Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is not a babyGG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.
A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.
Legally you are correct, it has to be that way to justify a million dead babies a year.
That does not change the science behind the fact that the baby in the womb is a separate, individual being from the day it is conceived. There is no other option with regards to the science of the matter.
Are you a parent?
At birth. That's the standard all of humanity has used over all of human history.
"Person" or "human being" is a legal and social definition, so trying to make it a medical or scientific definition is historical revisionism, an exercise in attempting to define yourself as correct.
Pro-life logic is basically "I define a zygote as a human being, therefore a zygote is a human being." It's not very convincing. Their standards are entirely subjective, being that objective standards subjectively chosen are still subjective. Hence, they're no better than any other subjective standard.
Ruh-roh. Someone just got triggered by the whole liberty concept.
It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.
Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.
ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.
When Human Life Begins
Yes, life begins at conception. This was breaking news to you? Life never ended, both egg and sperm are alive and both human.
No, as long as the fetus is in utero, it is part of the woman's body. The fetus does not become a child until about 20-24 weeks. At the child stage there are very few abortions and they occur only when the baby is deformed, brain dead or the life of the mother is threatened.
Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.
The sperm and the egg are not "human" any more than your finger is a human. They are parts of the human body, they are not human.
The fetus is in utero, is not part of the woman's body, it is merely using the woman's body for a certain length of time.
And so is yours. It's just dumb luck that you're likely a collectivist by nature, huh?
I happen to be on topic, however.
Then the child should be fed by the government if need be
The diaper better be changed by the government if need be
The government is the people and since the people feel that this baby should be brought into this world.
But – and yet, yet again – not a person as a fact of law.'individuated...'
So why do you keep saying that word?
''the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism..."
It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.
Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.
ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.
When Human Life Begins
Yes, life begins at conception. This was breaking news to you? Life never ended, both egg and sperm are alive and both human.
No, as long as the fetus is in utero, it is part of the woman's body. The fetus does not become a child until about 20-24 weeks. At the child stage there are very few abortions and they occur only when the baby is deformed, brain dead or the life of the mother is threatened.
Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.
The sperm and the egg are not "human" any more than your finger is a human. They are parts of the human body, they are not human.
One day science will be able to make a child from only a female egg by doubling it's chromosomes.
The fetus is in utero, is not part of the woman's body, it is merely using the woman's body for a certain length of time.
If you remove a fetus from a woman's body, it will die. That makes it only part of the woman's body. Perhaps in the future with very expensive medical care and lots of machines, it might be possible.
If you remove a fetus from a woman's body, it will die. That makes it only part of the woman's body. Perhaps in the future with very expensive medical care and lots of machines, it might be possible.
If you really believe that, please answer this question. If a woman who is five minutes away from giving birth decided she didn't feel like being a mother… Do you think it would be perfectly OK to take that full-term, healthy baby just minutes before delivery, ram scissors into the back of his head, dismember the baby and kill him, for no reason except that the mother simply didn't want the baby?
Are you a parent?
Most parents don't think of zygotes as babies, you know.
Humans operate in society.Ruh-roh. Someone just got triggered by the whole liberty concept.
Ha. No. I'm not triggered. I actually understand Individual liberty. I also know that when a doctor is treating a pregnant women, he's told he's treating two patients. Two Individuals.
The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.Indeed it does not
Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?
The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.Indeed it does not
Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?
No.
So why did you think that was some kind of gotcha question?
I believe your mistake there is equating "not a person" with "zero value". Since that's only your fallacy, it's only your problem.
What normal people believe, and what I believe, is that the worth of the zygote/embryo/fetus grows as it grows. Something does not need to be a person to have moral value. A late-term fetus is not a person, but it still has significant moral value.
Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.
But not fact of law.
It’s Constitutionally correct to say that one is not a person entitled to 14th Amendment protections until he is born. That is also not a matter of opinion.And so is yours. It's just dumb luck that you're likely a collectivist by nature, huh?
I happen to be on topic, however.
Yours was not an opinion though. It is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception. That is not a matter of opinion.
