Unworthy of Life

You have not lived on a small farm then. I had 100 Sex Link chickens and a big rooster and used to sell several dozen every day to our neighbors.
Sex Links are prolific egg layers but won't brood much. They lay extra-large light brown eggs, sometimes with double yolkes. You can tell the difference in the yolk color which is a darker yellow in fertilized eggs.
isa-brown-sex-link-chickens-in-backyard.jpg

What is a Sex Link Chicken?

https://www.backyardchickencoops.com.au/blogs/learning-centre/what-are-sex-link-chickens

We also had a little banty (Mother Theresa) who would brood anything in her nest. When we wanted chicks we placed some of the big eggs in her nest. Once she hatched 18 chicks from 21 eggs. Poor thing, she looked like a cartoon hen sitting on top of a mountain of eggs. The chicks when hatched were about half the size of her.
bantam-broody-hen.jpg

Bantam – The Ultimate Survival Chickens
Homesteading / By Tara Dodrill
https://www.survivalsullivan.com/bantam-survival-chickens/

It seems that fertilized eggs have a somewhat greater food value than infertile eggs.

Differences between fertilized and unfertilized chicken egg white proteins revealed by 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis-based proteomic analysis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119395793

So unfertilized eggs .
 
So unfertilized eggs .
Store bought yes.

You can tell "commercially" raised eggs by the sterile pale yellow of the yolks.
Country raised eggs have darker yellow yolks due to richer mineral content. And any chicken farm with a rooster will have fertilized eggs.
 
You won't ever be able to decide on the morality of abortion by appealing to a "scientific classification". What you need is to be able to make the best moral choice you can make, and science alone won't ever be able to decide that for you.
Your proclamation is not an argument. Mine requires you to rebut that human life has intrinsic value, but you don't want to do that, as that would make you a bad person. All you're saying here is that me using science is inconvenient to your arguments. #FollowTheScience
Again, you're a moderator on a supposedly "science forum," no?
Okay, so you have this bad habit, which you seemingly can't shake, of constantly trying to insult people who disagree with you. I don't know where that came from, but you really ought to get over it. It makes you a vulgar human being.

Because I am an administrator here, I have not "reported" you or taken any action so far for your repeated breaches of our site posting guidelines - as any other member in the same position would be perfectly entitled to do. But my patience is starting to wear thin. So, I will ask you once to try to control your appalling lack of manners. If you are unable to converse without trying to insult, then I might have to start you on the cycle towards a permanent ban. Be aware that, if that happens, it is very unlikely that I will be so tolerant as to allow you to return to membership of this forum for a third time.
So pointing out that you are arguing against scientific definitions, with only your proclamations that they are irrelevant, is now an insult? What "site guidelines" says I can't challenge you when you blithely ignore scientific definitions, on a science forum? The very disproportional threat of a ban for that is the single biggest tell that you don't even believe in the strength of your own arguments. "third time"? I've never been banned.
What you need to show is why members of the species Homo sapiens have special moral rights, not accorded to plants, elephants, rocks, etc. If you wish to do that, I'm afraid you'll have to make a moral argument, at some point.
In-group favoritism, cooperation, etc. seems to be an evolutionary development seen in humans and many animal species that promotes group/species survival over the survival of other species, especially food sources.
Now whether you think that's "moral" depends on whether you believe morality exists and how you define it. If you don't believe human life has intrinsic value, there's likely nothing I could say that could convince you otherwise. And if you believe all life has the same intrinsic value, that would be an argument you'd need to make.
Just as soon as you tell me what your 'category of "person"' is, then can I compare how homo sapiens is "morally more worthy."
Start with philosopher Mary Anne Warren's definition (from 1973 - this stuff has been available for a long time now, if you cared to look), if you like:
"the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood . . . are, very roughly, the following: 1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types . . . ; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness. . . ."​
Your time starts now. Go.
By that criteria, newborns are not "persons." Do you equally advocate for infanticide?
If that's all you have, then it's obvious that homo sapiens is an unarbitrary definition upon which to base any ethical question, whereas "person" is highly susceptible to subjective bias (note how many vague and subjective judgement calls are involved in your "definition"). Just like slave owners tried to arbitrarily claim that black people were not "persons." When you allow arbitrary and subjective definitions, people will twist them to unethically benefit themselves.
 
