Life at Conception

[Steve Ja]

To be a good debater or to engage in a discussion in a meaningful way, one should educate themselves first then participate. You seem to put the carriage before the horse.

Thanks for the lesson

 

[Steve Ja]

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

Biology: species membership, definition of organism, testable hypothesis

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Thanks

 

[choiceone]

I don't see anything in RvW that supports your line of reasoning.

I'm not saying that they did not believe that. I am saying that there is nothing in RvW that suggests that they do believe that.

I am referring to the majority opinion, section IX (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

VII enumerates reasons that had been advanced to explain and justify anti-abortion laws. One was the state's interest or obligation to protect prenatal life. This claim does not logically depend on the theory that a new human life begins at conception, for it could be claimed for potential life. IX then considers the issue of the fetus not having been recognized as a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. At the end of IX, the opinion considers as follows:

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Then, in X, the subject turns to when the state's interest in protecting the woman's health and when its interest in protecting potential life are compelling. For the latter, viability was selection "because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb."

For me, reading these ideas serially in the order presented, suggests the following. The state really doesn't want to endorse a theory that life as we recognize it begins before live birth. Examples in tort law are inconclusive, but viability shows up as a criterion for recovery for prenatal injuries, and recovery for wrongful death in the case of stillborns indicates that the fetus represents potential, not actual life. Similarly, in cases of inheritance by the unborn, the right to inheritance is contingent on live birth. So as the point at which the state's interest in protecting the potential life represented by the fetus is compelling, they select viability because that is the point at which the fetus can be presumed to have the capacity for life outside the womb, i.e., to survive live birth.

Maybe I am reading in, but the last thing in IX concerns reluctance of the state to recognize life before live birth or accord rights before it, the fact that viability or quickening comes up as an inconstant criterion in tort law, and ultimately rights of inheritance are contingent on live birth. So the fetus does not represent human life as we recognize it, but rather potential life. But at viability it's capable of surviving outside the womb, as in live birth. So that's where the state's interest in regard to the potential life is compelling.

 

[sangha]

I am referring to the majority opinion, section IX (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

VII enumerates reasons that had been advanced to explain and justify anti-abortion laws. One was the state's interest or obligation to protect prenatal life. This claim does not logically depend on the theory that a new human life begins at conception, for it could be claimed for potential life. IX then considers the issue of the fetus not having been recognized as a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. At the end of IX, the opinion considers as follows:



[/U]

Then, in X, the subject turns to when the state's interest in protecting the woman's health and when its interest in protecting potential life are compelling. For the latter, viability was selection "because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb."

For me, reading these ideas serially in the order presented, suggests the following. The state really doesn't want to endorse a theory that life as we recognize it begins before live birth. Examples in tort law are inconclusive, but viability shows up as a criterion for recovery for prenatal injuries, and recovery for wrongful death in the case of stillborns indicates that the fetus represents potential, not actual life. Similarly, in cases of inheritance by the unborn, the right to inheritance is contingent on live birth. So as the point at which the state's interest in protecting the potential life represented by the fetus is compelling, they select viability because that is the point at which the fetus can be presumed to have the capacity for life outside the womb, i.e., to survive live birth.

Maybe I am reading in, but the last thing in IX concerns reluctance of the state to recognize life before live birth or accord rights before it, the fact that viability or quickening comes up as an inconstant criterion in tort law, and ultimately rights of inheritance are contingent on live birth. So the fetus does not represent human life as we recognize it, but rather potential life. But at viability it's capable of surviving outside the womb, as in live birth. So that's where the state's interest in regard to the potential life is compelling.

I still think you're reading too much into it. While they do mention (wrt wrongful death of a fetus) an interest in a potential life, it is the parent's interest that is protected. I don't see where they establish that the state has an interest in protecting potential life.

 

[choiceone]

Another human is not her body.

I said the embryo/fetus is part of a woman's body because it is biologically contained within and biologically attached to it and its continued biological life is contingent upon her body's continued life, which, in my view, makes it biologically part of her live body. You are free to disagree, but you can't prove this is untrue unless you remove and detach the embryo/fetus and it continues to live. You can't prove that it is "a" human unless it is removed and and there are two separate humans with two separate lives.

 

[scatt]

I said the embryo/fetus is part of a woman's body because it is biologically contained within and biologically attached to it and its continued biological life is contingent upon her body's continued life, which, in my view, makes it biologically part of her live body. You are free to disagree, but you can't prove this is untrue unless you remove and detach the embryo/fetus and it continues to live. You can't prove that it is "a" human unless it is removed and and there are two separate humans with two separate lives.

Not interested, Siamese twins. The other human is not her. Period.

 

[choiceone]

If you believe you can kill other humans out of any reason of want (which you do not).

This isn't about killing other humans. It is about biologically detaching the placenta+embryo unit from the woman's body and expelling it from her body. The death is inherent in the embryo: that is what it exhibits by itself without the biological unity with the woman's body.

 

[scatt]

This isn't about killing other humans. It is about biologically detaching the placenta+embryo unit from the woman's body and expelling it from her body. The death is inherent in the embryo: that is what it exhibits by itself without the biological unity with the woman's body.

Of course it is about killing another human as there are two humans in the scenario with one being killed by the other on purpose.

 

[minnie616]

You mean those embryos are being frozen for free now?

According to the article I posted it cost the woman/ couple about $600 a year to keep them frozen.
They could choose to donate them to another woman or couple but only about 2 percent of frozen embryos are donated to another person.
They could be given to science for experimentation or
If the woman / couple stopped paying many times they would be thawed out and disposed of as medical waste.

 

[Steve Ja]

According to the article I posted it cost the woman/ couple about $600 a year to keep them frozen.
They could choose to donate them to another woman or couple but only about 2 percent of frozen embryos are donated to another person.
They could be given to science for experimentation or
If the woman / couple stopped paying many times they would be thawed out and disposed of as medical waste.

I am against doing this for any purpose other then using it to impregnate a woman. Any other means is wrong to me, especially creating it, just to throw it away.

 

[choiceone]

so basically taking an egg and sperm and fertilizing for the purpose of growing an embryo, knowing it has no chance of survival? I'm against it.
However I was talking about say the woman gets an abortion, if there was someway to keep the fetus alive and develop it, much like we do with preemies. I would support that. Now if the embryo is already dead, like say the mother had an abortion and it was donated to science, or was aborted by the body. I could see using the embryo/fetus for medical advances. If the act is taking place, why not make medical advances, that can in the future perhaps save those unborn down the road and prevent future killings.
I do not support petry dish embryos

I don't understand why you distinguish between petri dish zygotes and zygotes inside the woman. The only difference between them is that, in the case of petri dish zygotes, the woman has given official legal consent in a document for the formation of the zygote using her ovum, whereas in the case of zygotes inside her, she may have given no permission for the sex act, or she may have used contraception specifically to prevent zygote formation using her ovum, or she may have given unofficial, non-legal consent for the zygote formation. You really seem to have something against the woman's consent and seem to desire to support only zygotes that the woman does not consent to. You have a problem.

 

[AGENT J]

Of course it is about killing another human as there are two humans in the scenario with one being killed by the other on purpose.

again you are 100% factually wrong, this is why you run and dodge my posts/questions.

the 100% factual purpose and DEFINITION of abortion is to end PREGNANCY. The life of the ZEF doesnt factor into it
Definitions and facts prove you wrong again

abortions are already preformed on dead ZEFs, why does that happen if according to your lie its just to kill the ZEF, its already dead why is an abortion needed?

also why are there laws in place to protect the ZEF if it is still born alive after the abortion?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2175enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr2175enr.pdf


sorry once again facts destroy your post and prove it wrong and your severe lack of education on this topic and or dishonesty about this topic is greatly exposed

let us know what facts you have to support the lie you keep reposting, we love to read them lol

 

[choiceone]

Her want for it to be her is of no concern. If she wants a machine gun to be her she is wrong factually, no matter how much she really wants it. But she really, really wants it is of absolutely no concern.

Her reproductive abilities may be destroyed sure, what is that worth to a woman who supports abortion? Nothing, as that is not important to her.

My post was not about a woman who supports an abortion. It was a reply to your post concerning feticide laws and thus concerned a woman whose pregnancy was violated as part of an assault crime against her.

Yes, and you cannot alter the other person when that is withdrawn. Killing is most certainly alteration.

She's not killing it. She is exhibiting life, and as long as the embryo is biologically attached to her, the embryo does the same, just as her arms and bodily organs exhibit life as long as they are biologically attached to her. When the embryo is detached, it dies as her arms and bodily organs do if they are detached - because they do not have any inherent life by themselves. But she goes right on exhibiting life if you detach the embryo, because she has inherent life by herself. She has been providing life itself for the embryo because of the biological attachment. But the embryo only has the right to its own body and its own life, if it has any, not to hers.

 

[scatt]

She's not killing it. She is exhibiting life, and as long as the embryo is biologically attached to her, the embryo does the same, just as her arms and bodily organs exhibit life as long as they are biologically attached to her. When the embryo is detached, it dies as her arms and bodily organs do if they are detached - because they do not have any inherent life by themselves. But she goes right on exhibiting life if you detach the embryo, because she has inherent life by herself. She has been providing life itself for the embryo because of the biological attachment. But the embryo only has the right to its own body and its own life, if it has any, not to hers.

