Re: framing the abortion debate

Life and human being isn’t the same .
We are surrounded by life getting destroyed everyday by us .

It’s ok to believe in what u believe , but at least your are not implying a zygote or embryo is a human being .
I’m glad .

Yes it’s already hard to define a full gown human being without a brain ->no consciousness right ?
Imagine when it’s not even a fetus ….

Actually, I sort of am. If a fertilized egg is a person (life has begun, how could you say it's not a person? unless you somehow know enough to definitively say it's not a person, how can you?) then why wouldn't it be considered a human being?

Like already greatly expressed in this thread .
Dilemma:
You have a full grown baby just born beside you and let’s say 2 bottles containing 1 embryos each that belongs to you with your dna inside .
A fire occurs and u need to save them .

Unfortunately you can only bring one or the other to save their “life’s” , your full grown baby just born or 2 embryos in a bottle , which one u chose to save .

You mean like embryos that are going to develop into a child eventually? I guess in the extreme it comes down to personal preference at that point, I think I'm going with the baby every time since there would actually be suffering and I know it's actually a living human being. I don't know everything, but I don't know why a fertilized egg wouldn't be considered a living human being.

And I edited my answer to your brain replacement question, I didn't get across what I was trying to get across very well.

« I think; therefore I am ».

It’s ok if you believe a human being without a conscience still is human .

I don’t ….

I wont even go in the philosophical concept of cloning yourself and put some AI download memory chip from your previous body capabilities into the new one , in maybe the next 100 years ?

Ps: reread those 2 lines ,

u answer it yourself plenty on why both aren’t consider the same even tho you try to imply it is .
If it’s the same you just can’t sacrifice 2 babies to save 1 .
And obviously there is many reasons why you have to chose the « conscious » one .
You already enumerated 1 reason ( pain suffering) and there is many others .

Um, I DISAGREE with you. Our thoughts don't define reality, reality is static regardless of how we think about it. I don't think anyone could possibly know enough right now to definitively say that a fertilized egg is not a living human being. Supporting abortion once you're cognizant of that is reckless self-serving psychopathy. And this is broadening the topic matter, but as a believer in Jesus and God I think it's possible that my conscience informs me that taking the baby is the better option since there will be suffering. If the embryos are living people they will be going to heaven and will presumably not be suffering at all in the fire. Taking the baby seems like the better option.

If you don't see why a fertilized egg and a fully developed person could both be considered a human being I don't know what to say. I think you might just be inundated with abortion philosophy to the point where you don't see it. Edit: Unless I'm wrong somehow, there is stuff happening in the egg, why wouldn't that be considered "life" at that point? If it's life why wouldn't it be considered alive? The fertilized egg is going to eventually develop into a baby, why wouldn't it be considered a human being at that point?

Sorry about this, I think I inferred something from your post that wasn't what you were trying to say.

It's also possible my logical faculties inform me based on what reality is actually like that the embryos would need to be placed in women and somehow be raised in them to become babies and thus outweigh taking the actual baby. There's a lot going on here and it's a ridiculous circumstance to be used for the purpose you're using it for when examined.

I just reread my last 3 posts and they read pretty harsh. I wasn't trying to attack at all, but I don't know if they can be read that way.

Which stage(s) do you consider to be human?

Meh never really thought about it .
But I guess at minimum having a functioning brain should be a prerequisite ?

https://www.zerotothree.org/resource/whe....

Calling human a bunch of cell with no heart and brain is pushing it imho.

Yeah, the problem is that there is no generally accepted definition of a human, and the only real starting points that make much sense and are easily determined are conception and birth.
But it's tough to say that a zygote is a human, and it's equally tough to claim that a fetus the day before birth is not a human, especially since almost all could survive outside of the womb at that point. Maybe there could be a place chosen somewhere in between. Having a functioning brain would be a reasonable place to say human life has begun, but that doesn't solve the abortion issue, as I don't think there is current technology that can tell when the brain of a fetus is functional.
Most countries (and states within the US which haven't completely outlawed abortion) pick some number of days past conception, but that's pretty arbitrary, and also nearly impossible to know (or at least to prove).

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to what I wrote, nowhere did I imply I would take the baby because it's actually a human being, I've actually laid out a logical case for why a fertilized egg is a human being. I'm just not all knowing so I can't declare it with certainty.

Who with all certainty can say a fertilized egg or zygote or fetus is not a human? Nah, I guess it's fine to roll the dice there and tear it out because someone doesn't want the responsibility of being a mother. I don't know how many people approach it that way though, it would be truly depraved to possibly kill someone in order to get out of being a parent.

The "Clump of cells" argument is the laziest bad faith argument that can be made as a justification for someone to be pro-abortion. The wheels are already in motion, and it's just a matter of time. You placed that rock at the top of the hill and now it's on its way down. Far more often than not, it will complete its journey.

We'll all respect you more if you just admit that you're okay with killing someone who can't fight back and has no family to mourn them. The spark of life was lit the moment those cells began to divide. You snuffing them out before they can voice an objection doesn't make it any less of a terrible thing to do.

I'm a pragmatist though, so I'm still in the "First one's free, but if you're back for number two, you're leaving the clinic sterilized" camp. If that pushes people to back alleys and rusty coat hangers, so be it. Hope your luck is better than your kid's.

Sure, it's just a matter of time until that being dies as well, just as every living thing does. Dying before an individual can feel any pain is a definite win in my book, which is why I support abortion despite not really liking it.

There are nihilists and then there is chillrob.

Ok my bad .
So you wouldn’t choose the baby but the 2 embryo in a tube ?
I wouldn’t .

I’m more of a realist advocate then a Schrödinger's cat hypothetical .
I base my life on what’s in front of me shrug.

That’s funny !
Let’s say girl at 22 end up in your fertilized camp .
How many potential life u just aborted yourself by default ?

It’s just a different line u trace in the sand but the concept is exactly the same !

U decide the human is at the spark of life and others says it’s when it’s actually a capable liveable being outside of the womb shrug .

If this was truly the case, then why arent our birthdates all 9 months earlier? If thats when life starts, it seems silly to celebrate your coming into this world 9 months after the fact

(As an aside it is interesting how we all are actually a year older than we think though since I say I'm 32 but Ive been alive for 33)

Of all the takes, that's definitely one of them.

the bold is how they count age in Korea (you start at one at birth)

Those sneaky Asians! So that's how they manage to look so young for their age.