When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[Midnight FM]

You haven't substantiated why an entity needs to have brain/consciousness in order to qualify as human life.

Silly little lefty eunuchs who think they can dictate the terms of any debate. Until they run into me.

You haven't specified why an entity is a human life from the moment of conception.

You've just given arbitrary definitions, such as being a life and having human DNA, which do not automatically make something a human life (such as a skin cell).

So if we're just using arbitrary definitions, I'm saying that having a brain and some measure of consciousness is necessary for something to qualify as a human life, in the same vein that a computer wouldn't be a "computer" if it lacked a CPU.

 

[Chuz Life]

I wouldn't say the egg is from the moment of conception. It's protected because it's considered a potential life, and the law wants to preserve an endangered species.

The point is that there is no law that protects all animal eggs from the moment of conception. The law isn't protecting it because it is "an eagle", they're protecting it because eagles are endangered.

How does killing an eagle's egg, which you claim is NOT an eagle. .. somehow harmful or a threat to actual eagles?

 

[Midnight FM]

Why should they protect it? It's the eagles that are endangered, not the eagle eggs, which I think you are implying aren't a member of the eagle species.

They're protecting them because eagle eggs are potential eagles, and eagles are endangered. I didn't say they should or shouldn't, I'm simply giving the rationale for why the law in question exists. There is no law that I am aware of protecting pigeon eggs, so the issue at stake isn't that it is a "life", it's simply about not wanting an endangered species to go extinct.

As far as I'm aware, humans aren't an endangered species, and requiring by law that people not have abortions in order to encourage procreation would be a form of "positive eugenics" which many people would be against.

 

[Chuz Life]

You haven't specified why an entity is a human life from the moment of conception.

Were YOU conceived?

If you still have your biological parents, you could (should) ask THEM.

 

[MayorQuimby]

You haven't specified why an entity is a human life from the moment of conception.

You've just given arbitrary definitions, such as being a life and having human DNA, which do not automatically make something a human life (such as a skin cell).

So if we're just using arbitrary definitions, I'm saying that having a brain and some measure of consciousness is necessary for something to qualify as a human life, in the same vein that a computer wouldn't be a "computer" if it lacked a CPU.

I think that by "arbitrary", you really mean subjective.

You're right though, all definitions are by their nature subjective/arbitrary. So, I cannot really say that your particular definition is wrong. I will say though, that your definition isn't very good, because there are cases where people lack consciousness, yet we still consider them humans. For example, comatose people. Or, people who are sleeping. Yes, there is technically still brain activities going on when people sleep, however, they are considered to be un-conscious when they sleep. Albeit temporarily. According to your (shitty) little definition, people who are sleeping aren't human.

 

[Midnight FM]

How does killing an eagle's egg, which you claim is NOT an eagle. .. somehow harmful or a threat to actual eagles?

Because they're endangered. Humans aren't endangered. Not that complicated. I'm not aware of any animal cruelty law that applies to eggs from the moment of conception.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Because they're endangered. Humans aren't endangered. Not that complicated. I'm not aware of any animal cruelty law that applies to eggs from the moment of conception.

If humans aren't endangered, does that mean we can start killing people wantonly?

 

[Chuz Life]

Because they're endangered. Humans aren't endangered. Not that complicated. I'm not aware of any animal cruelty law that applies to eggs from the moment of conception.

How does killing an egg kill an eagle? Help me understand the biology you are claiming.

 

[cnm]

Conception

Think how many gawd murders.

 

[Midnight FM]

How does killing an egg kill an eagle? Help me understand the biology you are claiming.

I didn't say it did. I said it reduces its population.

The law isn't there because people are arguing an egg is an eagle from the moment of conception. It's simply there to prevent a decline in eagle population. Pretty simple.

 

[Midnight FM]

I think the real question is what is the value of that human life in comparison to other lives?

Humans have the most complex consciousness of any species we know of.

We take human lives by the millions.

Lives are taken only in specific circumstances, not simply "whenever one wants to".

