[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

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.

Emphasis added for emphasis. It is not a human being. It is a glop of cells that may or may not develop into something. Again, 66% of fertilizations - that moment you are referring to as "conception" - never implant or just spontaneously abort.

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?

So all laws and declarations mean nothing unless YOU accept them? Is that your stance?

The ability to comprehend your place in your environment is pretty much a requirement for the granting of individual rights. Without that awareness an individual is not mentally competent to make decisions or be held accountable in the eyes of the law. The individual's rights are then protected or controlled by those of a benefactor. There is a reason why children cannot be prosecuted for certain crimes, nor granted rights of an adult - even when emancipated. So if a child does not have full rights, why should a glop of cells that has neither human form or the capacity to be aware of one's environment get that right and supersede the rights of the mother?

To deny rights to the unborn merely because they have yet to fully develop (lacking your requisite characteristics) is simply age discrimination.

This is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, this is a new level of ridiculousness.

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.

Because the zygote is an incomplete clump of cells that is NOT human. Just because it has the encoding does not mean it is going to develop. Every one of our cells has our DNA encoding, but we don't determine all clumps of cells to be human.

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.

Cancer cells have our entire encoding in them, but with a genetic mutation that creates an aggressive variation. The cells are our own, and have a variation in the code. This makes them unique. By your own rules, stated multiple times, that the unique encoding makes those cells a new unique entity and worthy of our protection. By your rules cancers should have the full weight of protection under the law and we should grant them personhood.

Again, your own words - a unique individual with unique DNA - says that we must protect this life as well, because these cells are live and are unique. Development is irrelevant. You've stated as much by saying that life begins at conception and completely ignoring the fact that 66% of fertilizations do not implant and will never develop. Your stance is that we have to afford human rights to a glop of cells at that moment because it met a certain standard which was "life" and "uniqueness." Cancers are live cells, have unique encoding, and will continue to divide, grown, and develop. Your rules, not mine.

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

There we go. It has now come down to a moral argument. It is you enforcing your morality on others and demanding that they abide by what you believe! As I said earlier, this issue is not about children or human life, it's about a perception of morality and wanting to establish a moral standard that can be forced on everyone.

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.

Again, whose morality do we have to follow? Why does it have to be yours? What makes you so morally superior that we should all just follow your lead? What makes your imperfect moral views such that they should be enforced on everyone? How about we set a standard where people can hold a variety of moral views and from that we establish a baseline which everyone will be expected to meet or exceed? Doesn't that make more sense? That was everyone can exercise that "god given" ability of free choice, and then let the chips of our eternal damnation fall where they may when we meet our maker - or become worm food, for us people who don't believe in stupid #### like a supreme being? Wouldn't that be more reasonable? The morality of one individual, or even one group, should never supersede that of the majority of 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.

A body within a body where the parasitic body requires sustenance from the host for its survival. This is the part that is lost on the pro-lifers. This is something growing inside someone else, and YOU have no right to tell someone what they can, or cannot, do with their body. PERIOD! Maybe we can start a movement to protect those live cancer cells and prevent the pro-lifers from doing anything that could possibly harm them? Would that make sense? You can't destroy that life because, well, its life! I don't care that the cancer will ultimately kill you, because I'm protecting innocent life.

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.

No, not really. If women can't have control over their bodies, what is the next logical step? You are demanding that women lose control over the most personal of things to them, and that is pretty scary to me. I find some things that people do to themselves as abhorrent, but I would never deprive them the right to do something to themselves of their choosing. I'm not a fan self-mutilation, but it is not my place to say that it is wrong for that person, or make it illegal.

Why is it that people can't keep their nose out of other people's private business? If your next door neighbor got knocked up and elected to have an abortion, would it impact your life? If she never told you, you wouldn't know, and it would have ZERO impact on your life. So why do you care? This is why fences make good neighbors. You keep your ####ed up morality away from my life, and I'll keep my ####ed up morality away from your life. We can still have beers and barbeques as good neighbors, but stay the hell out of my bedroom, my finances, my medical concerns, and my spirituality. If you don't like my morality than I can guarantee you I sure as hell won't like yours either. So keep that crap to yourself and let people live their lives as they see fit.