You’re the One saying a sperm cell is a life..would you call a skin cell a life also? Then every time a teen boy mastubates he’s killing millions of lives ?
A sperm cell is alive. A skin cell is alive. A sperm cell lives and a sperm cell dies. A skin cell lives and a skin cell dies. Your claim that I am the only one claiming this is demonstrably false. This is taught to every person who takes biology. What is the point you are trying to make in relation to the abortion question ? The abortion question is not whether or not something is alive. (we know the zygote is alive) The question here is not whether or not something is human life. We know the zygote is human life. We also know that both a sperm and skin cell is human life. The question is whether or not a zygote is a human. There are 5 main scientific perspectives on when human life begins. Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological and Ecological. One of these perspectives (Genetic) argues that human life begins at conception. The other 4 do not. We can get into each of the perspectives if you like but one thing that is a demonstrable fact is that "experts disagree".
A "potential life" would be something inanimate (not alive) that has the potential to become animate (Alive) whereas these are living with the potential to become a living human being. Just as a 2 year old child has the potential to be President of the United States.
Thanks for not responding to a single point in my post. Not sure what to make of the above comment ?? How is a skin cell a "potential life" ? A skin cell is already alive but, even if it wasn't - how is it a potential life ? A sperm is neither a human nor a potential human anymore than a brick is a potential building. The sperm has the potential to be part of a process that may create a human.
In some sense all lives are potential. The issue is at what point is it no longer just potential, but wherein a life exists. That can be a difficult question to answer, because life is defined by potentialities. A drunk person unconscious who is recovering from a severe hangover, they're incapable of doing a lot of things in the immediate present. Babies can't talk or walk, but in a few years they will be.
Yes, but he isn’t president...the same way a zygote is not a child. Both have the potential. Do you call a 2 year old a president?
It's not that it suddenly becomes a person at 21 weeks, it's that it's impossible for it to be a person before 20 weeks. Before 20 weeks, the rudimentary connections between the thalamus and cortex are not developed enough for consciousness to occur. If consciousness has never occurred, there can be no person yet. It's actually unlikely that consciousness has actually occurred before 24 weeks, but 20 weeks is just a safe bet given the biology. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ I suppose your photo is an appeal to emotion. If I make a convincing wax sculpture of a baby, will you try to protect that as if it were a person too?
Question: if I was a brain surgeon and severed the connection between your thalamus and your cortex, but promised to put it back together again next week, would you be a person? Why does it have to occur in the past? If, hypothetically, a child was kept in a medically induced coma from the time he was in the womb to the time he was 3 years old, would he be person up to that point? This entire time, no consciousness.
There's a difference between never having achieved consciousness, and becoming unconscious. It's like threatening to not make a vase versus threatening to drop it on the floor and then glue it back together. There is a risk he could be a person (in the most rudimentary sense, like near-term fetus) and so killing him would be immoral in the same sense as killing a 38 week gestation fetus. In contrast, a fetus before 20 weeks has zero risk of being a person because the brain connections that make a person do not exist.
What if the components of the brain are there, they just aren't connected? Imagine a plug and a lamp with a lightbulb. The lamp has never been plugged in before. The lamp is then plugged in, then it is unplugged, then it is plugged in once more before finally the lightbulb is removed and smashed on the ground. At what points in that timeline did figurative personhood exist? (If I can use this as an analogy) You do believe that adult humans who are temporarily incapable of consciousness are still persons, so I am assuming you believe even when it is in the "unplugged" state personhood exists. Thus your qualification for personhood actually relies on the past and doesn't have everything to do with the present current state.
Using your analogy, if there is no filament yet in the lightbulb, is it a lightbulb to plug into a lamp?
SURE, if she feels like it. Everyone should have rights even if they're careless. Are you claiming you have never been careless so only you should have rights???
It is not a person until it is born. IF it was deemed a legal person before birth the woman it's in has an even stronger argument for killing it. NO one has the right to use the body of another or harm another without CONSENT. If the woman stops consenting to let this other "person" use her body, out it goes. Pregnant women do NOT loose the right to self defense. ........nor the right to their own bodies.
FoxHastings said: ↑ SURE, if she feels like it. Everyone should have rights even if they're careless. Are you claiming you have never been careless so only you should have rights??? I just did. You really should stay on topic in your own thread. Want discuss off topic things like gun control go to the gun forum.... ...and no, this isn't about Panda bears either
Yes, it's real, once you are born you are a person with rights....before you're born you are a fetus with no rights. Are Wisconsinites shocked at how people are made? Or aren't they aware of stages in life ?
Why must you make up bizarre hypotheticals when discussing real life situations? "Yeah...but IF the fetus had a gun and pointed it at the mommys head from inside, and telepathically forced her to not get an abortion....would it get arrested as soon as it came out?"
When a person has absolutely no contact with real life nor any good argument against abortion they have to make something up, they have nothing else. I'm still trying to figure out what his panda bears have to do with abortion
Yeah we were talking about only one subpoint of the reasons abortion is okay - the absolute right to control over her own body was one of the other points. Other than terminology (whether "person" is defined by birth or the capacity for consciousness), my position agrees with yours.