Life at Conception

[scatt]

It is about as much a human being as my fingernail.

No, your fingernail is not a separate human. Not at all.

I think a non-born human starts to be somewhat viable after about 24 weeks and therefore disagree.

No abortions after 24 weeks?

 

[Steve Ja]

I think a non-born human starts to be somewhat viable after about 24 weeks and therefore disagree.

there's been cases of un born surviving as early as 20 weeks. they have virtually all their human qualities except viability around week 12 though.

 

[calamity]

My fingers and toe nails do not contain the entire human DNA a zygote does, making it a human being.

But, a zygotes typically fail to implant, resulting in a very high percentage of spontaneous abortions, often rejected by the female's body without awareness--hence, the zygote as an individual human is a bit of a stretch and the fingernail analogy is a bit closer to the what we are really looking at, especially shortly after conception.

Because there's only around a 30% chance of getting pregnant each menstrual cycle even when you're having regular sex, researchers speculate that fertilized eggs often fail to implant, usually with the woman unaware that conception occurred.
Miscarriage Statistics - Making Sense of Miscarriage Statistics

 

[calamity]

No, your fingernail is not a separate human. Not at all.

see post 328

No abortions after 24 weeks?

Except if the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is severely deformed, especially with life threatening issues like no brain, lings, and other issues which will kill a child once it is born.

 

[Steve Ja]

But, a zygotes typically fail to implant, resulting in a very high percentage of spontaneous abortions, often rejected by the female's body without awareness--hence, the zygote as an individual human is a bit of a stretch and the fingernail analogy is a bit closer to the what we are really looking at, especially shortly after conception.

yes that does happen a lot

 

[scatt]

see post 328

Except if the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is severely deformed, especially with life threatening issues like no brain, lings, and other issues which will kill a child once it is born.

Implantation is not a requirement. Again, your fingernail is not at all like a human.

So personhood is not an actual factor for you.

 

[calamity]

there's been cases of un born surviving as early as 20 weeks. they have virtually all their human qualities except viability around week 12 though.

THere is no developed brain at 12 weeks.

Viability at 20 weeks? No.

There is 0% chance of survival for 21 weeks or less; 0-10% at 22 weeks ; 10-35% at 23 weeks, and 40-70% and beyond after 24 weeks
Fetal viability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[calamity]

Implantation is not a requirement. Again, your fingernail is not at all like a human.

So personhood is not an actual factor for you.

a zygote is not a person, regardless how much you huff and puff.

 

[scatt]

a zygote is not a person

Person is subjective, sure.

Human is not, and a zygote is a human.

 

[calamity]

Person is subjective, sure.

Human is not, and a zygote is a human.

A zygote is a human in development. No problem. However, said development is 100% dependent on the mother's body, which gives her the right to snuff it out if she so desires.

 

[scatt]

A zygote is a human in development. No problem. However, said development is 100% dependent on the mother's body

Teenagers are humans in development also.

Up to a certain point which occurs before birth. So, personhood is not a factor for you, nor is viability.

 

[calamity]

1.Teenagers are humans in development also.

2 Up to a certain point which occurs before birth. 3 So, personhood is not a factor for you, nor is viability.

1. Teenagers only figuratively leech off of their moms; zygotes literally do.
2. Before 12 weeks, were talking a mindless clump of cells
3. Viability opens a door for personhood. 22 to 24 weeks is in the conversation, but..the mothers life is still more valuable.

 

[scatt]

1. Teenagers only figuratively leech off of their moms; zygotes literally do.
2. Before 12 weeks, were talking a mindless clump of cells
3. Viability opens a door for personhood. 22 to 24 weeks is in the conversation, but..the mothers life is still more valuable.

And they choose it.

A human.

So what you care about is just the mother's want to kill?

 

[sangha]

When the egg gets fertilized

When is that?

When the sperm makes contact with the egg? When it enters the egg? Some later point?

Actually it is that simple. And its not just a life, but a human life. Sperm meets egg and wham human development begins. Denying that is Ignorant too wouldn't you say? I really hope you are not calling me ignorant as I am aware that there are stages of development, HUMAN development. Its not stringent it's a fact. Its not developing into anything else, other then a human being. Abortion stops that development and kills a human being whether it be 2 cells 4 cells or 4 billion cells into it.

