Why a zygote isn't a human life

[Midnight FM]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

 

[Mack The Finger]

Abortion as a form of BC...IMHO is murder.

 

[Muhammed]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

There's a word for what you are doing in that post. It's called "dehumanization". Look it up.

In order to justify unjustly killing a totally innocent human being, you are using bizarre convoluted logic to convince yourself that he/she is not actually human. And that is causing you to experience cognitive dissonance.

Dehumanization was used by the Democratic party to justify slavery. It was also used by the Democratic party's protege party in Europe, the Nazi party, to justify the abortion of Jewish babies.

 

[IM2]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

"We" don't grant blacks anything. Humans are born with those rights.

 

[forkup]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

That strikes me as a shaky foundation for defining personhood. “Consciousness” is a vague, shifting term, philosophers still debate what it even is, let alone how to measure it. Does a one-month-old baby meet your threshold? What about a third-trimester fetus, or a coma patient with potential for recovery?

If personhood depends on some subjective sliding scale of cognitive complexity, then rights become arbitrary, and arbitrary standards make for terrible law. The legal system needs criteria that are clear, consistent, and enforceable. Consciousness, as you’ve framed it here, is none of those things.

 

[Midnight FM]

"We" don't grant blacks anything. Humans are born with those rights.

Actually we do.

A black person who is a slave may have inherent rights, but it requires the law to legally grant and enforce those rights. Otherwise, they would remain a slave.

 

[Midnight FM]

There's a word for what you are doing in that post. It's called "dehumanization". Look it up.

In order to justify unjustly killing a totally innocent human being, you are using bizarre convoluted logic to convince yourself that he/she is not actually human. And that is causing you to experience cognitive dissonance.

No, we're just stating, factually that it isn't a human

Just as if I factually stated that a rock isn't a human, it wouldn't be "dehumanizing" a rock.

Dehumanization was used by the Democratic party to justify slavery. It was also used by the Democratic party's protege party in Europe, the Nazi party, to justify the abortion of Jewish babies.

You can't dehumanize what wasn't human to begin with. This certainly isn't a baby:

 

[Muhammed]

No, we're just stating, factually that it isn't a human

Just as if I factually stated that a rock isn't a human, it wouldn't be "dehumanizing" a rock.


You can't dehumanize what wasn't human to begin with. This certainly isn't a baby:

You are factually incorrect.

A human zygote is a human being in the zygote stage of their lifespan. It is nothing like a rock. You are conflating those people with a rock in an attempt to dehumanize them.

Unlike developing zygotic humans, rocks are not living organisms.

The term "human" denotes an organism's species, not your value judgement of it's worthiness to continue living.

Biology 101.

 

[Correll]

"We" don't grant blacks anything. Humans are born with those rights.

Very true.

Midnight fm, is even more a commie than you are. He is even more obvious in his opposition to human rights.

 

[Hafar1014]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

Your post only defines a zygote as not a person but it is a human life defined by DNA.

Your argument also fails when we consider individuation. A baby has no awareness of itself as an individual until 6 months after birth. So we can argue nits still not a person since its part of the mothers psychology.
Individuation is the process of developing a unique, separate, and independent identity. It's about becoming a distinct individual, differentiating from others, and integrating various aspects of oneself. This process involves psychological, physiological, and social aspects and is often associated with Carl Jung's work.
Its also the work od Fred Pine Annie Bergman and Margaret Mawhler

 

[Mack The Finger]

Actually we do.

A black person who is a slave may have inherent rights, but it requires the law to legally grant and enforce those rights. Otherwise, they would remain a slave.

Is that limited to black people ?

When I was Korea 1980....that had slavery there.

Do they count ?

 

[ColonelAngus]

OP=Margaret Sanger

 

[Hafar1014]

OP=Margaret Sanger

Trump is above lawfare

 

[Anathema]

Midnight FM Prr your OP, does that mean a human being who has a neurological disorder or other impedence which keeps them from being able to fully comprehend and interact with their surroundings should be granted less Rights than an “average” human being; and consequently should higher IQ indicates be granted more Rights?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Trump is above lawfare

Mar a Lago is worth $17 million.

 

[forkup]

Your post only defines a zygote as not a person but it is a human life defined by DNA.

