Incorrect. I suggest you read about spontaneous abortions, which are the most frequent outcome.
Okay.
How many human beings are present here?
While I oppose the death penalty, I would have no problem with harvesting their organs with their consent. Polling generally shows support for this as well.
There are many many things in this world that are not alive but are useful.
In these cases a woman is exercising her constitutional rights to control over her body. As a result of that abortion you can either:
A.) throw the remains in a medical waste bag (or bury them or otherwise discard them) or B.) use them to save hundreds, thousands, or perhaps millions of lives.
It appears you would choose option A, but I would chose option B. I guess you could say I'm pro life like that.
It is unclear. For recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks, the spontaneous abortion rate is 8-20%, with that percentage rising to 50% for all fertilized eggs. So there isn't a clear answer at your arbitrary picture.
But even if it became accepted there was one at that timepoint, why 12 weeks? Why not 13 weeks? Why not 12 weeks and 1 day? Why not 12 weeks at 1 hour? Why not 8 weeks? Making up arbitrary dates does not make an argument.
The child wasn't alive...but its organs were?
With their consent.
The child wasn't alive...but its organs were?
Killing innocents to save lives is kind of incoherent.
It is unclear. For recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks, the spontaneous abortion rate is 8-20%, with that percentage rising to 50% for all fertilized eggs. So there isn't a clear answer at your arbitrary picture.
But even if it became accepted there was one at that timepoint, why 12 weeks? Why not 13 weeks? Why not 12 weeks and 1 day? Why not 12 weeks at 1 hour? Why not 8 weeks? Making up arbitrary dates does not make an argument.
Unclear? Arbitrary? It's a flippin' baby. That one may be spontaneously aborted has no bearing whatsoever on that fact.
Pre-freaking-cisely. The only sensible argument regarding when a human life begins is conception. It's a human being at the very earliest stage of development. Everything else is, as you say, arbitrary.
I believe he (and others) believe life begins at conception and has all the rights, etc of human life from that point on.
There is the (now tired) 'fire in a fertility clinic' example that shows no one actually believes this, but somehow the position persists.
I believe he (and others) believe life begins at conception and has all the rights, etc of human life from that point on.
There is the (now tired) 'fire in a fertility clinic' example that shows no one actually believes this, but somehow the position persists.
So you want to confer full rights to something that may become one, two, three, four, five, six, or ZERO human individuals?
You really need to rethink this logic. This the unfortunate side of the "life beings at conception" thought, people don't realize the actual biology that is occurring at that stage flies in the face of "one fertilized egg = one human." In fact, that is probably the worst stage to arbitrarily select.
Tired indeed. The example shows that circumstances can be introduced by which any human being can be reasonably killed.
It's the only stage that isn't arbitrary.
Sadly it is a simplistic view on a complex question. People think life beginning at conception is so simple, but the reality of biology reflects the lack critical consideration of what choosing that arbitrary date actually means.
Same here, the woman has to give consent.
I don't understand the question. The embryo isn't a human life, so it's not 'alive' in a sense that we consider people alive. The organs themselves contain human tissue that is useful for research. That's not considered 'alive' in the sense of a human life either.\
Right, but that's not what's happening here. Again, if you want to stick to the whole 'embryos are life' thing that's fine, but you said you thought everyone would consider such a thing horrifying. For people who don't view this as 'innocent life' it should make perfect sense as to why we would want to use this abortion to save thousands or millions of human lives. What would be horrifying is to not save those lives.
But that's total bullshit. You're just a simpleton that allows your emotions to override all reason. That's how terrorists are made.I guess some of us hold human life as more precious.
Irrelevant.Animals that are not humanely killed for food is also wrong. Someone torturing a cat or dog for example is also acting in an amoral manner.
Except it is innocent life. It's a human being innocent of any wrongdoing. The first part is biology, the second a simple fact.
None. Human beings are born.Okay.
How many human beings are present here?
None. Human beings are born.
What about ectopic pregnancies
Incorrect. It shows that despite people claiming an embryo is every bit as much of a human life as a baby, when forced to choose they would sacrifice hundreds, thousands, or even millions of them to save that baby. It perfectly exposes the fact that despite statements to the contrary, even the most ardent 'life begins at conception' people do not actually view the two as equal.
There's no getting around it.
And 12 week old fetuses look more like this:
Inmates are persons, you stupid twat.Why should a death-row inmate's consent be necessary to harvest his organs?
Not really. It's occupying the body of another person against her will and without her consent. Abortion stops it from doing that.Except it is innocent life.
You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You're just another dumb ass right winger with crippling atrophy of the brain. Don't you get tired of living in your frightening and angry fantasy world?It's a human being innocent of any wrongdoing. The first part is biology, the second a simple fact.
And you're really going to claim that's not a human being?