Why don't you think life is sacrosanct?!
Probably for the same reasons you don't, in general, think that life is sacrosanct. On the other hand, I don't share your religious prejudices in regards to human life.
But why don't you think human life is sacrosanct? Quit hiding behind claims about life in general. Why does human life mean nothing to you as an ethical concern?
In terms of a "right to life", you mean?

Do you support the death penalty?
Your right to life is forfeit if you intentionally take the life of another, proving your disdain for such rights. What does that have to do with abortion, other than the abortionist doing just that?
Whereas you seem to make no distinction between human and other life, do you also make no distinction between the innocent and the guilty, victim and perpetrator?
If you're amoral, just say so. Could save us a lot of wasted time.
Unwanted pregnancy. That means that keeping the pregnancy is against her will. #FollowtheScience (as they say).
Okay, explain what science has to say about why a woman doesn't want a pregnancy. Or just don't ape me when I use #FollowTheScience appropriately.
And try to avoid cherry-picking my words out of context:
Not against her will. In the vast majority of cases, she made choices that any adult should know could lead to that consequence.
Never said she wanted the consequences.
Don't pretend that the minority of cases where she didn't have a choice influence your opinions. You support the Texas anti-abortion law, don't you? No exceptions for rape, incest etc.?
Unless you'd support an abortion ban for everything but immediate threat to the life of the mother, rape, or incest, this is a completely disingenuous argument. They obviously don't "influence your opinions."
Now if you're claiming women have no agency, you might be onto a logically consistent argument. Is that what you're trying to say?
You're a bright guy (aren't you?). You work it out.
I can only assume so then. But likely because you don't believe in morals at all, including the concept of moral agency.
Then cite me a medical source on how a baby and a fetus are mutually exclusive terms.
Your reluctance to recognise that babies develop from a single fertilised ovum means that you have obvious difficulty discussing a complex issue such as abortion.
A single fertilized ovum is not a fetus nor a baby. In case you missed it, I don't believe in "human life from conception," because it doesn't comport with the science.
So again, cite me a medical source on how a baby and a fetus are mutually exclusive terms. I assume your little condescending diversion was only because you couldn't.
You missed the point. Hopefully things are now clearer for you, following my previous post.
Yes, you've gotten disproportionately defensive.
You sound like you disapprove. Do you consider yourself a "mens rights" advocate? Resent the "preferential" treatment the government gives to women?
No, I'm an egalitarian. What you're trying to do here is called poisoning the well. Don't pretend that you haven't argued against preferential treatment by "the system" with respect to CRT.
In your opinion, are a woman's ova her property to do with as she sees fit?

Consider an ovum one minute before fertilisation and one minute after. Your claim is that, one minute after, there is a "baby" and the mother no longer gets to decide what happens to it. Instead, you get to decide. What happened in that vital minute that made all the moral difference? Please explain why it made the difference.
Again, I don't believe it's human life from the moment of conception. Not my claim, just your own straw man.
No. I'm just questioning where the buck stops when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, on your anti-abortion stance and your professed reverence for the lives of the little innocent babies. It sounds like, once you've forced women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, you personally want no further involvement, whereas before the birth you're determined to stick your big nose in to tell them what they can and can't do. What do you think gives you the right?
Society still has an interest in all children after they are born, which is why we have child social workers, criminal abuse and neglect charges, public schools, etc.. I have no personal involvement with any pregnant women other than partners, friends, or family. I also support criminal charges for murder without any personal involvement with murderers. Good government exists it protect people. That's one of its minimal mandates and why the right exists.
Is that a good thing, in your opinion?
Yes, it's called being held accountable for your own choices, as if you're an adult.
I care for all the children I bring into this world...
Well, no. Not if you get your way and ban abortion in your country. It doesn't sound to me like you personally intend to take on any additional child-care responsibilities if you get your way. Or am I wrong?
Read what I wrote, especially the "I bring into this world" part. I didn't make any choice that led to any other pregnancy. Those who did are responsible.
(Is that the Royal "we"?)

