The Elephant in the Room

[Granite]

Perhaps the anxiety over giving a zygote "personhood" just boils down to yet another attempt at controlling sexuality.

 

[Yorzhik]

They have human DNA just like a zygote. They CAME from a human being, they are both alive.

So you are saying that if we say a human begins at conception, we will be confused that every cell in a human may also be a human. Interesting.

You just keep repeating this. I realize you won't see it as extremist and wrong, but everyone reading it will.

An egg is missing a piece to enable it to develop, that is all. A zygote is just an egg that has all the information it needs to develop.

Right. So an egg is not a human, and a zygote is a developing human.

The problem is using this standard you'll classify human beings PURELY based on biology and their DNA structure. Is that all you use to assign humanity?

Of course. Do you want to use 2 biological functions to decide which humans are people? And that arbitrary measure is all we use to assign humanity?

If a law is written that simply says "personhood begins at conception", there's no way to tell between an actual embryo and a molar pregnancy...

This is curious. What is done in the case of a molar pregnancy?

... or to decide what to do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

We save both the baby and the mom. There you go. Now you know, whenever you are temped to ask this question, what the answer is. We both realize that at present we can't save the baby, but as technology increases we learn to save all kinds of people that we couldn't save before.

You introduce all kinds of problems by using this definition, then you have to go back and try to make exceptions for the biologically ignorant standard you've set up.

Besides the problems you just cited, are there any others? Both of those were so easy to answer as to be trivial. I imagine any other problem you cite will be even more trivial.

No, more like I'm not going to flip out if someone happens to accidentally step on an ant that you've determined has a right to life.

Really? An ant that you've admitted you aren't sure is a person or not?

I am not advocating that it is necessarily a good idea to purposefully destroy zygotes or blastocysts. However, I'm not going to deny women the pill or other hormonal contraceptives on the off chance that maybe a zygote that could have implanted and developed, won't. I'm not going to tell couples with frozen embryos or at IVF clinics that they, by law MUST implant every embryo they generate. I wouldn't be against better regulations on numbers of embryos that are generated, however. Nor am I against "embryo donation" for couples that want to do such things with their embryos. If they want to donate them to stem cell research, they should be free to do so.

As inferred here, the solutions to the problems you say we have are not draconian.

I think surgical abortions in general are a bad thing, but I doubt you can get restrictions before the second trimester (heartbeat and brainwaves start about halfway through the first trimester). But I would be happy with such a restriction, rather than the nothing that we have now.

If planned parenthood restricts themselves, I won't stop them. But I won't stop fighting for the lives of all pre-born humans, either.

I'm not fighting you, I'm merely posting on forums in disagreement with your position. If I were FIGHTING this proposal I'd be donating money, be out in the streets holding up signs etc in opposition.

I know you've already lost in the court of public opinion, nor would I feel that it was worth my time to stand on street corners fighting you. I was hoping to direct your efforts to something actually useful. But its quite clear you have an unwavering position, which I still believe is misguided and a waste of your time.

I won't stop showing you that supporting murder, even if you aren't sure, is a bad position to take.

 

[Alate_One]

So you are saying that if we say a human begins at conception, we will be confused that every cell in a human may also be a human. Interesting.

The problem is you're using terminology that is not at all precise. We could confuse human cells for human individuals, since the only difference between an adult human cell and a zygote is the "switches" being on for embryonic development in the zygote. We can already induce any human body cell to become an embryonic stem cell line. In mice those cells can become part of a viable embryo. (Obviously we can't do that experiment with a person)

Right. So an egg is not a human, and a zygote is a developing human.

An egg is a human cell. Every human being started as an egg cell before fertilization.

Of course. Do you want to use 2 biological functions to decide which humans are people? And that arbitrary measure is all we use to assign humanity?

Assigning personhood to something that may or may not develop into something the rest of us would call a person is also, arbitrary.

This is curious. What is done in the case of a molar pregnancy?

Surgical removal, i.e. abortion. Plus you need monitoring and possible chemotherapy in case it turns into chorionic carcinoma (a cancer that results from a fertilized egg gone wrong).

We save both the baby and the mom. There you go. Now you know, whenever you are temped to ask this question, what the answer is. We both realize that at present we can't save the baby, but as technology increases we learn to save all kinds of people that we couldn't save before.

And that helps us figure out how to write the law RIGHT NOW, how exactly?

Besides the problems you just cited, are there any others? Both of those were so easy to answer as to be trivial. I imagine any other problem you cite will be even more trivial.

You're a moron to trivialize the second. There is no "saving both" in nearly every situation where surgical intervention is warranted. The problem is, the intertwined blood vessels are almost impossible to remove completely safely for either party. Simple appeals to technology are moronic on your part.

If planned parenthood restricts themselves, I won't stop them. But I won't stop fighting for the lives of all pre-born humans, either.

Planned Parenthood isn't interested in restrictions, but the public at large IS. Now is the time to take advantage of public sentiment, drop the extremist requirements (which is how MOST people view "zygotes are people") and you can get something actually done.

I won't stop showing you that supporting murder, even if you aren't sure, is a bad position to take.

The problem is, YOU are supporting murder by going after a standard that will never be enacted.

While we argue over when EXACTLY life begins (we differ by a week at most) babies are being killed, are you blind to this fact?

 

[Yorzhik]

The problem is you're using terminology that is not at all precise. We could confuse human cells for human individuals,

Yeah, good point. How do biology textbooks avoid this?

An egg is a human cell. Every human being started as an egg cell before fertilization.

And you call me imprecise! :darwinsm:

Assigning personhood to something that may or may not develop into something the rest of us would call a person is also, arbitrary.

Saying we can't figure out the time when a particular individual started is moronic.

Surgical removal, i.e. abortion. Plus you need monitoring and possible chemotherapy in case it turns into chorionic carcinoma (a cancer that results from a fertilized egg gone wrong).

Oh my! If we just would just say that some humans aren't people, molar pregnancies would be a thing of the past. Those in the personhood movement - barbarians!

And that helps us figure out how to write the law RIGHT NOW, how exactly?

What are you talking about? That we might confuse a doctor removing an ectopic pregnancy for a murderer?

You're a moron to trivialize the second. There is no "saving both" in nearly every situation where surgical intervention is warranted. The problem is, the intertwined blood vessels are almost impossible to remove completely safely for either party. Simple appeals to technology are moronic on your part.

Appeal to technology is a pretty safe bet. Technology has been advancing steadily for a long time.

Planned Parenthood isn't interested in restrictions, but the public at large IS. Now is the time to take advantage of public sentiment, drop the extremist requirements (which is how MOST people view "zygotes are people") and you can get something actually done.

But, as I've pointed out, it will backfire on you as soon as people in power realize that when you declare some humans are not people, that all humans are at risk of being declared not people.

The problem is, YOU are supporting murder by going after a standard that will never be enacted.

I'm not responsible for the women and their doctors that conspire to kill their children. I won't be responsible for the back-alley abortions that might happen after a law like this is passed.

While we argue over when EXACTLY life begins (we differ by a week at most) babies are being killed, are you blind to this fact?

No, but if I stand for a standard that says "catch the pregnancy soon enough and you can kill the baby"; that would be wrong.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not responsible for the women and their doctors that conspire to kill their children. I won't be responsible for the back-alley abortions that might happen after a law like this is passed.

No, but if I stand for a standard that says "catch the pregnancy soon enough and you can kill the baby"; that would be wrong.

:thumb: