• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Don't abort masturbating babies"

nota bene didn't say zygotes were unique, but that they were uniquely created. They are distinct from the woman because you can make them in petri dishes. But neither of those facts changes anything, because a zygote doesn't have the right to stay in your body without your consent, just as a blastocyst doesn't have the right to implant, etc.

To be clear, what she said was "Even a zygote is a uniquely created individual life distinct from the mother."

The subject of that sentence is "life", as in "a life". IMO, there is no individual life immediately after the sperm enters the egg.

To clarify further, I don't care when it becomes an individual life. My position on abortion is determined by the constitution not granting the govt. the power to protect the rights of the unborn. So even if it is an individual life, it makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. It still would not be protected by law, and so a woman would still be able to terminate a pregnancy even if it is "an individual human life"
 
To be clear, what she said was "Even a zygote is a uniquely created individual life distinct from the mother."

The subject of that sentence is "life", as in "a life". IMO, there is no individual life immediately after the sperm enters the egg.

To clarify further, I don't care when it becomes an individual life. My position on abortion is determined by the constitution not granting the govt. the power to protect the rights of the unborn. So even if it is an individual life, it makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. It still would not be protected by law, and so a woman would still be able to terminate a pregnancy even if it is "an individual human life"

Actually, sangha, the fact that a zygote can be produced in a petri dish and go on to become a morula and a blastocyst without dying does show that there is individual life. This can occur immediately because an ovum actually contains some nutrient, so that initially, the zygote does not even need nutrient from loose blood in the woman or from nutrient put into a petri dish. The point is that, at a certain point, it will die without being implanted in the woman, whether it initially grows in a culture in a petri dish or initially grows inside the woman.

And I agree that it doesn't matter whether or not it is an individual life. The point is that the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to protect any putative rights of the unborn, and it does grant the federal government the power to protect the rights of individual women as equal persons, so it also grants the federal government the power to assert that protection against the attempts of state government to protect any putative state rights of the unborn in any way that restricts the federally protected rights of individual women as equal persons. That, it seems to me, is the issue in a nutshell.
 
Back
Top Bottom