An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Stefu
I strongly suspect that's nothing more than a troll. Clearly no non-trollish individual would say that because some pro-lifers firebomb clinics and shoot doctors, all pro-lifers do so (as implied by "anti-abortionists firebomb clinics and shoot doctors"), or that this has anything to do whatsoever with this debate.

1. "Anti-abortionists firebomb clinics and shoot doctors" is not the same as "All anti-abortionists firebomb clinics and shoot doctors." Consider the sentence "Men eat meat" as a comparison.

2. What this shows is hypocrisy on the part of anti-abortionists. They show all kinds of respect towards potential humans, but not actual humans.

[Urban Ranger]

NA,

Not necessarily. Spontaneous abortions occur with a surprisingly high frequency. There is no gaurantee that any single zygote will become a human being.

Furthermore, there is no biological difference between a fertilised egg and any body cell.

Finally, Ramo is correct that an embryo requires external resources. Without external resources, time is of no import.

[Ramo]

A sperm cell is not an organism as it does not devlope further.

Sure it does - provided it has an ovum as well as various other resources.

Ramo biologicaly speaking a zygote is considered its own organism as TIME is the primary consideration.

Nonetheless, time is not the only consideration.

If a zygote should be considered legally protected, so must sperm and ova.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
NA,

Not necessarily. Spontaneous abortions occur with a surprisingly high frequency. There is no gaurantee that any single zygote will become a human being.

Furthermore, there is no biological difference between a fertilised egg and any body cell.

True enough about the spontaneous abortion.

As to the egg there is a difference, a fertilized egg will continue to grow and devlope different cell structures, as other cells don't (emphasis on different). Also a fertilized egg has a unique DNA pattern. WHich is different from the mothers and the fathers. Where as the egg has a single gamete of the mothers, and the sperm a single gamete of the fathers. Thus the fusion of the two creates an organism which is FOREIGN to the mother.

A single zygote biologically is a human being. Not conisdered a person (no sentience yet). But still an individual.

[Adalbertus]

Nope.... Euthenasia is not murder.

Sava, that's exactly what the Nazi said when they killed disabled people en masse.

[Ramo]

What difference does distinctive DNA make?

Am I justified in killing clones or twins? If I screw with the DNA in one of my cells, is the state justified in prosecuting me if I remove it?

A single zygote biologically is a human being. Not conisdered a person (no sentience yet). But still an individual.

You're arguing semantics.

[November Adam]

In biological terms organisms are always studied in their natural environments.

A human at its fetal stages natural environment is in its mothers womb (dido with zygotes). Its dependecy on its mother doesn't change that it is a seperate organism.

Consider baking powder and vinegar. Baking powder by itself is inert, like a sperm. Vinegar by itself is inert, as is an ovum. Mix the two you have a reaction which can not be reversed, like the joining of the sperm and ovum, it can't be reversed.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sure it does - provided it has an ovum as well as various other resources.



Nonetheless, time is not the only consideration.

If a zygote should be considered legally protected, so must sperm and ova.

while the prolifers here are doing a good job I must respond to this (maybe someone else has later on)

you are wrong ramo because the Zygote has the genes of a human (which is what we define as human)

and neither the ovum nor sperm have the genes of a human independently

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Right now the law allow abortion where you and i live, even though i don't agree with it.

But no one forces anyone to have an abortion. Anti-abortion laws force people who want to have one to not be able to have one.

At least, under safe, sterile clinic conditions...

Guess you all want the days of coathangers in alleyways back, huh?

While we're at it, let's repeal universal sufferage and get those women back in the kitchen where they belong...

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Ramo
What difference does distinctive DNA make?

Am I justified in killing clones or twins? If I screw with the DNA in one of my cells, is the state justified in prosecuting me if I remove it?

You're arguing semantics.

I'm trying to have people realize that abortion kills a human who hasn't devloped into a person. Not some biological non-entity.

Distinct DNA is obviously a recent revelation, and just another tool to identify an organism. (I know you know this)

[Stefu]

1. "Anti-abortionists firebomb clinics and shoot doctors" is not the same as "All anti-abortionists firebomb clinics and shoot doctors." Consider the sentence "Men eat meat" as a comparison.

"Men eat meat" isn't inflammatory. Try "Men eat human meat". Or possibly "Atheists go to churches and shoot people" or "Black people riot and loot".

Also, since none of us is a clinic bomber, you're arguing with a ghost. Either you are saying something that everyone agrees with or you are trolling and trying to squirm out of it.

2. What this shows is hypocrisy on the part of anti-abortionists. They show all kinds of respect towards potential humans, but not actual humans.

To play devil's advocate, you could say that by bombing clinics and shooting doctors, they're trying to prevent what they see as murder.

[Ramo]

In biological terms organisms are always studied in their natural environments.

A human at its fetal stages natural environment is in its mothers womb (dido with zygotes). Its dependecy on its mother doesn't change that it is a seperate organism.

Consider baking powder and vinegar. Baking powder by itself is inert, like a sperm. Vinegar by itself is inert, as is an ovum. Mix the two you have a reaction which can not be reversed, like the joining of the sperm and ovum, it can't be reversed.

You're arguing semantics.

you are wrong ramo because the Zygote has the genes of a human (which is what we define as human)

and neither the ovum nor sperm have the genes of a human independently

What difference does it make? What about, for instance, skin cells? They have genes of a human independently.

The point UR was addressing was that abortions are immoral because zygotes will become persons. Applying the same criteria, sperms and ova must also be protected.

I'm trying to have people realize that abortion kills a human who hasn't devloped into a person.

Then masturbation is killing humans who haven't developed into a person.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo

The point UR was addressing was that abortions are immoral because zygotes will become persons. Applying the same criteria, sperms and ova must also be protected.

quit this stupid argument, it helps your position not at all

Zygotes fulfill two requirements

1 they have the genetics of a human

2 they will become human

sperm and ova do not share both these characteristics

Jon Miller

[November Adam]

Ramo your ignoring what I am saying, and dismissing it as semantics.

I am arguing what can't be reversed versus what hasn't happened.

[Ramo]

quit this stupid argument,

Yes, the arguments anti-abortionists have made are indeed stupid.

Zygotes fulfill two requirements

1 they have the genetics of a human

Why is this important?

2 they will become human

sperm and ova do not share both these characteristics

Sperm and ova will become human provided they have the appropriate resources.