Two Questions for Pro Lifers

[prometeus]

There are opinions and then there are FACTS and the facts disagree with you:

KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)

SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)

MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)

DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

These are medical textbooks, and on the pages that I have listed for you, they all (as does damned near every medical textbook on the subject) state quite clearly that "Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception."

This isn't me just arguing my position, these are actual textbooks. Pardon me, but I believe a medical textbook carries more weight than your silly opinions.

So now that you have been shown scientific evidence and proof that you are wrong, will you change your position?

or will you hold on to your false beliefs?

It is quite clear that you are unable to distinguish between what something is and what a beginning is.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'm surprised that you fail to see the inconsistency. If the unborn has no right to life HOW can someone be prosecuted for taking it's life?

If you should be anything...being surprised isn't it.

 

[choiceone]

I don't think anyone here believe she that it shouldn't. The bone of contention, rather, is what it means to be a human being, ethically, legally, and biologically. On these points, clearly, there is a substantial difference of opinion.

While it seems to be that way, I don't think it really is.


Suppose a person, say, of twenty years of age, had the capacity to enter my uterus and attach biologically to the endometrium and shut down part of my immune system and take oxygen and nutrients out of my blood and put toxic waste in it, and that person, once there, could not continue living if removed before, say, six months were up. That person could be completely conscious, though legally insane and thus unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Do you think the government would recognize that person's right to stay inside my uterus and do those things for even two minutes against my consciously expressed will? Of course not!

 

[choiceone]

There are opinions and then there are FACTS and the facts disagree with you:

KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)

SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)

MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)

DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

These are medical textbooks, and on the pages that I have listed for you, they all (as does damned near every medical textbook on the subject) state quite clearly that "Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception."

This isn't me just arguing my position, these are actual textbooks. Pardon me, but I believe a medical textbook carries more weight than your silly opinions.

So now that you have been shown scientific evidence and proof that you are wrong, will you change your position?

or will you hold on to your false beliefs?

Please go to the following website and see the section on Current Scientific Views of when human life begins, which is about halfway down the site document, after the section on Historical Views.
http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

There, you will find a review of five different current scientific views - metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecology. All are equally biological views and they all disagree.

There are also other points against this position. Not all zygotes are capable of developing even into embryos, much less surviving members of the human species outside the bodies of the women pregnant with them. Anywhere from 50-75% of zygotes/blastocysts die before implantation in the woman, and anywhere from 15-20% of implanted embryos of which the pregnant women are aware are spontaneously aborted, so that there is probably a rate of at least 20-25% spontaneous abortion for implanted embryos.

Furthermore, a blastocyst can divide into four and from each of the four an embryo can develop, and again that a blastocyst that implants results in both a placenta and an embryo. Again, an embryo may go through histogenesis and organogenesis, yet it may prove not to reach viability.

Sorry, but as long as the embryo lives parasitically in the woman's body and cannot live independently of that body, it is part of her body and her life. If you want it to be treated as separate, you'll have to detach and remove it. Oh, wait, that's what abortion does.

 

[choiceone]

Why does the state have laws that charge men with the unlawful death of a fetus if a fetus has no right to life?

I'm just trying to see the consistency. If that's the case why not charge men with the unlawful death of an ant or a bug?

The woman has a right to choose to continue a pregnancy, so someone who injures her and by that means causes the death of a fetus does so without her consent and without having the right to perform a medical or surgical abortion for medical reasons in the absence of her capacity to give or withhold consent.

If the woman had no right to choose to continue a pregnancy, it would be different.

 

[NGNM85]

While it seems to be that way, I don't think it really is.


Suppose a person, say, of twenty years of age, had the capacity to enter my uterus and attach biologically to the endometrium and shut down part of my immune system and take oxygen and nutrients out of my blood and put toxic waste in it, and that person, once there, could not continue living if removed before, say, six months were up. That person could be completely conscious, though legally insane and thus unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Do you think the government would recognize that person's right to stay inside my uterus and do those things for even two minutes against my consciously expressed will? Of course not!

