When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[toobfreak]

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.

Worth pointing out is that just as a zygote and fetus are developmental stages of human beings, once we are born, the development never stops: we grow up, put on weight, gain education, mature, have families, retire, lose hair and weight, and settle down.

So why would these first few stages of human development not count as human just because the human started out developing inside the human mother's body as all mammalia do?

One can argue that the ultimate and final stage of development of human life is death.

The question is: To what length are the Left willing to rationalize the unborn as being no better than a pack of lunch-meat just so they can sleep around and throw their offspring away like so much trash so they can do it all over again?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You're not arguing science, you're trying to argue semantics, which really doesn't apply. Science says human development begins at conception and goes through many scientifically formalized stages from conception to death. Your opinion about what you think about your own development is irrelevant to the science.

.

 

[schmidlap]

No matter now many rationales are concocted by statists, Americans reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant of conception.

 

[toobfreak]

An oak tree is not an old acorn.

Never said it was, dolt.

An acorn is not a young oak tree.

Never said it was, dolt.

An acorn is an acorn.

You mean it just grew there? It fell from the clouds? Maybe the stork brought it. No, jackass, an acorn is a baby oak tree much like a zygote which nature packages into a shell so that it can seek out soil, water and light of its own to perpetuate the species. It is triggered that as soon as it detects suitable conditions, it begins using its stored food to let it develop enough to begin feeding off its environment.

Of course, the analogy is not perfect as you cannot directly compare a tree to a human being.

An oak tree is an oak tree,

Find me an oak tree that did not begin as an acorn. The acorn is simply a tree's first stage of development just as a zygote is to a human. The tree pollinates (tree sex) and instead of babies in diapers, the babies are little acorns.

 

[toobfreak]

No matter now many rationales are concocted by statists, Americans reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant of conception.

We reject surrendering our wombs but not our bodies to dangerous vaccines?

 

[schmidlap]

You're not arguing science, you're trying to argue semantics, which really doesn't apply. Science says human development begins at conception and goes through many scientifically formalized stages from conception to death. Your opinion about what you think about your own development is irrelevant to the science.

.

What is relevant is that Americans overwhelmingly reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant a sperm cell impregnates an egg.

 

[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.

Science doesn't say that at all. If t fetus is not of the human species, what species is it?

 

[schmidlap]

Never said it was, dolt.


Never said it was, dolt.


You mean it just grew there? It fell from the clouds? Maybe the stork brought it. No, jackass, an acorn is a baby oak tree much like a zygote which nature packages into a shell so that it can seek out soil, water and light of its own to perpetuate the species. It is triggered that as soon as it detects suitable conditions, it begins using its stored food to let it develop enough to begin feeding off its environment.

Of course, the analogy is not perfect as you cannot directly compare a tree to a human being.


Find me an oak tree that did not begin as an acorn. The acorn is simply a tree's first stage of development just as a zygote is to a human. The tree pollinates (tree sex) and instead of babies in diapers, the babies are little acorns.

All oak trees were once acorns. They all ceased to be acorns and became oak trees.

No one who walks away with someone else's acorn can be accused of stealing an oak tree.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What is relevant is that Americans overwhelmingly reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant a sperm cell impregnates an egg.

Yes. But they don't have to lie about it. They lie because it feels better.

 

[toobfreak]

All oak trees were once acorns. They all ceased to be acorns and became oak trees.

All people were once babies. All babies were once zygotes. There is no cleanly delineated line where an acorn stops being an acorn and becomes a tree.

In both cases, they are all developmental stages, with many steps of growth and transition. But everything that is an oak and in an oak is in the acorn just as everything in a person that is a human is in the zygote.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All oak trees were once acorns. They all ceased to be acorns and became oak trees.

There is no separate species for acorns.

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.

If you remove an acorn from the forest then fine is $5,000 and six months in jail. The same as it is for cutting down an oak tree. Acorns are a Quercus stage of development just as oak trees are. Acorn is to fetus what tree is to adult. Stages, nothing different.

 

[tahuyaman]

when does all society have an interest to protect it?.:::

At conception.

 

[tahuyaman]

Nope. It has no brain or consciousness to speak of.

Human life begins at conception. Period

 

[OKTexas]

What is relevant is that Americans overwhelmingly reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant a sperm cell impregnates an egg.

What does that have to do with the topic?

.

 

[OKTexas]

All oak trees were once acorns. They all ceased to be acorns and became oak trees.

No one who walks away with someone else's acorn can be accused of stealing an oak tree.

Are you seriously trying to compare an ungerminated seed to a human embryo? Talk about irrelevant. LMAO

.

 

[tahuyaman]

No matter now many rationales are concocted by statists, Americans reject surrendering control of wombs to politicians and bureaucrats from the instant of conception.

Life begins at conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

So not an absolutist.

As for the second part of your comment, the thought process (condensed) goes something like this.

The State has laws, and I think more importantly, we have the U.S. Constitution that is supposed to be the "Supreme Law of the Land."

Neither the laws nor the Constitution are infallible, but they are pretty much what we have to work with.

The Constitution says, all persons have a right to their life and to the equal protection of our laws.'

That is an inclusive statement/ principle.

That wording does not permit or justify the denial of equal protections for any "person" of any size, age, race, religion, or I submit - "level of development"

So let's examine the legal definition for what a "natural person" is, shall we?

Natural Person: Cornell law School says;

That seems to be pretty ******* inclusive to me!

The U.S. Code defines "Natural Persons" as;

Oh shit, that too is pretty ******* inclusive, but it says "born alive!" What do I ******* do now?

Let's read further:

Whew! That was close.

But now we can see that the most inclusive definition for what a "natural person" is - is simply. A "human being."

Logically, A human being is a human being. No matter where they are, no matter how old or young, no matter their race, creed, or religion. No matter their ******* size or level of development.

A human being is a human being and as such they meet the minimum criteria for what a "natural person" is.

Furthermore, sapience, sentience, consciousness, heart beats, ability to feel pain, NONE of those are legal requirements for "personhood."

Let's Fact Check that. mmmkay?

https://x.com/i/grok/share/v185mkX11bufrinxVaLWtNuhg

---

---

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.

That's very impressive, if only I were of the mindset that personhood is or should be determined by popular OPINION. That is.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.


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


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.


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.

Thanks for not taking offense.

 

[tahuyaman]

Human life begins at conception.

 

[tahuyaman]

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.

Human life begins at conception.