Disagree. If I'm killing a cow to eat it's because I want to eat that cow.

She's partaking in sex for the sake of sex and killing a life form that could be an unintended consequence. As JSA said earlier it's easily preventable. She and her partner are either being lazy and/or selfish.

So you'd be okay with it if she did it with the intent to eat the fetus?

SA wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
BarryP wrote:
If we are talking about a fetus before brain waves (~12 weeks) it is, for all intents and purposes, no different than any other organ, excepting that it will probably become a separate sentient human being, eventually.

That's a pretty MASSIVE difference!!!

no its not. you abort a fetus, not a possibility of a human. you have no way of knowing if the aborted fetus would have ever survived or aborted on its own.

if you want to talk about the possibility of life as an argument against abortion then you commit a holocaust every time you masturbate. monster!
You are not very good at this. Of course we know what happens to a fetus when not aborted. We have over 7.4 billion examples currently walking around.

More to the point - it is inconceivable to me that a vegan could be "pro-choice."
no, you dont. you know one possible outcome and are incorrectly assuming that it is the only outcome. you would be correct only if 100% of pregnancies resulted in live births if not aborted by choice.

we know thats not even close to reality.


heres how a vegan can be peo choice in a super dumbed down argument: a cow demonstrably suffers more than a 12 week old fetus. about 90% of abortions happen before the 13th week..

Lets assume that 100% of 10 week old fetuses will eventually become "people." That doesn't mean that they are people. It means that they are organs that will turn into people.

Not "organs." Organisms. Human organisms. Human beings that will develop into - not "turn into"- persons.

, except that future human beings don't actually exist in any other way than as a concept.

That is just not true. Before your parents conceived you, you didn't actually exist in any other way than as a concept, maybe. Once you were conceived, you existed. Just as you existed as an infant, even though adult Barry had not yet developed. You are the same human organism.


The difference is at what stage in the process does someone believe that the organism has a right to not have its development terminated.

No, the difference is at what stage in the process science tells us an organism exists- and that stage is conception. Your sperm cells are not organisms. Your wife's ova are not organisms. The fertilized egg is.

Consider this (and I think this is what you meant). I have a sperm, my wife has an egg. Lets assume we have the technology to make pregnancy 100% likely. If I pull out, am I committing murder? I just killed a sperm, which is alive. The egg will likely die, too. And those two would have become a person had I stayed in.

Not "organs." Organisms.

Once you were conceived, you existed.

No, the difference is at what stage in the process science tells us an organism exists- .......

is your position that we must treat fertalized eggs as humans because they have the potential to become humans?

Is it your position that they aren't humans?

What are they, then?

certainky not before there is any conciousness.

how do you feel about in vitro fertilization

Many fetuses that are in the first trimester move away from the abortion instruments and fight to live in the womb based on testimonies and videos that I have seen, so do they meet the consciousness standard you have set?

they are not human beings - they are a single cell.

So what? How many cells does an organism need to have before it's a human being?

If it's not a human being, what is it?

they arent humans, there fertalized eggs.

It's like saying you aren't a human, you're a biped.

On the spectrum of science denial, your position is closer to the flat earthers than it is climate change skeptics.

they are not human beings - they are a single cell.

So what? How many cells does an organism need to have before it's a human being?

If it's not a human being, what is it?

The difficulty with that whole line of argument for the pro-choice side which want to use "humaness" as an argument to allow abortion is that even newborns and young children aren't really human beings from a cognitive standpoint. The cognitive traits that makes a person a human being and not just some sort of really smart animal take a few years to develop.

Modern society seems to have decided birth is the moment the human gets rights but I know historically many cultures found nothing particularly wrong with infanticide which probably reflects to some degree the recognition that a very young child isn't really fully human yet.

youre equivocating between human-adjective and human-noun.

No, it's my position that fertilized human eggs should be treated as humans because they are humans. Again, basic science. Very basic.