When does human life begin?

[ding]

OK, so what?

It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.

 

[alang1216]

We are discussing when a specific human life begins, not the first human. But you already knew that.

That you can't be honest about that tells me you know you have no argument. And we aren't discussing abortion rights. We are discussing human rights. Specifically if we are going to grant human rights to humans when they come into existence or if we are going to treat them as property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner until some arbitrary and capricious time after they have come into existence.

The science is very clear on when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that given the games you are playing.

Human rights are not a science so using science to decide what they should be is problematic. When does a boy become a man? That is not a question science can answer. Not unlike when should a human being be allowed to vote to drink or get married. These are cultural questions and not scientific ones. You are being dishonest when you abuse science in the interest of your political agenda.

 

[alang1216]

I can promise all of you that when Roe v Wade comes before the Supreme Court - and it will - the advocates for abortion will acknowledge the science and will make a person-hood legal argument, a hardship argument and Federal rights versus states rights argument. But they won't dare play silly games arguing that life begins at conception.

You're probably right, proving that it is not a question for science.

 

[alang1216]

It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.

OK, but so what? What question does that answer?

 

[BWK]

Science makes it clear too....

...at conception.

No such evidence exists for that. But feel free to try again.

 

[alang1216]

Roe v Wade will be overturned and left for each state to decide.

Agreed.

SCOTUS will over turn Roe v Wade on the basis of science. The very science you are unwilling to acknowledge.

Disagree. Acknowledging a scientific truth does not answer every question. As science progresses the 'science' will change dramatically. Do clones have rights?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Fine but the real question is what legal rights should it have at that stage of development?

The right to life

 

[alang1216]

Assuming the zygote or fetus isn’t killed by accident, like the death of the mother, and doesn’t have genetic issues that will lead to being stillborn, then one need only consider that as it develops (if it isn’t aborted), the only features it can ever possibly show are features unique to humanity. It won’t be a fish or a bird. It won’t be a giraffe. It will be a baby human being. Therefore, you seemingly end up holding the belief that its human life begins at its conception.

If you held a fertilized egg in your hand you'd have to determine it's DNA to know what it was. It would look like every other fertilized egg that ever existed.

 

[alang1216]

The right to life

Simple idea but that 'right' is a legal convention, not a scientific one.

 

[ding]

Human rights are not a science so using science to decide what they should be is problematic. When does a boy become a man? That is not a question science can answer. Not unlike when should a human being be allowed to vote to drink or get married. These are cultural questions and not scientific ones. You are being dishonest when you abuse science in the interest of your political agenda.

Human rights are not a science. But the question of humanness - which is what is being questioned by some - is determined through science.

It's hilarious the lengths you will go to to deny their humanness. Unfortunately for you, when this comes before SCOTUS that will be a non-starter. Any argument based on the validity of ending their lives because they are not human will lose.

 

[ding]

You're probably right, proving that it is not a question for science.

And yet here you are arguing they aren't human. Odd. Like I said before, it's hilarious the lengths some will go to to deny their humanness. So a scientific ruling is 100% needed to shut down that argument. The fact that that argument must be made says more about the unreasonableness of people who dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending human life.

Your very argument proves you know abortion is wrong because you have to argue against the science to justify the morality of abortion. I'd respect you more if you admitted abortion was wrong but supported it anyway. At least then you would be being honest about it.

 

[ding]

OK, but so what? What question does that answer?

Ummmm... that abortion is ending a human life and not a potential human. Because that's exactly how you see abortion. You believe abortion does not end a human life and that's why you are Ok with it.

 

[ding]

No such evidence exists for that. But feel free to try again.

DNA is the evidence you are looking for.

 

[alang1216]

Human rights are not a science. But the question of humanness - which is what is being questioned by some - is determined through science.

I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood. It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.

It's hilarious the lengths you will go to to deny their humanness. Unfortunately for you, when this comes before SCOTUS that will be a non-starter. Any argument based on the validity of ending their lives because they are not human will lose.

Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable. We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.

 

[ding]

I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood. It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.


Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable. We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.

Of course you see it that way. Nazis didn't see Jews as humans just like some good Christians didn't see blacks as humans. To you a fetus is property to be disposed of at the will of it's owner. You would discard their lives as casually as you would throw out trash.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't consider a set of genes to have 'humanness' or personhood. It is our brains that make us human and they don't develop for quite some time.


Fortunately for pro-choice folk like me there are many circumstances where killing a human being is acceptable, even desirable. We put different values on different human beings sometimes those values are very, very low.

Alternatively, we value the mother over the fetus much of the time.

 

[BackAgain]

If you held a fertilized egg in your hand you'd have to determine it's DNA to know what it was. It would look like every other fertilized egg that ever existed.

Irrelevant.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

God makes it clear:

View attachment 577563

When I say it does. Period. End of story.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Simple idea but that 'right' is a legal convention, not a scientific one.

The right to life is SPIRITUAL. Rights don't depend on the approval of men

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Irrelevant.

No, right on target. Notice you have never been to a funeral for a miscarried, fertilized egg.