When Does Life Begin?

Your point is?

I dont know if I did before, but I'll pose the question now - do you think human life is special, to the extent it must be protected at all times - ie even in a woman's womb? If so, why?

 

If fetus is not a person, then it is a thing, and abortion is a complete non-issue, since there is absolutely no moral problem with killing living things that are not a person (from whatever, even selfish reasons).

 

The trouble with the life-forcers and slavers is that they do not understand the word 'potential', as in 'America is a wonderful country potentially, but the reactionary nutters destroy that potential out of fear, ignorance and spite'.

 

You are assuming that a child exists in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

The term "a developing human life" is so ambuous it hurts the brain.

The zygote can not be said to be "a human" so how can it be "a developing human"

Your second sentence clarifies what you perhaps mean somewhat .. "will develop into a human being" but leaves wiggle room by the insertion of "fully formed".

Meaning that in your initial statement you are claiming that,

1) the zygote is "a developing human" that just not fully formed yet.

(1) would be incorrect because the zygote has not been shown to be "a human" to begin with.

 

This is where equivocation happens in these discussions. The zygote cell is a human life like any other single cell with human genetics. But it most certainly is not its potential, which I would label as human being. It can't be developing and also be what it will develop into at the same time.

So I essentially agree with you, we just need to be so careful about definitions when we confront the anti choice people.

 

No amount of care will elicit honest rational and fact based debate from the wast majority of them. Just look at their posts and it becomes clear that outside emotional appeal, condemnation or misrepresentations, they have nothing.

 

How is that term ambiguous? It is very clear.

Please post a quote from me where I said a zygote was 'a human.' What I said was it was a developing human life. You can't refute that so you try to lie about what I said. Another epic fail.

It is actually sad that some folks need 'wiggle room' so they can rationalize the taking of a developing human life. I'll bet that no matter what is said on the subject, you'd always find 'wiggle room.'

[/quote]

And AGAIN you prevaricate. Honestly, if you have to lie about what I said then isn't there something fundamentally wrong with your POV on this subject?

 

I think the point Giftedone was trying to communicate, or at least how I read his/her post, is that what you refer to as "developing human", everyone else refers to as a zygote. So regardless of what you call it, it's still just a single cell, and you haven't exactly explained to us why we should extend personhood (at the cost of the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman, no less) to this single celled entity aside from asserting its potential. So what. Why does its potential matter RIGHT NOW at the zygote stage?

 

Geesh...Please provide a quote where I said a zygote was a 'developing human'...I said it was a developing human life. If you kill a zygote you are killing that process. Do some of you only read what you WANT to read or something?

Please provide a quote where I said I would extend 'personhood' to a zygote. Please provide a quote where I said the 'bodily autonomy' of a pregnant woman should be compromised.

A potential human life that is killed will never develop into a human being. Can we agree on that? A woman getting an abortion for convenience-sake (because she didn't plan to have a baby and allowed semen into her vagina anyway) is not only killing the life process of a human but is wasting one of her eggs. Many women express deep regret at having an abortion when they are more mature.

 

You're right, I apologize. But you do realize it is a human life like any other single human cell, including a skin cell. It's just classified as a different type of cell (zygote) as a result of it's cell potency.

So your argument is not about extending personhood to the zygote? You have no issue with allowing women the right to choose whether or not to terminate a zygote?

The argument that abortion should be illegal at any and all stages of gestation results in the violation of the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman. If that's not your argument, then I don't know what exactly you're trying to communicate.

But this is NOT an argument for extending personhood to the zygote, right? So what is your point?

 

A skin cell is not a developing human life, a zygote is...no matter what it's 'classified' as.

The right has been granted by SCOTUS. It is the pro-abort propaganda that I disagree with and State's (and media's) message and emphasis on abortion and so-called 'safe-sex' being constantly pounded into our children's brains that I disagree with.

I gave you my point, you just didn't get it.

 

A skin cell is a human life. As is a zygote cell.

So when you say "developing human life" what do you mean by "developing"? You clearly mean to distinguish between the two cells by alluding to the gene expressions of the one cell. However, this is already reflected in the zygote label. The type of cell is already understood when one says "zygote".

So unless you mean something different, I don't understand why you'd even use the term "developing human life".

So I think you're in the wrong thread.

 

Well hold on now, y'all aren't using "potential" properly.

