Why doesn't a chicken have a right to life?

Regarding the side which is against all abortion, even at the early stages where the human embryo has no brain or awareness - how can one justify that stance without believing that a chicken also has a right to life, since even a chicken has a brain and awareness, and is more "alive" than an embryo is the second out of conception.

And please don't say... "because the embryo is HUMAN!" - because science more or less defines brain activity and individual awareness as the criteria for human life, which an embryo does not yet have - this is also the rationale by which a brain-dead person can be removed from life support; just because a person's body is hooked up to a machine and artificially kept alive doesn't mean they still possess "human life" once their brain and consciousness is gone.

By the same logic, a sperm cell is alive, and a sperm cell is "human" as well - so sperm therefore has a right to life.

So to be against all abortion is inconsistent unless one simultaneously takes PETA's position that all animals likewise have a right to life - unless the reason isn't really about "human life", and that this is simply "appeal to emotion" rhetoric.

I used to have misconceptions about abortion, however my grievances are strictly against later term abortions on demand, and against the opinion that the status of the fetus is irrelevant because the woman's right trumps everything, as well as the false equivalency of the fetus with an "invader" - however I doubt that anyone honestly believes an embryo is a human life unless they've never read about abortion anywhere outside of some polemical blog.

 

the US Constitution protects the rights of persons, and to date non-human organisms cannot be persons.

certainly not idiotic organisms like chickens.

 

Embryos likewise aren't persons biologically due to their lack of a brain or consciousness, so extending a right to life to embryos is setting a precedent for extending personhood to non-human organisms.

So by that logic, why stop at embryos and not move onto chickens? Or Amoeba for that matter.

 

Look up human development. A new human is created at conception. Denying that fact is denying science.

A zygote is a new human with its own unique DNA, and if it is left uninterrupted it has a good chance of developing into a fully developed human in around 25 years.

It is not part of the mother, as it has different DNA. It is not like a human cancer or disease as no cancer or disease has even the slightest chance of turning into a fully developed human if left uninterrupted, no matter how much time you give it.

You can argue as much as you like about when A human becomes A human BEING (because apparently thats different) or a "valuable" human or a person. You cant argue on when it becomes A human. There is no scientific way of establishing this.

But "human rights" are not "human being rights", "valuable human rights" or "person rights". They are HUMAN rights.

 

Absolutely not. It has to be attached to the inside of a body of a woman to develop. It uses her organs to develop.

Left alone it would shrivel up and disappear.

Human rights pertain to people. You just keep on repeating the same rubbish all the time and we have to keep pointing out the errors in your arguments.

It's getting old.

You have every right to believe that a zygote is as important to society as a born child, but what you don't have the right to do is impose that belief on anyone else.

 

I said uninterrupted, not left alone.

And your science denial is getting old.

Then you dont have the right to impose the view that a zygote is NOT important to society.

 

I agree with your views on late term abortion but an embryo is as much A human as a late term fetus. It is only A much smaller and less developed human, like a newborn compared to a 25 year old. And they switch life support off because the patient has little to no chance of improvement, but an embryo has a very good chance of improvement.

Having said that, i feel far more comfortable about people aborting an embryo than people aborting a fetus, for the reasons you described. yet I still see it is A human.

 

Chickens aren't aborting their own offspring. Nor do they have a moral conscience. Nor do they even face decisions that are "right" or "wrong", acting out of instinct.

It's laughable to compare humans who are apparently so gifted with intelligence, with creatures that are barely above a robot in their level of understanding the world.

 

A plant has a full set of DNA, and is a form of life, but it since it has no brain or consciousness it's not considered "alive" like a human or animal is.

So the argument isn't that it's actually "alive", just that it has the potential to "become a life" if left to its own devices, and that's not far off from the arguments against contraception.

- - - Updated - - -

An embryo has no brain, let alone intelligence - at that stage a chicken is far close to a human life than an animal is.

I can see why someone would be philosophically against it, just as I can see why people are philosophically against killing animals, but comparing aborting an embryo to killing a kid (or comparing killing a chicken to murder) just doesn't work.

 

Same thing.

It's not my view, but the view of society as a whole.

Zygotes are never treated as if they were as important as people and never have been.

I've been debating abortion for years and know all the tricks the pro life websites use. None of their science stands up to scrutiny.

None of it is peer reviewed.

You just keep repeating the same debunked argument

You're wrong.

Your opinion is based on emotion and rubbish sourced from American pro life websites, not a scientific organisation.

Scientists do not get involved in what is a philosophical question.

 

A plant will never develop a brain. A zygote has the DNA neccesary to develop a brain, and one will be there in 4 weeks. A zygote is also a living organism. It is alive, but whether it has "a life" is arguable.

I'm not against contraception. Not even against plan B. And although i disagree with early term abortion, i see it as a neccesary evil. Doesnt change the fact that A new human is created at conception.

