are by all natural standards, **** sapiens, lamen term: human being.
The issue which becomes present is this. Albeit the fact that a fetus has the same genetic structure as a human, is simple age and growth a standard for natural human rights? Can this justify ending the life of a fetus?
Not to be controversial, but the only reason I can think to end the life of a fetus woul dbe that it would cause serious harm to, or **** the person giving birth. Science and technology have given us plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy. I know it seems all right wing, but that's how i feel. I know there are certain exceptions, but just know i can understand a few. One in particular being ****.
**** is NOT murder
a fetus is just that
a fetus
it's not a human being yet
this topic is just some **** religious nonsense
and all people do not believe in souls
so that makes this topic even MORE biased and uncredible
**** is NOT murder
a fetus is just that
a fetus
it's not a human being yet
this topic is just some **** religious nonsense
and all people do not believe in souls
so that makes this topic even MORE biased and uncredible
It is a homosapien right? Which makes it human. It has the same genome as you.
You would be bold enough to make such a claim to refute genome diagnostics?
And how is it **** and religious when it is a hypothetical question in which the physics of this possibility is capable of happening?
It is a homosapien right? Which makes it human. It has the same genome as you.
You would be bold enough to make such a claim to refute genome diagnostics?
And how is it **** and religious when it is a hypothetical question in which the physics of this possibility is capable of happening?
You seemed to conveniently avoid each and every question.
