Science would say that a zygote is living tissue

Much like science would say your body is living tissue. Science also says you are alive, and science also says the zygote is alive.

Science would not make a claim one way or another whether a zygote is a 'discrete being, distinct from its mother'.

Yes, science would and does. The zygote has a complete and distinct DNA sequence. It is a being distinct from its mother. It is not, as perhaps you were clumsily trying to insinuate, part of its mother as my thumb is part of me. Brain waves are irrelevant to this question, and the fact you bring it up suggests again that you're trying to reach a predetermined conclusion and forcing your answers to conform to that result, rather than simply answering the question.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Will your thumb, or anyone's thumb for that matter ever turn into a self sustaining human through a natural process?

Will a fertilized egg?

You say it has nothing to do with punishing anyone but I don't buy it.

The natural consequence of getting polio is paralysis. Nobody in their right mind would say we are have to let people get polio.

Yes there exists a right to not be subject to negative consequences when we can readily do so. Insisting someone experience the unwanted consequences of their actions requires a moralistic viewpoint. It becomes a punishment for their actions.

exactly. this what i was allding to in an earlier post that we come up with remedies to overcome consequences all the time.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You say it has nothing to do with punishing anyone but I don't buy it.

I can only tell you what I think. Whether you choose to believe it or not isn't my problem.


The natural consequence of getting polio is paralysis. Nobody in their right mind would say we are have to let people get polio.

True, but polio isn't a normal and healthy bodily function. And treating it doesn't end a human life.


Yes there exists a right to not be subject to negative consequences when we can readily do so.

Interesting point of view.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But then they might feel bad.

I'm "pro-choice". I also accept that a life is being snuffed out when an abortion occurs.

I don't really feel bad at all.

It's mostly black babies anyway. Amirite?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

It might be late to try, but in an effort to answer the original post: as someone who is pro-choice, no, the woman's particular "situation" does not affect my "moral compass" on the issue. For me, this has less to do with whether or not a zygote/fetus is "alive/human", but more with the fact that absolutely nobody has any claim to make use of or declare some claim to the body of another person, even when their own life is at stake.

Just trying to throw a vote in for the original intent of the thread. But some interesting talks going on... hope I'm not too late.

that is in line for much of my position about abortion. pro life arguments give rights to fetuses that no one else has. they are also apparently unwilling to grant to those rights after birth even to save a life.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Don't know if that is the case with most aborted fetuses being black. But that was certainly one of the intentions of the founder of Planned Parenthood.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

For me, this has less to do with whether or not a zygote/fetus is "alive/human", but more with the fact that absolutely nobody has any claim to make use of or declare some claim to the body of another person,

I'm not sure of your point but if you are saying only the woman can make a decision about a fetus, does that mean the father has no rights?

This is pretty much why the millennials are so fucked up... no punishment for their actions.

Carry on.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

The father has plenty of rights. One of them, however, is not the right to force the mother to carry his child to term.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Like the right to pay child support for a child he doesn't even want!

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

My original point is that statistically, for someone to fall pregnant, they have made a conscious decision not to have used suitable contraception measures.

Now people can come back and argue that no measures are 100% effective all they like. I'm not talking about the 1 in 10,000 person, I'm referring to the other 9999.

I take issue with people who think it's acceptable to terminate a 'potential' human life because they don't like the feel of condoms or implants or any other reason. That is selfish. That is immoral. That shows contempt for life.

as stated, i completely disagree. perhaps this is what you mean to say?:

"if someone got pregnant, then its probably likely they did not use contraception"

is that what you mean or do you prefer the way you worded it?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

i'm getting a chuckle out of all these wild-assed guesses about what "'science' would say." if we could ask 'science,' whoever that is, here's what science would say:

"hey, it sounds like you're going to try to ask me some nonsensical questions so that you can use my answer out of context to support your position. no thanks!"

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

No, they don't. Not even a little bit.

But, I think you know that already.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

yes they do. or should i clarify "they SEEK to give rights to a fetus that no one has after theyre born" is that better?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Better? No.

More accurate? No.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

a result of pro life arguments is that the fetus ends up having a right to be sustained by a womans body.

no one else has that right after theyre born.

therefore, the fetus would have a right no one else has.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

If you are going to go at it that way no one else can have that right because it is physically impossible. I mean we can't hook up a new umbilical cord and stuff a newborn into someone. However newborns are extremely dependent on someone. They can't feed themselves can't maintain their own body temperature etc. The unborn are in a unique position but I don't think you can use that as justification to remove their right to live. If you are you are going to have to concede that to abort a 39 week old is as justifiable as a 12 week old.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

i need new lungs or im going to die. who can i force to give me one?


no, i dont have to concede that. although in some extreme cases, it is justifiable, and its devastating for the parents.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Vitus is trying to control/direct the conversation using heavily loaded language of his choosing. Instead of opening with:
Is a zygote living tissue?
He opens with
Is a zygote alive?
And then when we pursue what 'alive' means we end up in absurd-land with a claim like 'a thumb is alive'.
Then, instead of asking:
Can zygotes be classified by species?
He asks:
Is a zygote human?

It's classic agenda-driven bullshit.

The language isn't loaded, it's just accurate. You're just heavily invested in trying to obscure the issue.

Can the zygote be classified by species? Yes it can, it so happens that the species under discussion is human.

You seriously don't think your thumb is alive? Is it human?

Here's the scientific truth that you just simply won't admit, and are going to ludicrous and embarrassing lengths to avoid: After conception, a new human being exists. That's not loaded, and it doesn't drive any particular agenda. It's the basic reality of life. It's exactly the kind of information we talk about when we say "science should inform the discussion" over this or that issue.

Does that mean you have to oppose abortion? No, but you don't get to have your own facts. Deal with it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."