On the contrary, it is precisely because I'm not indifferent to human life - particularly the lives of women - that I support the right to choose.
(No, just my confidence in the majority of readers.)
So you're not indifferent, just subjective and arbitrary. Got it.
Hardly. It's clear that I'm much better versed on basic morality than you are, at least when it comes to this particular topic. You're the guy who is claiming that the concept of "personhood" is arbitrary, while simultaneously espousing an arbitrary definition of personhood, without even realising it.
Projecting your "personhood" argument on me is nothing but a straw man. I can't help it if you're too inured in your own moral justifications to engage my actual argument.
You still haven't explained why all human life is equally worthy. Can you do that, or are you just going to keep trying to reflect my question back on me while you pretend you have an answer?
Again, all human life isn't equally worthy (it's not black and white), as actions can forfeit your right to life.
It's very simple. I consider my own life to have intrinsic value, so it only follows that other human lives have equally intrinsic value. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
It's clear to me that you have double standards. All this (feigned?) care for the innocent unborn, while no practical concern for the innocent just-born.
You keep erecting that straw man, but I've yet to see you support it with anything but your own baseless assumptions. As if me not, personally, volunteering to care for every unwanted baby somehow undermines my argument. Does me not, personally, volunteering to house convicted criminals mean I must advocate for no prisons too?
That poor excuse for an argument sounds almost like an admission of defeat from you. Want to try again? Can you come up with a coherent defence of your position? I wonder.
Again, we get that you're completely unconcerned for any baby until the moment it's born. Why or how birth imparts this magical thing called "personhood," you've yet to explain.
 
As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on when a "growth" (for want of a better neutral term) becomes a human life in its own right, as opposed to a wart, a mole, a skin cell, a cancer, etc.
Sure, a fertilised egg has potential to be more, so is it the potential we are holding valuable?

If it really is the "life" of the fertilised egg, what sets it apart from the skin cell, the wart, the mole etc, other than potential? If "life" begins at some later stage of pregnancy, when? What differentiates the fetus assigned to be "life" and one that is in an earlier stage of development such that is not?

But I have never found scientific consensus on when that might be, and I'm not even sure that there is a "scientific answer". It is surely a moral position one takes on this matter, not one of science.
Yes there is. Science has defined both terms.
human - any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens
life - animate matter​
In the case of early development, it goes from a collection of contributing cells (egg and sperm, which could be compared to skin cells, etc.) to a new human life when the new, unique DNA fully takes overt its development. Obviously, living skin cells, eggs, sperm, and even fertilized eggs are not members of the species homo sapiens. And equally as obvious is the fact that an embryo developing under it own human DNA is. Otherwise, you have to make the absurd claim that something other than a human can develop from human DNA. Very clear and simple distinction of when merely living cells become human life.
 
Almost missed these, which were literally addressing me, but without a quote notification.
Lots of useful information that Vociferous really ought to read, since currently he has very little clue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy

And here's a useful summary of "fathers' rights" regarding pregnancies and child support in the United States, including relevant legal citations:

Fathers' Rights and Abortion (findlaw.com)
Not sure you who think doesn't understand what an unintended pregnancy is, unless you really didn't realize that you quoted me out of context.
And thanks for verifying everything I said about a father's responsibility.
Here's some more relevant information, from here:

Consequences of Unintended Pregnancy - The Best Intentions - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

Here's just one extract from there. Bold is my emphasis for the TL;DR crowd.

