What if life does begin at conception?

A human fetus at conception is human but not a baby.

 

The only thing that makes something not human is a lack of human DNA. How amazing that tumors are human too. But DNA isn't what makes one a human being or a person, human or otherwise.

But the status of being a person or a human being still takes second place to bodily autonomy. And the woman's right of bodily autonomy takes precedence over any possible claim the (insert your favorite label here) has to sustenance from her.

 

The claim of "common sense" is a cop out. What is common sense for one area/group/whatever is different for another area/group/whatever. There is no such things as universal common sense. And simply noting something as human means just as little. Because it's a human cancer tumor (no not a reference to the ZEF but an actual tumor) do we try to save it, or make someone continue to keep it in their body? For that matter, do we force someone to have a tumor removed? No to both, because of bodily autonomy.

 

it has nothing to do with "bodily autonomy" which is made up nonsense trying to justify killing the unborn baby. Tumors are mutations which attack normal cells in the body. Geez the pretzel you guys try to turn logic into. And yes DNA is make makes us humans and a unique human.

 

Oh well if bodily autonomy is just made up nonsense, and the maintaining of a human alive is the priority, all organs are free game once a person dies, for transplant into others to keep them alive. Heck, since there is no bodily autonomy, we can grab some of the spares like kidneys from living people that are matches. DNR orders? Who cares? Bodily autonomy doesn't exist and keeping a human alive is top priority. Even if we have to attach them to another person as a life support.

As to tumors, since they are mutated, they are not the same as the original, thus they are a unique individual lifeform, being sustained by the body it is inhabiting. The very same way a ZEF operates.

And at no point have I or anyone else on this thread denied anything with human DNA as anything other than human. But there is a difference between being human, and a human being.

 

Life does begin at conception. A fetus is definitely not dead, not non-life. It is biological and living, not dead. But being alive doesn't mean you are a person with rights. Bacteria are technically life because bacteria aren't people and don't have rights.

 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the AGW model.

There is no evidence that a cell, or two cells, or four cells, is a human. There is no evidence for a soul. You might as well argue that we can't take a chance there is no Santa Clause or tooth fairy.

How can a cell be a person? Did you know that most of the dust in your house is from human skin cells? Are those all dead people?

 

Bodily autonomy is "nonsense"? Then you believe slavery should be legal and the richest and most powerful can take organs they need from anyone the choose...???

If they want your organs or want YOU to be a slave how will you feel about that???

 

OK insert "my version of common sense" wherever I use common sense. A ZEF is not a tumor. Killing a fetus has nothing to do with science with logic. Using these things as an argument is the real cop out.

 

And he bogus SLAVERY for lack of a coherient point.

 

An organ is just that, an organ of an organism. It is not the complete organism. To be a human is to be a human being. To be a human being is to be a human. A tumor is a mutated growth of a being, humans are not the only beings that can developed such growths.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Bodily autonomy is "nonsense"? Then you believe slavery should be legal and the richest and most powerful can take organs they need from anyone the choose...???

If they want your organs or want YOU to be a slave how will you feel about that???

I get a kick out of "coherient" …


Why do you think slavery is bogus? Oh, that's right, you can't answer those inconvenient questions

 

using science and logic is a cop out ? ONLY for Anti-Choicers….

 

You used neither science nor logic. Don't patronize yourself.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
using science and logic is a cop out ? ONLY for Anti-Choicers….

YOU are the one who said
fmw said: ↑
OK insert "my version of common sense" wherever I use common sense. A ZEF is not a tumor. Killing a fetus has nothing to do with science with logic. Using these things as an argument is the real cop out."""

NOTICE: Those two comments contradict themselves

NOW show exactly where I didn't use science or logic...….CAN YOU?

 

I repeat, killing a fetus has nothing to do with science or logic. Now you want me to prove a negative. You didn't use science or logic anywhere related to abortion. Feel free to show me where you did.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
using science and logic is a cop out ? ONLY for Anti-Choicers….


fmw said: ↑
You used neither science nor logic. Don't patronize yourself.""""




YOU are the one who said
fmw said: ↑
OK insert "my version of common sense" wherever I use common sense. A ZEF is not a tumor. Killing a fetus has nothing to do with science with logic. Using these things as an argument is the real cop out."""

NOTICE: Those two comments contradict themselves

NOW show exactly where I didn't use science or logic...….CAN YOU?

Then I didn't "cop out" as you claimed

I didn't say I did...that was YOU...

 

the world is overcrouded & full of dimwits, i say impose mandatory abortions for all pregnancies for the next 13 years...

 

The debate has never been is a fertilized egg living or dead cells it's been about when is it a human life but if course you know that and are doing nothing but obfuscation

 

You are avoiding the question in the OP. AGW pushers when faced with the fact that they can't conclusively prove the AGW hypothesis fall back on the what if it's true, can we afford to take the chance argument. I'm merely asking if those same people feel the same way about life beginning at conception? What if it's true, can we afford to take the chance? So far everyone including you evades, obfuscate and avoids an honest yes or no answer to a simple but apparently uncomfortable question.

 

Because there is no slavery involved.

 

If something is a living cell, then it is life. Either it is life or it is non-life, there is no in-between. It really that simple. Rocks, dirty, and air are non-living and non-life. Bacteria, humans, ants, and red blood cells are living and life.

So it is human? Yes. It has human DNA and a product of a human body. so it is also human. All life belongs to at least once species, and there is no life that belongs to no species. Out of all the species, the human species is a genetic match.

So a fertilized egg just like a red blood cell is both life and human, therefore they are human life. However, that doesn't mean they are people, individuals, and have rights.

 

That's a legal construct, rights, not a medical or scientific fact. A person is an individual human being. That begins at conception.

 

So answer the question in the OP. What if you are wrong and they are people, individuals, and have rights. Can we afford to take that chance? It's a yes or no question.
If no then you have to come out against abortion from the day of conception.
If yes then you have to throw out the same argument for AGW that we have to act as if it's true.
Kind of a dilemma isn't it.

 

Good, tell that to those Anti-Choicers who bring it to the discussion in regard to the fetus.



When they do I remind them that banning abortion is taking away women's right to their own bodies which IS slavery.