Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
The 'persons' that the justices referred to are synonomous with 'living human beings,' as I stated numerous times.

The justices knew what was inside the womb, so this arguement makes a false assumption.

It is much more logical to infer that they needed something beyond simple biology to establish "personhood."

And you stated that certain 'non-physical characteristics' are required.

When I asked you to name them, your answer was that the unborn had no 'duties' and thus did not qualify as a human being, in accordance with the 'definition' that you had posted.

Since we've established that 'duties' is a nonsensical reply, what other non-physical characteristics do you think are REQUIRED to qualify as a living human being?

Or are you ready to admit that the unborn IS a living human being, but you just think it should be legal to kill a living human being?

0 Replies

The question to anser your question is this: What kind of evidence would be needed to prove personhood?

And you are convoluting discussion, don't expect a reply to nonsense. I have no need to take time to correct you everytime I reply.

I make the case that yes it should be legal to terminate life in the womb. I've cited all my reasons why, and none of which need to be that it is or is not a living human being. I believe for all the right reasons that the unborn is human, but it is not enough to make the leagl case that all fertilized eggs MUST come to term.

Morality of this issue is not so uniform as you would present. There is a significant difference between a embryo, zygote and fetus as far as where I find moral comfort in abortion and stem cell harvesting, but morality and legality are not one and the same. Legally; objectively, the mother/couple should be the custodian of the rights of the unborn, not the state or federal government.

You have nothing.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The question to anser your question is this: What kind of evidence would be needed to prove personhood?

And you are convoluting discussion, don't expect a reply to nonsense. I have no need to take time to correct you everytime I reply.

I make the case that yes it should be legal to terminate life in the womb. I've cited all my reasons why, and none of which need to be that it is or is not a living human being. I believe for all the right reasons that the unborn is human, but it is not enough to make the leagl case that all fertilized eggs MUST come to term.

Morality of this issue is not so uniform as you would present. There is a significant difference between a embryo, zygote and fetus as far as where I find moral comfort in abortion and stem cell harvesting, but morality and legality are not one and the same. Legally; objectively, the mother/couple should be the custodian of the rights of the unborn, not the state or federal government.

You have nothing.

Apparently in your view there IS NO difference between an embryo, a zygote or a fetus, because you support abortion for them all. If you claim to see a distinction, it is a distinction without a difference.

Since you therefore support the killing of what you seem to finally admit is a living human being, do you also support the maiming of same? (Surely maiming is not nearly as bad as killing.)

If a woman wanted to have an operation while pregnant, and have the arms and legs of the unborn removed so that he/she would be born without, would you support her 'right' to do so?

If the mother is the "custodian of the rights" (what rights? You have repeatedly said the unborn has none.) of the unborn, surely you could not with consistency deny her the 'right' to have the arms and legs of the unborn removed so that he/she could be born and live life thereafter without?

0 Replies

I thought we sorted that out when we agree that parents can mutilate a newborn if they want to?

0 Replies

RL - The issue of mother mutilating an unborn would be a completely different ethical issue, and yes we've been here before. Case and point: circumcision. why would the mother mutilate an unborn, and then birth it? Your example is far over dramatic and grossly inapropriate. Trying to relate this to abortion or stem cell cultivation is shameful.

There is a difference in a embryo, a zygote, and a fetus. I actally feel good about the ban on partial birth abortions. I believe that the mother should be able to choose, but I also believe in a appropriate window for such desicions.

The issue of the rights of the unborn is complex, and I refuse to see it as being so simple.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

RL - The issue of mother mutilating an unborn would be a completely different ethical issue, and yes we've been here before. Case and point: circumcision. why would the mother mutilate an unborn, and then birth it? Your example is far over dramatic and grossly inapropriate. Trying to relate this to abortion or stem cell cultivation is shameful.

There is a difference in a embryo, a zygote, and a fetus. I actally feel good about the ban on partial birth abortions. I believe that the mother should be able to choose, but I also believe in a appropriate window for such desicions.

The issue of the rights of the unborn is complex, and I refuse to see it as being so simple.

Why would it be different , if the mother has the absolute right to do whatever she wishes to the unborn (including killing)?

The example is very appropriate.

The reason the idea of a mother having the arms and legs of the unborn removed and letting it be born without them seems repulsive to you is that it is not swept under the rug like an abortion, which you never have to see the result of, or deal with in any way because the victim is not simply maimed, he is dead.

