You say you're pro-life, but do you mean it?

[retro]

AHHHH tricky tricky Grasshopper!

Though adultery is technically illegal since it is grounds for divorce...

it's actually only illegal in some states and the U.S. Military.

 

[JanieDough]

it's actually only illegal in some states and the U.S. Military.

is it not grounds for divorce in all states?

 

[Accountable]

Snoring is grounds nowadays.

 

[JanieDough]

Snoring is grounds nowadays.

shhh!!! I'm trying to prove a point!!!

 

[Minor Axis]

There you go flipping back to "viable" again. It's not my view that the clump of cells will become a human. It already is. It has DNA unique to itself that would identify it as such in any court of law. Society clings desperately to this idea of not being human until born because of the sweeping and devastating ramifications of acknowledging scientific fact.

I get it. Politics always trumps science ... and humanity ... until society decides it is more convenient to change than to remain static.

I'm not flipping. My views are consistent. A person who is on life support is different than a clump of cells yet to be human. You disagree. You think the clump of cells is a human. It's not, it's a potential human. I get it, you are "pro-life". You don't think "viable" means anything in this debate, but it does. That is why abortion is legal. We disagree.

 

[Accountable]

You don't think "viable" means anything in this debate, but it does.

Why? Consider carefully and answer, please.

 

[Accountable]

Still wondering why "viable" means anything in this debate.

 

[Minor Axis]

Still wondering why "viable" means anything in this debate.

I've all ready told you why and you disagreed with the reason.

 

[Accountable]

I've all ready told you why and you disagreed with the reason.

Scenario in an American hospital: A preemie that's pulled out of a womb too early to be technically viable is nevertheless put on life support by doctors, thinking that they will exploit that slimmest of chances that he may live.

Is he a citizen?

 

[Minor Axis]

Scenario in an American hospital: A preemie that's pulled out of a womb too early to be technically viable is nevertheless put on life support by doctors, thinking that they will exploit that slimmest of chances that he may live.

Is he a citizen?

Fetuses that are quite young survive these days. However, a fetus in the form of a clump of cells 1" in diameter is pulled out of a woman and put in a petri dish. Is it a citizen?

 

[Accountable]

Fetuses that are quite young survive these days. However, a fetus in the form of a clump of cells 1" in diameter is pulled out of a woman and put in a petri dish. Is it a citizen?

You didn't answer my question. May I infer that it is yes? If so, then the only difference between human and not human would be whether the life support was organic or artificial. If the baby in my scenario were placed on a petri dish, he would die as surely as the one in yours.

But technology makes leaps every day. Cloning takes place as we speak. I don't know if the cloned sheep in the news were implanted in a womb or if they grew independent of a biological mother, but it is easy to imagine that a scientist somewhere is working on an artificial environment to simulate a womb. If that "clump of cells" were placed in such an environment, and those cells grew (showing life), then by your own definition that I admittedly inferred, yes the fetus in your scenario, being on artificial life support, is a citizen.

Why should two humans of the same age, one on organic life support and the other on artificial life support, be entitled to different levels of status under the law?

 

[Minor Axis]

You didn't answer my question. May I infer that it is yes? If so, then the only difference between human and not human would be whether the life support was organic or artificial. If the baby in my scenario were placed on a petri dish, he would die as surely as the one in yours.

But technology makes leaps every day. Cloning takes place as we speak. I don't know if the cloned sheep in the news were implanted in a womb or if they grew independent of a biological mother, but it is easy to imagine that a scientist somewhere is working on an artificial environment to simulate a womb. If that "clump of cells" were placed in such an environment, and those cells grew (showing life), then by your own definition that I admittedly inferred, yes the fetus in your scenario, being on artificial life support, is a citizen.

Why should two humans of the same age, one on organic life support and the other on artificial life support, be entitled to different levels of status under the law?

I believe a cloned born human would have all the same rights as an old fashioned human. A clump of cells is not a person, not yet. Cloned cells would not have the same rights as a human, until they were viable and born, independent of the mother.. Yes, I said it again, viable and I added "born" too! At some point, usually at the point of birth, that entity becomes a human with rights under our laws. That is how it is. Maybe if more people think like you that will change. I can look at a clump of cells and say, that's a clump of cells that may develop into a human. You look at a clump of cells and say, there is a future baby that deserves the same rights a a born human. That is your opinion, not that it is a future human, but that it deserves the same rights as a human from the moment of inception.

I surrender, not the logic of what I'm saying, just arguing with you.

 

[Accountable]

I surrender, not the logic of what I'm saying, just arguing with you.

There is no logic in what you're saying. People praise logic and science until it leads them into an uncomfortable area, then suddenly we're back in the Middle Ages because to face the truth is horribly inconvenient. Acknowledging the truth would mean also acknowledging that our responsibility does not include abortion; that in fact abortion is denying and abandoning responsibility.

I believe a cloned born human would have all the same rights as an old fashioned human. A clump of cells is not a person, not yet.

He/she is, according to your own posts.

Cloned cells would not have the same rights as a human, until they were viable and born, independent of the mother.. Yes, I said it again, viable and I added "born" too! At some point, usually at the point of birth, that entity becomes a human with rights under our laws. That is how it is.

Cool! So you do agree with me that in your scenario, "... a clump of cells 1" in diameter is pulled out of a woman and put in a petri dish ...," it is human if a doctor can maintain its life, just as the erstwhile not-viable baby in my scenario is. It was pulled out of a woman, the traditional process we all consider "being born." It is living independent of the mother. It is human.