Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
An abortion kills a developing human being. That life will never exist and an abortion does kill life. So far, science has not created life so, IMO, defining what is and what isn't life is pretty impossible.
I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.
How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?
I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."
If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.
It really is THAT simple.
A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.Sure why not?Are you willing to be questioned further on that?As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.
Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child
Interesting.
So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?
A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.
While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.
An embryo is a potential child it is not a child
Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?
Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help
But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.
I have no dog in this hunt.
But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.
They are not the same thing.
A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.Sure why not?Are you willing to be questioned further on that?As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.
Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child
Interesting.
So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?
A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.
While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.
An embryo is a potential child it is not a child
Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?
Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help
But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.
I have no dog in this hunt.
But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.
They are not the same thing.
Sorry if you consider this post off topic.
Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.
I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.
If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.
Now a zygote is not a child
Oh but it is a child.
You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.
so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is
A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.
You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."
If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.
However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.
Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.
And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.
You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."
If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.
A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.
You agreed (at least) for the sake of this argument, that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."
Didn't you?
Organisms more than "potentially" exist.
Organisms "actually" do exist.
Organisms are MORE than "potential" beings.
Now, if you want to view un-united haploid reproduction cells
(sperm and eggs) as mere "potential" organisms? You will little to no argument from me on that.
However, once they (sperm and egg) unite and a new organism (zygote) is created? Their combined "potential" to create a new organism has been realized.
What else would make your biological parents YOUR biological parents? Or biological relationship to mine? Or anybody else's?
A potential human being would not physically exist. A child / organism in the womb (even in the zygote stage of their life) biologically DOES physically exist.
True.As presented the answer would be no, not killing a child. if presented as killing a fetus that has a strong possibility of becoming a child the answer is yes. the problem is not that simple. the abortion question is very complex.
An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?
A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?
It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?
It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.
So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?
As a matter of the law – yes.Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.
I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.
If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.
Now a zygote is not a child
Oh but it is a child.
You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.
so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is
A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.
You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."
If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.
However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.
Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.
And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.
You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."
If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.
A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.
Well, when a sperm pierces an egg more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life. Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being. Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person. No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really. The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.An abortion kills a developing human being. That life will never exist and an abortion does kill life. So far, science has not created life so, IMO, defining what is and what isn't life is pretty impossible.
Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?
I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are. How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?
Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???
Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..
I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."
If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.
It really is THAT simple.
That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...
Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.
There is no CLEAR LINE here.
No YES or NO answers..
No LEAPS to making people murderers or not..
I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..
An abortion kills a developing human being.
Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?
Well, when a sperm pierces an egg, more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life.
Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being.
Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person.
No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really.
The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.
An abortion kills a human life because if left to develop it will most likely result in a living, breathing human being.
The conflict isn’t really about when life begins or if an embryo/fetus is a ‘child’; the conflict is the result of those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the decision by many that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘child,’ and those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the rule of law.
Because that is how some define a human being. They disconnect the life force from the result which is really wrong. An abortion KILLS life, I think I already said that.An abortion kills a human life because if left to develop it will most likely result in a living, breathing human being.
LEO.
It already IS a "living human being." I'm not sure why you bring "breathing" into it but (via cellular respiration), a child in the womb also "breathes."
I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.
How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?
Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???
Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..
I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."
If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.
It really is THAT simple.
That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...
Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.
There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..
I didn't answer yet, nor have I gotten all the way through the thread. Sorry if what I am about to type has been covered. My hangup is on the definition of child for the purpose of this exercise. I would answer affirmatively depending on the stage of development. Where I start to get squishy about whether it's a child or not would be at very at the earliest stages of development. Can you please define it if you have not yet done so? If you have defined it then I will put my hand down now and continue reading.
Found it.
I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.
How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?
Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???
Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..
I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."
If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.
It really is THAT simple.
That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...
Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.
There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..
"That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...
Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history."
I support abortion in both of the above situations. The first, only the extremists would suggest that it is wrong to abort a baby with no chance of developing a brain the most CRUCIAL organ in the ENTIRE body that without there is no actual life.
The second that is in the section of the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger and so yes if a woman was having triplets and one was crowding and suffocating the others and also endangering the mothers life then one of those triplets would have to be removed, depending on the damage to the other two and the risk to the life of the mother the possibility would be that all three would have to be removed.