Any consensus yet on when a zygote becomes a real human?

Nope, won't look at your link since abortion is NOT genocide....


Now , why don't YOU try being nice and let women alone?

 

According to criteria authored by whom, and on what authority?

 

Another quick question to stay on topic: Why, if a person negligently kills a pregnant woman, do they then face double homicide/double murder if the deceased victim is not carrying a viable defined human being in their womb?

What if the woman lives and the pregnancy is terminated in affect?

Does the term "pregnancy" not mean anything?

The reason that I pose such questions is that this isn't an area of philosophy or science but, rather, an area of ethics and morality. Even if theology is not entered into the question it still poses an integral harboring point of ethics.

The only arguments I seem to get on the subject revolve around philosophical or scientific reasoning and are rather devoid of any ethical or moral reasoning. The female sex in turn seem to feel that this is an argument or debate over their personal freedoms, thus it becomes a discussion about repression, and becomes clouded in it's course.

It is easier to face clear skies to the north than prepare for the storm behind.

 

Interesting.

So you support the notion that life does not exist without consciousness? Perhaps you are stating that it would be more along the lines of self-awareness?

Such assertions could lead to a very interesting discussion that perhaps spill into the area of theology. Are you up to it?

 

I hope your sentiments weren't intended as solace or comfort.

Such a callous approach to reasoning is not within my abilities.

 

Thank you for your input.

Can you kindly provide the timeline of consciousness here? It is integral to my original post.

 

The main sticking point is that there is no agreement.

 

You are definitely onto something here. Philosophy has no viable seat at such a discussion.

 

The term "bitterness" has nothing to do with the rights of an unborn child or the definition of pregnancy and the moral understanding of where life begins.

Don't let me hinder you though from chiming in at any point, your enthusiasm and energy will certainly add new avenues to this discussion.

 

You depict such a finite square of logic. As each stage progresses, 'it', the proposed human, becomes more human as it grows and progresses through them all. I admire your simplicity and wish I had the ability to base my life-views as such.

One thing I can assure you of is that the argument for life is not based on playing emotions. The topic of life is a moral and ethical area of debate and is not predicated upon trying to obfuscate where life begins. In fact it's just the opposite.

No one is using the proposed term 'baby' in any part of this discussion.

That's accurate and genuine.

 

So anyone can be found without guilt if they cause the termination of a pregnancy?

 

Yes, the logic is considered definite. I believe it was also quite clear in my commentary that "It" was both alive and human. I did not "Propose" anything, I simply stated it is human but not yet a human being as it has not developed the abilities to be considered one yet. The term "Baby" is often used by those opposed to abortion as a means of garnering emotional support for their arguments and opinions but is disingenuous debate tactic.

 

"""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

I celebrate the right of women to do as they please with their own bodies and ignore the bitterness and hatred of those who wish to treat them like cattle."""


There, I bolded the part you misunderstood so you can try again.

You're correct! What I said had nothing to do with the rights of an unborn child since unborn children have no rights.

The definition of pregnancy has nothing to do with the abortion debate or bitterness .

There is no "moral understanding " of where , or when, life begins..



(sarcasm alert)
Oh, and gee gosh, thank you ever so much for allowing me to chime in , not hindering me.... I was so afraid you might, oh thankyou....

 

Yes, if they do it with the woman's consent.

 

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

A fetus is considered viable at 23-24 weeks . Most abortions are done long before that.


The human race ends "inconvenient life" all the time, has throughout history and will continue to do so.

No they weren't intended as solace or comfort..., why would you think that?

They are facts....

 

I believe in reincarnation, why would I not be

what if after we leave this body we are like mosquito's attracted to the light, the light of life, the life of a tree being born, the life of a flower being born, the life of a baby being born, what if the only way to escape this life death cycle is to learn to find peace with your mind while on earth while in human form, so that when you separate from this body, you can regain control of your consciousness and control your destiny, decide not to enter the light, we always hear about entering the light, what if entering the light is the doorway to rebirth? (reincarnation)

.

 

Take a vote.




​

 

SNAP slip-up leads to abortion controversy...

White House Inadvertently Admits That a Child Is a Child 'Even Before Birth'
December 23, 2015 | The Executive Office of the President of the United States -- aka Barack Obama -- released a document in the days leading up to Christmas that proves once again that reality conspires against even the most careful liars.

 

Define viable.

 

The definition of a viable fetus as defined by those wisest of all humans(SCOTUS).

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable." The court defined viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb

Well, a zygote cannot sustain its life outside the womb without help. But, neither can a toddler. How ridiculous the argument of viability is. In honest truth, any human life growing is viable. It is simply immoral to think otherwise, legal or not.

 

Able to live outside the woman.











The human race ends "inconvenient life" all the time, has throughout history and will continue to do so.

 

You have to learn there's a difference between "socially dependent" and ""BIOLOGICALLY dependent".


I'll help: Anyone can care for a toddler but a fetus is totally dependent on the person it's attached to.

 

No, they didn't.

 

So, now life is determined upon who feeds and shelters it? It appears that there is little respect for life among the pro-death crowd.