[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by GGG

[1]What should be done with left over IVF embryos?

[2]Should we have funerals for the half of embryos that don’t implant?

[3]Is miscarriage the leading cause of death among humans and therefore preventing miscarriages should be the largest health priority.

[4]Should life insurance benefits be extended to fetus?

[5]Should pregnant women be let out of prison because you are unlawfully detaining the fetus.

[6]Why aren’t sperm and egg considered life. Aren’t these cells with the spilt strands the point where cells become different from the host.

1. They should be treated as any other human remains.
2. If the parents desire so, I don't see why not. I've heard of many couples who've gone through miscarriages and have had a service or some sort of way of grieving their lost child.
3. For the 3rd time in this thread, my issue with abortion stems from the deliberate and intentional ending of a human being's life.
4. Given that the intention of life insurance is to provide financial assistance to the insuree's dependents I'm not sure how that would apply since the fetus would have no dependents.
5. I don't understand this question. Are you assuming that I support imprisoning women who get an abortion because I never stated that.
6. Gametes contain human genetic material. However, without fertilization, there's isn't a new individual human being that has been created.

Originally Posted by New Era

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 zygote is a human being, biologically speaking, just at very early development. For the 4th time in this thread, my issue with abortion is intentional ending of life and not natural miscarriage.

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?

Cathy Newman, is that you? Never did I say that laws mean nothing to me unless I accept them. Am I not allowed to express disagreement with an aspect of some philosophical view or approach that informs some laws? This is a democracy after all. My philosophical approach to human rights is that all individual human beings deserve the right to life, the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. I accept that you reject the fetus to be a human life. I respect that. But I believe pro-lifers and others have a valid biological claim to argue otherwise which is why we'll continue to defend that view in the public conversation.

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.

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.

The comparison of the zygote to cancer cells is so disingenuous let alone disgusting. If you allow cancer cells to grow, a fully developed human is not going to suddenly emerge in the body of the patient at some point. Why is it that women who are expecting and are happy about it never compare the life in their womb to just a bunch of cancer cells or glops of cells? Yet, when the baby is unwanted they'll use euphemisms to disguise the reality of what the life really is?

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.

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.

Frame and misrepresent the pro-life view any way you like. For many in the pro-life cause it is about protecting human lives. Just as I see nothing wrong with you arguing your view of morality in the public space, I see nothing wrong with pro-lifers doing the same. Democracy. Isn't it beautiful? The laws are currently the way they are and I respect that. Doesn't mean I cant disagree and push for changes. Myself and others who care deeply about the pro-life cause will do everything within the bounds of law and public discourse to protect ALL human lives. I expect no less from those who disagree with us, or about any other issue, to do the same.

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.

Well at least you acknowledge the life in the womb is a body. Regardless of the body's dependence on the mother, I still don't see that as an argument to terminate its life. Both ought to be protected. With your logic, is it fair to say that you support abortion right up to just before birth?

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.

Again, your view makes sense if the life in the womb is not a human being. However, pro-lifers reject that view and the science would agree too. Argue viability, lack of development or use any euphemism to try and downplay... fine. Doesn't change the fact that it's a human being.

As for your end rant, it's hard not to take as anything else but an attempt to shut down debate on this issue. Not to mention that it does nothing to address the actual arguments. I never understand how people expressing alternative views is taken as some kind of aggressive attack on liberty. There's tons of things I disagree with but all the power to people who make those views known. In fact, I love to hear it. It keeps us from being complacent. It allows us to be engaged. Moreover, I don't know everything and I can probably bet that neither does anyone else... so we should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. Lastly, it's the sign of a great democracy to have all these views.