...about half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Accordingly, the occurrence of abortion can be seen as one of the primary consequences of unintended pregnancy. Voluntary interruption of pregnancy is an ancient and enduring intervention that occurs globally whether it is legal or not.​
As if we haven't developed birth control or the morning after pill and unintended pregnancies have nothing to do with neglecting to responsibly use either.
Clearly, anybody who was truly "pro-life" would care about the welfare of pregnant women as least as much as they pretend to care about the lives of unborn foetuses and the like.
Their welfare was only put in jeopardy by them attempting to quit being "pregnant women." Which means said pregnant women didn't care about their own well-being. Should be commit them to mental hospitals "for their own good"?
The real reasons for people being anti-choice are many and varied, but being "pro-life" isn't usually the real motivation for taking such a stance.
Way to blatantly admit your straw man.
Here's a basic primer on abortion and the concept of personhood, for those who, like Vociferous, don't have a good understanding of the concept:

Abortion | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)

This article doesn't have a particular bias towards the sort of hard-line conservative view that Vociferous is trying to push, or towards what the article refers to as a hard-line liberal view. In practice, proponents at both ends of the spectrum often try to defend their views by appealing to their own preferred line-drawing on the issue of "personhood".

In the present context, the fact that Vociferous can't even recognise that he has a specific criterion for "personhood" that he insists upon means that this article should provide a useful starting education on the relevant issues for him.
No surprise that a philosophy source prioritizes philosophical criteria over scientific ones. The fact that people can make "personhood" whatever they want only demonstrates that it is subjective, and thus not a proper criteria for rights. Again, see the slaver's subjective criteria of "person." Notice how this source also denies that "moral rights" even exist. If there are no moral rights, then there is no basis for legal rights beyond arbitrary agreement. That would mean that abortion not being legal murder is just a happenstance of agreement, and like all agreement, subject to change. That literally means there can be no "settled law."
 
A person can be pro-life and not believe in life from the moment of conception (which science does not support).
But you’ve already tied your boat to that dock.
Where do you imagine that happened? Because it certainly didn't in reality.
Science defines life as that which is not inanimate matter
Unless you consider a human zygote to be inanimate. You seem to be implying that it’s not a question of human life, but a question of status as a human being. So at what stage in human development do you believe that science declares human life to be a human being?
No, a zygote is neither inanimate nor "human life." See the distinction there? You even immediately acknowledge that I was talking about "human life," even though you only quoted me defining "life" in general. Maybe the full quote will help ya.
Science defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. So unless you can explain how a fetus of the species is actually a different species, you cannot refute that a human fetus is human. Science defines life as that which is not inanimate matter. So again, unless you can explain how a fetus is inanimate matter, you cannot refute that it is alive.
Both terms, human and life, are necessary to define a human fetus.
 
You really should go back and re-read what I said, in response to your comments and the context of your comments.
Not my problem if you contradict yourself.
What are you responding to, exactly?

Here is what I said:

As for your "temporary inconvenience".. For some women, being forced to give birth can cost her her life, her livelihood, her ability to have more children, it can render her disabled, traumatised, scarred, etc. Of course this is very easy for you to dismiss, because you will never be placed in a position where you could be forced to have your body play host for 9 months without your consent and against your will.​

You are responding to something else entirely.