Your argument also fails when we consider individuation. A baby has no awareness of itself as an individual until 6 months after birth. So we can argue nits still not a person since its part of the mothers psychology.
Individuation is the process of developing a unique, separate, and independent identity. It's about becoming a distinct individual, differentiating from others, and integrating various aspects of oneself. This process involves psychological, physiological, and social aspects and is often associated with Carl Jung's work.
Its also the work od Fred Pine Annie Bergman and Margaret Mawhler

It is a faulty argument. But I don't think this is.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that a baby or zygote is a person. That still doesn’t answer the key question:
Why should one person have the legal right to force another to risk their life or health to sustain them?

Let me illustrate with a parallel. Imagine a mother gives birth to a baby with kidney failure. The only viable donor is the mother. Should we strap her down and remove one of her kidneys, against her will, to save the child’s life?
Most people would instinctively say no. Even if the child is hers, even if she willingly got pregnant, we don’t compel organ donations in free societies. We recognize bodily autonomy as fundamental, even when lives are at stake.

But when it comes to pregnancy, that principle suddenly vanishes. Somehow, the fetus gains more rights over the mother’s body than any born person ever could.

That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing to. This isn’t about denying that fetuses matter. It’s about recognizing that no one, not even a dependent child, has the right to use someone else's body without consent. Pregnancy should be no exception.

 

[Midnight FM]

It is a faulty argument. But I don't think this is.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that a baby or zygote is a person. That still doesn’t answer the key question:
Why should one person have the legal right to force another to risk their life or health to sustain them?

Let me illustrate with a parallel. Imagine a mother gives birth to a baby with kidney failure. The only viable donor is the mother. Should we strap her down and remove one of her kidneys, against her will, to save the child’s life?
Most people would instinctively say no. Even if the child is hers, even if she willingly got pregnant, we don’t compel organ donations in free societies. We recognize bodily autonomy as fundamental, even when lives are at stake.

But when it comes to pregnancy, that principle suddenly vanishes. Somehow, the fetus gains more rights over the mother’s body than any born person ever could.

That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing to. This isn’t about denying that fetuses matter. It’s about recognizing that no one, not even a dependent child, has the right to use someone else's body without consent. Pregnancy should be no exception.

That's simply not going to fly, given the unique circumstances which define a pregnancy.

 

[Midnight FM]

You are factually incorrect.

A human zygote is a human being in the zygote stage of their lifespan. It is nothing like a rock. You are conflating those people with a rock in an attempt to dehumanize them.

Unlike developing zygotic humans, rocks are not living organisms.

The term "human" denotes an organism's species, not your value judgement of it's worthiness to continue living.

Biology 101.

Being a human organism doesn't matter, since it lacks a brain and consciousness.

We're not defining them as "human" in the biological sense, but merely stating that they aren't a "human life" in the sense of a person who is worthy of having rights under the law.

 

[Midnight FM]

Abortion as a form of BC...IMHO is murder.

No, the reason for the abortion is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is at what point in the pregnancy it is considered to have rights.

 

[martybegan]

Per the discussions in the other abortion thread, I'm going to outline why a zygote isn't a human life.

First off, I believe that things have inherent rights if meet certain qualifications, and, when they do, we grant legal rights to recognize said inherent rights. This is why we grant legal rights to black people, but not to rocks. Because black people have intrinsic qualities that rocks don't.

One of these intrinsic qualities is consciousness. The more complex a living thing's consciousness is, the more rights we tend to grant it. We grant dogs and cats more rights than flies, but fewer rights than humans. There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature.

So, the way I see it, rights aren't granted to humans merely because they are "human organisms", but because they possess complex consciousness.

A zygote, however, lacks a brain and any consciousness to speak of, so while it may be a "human organism" and possess "human DNA", it doesn't qualify as a person because it lacks the consciousness which defines a person. I would argue that the person's life begins, not at conception of the human organism, but when their consciousness comes into existence. And life ends when their consciousness ceases to exist (e.x. a dead body may be a "human organism", and have "human DNA", but it no longer has a human consciousness).

If it's not a human life, what type of life is it? Is it a cat? A dog?

It's human, it's alive, it's just not born yet.