The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[ding]

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.

Cells are the smallest common denominator of life. Some cells are organisms unto themselves; others are part of multi-cellular organisms.

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?

It's a multi-cellular organism. A cell in the human body does meet the definition of a living thing, but it's just a cell. What we are discussing are human beings.

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.

But in this case it does equate to being a unique and very specific person. Just one in it's earliest stage of its human life cycle.

 

[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.

>>>”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.

What does morally equivalent mean?

 

[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.

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.

The 14th Amendment has been abused enough already.

 

[ding]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

 

[BreezeWood]

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

Especially when she was the one who created him?


only an idiot believes they created "him" and if they did they could always uncreate them then as if they did in the beginning.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Usually being brain dead means you’re on life support as well. So if you’re taken off life support and die naturally, that’s vastly different from actively killing something.

Wow y’all are sounding a lot like nazis

 

[MPS777]

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?

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.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

 

[MPS777]

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?

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.

Usually being brain dead means you’re on life support as well. So if you’re taken off life support and die naturally, that’s vastly different from actively killing something.

Wow y’all are sounding a lot like nazis

If you've taken someone off life support, and know that it will kill them, I think you've killed them.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Usually being brain dead means you’re on life support as well. So if you’re taken off life support and die naturally, that’s vastly different from actively killing something.

Wow y’all are sounding a lot like nazis

If you've taken someone off life support, and know that it will kill them, I think you've killed them.

Nope, they aren’t being kept alive naturally...a fetus is.

 

[ding]

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.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

Given that the laws treat everyone the same when it comes to crimes like murder (not making a reference to abortion here) the law sees everyone as morally equivalent.

A good example of when the law saw others as not being morally equivalent was when slavery was legal. In fact, the Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior.

 

[alang1216]

there is the morning after pill a women should probably take after rape

Are you saying that the morning after pill is acceptable after rape but not for other instances?

 

[sakinago]

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.

Usually being brain dead means you’re on life support as well. So if you’re taken off life support and die naturally, that’s vastly different from actively killing something.

Wow y’all are sounding a lot like nazis

If you've taken someone off life support, and know that it will kill them, I think you've killed them.

So let’s move into a hypothetical. Same sort of thing as terry schiavo. We’ll call her sherry tiavo. Now in this case, the doctor says 85% chance she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being within 7-9 months...do you pull the plug?

 

[alang1216]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you've taken someone off life support, and know that it will kill them, I think you've killed them.

Nope, they aren’t being kept alive naturally...

If you've taken someone off life support ... and know that it will kill them -


you've made the decision to kill them, the same as capital punishment.

 

[ding]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

 

[Moonglow]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

You have evidence to back that up?

Humans are not inherited behavior they are learned behavior which helps to develop a character while growing into adulthood...

 

[ding]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

You have evidence to back that up?

Humans are not inherited behavior they are learned behavior which helps to develop a character while growing into adulthood...

It's called DNA. They use it in court all the time.

 

[alang1216]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

That unfertilized egg has a unique set of chromosomes. Incomplete but still unique.

My personal belief is that a fertilized egg is not equivalent to a human being. A newborn baby is a human being. Somewhere between those two states is an arbitrary line that, when crossed, means a human being now exists and has legal rights. Science can not determine where that line is any more than science can say when someone is old enough to drive. I think the courts have done a reasonable job setting that arbitrary line and I don't want to see it moved for reasons I don't believe are rational.

 

[ding]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

You have evidence to back that up?

Humans are not inherited behavior they are learned behavior which helps to develop a character while growing into adulthood...

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

 

[Moonglow]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

You have evidence to back that up?

Humans are not inherited behavior they are learned behavior which helps to develop a character while growing into adulthood...

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

Actually human beings begin life at sexual intercourse...Which doesn't matter 'cause yer birth certificate determines your day of birth......Not your day of conception....And it never will be recognized legally....