When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[BackAgain]

When is an embryo/fetus a human life?​

It is life at conception. Science knows this.

And it is a human life because, no matter what else happens, it will never be anything but human.

 

[toobfreak]

Legally, braindead people can be taken off of life support. So I would argue that they're not a "human life" in the same way that a person with a functioning brain is.

Wrong. Brain-dead people who show no sign of recovery are often removed from life support for showing no hope of regaining quality of life and to save the family from financial hardship. In essence, part of them (the most important part) is already dead. Once again, your argument is fractured.

And lower forms of life which lack consciousness typically don't have rights enshrined into the law.
Animals, such as dogs and cats, have some rights because they have a measure of consciousness, but not the same rights as humans have, because they have less complex consciousness.

Whatever. None of this is germane to the argument.

 

[BackAgain]

Legally, braindead people can be taken off of life support. So I would argue that they're not a "human life" in the same way that a person with a functioning brain is.

One: if brain dead, they aren’t a “life” anymore at all.

Two: by requiring a “functioning” brain, you are excluding all our liberals.

 

[Midnight FM]

Wrong. Brain-dead people who show no sign of recovery are often removed from life support for showing no hope of regaining quality of life and to save the family from financial hardship. In essence, part of them (the most important part) is already dead. Once again, your argument is fractured.

I'm confused. So you agree that having a brain or consciousness plays a role in defining a human life?

 

[toobfreak]

I'm confused. So you agree that having a brain or consciousness plays a role in defining a human life?

No. I never said any of that.

 

[Chuz Life]

A person who is clinically braindead can be legally taken off of life support, so this strongly implies that the brain or consciousness plays a role in defining what is a human life.

To a simpleton.

 

[Chuz Life]

uhm -----sorry if you faced that.......

Thanks, And I did,

 

[Midnight FM]

To a simpleton.

Not at all. Understanding consciousness requires nuance. Simply "being against abortion" doesn't require such nuance.

There is much legal precedent for consciousness playing a role in what forms of life have rights.

Such as how a clinically braindead person can legally be taken off of life support.

Or how animals, such as cats and dogs, have fewer rights than humans, due to having less complex forms of consciousness.

From what I can see, there is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature, with humans at the top, and therefore having the most rights.

So, given that a zygote lacks a brain or consciousness, I fail to see how it qualifies as a human life.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm confused. So you agree that having a brain or consciousness plays a role in defining a human life?

A stage of development of the life includes that time frame before the brain develops.

After being born, the loss of a living brain defines the end of life.

How does this confuse you so much?

 

[Chuz Life]

Not at all. Understanding consciousness requires nuance. Simply "being against abortion" doesn't require such nuance.

There is much legal precedent for consciousness playing a role in what forms of life have rights.

Such as how a clinically braindead person can legally be taken off of life support.

Or how animals, such as cats and dogs, have fewer rights than humans, due to having less complex forms of consciousness.

From what I can see, there is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature, with humans at the top, and therefore having the most rights.

So, given that a zygote lacks a brain or consciousness, I fail to see how it qualifies as a human life.

I refer you to court cases that involved the rights of children with anencephalia.

 

[Midnight FM]

A stage of development of the life includes that time frame before the brain develops.

Then it isn't a human life, just a "potential life".

Just as a skyscraper "in development" is not a skyscraper.

After being born, the loss of a living brain defines the end of life.

How does this confuse you so much?

So in other words, the brain and consciousness define what is and isn't a human life.

 

[Orangecat]

When is an embryo/fetus a human life?​

It's the first stage of an individual human life the moment it manifests DNA that is different from the mother and father. I believe science says that happens at conception.

 

[BackAgain]

Then it isn't a human life, just a "potential life".

No. You are wrong. It IS a life. You can argue that the life is not yet developed into an independent person. But it’s still a life.

The potential for life happens just before the spermatazoa makes its way into the ovum.

Just as a skyscraper "in development" is not a skyscraper.

False analogy. The foundation doesn’t scrape the sky. But still, it is a skyscraper under construction. It isn’t an aquarium and never will be.

So in other words, the brain and consciousness define what is and isn't a human life.

Wrong again. Repeating your mistake doesn’t prove your point.

 

[schmidlap]

Only in your opinion. That is.

Absent a brain capable of functioning, it is not a living human being.

 

[schmidlap]

It's the first stage of an individual human life the moment it manifests DNA that is different from the mother and father. I believe science says that happens at conception.

A skin cell manifests such unique DNA. It is not a human being.

 

[Orangecat]

A skin cell manifests such unique DNA. It is not a human being.

Unique from the person it came from? No. STFU, ignoramus.

 

[schmidlap]

10 states voted on pro-abortion referendums. 7 of them passed.​

Most Americans do not want politicians and bureaucrats dictating to everyone in such personal, private matters.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I recall comedian Bill Burr talking about abortion. His personal stance was that he had no opinion either way, but said, "If I put together all of the ingredients to make a cake and put it in the oven and then a few minutes later, you came along, took it out of the oven and threw it on the floor, claiming it wasn't a cake yet, I would respond with, it would have been a cake if you had left it in the damn oven."
Anyway, I have mixed opinions on the matter. If the potential mother is a drug addled street walker, she should be allowed to get rid of it, for the kid's sake.
If the potential mother is a minor and victim of rape or incest, she should be able to get rid of it, otherwise, you are subjecting her to "cruel and unusual punishment," carrying that daily reminder of what had occurred.
If the potential mother is dirt poor and can't provide a decent living for the kid, she should either get rid of it or allow it to be born and then be adopted. Ultimately, she should just keep her legs together or make sure the men have "protection."
If the potential mother is of age and could support it if she needed to, then she should have it and take care of it or allow it to be adopted.

I agree mostly.

I also suggest that we make it mandatory for the abortion-provider to inform the patient that what she is considering performing, is the murder of her own young. First of all, this is technically true. Secondly, this has a benefit. The women who decide to not go through with it, tend to be ones with a conscience/good morals. The ones who still decide to go through with it, tend to be the opposite. So, good women have babies, and bad women lose theirs. This is eugenic.

 

[Chuz Life]

Absent a brain capable of functioning, it is not a living human being.

I understand that is your want and or your opinion, but that is not a realistic perspective from a biological or even from a legal viewpoint.

You might consider court cases that involve children with anencephalia. If you really care about the facts on what you are claiming.

 

[Chuz Life]

I recognize a functioning brain is an essential attribute of every living person, but anyone who differs should be respected, just as they should respect everyone who shares my view,

No one should dictate to everyone else, and a female's loved ones, and trusted medical and spiritual advisers, are far preferable to anonymous politicians and bureaucrats issuing blanket edicts.

I'll ask again.

SPECIFICALLY, see bolded text.

Do you think things (especially important things) like "persons" should be defined by the attributes they HAVE? Or should the attributes they have be dismissed and disregarded, until we just can't justify the denial anymore?

I sure would appreciate a well-thought-out, considerate answer to that.

I'm not looking for another rant, diversion or platitude. I want to know if you agree that "persons" should be identified and recognized by the attributes they DO have. . . rather than to deny them their personhood, based on specific (arbitrarily decided) attributes they may only temporarily lack?

It shouldn't be this difficult.