The Elephant in the Room

[BabyChristian]

Declaring a zygote to be a "person" demeans what it is to actually be human!

Check out this baby at 8 weeks.

I so disagree with you. How could that demean being human?

 

[BabyChristian]

Then so are you. :idunno:

Maybe he never was a fertilized egg. :think:

 

[lucy]

I think it is interesting that it is against the law to destroy the "fertilized egg" of a Bald Eagle (because -duh- it is going to grow into an eagle, ) yet it is just fine and dandy to destroy a human fetus at the earliest stages of life. We have NO problem saying the Bald Eagle egg has life in side that is valuable and needs protecting, but because it is inconvenient or financially draining, or whatever, it is totally acceptable to destroy human life at that same stage of development (the egg/zygote) and even at much later stages of development.

Why don't we all just admit that we protect what we want to protect in our society and we destroy what we want to destroy based on what we as a society has determined is valuable to us, not based on whether that life form is human or not.

And don't tell me the gobbletly-gook about women's rights and that most people only have abortions for medical reasons. I KNOW someone who had over 5 abortions! That's called a "birth control" method, not a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother.

 

[Alate_One]

Check out this baby at 8 weeks.

I so disagree with you. How could that demean being human?

A zygote is not an 8 week old baby/fetus (I believe its technically still considered an embryo at that stage). Can you not tell the difference between the picture I posted and yours?

 

[BabyChristian]

A zygote is not an 8 week old baby/fetus (I believe its technically still considered an embryo at that stage). Can you not tell the difference between the picture I posted and yours?

Ummmmmmmmmm duh and the answer is yes.

You just think you're so brilliant I've noticed. :drum:

And so now I'll ask you a question. That picture of the baby I posted, is it okay with you to abort a baby at that age in your opinion?

Also, I wasn't speaking to you if you'll pay attention.

 

[bybee]

To every man who posts on these pages: Have you taught your sons to be careful in their sexual behavior? Have you taught them that sexual activity has risks? That sexually transmitted disease may make them sterile as well as end their lives? Have you taught them about responsible behavior towards others? There can be no pregnancy if men behave responsibly. I'm not denying the responsibility of women. We are the one's who become pregnant and we must behave as guardians of future life. How many of you have used manipulation, coersion or force to obtain sexual gratification? Don't answer that outloud. Just think about it. How many of you can be absolutely certain that you have not sired a child out of wedlock? How many of you can face God with a clear conscience and say "No! I did not cause a female to resort to abortion because of my irresponsible behavior? (Not that you would do this on purpose, but did you purposely avoid the possibility?) Abortion can be ended if men behave responsibly. bybee

 

[Alate_One]

And so now I'll ask you a question. That picture of the baby I posted, is it okay with you to abort a baby at that age in your opinion?

No, I don't think its okay to abort a baby at the stage you showed.

But you can't even "abort" a zygote technically since it won't actually be a pregnancy for about a week. And often it doesn't actually make it that far due to chromosomal abnormalities or sheer luck.

Also, I wasn't speaking to you if you'll pay attention.

I know but I absolutely agree with what that person said that you replied to.

 

[Granite]

Check out this baby at 8 weeks.

I so disagree with you. How could that demean being human?

BC:

That is not a picture of a zygote.

 

[Skeptical Inquirer]

A person is a person no matter how small.

I thought this was a clever statement to use in this thread.
I am surprised that no one else commented on it.
On a thread about the elephant in the room and unborn people counting as real people even if you cant see them -- which I believe wholeheartedly -- you quoted Horton from Horton heres a who by Dr. Seuss.

 

[Skeptical Inquirer]

Yes and a ridiculous analogy. A fertilized egg is barely even visible to the naked eye (about the size of a period in this text on most settings).

So if we look at other people from a great enough distance to make them appear to be specks then, we can exterminate them and call ourselves humane because from our point of view they are nothing but dots?
What about if they are born missing some parts like a leg, arm or eye -- does that make them less human and undeserving to live?
In addition, this could also apply to people that are damaged latter in life, say an amputation or debilitating illness -- should they be purged at our whim as well?
However, why stop there?
There are people that are so different from each other that they could claim that the others are not true people at all and do not deserve to live, this has happened throughout history, do you think that is a good idea?
Compassionate consideration should lead us to respect life rather than destroy it.
Would you consider yourself so superior to what you deem less developed or malformed people that you reserve the right to decide which of them lives and dies based on their physical stage of development or condition?