Unless of course you are trying to say that her life is irrelevant? Which given the abortion laws passed in Texas and those your ilk are trying to pass elsewhere, that's pretty much the case anyway...
I can't really account for your inability to understand. If every abortion ban has an exception for risk to the life of the mother, risk to her life is irrelevant in arguing against those laws. Pretty damn simple.
Except you don't have to deal with 9 months of pregnancy without your consent and against your will.
The consent is in knowingly taking the risk.
This isn't acceptable and is a breach of their human rights. A woman giving consent to sex is not giving consent to 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and all the costs associated with it.
She consented to taking that risk. Avoiding it only means she's not accountable for her own actions. And it's a far greater breach of the baby's right to life.
Just as you conveniently ignore the man's accountability in this. He is under no obligation to financially help her during the pregnancy, nor is he obligated to financially fund childbirth and the ridiculous costs in involved with healthcare in the US. The complete and utter burden falls solely on her.
Something else you're unaware of.
As I noted previously, your issue (and those who think like you do) is that she's having sex. That is why there are no laws or amendments in abortion legislation that would dictate the father's role in financially supporting her during the pregnancy.
Again, I have benefited personally from women willing to have sex without any desire for children or marriage. I like women who like to have sex. I just prefer responsible women who like sex. Why do you keep acting as if the two are mutually exclusive?
As James so helpfully cited:
If a prospective mother seeks to abort a pregnancy against a father's wishes, an attorney may be able to draft an agreement where the father agrees to pay the costs of pregnancy and obtain full custody after birth.
https://www.findlaw.com/family/paternity/fathers-rights-and-abortion.html
If abortion were not an option and there were not already existing financial support during pregnancy, the father would be held as financially responsible for the pregnancy as for the child, unless it's being given up for adoption and the adopting parents are doing so.
You have more rights to your guns, then women have over their own bodies.
No, I have no right to kill someone who has not threatened or harmed me, gun or not.
In the context of that discussion, you know damn well what I said, particularly given I then said it had the "potential" to be "human life". But troll gonna troll..
I have no idea what arbitrary way you may subjectively define "human life," contrary to all scientific definitions. That's on you. #FollowTheScience
What "human life" is she taking, that you see no issue with ending by taking the human after pill?
Again, educate yourself. I've already cited Planned Parenthood explaining how the morning after pill doesn't abort a fertilized egg. Go read it again.
Men are only required to be financially responsible when it is born.
And 18 years thereafter.
If she puts it up for adoption, he is absolved of all financial responsibility.
Adoption, even of a born child, always absolves the biological father of financial responsibility, as the adoptive parents agree to it themselves. And if adoption is agreed to before birth, the adoptive parents usually help with pregnancy costs too.
Only she bears the burden of pregnancy, both financially and physically. She bears the sole burden of the medical costs, time away from work, if she is not insured or adequately insured, then it's even worse.
Already debunked above, at least in the US, which are the laws we're talking about here, you citing Texas and all.
You are literally treating her like a criminal for having sex, not just by the language you use, but also by the punishment you want to inflict on her.
You think pregnancy is a punishment, huh?
Not all consequences are punishments, and pregnancy is a blessing. Go try and tell any intending mother otherwise.
As I said, it's perverted and twisted.
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of babies a year is.
I understand fully how the morning after pill works. Some forms ensure that no implantation can occur..
Then it should be easy for you to cite an authoritative source, other than the already discredited FDA labeling. #FollowTheScience
I already cited Planned Parenthood and The Mayo Clinic.
 
Oh, so now it's "human" when it develops a nervous system and not when its DNA becomes "unique"?
Nope, just demonstrating that, even by your faulty understanding of how the morning after pill actually works, it still wouldn't kill what "some countries" protect as human life.
Legally acquired weapons are often used to kill people for a variety of reasons.

For example, you deem your right to defend your property with a firearm to be essential and a right, but you don't think a woman should have any rights over her own body or her reproductive cycle. Why do your property rights that would allow you to kill someone if you deem it necessary, trumps a woman's rights to her own body?
Simple. The baby is innocent, the criminal is not. Why do you want to punish hundreds of thousands of babies a year with death? What did they do to deserve that?
What bodily autonomy does an unborn have, exactly?
Right to life.
I mean, you've already designated that it doesn't have any autonomy or rights up to certain points.
No, that's still just you not understanding the science of the morning after pill.
Why can't men use birth control? Why don't men get reversible vasectomy's?
If a man is irresponsible or the condom fails, a man is financially responsible for 18 years.
Why, would you prefer we have laws that require both men and women to be sterilized until they intend to have children? Tubal ligation can be reversed too. Are you going to offer to pay the costs over birth control? And even then, such things have been known to spontaneously reverse themselves.
Dude, what are you talking about?

