When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

No, they are charged with stealing Quercus and prosecuted. The sentence is the same as stealing an oak tree.

You do understand that kittens and cats are both felines? Puppies and dogs are still canines. Yet it's important to strip humanity from early stage development humans.

Laughably, the half wits say follow the science.

 

[toobfreak]

Human life begins at conception.

An amazing statement I never thought would bear argument! Put another way: If human life /DOESN'T/ begin at conception, just WHAT THE HELL WAS JUST CONCEIVED when a woman gets pregnant????

If that isn't a human being down there, I'm calling in Mia Farrow.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

It's not a belief. It's a scientific fact. That a fetus is not a person is a fiction you tell yourself so you don't feel bad about killing it. Accept reality you will be much better off.

 

[toobfreak]

Laughably, the half wits say follow the science.

How true. The same people who for years have told us to FOLLOW THE SCIENCE are the same people who:

1. Ignore the science that a mother's fetus in her womb is just a tiny human being in the earliest stages of growth.
2. Claim man is ruining the climate despite the fact that their own charts show the climate changing long before man was even around emitting significant CO2.
3. Ignore the fact that a baby is not the mother's body to do with as she pleases but /ANOTHER/ body, another person growing inside her.
4. Threatened millions with loss of life and livelihood if they did not just blindly take experimental injections they had good reason to doubt would be safe and good for their bodies.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How true. The same people who for years have told us to FOLLOW THE SCIENCE are the same people who:

1. Ignore the science that a mother's fetus in her womb is just a tiny human being in the earliest stages of growth.
2. Claim man is ruining the climate despite the fact that their own charts show the climate changing long before man was even around emitting significant CO2.
3. Ignore the fact that a baby is not the mother's body to do with as she pleases but /ANOTHER/ body, another person growing inside her.
4. Threatened millions with loss of life and livelihood if they did not just blindly take experimental injections they had good reason to doubt would be safe and good for their bodies.

And still insist that men can get pregnant.

 

[Chuz Life]

How true. The same people who for years have told us to FOLLOW THE SCIENCE are the same people who:

1. Ignore the science that a mother's fetus in her womb is just a tiny human being in the earliest stages of growth.
2. Claim man is ruining the climate despite the fact that their own charts show the climate changing long before man was even around emitting significant CO2.
3. Ignore the fact that a baby is not the mother's body to do with as she pleases but /ANOTHER/ body, another person growing inside her.
4. Threatened millions with loss of life and livelihood if they did not just blindly take experimental injections they had good reason to doubt would be safe and good for their bodies.

Made me think of this classic video:


It makes me wonder how far it was to the nearest abortion clinic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Google Search

 

[toobfreak]

Made me think of this classic video: It makes me wonder how far it was to the nearest abortion clinic.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

 

[Grumblenuts]

My 2¢:

Biologically speaking, given no interference, a living human sperm and egg combine to form living human being at "conception" or fertilization.

A human life or being should begin being granted societal rights at birth. It should be left entirely up to the pregnant mother beforehand.

 

[Chuz Life]

My 2¢:

Biologically speaking, given no interference, a living human sperm and egg combine to form living human being at "conception" or fertilization.

A human life or being should begin being granted societal rights at birth. It should be left entirely up to the pregnant mother beforehand.

Just so we are clear.

By "birth," you mean "parturition."

Correct?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just so we are clear.

By "birth," you mean "parturition."

Correct?

Either works for me.

 

[Chuz Life]

Either works for me.

And if someone were to argue that Conception is the actual biological "birth" (as in origin, start, beginning, coming into existence) of a human being, and "Parturition" (9 months after the life had began) is really little more than a change of location of an already existing life?

 

[Midnight FM]

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.

.

Science says that it has no brain, that's what I'm saying.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And if someone were to argue that Conception is the actual biological "birth" (as in origin, start, beginning, coming into existence) of a human being, and "Parturition" (9 months after the life had began) is really little more than a change of location of an already existing life?

And if someone argued that Conception is really just the glint in an old milkman's eye?

 

[OKTexas]

Science says that it has no brain, that's what I'm saying.

That doesn't negate the fact that it's a developing human being.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

And if someone argued that Conception is really just the glint in an old milkman's eye?

That's comparable to you?

 

[Chuz Life]

That doesn't negate the fact that it's a developing human being.

.

Obviously, some here can't comprehend the difference between an existing organism that is further and further "developing" and something like a car or building that is "being developed."

 

[Midnight FM]

That doesn't negate the fact that it's a developing human being.

.

A pile of computer parts which are being "developed into a computer" aren't a automatically "a computer" at the moment development starts.

If it lacks a functioning CPU, I would argue that it isn't a "computer".

 

[Midnight FM]

You do understand that kittens and cats are both felines? Puppies and dogs are still canines. Yet it's important to strip humanity from early stage development humans.

Kittens and puppies have brains and consciousness.

It's not a belief. It's a scientific fact. That a fetus is not a person is a fiction you tell yourself so you don't feel bad about killing it. Accept reality you will be much better off.

It's a scientific fact that a zygote doesn't have a human brain. Are you in denial of that?

"Person" is a legal definition, not a scientific one. And I would argue that entities without functioning brains shouldn't legally be considered persons.