Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

That's why we have readily available treatments so she does not become pregnant. Should ALL laws governing abortion be based on the 1% due to rape? And again define "pro-choice" as you used it in your claim about how many support it.

 

Hey I'm glad you went and learned a little about anthropology......what does it have to do with embryology. Each one of your pictures appears to be a being in the adult stage of life of that particular genus and species......what's your point?

What genus and species is a just created human zygote? Tell me how long a newly created human being stays at the one cell stage of life?

 

Can you have sex with one?

 

My "justification" that you and I and all the others here are human beings and were so from the moment you were created does not come from law it comes from science. Why do you reject the science and instead substitute made definition's and criteria so YOU can justify mothers killing their unborn babies?

 

How high on the totem pole of our rights is the right to life? Yes abortion involves TWO human beings.

When did the Congress pass an amendment or other legislation that states

"As of passage of this bill "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." will no longer be considered a founding and every lasting principle of our country and it's laws"

 

really, what treatments are those that prevent a rape victim from becoming pregnant, plan B, the drug the right is going after? is that in all rape kits, are first responder required to offer it?

I agree, those would prevent some abortions and should be used, but in no way does it prevent all, and some religious folks on the right think plan B is also abortion in a pill

 

can you have sex with dead people?

people can have sex with anything, doesn't mean they are alive

 

The conversation is human Taxonomy not about embryology and you have been told a number of times that Embryology is not the subject matter domain ? What is it that you are having trouble understanding about that scientific fact. We are talking high school biology .. the definition of a human - homo sapiens .. and for someone who claims to have majored in Biology you should know this .. and especially since you brought "Human Species" into the conversation.

Sorry friend .. the Zygote simply does not have the characteristics required to be classified as a homo sapiens

Biology fail number 2 - a human zygote is not a human .. nor is it a "Homo Sapiens" Once again you are confusing a noun with a descriptive adjective. A Human Sperm is not a "Homo Sapiens" because it has "Human" as a descriptive adjective in its description. KK

and last .. this failed stage argument that you keep repeating despite being refuted 100 times. A stage in the creation of a car .. is not a car .. KK ? .. a blueprint is a stage in the creation of a car .. but a blueprint is not a car. The Zygote is the blueprint stage in the creation of a human .. which, unfortunately for this silly stage argument ... is not a living human and nor is it classified as a Homo Sapiens

 

Define “human being” because in essence it is a social construct not a scientific definition. My own country declared the indigenous population to be non human. My social construct and that of the majority, does not encompass a blastocyst or an embryo with the definition of “human being”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295065/

As for your question - probably did not see it as I do not hang on your every word and post and only read some

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345760/

https://www.varta.org.au/regulation/practical-guide-legislation

 

Necrophilia!!


Lols!

 

But establishing those rights or having a lack thereof, does nothing to prove or disprove whether a given entity is a human being or not, or even just a being. Which is why tacking on "...with legal rights." was begging the question. It assumes that human beings have legal rights by default, and in contrast, a lack of legal rights means it's not a human being. But the two things are not automatically related.

A factor in establishing legal status, yes, but not in establishing whether it is a human being or not. As noted, a human being can lack legal rights, such as under slavery (generalized and not necessarily the US history of such), and still be a human being.

Of course not. I have often said on here, that an embryo/fetus having rights or personhood does nothing to change the bodily autonomy rights of a woman. So if a born person cannot violate those rights, why should a ZEF be allowed to violate those rights?

But that is an entirely separate issue from the current topic, because the embryos in questions are not inside the woman and as such are not violating her bodily autonomy. The issue of legal status and whether they are human beings or not, does affect whether we can terminate them during storage outside a body, or even in an external artificial womb, once that technology comes about, which might well be within our lifetimes.

 

Is it a social construct though? Or is not considering someone as a human being akin to saying one doesn't consider a tremor that just registers on the equipment an earthquake. Actually one thing, but socially treated otherwise. And then of course, we have to determine if that makes a difference in specific cases. In the case of a women and her pregnancy, it makes no difference. In the case that is the topic of the thread, it can make all the difference.

Usually the texts are contextual as to what kind of embryo it is, and usually stating early on in the body of the work as to being a human embryo, or a whale embryo, or whatever. Simply because most upper life forms share common developmental stages, it does not necessarily make that embryonic state something other that what the life form is.

 

If the text or discussion or whatever is about human embryos, they are not going to use the appellation of "human" every time. It's part of the context. It would only be in a comparative study of the embryos of different species that the appellations of each would be regularly used. Think of it similar to a report on some facility that is only used by males. Since the context of the report is males, they would not add the appellation of "male" onto any individual mentioned in the report. The lack of the use of the appellation does not support the point that you are making.