She is specifically killing the human.

Her arms or legs are not a human.

 

[Steve Ja]

I don't understand why you distinguish between petri dish zygotes and zygotes inside the woman. The only difference between them is that, in the case of petri dish zygotes, the woman has given official legal consent in a document for the formation of the zygote using her ovum, whereas in the case of zygotes inside her, she may have given no permission for the sex act, or she may have used contraception specifically to prevent zygote formation using her ovum, or she may have given unofficial, non-legal consent for the zygote formation. You really seem to have something against the woman's consent and seem to desire to support only zygotes that the woman does not consent to. You have a problem.

I can live with myself and my standings on issues.
Also you misrepresent me and my views, but that's OK. you are not the first and wont be the last to do so. If we can focus on the issues and not the people behind them, I think we'd get along great. Yes I likened abortion to actual murder, it is the same to me. Other then that I have made no attack on you, or try to say you have a problem, or are somehow mentally unstable. I also do not say you are against human rights, as I've been accused of. I also do not try to say that you are somehow against the human race continuing, because you support abortion. that'd be as misleading as saying I have a problem simply because those embryos/fetuses/zygotes/babies/ whatever you wanna call them depending on stage deserve a chance to live like you and I.
I guess you are right though there really is no difference between a dish embryo and a womb one in reality, as long as the dish embryo is used to impregnate and not later killed.

 

[sangha]

She is specifically killing the human.

No, it is specifically ending a pregnancy

Her arms or legs are not a human.

Robotic?

 

[scatt]

No, it is specifically ending a pregnancy

Robotic?

And killing.

Not a human does not mean robotic.

 

[AGENT J]

She is specifically killing the human.

factually wrong proven by links, laws and the actual definitions of words

 

[AGENT J]

And killing.

.

no matter how many times you repeat this lie it will never be true it will just continue to get destroyed by facts and multiple posters

if you disagree simply provide any facts you have that support you lie

 

[sangha]

I can live with myself and my standings on issues.
Also you misrepresent me and my views, but that's OK. you are not the first and wont be the last to do so. If we can focus on the issues and not the people behind them, I think we'd get along great. Yes I likened abortion to actual murder, it is the same to me. Other then that I have made no attack on you, or try to say you have a problem, or are somehow mentally unstable. I also do not say you are against human rights, as I've been accused of. I also do not try to say that you are somehow against the human race continuing, because you support abortion. that'd be as misleading as saying I have a problem simply because those embryos/fetuses/zygotes/babies/ whatever you wanna call them depending on stage deserve a chance to live like you and I.
I guess you are right though there really is no difference between a dish embryo and a womb one in reality, as long as the dish embryo is used to impregnate and not later killed.

There was nothing factually inaccurate about what choiceone said. The fact is that you have not presented a position that is intellectually consistent, or even morally consistent. Instead, you have merely asserted the rightousness of your beliefs with nothing to support them besides how you feel

And there was no personal attack or accusation of mental instability. It was merely pointed out that your argument about how the unborn have rights seems to crumble when it comes to your approval of their permanent imprisonment in freezers. For some unexplained reason, you're OK with that.

 

[sangha]

And killing.

Factually incorrect.

Not a human does not mean robotic.

Avian?

 

[scatt]

Factually

Avian?

It is only correct.

Not a human does not mean avian.

 

[Steve Ja]

again you are 100% factually wrong, this is why you run and dodge my posts/questions.

the 100% factual purpose and DEFINITION of abortion is to end PREGNANCY. The life of the ZEF doesnt factor into it
Definitions and facts prove you wrong again

abortions are already preformed on dead ZEFs, why does that happen if according to your lie its just to kill the ZEF, its already dead why is an abortion needed?

also why are there laws in place to protect the ZEF if it is still born alive after the abortion?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2175enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr2175enr.pdf


sorry once again facts destroy your post and prove it wrong and your severe lack of education on this topic and or dishonesty about this topic is greatly exposed

let us know what facts you have to support the lie you keep reposting, we love to read them lol

Great post. Shows good reasons for exceptions to allow abortion, even a pro-life person should be able to accept. The unborn is already dead.

 

[Steve Ja]

It is only correct.

Not a human does not mean avian.

are you saying not a human as in the arm and leg will not create a human being, whereas the fetus is a human being?

 

[scatt]

are you saying not a human as in the arm and leg will not create a human being, whereas the fetus is a human being?

No, I'm saying the leg and arm of a human are simply not humans.