The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[Chuz Life]

Good god, when does the fucking clock start ticking on an individual organism's fucking life span? It's not fucking rocket science.

Aging is a major field of study. To me aging starts once we stop developing but you really want to know what is the first stage of life.

You want me say "at conception" and yes, that is a stage. Creation of the egg and the sperm are also developmental stages and the egg is likely years if not decades old at conception.

A fucking sperm and egg unite to form a new organism. True or false?

Assuming you are not a complete fucking idiot, you answered TRUE.

NOW, WHEN DID THAT NEW FUCKING ORGANISM'S EXISTENCE BEGIN? WHEN DID IT'S AGING BEGIN?

Straight answers or straight to my ignore list. I have other options for my my time.

 

[alang1216]

Good god, when does the fucking clock start ticking on an individual organism's fucking life span? It's not fucking rocket science.

Aging is a major field of study. To me aging starts once we stop developing but you really want to know what is the first stage of life.

You want me say "at conception" and yes, that is a stage. Creation of the egg and the sperm are also developmental stages and the egg is likely years if not decades old at conception.

A fucking sperm and egg unite to form a new organism. True or false?

Assuming you are not a complete fucking idiot, you answered TRUE.

NOW, WHEN DID THAT NEW FUCKING ORGANISM'S EXISTENCE BEGIN? WHEN DID IT'S AGING BEGIN?

Straight answers or straight to my ignore list. I have other options for my my time.

Simple answer: at conception

 

[sakinago]

No scientific proof, just the fact that nobody remembers being in the womb, so consciousness doesn’t start there.

What were your thoughts three weeks after you were born? What language were you using at the time?

I agree, consciousness/soul might not even start at birth.

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Good god, when does the fucking clock start ticking on an individual organism's fucking life span? It's not fucking rocket science.

Aging is a major field of study. To me aging starts once we stop developing but you really want to know what is the first stage of life.

You want me say "at conception" and yes, that is a stage. Creation of the egg and the sperm are also developmental stages and the egg is likely years if not decades old at conception.

A fucking sperm and egg unite to form a new organism. True or false?

Assuming you are not a complete fucking idiot, you answered TRUE.

NOW, WHEN DID THAT NEW FUCKING ORGANISM'S EXISTENCE BEGIN? WHEN DID IT'S AGING BEGIN?

Straight answers or straight to my ignore list. I have other options for my my time.

Simple answer: at conception

Finally!

Thank you!

I need a break.

 

[buttercup]

Finally!

Thank you!

I need a break.

Thank you for all the time you put into this and being a voice for the voiceless. I know for a fact that people's minds do change on this issue, because I've seen it happen myself, a number of times. So as tiring as it can be, please do not get weary of speaking the truth and helping to open people's eyes.

 

[Chuz Life]

Finally!

Thank you!

I need a break.

Thank you for all the time you put into this and being a voice for the voiceless. I know for a fact that people's minds do change on this issue, because I've seen it happen myself, a number of times. So as tiring as it can be, please do not get weary of speaking the truth and helping to open people's eyes.

I have to believe that opinions change. . . Mainly because MINE did.

 

[buttercup]

I have to believe that opinions change. . . Mainly because MINE did.

Same here! I was once on the other side of this issue. Here's an example of how far I've come. Many years ago, a friend of mine got pregnant by her boyfriend and they were both pretty young, and I remember telling her "Maybe you should consider getting an abortion." She looked at me like I said the worst thing ever and said "No, we want the baby." I saw her baby about a year or so later, and she was a beautiful baby girl and of course my friend adored her. Years later, when I became pro life, I remembered that conversation and I felt absolutely horrible for suggesting that she kill her own child. I wish I could've apologized to her, but I lost touch with her many years ago.

And like I said, I've seen other people's minds change too, including people who read these online debates, believe it or not.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have to believe that opinions change. . . Mainly because MINE did.

Same here! I was once on the other side of this issue. Here's an example of how far I've come. Many years ago, a friend of mine got pregnant by her boyfriend and they were both pretty young, and I remember telling her "Maybe you should consider getting an abortion." She looked at me like I said the worst thing ever and said "No, we want the baby." I saw her baby about a year or so later, and she was a beautiful baby girl and of course my friend adored her. Years later, when I became pro life, I remembered that conversation and I felt absolutely horrible for suggesting that she kill her own child. I wish I could've apologized to her, but I lost touch with her many years ago.

And like I said, I've seen other people's minds change too, including people who read these online debates, believe it or not.

If I may ask, what finally changed your view? What was the 'aha' moment?

 

[Taz]

What were your thoughts three weeks after you were born? What language were you using at the time?

I agree, consciousness/soul might not even start at birth.

