The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[Chuz Life]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

Inaccurate analogy:
How is removing a breathing machine from or not feeding a comatose person different from an abortion?

For one if the feeding tube is removed or (like in my wife's case) the respirator is removed and the patient continues to live, we don't drill a fucking hole in their head and drag them out of their caregivers room one limb at a time to hasten their death.

 

[Hollie]

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

How about acorns?

 

[Moonglow]

So killing the child doesn't force death on them?

See the story of Noah and see how many kids born and unborn God killed...

 

[alang1216]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

Inaccurate analogy:
How is removing a breathing machine from or not feeding a comatose person different from an abortion?

For one if the feeding tube is removed or (like in my wife's case) the respirator is removed and the patient continues to live, we don't drill a fucking hole in their head and drag them out of their caregivers room one limb at a time to hasten their death.

OK but if the comatose patient dies is it murder?

 

[Chuz Life]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

Inaccurate analogy:
How is removing a breathing machine from or not feeding a comatose person different from an abortion?

For one if the feeding tube is removed or (like in my wife's case) the respirator is removed and the patient continues to live, we don't drill a fucking hole in their head and drag them out of their caregivers room one limb at a time to hasten their death.

OK but if the comatose patient dies is it murder?

It is if the intent was to kill them. Yes.

 

[sakinago]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

Not if they die of natural causes

 

[sakinago]

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

 

[Chuz Life]

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

You make an excellent point and even more so because, unlike caterpillars and butterflies, we human beings do not undergo metamorphosis and change from being one organism and into another.

Unlike frogs and butterflies, we Human beings (all mammals) are the very same organisms at the moment of our conception that we are as an adult (assuming we live that long).

Human beings don't morph out of one organism and into another. We are always the same organism, regardless the stage of our development and like you said, the will to survive is always there.

 

[ding]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Potentially two new genetically distinct human beings.... yes.

Morally equivalent? Are you morally equivalent to another human?

I don't know what you mean by that.

They are both fully human and have the appropriate traits and characteristics for each of their respective stages of the human life cycle.

If all men are created equal with inalienable rights then they are equivalent in that regard.

 

[ding]

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

It isn't a potential human being. It is a human being with potential.

 

[alang1216]

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

Inaccurate analogy:
How is removing a breathing machine from or not feeding a comatose person different from an abortion?

For one if the feeding tube is removed or (like in my wife's case) the respirator is removed and the patient continues to live, we don't drill a fucking hole in their head and drag them out of their caregivers room one limb at a time to hasten their death.

OK but if the comatose patient dies is it murder?

It is if the intent was to kill them. Yes.

Interesting conservative/liberal inversion. I don't want the government getting involved, I'd prefer to let these difficult decisions be left to the people who are closest.

 

[alang1216]

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

A caterpillar is much more than a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg 'wants' nothing. It has no brain or nervous system and no senses. It is little more than an inert blueprint. A caterpillar is what is what is built from its DNA blueprint.

Women have the "morning after pill" available so it is an issue since I bet plenty of people here would like to see it banned.

 

[alang1216]

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

It isn't a potential human being. It is a human being with potential.

I don't share your definition of a human being and I'm sure neither of us will ever change. To me a fertilized egg is a human cell (not a human being) with potential. Every sperm and every egg is a human cell with potential. We can clone mammals so you might say every cell in your body is a potential human.

 

[ding]

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

It isn't a potential human being. It is a human being with potential.

I don't share your definition of a human being and I'm sure neither of us will ever change. To me a fertilized egg is a human cell (not a human being) with potential. Every sperm and every egg is a human cell with potential. We can clone mammals so you might say every cell in your body is a potential human.

Scientifically there is a difference between a cell and a living organism. A zygote is more than a cell. A zygote is a living organism and meets the definition of life. But to me the key is that it is a specific life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

 

[MPS777]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Potentially two new genetically distinct human beings.... yes.

Morally equivalent? Are you morally equivalent to another human?

I don't know what you mean by that.

They are both fully human and have the appropriate traits and characteristics for each of their respective stages of the human life cycle.

If all men are created equal with inalienable rights then they are equivalent in that regard.

>>>”Are you morally equivalent to another human?”

That depends on the other human. I don’t think I’m morally equivalent to a 90 year old in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage. If someone else was presented with a moral dilemma of saving my life or the aforementioned 90 year old, I’d hope they’d choose me; because we are not morally equivalent. Nor do I think I’m morally equivalent to a zygote.