The "potential" for creating human life, occurs BEFORE said life is created, ala conception. The act of sex, results in the "potential" for human life to be created. The "potential" exists in the egg and sperm. If sperm is ejaculated into the vagina there is a "potential" that a sperm may fertilize an egg.

Once that occurs, the "potential" for human life seizes to exist and "potential" is realized, as a new life form has been created. After conception it's no longer "potential", it is reality.

The zygote stage, is just the 1st of several stages within the human life cycle. The terms used to differentiate the different stages DOES NOT mean that the human being is something other then a human being, which is what folks are trying to do. This is a retardation of the terms. The human being does start as 1 cell. But it's unlike any other cell. It can start nowhere else. So trying to say the 1st stage is some other entity besides a human being does make any logical or rational sense.

 

I don't think I've ever said "potential human life", but instead "potential human being". A zygote is not a human being.

The zygote stage is just one part of the gestation process within mammals.

How do you define "human being", so I can better understand what you mean?

 

How is a skin cell a 'human life?'

All mammals go through a 'zygote' stage of life it is, in fact, the earliest development stage of an embryo and is undergoing mitosis.

A zygote contains DNA of each of the 'would be' parents. I have no idea what you are talking about.

By the time a zygote becomes a blastocyst and implants itself it is already well along in its development process. Unless that development is precluded somehow, (as with an abortion) it will most likely become a human being.

Then stop replying I guess...

 

If the skin cell is alive and has human genetics, it is a human life in the same way that a zygote cell with human genetics is a human life.

So you mean the gestation period. Isn't this communicated through the classification of the cell in question as "zygote"?

It will "most likely become a human being". So we are in agreement. It is not yet a human being.

Why?

 

No it is not 'human life in the SAME WAY that a zygote cell" is. Did you read my reply?

From the day of conception, the zygote begins a journey up the fallopian tube to the uterus where it attaches. There are different terms for the different stages of the zygote development.

The zygote has already gone through several development stages 4-cell stage (2-days), Morula (3-days), Early blastocyst (4-days) Implanting blastocyst (6-days) before it becomes available for abortion. By that time it is on it's way to becoming an embryo which will become a fetus and so on. It is a DEVELOPING HUMAN LIFE.

Geesh.....

 

Yes. You distinguish between a skin cell or any other human cell and a zygote cell by saying the zygote is a "developing human life". It is still a human life, however, except its gene expressions mean that it is in the process of developing into something else. The term "zygote" seems to communicate this just fine, in my honest opinion.

I don't think we disagree here. I just want to point out that "developing human life" when referring to the zygote does not mean the zygote is a human being.

 

Um, yes it is. It can't be anything but.

Yes I understand this, but in this case it is a human being. If we were talking about say a chimp it would be chimp.

See people try and show a disconnect at this stage, but there is no disconnect. Take potential energy and kinetic energy. Before conception, you have potential energy, after conception, it's all kinetic(motion). That baby is gonna grow and survive until either a natural process stops it from doing so, or an unnatural process stops it from doing so.

You can't claim it's not a human being, if you can claim that, then your saying a human being is created at some other point of origin down the road, which is patently absurd b/c there is no other point to speak of, except conception.

At conception a human being is formed. There is no other point to speak of.

 

So by human being you mean zygote? Because that's what is formed at conception.

I cannot reply to your post until I understand what you mean by "human being". You have defined the term "human being" as zygote, and I have a suspicion this is nto what you mean. By all means, though, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I personally do not accept the "Life begins at birth" argument being that the sperm mixed with ovum begins to grow at conception. Other than cancer cells, which do not actually grow, all things that grow have life.

 

I am saying at conception a human being is formed.

The term zygote just recognizes a stage the human being is going through. No different then the term embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult.

None of these terms or stages, were created to try and say that it's "NOT" a human being. They are simply there to describe what the human being is going through at "X" time.

 

I never said that you did say the zygote was "a human". Check your reading comprehension.

What I did say was the term "a developing human life" is really ambiguous because it could be taken to mean .. "a human"

Why not just say "the zygote is developing into a human" so that it is clear what you mean.

 

You keep on making this claim but fail to give any valid support for this claim.

Any support that you have given has been refuted and you consistently fail to refute the counter arguments given.

If you can not provide valid support for your claim that a human being is formed at conception then quit referring to it as fact.