Granted. However, I never argued otherwise. This hypothetical is just a riff on Thomson's; 'violinist' allegory. Like Thomson, I agree that one cannot be rightfully forcibly compelled to sustain another. However, again, like Thomson, I would argue that your right to bodily autonomy only entitles you to pull the plug, if you, then, proceed to smother the violinist with a pillow, that crosses a line, that isn't acceptable. However, this rests entirely on, among other things, how we define what it means to be a human being. That's why I don't consider abortions prior to about 28 weeks or so, (something like 99%) to be a moral issue, at all, because, as far as I'm concerned, prior to this, prior to the development of the neural architecture to support higher brain function, it's just tissue, just biomatter.

 

[Fedor50]

Please go to the following website and see the section on Current Scientific Views of when human life begins, which is about halfway down the site document, after the section on Historical Views.
http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

There, you will find a review of five different current scientific views - metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecology. All are equally biological views and they all disagree.

There are also other points against this position. Not all zygotes are capable of developing even into embryos, much less surviving members of the human species outside the bodies of the women pregnant with them. Anywhere from 50-75% of zygotes/blastocysts die before implantation in the woman, and anywhere from 15-20% of implanted embryos of which the pregnant women are aware are spontaneously aborted, so that there is probably a rate of at least 20-25% spontaneous abortion for implanted embryos.

Furthermore, a blastocyst can divide into four and from each of the four an embryo can develop, and again that a blastocyst that implants results in both a placenta and an embryo. Again, an embryo may go through histogenesis and organogenesis, yet it may prove not to reach viability.

Sorry, but as long as the embryo lives parasitically in the woman's body and cannot live independently of that body, it is part of her body and her life. If you want it to be treated as separate, you'll have to detach and remove it. Oh, wait, that's what abortion does.

I will believe what scientific medical textbooks say over what an unknown website says. Do you have any scientific textbooks to back up your claim that a fetus is not a human being?

 

[minnie616]

When does human life begin?


Does it begin when a human egg is fertilized?
Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide?
Does it begin when it implants ?
Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?
Does it begin when a fetus becomes consious?
Does it begin at Birth?
Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Here are Four Different Perspectives of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
Ecology view ...

Read more:

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/B...fe begin.pdf


The Neurological view actually makes the most sense to me.
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

I also find it very interesting that a fetuses brain activity takes place about 26 to 29 weeks gestation and the fetus becomes viable around 24 weeks gestation.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks and has not changed in the last 12 years.

I think the Surpreme Court was very wise back in 1973 when they set viability as the time states could take a compelling interest in the "potential person" and NOT before.

 

[choiceone]

Granted. However, I never argued otherwise. This hypothetical is just a riff on Thomson's; 'violinist' allegory. Like Thomson, I agree that one cannot be rightfully forcibly compelled to sustain another. However, again, like Thomson, I would argue that your right to bodily autonomy only entitles you to pull the plug, if you, then, proceed to smother the violinist with a pillow, that crosses a line, that isn't acceptable. However, this rests entirely on, among other things, how we define what it means to be a human being. That's why I don't consider abortions prior to about 28 weeks or so, (something like 99%) to be a moral issue, at all, because, as far as I'm concerned, prior to this, prior to the development of the neural architecture to support higher brain function, it's just tissue, just biomatter.

Understood. Actually, I see the moral issue point to be 50/50 viability outside the woman's body, so I basically agree with the Planned Parenthood v Casey view, since 50/50 viability was shifted from 28 to 24 weeks.

After that point, the issue is whether abortion, induced labor, or a caesarian is safer for the woman, because the fetus is still inside and biologically dependent on her and she is already an actual person, whereas the fetus could be one only if removed. But I am not against state laws banning abortion from that point as long as they make exceptions for medically diagnosed threats to the woman's life and major health functions. The woman has had lots of time to decide to end a pregnancy before that.

 

[choiceone]

I will believe what scientific medical textbooks say over what an unknown website says. Do you have any scientific textbooks to back up your claim that a fetus is not a human being?

I will never attend to what medicine says. The issues involved are not medical but biological. It is what the biological sciences say that counts, because medicine does not exist as a truly independent science at all - it is merely a set of specialized sciences of applied biology.

And the biological sciences do not in fact agree on one view of when human life begins, because that depends on how one defines "human life."