 

[chrysostom]

the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether or not abortion is legal
the sooner you understand that
the sooner you will be able to do something about it

 

[bybee]

:think: :crackup: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Maybe he never was a fertilized egg. :think:

 

[Alate_One]

So if we look at other people from a great enough distance to make them appear to be specks then, we can exterminate them and call ourselves humane because from our point of view they are nothing but dots?

Its not simply about size or view. A zygote is one cell. It doesn't have a brain, a heart, blood or anything else we expect a *person* to have. Indeed these are things we normally use to define if a person is alive or not.

What about if they are born missing some parts like a leg, arm or eye -- does that make them less human and undeserving to live?

No, but what do you think happens when someone is born missing a head or heart?

In addition, this could also apply to people that are damaged latter in life, say an amputation or debilitating illness -- should they be purged at our whim as well?

Okay you're TOTALLY going off the deep end and making conclusions that have nothing to do with what I've said.

When we want to medically determine if someone is alive (i.e. a person) we use their heartbeat or brainwaves. Since there are stages of human development where this determination is actually impossible, these would be excluded from full "personhood" but they could still be classed under "persons to be".

Any person with a disability or a different race or whatever that's alive will have heartbeat and brainwaves. There's no slippery slope to fall down.

Its a consistent definition that WILL stop abortion and WILL be acceptable enough to the public that it will actually be implemented.

 

[Alate_One]

the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether or not abortion is legal
the sooner you understand that
the sooner you will be able to do something about it

No, it only decides if abortion MUST be legal. If Roe V. Wade were overturned tomorrow all it would do it return the decision to the states.

Some states might end up with even more lax abortion regulations than now. The supreme court isn't the primary avenue of attack. there are other ways of getting at abortion.

 

[Stripe]

I'd say personhood could be bestowed when brain activity and/or heart beat is first detected.

Which is it? Heatbeat? Brainwaves? Both? Why?

Do you realise that a hundred years ago it was probably nigh on impossible to detect a heartbeat until after birth? Nowadays we can detect heatbeats at about 8 weeks. Likely is that with more advanced equipment we will be able to detect heartbeats a few days earlier. Have people been turning from non-persons into people at earlier and earlier points in their lives over the last century in synch with the precision of our instrumentation?

Yes and a ridiculous analogy.

What analogy?

A fertilized egg is barely even visible to the naked eye (about the size of a period in this text on most settings). Its an entirely different thing to call that "not a person" versus looking at another adult human being with a different skin color and saying "not a person". If you don't understand this you're being irrational.

Size seems an awfully important defining factor for you. Why not another trait? Hair length? Tongue curling ability? Skin colour?

Oh but heartbeats DO determine who and who is not a person at the other end of life.

Tell that to a lifeguard who cannot detect a heartbeat.

How do you tell the difference between a person and a dead body? Heartbeat and brain activity. Certainly many of the cells in the person may still be alive even though they have been declared dead. Why would it not make sense to use the same criterion for determining personhood at the beginning of life?

Because people aren't dying when they have just been conceived and nor should we be looking to test them to see if they measure up to any arbitrary standard.

You have a stethoscope. You can detect a heartbeat. Great. That does not give you any right to confer or deny personhood.

A dead body is a "former person", a fertilized egg is a "person to be". You shouldn't treat either lightly, but neither should have the full rights of a PERSON.

You have an opinion. Congratulations.

Note that this would STILL preclude most abortions but remove the potential for contraceptives being banned under any personhood legislation that would include zygotes as "persons".

Who wants contraceptions banned? :idunno:

Why is this even an issue? We're trying to point out that babies are being murdered. Why don't you talk about that instead of a potential loss of income for a few manufacturing lines?

Preventing implantation would then be murder (which is included in a number of forms of contraception). Even activities that accidentally would cause implantation to fail could be construed as murder.

Why would anyone want to prevent an implantation?

