Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):
It lives inside of her.  It's no more a part of her than a biological parasitical organism is a part of her.  In this case it is a biological parasitical human being that lives inside of her because that's how the process works.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):
It lives inside of her.  It's no more a part of her than a biological parasitical organism is a part of her.  In this case it is a biological parasitical human being that lives inside of her because that's how the process works.

It lives inside her but can't be separated, so it's part of her. When it can be separated, it's no longer part of her. It's then a separate person.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 6:47:00 AM (view original):
You could field the question tec ignored.    Are embryo and fetus the same thing?   If so, why do people who have far more knowledge in this field use different terms to describe different stages of development?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 6:47:00 AM (view original):
You could field the question tec ignored.    Are embryo and fetus the same thing?   If so, why do people who have far more knowledge in this field use different terms to describe different stages of development?

panda?

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):
It lives inside of her.  It's no more a part of her than a biological parasitical organism is a part of her.  In this case it is a biological parasitical human being that lives inside of her because that's how the process works.

It lives inside her but can't be separated, so it's part of her. When it can be separated, it's no longer part of her. It's then a separate person.

So now your definition rests on technology or ability?  Hypothetically if technology could duplicate the conditions that exist in a mother's womb, say in an artificial womb, would it be a human being then?  Or would it only be "a part" of the "artificial womb" and not something living inside of it?

The fetus is a separate life - that part is science, not opinion.  The woman's arm is a "part of her".  The fetus is a separate life that lives inside of her and not a part of her.  If you can't see that, then you're just playing games.

You can say it's a part of her.  The facts say otherwise.

You can say it's not a human being because of where it lives.  The fact is that its DNA is human and it is a self-directed organism - which means it is a separate life, so cannot be another form of life regardless of location.

You can say it's not a human because it has not developed fully.  The fact is that you were not fully developed until approximately 25 years after birth (the approximate time the brain completes its development), but you were human - I think  - the entire time.

You can say it's not a human because of its lack of ability to survive outside of the womb.  The fact is that human rights do not exist on abilities to survive. 

You can say it's not a human because of its size.  The fact is that after conception the only thing the fetus does biologically is GROW.

None of those arguments hold up logically.

You can say it is not a human person deserving of protection because you want it to be that way.  That would be a more believable reason, because none of the other ones hold any verifiable logic to them.

So now your definition rests on technology or ability?  Hypothetically if technology could duplicate the conditions that exist in a mother's womb, say in an artificial womb, would it be a human being then?  Or would it only be "a part" of the "artificial womb" and not something living inside of it? 

The fetus is a separate life - that part is science, not opinion.  The woman's arm is a "part of her".  The fetus is a separate life that lives inside of her and not a part of her.  If you can't see that, then you're just playing games. 

You can say it's a part of her.  The facts say otherwise

The fact is that its DNA is human and it is a self-directed organism - which means it is a separate life, 

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):
So, since they are different forms of the same living thing, is it OK to draw the line there?     Assuming, of course, that we all draw lines somewhere.   For instance, your aversion to capital punishment except with overwhelming physical evidence in the case of an atrocious act.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):
It lives inside of her.  It's no more a part of her than a biological parasitical organism is a part of her.  In this case it is a biological parasitical human being that lives inside of her because that's how the process works.

It lives inside her but can't be separated, so it's part of her. When it can be separated, it's no longer part of her. It's then a separate person.

So now your definition rests on technology or ability?  Hypothetically if technology could duplicate the conditions that exist in a mother's womb, say in an artificial womb, would it be a human being then?  Or would it only be "a part" of the "artificial womb" and not something living inside of it?

The fetus is a separate life - that part is science, not opinion.  The woman's arm is a "part of her".  The fetus is a separate life that lives inside of her and not a part of her.  If you can't see that, then you're just playing games.

You can say it's a part of her.  The facts say otherwise.

You can say it's not a human being because of where it lives.  The fact is that its DNA is human and it is a self-directed organism - which means it is a separate life, so cannot be another form of life regardless of location.

You can say it's not a human because it has not developed fully.  The fact is that you were not fully developed until approximately 25 years after birth (the approximate time the brain completes its development), but you were human - I think  - the entire time.

You can say it's not a human because of its lack of ability to survive outside of the womb.  The fact is that human rights do not exist on abilities to survive. 

You can say it's not a human because of its size.  The fact is that after conception the only thing the fetus does biologically is GROW.

None of those arguments hold up logically.

You can say it is not a human person deserving of protection because you want it to be that way.  That would be a more believable reason, because none of the other ones hold any verifiable logic to them.

_____

So now your definition rests on technology or ability?  Hypothetically if technology could duplicate the conditions that exist in a mother's womb, say in an artificial womb, would it be a human being then?  Or would it only be "a part" of the "artificial womb" and not something living inside of it? 

If we had a way to grow embryos into babies, sure, we could outlaw abortion. Women that didn't want to be pregnant could just have the embryo removed and adopted by the state or a different parent.

The fetus is a separate life - that part is science, not opinion.  The woman's arm is a "part of her".  The fetus is a separate life that lives inside of her and not a part of her.  If you can't see that, then you're just playing games. 

It is a life, but not a separate one. Not until it can be separated. That's just a fact.

You can say it's a part of her.  The facts say otherwise

Well, the facts say that the fetus can't survive outside of her. So, it is a part of her until it can.

The fact is that its DNA is human and it is a self-directed organism - which means it is a separate life, 

I've said, multiple times now, that the fetus is alive. But it can't be considered separate if it can't be separated.

So based on the premise of "if it can't be separated, then it's not two separate humans", is this one person or two?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Conjoined twins get separated all the time.

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):
So, since they are different forms of the same living thing, is it OK to draw the line there?     Assuming, of course, that we all draw lines somewhere.   For instance, your aversion to capital punishment except with overwhelming physical evidence in the case of an atrocious act.

Yeah, I'm still here for a minute....

I don't find it okay on principle.  The facts take me to conception.  I oppose anything that takes the life of the human being - including drugs that are designed for the sole purpose of preventing implantation.  The only exception is when abortion would save the life of the mother where both would be dead without it.  That's as consistent as I think I can be.

However, as with the death penalty, there is a pragmatic part of me that would accept a move of the line as close to conception as possible if it prevented everything after.  Save the most lives possible right?  Of course I would not want to stop there.

In regards to capital punishment, I should clarify.  I'm not against it from a justice perspective.  I think when murderers do not pay with their life, it devalues the life that they take.  However, in the interest of not making errors, it has to be applied only in the most sure of cases.  Unfortunately that means that many guilty murderers would not end up facing it...

The facts don't take me to conception. 

In regards to abortion, I'm not against it.   The common opinion of knowledgable people feel that an embryo becomes a fetus between 8-10 weeks.  I'm not in favor of aborting a fetus.  I'm not certain when there's even a 1% chance that a fetus can live without it's host.   But I'm pretty sure an embryo cannot.  However, in the interest of not making errors, I'm fine with prohibiting abortions after 8 weeks.

It's the line I draw.   We all draw lines.