And thinking about that makes me think that this might be a resolution to the 14th amendment dilemma. Does the 14th amendment implicitly treat different “persons” differently relative to their “mental state”? It must, because the “protection of the laws” is different for a “brain dead” person than it is for someone who isn’t. All “brain dead” people are classified together with different protections, thus all zygotes would be classified together with different protections. And those protections would be fewer.

 

[alang1216]

Scientifically there is a difference between a cell and a living organism.

What exactly is the scientific difference? Every bacterium is both a cell and a living organism.

A zygote is more than a cell. A zygote is a living organism and meets the definition of life.

How is it more than a cell? What definition of life does it meet that is different from every other one-celled organism?

But to me the key is that it is a specific life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Uniqueness does not always equate to value. I can generate very large random numbers that have never been seen before and will never be seen again. Great for use in encryption and databases but not very valuable by themselves.

 

[sakinago]

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

A caterpillar is much more than a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg 'wants' nothing. It has no brain or nervous system and no senses. It is little more than an inert blueprint. A caterpillar is what is what is built from its DNA blueprint.

Women have the "morning after pill" available so it is an issue since I bet plenty of people here would like to see it banned.

A fertilized egg is just the first stage, it’s still a separate living entity...just in its early stages. If a bird doesn’t incubate their eggs, or an ant, or whatever, it dies. And we’re not talking about “just a fertilized egg” here, nor am I talking about the morning after pill. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote as you seem to claim.

And I used caterpillar as an example to show a different stage of life. It doesn’t make it non life. It’s still life, and human life. Life maybe that you can’t/don’t want to personify with. But it’s still life

 

[alang1216]

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

A caterpillar is much more than a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg 'wants' nothing. It has no brain or nervous system and no senses. It is little more than an inert blueprint. A caterpillar is what is what is built from its DNA blueprint.

Women have the "morning after pill" available so it is an issue since I bet plenty of people here would like to see it banned.

A fertilized egg is just the first stage, it’s still a separate living entity...just in its early stages. If a bird doesn’t incubate their eggs, or an ant, or whatever, it dies. And we’re not talking about “just a fertilized egg” here, nor am I talking about the morning after pill. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote as you seem to claim.

And I used caterpillar as an example to show a different stage of life. It doesn’t make it non life. It’s still life, and human life. Life maybe that you can’t/don’t want to personify with. But it’s still life

"A fertilized egg is just the first stage, it’s still a separate living entity...just in its early stages."

True enough but does its rights supersede the mothers? If you're in my house, however you got there, legally I have the right to ask you to leave. We both have rights but, as a home owner, mine trump yours.

 

[Taz]

There's no proof that the soul has entered into the body until after birth, since NOBODY remembers being in a womb, or being born. Up until consciousness enters the body, it's nothing more than an empty vessel. IMHO.

 

[sakinago]

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.

No the blueprint is DNA. And the DNA is housed inside of life. Without life to support, house, and replicate DNA, DNA (the blueprint) is inert.

What you’re saying is like because a caterpillar isn’t yet a butterfly it isn’t life, and has less of a right to live than the butterfly. Caterpillars want to live to, just like fetuses want to live. They don’t go offing themselves because they feel like their future is bleak. They fight and fight to survive...like all life.

Also a women would never know she’s pregnant during the zygote stage, stop trying to minimize. The zygote stage is 4 freaking days. A women might barley know she’s pregnant at the tail end of the embryonic stage.

A caterpillar is much more than a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg 'wants' nothing. It has no brain or nervous system and no senses. It is little more than an inert blueprint. A caterpillar is what is what is built from its DNA blueprint.

Women have the "morning after pill" available so it is an issue since I bet plenty of people here would like to see it banned.

A fertilized egg is just the first stage, it’s still a separate living entity...just in its early stages. If a bird doesn’t incubate their eggs, or an ant, or whatever, it dies. And we’re not talking about “just a fertilized egg” here, nor am I talking about the morning after pill. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote as you seem to claim.

And I used caterpillar as an example to show a different stage of life. It doesn’t make it non life. It’s still life, and human life. Life maybe that you can’t/don’t want to personify with. But it’s still life

"A fertilized egg is just the first stage, it’s still a separate living entity...just in its early stages."

True enough but does its rights supersede the mothers? If you're in my house, however you got there, legally I have the right to ask you to leave. We both have rights but, as a home owner, mine trump yours.

Yes because you can’t kill someone on a whim. In this scenario, 99% of the time you’d be doing something to invite a person (with no ill intent) to your house, and if you then asked them to “leave”, and your method of removal would be to kill them, scrape them up with a shovel, and put them in the trash on the side of the road. Well that’s not very legal is it? If you did something with the chance of luring someone into your house, then you killed them, well that would be called murder.