The morning after pill can also work by preventing a fertilised egg from implanting - around 5 days after conception
So you think you can refute Planned Parenthood, The Mayo Clinic, and scientific studies?
How it works depends on where she is in her cycle.
Not according to the actual science. Educate yourself instead of parroting uninformed nonsense. #FollowTheScience
You should also be aware that Plan B and other forms of 'morning after pill' is not always effective and she can still end up pregnant. Given how the right has restricted access to Plan B and emergency contraception to begin with, a lot of unwanted pregnancies occur regardless - particularly amongst younger women and teenage girls. If you wish to reduce abortion numbers, then ensure that teens and women are able to access free birth control easily..
Yes, Plan B, like abortion, shouldn't be the primary method of birth control, hence "emergency contraceptive."
People only tried to restrict access due to uninformed nonsense, like your "form of abortion." But emergency contraceptives are now available without a prescription or age limit. No idea what goes on in your neck of the woods. According to Planned Parenthood:
For most brands, 1 pill pack lasts for 1 month, and each pack can cost anywhere from $0-$50. But they’re totally free with most health insurance plans, or if you qualify for some government programs.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/l...control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pills
Naw, you just don't think it's "murder" in some circumstances.. Killing the "human being" in some instances is acceptable to you, such as if I decide to take up residence in your home without your consent.
I never said it was legal or right to kill a trespasser. Where do you get these straw men?
Do you think self-defense is "murder," punishable by up to death or life in prison? Because that's the only justifiable reason for intentionally killing someone.
You didn't understand the crux of the article itself and the studies linked in it.
No evidence of something that hasn't even been tried or tested is trivially so.
Ironic, given the crap you are peddling in this thread.
I would challenge you to cite the anecdotal stuff you imagine I've posted. That you'd even say this makes me question if you know what the word means.
 
And in case you weren't aware, birth control does not offer absolute protection (the pill, for example, has a 10% failure rate)
Hence "emergency contraceptive."
, nor does the morning after pill (it is dependent on when it's taken and where the woman is in her cycle).
Holy shit! Did you manage to learn something? Admitting that emergency contraceptive is dependent upon a woman's cycle does contradict that it can stop implantation.
Also, it is not that easily available in many places in the US, with limits imposed, age limits, consent, then you have pharmacists who use religious objections to refuse to provide it, it can be costly and not easily affordable for a lot of women. There is also the absolute risk of lack of education in the school system in the US on using birth control.
Again, condoms and emergency contraceptives are available to anyone, without a prescription. Hormonal birth control, like the pill, requires a prescription, with options for assistance paying. There's a pharmacy on almost every corner here, and you'd have to prove where it is that none would sell birth control. And the public education system in the US is almost completely controlled by the Left. It is a disgrace, and parents should be teaching basic sex-ed.
Why would I do that?
I don't know, a modicum of intellectual honesty?
I'm personally pro-life, in that I would never see myself having an abortion.
Then you are the OP's "But we were not the ones who actually did it, so we are innocent."
Again, you're back to your silly nonsense that a woman can determine what it is just because it's in her body.
And that right there, says is all about you as an individual. What is wrong with you?
You don't get to make up the science just because it's in your body. How hard is that to understand?
Yes. It's in her body. It is her body. She is the only one who gets to decide. No one else.
Which is it? "In" or "is"?
Quit denying the science. You don't get to make up bullshit, like your spleen is a unicorn or your baby just a growth, just because it's in your body.
I was going to address the rest of your points, but you're just repeating the same rubbish over and over again and I'm tired of dealing with your sexist bullshit.
Well, you've already repeated all your rubbish at least three times now.
 
