[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Hahaha no there isn't.

What kind of bull#### is this?

This has been taught in medical textbooks for many years. A new human life, a unique individual with unique DNA, begins at conception. Biologically speaking, this is not controversial. Now, if you're talking about viability, legal recognition of persons then I'd acknowledge the disagreement. Why is that the IVF specialist first attempts to create conception under lab conditions--it's the starting point of an new individual.

Originally Posted by New Era

This is good. This gives us a starting point for discussion. You wish to approach this from the human rights perspective, so let's look at the human rights perspective and what is considered the most comprehensive statement on human rights in history - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Two important things there. Humans are born. This entails the action of live birth. Until such time, the embryo is part of the host, or the mother and all rights belong to her. Second part is the component of reason and conscience. Humans do not have these faculties at birth and develop these capacities later on in their cognitive development. So there is some ambiguity here as to when a human being achieves some individual rights. I believe that human being is not a person until they have the faculties to make decisions on their own and are responsible for those actions. But looking at the declaration, human rights are not bestowed until the very earliest point of when an individual is born.

The Universal Declaration is itself a highly political statement with its own philosophical views and premises. It's arguments are fine if you accepts its premises. Obviously many people do. But part of the abortion debate precisely questions such. I and many other pro-lifers espouse a view of human rights that extend beyond the born to also include the life of the pre-born. You've suggest faculties, decision making and responsibilities as the pre-requisites for a human being to be given rights. The problem is, such requirements might not even even qualify one who is born. What about a person with a disability who lacks certain faculties and lack certain capabilities to make adequate decisions or take responsibility? To deny rights to the unborn merely because they have yet to fully develop (lacking your requisite characteristics) is simply age discrimination.

While this is wrong, it is at least another point of discussion. "Life" begins at conception. What that life is is wide open for discussion. In the early stages of development the zygote is not yet distinguishable from a lot of species at the same point. It is a lump of goo that has some coding in the cells. Yes, the blueprints to a human being are there, but blueprints do not make a pile of lumber of home. There are months of development to go before the components begin to look like something resembling the blueprint, let alone it being a sustainable entity.

I never understand this view. How can the life be anything but human? The gametes from the parents are human. Therefore, the zygote would have to be human. It's not as if the zygote is going to grow into a horse. As for "blue prints," the zygote is simply a human individual at its earliest developmental stages. Sure, it has yet to develop your requisite characteristics but again, please see previous argument.

Interestingly enough, cancer cells also meet this same standard. They have unique encoding too, so by your standard we should not be allowed to excise those cells and allow them to grow to the point where they kill the patient? Cancer cells are live cells and have the same rights by the standard you have set forth. No?

False equivalency. Cancer cells do not have the encoding of a unique individual human being. It is impossible for a cancer cell to eventually grow into an adult one day. They are simply cancer cells.

Someone didn't pass their Human Sexuality class! Conception does not take place in the "womb" or what is more commonly refereed to as the uterus. Fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tubes and the zygote must then travel to the uterus where implantation takes place. Considering that 66% of embryos do not develop properly and spontaneously abort, it nukes the idea of "if undisturbed."

Again, I'm not concerned with natural miscarriage but deliberate acts to kill the human life in the womb.

There is nothing to support your claim though. This is a philosophical argument more so than a pragmatic one. Science does not support your claim. US and Canadian law does not support your claim. International law does not support your claim, and neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suspect you are making your claims on a theological belief more so than anything else, because it is a based on a "belief" more so than any fact.

The perspective of human rights that protects the life of all human individuals is philosophical, yes. But so are many moral arguments in general. As an aside, the relationship between science and morality is an interesting discussion in and of itself. Regarding the declaration and various laws, it's not inconceivable that such tools are imperfect. It was not long ago that African Americans were considered by law to be 3/5ths of a person. Slave owners often appealed to those laws to make their arguments as well.

I think we can agree on this point. Without the appropriate social safety net in place to assist women with being forced to carry a child to term, and then care for it until adulthood, we have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Not unless you think the Handmaiden's Tale is blueprint for a good and functioning society.

Again, that view is fine if you believe there's only one body involved. From the pro-life view, there's a body within the mother's body that also deserves protection. Comments that allude to the Handmaiden's Tale do a disservice to the pro-choice argument. On one level it attacks the character of pro-lifers as those who are just women haters and does nothing to address the real substance of the arguments. I and many prolifers can sleep well at night knowing that my views have nothing to do at all with some anti-woman conspiracy. I've been involved with pro-life organizations in the past and the vast majority of leadership are women. Secondly, it's a slippery slope to suggest that abortion legislation would result in some anti-woman distopia. Quite a number of steps way beyond abortion would have to happen that it's ridiculous.