The unborn should have the right to life, at least in my State. If you want to restrict their rights in your area, at your own expense, that is on you and yours.
So in your beloved nation it is not crime for a criminal to beat a pregnant women with a bat, and kill even a healthy full term fetus? What savage nation are your from? Yemen, Rawanda, New Guinea?
I NEVER said that their rights should be restricted... I said : "Why do you want fetuses to have rights but no restrictions like everyone else with rights has???"" With rights comes RESTRICTIONS Everyone who has rights has RESTRICTIONS. ONE of the RESTRICTIONS is that we cannot use another's body to sustain our lives....EVERYONE with rights has that RESTRICTION. YOU want the fetus to have rights but NO restrictions. YOU want them to have the right to use another person's body to sustain their life. YOU don't have that right , I don't have that right, NO ONE has that right. That is all in ENGLISH. It should be plain as day.
If that's the conclusion you drew from the post you quoted no wonder the subject seems beyond you.....
I think that if you want to be taken seriously in this debate you need to stop opening with fallacy. "assuming the premise". You are assuming that a living human exists prior to birth - at all stages of pregnancy from the zygote onward - yet, you have given no substantiation for this claim. Since when is a single human cell - a human - such that it should have rights, including the right to life ?
I never said "with no restrictions" ---so you are reaching. I do not personally support abortion on demand. In the rare cases when the life of the mother is really at risk, then an abortion must be done. For rape and incest----abortions should be an option depending on the risks to the mother and unborn child. For children born with extreme medical issues---if they would typically not survived long on their own 40 years ago---I would leave that up to the parents and state.
Yes, you did indicate NO restrictions? You do NOT want the fetus restricted from using another person's body to sustain their life. NO person can legally force another person to use their body to sustain their own life, YOU want fetuses to do that....THAT is having NO restrictions.
Having took an embryology class years ago, I don't want to "talk down" to anyone here. However, unique human life begins at conception. The further along the process, the more "person-like" the fetus becomes. Most women don't realize they are pregnant until about 4 weeks. This doesn't look like a human, but I would still say this fetus should have a right to exist, and not be aborted just because it legally can be aborted. Others have said the unborn "don't really become human until they can "feel pain" or "have a heartbeat." Is that a human above? At 10 weeks, a fetus can respond to touch. I think so. At 8 or 9 months, I really must question anyone who thinks these children are not rightfully human just because they are still attached to the mom. What do you think? Would you allow all 3 of the above examples to be aborted because the mom wants them to be?
Please do feel free to speak in scientific terms - I am a chemist and applied microbiologist. I also took a bunch of Philosophy classes so am well versed in logic and logical fallacy. In addition I took a Philosophy class "Contemporary Moral Issues" where we spent a third of the class on the abortion debate - best arguments from both sides. Since you took an embryology class - you should know that this is not the subject matter domain. The purpose of embryology is not to define what is human, and what is not. What I find bizarre is that I opened saying that if you wanted to be taken seriously you should not engage in logical fallacy. I then explained what your fallacy was. You then state that you took an embryology class (appeal to authority) the fact that you took an embryology class does not make your claim true. Then you make another fallacy This is a naked claim. An outrageous naked claim given one of the primary debates within this debate is whether or not the zygote is a human. We might as well go back and forth "yes it is, no its not, yes it is, no its not" like on the playground. The point of debate is to back up one's premise (zygote is a human) and not just repeat that premise over and over. (repetition of premise fallacy - repeating a premise does not constitute proof that this premise is true) Another problem with your claim is that we are not talking about "human life" = moving the goalposts. In the term "human life" the word "human" is in it's descriptive adjective form (human life, human cell, human feces).. as opposed to the noun form (a human, a living human and one form of term "human being" when used as a compound word) Just because something is "human life" - does not make it a human. If you are going to say that the life of a human exists - you first must show that a human exists. Sure we can say that the life cycle of a human is present but, this does not mean a human exists. Sperm and egg (and in fact your parents) are part of the human life cycle. If we go to a subject matter domain - Biology - (sub-domain taxonomy ). A zygote is not a "Homo Sapiens" by human taxonomic classification. (let me know if you wish proof of this claim) The fact of the matter is that there are currently 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological. As luck would have it, one of these perspectives agrees with you (Genetic). Unfortunately - the other 4 perspectives do not agree with you and the Genetic perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists To claim defacto "Human life begins at conception" , as if this is not a question that is the subject of considerable debate, is simply false on one hand and abject nonsense on the other. Perhaps you have a strong belief - and that is fine but, so far you have not provided one iota of support for that belief. I did not get into some of the other philosophical arguments ... feel free to use any argument you like but please - do made an argument of some kind. An argument consists of 2 things 1) A premise or Claim 2) explanations or proof for why that claim is true. My premise is this: There is no consensus among experts (Science, Philosophy, Bio-ethics) that a zygote is a living human. The various different perspectives cited from the developmental biology textbook in the link provided show that this claim is true. Can we agree on this much ?
My imput is this....Society should never put its seal of approval on stopping a beating human heart for the sake of convenience, financial or other. By making it legal, you devalue human life. The penalties will have to be worked out. Sure abortions are warranted to save the life of the mother. For victims of rape, they have a period of time to take the morning after pill. We as humans need to take extra precautions and bare inconvenience to value innocent human life.
I see....So, apparently YOUR opinion should be used to regulate the lives of an adult human life in order to save the human life living within it? You certainly have a very high opinion of yourself.
You asked for my input. Is your opinion of your self so high that you cannot bare it? I would only ask that adults regulate their own lives in a manner that respects all life.
I'm a realist. I understand that if abortion is outlawed, it won't be stopped. It would continue to happen in the black market and in unsafe situations. This isn't a positive situation. Abortion services should remain, but they should not be funded by taxpayers. You have plenty of "pro choice" people out there to keep the services alive. If not, call your celebs.
Interesting....You can certainly "Ask"....my opinion however does not impose a situation on someone else. Yours Does.
You should ask for your money back because a "unique human life" does NOT form at conception. What you have at conception are two sets of DNA that belong to each of the parent donors. There is no "unique" DNA until AFTER meiosis has completed 74 hours later. Failure of the meiosis stage means that you have granted "human rights" to something that never existed as a "unique" human being. Furthermore there is no pregnancy that could result in a person being naturally born until after the zygote has actually implanted in the uterine wall 6 to 10 days after the ovulation cycle. Failure to implant means that you have granted human rights to something that will never develop into a naturally born person. Then there are the variety of DNA failures during the pregnancy. For example the fetus could be anencephalic meaning that it doesn't have a brain. Are you going to grant human rights to something that can't think at all? In which case why not grant them to trees and flowers?
That same logic can be applied to any activity that has been outlawed. I am sure, as a realist, you can understand that. For instance, because "shoplifting" is outlawed, it isn't stopped, so why force those that shoplift to become part of the criminal element? One thing is for certain, abortion is not safe for that unborn human heart that is beating so often when it is terminated for the sake of convenience. By society condoning this, it puts it's stamp of approval on it, while at the same time, we shun shoplifting.
Yours does as well.....it imposes your desires on that unborn beating heart that you choose to ignore. You did not ask my opinion. You asked for input. You got it. Is it only input that soothes your conscious that you are looking for? It's a fair question.
A "Beating Heart" is not a "Someone Else". And...this exchange of opinion is often referred to debate....no need to get upset about it.