Noone disputes that a healthy fetus is alive. Similarly noone disputes that your bones are alive. Or any warts or moles you have are alive.
Whether intentional or just out of ignorance, that's called equivocating, where you conflate two different meanings if the same term.
Such things are not of a different species, so there is no refuting that they also are human either, being as they are of the DNA of homo sapiens. Thus: "human life". But are they "a life"?
A human is a member of the species homo sapiens, your bones are not. Your bones, warts, etc. are human tissue that have no significant life apart from a human organism. No rational person would confuse a bone or wart for an entire human.
You seem to be inserting a hidden premise within your argument that a fetus is “a human life”, rather than just “human life”, and then equivocating on the meaning of “human life” to avoid revealing that ungranted premise.
No, I clearly defined "human" and "life." I can't help it if you don't like that the scientific definitions say a fetus is a human life, not just human tissue.
Bells is clearly differentiating between “human life” (something alive and of human origin) and “a human life”. She is arguing that a fetus is certainly something alive of human origin, and has potential to be “a human life”.
And I directly refuted that with the scientific definitions. Egg, sperm, and zygote are "potential human life." A new organism developing under its own unique, human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens.
What you need to focus on is why one type of “human life” is to be given special consideration compared to any other “human life”, such as a wart, mole, femur, tonsil, appendix etc, and from when.

If it is because the fetus has the potential to become “a human life” on its own, admit that that is what you’re hanging your position on, and argue for when protection of that potential outweighs the right of the body in which it resides.
Nope, it is "a human life," not just potential. Your supposed "ungranted premise" is just a straw man.

If you were my wife and we both decided that abortion would be best under the circumstances, if anyone should try to force you to bring that pregnancy to term, I would have the right to kill that person in defense of my wife.
No, that would be murder, in every state in the US.
 
Your proclamation is not an argument. Mine requires you to rebut that human life has intrinsic value, but you don't want to do that, as that would make you a bad person. All you're saying here is that me using science is inconvenient to your arguments. #FollowTheScience
first off no one needs to rebut human life has intrinsic value. you have yet to prove that it does but made it prima facie and demand we accept it. secondly you aren't using science. you as usual are lying your ass off. biologists have repeatedly said that it is not their place to answer the question you keep say to follow the science on. this is you claiming things as facts when the facts don't agree with you.
 
first off no one needs to rebut human life has intrinsic value. you have yet to prove that it does but made it prima facie and demand we accept it. secondly you aren't using science. you as usual are lying your ass off. biologists have repeatedly said that it is not their place to answer the question you keep say to follow the science on. this is you claiming things as facts when the facts don't agree with you.
If you don't think human life has intrinsic value, that's on you. As I told James, since I consider my life to have value, it only follows that all human life has value. If you don't consider your own life to have value, I can't help you. I'm not talking about biologists. I'm talking about scientific definitions, whether any scientist wants to weigh in on something as politically fraught as abortion or not. So, are you going to refute the scientific definitions or "human" and "life"? If not, you're claim is moot.
 
Vociferous,

I'll probably get back to the bulk of your hot-tempered blather at some later time. For now, I'd like to take a quick look at your amusingly idiosyncratic attempt to redefine "human life" to suit your purposes.
Yes there is. Science has defined both terms.
human - any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens
life - animate matter​
So, lest I misinterpret you, can I confirm that you're saying that "human life" must consist of an entire organism of the species Homo sapiens that is "animate"?

That would mean that you would not consider a human arm, for example, to be an example of "human life", even when attached to, say, yourself. Correct?

What do you mean by "animate matter", in this context?
In the case of early development, it goes from a collection of contributing cells (egg and sperm, which could be compared to skin cells, etc.) to a new human life when the new, unique DNA fully takes overt its development.
I assume you meant to write "over" rather than "overt" there.

A foetus is unable to develop without the assistance of such things as a placenta and a uterus, which are not things that are supplied by the foetus itself or under the control of the foetus's DNA.

At what specific point in the development of this new "human life", in your opinion, does that "life's" unique DNA "fully take over its development"? Seeing as you #FollowtheScience and all, I suppose your Science has a definite point in mind.