If it is wrong for the mother to cause the unborn to live a severely handicapped life, why is it not wrong for the mother to take away the life entirely?

Surely killing is worse than maiming, is it not?

If you can't stomach the mother's right to maim, then how can you allow the right to kill?

0 Replies

Easy answer.

Abortion has no malicious intent, nor does stem cell cultivation.

0 Replies

The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with tissue that will never achieve sentience, including donating it for medical or scientific uses. She does not have the right to mutilate a fetus that she intends to gestate to sentience, although I have read that some people deliberately choose embryos with genetic deafness or dwarfism so that their children will have the same handicaps that they do.

IMO, a mother has an ethical obligation to give any child that she voluntarily brings into the world the best chance in life that she can, including taking care of herself during pregnancy and wisely choosing the man who will donate half of its genes and hopefully provide financial and emotional support until it reaches maturity. Good bed partners may not make good fathers, and she has no obligation to gestate the accidentally-created embryo of any man she sleeps with simply for pleasure.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - The issue of mother mutilating an unborn would be a completely different ethical issue, and yes we've been here before. Case and point: circumcision. why would the mother mutilate an unborn, and then birth it? Your example is far over dramatic and grossly inapropriate. Trying to relate this to abortion or stem cell cultivation is shameful.

There is a difference in a embryo, a zygote, and a fetus. I actally feel good about the ban on partial birth abortions. I believe that the mother should be able to choose, but I also believe in a appropriate window for such desicions.

The issue of the rights of the unborn is complex, and I refuse to see it as being so simple.

Why would it be different , if the mother has the absolute right to do whatever she wishes to the unborn (including killing)?

The example is very appropriate.

The reason the idea of a mother having the arms and legs of the unborn removed and letting it be born without them seems repulsive to you is that it is not swept under the rug like an abortion, which you never have to see the result of, or deal with in any way because the victim is not simply maimed, he is dead.

If it is wrong for the mother to cause the unborn to live a severely handicapped life, why is it not wrong for the mother to take away the life entirely?

Surely killing is worse than maiming, is it not?

If you can't stomach the mother's right to maim, then how can you allow the right to kill?

Easy answer.

Abortion has no malicious intent, nor does stem cell cultivation.

If the unborn is not a human being, then how can malicious intent be exercised toward what is 'part of the mother's body'?

Should she not have the right to have the unborn's arms and legs surgically removed so that he/she may be born without them, if that is her wish?

The unborn is nothing more than chattel, is it?

'No person is harmed'[/u] if she has the unborn's arms and legs removed 'because no person exists to be harmed.' [/u]

Isn't that the pro-abortion position?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

She does not have the right to mutilate a fetus that she intends to gestate to sentience

Why not?

If the unborn is 'part of the mother's body', she must have an absolute right to do whatever she wishes with it, whether that is to exterminate it, or something less harmful, such as removing the arms and legs.

You give no justification for your view. It is completely at odds with the pro-abortion position of a woman's right to choose.

0 Replies

Real life: What part of this do you not understand:

If an embryo is not intended to be gestated to sentience, it will never become a human being and the mother can do whatever she wants with the mindless tissue her body has produced. Surplus embryos in fertility clinics may ethically be destroyed or used in stem cell research. Fetuses aborted prior to 24 weeks may ethically (but probably not legally) be cut up and sold for parts.

BUT if she chooses to gestate the embryo to sentience, she has an ethical obligation (but not a legal one) to make sure it is as healthy as possible. She cannot have the embryo's arms and legs cut off (unless doing so is medically necessary) because it would then suffer from the lack arms and legs when it becomes a sentient human being. Some mothers inflict fetal alcohol syndrome, drug addiction, and preventable birth defects on their babies by their actions during pregnancy. IMO, this is reprehensible - but it is legal. How do you feel about that, and those who choose to bear children with preventable handicaps?

No one has absolute rights. The only rights we have are those granted to us by social contract with other human beings, and they come with obligations.

When a woman makes the decision to gestate an embryo to birth, she has in a sense established a contract with a future human being and has obligations to it. If she chooses not to enter into a contract to create that particular future human being, she has no moral obligation either to the existing mindless embryo or the human being that it might have become, because such a being does not and will not ever exist. Aborting a potential human being before it actually exists is ethically no different that failing to conceive it in the first place.

Non-existent beings are not real persons, have no minds or feelings and do not have rights. Living, breathing human beings do.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

No one has absolute rights. The only rights we have are those granted to us by social contract with other human beings, and they come with obligations.