If, by "human life," one means "the individual life and body of the individual member of Homo s. sapiens," there is still no one point. The genetic view is that DNA is the start.

However, the blastocyst can split into twins or even quadruplets several days after fertilization, and each twin or quadruplet will constitute the potential for a separate future human body.

Furthermore, without implantation into the body of the woman, there is no development of differentiated bodily systems and organs, and for some biologists, such a morphology or development of recognizable phenotype is necessary to one's definition of an individual member of the species.

Again, those in neurological biology argue for different points in fetal development marking the beginning of the distinctive morphology or phenotype of the individual's human neurology.

Finally, no one believes that a human parasitic twin contained in and attached to and supported wholly by a human host twin is a human being. This is related in part to the ecological biological argument that what is necessary for the beginning of an individual life and body of a member of the human species is the capacity to live in a biologically non-parasitic mode.

You are free to prefer the genetic view, and I am free to prefer the ecological biological view.

Medicine is NOT biology. It is NOT a major fundamental biological science or a set of such sciences. It is merely a set of applied sciences that depends on the fundamental non-applied biological sciences for all of the theory and method that qualifies it to be a science at all. Is is merely derivative. In that sense, it is a little bit like a non-viable fetus itself.

 

[NGNM85]

Understood. Actually, I see the moral issue point to be 50/50 viability outside the woman's body, so I basically agree with the Planned Parenthood v Casey view, since 50/50 viability was shifted from 28 to 24 weeks.

After that point, the issue is whether abortion, induced labor, or a caesarian is safer for the woman, because the fetus is still inside and biologically dependent on her and she is already an actual person, whereas the fetus could be one only if removed. But I am not against state laws banning abortion from that point as long as they make exceptions for medically diagnosed threats to the woman's life and major health functions. The woman has had lots of time to decide to end a pregnancy before that.

Alright. So, while we approach the matter from substantially different philosophical vantage points, there is, essentially, no disagreement as to what should be done.

 

[nota bene]

Medicine is NOT biology. It is NOT a major fundamental biological science or a set of such sciences. It is merely a set of applied sciences that depends on the fundamental non-applied biological sciences for all of the theory and method that qualifies it to be a science at all. Is is merely derivative. In that sense, it is a little bit like a non-viable fetus itself.

Oh, it's "derivative"? Really. Which came first, the practice of medicine or the study of biology?

From Wiki:

The history of biology traces the study of the living world from ancient to modern times. Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history reaching back to ayurveda, ancient Egyptian medicine and the works of Aristotle and Galen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This ancient work was further developed in the Middle Ages by Muslim physicians and scholars such as Avicenna. During the European Renaissance and early modern period, biological thought was revolutionized in Europe by a renewed interest in empiricism and the discovery of many novel organisms. History of biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Why does the state have laws that charge men with the unlawful death of a fetus if a fetus has no right to life?

This is only in your country. When debating someone from Canada like me for example on abortion where there are no charges pressed, this claim wouldn't work.

 

[choiceone]

Oh, it's "derivative"? Really. Which came first, the practice of medicine or the study of biology?

From Wiki:

The history of biology traces the study of the living world from ancient to modern times. Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history reaching back to ayurveda, ancient Egyptian medicine and the works of Aristotle and Galen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This ancient work was further developed in the Middle Ages by Muslim physicians and scholars such as Avicenna. During the European Renaissance and early modern period, biological thought was revolutionized in Europe by a renewed interest in empiricism and the discovery of many novel organisms. History of biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobody is refusing to say that the premodern study of living things and medicine were intertwined. But the only reason contemporary western medical science has the respect, money, and power it has today is because it is recognized as having a body of theory, research method, and applied practice that can be wholly based on the more neutral contemporary biological sciences.

Before medical science could be based that way, medical specialists actually had a considerably lower success rate and lower status and authority.

Of course, those forms of medicine which did not modify themselves so that they could be based wholly on the contemporary biological sciences are different, including ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine. Their most respected practitioners have not obtained their reputations and authority through their relation to the contemporary biological sciences.

