The Glade 4.0

It's the father's child too. He should have a say.

We could go with Science on this one then. It is genetically distinct from the mother (so it is not her nor is it a part of her) and alive from the moment of conception.

_________________

+1

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Hey guys did we solve abortion yet?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Cute.

How do you figure? Unless I have been missing something, a male cannot force the female to abort or carry to birth a pregnancy. It's the female's decision. They may give the male consideration depending on the relationship (say a married couple), but it is not needed.



How is it not a part of her?

Aizle:

How is what Hopwin said scientifically incorrect?

Just as importantly:


How can science answer this question?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It's not scientifically incorrect as far as it goes. But it being living tissue is not the same as being it's own being. I also believe that an element of the equation is the fetus' ability to survive on it's own.

I'm not sure that science can answer that question.

Which I think brings us back around to:

and

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Well, health care is solved. If you can't survive on your own, you're not your own being anyways.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Sorry I missed this.

I believe that using religion as the justification for any law is unconstitutional. I realize that opinion is not shared with a number (majority?) of posters here.

That opinion does go beyond what's considered the boundaries of the first amendment, I think.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I believe I already defined (scientifically) what a living being is (as currently stated in science) in the last thread. So you can't just use science for the first assertion then throwing it out the window all in the same sentence Hop =P

Scientifically, we do not have a definition for "life."

http://www.13thingsthatdontmakesense.com/chap.aspx?ch=5

As an aside, that book is a fascinating read.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

What are you talking about? There are no Constitutional provisions for justifying law. The Constitution is the justification. Laws are either Constitutional or not. Justification is irrelevant.

And a human zygote meets all the criteria on what is alive because (and here is the logical part which you ignore) if it isn't alive than neither are you or I because we all came from it; at least a living one does because they can be classified as dead which is hard for anything that was never alive to be. So really I guess that is two logical contradictions in your position.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If all Bs come from A
But not all As turn into B
Then does A = B?

If a zygote was nourished in the womb, it becomes a person like you and me. If that same zygote was nourished in the liver, it becomes a liver. I’m not ignoring logic; I’m just saying you’re missing a step from which you draw your conclusion, the environment. Would you say that a liver (or rather a part of the liver) should be given rights just because it came from the same thing you and I have?

See to me potential doesn’t automatically equal to right, however it seems that you think it does.

That is a different argument, personhood as opposed to living human.

That said it enforces an entirely subjective standard which is of no real use in setting an objective parameter.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No it doesn't you're equating a zygot to a human like you and me simply because it has the potential to become like you and me. Then using that logic, you are giving it rights like you and me simply because, and I quote "if it isn't alive than neither are you or I because we all came from it".

You are the one enforces an entirely subjective standard on an objective parameter. you're more concerned with what it could become then what it currently is. And regardless on how much potential a zygote has, objectively it has no life of it's own.

Dude, what?

_________________

So lydiaa im assuming the enviorment hes talking about. Do you need his definition to include zygote in the womb? Are there going to be exceptions for less than ideal wombs?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yes it does. It is a living organism - it could never be anything else because we all come from it. Your position here makes literally NO SENSE. If a living human zygote isn't alive than neither are we - we are some sort of crystal or other substance which grows but not alive. Of course a zygote is part of our life-cycle not part of our not living-and-then-suddenly-and-magically-living-cycle.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

using that logic Elmarieh, why are eggs not life?

Because they are haploid?Essentially the same reason viruses are not "life", they are DNA code snippets incapable of splitting or reproduction. Once they combine and become a complete cell, begin dividing and metabolizing adenosine triphosphate they are alive.

_________________

ok so using that logic, cells that do not have 46 total chromosomes are not human life?