What 'obligations' does a newborn have in order for him/her to have a right to live and have that right protected by law?

What 'obligations' does a 3 year old have in order for him/her to have a right to live and have that right protected by law?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Terry wrote:
No one has absolute rights. The only rights we have are those granted to us by social contract with other human beings, and they come with obligations.

What 'obligations' does a newborn have in order for him/her to have a right to live and have that right protected by law?

What 'obligations' does a 3 year old have in order for him/her to have a right to live and have that right protected by law?

Void.

At this point they are both juristic persons.

0 Replies

The question is not moot if their rights are dependent on the whim of society.

That is why the Founders based their view on rights, not on the subjective agreement of society to grant a privlege, but on an objective standard and that is was the function of government to protect WHAT ALREADY EXISTED:

The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence wrote:

So obvious was this to them that they termed it 'self evident', i.e. without need of explanation.

However this is the OPPOSITE of the view proposed by Terry, that there are NO absolute rights, only those granted by common agreement of men.

Terry's view is the signature view on the road to totalitarianism. Everybody's rights are up for grabs. One need only be part of an inconvenient or powerless minority to see one's rights stripped away by common agreement of stronger parties.

-------------------------------------------------

Why did Terry claim that the ONLY rights come with 'obligations'?

Oh yeah, she was probably quoting from your earlier attempt to assert that the unborn is not a human being because he doesn't have 'duties'. Laughing

Did you ever figure out what 'duties' a newborn has, Diest?

How 'bout a 3 year old? What's their 'duties'?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence wrote:

I assume then that you have an explanation for your thoughts on the death penalty and the US foriegn policy with conflict etc? Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness for who? I'd say that presidence shows that people enherit these rights at birth, and that is what is self evident.

There is plenty of grey area; sorry, plenty of area that is not simply black or white.

I'll applaud that you're at least starting to use your brain better in the sense of argumentation.

0 Replies

The unborn either has the right to life protected by law, or he doesn't and it's open season on him.

Where's the 'grey area' where he can be sorta killed but not really?

There is no middle position when the alternatives are life and death. There's no halfway between them, is there?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The unborn either has the right to life protected by law, or he doesn't and it's open season on him.

Correct, except: open season? No, only the mother couple have claim to such desicions on what the child has, NOT the state. Nice dramatic use of hunting terminology though.

Quote:

Where's the 'grey area' where he can be sorta killed but not really?

None such exists, I've never argued that something can sort of be alive or dead. I refuse to argue for what I have not said. The grey Im referring to is the complex elements of et al related issues of the unborn and how far from simple black and white they are.

Quote:

There is no middle position when the alternatives are life and death. There's no halfway between them, is there?

No, but there is plenty of latitude of the moral/ethical repercusions in regaurds to the choices that the mother/couple makes. Abortion can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrongs reasons.

Why do you think that the state should have custody of those rights?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
The unborn either has the right to life protected by law, or he doesn't and it's open season on him.

Correct, except: open season? No, only the mother couple have claim to such desicions on what the child has, NOT the state. Nice dramatic use of hunting terminology though.

Quote:

Where's the 'grey area' where he can be sorta killed but not really?

None such exists, I've never argued that something can sort of be alive or dead. I refuse to argue for what I have not said. The grey Im referring to is the complex elements of et al related issues of the unborn and how far from simple black and white they are.

Quote:

There is no middle position when the alternatives are life and death. There's no halfway between them, is there?

No, but there is plenty of latitude of the moral/ethical repercusions in regaurds to the choices that the mother/couple makes. Abortion can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrongs reasons.

Why do you think that the state should have custody of those rights?

The state has a responsibility to protect YOUR life right now; until the day you die, does it not?

0 Replies

Yes. Further, my wellfare, and rights additionally, as I am a established being. Born and raised, with my personhood and character.

So then am I to assume then that a state mandated abortion would be okay with you?

0 Replies

What are you talking about?

You asked why the state should have the responsibility of protecting life.

I pointed out that Founders considering it one of the primary purposes of government, i.e. to secure that right to Life........etc, including YOUR life.

So it's perfectly consistent that the state should also secure the right to life for ALL living human beings within it's jurisdiction.

I've no idea what you are talking about when you ask about state mandated abortions.

You've really don't understand the pro-life position, do you?

It's not just that you disagree with it. You apparently don't even understand it.

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know