I see you've already answered my questions above.

However, though i think you're a decent person, you do seem ignorant when it comes to reproduction

Many times, when the sperm meets an egg, it fails to penetrate and no human development begins.

 

[calamity]

And they choose it.

A human.

So what you care about is just the mother's want to kill?

No. An unwanted pregnancy is not something chosen.

An unborn human which has no rights.

No. I'd save the mother's life over the fetus, and if the fetus is severely deformed it should be killed before it develops conscious thoughts and is made to suffer. You do know that fetuses have no capacity to think. Correct?

 

[calamity]

When is that?

When the sperm makes contact with the egg? When it enters the egg? Some later point?



I see you've already answered my questions above.

However, though i think you're a decent person, you do seem ignorant when it comes to reproduction

Many times, when the sperm meets an egg, it fails to penetrate and no human development begins.

He stated later that he is referring to when separate DNA is created, the Zygote stage.

 

[sangha]

He stated later that he is referring to when separate DNA is created, the Zygote stage.

When the new set of DNA is created, development still does not begin. At first, the DNA is completely inactive and the mother still completely controls the zygote

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/1/essay/davisvol40no1_peters.pdf

 

[calamity]

When the new set of DNA is created, development still does not begin. At first, the DNA is completely inactive and the mother still completely controls the zygote

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/1/essay/davisvol40no1_peters.pdf

Thanks,

I find this line right here to be quite valuable.

laws triggered by conception should not
take effect until the process of conceiving a new diploid embryo is
complete. This process occurs when the embryonic genome begins to
function, roughly forty-eight hours after insemination, at the eight-cell
stage. Prior to that point, a new human life is being conceived, but has
not yet been conceived.

 

[minnie616]

there's been cases of un born surviving as early as 20 weeks. they have virtually all their human qualities except viability around week 12 though.

The earliest premiee to ever survive was 21 weeks and 5 or 6 days gestation.
Most expects agreee thar is highly improbable that any premiee younger than 21 weeks will ever survive. Their lungs are too underdeveloped .

I don't know what human qualities you referring to since their skin is still paper thin and transparent, many of systems are not developed, they have no consciousness, they cannot feel pain, etc.etc.

 

[Lursa]

I think you just showed your hand regarding your attitude toward women.

I think that pretty much sums up your attitude...

I wrote almost the exact same words several pages back, based on that same statement.

And lastly, we see you tip your hand, one usually seen more in older guys....that deep-seated fear and/or resentment that females now have more control...over society, over reproduction, over their own bodies, over child support (DNA testing has been a big help there!), etc.

You are free to your opinion. IMO anyone is entitled to their opinion on this and anything. However you lose credibility when you 'attempt' to back up your opinion with something like 'the end of the human race' (paraphrasing rather than quoting). The hyperbole is only indicative of a weak argument...you can not back it up with anything factual. I'm not saying good or bad effect, I'm saying completely unrealistic. As I wrote...in 40 yrs of legalized abortion most women still choose to give birth.

You said previously you do not fear the end of the human race...do I need to go quote that?

And the latter point is the subtext where, again, you claim that 'She should not be able to make the decision if the human race lives or dies.'

Who is 'she?' Women. Again, you need to examine that statement...not just the veracity (which is not plausible), but 'your' assertion that women should not have that power and if they did, that they would abuse it. Let me know if you want to dig deeper into that...you'll find that historically, men got women pregnant at will and left them to their own devices with little or no responsiblity taken at all....it was left up to the WOMEN to have the babies, raise the children, and work and instill values (when they too could have dumped the kids and walked away)...while men walked away at their convenience. And over the millenia...women have not dropped the ball. So just 'asserting' that you 'think' they would just start walking away from motherhood now is without merit, completely.....unless you have something of substance to back it up?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

2. I value all life to be honest.

3. It's not but why should one member of a species be treated any different then the other, simply because it's doing what it's supposed to do. Now some living things, such as parasites invading your body, yes deserve to die.

4. I would not classify parasites as human beings either.

5. feline and human are clearly different species.