 

You mean the treatments that many anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to ban?

If they stuck to the actual exceptions they talk about, then your point would be more valid. But when you have the cases such as in Texas where the woman's life was under threat and they still said she wasn't allowed an abortion, then this claim about the exceptions is moot from that side. But this thread isn't about actual abortions. This is dealing with a situation where the embryo is outside anyone's body. There is no issue of bodily autonomy or health risks in this situation. And yes, that means @FreshAir is off topic also.

 

About as much as you can have sex with a fleshlight or a dildo, depending on your equipment. But I think at that point we are looking more at ownership issues and whether it's a human being or not.

 

Abortion is not the issue here. There is only one life (in the context that even amoebas are life) at play, and that is that of the embryo. In this situation, the embryo is not taking from the woman's bodily resources.

 

This parallel doesn't really work. When you build a car, then you have a car when it is over. You don't have to keep adding to the car. Human's on the other hand are in a state of constantly being built. We don't just take in "fuel". We take in building material, as we are constantly generating new cells, and sloughing off old one. But in keeping with your a parallel, at what point does the car become a car? it's no longer the blueprint stage while on the assembly line. Is it a car before the lack of wheels? Because it's still referred to as a car even if all wheels are gone. Shifting to the human examples, if we are saying it becomes a human being when the "assembly" is complete, what if parts are missing, and assembly is thus not complete?

 

Read the link - the text on embryology talks of multi species. I am just sick of this stupid and inaccurate claim that “science considers embryos to be human”

The concept of “human” is a social construct.

 

Simply declaring that something is not of whatever, makes it true. Nor do legal definition necessarily reflect reality. For example, incest is sex between two people blood related, within 2 or 3 steps. However, laws in many places add legal relationships such as adoption or marriage (step-whatever) into that definition of incest, even though there is no shared blood. So noting that the British did not legally recognize the indiginous people of Australia as people, didn't mean that they were not people, or that people were a social construct.

 

Yes .. the parallel works as is one of fallacious linguistic attribution and not the actual function of the product - whether or not the products are similar. It does not matter which product or process are speaking of .. a catepillar is not a butterfly .. a brick is not a building .. never mind the brick-layer ... at what point is the building finished ? -- always changing--- completely analogous to your distinction fallacy ...

"When is a building a building" you ask. Answer - when it fulfills most of the basic functions of that structure .. and of course doing such requires the structure to be a certain amount complete .. mostly complete.

In similar fashion - A human is not much of a functioning human without thoughts- the capacity for thought .. and the supporting structure in place ... this being just one criteria .. but one I will claim requisite .. the literature on this topic endless.. so no need to dwell on the details.

On this basis came the 21 week consensus which was adopted by many states as the cut-off .. the evolving fetus simply unable to capacitate thought prior to this point .. something I will also claim is the Soul .. or the "I AM" moment from a religious perspective.

In our Building story .. the Zygote is not even a single Brick in the Structure - never-mind the Building itself. This is preposterous nonsense .. levels below failing the kindergarten game "Which one is not like the others". Not only does the zygote have none of the Characteristics required of "Homo Sapiens" it has none of the Philosophical criteria for "at what point does a human exist" .. and we need not know the exact moment when this happens (although I claim we do) in order to know that the Zygote stage is not it .... or the Sperm stage for that matter .. is a sperm not a "Human being" ?

So where is the Zygote in the of our human building .. a building comprised of cells instead of bricks . none of which is, or ever was the Zygote .. nor any of its 300 or so totipotent progeny .. These are the builders of the structure that is under creation .. but not a single brick yet laid .. nor a single cell produced that will be part of that structure. The zygote is not even the template out of which all cells are stamped .. although we are getting closer to its function ...as a builder .. and quazi template.

The Zygote is not part of the human structure in the way a paint on the paintbrush becomes part of the painting.. yet we do not call the paint on the brush a painting.. but even if we did .. the Zygote would not qualify.

The Zygote is dead and gone after the first mitotic division .. leaving behind two clones of itself as progeny --- these multiply until we get to ~300 totipotent cells which form a small hollow sack - "Totipotent" means these cells can produce any specialized or differentiated cell in the body .. hair, brain, skin.

It is these specialized and differentiated cells that are the bricks that will form the structure of the human .. the workers that created these bricks killed and discarded after the structure is "complete" and born.

 

Very interesting.

 

Sounds like a fine point

 

I don't accept your predicate.

I'm not so sure you would, either, if you thought about it.

 

A building may be challenged in court when no more than ground prep has begun.

In fact, a building may be challenged when it is no more than an application for a building permit.

 

You don't accept the self evident truth that we are endowed at our creation with our fundamental rights include the right to our life? What is the predicate for such a rejection?