And a child is a child from conception. Child doesn't relate to a stage of development, it relates to the offspring of the parent. So killing a zygote is killing a child. I will agree that a zygote is not a baby, as that refers to a stage of development from birth to 18 months after birth, but many women (including myself) will refer to an embryo as a baby, as soon as they discover they are pregnant (approx 4 weeks gestation).

 

Not the same thing. If you leave it uninterrupted then you leave it in the womb where its supposed to be. If you left alone without access to its mothers organs as you implied, that would require interrupting it. Surely you knew this.

And there is so much research. Do a web search now on human development and it will say human life begins at conception. Every human biology book i have ever read says human life begins at conception. You know this, no matter how many direct quotes i provide you with youll deny it. Even if you saw video footage of the creation of a new human you woukd deny it. That's called science denial.

But if you think it happens at another time, go ahead and explain it scientifically. What are the exact processes involved in the creation of A new human? What are the chemical and biological changes that take place at the exact moment A human is created, and why was it not human only moments earlier?

 

A human goes from being a child to being a baby in it's next stage??? What!?


And you have been told a million times what women call a fetus does not change it to anything else.... do you really believe that if a woman said she had a "bun in the oven" that she would give birth to pastry ?.....that would be an odd thing to think.....

 

Too many PETA members love to eat chicken.

 

Maybe we are wrong to eat animals. Maybe we'll find in 100 - 1000 years time an even better source of protein than meat. But at this point in time, chicken is a good source of protein and humans need protein for full function. The only real function of chickens is to provide protein.

It would be great if humans limited their meat consumption to only what was neccesary. Even greater if we gave up farming and only hunted our own meat. But that would never work in todays busy society.

Currently humans are on top of the food chain. They are the most intelligent and therefore valuable beings on the planet (arguable). So human rights will always override animal rights until proven otherwise. (Planet of the apes style)

 

I didn't imply it uses the woman's organs, I stated it,

A zygote has no way of developing by itself.

There is no research carried out by a reputable scientific organisation as to when a separate human life begins, because it's not a scientific question.

You show me peer reviewed evidence to support your claim. Evidence that is not affiliated to a pro life website.

It's always human, but not a separate human being that functions at the same basic level as you and me, or the man in hospital on life support.

None of us need to be attached to another person to sustain our lives. If we did, we would die.

 

A newborn baby doesn't operate at the same level as you and me, and needs other people to sustain its life. A child needs someone to sustain their life until around 10 years of age. Some of the elderly and people with certain disabilities need someone else to sustain their life and also don't function at the same level as you or me (or at least me).

Im sure the thousands of college text books that say A new human is created at conception didn't pull their facts out of the air.

 

Not true. It functions in exactly the same way as we do.

Untrue.

Untrue. You aren't thinking about this.

People with organ failure die, unless a donor organ is found. Donating an organ is entirely voluntary.

Nobody is forced to donate a kidney (or bone marrow, or blood) to save the life of a dying person - not even if that person is their child.

That's how it should be. I may strongly disapprove of a mother that won't donate bone marrow to save the life of her child dying of leukaemia, but I shouldn't have the right to force her to do it. Nobody should.

Show me peer reviewed evidence.

 

You refuse to learn the difference between socially dependent and physically dependent. ....that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.....if you pull the covers over your head that doesn't mean there really was a monster

 

Ive already given you direct quotes and references and you've denied them. What do you want me to do? Get a zygote, extract the dna to show you it is different from either gametes DNA? That it does not posess the same dna as the mothers lung tissue or fathers kidney tissue? That it is not monkey dna or dog dna but human dna? Do you want to film an uniterrupted zygote grow into a fully developed human, without having any extra genetic information added. Do you have 25 years spare, because Im sure if you miss a moment you'll deny it happened.

 

A child is defined as anyone under the age of majority . .tell me when do you measure your age from, because according to you a 17 year old is actually 18.

and what ever you refer to a fetus as is irrelevant, you could call it a carpark if you wished, that does not change what it really is. Informal usage of words is not a basis to force opinion onto others.

 

Seems like you're contradicting yourself.





​

 

Again you fail to understand the difference between biologically dependent and socially dependent.

Socially dependent relates to a person being dependent on ANY other person
Biologically dependent relates to a person being dependent SOLELY on a single person

 

So I guess the question is---what life is more valuable, a newborn or a well trained loving dog that is obviously more advanced. Even a 3 month old puppy has more conciousness and brain power then a newborn. Peta might say....leave the baby in the burning house and grab the puppy.

So yes some people believe that human beings and animals should be legally equal in status and value---but I think those people are self destructive nuts and don't realize that once a species values another species more then their own---they are set for extinction. It doens't happen in nature and there is a reason for that.

And Dridder is right---once you have a zygote you have an individual on the first stages of development that will take 20 some years to complete. And when you kill that zygote you kill and individual.

 

Arent there rules in this forum about altering a quote to make it look like i said something i didn't?

You deliberately took out the bit about "human BEING" "valuable human" and "person", which was what I was referring to.

Can't say i appreciate that type of behaviour.