Why a zygote isn't a human life

[forkup]

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

What specifically do you think is unique?

 

[Midnight FM]

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

It's merely a human organism, but due to its lack of brain and consciousness, doesn't meet the criteria that developed humans do.

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

Skin cells are human, they're a life, they have human DNA. They're not a "human life".

 

[Midnight FM]

What specifically do you think is unique?

The unique circumstances of pregnancy, namely a life developing inside of someone, aren't comparable to scenarios such as an adult who is capable of choice and intentions using another person's body without their consent.

And the state can force people to use their bodies to support another person without their consent. It can force, for instance, a parent to use their body to provide support to a newborn child, and penalize them if they neglect to do so.

 

[martybegan]

It's merely a human organism, but due to its lack of brain and consciousness, doesn't meet the criteria that developed humans do.


Skin cells are human, they're a life, they have human DNA. They're not a "human life".

It's a human life. If you have to play the semantics game to justify killing it at whim, then that shows your lack of moral fortitude.

 

[forkup]

And the state can force people to use their bodies to support another person without their consent. It can force, for instance, a parent to use their body to provide support to a newborn child, and penalize them if they neglect to do so.

What state are you referring too, because I can't think of any state that would force a person to use their body in support of a child. Are you claiming there are states that will strap down a person, remove the kidney to donate to their baby?

 

[Midnight FM]

It's a human life.

It simply isn't. No brain, no consciousness, no person to speak of.

If you have to play the semantics game to justify killing it at whim, then that shows your lack of moral fortitude.

No semantics needed. We don't grant people rights because they are "human organisms", but because they have human consciousness.

If you simply lack the nuance to understand these things, it's not my problem. A person who is clinically braindead, for example, may be a "human organism" with unique DNA, but it is perfectly legal to take them off of life support.

 

[TNHarley]

It doesnt matter what you define it as, its only the mothers business. Thats it. Not the fathers, and for damn sure not the governments.

 

[forkup]

The unique circumstances of pregnancy, namely a life developing inside of someone, aren't comparable to scenarios such as an adult who is capable of choice and intentions using another person's body without their consent.

That's bizarre. So, you think coercion is alright as long as the person doing the coercing doesn't have a choice?

I can hold a person under gunshot, forcing them to give up their wallet because I'm hungry?

 

[Midnight FM]

It doesnt matter what you define it as, its only the mothers business. Thats it. Not the fathers, and for damn sure not the governments.

Not true at all. At the point that it meets the criteria of being a human life, it certainly is the government's business.

I'm just not convinced that it does from the moment of conception.

 

[TNHarley]

Not true at all. At the point that it meets the criteria of being a human life, it certainly is the government's business.

I'm just not convinced that it does from the moment of conception.

I dont agree. Of course, I am not much of one to want to use jackboot thugs to punish people that do things I dont like.

 

[martybegan]

It simply isn't.


No semantics needed. No brain, no consciousness, no person to speak of. We don't grant people rights because they are "human organisms", but because they have human consciousness.

If you simply lack the nuance to understand these things, it's not my problem. A person who is clinically braindead, for example, may be a "human organism" with unique DNA, but it is perfectly legal to take them off of life support.

It is human life. It can't be anything else. It has Human DNA, it is alive.

That's your opinion, not reality. Like most leftist idiots you confuse the two.

They are a human life. Again with the semantics.

 

[Midnight FM]

It is human life. It can't be anything else. It has Human DNA, it is alive.

Skin cells have human DNA and they are alive. They aren't a "human life".

That's your opinion, not reality. Like most leftist idiots you confuse the two.

No, the reality is that a zygote is merely a human organism which lacks consciousness, and therefore lacks inherent rights.

 

[martybegan]

Skin cells have human DNA and they are alive. They aren't a "human life".


No, the reality is that a zygote is merely a human organism which lacks consciousness, and therefore lacks inherent rights.

They have the same DNA as the person in question. Fetuses have unique human DNA, and are a living organism that is growing and developing.

It is a life. That you have to call it an organism to justify killing it for any reason at any time just shows the mental gymnastics you need to do in your dime store head.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

A fetus is part of the mothers body which is her property that makes the fetus her property until we decide when the fetus becomes a person. Thats going to be arbitrary but its the only answer. It boils down to a time limit. 16 weeks works for me.

 

[Midnight FM]

They have the same DNA as the person in question. Fetuses have unique human DNA, and are a living organism that is growing and developing.

And?

It is a life. That you have to call it an organism to justify killing it for any reason at any time just shows the mental gymnastics you need to do in your dime store head.

I've already explained that a skin cell is a "life", but doesn't have rights.

No mental gymnastics are needed. A zygote doesn't have a brain or human consciousness. It's pretty simple, really.

 

[Midnight FM]

A fetus is part of the mothers body which is her property that makes the fetus her property until we decide when the fetus becomes a person. Thats going to be arbitrary but its the only answer. It boils down to a time limit. 16 weeks works for me.

No, when it has its own separate consciousness, I would say it resides in the mother's body, but isn't a "part" of the mother's body.

 

[martybegan]

And?


I've already explained that a skin cell is a "life", but doesn't have rights.

No mental gymnastics are needed. A zygote doesn't have a brain or human consciousness. It's pretty simple, really.

flaked off skin cells aren't a life. They are organic material. The ones sloughed off are also dead.

It is still a human life. just really early in development.

 

[martybegan]

A fetus is part of the mothers body which is her property that makes the fetus her property until we decide when the fetus becomes a person. Thats going to be arbitrary but its the only answer. It boils down to a time limit. 16 weeks works for me.

I would put it at 12 weeks for birth control abortions.

 

[forkup]

A fetus is part of the mothers body which is her property that makes the fetus her property until we decide when the fetus becomes a person. Thats going to be arbitrary but its the only answer. It boils down to a time limit. 16 weeks works for me.

Doesn't really address what I'm saying. Your person at 16 weeks has a right to another person's body? That's the argument.

 

[Hafar1014]

Doesn't really address what I'm saying. Your person at 16 weeks has a right to another person's body? That's the argument.

No the argument is 16 weeks is long enough for a woman to make decision about her property. Until then its not the governments business