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

 

[Chuz Life]

I agree, consciousness/soul might not even start at birth.

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Let's see, you already know that we see it as children are being murdered , denied their personhood and rights, having their bodys tore apart and somtimes their organs and tissues harvested, etc. . . And YOU want to know why anyone would oppose that. . .

Incredible.

 

[buttercup]

If I may ask, what finally changed your view? What was the 'aha' moment?

It was a couple things. One of the things was the over the top absurdity from people on the proabort side. Back in my college days, I lived in San Francisco (I went to SF State) and I used to listen to this extremely left wing talk radio show, late at night. One night they were talking about abortion, and a couple guys called in and one of them was going on and on about how "evil" prolifers were, but it was so hateful and over-the-top and ridiculous, that it actually made me disagree with him, even though I was not prolife at that time. The hate and hysteria that I saw from those left-wing proaborts caused me to think, "Wait a minute. I may not agree with prolifers but they're not evil, they believe they're doing the right thing." And that was the first time that I started to rethink my own position, and wonder if I was on the wrong side, because it seemed upside-down to think about killing as a good thing, and think about valuing life as a bad thing.

Then a few years after that, I became a Christian, and that caused me to look at everything in life with an entirely new perspective. It literally felt like I now could see, after being blind for most of my life. I remember seeing 3D/4D ultrasound images where you could plainly see a little human being there. And the more I learned about the issue of abortion, the more I realized that I had believed lies. I don't remember an exact moment of changing my mind, but ultimately I realized that human life begins when we come into existence, not when the head pops out of the birth canal, and that all human beings have basic human rights, most importantly the right to not be killed.

How about you? Can you share how you changed your mind?

 

[sakinago]

I agree, consciousness/soul might not even start at birth.

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I may ask, what finally changed your view? What was the 'aha' moment?

It was a couple things. One of the things was the over the top absurdity from people on the proabort side. Back in my college days, I lived in San Francisco (I went to SF State) and I used to listen to this extremely left wing talk radio show, late at night. One night they were talking about abortion, and a couple guys called in and one of them was going on and on about how "evil" prolifers were, but it was so hateful and over-the-top and ridiculous, that it actually made me disagree with him, even though I was not prolife at that time. The hate and hysteria that I saw from those left-wing proaborts caused me to think, "Wait a minute. I may not agree with prolifers but they're not evil, they believe they're doing the right thing." And that was the first time that I started to rethink my own position, and wonder if I was on the wrong side, because it seemed upside-down to think about killing as a good thing, and think about valuing life as a bad thing.

Then a few years after that, I became a Christian, and that caused me to look at everything in life with an entirely new perspective. It literally felt like I now could see, after being blind for most of my life. I remember seeing 3D/4D ultrasound images where you could plainly see a little human being there. And the more I learned about the issue of abortion, the more I realized that I had believed lies. I don't remember an exact moment of changing my mind, but ultimately I realized that human life begins when we come into existence, not when the head pops out of the birth canal, and that all human beings have basic human rights, most importantly the right to not be killed.

How about you? Can you share how you changed your mind?

Sorry for my late response.

My change of mind on abortion was actually kind of sudden. I was actually not very invested in the issue one way or the other at first. . . because, as a guy, I felt it had nothing to do with me. I remember my step mother telling me that if I got a girl pregnant, we would probably have to abort it because she thought I couldn't even take care of myself. Funny thing was how long that was before I ever started dating.

Even when I finally did start dating, I didn't put any thought into it, except that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want a child of my own aborted because I wanted whoever I was "with" to know that I would be fine with being a father. (Prove my stepmother wrong)

One day, while I was in the Marines, I was driving with my girlfriend in the car and we noticed a huge billboard of an aborted child. We were both disgusted by it and we probably had the exact opposite of a reaction that whoever put it up wanted us to have. We were not sympathetic to the cause. I remember us yelling at some street picketers and telling them to mind their own business.

But!

It did have the effect of starting a conversation about abortion, between myself and my girlfriend. We both agreed at that time that we wouldn't want to abort one of our own. . . But, "who were we to tell others what to do with THEIR bodies?"

Then came the day she came to me saying she might be pregnant and she wanted $250 to "take care of it." And that was the end of us.

Believe it or not though, that was not when or how I started opposing abortion. It wasn't long after I got out of the Marines that one of my uncle's told me I should check out this guy named "Rush" on the radio. So, I gave it a try and I wasn't at all impressed. He was going on and on about something he called a "caller abortion" (something I never got to hear) and kept talking about how funny it was that people were getting more upset over a fake sound effect of an abortion on the radio than they were about real abortions of REAL human beings. I remember Rush making the comment that "life begins at conception because it can't begin at any other time or any other way."

