Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

[Dragonfly]

Alive is just … living. Alive doesn’t mean “born”.

So you’re using the term “alive” in this thread much like you’d say your lungs, intestines, or kidneys are alive. Correct?

 

[Josie]

So you’re using the term “alive” in this thread much like you’d say your lungs, intestines, or kidneys are alive. Correct?

In the very basic sense that they are made up of living cells and tissue, sure. But a ZEF is an entire living developing human.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

The correct answer is: Who gives a shit?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So you’re using the term “alive” in this thread much like you’d say your lungs, intestines, or kidneys are alive. Correct?

No because she wants to prove the widdle fetuseses have widdle souls.

 

[americanwoman]

In the very basic sense that they are made up of living cells and tissue, sure. But a ZEF is an entire living developing human.

I have to agree. A ZEF is a living developing human although I think when it comes to decision of terminating a pregnancy it should be asap in early stages of development and as a last resort.

 

[Josie]

The correct answer is: Who gives a shit?

I imagine you won't be spending anymore time in this thread, then.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I imagine you won't be spending anymore time in this thread, then.

Maybe! Maybe not.

It’s based on mood.

 

[Josie]

No because she wants to prove the widdle fetuseses have widdle souls.

I don't even know if souls are real, so........................................ nope.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I don't even know if souls are real, so........................................ nope.

You’re *struggling* the existence of souls?

Well, there goes my theory.

 

[Dragonfly]

But a ZEF is an entire living developing human.

Yes, but like the lungs, intestines, and kidneys if you remove the ZEF from the mother (during the time frame when vast majority of abortions occur), what happens?

 

[humbolt]

PHEW! So it isn't just me she's doing this to. I suspect she has a point, but she seems unwilling to get to it.

The point is that we don't plant bean seeds and expect tomatoes as a result.

Well...most of us don't, anyway. One could hope something so simple wouldn't require explanation.

 

[Josie]

Yes, but like the lungs, intestines, and kidneys if you remove the ZEF from the mother (during the time frame when vast majority of abortions occur), what happens?

The ZEF dies.

 

[MamboDervish]

Yes, I read that. I’m still unclear how you disagree with PV who said that a life begins at conception.

For this discussion to continue without frustration, we need to define our terms.
From my post, emphasis mine.
"Being a combination of the two, the body that ultimately results is uniquely different from either. That's mammalian biology 101."
We are agreed on that, no?

I think this is where the confusion stems from. How do you define a human life?
If your definition of a human life is no different than your definition of a human body, then you would conclude that the zygote meets the definition of a human life. For me, it certainly does not. As I tried to point out in my post #6, a human life is something more than merely a human body. Allow me to elaborate on the distinction.

A human life is a person and, ideally, afforded all the rights and protections that being a person may entail. A human body might contain a human life - or it might be nothing more than a pile of living tissue, suitable for transplant parts for some other human life. This is the reason people sign organ donor cards. Because they understand that the time may come when "they" cease to occupy their human body, and they're willing to bequeath their living remains to someone else's use and needs. Medical science has already done this, in one form or another, for many generations now. Blood transfusions, for example, go back hundreds of years.

Who we are as individual persons - our identity - is not defined by our human body. I could have both my legs amputated and still be 100% "ME" !! I could have your heart and liver transplanted into my human body, and I'd still be 100% "ME". Get it?

A human life has a self-directed animating force. A human body need not. For the purposes of this discussion, a zygote is the onset of a developing human body. An embryo is a further developed human body. A fetus is a more highly developed human body. But none of those things is occupied by a self-directed animating force. None of them are a human life. They are only a potential human life. Do you see the distinction?

So when we talk about human life, what are we talking about? Are we talking about a person? Or are we just talking about a human body??

Most people recognize that taking a human life is wrong. But that not the same as disposing of a human body.
I hope that's clear.

 

[Josie]

For this discussion to continue without frustration, we need to define our terms.
From my post, emphasis mine.
"Being a combination of the two, the body that ultimately results is uniquely different from either. That's mammalian biology 101."
We are agreed on that, no?

I think this is where the confusion stems from. How do you define a human life?
If your definition of a human life is no different than your definition of a human body, then you would conclude that the zygote meets the definition of a human life. For me, it certainly does not. As I tried to point out in my post #6, a human life is something more than merely a human body. Allow me to elaborate on the distinction.

A human life is a person and, ideally, afforded all the rights and protections that being a person may entail. A human body might contain a human life - or it might be nothing more than a pile of living tissue, suitable for transplant parts for some other human life. This is the reason people sign organ donor cards. Because they understand that the time may come when "they" cease to occupy their human body, and they're willing to bequeath their living remains to someone else's use and needs. Medical science has already done this, in one form or another, for many generations now. Blood transfusions, for example, go back hundreds of years.

Who we are as individual persons - our identity - is not defined by our human body. I could have both my legs amputated and still be 100% "ME" !! I could have your heart and liver transplanted into my human body, and I'd still be 100% "ME". Get it?

