Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

The thing is a fetus isnt a child for a good portion of the time it's in the womb. I'm leery of late term abortion unless there's a serious medical concern involving the mother or child but I have a very hard time saying a fetus is the same as a child for basically all of the first trimester at least

I don't see the moral cause of denying a human of his or her most basic of rights, the right to live, based on where they are on a developmental line.  Nor do I find it viable to use the word "fetus" as a means for stripping humanity itself away.

Then where do you delineate the right to life? Conception?  Morula?  Blastocyst?  Zygote?  Embryo?  Fetus?

The sperm and egg are technically living and have their own genetic makeup. Do each one then have a right to life?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

The thing is a fetus isnt a child for a good portion of the time it's in the womb. I'm leery of late term abortion unless there's a serious medical concern involving the mother or child but I have a very hard time saying a fetus is the same as a child for basically all of the first trimester at least

I don't see the moral cause of denying a human of his or her most basic of rights, the right to live, based on where they are on a developmental line.  Nor do I find it viable to use the word "fetus" as a means for stripping humanity itself away.

At this point it's just basic science. In what way is a clump of cells that hasn't even developed internal organs or a vertebrae comparable to a child? 



SpokenTruth said:
NightlyPoe said:

I don't see the moral cause of denying a human of his or her most basic of rights, the right to live, based on where they are on a developmental line.  Nor do I find it viable to use the word "fetus" as a means for stripping humanity itself away.

Then where do you delineate the right to life? Conception?  Morula?  Blastocyst?  Zygote?  Embryo?  Fetus?

The sperm and egg are technically living and have their own genetic makeup. Do each one then have a right to life?

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.



NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

Then where do you delineate the right to life? Conception?  Morula?  Blastocyst?  Zygote?  Embryo?  Fetus?

The sperm and egg are technically living and have their own genetic makeup. Do each one then have a right to life?

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.

Your definition of life sounds very grounded in religion with no real scientific backing



collint0101 said:
NightlyPoe said:

I don't see the moral cause of denying a human of his or her most basic of rights, the right to live, based on where they are on a developmental line.  Nor do I find it viable to use the word "fetus" as a means for stripping humanity itself away.

At this point it's just basic science. In what way is a clump of cells that hasn't even developed internal organs or a vertebrae comparable to a child? 

What part of science says it's moral to base the right to live on the development of internal organs?

In the end, science really doesn't have much to say here.  However, I will point out that by the time a woman misses her period, organs are already growing and the central nervous system is in development.  If that's your cutoff point, then most women would miss it before they even realize they're pregnant.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

Then where do you delineate the right to life? Conception?  Morula?  Blastocyst?  Zygote?  Embryo?  Fetus?

The sperm and egg are technically living and have their own genetic makeup. Do each one then have a right to life?

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.

Conception? So any actions that prevent a birth after conception would be deemed murder to you?  A zygote has a right to life and all that it entails?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

NightlyPoe said:
collint0101 said:

At this point it's just basic science. In what way is a clump of cells that hasn't even developed internal organs or a vertebrae comparable to a child? 

What part of science says it's moral to base the right to live on the development of internal organs?

In the end, science really doesn't have much to say here.  However, I will point out that by the time a woman misses her period, organs are already growing and the central nervous system is in development.  If that's your cutoff point, then most women would miss it before they even realize they're pregnant.

Viability outside the womb is generally considered the scientific delineation. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

collint0101 said:
NightlyPoe said:

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.

Your definition of life sounds very grounded in religion with no real scientific backing

As I said to the other poster, science has very little to do with this.  It's an ethical question.  Science can help (as I just demonstrated by providing an accurate distinguishing feature between gametes and zygotes that would label one as a unique organism and the other not), but there is no science that provides a dispositive answer.

For the record, I am not a part of any organized religion.  You have merely shown a bias.  Someone disagrees with you on abortion, you automatically dismiss them as religious and anti-science.



SpokenTruth said:
NightlyPoe said:

What part of science says it's moral to base the right to live on the development of internal organs?

In the end, science really doesn't have much to say here.  However, I will point out that by the time a woman misses her period, organs are already growing and the central nervous system is in development.  If that's your cutoff point, then most women would miss it before they even realize they're pregnant.

Viability outside the womb is generally considered the scientific delineation. 

There is no scientific delineation.  This is not a scientific question any more than science can decide whether intellectual property laws are correct.

One can use science to inform oneself, but to say that science has decided that there's a cutoff point for one's right to live is simply not true and not how science works.



SpokenTruth said:
NightlyPoe said:

Conception.

Gametes may have their own genetic makeup, but under no definition do they make up a unique human.

Conception? So any actions that prevent a birth after conception would be deemed murder to you?  A zygote has a right to life and all that it entails?

Correct.