Do we want mothers going to jail over this?

Nope.

Ectopic pregnancy removal would be illegal, nearly always causing the death of both mother and baby. How is any of this rational or helpful?

It's not. It's not rational because you invented it.

Name one person who would legislate that a baby could not be moved to a better place?

If the line is drawn where I suggest, you'll get a lot of people signing on and you might actually be able to stop a large proportion of abortions. But if you shoot for "at conception" everyone will see "personhood" as a ridiculous idea, which under those standards it is.

Wow. You should run for office. :up:

They aren't "contained" in a zygote. The potential for their formation is there, but it is only one cell and requires time and energy expenditure for them to form. You may as well say bridges are contained in iron ore.

You're not much of a biologist, are you?

How many chunks of iron ore can build themselves into bridges?

I can't share your impulse to call a single cell a "baby".

Suit yourself. :idunno:

You can call a newly conceived human any of the technical terms you like. But your insistence that he is not a person has no rational backing no matter how technically correct you sound.

Here's an image of a zygote, does that look like a "person" to you?

Size and appearance. Those things are very important to you, aren't they? Are any other things important to you? Income? Zip code? Nationality?

All the opponents have to do is display and image like this and the "movement" is going nowhere fast. Stick to something that makes sense and you can save lives of things that are unquestionably little humans.

At what cost?

No, but what do you think happens when someone is born missing a head or heart?

They become a biology professor?

Declaring a zygote to be a "person" demeans what it is to actually be human!

Declaring a black person to be a "person" .....

 

[This Charming Manc]

Is still think that counts a fertilized egg, I think you have lost any clkiam to ue of the terms 'freshly' im afraid

No, I was a fertilized egg, now I am a 60+ year old human

 

[bybee]

I have a question

I have a question

Which is it? Heatbeat? Brainwaves? Both? Why?

Do you realise that a hundred years ago it was probably nigh on impossible to detect a heartbeat until after birth? Nowadays we can detect heatbeats at about 8 weeks. Likely is that with more advanced equipment we will be able to detect heartbeats a few days earlier. Have people been turning from non-persons into people at earlier and earlier points in their lives over the last century in synch with the precision of our instrumentation?



What analogy?



Size seems an awfully important defining factor for you. Why not another trait? Hair length? Tongue curling ability? Skin colour?


Tell that to a lifeguard who cannot detect a heartbeat.


Because people aren't dying when they have just been conceived and nor should we be looking to test them to see if they measure up to any arbitrary standard.

You have a stethoscope. You can detect a heartbeat. Great. That does not give you any right to confer or deny personhood.



You have an opinion. Congratulations.


Who wants contraceptions banned? :idunno:

Why is this even an issue? We're trying to point out that babies are being murdered. Why don't you talk about that instead of a potential loss of income for a few manufacturing lines?

Why would anyone want to prevent an implantation?

Nope.


It's not. It's not rational because you invented it.

Name one person who would legislate that a baby could not be moved to a better place?

Wow. You should run for office. :up:

You're not much of a biologist, are you?

How many chunks of iron ore can build themselves into bridges?



Suit yourself. :idunno:

You can call a newly conceived human any of the technical terms you like. But your insistence that he is not a person has no rational backing no matter how technically correct you sound.



Size and appearance. Those things are very important to you, aren't they? Are any other things important to you? Income? Zip code? Nationality?


At what cost?


They become a biology professor?


Declaring a black person to be a "person" .....

A tubal pregnancy will almost always cause the death of mother and child. You referenced that it could be moved? When was that technology developed? It would be the answer to the prayers of any number of couples who desperately desire children. My mother almost died before they discovered she had a tubal pregnancy. She had to have an emergency hysterectomy. You are aware that if the embryo implants in the tube, as it grows, the tube will eventually rupture and both mother and child will die. peace, bybee

 

[Stripe]

A tubal pregnancy will almost always cause the death of mother and child. You referenced that it could be moved? When was that technology developed?

We have the technology to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. It's nothing new.

That technology is currently fatal for the child, but I'm sure techniques could be developed to save the child.

That'd be great. :up:

 

[bybee]

Yes

Yes

We have the technology to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. It's nothing new.