A human life has a self-directed animating force. A human body need not. For the purposes of this discussion, a zygote is the onset of a developing human body. An embryo is a further developed human body. A fetus is a more highly developed human body. But none of those things is occupied by a self-directed animating force. None of them are a human life. They are only a potential human life. Do you see the distinction?

So when we talk about human life, what are we talking about? Are we talking about a person? Or are we just talking about a human body??

Most people recognize that taking a human life is wrong. But that not the same as disposing of a human body.
I hope that's clear.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you think it's only "human life" after it's born? Before that, it's alive, but it's just a human body.

 

[notquiteright]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

It's living tissue but not 'alive' until viability. I have no problem with abortion till natural viability...

 

[Josie]

It's living tissue but not 'alive' until viability. I have no problem with abortion till natural viability...

Well, it's more than just tissue, of course. It's a living developing human, yes?

 

[notquiteright]

Well, it's more than just tissue, of course. It's a living developing human, yes?

It is just tissue that has the potential to become a human. There is a threshold to cross before human can be attached...

 

[Josie]

It is just tissue that has the potential to become a human. There is a threshold to cross before human can be attached...

Perhaps a threshold to cross to become a human BEING that can think, feel, live without the mother's body, etc. But it's a developing human from conception. It has an entire complex unique individual DNA genetic code and a gender from the moment of fertilization.

 

[AGENT J]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

Yes of course all stages are alive just like sperm and egg are also alive

do we have people here that deny that?. . wow I hope not, that would be one i havent seen before lol

 

[AGENT J]

It isn't a "ZEF". It's a human.
When a human egg is fertilized the result, providing the pregnancy comes full term, is a human baby. At no point is it a giraffe baby or a burrito or the number 12. It's a HUMAN baby. If the pregnancy does not go full tern the miscarriage is one of a human baby. If abortion is chosen then the victim of the abortion is a human baby.

actually, it is a ZEF and its not "a" human as in noun at all stages.
for the E and F part of ZEF there is scientific consensus that it is human but not for the Z part and Ill be going with science
again science says otherwise

but for me its absolutely meaningless to the abortion debate, its a side argument people get involved it that changes nothing at all

There are very few things that get under my skin quite like when someone seeks to dehumanize other humans and in the world of abortions the key way the propagandists go about that is to use terms like "ZEF".

well then stop doing that to yourself because ZEF isnt dehumanizing in the least bit unless YOU choose to make it that way. LMAO
Thats the dumbest thing i read today. ZEF is an acronym used by scientists and doctors that stands for zygote, embryo, fetus 3 things that are all human (adj) so to claim its propaganda is pure tinfoil hat self-inflected nonsense

 

[MamboDervish]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you think it's only "human life" after it's born? Before that, it's alive, but it's just a human body.

Clearly. I said so directly. It is not yet born into this world. Other than its genetic identity, it has no identity. It is, in fact, still a part of the woman who bares it, attached by umbilical cord. It has no personality - because it has yet to become a person. It is not self-aware, and contains no self-directed animating force. It is unoccupied. So just as it is with the unoccupied bodies used in organs donations, the lights may all be on - but there's nobody home.

 

[AGENT J]

Of course it is. Life begins at fertilization. That is a proven biological fact.

not accurate sorry, many scientists feel its a continuation of life since egg and sperm are also alive. If you dont like that fact you are free to take it up with the medical science world but im guess they dont care.

 

[notquiteright]

Perhaps a threshold to cross to become a human BEING that can think, feel, live without the mother's body, etc. But it's a developing human from conception. It has an entire complex unique individual DNA genetic code and a gender from the moment of fertilization.

I've heard all of this before. For me it's the ability to conduct life supporting activities without attachment to the mother (or major medical intervention) that turns potential human to realized human. I'm not sure if gender has developed at the moment of fertilization.

Natural abortions still occur as many who try to get pregnant with medical assistance- I know several couples and seems like every month another celebrity couple tells their story.

I get your view, just don't agree with it...

 

[AGENT J]

For me I alwasy find this side argument entertaining but overall meaningless

people have there different views and seasoning things but the reality is no matter your stance

we all choose one life over the other and view one life as lesser. The only difference is when and why. Honest pro-choicers and pro-lifer admit this . . .

so in the end whether you see a zygote as a human being or not until birth nothing changes. You are picking one life over another and valuing one more/lesser.

 

[Lutherf]

actually, it is a ZEF and its not "a" human as in noun at all stages.
for the E and F part of ZEF there is scientific consensus that it is human but not for the Z part and Ill be going with science
again science says otherwise

but for me its absolutely meaningless to the abortion debate, its a side argument people get involved it that changes nothing at all

well then stop doing that to yourself because ZEF isnt dehumanizing in the least bit unless YOU choose to make it that way. LMAO
Thats the dumbest thing i read today. ZEF is an acronym used by scientists and doctors that stands for zygote, embryo, fetus 3 things that are all human (adj) so to claim its propaganda is pure tinfoil hat self-inflected nonsense

The term is totally dehumanizing but that makes little difference to the people that have an agenda to dehumanize not only babiees but anyone else that they disagree with politically. Doing so eases their conscience when the crazy shit gets up and running.