Abortion: Murder

[goku]

I don't believe a zygote is a child, although I do think it is the start of something, a potential.

i don't think zygote is a child either, it's just a word

[lindagarrette]

I think that it's been better established by science than religion or philosophy. We know that a fetus is living, inasmuch as any living cell is alive. Knowing that it's alive, we can try to discover what species it is. Clearly, it is born of the coupling of two humans. Clearly, it can develop into a human. At no point does another species affect it, nor is there any point at which it is possible for it to develop into another species. It's DNA is the same when it is a fetus as when it will be an adult. From all of this, I don't think that there can be much question that it is a Homo Sapien, a human.

It's way more controversial than you indicate. The embryo can be frozen and kept in a vault for an indefinite period of time. Some are used in medical procedures (in vitro fertilization, for example) and others are tossed. I don't notice anyone complaining about that.

 

Most of the distinction between person and tissue is religious and it varies depending on what you believe. Even within a belief there is a lot of disagreement. Catholics, for example think the fetus is a human after the "quickening," a period determined by how many weeks it has survived in the womb. In OT times, it was a sin to masturbate. Even now homosexual relations are discouraged. The only possible reason for these restrictions is religious,as are the restrictions we place on euthanasia and DNR situations.

[C1ay]

i don't think zygote is a child either, it's just a word

So now you say that the fertilized egg is not a child? So when does the conceived become a child? I thought you previously claimed this happened at conception.

[C1ay]

A fetus is not living...

So you are saying that Samuel is not alive in this picture?

[pgrmdave]

It's way more controversial than you indicate. The embryo can be frozen and kept in a vault for an indefinite period of time. Some are used in medical procedures (in vitro fertilization, for example) and others are tossed. I don't notice anyone complaining about that.

 

I understand all of that, but I still stand by my previous post that a fetus is definitely a Homo Sapien. Unfortunately, the word 'human' carries with it a large social stigma, one which conveys rights, and legal issues, moral issues, and religious issues. However, I don't think that there should really be debate about whether or not a fetus is a human simply because it is clearly a homo sapien. Whether or not it has rights, or whether or not it is deserving of religious and moral protection is up for debate, but I think that it is clearly human in nature.

[Tormod]

So you are saying that Samuel is not alive in this picture?

 

Wow...that is a stunning photo.

[Freethinker]

I understand all of that, but I still stand by my previous post that a fetus is definitely a Homo Sapien... However, I don't think that there should really be debate about whether or not a fetus is a human simply because it is clearly a homo sapien. Whether or not it has rights, or whether or not it is deserving of religious and moral protection is up for debate, but I think that it is clearly human in nature.

 

over 65% of all fertilized eggs do not come to term. Most not even implanting in the uterus wall. The main reason being the resulting combo of the 2 dna's developed a mutation beyond the female's body excepting the results. Thus the vast majority of "human (sourced) zygotes" are NOT HOMO SAPIENS.

 

And for the religious nuts, this means that their god is the most prolifict abortionist there ever will be. One has to wonder how thick of a slime layer there is in heaven from all the naturally aborted cell balls with souls.

 

I only wish I could stick around to see the reactions to such factual information.

[pgrmdave]

Thus the vast majority of "human (sourced) zygotes" are NOT HOMO SAPIENS.

 

Actually, I knew that. That's why I said fetus.

[Freethinker]

Actually, I knew that. That's why I said fetus.

Actually there is not agreement on when the terms are applied. Various reference sources approach it differently.

 

Merrium-Webster says Fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind;

 

As the basic structural plan of its kind is established at fertilization, it is a fetus from the 1st cell.

 

However it goes on to say: a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

 

The official US Gov's National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,

 

Alternative names Zygote; Blastocyst; Embryo; Fetus

 

That was why I chose "zygote". less confusion.

 

Bootom line, it is not correct to say that the results of a fertilized human egg by human sperm is genetically a human. Only successfully delivered ones are.

[pgrmdave]

Wikipedia defines it as "In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth"

 

If it has developed enough to be a fetus (about 8th week) then it has the genetic makeup of a human. I think that nearly everybody agrees that after birth, it is genetically human. However, if it is genetically human after birth, then it must have been genetically human before birth as well, since its genes haven't changed. Birth does not change the genes of the organism, and so it is strange logic to say that it is only genetically human after birth.

[questor]

silly semantic games

 

''However it goes on to say: a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth''

 

what was this thing before three months ? was it alive ? was it taking nourishment ?

was it composed of human tissue ? did it contain human DNA ? was it taking on human form ? did it have human brain tissue ?

bottom line...it was a developing human being. whether or not it would be born normal or at all is beside the point. it had all the necessities of humanity.

[Freethinker]

Wikipedia defines

Wikipedia, while a good source of info, iis NOT an established REFERENCE source. Remember, the very concept of Wikipedia is that any individual can edit the content and the results are more "mutually agreed" than verified factual.

it as "In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth"

which agrees with part TWO of the MW def but not with the official US Gov's.

If it has developed enough to be a fetus (about 8th week)

again, this is only the case with selected defs.

 

And frankly, my comment was intended based on the publishe SUBJECT, using your post as merely a spring board.

 

So to hopefully remove obfuscation, the FACT is the MAJORITY of fertilized HUMAN eggs are NOT "homo sapien sapien" by strict genetic defintion and thus the MAJORITY of abortions are NOT murder of humans.

[rockytriton]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here changed their views on this topic due to reading posts on this thread?

[Freethinker]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here changed their views on this topic due to reading posts on this thread?

Yes, I have decided that the complete failure to provide ANY evidence to the contrary makes the claim of abortion as murder even less supportable than when I started.

[rockytriton]

You know what I mean, I'm wondering if anyone has made a 180 (or a PI) on their beliefs or anything like that, or if this thread is just a mindless waste of keystrokes.

 

I have made a complete 360 in my beliefs on the subject!

[pgrmdave]

So to hopefully remove obfuscation, the FACT is the MAJORITY of fertilized HUMAN eggs are NOT "homo sapien sapien" by strict genetic defintion and thus the MAJORITY of abortions are NOT murder of humans.

 

If I'm reading this right, Freethinker, then you agree that a minority of abortions are murder of humans?

[questor]

if a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm, how is this not an embryonic Homo SAPIENS?