They fail as human beings as the science states and I have shown. Yes they do tissues are PARTS of a human being An egg no longer exist once it is fertilized it becomes a unique human being. False as the medical and scientific teachings I showed you prove. From you cite OK then what other human being does it share the same genetic code and is some part of? The father? Nope. Not even the mother. As the science PROVES from conception each human being is a unique and separate never having existed before human being. And made up metaphysics does not trump hard biology and embryology science. Fallacious nonsense, you are unique the second your DNA is formed and you became a zygote as I have shown you from THE SCIENCE why do you keep denying the SCIENCE? Aren't we supposed to follow the science in all matters of public policy? The false premise which conflates organoid tissues and a complete organism as I noted.
I'm not the one struggling to make some difference between the two, you said it should be based on the "beautifulness" of the baby can you show me the scientific measure of beautiful? What does this have to with dead babies from natural causes this is about mothers who want to kill their babies who are alive and will be born unless they have them killed. Do you believe our entire abortion policy should be based on the EXTREMELY RARE unborn baby who dies?
The life of the mother and the father existed. And those human organism produce certain cells which themselves are not complete human organism but gametes, haploid cells, when when the male sperm gamete penetrates the female ovum gamete then produce a new unique and complete human being in the zygote stage of life. When are you going to cite something from the medical and science text that says what you are asserting as science? You provided nothing and your uninformed specious layman's misunderstanding does not refute the accept medicine and science why do you believe so? It is impossible to do so following the science only you made baseless conjecture in order to avoid the biological and scientific reality. So we should go back to the science of the first century of human excistence and base our laws on that? Who are you to say all known science is wrong? And the desperation meter just hit the red zone.
Only by highly technical and difficult artificial means that's a whole 'nother topic. When you can cite a woman doing so naturally let me know. Now why would we even want to do this?
No, not dead babies. I pointed out babies that are very near death for unsolvable medical problems. I believe you're trying to leverage that percent into your wet dreams of Nazi executioners populating our entire healthcare system. And, then pretending THAT is a reason to deny women personal bodily autonomy. As it turns out, women who carry a fetus to term are not nearly as bloodthirsty as you seem to think. Nor are their doctors.
What do babies who die of natural causes have to do with mothers choosing to kill thier unborn babies because they don't want them to live?
??? Seriously? There are significant reasons why a woman's life depends on abortion. There are numerous diseases that can be detected and will not result in a baby that will survive. Your "because they don't want them to live" is BS. You can't wish away fatal disease.
When the mother's life is threatened and in order to save her life the baby does not survive that is NOT an abortion. For instance ectopic pregnancy treatment is not an abortion however the baby if not already dead will die and will not survive the treatment necessary to save the life of the mother. So don't conflate those. And again so extremely rare to not even make a blip on the chart of the reasons women seek and obtain an abortion. Why do you ONLY present that as the reason for our abortion policy? They may or may not survive, there are numerous diseases that a born baby can contract, we don't kill them when they do. The VAST majority of abortions are simply because the mother does not want the baby to be born and those are the ones you can't deal with so you attempt to make the entire issue be based on the extremely rare almost nonexistent life of the mother claims.
This is not true. In Texas, a woman needed an abortion of a fetus that was determined to not have a chance at survival. The appeal went all the way up to the governor and was denied. She had to go to another state. As a result of her treatment there, she was able to have more children. What you forget is that whether an abortion is deemed medically necessary is up to the laws legislatures create and to the prosecutors who enforce those laws. There is NO legitimate justification for denying women the healthcare they need. It is the Republican party that harps on late term abortions - all the way to the USSC. Now, you want to say that isn't an issue? Sorry. I'm not buying.
False she could have received the proper medical treatment in TX, it was the life of the baby that was threatened not hers and she choose to have the abortion elsewhere. And AGAIN the EXTREMELY RARE instance and even here manageable for the mothers' health.
No, TX would not allow that. And, if she didn't get an abortion, doctors stated that she would no longer be able to have children, and that the risk to her own health would be high.
How many women are you OK with the state killing when there are available solutions readily available? You say it's only a few. How many is that?
Which is the biggest red herring of the whole issue. It doesn't matter whether the ZEF is a human being or not. The ZEF uses the woman's bodily resources. If she does not consent to that, or withdraws that consent, then it is in violation of her bodily autonomy. If no other way exists to end that use, then termination of he ZEF is acceptable. It really isn't any different with regards to ending the violation of bodily autonomy as if one person is raping another. If terminating the violator is necessary to make the violation stop, so be it. We don't allow born persons to partake of a woman's bodily resources without consent, so there is no reason why an unborn person should be allowed to.
Which does nothing to refute the very simple point that life existed before conception, meaning that only crazy or dishonest people will claim that life begins at conception. Words mean specific things, despite your constant attempts to twist them. I am unaware of any science saying that an ovum isn't alive, or that it can't develop into a person. Do you have some speshul prolifePC "science" that says otherwise? No, I'm saying we should reject your dehumanizing eugenics revisionist philosophy, in favor of the moral common sense approach that all of humanity has used over its entire existance. Let's explore your eugenics-based philosophy further. How far from perfect can the DNA stray before you define a person as an unperson, and thus subject to extermination? You're the one basing humanity on genetics, so you need to define those genetics exactly. Don't just handwave or engage in circular arguments ("Human DNA is the DNA humans have"). Give us an exact scientific definition of what form the DNA must take for you to assign rights, and then explain _why_ you chose that particular combo.
