Abortion

[Speaker to Animals]

Some anti-science going on here. Human life begins at conception. The debate is over what constitutes a human person, and most of the time, baby is quite a lot more than just a "clump of cells" by the time anybody realizes she's there.

As far as when human personhood begins, we can debate that all day, but at the end of the day, every time humans got into the business of establishing a subset of human beings as *not* human persons, bad shit ensued. The morally conservative (and safe) conclusion is to assume, until proven otherwise, that all human beings are human persons. Otherwise, you are basically performing the moral equivalent of shooting your gun off in random directions with a blindfold on. You can't say you intended to murder anybody, but that's hardly the point.

Do you commit a genocide every time you shoot a few billion human cells into your palm?

Does a baby die every menstruation cycle?

"Human" is a pretty ridiculous term when using, ya know, Science to describe it. I think that the only definitive moment in which a thing becomes a person is at birth. If you choose to use the moment of DNA combination as that definition, then you should hold a burial service and mourning period for every miscarriage. Death certificates, the works.

Sperm are not humans. They are human cells. They have your DNA.

Once you fertilize an egg, a new organism is created, which is technically that of homo sapiens. That is another human being, with her own DNA separate from the parents. Biology and medical textbooks say life begins at conception.

Our debate is over what constitutes a human person.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No you're not. It's not a kid. Even when it's born, you're not responsible. At no point are you responsible. It could have been a turkey baster for all you know.

So then, you'd say that fatherhood is a choice, and not an obligation? Bold stance, with a lot of implications....

Is fatherhood the same as parenthood?

In the context of my question, yes. I realize now, that I should have said "being a dad".

Do fathers have to be male?

Yes.

Are biological donors fathers?

Yes.

Is there only one father?

In human biology, this is the only possibility.

What about stepfathers?

Can be Dads, but will never be Fathers.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Some anti-science going on here. Human life begins at conception. The debate is over what constitutes a human person, and most of the time, baby is quite a lot more than just a "clump of cells" by the time anybody realizes she's there.

As far as when human personhood begins, we can debate that all day, but at the end of the day, every time humans got into the business of establishing a subset of human beings as *not* human persons, bad shit ensued. The morally conservative (and safe) conclusion is to assume, until proven otherwise, that all human beings are human persons. Otherwise, you are basically performing the moral equivalent of shooting your gun off in random directions with a blindfold on. You can't say you intended to murder anybody, but that's hardly the point.

Do you commit a genocide every time you shoot a few billion human cells into your palm?

Does a baby die every menstruation cycle?

"Human" is a pretty ridiculous term when using, ya know, Science to describe it. I think that the only definitive moment in which a thing becomes a person is at birth. If you choose to use the moment of DNA combination as that definition, then you should hold a burial service and mourning period for every miscarriage. Death certificates, the works.

Sperm are not humans. They are human cells. They have your DNA.

Once you fertilize an egg, a new organism is created, which is technically that of homo sapiens. That is another human being, with her own DNA separate from the parents. Biology and medical textbooks say life begins at conception.

Our debate is over what constitutes a human person.

Is a sperm not alive?

[Speaker to Animals]

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


I am not interested in your feelz. I am here to discuss reality.

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


I am not interested in your feelz. I am here to discuss reality.

Welp, I guess that ends this discussion then.

Every conception needs a Social Security Number, and every miscarriage needs a Death Certificate.

Also, pregnant smokers should be jailed for assault, and rape victims must carry and raise the child of their attackers. So it is written.

[Speaker to Animals]

No. The discussion is over when human personhood begins, not when human life begins.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No. The discussion is over when human personhood begins, not when human life begins.

Mmmkay. Well, in that case, I suspect that we're talking about the same thing. It begins at birth, does it not?

[Speaker to Animals]

No. The discussion is over when human personhood begins, not when human life begins.

Mmmkay. Well, in that case, I suspect that we're talking about the same thing. It begins at birth, does it not?

I have no idea where we should place the beginning of human personhood.

I err on the side of caution and just assume that it starts with human life, though outside of a theological discussion, that would seem like an unsatisfactory place to start.

The problem here is that no good arguments for where it should begin have been made that most people find particularly convincing. The worst arguments I see (all the time, I might add) constitute pro-aborts trying to come with arbitrary factors that make no moral distinction with respect to personhood, that really just amount to saying that human personhood begins whenever we say it does. If you are a kind of nihilist or even maybe an existentialist, you could probably take that as a formal position. That's not going to satisfy anybody on the other side, though.

[Martin Hash]

I'll go by the law & medicine. I suggest you people who have supernatural opinions get involved in a GOTV* campaign.

*Get Out The Vote

[Speaker to Animals]

No such opinions expressed, but nice attempt at derailment.