https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...lls-developed-eyes-can-sense-light-180978478/ Again and again on this forum I have seen the argument that because a conceptus (fertilised egg) is composed of “human” DNA it must be human. These “Organoids” being created from human stem cells would also fit that description and as you can see from the article and the picture below have many characteristics in common with a fertilised egg. I have added a poll to this thread to get some feedback
Very interesting research. It is obviously not a human but Anti-Choicers will want to adopt it and raise it.... to save it's "life"
I'm against abortion but this will not grow into a human being. It's like growing a kidney or some specific part of a human being.
Given the right environment (implantation into a uterus) it could They have successfully cloned sheep and other animals
Yes, but at its present level, it's not. It's like saying sperm could grow into a human being if implanted into a woman's egg.
So what? Why do pro abortion folks want to argue about the very beginning of a pregnancy when most of them support partial birth abortion? The real question is: Is this acceptable:
If it is the product of the gamete of a human male and female then it is human zygote and therefore human. The beginning of a human life. Biology 101. Let's hope scientist don't start trying to create artificial humans in the lab by whatever means and we should pass laws preventing such activity. And and organ of a human being is not a human being but a part of a human being.
I am of the opinion that what makes a living human worthy of full legal protection is reaching a combination of biological, and mental milestones. Its an incremental process that leads to that final assessment.
I see these types of experiments encroaching on ethical issues. I would have to say that as far as this having a connection to abortion, it would depend on the size of the brain. Bringing the beginnings of a human brain structure into existence knowing it is not going to live is kind of no different from a woman engaging in very reckless action when she knows the future pregnancy is going to be aborted.
Setting aside the issue of the size of the brain for a moment, bringing into existence a human brain without a body is ethically similar to removing a brain from a growing fetus, disposing of the body, and then continuing to allow that brain to grow through artificial means. It is horrendous. The right to life includes the right to bodily integrity. The argument that "it's okay to kill because it has no chance of surviving on its own or having a productive life" is kind of irrelevant since those people are responsible for putting that human being in the condition it is in. I've raised hypotheticals and issues that are ethically similar to this before. For example a woman messing up any chance of her baby's future by drinking heavily in the womb, and then knowing the damage has been caused, considering abortion. It's kind of irrelevant whether it has any chance of a normal life at that point. The two decisions go together and are connected.
The key distinction here is that this is human but not a human. Not unlike extracted blood or an organ that has been removed for transplant.
Who TF said a human ZEF wasn't human? Show the exact quote.....I can't find anyone saying a human ZEF wasn't human...
Adopt it? Raise it? They don't do that for the fetuses that don't get aborted and become human children, so why would they care about this little organoid? They would protest its destruction, but that would be the end of their concern. I wonder if it thinks.
It's a mini human brain. Do you suppose it thinks? That it's aware of its surroundings? Kinda creepy, but fascinating.
So, it's only the woman engaging in reckless action? Soooooo tired of all responsibility being on her alone. The slut-shaming on this issue is relentless. You guys should get it snipped at 18. Vasectomies are easily reversed if you decide to procreate. Telling girls they are bad for enjoying sex, but giving boys an entirely different message, is a double standard based almost solely on religious beliefs. It is not fair, and not at all logical or reasonable. Think about this: if your god didn't want women to derive pleasure from sex, why did he give us a clitoris? It has no other purpose. And yet, when we want to experience that pleasure, you guys are willing to "help," but if it results in an unplanned pregnancy, then those same guys call us sluts, or tell us that's what we get for not keeping our legs closed. When y'all can get pregnant, only then will your opinions on abortion have merit.
A sure as hell hope not. Existing as just a brain without a body has to be something like hell for anything capable of awareness. But yes, it is interesting.
You are going off on a tangent. The man would be equally to blame if he was also going to be making the decision for abortion (or if he already knew 100% that woman was just going to abort). That was the point of my post.
That is why scientists are to blame for growing it. Whether they then choose to kill it and put it out of its suffering, or keep it alive, they are morally to blame.
I really don't need to ask you this but will it eventually through nutrition grow into a full grown adult yes or no? Because if you think this is kind of like a counter argument towards pro-life or the idea that small things can still be considered human even though they're not fully developed yet it kind of isn't