Chinese medicine is a Chinese traditional science/art based on Chinese cultural traditions. It hasn't changed its theory, research method, or applied practice to obtain a basis in the contemporary biological sciences. It still employs the traditional Chinese medical paradigm for study, research development, and application. It doesn't owe contemporary biological sciences or any western science credit for any of its success.

But it's worth noting that contemporary forensic sciences, including forensic medicine, can be wholly based on contemporary biological sciences, which confer the authority on which medicine can be used for forensic purposes.

 

[Ikari]

Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

No, you're on different sides of the slope; it's potential that matters. Any person who has been born and lives has a brain that has developed and is working properly. Massive damage causing the ceasing of operation of the brain at that point means death. Once the brain is gone, the person is no longer really human. If left to the natural course, that person dies and that's it. The unborn is on the other side, it's potential is still growing. The organism may not have a brain yet, but it's moving towards its development. Left to its own devices, nature taking its course, it can and does develop its brain and become born as a recognized person.

So really brain death is more a mark of potential than some arbitrary line. Biological potential, biological viability should also be a consideration. In many cases it could be the main consideration as to the "personhood" of some human (such as the case of brain death).

 

[minnie616]

...
So really brain death is more a mark of potential than some arbitrary line. Biological potential, biological viability should also be a consideration. In many cases it could be the main consideration as to the "personhood" of some human (such as the case of brain death).

I do take both biological viability and measurable brain activity into consideration.

See the rest of my quote where I state the Supreme Court was very wise when they ruled that states could take a compelling interest in potentialoy of life at viabitiy.

By me...minnie616


When does human life begin?....

The Neurological view actually makes the most sense to me.
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

I also find it very interesting that a fetuses brain activity takes place about 26 to 29 weeks gestation and the fetus becomes viable around 24 weeks gestation.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks and has not changed in the last 12 years.

I think the Surpreme Court was very wise back in 1973 when they set viability as the time states could take a compelling interest in the "potential person" and NOT before.

 

[Ikari]

I do take both biological viability and measurable brain activity into coincide ration.

See the rest of my quote where I state the Supreme Court was very wise when they ruled that states could take a compelling interest in potentialoy of life at viabitiy.

By me...minnie616


When does human life begin?....

The Neurological view actually makes the most sense to me.
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

I also find it very interesting that a fetuses brain activity takes place about 26 to 29 weeks gestation and the fetus becomes viable around 24 weeks gestation.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks and has not changed in the last 12 years.

I think the Surpreme Court was very wise back in 1973 when they set viability as the time states could take a compelling interest in the "potential person" and NOT before.

Since biology is about the evolution of organisms and the natural processes contained within, I think potential is the better biological marker. Left to its own devices, what will happen?

 

[minnie616]

Since biology is about the evolution of organisms and the natural processes contained within, I think potential is the better biological marker...

I do not agree that potential is a better marker since the process requires the woman's life forces in order for the process to complete.

If a pregnant woman dies a pre viable fetus will not survive even if removed quickly and given medical aid such as an infant CPAP and / or a neo natal unit. It is dependent on the bio moms life's forces.

If a pregnant woman with a viable fetus dies , it has a good chance of surviving if it is removed quickly and given medical aid if needed such as an infant CPAP and / or a neo natal unit.

A nurse, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive parent, a foster parent , or another caretaker can feed and take of the premie/ infant.

 

[minnie616]

And from the following article:

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors. A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman. As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role.
Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

Read more :

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English

 

[choiceone]

I will believe what scientific medical textbooks say over what an unknown website says. Do you have any scientific textbooks to back up your claim that a fetus is not a human being?

The website you got is an edu site of a college - that's not an "unknown website."

I haven't worked on scientific textbook collection but on noting relevant publications by specialists in different biological sciences. The site to which I linked provides references to such publications in the sub-sections related to particular scientific views.

For me, though, the issue is that I've read comments by biologists to the effect that the human unborn, or the non-viable human unborn, or etc., etc., aren't yet members of Homo s. sapiens or don't have human life yet because the development necessary to produce the latter is not finished yet. I referred you to the link I did because you can find references in it.