Taking life in warfare doesn't mean a person has a license to simply murder who ever they want. The law is very specific as to the circumstances under which human life can be taken, and when it can't.

We morn their deaths when they are dear to us and applaud their deaths if they are seen as our enemies but mostly we ignore them when they starve in foreign lands.

Who's "we"? While it's natural to be somewhat more concerned about those near to oneself, such as how most people would likely prioritize feeding their family over a stranger, the reality is that there are many people who make an effort to eliminate ills such as hunger in foreign lands.

So your assumption is that everyone is "equal" in their regard for the suffering of others in foreign lands is false. I'll admit that there are people more concerned than I am, though. Some people devote their entire lives to ending the suffering of others. I can't say I'm capable of doing that.

 

[BrokeLoser]

They're protecting them because eagle eggs are potential eagles, and eagles are endangered. I didn't say they should or shouldn't, I'm simply giving the rationale for why the law in question exists. There is no law that I am aware of protecting pigeon eggs, so the issue at stake isn't that it is a "life", it's simply about not wanting an endangered species to go extinct.

As far as I'm aware, humans aren't an endangered species, and requiring by law that people not have abortions in order to encourage procreation would be a form of "positive eugenics" which many people would be against.

The premise of what you assert totally escapes you doesn’t it?
Lib Logic:
“The egg of an endangered bird is more important to this world than is little embryo Humberto or DaShawn.”

 

[Midnight FM]

The premise of what you assert totally escapes you doesn’t it?
Lib Logic:
“The egg of an endangered bird is more important to this world than is little embryo Humberto or DaShawn.”

And? Eagles eggs are endangered species. Humans aren't. And you've failed to substantiated that an embryo is a human life from the moment of conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

I didn't say it did. I said it reduces its population.

The law isn't there because people are arguing an egg is an eagle from the moment of conception. It's simply there to prevent a decline in eagle population. Pretty simple.

Biologically, how does killing an egg which according to you is ONLY a "potential" eagle - ACTUALLY cause a REAL decline in the number of ACTUAL Eagles?

 

[BrokeLoser]

And? Eagles eggs are endangered species. Humans aren't. And you've failed to substantiated that an embryo is a human life from the moment of conception.

You have to play to word games?
Do you believe endangered animals are more important to the world than are Humberto and DaShawn? If you’ll pretend an Eagles egg is a soon to be eagle then why don’t you pretend a fetus is a soon to be human?

 

[Midnight FM]

Biologically, how does killing an egg which according to you is ONLY a "potential" eagle - ACTUALLY cause a REAL decline in the number of ACTUAL Eagles?

It doesn't. The law would be the equivalent of having a law only against American Indians having abortions (because they are a racial minority) but not anyone else.

So in other words, the law is not substantiating that the egg is an eagle from the moment of conception. There is no law that universally disallows destroying eggs.

 

[Midnight FM]

You have to play to word games?
Do you believe endangered animals are more important to the world than are Humberto and DaShawn? If you’ll pretend an Eagles egg is a soon to be eagle then why don’t you pretend a fetus is a soon to be human?

"Soon to be" and "is" aren't the same thing.

I don't believe an eagle's egg is an eagle from the moment of conception, but I'm generally fine with laws which protect endangered species. That law in question has been around since the 1940s, and I'm not convinced it was signed into law by "liberals" to begin with.

 

[BrokeLoser]

"Soon to be" and "is" aren't the same thing.

I don't believe an eagle's egg is an eagle from the moment of conception, but I'm generally fine with laws which protect endangered species.

I’ll keep playing along…Don’t the neck tatted purple hair nose ringers keep telling us American fertility isn’t where it needs to be…don’t they tell us we need to import Mexico’s people to sustain ourselves?
Isn’t the core American kinda becoming extinct?

 

[Chuz Life]

Think how many gawd murders.

Think "natural deaths" instead.

You're welcome.

 

[irosie91]

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.

actually---the determination of brain death provides a prognosis of inevitable progression to death---
nobody recovers which is why termination of life support becomes legal