When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[Midnight FM]

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?

It's simple. At the point when a human life exists, it deserves protection.

I'm not convinced that it is a human life from the moment of conception, but, at some point in the pregnancy, it qualifies as a human life.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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.

You wrote this

“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."”

Fifty years have passed so Why hasn't Texas established that a fetus is a person?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Respectfully, this is where we diverge.

For as much as I am open to the concept of "souls entering a body" at conception or at any other point in life, I would argue that - even in the absence of "souls" a biological human being would still have the right to live and not to be killed unjustly, parents would still have a right to seek protection of their biological children in the womb AND by logical extension, the rights of all the other "children" also.

I don't know how far down this rabbit hole you want to explore, but this is one point I can't agree on.

My basic reason is this. Biology (not metaphysics like religion and "souls") is the one thing we all have in common. Therefore, if we base the right to life on biology and biological facts, it also applies to all - equally.

The moment you introduce subjective metaphysical beliefs and other religious aspects, You (we) lose that commonality, - as we are all free to "believe" in metaphysical aspects OR not believe in them at all.

Now, if someone could prove that "souls" actually and objectively exist? That would probably be significant and worth considering.

 

[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

Ahem.. This has changed everything. Embryo:
Who's my daddy? Which is my mommy? I have 7 twins? One identical?
In vitro fertilization has evolved into an Elon Musk wet dream.. or something.

 

[schmidlap]

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.

it is your absolutist belief that a microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells is a person, and that the State must inflict your belief upon everyone.

Freedom-loving Americans are far more reasonable, and respectful of differing views. Until a brain has developed, most know that it is not a sentient being, neither holding the extremist belief that a person suddenly comes into existence at the instant of conception, nor the antipodal, extremist belief that a person only comes into existence at birth.

In referendum after referendum, survey after survey, Americans reject the extremist positions.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't matter what a person "says", what matters is the science.


Science doesn't agree with her. No brain, no consciousness, no human life to speak of.

Except that it has a heart that beats, a circulatory system and is growing. That makes this a stage of human development. Apparently science doesn't agree with you.

 

[schmidlap]

Except that it has a heart that beats, a circulatory system and is growing. That makes this a stage of human development. Apparently science doesn't agree with you.

An entity that is developing into a human being is not a human being.

 

[Monoculturalist]

An entity that is developing into a human being is not a human being.

At what stage of development would you consider the unborn to legally be a human life?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

An entity that is developing into a human being is not a human being.

Of course it is. It is a stage of human development. It isn't a separate species.

 

[toobfreak]

For as much as I am open to the concept of "souls entering a body" at conception or at any other point in life, I would argue that - even in the absence of "souls" a biological human being would still have the right to live and not to be killed unjustly, parents would still have a right to seek protection of their biological children in the womb AND by logical extension, the rights of all the other "children" also.

I never said otherwise. Nowhere in jurisprudence is the word 'soul' ever mentioned as a condition to any right, which is good because neither me nor the state can prove a soul is or isn't there.

Biology (not metaphysics like religion and "souls") is the one thing we all have in common. Therefore, if we base the right to life on biology and biological facts, it also applies to all - equally.

I has to, otherwise we risk excluding 99.999999% of the entire biota as not being "life."

The moment you introduce subjective metaphysical beliefs and other religious aspects, You (we) lose that commonality, - as we are all free to "believe" in metaphysical aspects OR not believe in them at all.

Very true. I merely add the soul in as part of the justification for requiring the zygote on down to be regarded as absolute human life.

Now, if someone could prove that "souls" actually and objectively exist? That would probably be significant and worth considering.

The proof probably exists--- I would have to think on that, but the problem is that there is no machine to measure a soul, so, the sticky widget is that while I know a soul to be there, it is probably most provable to those who already likewise believe anyway and least provable to those who most need it proven to.

 

[schmidlap]

At what stage of development would you consider the unborn to legally be a human life?

Twenty-two - twenty-four weeks,

 

[schmidlap]

Of course it is. It is a stage of human development. It isn't a separate species.

An acorn is a stage in and oak tree's development.

It is not an oak tree.

 

[DukeU]

An acorn is a stage in and oak tree's development.

It is not an oak tree.

If it were found on Mars, would it be considered life?

 

[schmidlap]

Some statists seem hellbent on concocting rationales for bureaucrats and politicians seizing control of wombs at the instant of conception.

American will never submit to such tyranny.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

An acorn is a stage in and oak tree's development.

It is not an oak tree.

An infant is not a teen ager. A teen ager is not an adult. All, like a fetus are stages of human development. They are human beings.

 

[schmidlap]

If it were found on Mars, would it be considered life?

What is germane is that, if an acorn were found on Mars, living or otherwise, it would still not be an oak tree.

 

[toobfreak]

An acorn is a stage in and oak tree's development.
It is not an oak tree.

Well, sure, it has to be. An acorn is a baby oak tree. Except, instead of gestating the baby oak in a womb as a zygote, a tree's reproduction is much more primitive--- it drops its "babies" on the ground and the ones who fall in a location of good soil, water and light, not too crowded out by other trees, are the ones whom survive and grow best.

Nature's own brilliance--- kind of like picking the baby to succeed most who has the best parents kind of.

In some ways, maybe better than how humans propagate--- have ten kids getting knocked up by a dad who is never around, to a crack whore mother who then uses her welfare money to sleep around some more while you starve.

 

[DukeU]

What is germane is that, if an acorn were found on Mars, living or otherwise, it would still not be an oak tree.

Yes, it would be considered life.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What is germane is that, if an acorn were found on Mars, living or otherwise, it would still not be an oak tree.e

And an infant would not be an adult. Does that mean the infant isn't human. An acorn is a stage of development of Quercus. An oak tree is the mature development of Quercus. They are not separat species.

 

[schmidlap]

Well, sure, it has to be. An acorn is a baby oak tree. Except, instead of gestating the baby oak in a womb as a zygote, a tree's reproduction is much more primitive--- it drops its "babies" on the ground and the ones who fall in a location of good soil, water and light, not too crowded out by other trees, are the ones whom survive and grow best.

Nature's own brilliance--- kind of like picking the baby to succeed most who has the best parents kind of.

In some ways, maybe better than how humans propagate--- have ten kids getting knocked up by a dad who is never around, to a crack whore mother who then uses her welfare money to sleep around some more while you starve.

An oak tree is not an old acorn.

An acorn is not a young oak tree.

An acorn is an acorn.

An oak tree is an oak tree,

If you saw an acorn, you do not cut down an oak tree.