[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

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.

You're going to have to move off of this claim, as it is not accurate. A zygote is NOT a human being - in any shape or form. At best it carries the genetic code of a human being, but it is no where near a human being.

It's like buying a blueprint for a house and a bunch of 2x4s and claiming you bought a house. You don't have anything until it is developed, complete, and has actually been inspected and certified for occupancy. In the instance of a zygote there is massive amounts of development to take place before it can be classified as anything. Until their are actual tissues and support systems that could sustain life on its own, there is no life.

This is why embryonic stem cells are considered the holy grail in bio-engineering as the cells have yet to develop into anything specific and can be used to build almost anything in the human body. The zygote has not yet developed any specific cells or structures that would define a system in a human being, and has definitely not developed the systems that would allow the zygote to survive without the host. It is NOT human in any recognizable way, except that it carries genetic code capable of developing a human.

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.

Well, you keep running away from the fact that fetuses are not recognized by any government or legal authority as a human being, nor afforded protections in any shape or form. The reality is that a "human" does not have rights until it is born and recognized by the legal authority as being an individual. "Rights" are not afforded to that individual until they are cognitively aware of their surroundings and can be determined to be competent to process information and make determinations of right or wrong. A fetus does not meet any standard for the protections afforded humans. The woman carrying the fetus is recognized as a human and has the right of self determination.

I'm trying to get you to land on a space where the ground is solid. You're suggesting that a woman's rights can be infringed upon - by your religious-based belief - for the benefit of a yet to be determined legal entity. There is no support for this anywhere.

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?

This is directly related to your definition of "life." Your claim of cells carrying unique DNA makes it a unique individual and worthy of protection, even at the stage where it is just a glop of cells and has no resemblance to a human being. So if you take that stance you must also defend that any live cells that carry human DNA must also be worthy of protection, allowing them to develop and mature into what they are. This is part of this debate that is so frustrating because the pro-life side will go to incredible lengths to define life, but when you use the same definitions to determine the counter side of the argument, they cry foul.

And there are no guarantees that a zygote is going to develop into a fully functional human being. As has been mentioned numerous times, 66% of zygotes never implant or spontaneously abort. Again, I would really like to find some solid ground in the definition of what human life is, because your definition does not hold water.

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.

I'm all about protecting human life, but I tend to protect the living and breathing over everything else. This is actually what the laws do, and they do a good job at protecting our rights and liberty. They allow for self determination and don't allow for small minority collectives to force their views on the majority. That is democracy in action and we need to protect that so we will maintain our rights and not allow the fringe to rule.

Well at least you acknowledge the life in the womb is a body.

Definition time.

Body: the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1) architecture : the nave of a church
(2) : the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile

a mass of matter distinct from other masses or an organizational until to define a collection.

Not what you think I said.

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?

That's actually not my stance. My stance is that we need a definition of when a fetus becomes a viable self-sustaining entity. We need science to determine what that date is, and do so off of scientific evidence. I firmly believe that for a fetus to become a person they must be able to sustain their primary bodily functions on their own, without the aid of technological assistance. The "baby" needs to be free from the umbilical and be able to breath on its own.

Why is it important that the "baby" be able to do this without technological assistance? Because this establishes an imbalance between the haves and the have-nots. Those with money will be able to pay for such sustenance and provide yet another imbalance in society.

My stance is that a fetus becomes a "baby" when they have reached the stage of development where they have a better than 80% chance of survival once detached from the umbilical. Based on research, that is at about 26 weeks.

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.

Reject away. Just like I will reject your claims of scientific agreement on your terms. Science does not agree with that. You continue to make that claim, but that is why science refers to the fetus in specific terms and in specific developmental periods. It is important to recognize that the arguments are stacked up against your perspective. Science has a very different view of what you're presenting. The law has a very different perspective on things. These are the things we should be using as a basis for our discussion rather than dismissing because your religious doctrine says something else.

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.

It is clearly an attempt to show that there are those with more skin in the game, and that people should not have a say or influence in areas where they have no stake. Women deserve to have the say of what happens over their bodies, and men should take a back seat in this discussion. We can be that back seat driver, but the skin we have in the game is so limited that it is unfair that our voices dominate a discussion about a decision that we as men will never have to truly wrestle with. I too love the discussion, but we men should allow the women to be the decision makers here. It affects them a lot more than it will ever affect us.