Yes you had a live mother who produced an ovum and a life father who produced a sperm and when that sperm entered that ovum and conception occurred and entirely NEW human life was created. That human life began at that moment at no other time. The medical textbooks, the biology textbooks, the embryology textbooks don't twist things. It is your specious layman's misinformed musing that twist things. You have yet to post anything to refute the science. And ovum will never on it's own just turn into a human being. An ovum is a GAMETE, a particular type of cell produced by a human being. It is a haploid cell. Why do you keep fallaciously trying to conflate a GAMETE of a human being with a human being? ROFL biology and embryology and NOT branches of philosophy it is YOU who attempted to cite the metaphysical as some biological proof not me. I stick to the accepted science as taught in our institution of higher learning and as I have fully cited. Before we discuss anything withdraw your claim my position here has anything to do with eugenics, that was the policy of the founder of Planned Parenthood and one of the goals of the pro-abortion side still. Well you can't be human without human DNA and our right to life is one of those self evident truths that we are endowed with because of our creation. The creation that occurs at conception.
The only time the state kills someone is in an execution and they are quite rare too. As far back as 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”2 He was backed up by reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who said not long after, “The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.”3 In 1974, the “Father of Fetology,” Hymie Gordon, M.D., Director of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, stated, “In more than 25 years now of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term ― in spite of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as I’m concerned, there are no medical indications for terminating a pregnancy.”4 In 1981, Dr. Jasper Williams, Jr., of the Bernard Hospital in Chicago, Past President of the National Medical Association, said, “Since 1953, I have never seen a patient die because she needed an abortion and it could not be performed. Doctors now have the tools and the knowledge with which to work so that they can handle almost any disease a patient may have, whether that patient is pregnant or not, and without interrupting the pregnancy.”5 Data from six reporting states over the period of 24 years found that only 1.14% of abortions were performed for the mother’s life or physical health. Even the tiny percentage of 1.14% of abortions performed ostensibly for the women’s health are unnecessary, as there are alternative ways to save the mother without committing an abortion. This makes abortion obsolete, even in the most extreme circumstances... https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/ Should this claimed "life of the mother" be the basis of our entire abortion policy in this country?
And she just went to another state before the doctors cleared up the TX law where she could have have the abortion if they certified her life was in danger. The fact remains it was the CHILD's life that was in danger not hers.
I reject the notion that killing a woman through healthcare denial is ok as long as you don't do it a lot. And, there absolutely ARE disease that a woman can contract that preclude the survival of the woman and the fetus, as treatment can not be performed in a way to save the fetus. Also, it isn't just death. For example, the Texas case I referenced is a case where the woman's life WAS at risk. But, refusing an abortion also carried the near certainty that the woman could no longer bear children. People like to talk about life - as if that's the only risk. But, it is not.
That fetus had a medical prognosis of not being survivable. And, she appealed the case all the way to the governor. This wasn't some mistake - it was what Texas intended, and without states that believe in medical science, she would not have the family she has today. And, the reason is people who believe as you do.
Mostly you're taking things out of context there. Just because it can be drawn as a beginning point of development doesn't mean this is a conscious, thinking, feeling being who deserves rights and protection. The blueprint may be the beginning of building a house properly, but burning a blueprint isn't the same as burning a house.
The ethics ought to be fairly simple, though. Does it think or feel? If not, it doesn't need rights. The question logically should only come up with anything involving brain tissue, but neurons firing in brain tissue by itself isn't enough to make a mind. But I get that it could be contentious given the baseless views pro-lifers have.
So?? And this why I refer to the “pro-life crowd as the “so called pro-life crowd” because you seem happpy to sacrifice young viable women for non- viable pregnancies
I would assert that your parallel is off. While the DNA is the blueprint, the DNA is not all there is to the Zygote. Burning the blueprint is not the same as burning the house, but burning the framework of the house is damn close enough to burning the finished structure. Not that it changes the issue of bodily autonomy.
Why does that matter? I think and feel, do I not? And if I am assaulting you and the only way to stop me is to kill me, do I get to go on assaulting you simply because I think or feel?
It's the bedrock of morality. Morality makes no sense at all without the foundation of whether it harms thinking/feeling beings. The assertion about unthinking/unfeeling embryos is that they have no moral relevance for their own sake because they do not have that mental existence that is relevant to morality, much like inanimate objects or living machines like bacteria. Cars don't need rights because they don't have minds. They can be owned and destroyed without moral issues for the sake of the car itself. Bacteria can be destroyed by the trillions. Their deaths aren't tragedies because no actual beings died, though they can be relevant in their interactions with thinking/feeling beings. Your example is more about how to weigh rights when they come into conflict with each other. Persons have a right to live, and a right to defend themselves. You're within your rights to defend your own life with lethal force even if the perpetrator has a right to live. Your example isn't relevant to my point, but it would be relevant if we did conclude that fetuses were persons, in which case we would be weighing its rights against those of the mother.
