Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
[Image: th?id=OIP.Mf6a33e3577cbbecdd9afe3910595d...;amp;h=300]

Arguably a foetus can be considered a 'person' once it is viable, and as medical technology advances viability starts to occur sooner snd sooner. One day a zygote may likely be considered viable.

That is not the case now.

Until it is possible to safely remove a very premature foetus/zygote, the physical and mental safety of the woman is of greater importance. Abortions will still occur whether it is legal or not.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
19-08-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 01:58 PM)Loom Wrote:  [Image: th?id=OIP.Mf6a33e3577cbbecdd9afe3910595d...;amp;h=300]

Arguably a foetus can be considered a 'person' once it is viable, and as medical technology advances viability starts to occur sooner snd sooner. One day a zygote may likely be considered viable.

That is not the case now.

Until it is possible to safely remove a very premature foetus/zygote, the physical and mental safety of the woman is of greater importance. Abortions will still occur whether it is legal or not.

I'm not aware of anywhere in this thread were someone has claimed a fetus is a person. You continue to conflate "person" with "human being"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:58 PM)Loom Wrote:  [Image: th?id=OIP.Mf6a33e3577cbbecdd9afe3910595d...;amp;h=300]

Arguably a foetus can be considered a 'person' once it is viable, and as medical technology advances viability starts to occur sooner snd sooner. One day a zygote may likely be considered viable.

That is not the case now.

Until it is possible to safely remove a very premature foetus/zygote, the physical and mental safety of the woman is of greater importance. Abortions will still occur whether it is legal or not.

I'm not aware of anywhere in this thread were someone has claimed a fetus is a person. You continue to conflate "person" with "human being"

It certainly isn't a "being".

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
19-08-2016, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2016 02:17 PM by Loom.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:58 PM)Loom Wrote:  [Image: th?id=OIP.Mf6a33e3577cbbecdd9afe3910595d...;amp;h=300]

Arguably a foetus can be considered a 'person' once it is viable, and as medical technology advances viability starts to occur sooner snd sooner. One day a zygote may likely be considered viable.

That is not the case now.

Until it is possible to safely remove a very premature foetus/zygote, the physical and mental safety of the woman is of greater importance. Abortions will still occur whether it is legal or not.

I'm not aware of anywhere in this thread were someone has claimed a fetus is a person. You continue to conflate "person" with "human being"
You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a 'human being' that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

I do not deny that a zygote has unique human DNA. I DO deny that it is any sort of a being, especially the loaded term 'human being.'

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Loom's post
19-08-2016, 02:17 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not aware of anywhere in this thread were someone has claimed a fetus is a person. You continue to conflate "person" with "human being"

It certainly isn't a "being".

You're not familiar with the life cycle of a human being are you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:10 PM)Loom Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not aware of anywhere in this thread were someone has claimed a fetus is a person. You continue to conflate "person" with "human being"
You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

I do not deny that a zygote has unique human DNA. I DO deny that it is any sort of a being, especially the loaded term 'human being.'

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering a fetus because his unborn child was consider to be a human being.

Your claim that the unborn typically are not given moral protection is demonstrably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:20 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  It certainly isn't a "being".

You're not familiar with the life cycle of a human being are you?
In common language 'human being' typically reffers to an established person, not a zygote.

Likewise, you would not not refer to a zygote as a 'human being' if you were indeed educated in the human lifecycle.

You would call it a zygote.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
19-08-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:20 PM)Loom Wrote:  In common language 'human being' typically reffers to an established person, not a zygote.

I agree, that is why I find it understandable that you conflate it. But in this context we are discussing what is biologically a human being.

(19-08-2016 02:20 PM)Loom Wrote:  Likewise, you would not not refer to a zygote as a 'human being' if you were indeed educated in the human lifecycle.

You would call it a zygote.

A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being.

Earlier in the thread I stated why I felt personhood is a poor choice to delineate what is morally protected and what isn't.

Laci Petersons unborn child deserved moral protection and that child's murderer is now sitting on death row. Laci Petersons unborn child was not a person, it was though a human being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:10 PM)Loom Wrote:  You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

I do not deny that a zygote has unique human DNA. I DO deny that it is any sort of a being, especially the loaded term 'human being.'

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering a fetus because his unborn child was consider to be a human being.

Your claim that the unborn typically are not given moral protection is demonstrably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson
The way a law is written is to provide what in a context?

Do you proclaim to express a scientific understanding? law context? Moral proclimation? Common household thought version? Or do you perceive there to be one division and it's all one point?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:20 PM)Loom Wrote:  In common language 'human being' typically reffers to an established person, not a zygote.

I agree, that is why I find it understandable that you conflate it. But in this context we are discussing what is biologically a human being.

(19-08-2016 02:20 PM)Loom Wrote:  Likewise, you would not not refer to a zygote as a 'human being' if you were indeed educated in the human lifecycle.

You would call it a zygote.

A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being.

Earlier in the thread I stated why I felt personhood is a poor choice to delineate what is morally protected and what isn't.

Laci Petersons unborn child deserved moral protection and that child's murderer is now sitting on death row. Laci Petersons unborn child was not a person, it was though a human being.

You do realize in that case the foetus was 8-months along and nearly fully developed , not a cluster of self-replicating cells?

You do realize virtually NO pregnancies are terminated that late because the mother simply did not want it.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: