When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[Chuz Life]

Interesting that we've such clear definitions of death, but not life....~S~

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

"Life" is easy to observe and to detect.

Death OTOH (in my view) is a little more subjective.

Not a big deal but I think it's only "complicated" by some people's personal preferences and biases.

Kind of revealing how leftards who have no problem recognizing an amoeba as a "single celled organism" / member of their species. . . but they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the same is true of a human being that is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth, and development.

 

[Chuz Life]

What you are doing is attempting to define "the self" as DNA.

Defining the self isn't a subject of biology, it's a subject of philosophy.

To my understanding, a piece of DNA is a blueprint for development. It isn't "you", just as a blueprint which an architect uses to develop a skyscraper isn't a "skyscraper".

I already posted links to children born with only a brain stem, no other brain function, no capacity for thought, no ability for consciousness or sapience, and I also posted links to Case Law that pertain to children in that condition and referencing what those children's basic human rights are.

You clearly ignored the information I provided, and for that, I'm now ignoring you!

Buh Bye.

 

[Midnight FM]

I already posted links to children born with only a brain stem, no other brain function, no capacity for thought, no ability for consciousness or sapience, and I also posted links to Case Law that pertain to children in that condition and referencing what those children's basic human rights are.

You clearly ignored the information I provided, and for that, I'm not ignoring you!

Buh Bye.

And on that, I would argue that one shouldn't be legally required to keep alive a child born with only a brain stem.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

When is an embryo/fetus a human life?​

Human life starts at conception.

when does all society have an interest to protect it?

The US Constitution says society has no obligation to intervene on the choice to deliver or not to deliver until birth. Personhood begins at birth.

The fetus had a right to life not as a person through its mother which means it is protected from being murdered by a third party that is not part of a professional medical procedure.

 

[Midnight FM]

Kind of revealing how leftards who have no problem recognizing an amoeba as a "single celled organism" / member of their species. . .

An an amoeba has no rights to speak of, that I know of.

The higher a level of consciousness a member of a species has, the more rights it typically has. Dogs and cats have more rights than amoebas, but less than humans.

So, to me, the link between having rights and having consciousness is undeniable.

But they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the same is true of a human being that is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth, and development.

The argument I am making is that it doesn't matter if it is a "human organism". It isn't a "human being" deserving of rights because it lacks a brain and consciousness.

I don't consider "you" to be the organism, but rather a consciousness which inhabits the organism.

But this probably falls back on you arguing that "you are DNA".

 

[Midnight FM]

when does all society have an interest to protect it?

The US Constitution says society has no obligation to intervene on the choice to deliver or not to deliver until birth.

Where does it say that? I'm confused.

 

[toobfreak]

The US Constitution says society has no obligation to intervene on the choice to deliver or not to deliver until birth. Personhood begins at birth.

Do PLEASE regale us with which article of the Constitution says any of that bullshit.

 

[Chuz Life]

when does all society have an interest to protect it?

Even if we basically agree on that question, it is arguable and subjective. It wouldn't change anything. Because some will always be screaming "mind your own business," and the other side will still be trying to "make it their business - to protect the rights of those denied."

The US Constitution says society has no obligation to intervene on the choice to deliver or not to deliver until birth. Personhood begins at birth.

******* quote it.

It says no such thing, and it only uses "birth" to establish citizenship. Not ******* personhood.

The fetus had a right to life not as a person through its mother which means it is protected from being murdered by a third party that is not part of a professional medical procedure.

The charge for killing a child in the womb in a criminal act is MURDER.

The MURDER charge itself establishes the fact that the victim killed was a person.

Let's @sk Grok:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/HD3iUtH1stkmACaxzx3QXbocJ

 

[Grumblenuts]

Human Babies Aren’t Supposed to Have 3 Parents—but Now They Can

It isn’t supposed to occur in mammals, but…

www.yahoo.com

 

[Chuz Life]

Rather than endlessly quibble in semantics that fail to convince anyone of anything, why not just respect the beliefs of others, and grant them the freedom to follow their sincere beliefs, and leave politicians and bureaucrats out of such personal decisions entirely?

It is not possible to genuinely believe that an abortion is a violation of basic human rights and to just turn a blind eye of ignorance to it (and to the Goverment's complicity in that denial) at the same time.

 

[Midnight FM]

It is not possible to genuinely believe that an abortion is a violation of basic human rights and to just turn a blind eye of ignorance to it (and to the Goverment's complicity in that denial) at the same time.

I think you ignored me, but I think that it's not possible to genuinely believe that a zygote is the equivalent of a baby, or that having a brain and consciousness doesn't play a role in whether or not something is deserving of rights.

You accused me of ignoring you, but I didn't. I said I don't believe that a baby born without a brain should be required to be kept on life support. If a law requires that it does, then I find that odd.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I understand those are words and feels and desires. . . .

But I have to also consider what the Supreme Court has said about it in the past, when they anticipated what the child's rights might be, once a State establishes that the child is a "person."

It says no such thing, and it only uses "birth" to establish citizenship. Not ******* personhood.

Didnt you read or watch what you posted yesterday.

It might help you understand how the Republicans use fake Christianity to keep you from voting your self economic interests in fsvor of billionaires like Musk’

no harm comes to you when a woman terminates her own pregnancy and is not punished by the government - that’s just the reality you refuse to accept. You think you’re getting harmed, but you can’t say how.

 

[toobfreak]

It says no such thing, and it only uses "birth" to establish citizenship. Not ******* personhood.

Good point. By its nature, there are certain legal and medical benefits and qualities that cannot be accorded a person until they actually are born.

Still, before birth, both the mother and father are still the unborn's parents because they are responsible for giving life to the fetus.

 

[Midnight FM]

no harm comes to you when a woman terminates her own pregnancy and is not punished by the government

- that’s just the reality you refuse to accept. You think you’re getting harmed, but you can’t say how.

No harm comes to you when a plantation owner beats his slave. You think you're getting harmed, but you can't say how.

 

[Chuz Life]

Good point. By its nature, there are certain legal and medical benefits and qualities that cannot be accorded a person until they actually are born.

Still, before birth, both the mother and father are still the unborn's parents because they are responsible for giving life to the fetus.

I understand what you are hinting at (the difference between some rights which are inherent in the human condition and other rights which are basically "qualified" rights. Rights that are accord to or afforded to by the rest of society)

Is that a fair characterization?

If so, I'd like to take it even further (the subject of Birth vs. Parturition)

I don't know though - that one might need its own thread.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No harm comes to you when a plantation owner beats his slave. You think you're getting harmed, but you can't say how.

are you talking about slaves way in the past who were still in the womb?

Only the woman can terminate her own pregnancy

It has nothing to do with a third-party like a slave owner



I don’t see a connection. Can you try to elaborate?

 

[Chuz Life]

Didnt you read or watch what you posted yesterday.

So, with that, we are done.

I'm done being trolled by those who just want to rehash the same shit over and over and not even bother to read the answers and info that has already been provided.

 

[toobfreak]

I understand what you are hinting at (the difference between some rights which are inherent in the human condition and other rights which are basically "qualified" rights.

Well, you are thinking more deeply about this stuff than I was but basically, yes.

I mean, you cannot issue a SSN to a person until after they are born. Nor can you count them as a citizen in a census for redistricting purposes.

The unborn have innate human rights accorded them as a human life. But after birth, you acquire additional [legal] rights as a person and /individual/.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, you are thinking more deeply about this stuff than I was but basically, yes.

I mean, you cannot issue a SSN to a person until after they are born. Nor can you count them as a citizen in a census for redistricting purposes.

The unborn have innate human rights accorded them as a human life. But after birth, you acquire additional [legal] rights as a person and /individual/.

It seems that we agree that a human being / natural person is MORE than only a legal construct of society. It's just as much a biological fact as it is anything else.

 

[toobfreak]

It seems that we agree that a human being / natural person is MORE than only a legal construct of society. It's just as much a biological fact as it is anything else.

I would go as far as saying that at the moment of conception, a soul moves into the body of the newly conceived.

The soul is the real matter at question here, the body, whether fetus or infant, is merely the house or container, and the legal constructs of society are merely the arbitrary machinations of any culture to identify, recognize and categorize that life within a given society.

Or something like that.