6. Plus the cat has a right to live too.

7. Personal value is irrelevant.

8. I'm talking legal value. The law values your adoptive mother no more then you and I

9. not sure how that relates

10. either is the unborn in a vast majority of cases

11. No brain= dead in the born or am I wrong in this?

2. It seems to me you value human life more than non human unless I'm wrong

3. Yes the unborn human is doing what it is suppose to do and the same can be said of the mosquito/leach but yet we kill them. If you would allow women to kill entities who are only sucking a bit of blood out of her then why not allow her to kill a entity that is doing stuff even more worse than that? Stating that it should be tolerated because ''it's human'' is not going to cut it.

4. I wouldn't either. Do note that I compare the actions both of them do.

5. Damn I never knew that. :shock:

6. So you think cats are persons to?

7. No it's not since both sides are trying to push their personal values into law.

8. The law is not a entity that is capable of valuing lives. What you mean to say is that the law is a reflection of what the majority thinks is of value and deserving of rights.

9. Something does not need to know what it is doing to be considered guilty.

10. What???

11. NO brain = NO PERSON. As in a entity that has no rights.

 

[Steve Ja]

When is that?

When the sperm makes contact with the egg? When it enters the egg? Some later point?



I see you've already answered my questions above.

However, though i think you're a decent person, you do seem ignorant when it comes to reproduction

Many times, when the sperm meets an egg, it fails to penetrate and no human development begins.

Well I know i do not know everything, but I'd like to think I know if the sperm never penetrates the egg the egg indeed never gets fertilized. So don't know exactly what you are saying. I appreciate you at least acknowledging that i am decent and not some cold hearted woman hater who is out to deny women of their rights. That really irks me when people say that. I mean really does to the point I don't even wanna converse with them

 

[Steve Ja]

The earliest premiee to ever survive was 21 weeks and 5 or 6 days gestation.
Most expects agreee thar is highly improbable that any premiee younger than 21 weeks will ever survive. Their lungs are too underdeveloped .

I don't know what human qualities you referring to since their skin is still paper thin and transparent, many of systems are not developed, they have no consciousness, they cannot feel pain, etc.etc.

Their nervous system, all organs and even skin are there. it is not fully developed correct. brain waves start in week 6. Is there proof they don't feel pain, or is this an assumption based on development

 

[Steve Ja]

2. It seems to me you value human life more than non human unless I'm wrong

3. Yes the unborn human is doing what it is suppose to do and the same can be said of the mosquito/leach but yet we kill them. If you would allow women to kill entities who are only sucking a bit of blood out of her then why not allow her to kill a entity that is doing stuff even more worse than that? Stating that it should be tolerated because ''it's human'' is not going to cut it.

4. I wouldn't either. Do note that I compare the actions both of them do.

5. Damn I never knew that. :shock:

6. So you think cats are persons to?

7. No it's not since both sides are trying to push their personal values into law.

8. The law is not a entity that is capable of valuing lives. What you mean to say is that the law is a reflection of what the majority thinks is of value and deserving of rights.

9. Something does not need to know what it is doing to be considered guilty.

10. What???

11. NO brain = NO PERSON. As in a entity that has no rights.

1. yes I value human life more, I am human, but still value all life and think all life serves a purpose
2. But it should be tolerated because it is human and it should cut it. I mean we are humans, why should we not protect our own species when ti comes to allowing our species to live on. It just makes sense to me that we should protect the entire reproduction process. Aborting it is just going against what our species is. I'm not sure if i made sense
3. yes and you lead me to believe you consider unborn parasites.
4. dunno
5. obviously person is defined as human being, so no, but do just persons have rights? animals are not mentioned in the Constitution, but i guarantee there are state laws, covered under the 10th amendment.
6. yes but personal value when it comes to law should not matter. laws are supposed to be inclusive and non objective correct?
7. no what im saying is laws value all the same. You and i are no different int he eyes of the law. Killing me will get the same penalty as killing your adoptive mother
8. Guilty of what? and if it is guilty why is it not tried
9.what what?
10. fetuses do have brains, just not detected, then not fully developed until a certain stage. would you consider a brain dead person not technically a person. I personally think thatd be disrespecting the person that is brain dead.

 

[scatt]

No. An unwanted pregnancy is not something chosen.

An unborn human which has no rights.

No. I'd save the mother's life over the fetus, and if the fetus is severely deformed it should be killed before it develops conscious thoughts and is made to suffer. You do know that fetuses have no capacity to think. Correct?

Save for rape, it was chosen.

Rights don't exist.

Thinking starts at birth?