My mind went straight to work trying to prove him wrong! Annnd, it was then, in that process, I managed to educate myself on why he was actually right.

The realization was so strong for me back then, I actually thought it would be easy for me to then make others aware of the same facts and change their opinions too.


Lol.

I have dropped that expectation almost entirely, now.

 

[ding]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

With all this uniqueness why should you consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

The short answer is because it exists as a human being. Albeit one in its earliest stage of human existence.

From the scientific perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a human being and who the human being is.

From a legal perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a person.

But it is not his uniqueness which derives his right to life. His right to life is established because he is a person. Because he exists. Albeit a person who exists in his earliest stage of his human development cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Now if you are trying to establish that sperm and eggs should be protected, they should. But sperm and eggs in and of themselves cannot make the claim that they exist as human beings in their present form. A zygote can.

 

[ding]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

 

[alang1216]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

With all this uniqueness why should you consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

The short answer is because it exists as a human being. Albeit one in its earliest stage of human existence.

From the scientific perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a human being and who the human being is.

From a legal perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a person.

But it is not his uniqueness which derives his right to life. His right to life is established because he is a person. Because he exists. Albeit a person who exists in his earliest stage of his human development cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Now if you are trying to establish that sperm and eggs should be protected, they should. But sperm and eggs in and of themselves cannot make the claim that they exist as human beings in their present form. A zygote can.

We can go around in semantic circles all day. It's fun but ultimately unproductive. I do see your point of view, I just don't share it.

In my view, it's not a unique set of DNA that makes us human or anyway different from any other living thing. It is the power of our mind that is truly unique in the world. Until that exists in the unborn, I feel it has no rights and the mother can exercise her right to chose. I don't like abortion but coercing an unwilling mother is the greater of two evils.

 

[MPS777]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

 

[ding]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

With all this uniqueness why should you consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

The short answer is because it exists as a human being. Albeit one in its earliest stage of human existence.

From the scientific perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a human being and who the human being is.

From a legal perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a person.

But it is not his uniqueness which derives his right to life. His right to life is established because he is a person. Because he exists. Albeit a person who exists in his earliest stage of his human development cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Now if you are trying to establish that sperm and eggs should be protected, they should. But sperm and eggs in and of themselves cannot make the claim that they exist as human beings in their present form. A zygote can.

We can go around in semantic circles all day. It's fun but ultimately unproductive. I do see your point of view, I just don't share it.

In my view, it's not a unique set of DNA that makes us human or anyway different from any other living thing. It is the power of our mind that is truly unique in the world. Until that exists in the unborn, I feel it has no rights and the mother can exercise her right to chose. I don't like abortion but coercing an unwilling mother is the greater of two evils.

No semantics necessary. Just science.

Our DNA literally makes us different from every other living thing. Each of us are a one of kind original. Never seen before and never to be seen again. No semantics.

 

[MPS777]

In the context of establishing personhood... absolutely. That's why they use it in a court of law.

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Uniqueness is actually rather common in the world of DNA. The egg, sperm, and zygote all have a unique set of chromosomes. In fact I'd guess that every cell in your body has a unique set of DNA although the differences are usually too small to have a noticeable effect unless they make the cell cancerous. With all this uniqueness why should I consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

With all this uniqueness why should you consider the uniqueness of the fertilized egg to be more valuable than any other body cell, egg, or sperm?

The short answer is because it exists as a human being. Albeit one in its earliest stage of human existence.

From the scientific perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a human being and who the human being is.

From a legal perspective the uniqueness establishes that he is a person.

But it is not his uniqueness which derives his right to life. His right to life is established because he is a person. Because he exists. Albeit a person who exists in his earliest stage of his human development cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Now if you are trying to establish that sperm and eggs should be protected, they should. But sperm and eggs in and of themselves cannot make the claim that they exist as human beings in their present form. A zygote can.

We can go around in semantic circles all day. It's fun but ultimately unproductive. I do see your point of view, I just don't share it.

In my view, it's not a unique set of DNA that makes us human or anyway different from any other living thing. It is the power of our mind that is truly unique in the world. Until that exists in the unborn, I feel it has no rights and the mother can exercise her right to chose. I don't like abortion but coercing an unwilling mother is the greater of two evils.

No semantics necessary. Just science.

Our DNA literally makes us different from every other living thing. Each of us are a one of kind original. Never seen before and never to be seen again. No semantics.

Each of us are an one of kind original, but not because of DNA. Identical twins have the same DNA, its their personalities, their consciousness, that makes them unique.

 

[Taz]

Dafuq?

You are the one who claimed babies get a SOUL "at birth!"

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?