 

[choiceone]

No, you're on different sides of the slope; it's potential that matters. Any person who has been born and lives has a brain that has developed and is working properly. Massive damage causing the ceasing of operation of the brain at that point means death. Once the brain is gone, the person is no longer really human. If left to the natural course, that person dies and that's it. The unborn is on the other side, it's potential is still growing. The organism may not have a brain yet, but it's moving towards its development. Left to its own devices, nature taking its course, it can and does develop its brain and become born as a recognized person.

So really brain death is more a mark of potential than some arbitrary line. Biological potential, biological viability should also be a consideration. In many cases it could be the main consideration as to the "personhood" of some human (such as the case of brain death).

Potential doesn't deserve rights. Demonstrated qualities of personhood qualify one to be defined as a person. A born neonate has demonstated the minimal qualities if it's alive and isn't having that demonstrated by some other person's body.

 

[choiceone]

And from the following article:


Read more :

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English

Minnie, thank you for this link.

 

[nota bene]

The website you got is an edu site of a college - that's not an "unknown website."

I haven't worked on scientific textbook collection but on noting relevant publications by specialists in different biological sciences. The site to which I linked provides references to such publications in the sub-sections related to particular scientific views.

For me, though, the issue is that I've read comments by biologists to the effect that the human unborn, or the non-viable human unborn, or etc., etc., aren't yet members of Homo s. sapiens or don't have human life yet because the development necessary to produce the latter is not finished yet. I referred you to the link I did because you can find references in it.

Yes, let's talk about those references, which can be found on pages 17-18. Unfortunately, page 19 isn't provided in the pdf, which is, of course, problematic. For example, the only reference cited in the "Genetic View," Shannon and Wolter, 1990, referred to by the author as "Catholic scholars," isn't available (but I'm going to guess that it's "Reflections On the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo" in Theological Studies).

The quality of the references is also sometimes dubious, and the publication dates are often very stale.

The fatal flaw, however, is that there is an inaccurate/incomplete match-up between in-text citations and references, which tells anybody EVERYTHING that needs to be known about the quality of the scholarship.

And so I won't mention the lack of editing or the quote-stringing or the carelessly inconsistent bibliographic format.

I was very curious that the author of your link is "biodev.com." Very scholarly, LOL, so I Googled. My bet is that one of Dr. Gilbert's grad students wrote this. He shouldn't have signed off. :3oops:

But for those who are curious about Dr. Scott F. Gilbert ("devbio.com"), here's a bio: Scott Gilbert :: Biology :: Swarthmore College

Here's another: "Dr. Gilbert continues to write both in developmental biology and in the history and philosophy of biology, and he has recently claimed to have identified the bone from which Eve was created." Biography: Scott Gilbert

At the Swarthmore link there was a link to a lecture to the American Reproductive Health Professional Society in 2010, "When Does Personhood Begin?" It's over 27 minutes long, but you'll figure out what the agenda is in the first 2. I listened to over 11 minutes before I became bored. When Does Personhood Begin? :: News & Events :: Swarthmore College

This is a legal construct rather than a biological/embryological one. Why should "devbio.com's" opinion be of any particular value?

I hope that everybody reading this thread will spend, oh, 3 minutes including scrolling just taking a little look-see at those references.

:lamo

 

[Ikari]

Potential doesn't deserve rights. Demonstrated qualities of personhood qualify one to be defined as a person. A born neonate has demonstated the minimal qualities if it's alive and isn't having that demonstrated by some other person's body.

Personhood is a bit floppy and can be used under many various arguments to excuse abhorred action against other humans. In fact, historically that's pretty much been the purpose. Human life is human life. Ending it for nothing more than convienence sake is selfish and an innate act of violence against human life.

 

[prometeus]

Personhood is a bit floppy and can be used under many various arguments to excuse abhorred action against other humans.

You mean like religion, race, economic standing, political position, ethnicity, sexuality, gender and the list goes on and on? Your point?

Human life is human life.

Yea, isn't that funny how we did not figure out yet how to make horses from dogs and so on. Biology can be stubborn like that.

Ending it for nothing more than convienence sake is selfish and an innate act of violence against human life.

Is it? Can you name a single reason for which we as humans did not kill other humans? So, what makes fetal life so significant for you?