Abortion Definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bresinain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bresinain

Guest
According to Wikepdeia An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. How can you cause the death of something that isn`t alive? Maybe Wikepedia would care to explain this.
 
Oh please don’t get on Wikipedia’s case about this. It’s an encyclopedia, not a politician. And to play devil’s advocate, the fetus is obviously alive in at least the crude sense of how cells are alive, but no one would say it is immoral to amputate a diseased hand because the hand is alive (which, technically, it is).
 
Nobody who understands anything about science or biology is going to argue (intelligently) than an unborn child is not alive. Instead, most pro-abortion activists focus on either the lack of personhood that the unborn has, or the mother’s right to end the life if she so chooses.
 
BlaineTog said:
Oh please don’t get on Wikipedia’s case about this. It’s an encyclopedia, not a politician. And to play devil’s advocate, the fetus is obviously alive in at least the crude sense of how cells are alive, but no one would say it is immoral to amputate a diseased hand because the hand is alive (which, technically, it is).
Click to expand...
A hand is not a person, only part of a person.
 
CapIV said:
A hand is not a person, only part of a person.
Click to expand...
Utterly beside the point. The hand is still composed of living cells, and thus is still “alive.” The OP was trying to construe some sort of contradictory pro-choice agenda there, which is absurd in the extreme.
 
BlaineTog said:
Utterly beside the point. The hand is still composed of living cells, and thus is still “alive.” The OP was trying to construe some sort of contradictory pro-choice agenda there, which is absurd in the extreme.
Click to expand...
No, the hand is only part of a person.

Being composed of living cells does not a person make. What makes the unborn a living human being (just like you and me) is that it has its own DNA. It is not “part of a person,” it is a person.
 
To be pedantic; would this revolve around the issue of forced medical abortion and abortion. I mean in misacarriage the feotus is aborted, but the abortion is not forced or a medical proceedure. Perhaps the Wikipedia definition is referring to abrted feotuses like that?
 
Seems to me the definition covers the ground; expulsion because of death or death because of expulsion. Covers both spontaneous abortion(miscarriage) and therapeutic abortion. Who could ask for anything more? 🙂
 
Abortion is a neutral term in many medical applications; it simply refers to the pre-born human and the placenta being removed from the womb, either pre or post death.

As for your conclusion, it used to be common for people who had a small grasp of science to believe the human fetus was some sort of non-living thing. I’ve heard that plenty of times myself. But, that argument is being pushed off the stage in the face of science.
 
vern_humphrey said:
No, the hand is only part of a person.

Being composed of living cells does not a person make.
Click to expand...
And I don’t dispute this. What I dispute is the implication that this is in any way relevant to the matter at hand, and it is not. The hand is composed of cells, which are alive, and thus can be killed. The fetus is also composed of cells, which are alive, and can be killed. You thus do not need to define the fetus as a person in order to claim that it can be killed. That it can be killed only proves that it is made of living cells, which no one disputes. Whether it is a person or not is the salient question of the abortion debate, but it doesn’t come into play here. That’s all I’m saying.
 
I think that the OP was being sarcastic when they said that, because the government says the baby is not alive until birth, and they were asking why Wikepdeia is not in line with what they government says.

Maybe because Wikepdeia is telling the truth, 🙂
 
BlaineTog said:
And I don’t dispute this. What I dispute is the implication that this is in any way relevant to the matter at hand, and it is not. The hand is composed of cells, which are alive, and thus can be killed. The fetus is also composed of cells, which are alive, and can be killed. You thus do not need to define the fetus as a person in order to claim that it can be killed. That it can be killed only proves that it is made of living cells, which no one disputes. Whether it is a person or not is the salient question of the abortion debate, but it doesn’t come into play here. That’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
And the proof that it is a person is that it has its own DNA.
 
BlaineTog said:
I deny that the question is relevant to this thread, no more, no less.
Click to expand...
The thread title is “Abortion Definition.”

Abortion is the killing of a living human being prior to birth.

The unborn child is living – if it were not, there would be no argument.

The unborn child is human – it has human DNA.

The unborn child is a being – it has its own DNA.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The thread title is “Abortion Definition.”
Click to expand...
And the OP makes it clear that the abortion definition in question is Wikipedia’s definition.

I’m done with this thread. There’s nothing left to be said here.
 
BlaineTog said:
And the OP makes it clear that the abortion definition in question is Wikipedia’s definition.

I’m done with this thread. There’s nothing left to be said here.
Click to expand...
Exercise caution upon departure to avoid being postierorily impacted by the protuberance on the portal.😛
 
BlaineTog said:
I deny that the question is relevant to this thread, no more, no less.
Click to expand...
I would think the question concerning the DNA is about as relevent as the introduction of the “hand” as a collection of cells that were alive analogy introduced within the first few posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top