That technology is currently fatal for the child, but I'm sure techniques could be developed to save the child.

That'd be great. :up:

Yes! So much is being done with almost microscopic surgery that perhaps this too will be solved. peace, bybee

 

[Alate_One]

Do you realise that a hundred years ago it was probably nigh on impossible to detect a heartbeat until after birth?

And your point is? We're not talking about a hundred years ago, we're talking about TODAY. A hundred years ago abortion was legal before the 20th week which is insane in my opinion. What's your point?

Nowadays we can detect heatbeats at about 8 weeks. Likely is that with more advanced equipment we will be able to detect heartbeats a few days earlier. Have people been turning from non-persons into people at earlier and earlier points in their lives over the last century in synch with the precision of our instrumentation?

We know when the heart starts to beat, even before it is detectable. Its relatively easy to assess developmental stages these days.

Size seems an awfully important defining factor for you. Why not another trait? Hair length? Tongue curling ability? Skin colour?

Because the presence of heartbeat and brainwaves aren't dependent on the individual. Why are you determined to make this into a racial issue? Nothing I've said has anything to do with a characteristic that isn't shared by every human being that has ever lived.

Tell that to a lifeguard who cannot detect a heartbeat.

Using your ear is not the same as being hooked up to a monitor.

Because people aren't dying when they have just been conceived and nor should we be looking to test them to see if they measure up to any arbitrary standard.

Its not arbitrary. Its when the doctor and nurses decide to stop working on you and declare you dead! If its so arbitrary you need to go start lobbying your hospitals about how the dead bodies there are still people. And yes many, many fertilized eggs do die at a very early stage without any intervention.

You have a stethoscope. You can detect a heartbeat. Great. That does not give you any right to confer or deny personhood.

But that's exactly what happens in hospitals every day. You do realize this?

Who wants contraceptions banned? :idunno:

If you believe a zygote is a person then preventing implantation is murder.

Why would anyone want to prevent an implantation?

That's what "the Pill" and most other hormone based contraceptions do, prevent implantation.

When a woman doesn't want to have a child, you can simply prevent implantation. If a zygote is a person then this is murder. Do you get it now?

It's not. It's not rational because you invented it.

Its the logical next step for what you're proposing. Of course you don't understand the biology well enough to understand that.

Name one person who would legislate that a baby could not be moved to a better place?

You CAN'T "move the baby" you must perform an abortion i.e. kill the child. Most will spontaneously abort but some won't.

You're not much of a biologist, are you?

You've already proved your biological ignorance in this thread and many others. Half your problem is you DON'T understand biology.

How many chunks of iron ore can build themselves into bridges?

Zygotes don't build themselves sitting on a shelf either.

You can call a newly conceived human any of the technical terms you like. But your insistence that he is not a person has no rational backing no matter how technically correct you sound.

Why because YOU say so? There is no biological definition of "a person". A zygote is a single human cell, just like any one of your skin cells. It MIGHT become a baby, it might become a hydatidiform mole, turn cancerous and kill the mother, it might have a chromosomal abnormality and just die.

It doesn't fit the definition of a person vs. dead body (which contains LOTS of living cells for a long time) later in life. Using heartbeat and brainwaves is consistent and prevents abortion.

Size and appearance. Those things are very important to you, aren't they? Are any other things important to you? Income? Zip code? Nationality?

No. It's not simply "size an appearance". It has NOTHING we associate with a person, no head, no heart, no blood, no chest no lungs. NOTHING. You're being a moron for pretending that discriminating between a SINGLE CELL and a recognizable person makes any sense whatsoever.

I'm calling an 8 week old embryo a person at the very least, do you think I can tell ANY of the characteristics you have listed in this entire post at that stage? Stop thinking in Dr. Seuss terms and look at this rationally.

At what cost?

At the cost of being far better than the status quo. where . While you're arguing semantics over a single cell, stages of human development that *everyone* would agree are babies are dying every day because for some ridiculous reason society decided that personhood begins at birth.

They become a biology professor?

I think they start posting on forums with lots of emoticons and making nonsensical arguments. Also failing to answer a simple question rationally. I feel sorry for your mother.