You are adamant that your version of "human life" does not start at the moment of conception, which I might define as the time when the DNA and of the ovum and sperm cross over to form a new combination of complete Homo sapiens DNA. Thus, a single-celled fertilised ovum is not, according to you, "human life".
Vociferous said:
Obviously, living skin cells, eggs, sperm, and even fertilized eggs are not members of the species homo sapiens.
Tell me what your Science says about how a "fertilized egg" that is not a member of the species Homo sapiens becomes such a member, and when (#FollowingTheScience) that happens, exactly.
And equally as obvious is the fact that an embryo developing under it own human DNA is.
Lots of stuff is obvious to you, of course. But does what is obvious to you actually make sense #FollowingTheScience? That's the question.

So far in your explanation, we have a fertized egg - not a member of the species Homo sapiens - somehow gaining specieshood by the time it is an embryo. So, at what particular time between those two points does the fertilized egg turn into the human life, according to the #Science?

At that time, does the human life immediately gain all the human rights of an adult human? It would seem the answer to that would be: obviously not. But, according to you, at that time it suddenly acquires, at a minimum, an absolute moral right to use the body of another example of human life for 9 months against that human life's will. Why is that? And what was the relevant moral difference just before and just after it achieved "human life" status, in terms of the #Science?

(Come to think of it, while that "human life" does not gain all the rights of an adult human being, you insist that it gains more rights than a newborn baby would have, in that newborn babies do not have the right to use other people's bodies for 9 months without their permission. Why does your "human life" in the womb have more rights than a newborn human child?)
Otherwise, you have to make the absurd claim that something other than a human can develop from human DNA.
That makes me chuckle, because that's precisely the absurd claim that you are making. Don't you see?

That fertilised ovum that you proclaim is not "human life" somehow develops into the embryo that you proclaim is "human life". I think you and I can agree that the fertilised ovum has a full set of the requisite human DNA, can we not? So, you are saying that before the magical time when the thing that develops from the fertilised ovum becomes "human life", it is something other than "a human".

Congratulations. You just labelled your own claim as absurd.

What other tricks have you got up your sleeve?
Very clear and simple distinction of when merely living cells become human life.
One that you have yet to make. Maybe you'll explain yourself in your reply to this post. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
If you don't think human life has intrinsic value, that's on you.
so you can't handle facts
As I told James, since I consider my life to have value, it only follows that all human life has value. If you don't consider your own life to have value, I can't help you.
now you are mixing up two completely different terms. i consider my life to have value. i consider all life to have value. what i don't believe is that something has value simply for being alive.
I'm not talking about biologists.
that probably explains why you are so wrong
I'm talking about scientific definitions, whether any scientist wants to weigh in on something as politically fraught as abortion or not.
no you aren't. you are literally using the dictionary definitions of words not the "scientific definition"
So, are you going to refute the scientific definitions or "human" and "life"? If not, you're claim is moot.
you aren't using scientific definitions. you are just using definitions. you can't refute a definition it just is. you demand makes about as much sense as demanding some one refute 8.

also biologists and science in general regard any member of the genus homo to be human. so even the definition you used which was the supposed "scientific definition" was wrong


but i'm not really going to debate philosophy with you. which despite your whining is the primary area the abortion takes place not biology. given you clear inability to comprehend abstract thought you clearly lack the capability to understand it.
 
If you don't think human life has intrinsic value, that's on you. As I told James, since I consider my life to have value, it only follows that all human life has value.

Many things that are both human and alive (say, cancer cells, or your kidney) do not have the same value as a person.
People who are brain dead do not have the same value as a person. Indeed, generally the only remaining question in such a case is when to turn off life support. Doing so is not murder, since the person who was there is gone, even if their body is still alive.
Spontaneously aborted/miscarried/unimplanted human embryos (i.e. most of them) do not have the same value as a person.
 
Back
Top