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.
There's a fine line between a child and a fetus.
If we can change the definition of the world "marriage" so that it includes gays, then we can change the definition of the word "children" to include fetuses ;)
It is amazing that a simple truth can not be seen by so many. Human life does begin at conception. That "collection of cells" is just one stage in human life no less, if not more deserving of protection because of it's innocence, than a full grown decent human being.
Below is a photo of your collection of cells at 12 weeks old. Legal to kill on 50 States.
People argue that a fetus becomes a "child" after a certain number of weeks. Well..., we (people) decided what that number of weeks should be. And we (people) can say we made a mistake and make that number smaller. ;)
Some try to say that the definite point is when the child can live outside of the mother. others say at conception, then there's all sorts of weeks people throw out.
I think until one is decided on officially it will always be a fine line with some gray areas, that we just don't know about.
Although that baby hasn't got consciousness. Gay people do - so how bout giving them rights FIRST, since they're the once who are currently witnessing their lack of rights?
Because a relationship between two men or two women is not different from a relationship between a man and a woman, therefore they shouldn't get ''another word'' for their love.
Why not have one word for heterosexual couples and one word for gay couples so that we know what the we mean when we speak? Or, if we want to obscure the issue with political correctness, let's get rid of the words, "man" and "woman." Let's just use the word, "people." Then the word, "marriage" can be between two people and we would not be able to ask about gender. But I always thought that the purpose of language was to clarify, not obfuscate ;)
We should speak of marriage as love between two people.
Why are you interested in knowing what you speak of when you say marriage?
Why should the genders of the people in the marriage be a fact that everyone has to know?
If you want to call it 'gay marriage', then you might as well call it 'gay cloths, gay car, gay tv and gay bathrooms', just so everyone knows in what sexual orientation you fit in.
That is stupid and unnecessary. Gay people, or as I like to call them - people, aren't different than straight people, or as I like to cal them - people. They shouldn't be in two different categories regarding anything except sexual orientations.
My preference for using a different word is because I am an engineer. And as an engineer, I prefer to be precise.
There never was such a thing as 'gay cloths, gay car, gay tv and gay bathrooms.' But there has been gay marriage. If gay people aren't any different than straight people, then let's get rid of the word "gay." ;)
So if I meet you on the street, and you ask me if I got married, and I say yes - when you say 'to whom' the only information you are interested in is what gender I married?
No not really. Fetus is a stage of life. It isn't technically a child. Well the parent will always call its child a child so for them yes but fetus is just a stage of life. The definition for it doesn't really have to change.
The definition of what constitutes a child is man made. If we want less abortions, then all we have to do is change the definition so that a fetus is considered a child much earlier in life than the current definition states. ;)
An argument that killing a human being is justified if that being has not reached a particular level of consciousness could then be used for killing those in a coma. I don't think that a consciousness argument is a valid one.
The person in the coma's consciousness has began and developed long enough to have prior feelings and thoughts for the matter, unlike the fetus. What is with this bombardment of responses all being focused on my opinion of being pro-choice, I had two or three other responses like this I am beginning to feel like a broken record... LOL
I researched Anencephaly a bit (well mostly looked at the Wikipedia page) and based off what I have supposedly learned about anencephaly I would totally want my baby aborted if he/she was going to have this disorder. The baby can't think or feel thus is indifferent, and even if the baby could think or feel at all I am pretty sure he/she would not be quite fond of his/her situation. Those conditions don't sound like conditions I want to be in, and if I was totally ignorant on the indifference that permanently unconscious beings had, I would not want to be alive and have that condition, to have a part of my brain actually gone, only survive a couple years at most. It does not sound like a fruitful life, and the baby is incapable of enjoying it, and luckily incapable of being tortured by it due to not being conscious. Of course I don't know much about this new disorder you have shown me but this is the conclusion I have come to based on what I have found thus far.
I don't care what is law necessarily, because that is essentially what I want to change... again that is the point of politics...
Your argument is just as valid as saying "that marriage is not legally required to include same-sex couples".
Depending on what personhood means, I'd want to change the law to make consciousness a factor in that. If personhood meant having human D.N.A., nothing more, nothing less, then "personhood" is irrelevant to me on whether or not it's life should be defended. If personhood are those with a list of rights, one of those rights being the right to live, then I do not agree with the laws right now.
I feel like we are just going around in circles, and I don't want to come off as rude, but it is starting to annoy me...
"Depending on what personhood means, I'd want to change the law to make consciousness a factor in that. "
Well then you have an ever greater task ahead of you than I do. Because it is the most recent laws which define it as a child in any stage of their development and many States have followed suit with that (federal) definition.
There is no need to change the definitions of word children to include human fetuses because they are already included as such in many medical and legal definitions.
A 'child' in the fetal stage of their life can be called a fetus.
It's still a child.
It's still the young of the parents who created it.
