Topic: Where do you stand on abortion? Let's have a civil debate. - page 2. (Read 2019 times)

Seems like I have read an outdated article.
I have found this, it doesn't create sperm or eggs but involves genes as well. You're going to have to link me if you're thinking of something else, as I don't know precisely what you're talking about.



So you believe its a person once its heart starts beating?


Because a skin cell will not grow up and work.
You have mentionted the above intervention in turning a skin cell into an embryo, but it is an intervention. A skin cell on its own will not grow up and work.
It will, once it's turned into an embryo, and then it is human life.

I ignored it because it's a non argument due to the fact it's factually incorrect. Somatic cells aren't injected with anything, oocytes are. Also it's a nucleus, not "genes". The technique is called nuclear transfer. Also, it creates a pluripotent cell, not a sperm or an egg.

Irrelevant to my argument. An acorn is not a tree, and a zygote is not a person.

When someone is declared brain dead, then their life is over. Their body can continue to function, their heart beat, their kidneys filter, their hair grow, but the person they once were is dead, both biologically and legally.

Why, then, would a zygote, which not only can't think or be conscious, but doesn't even have the necessary structures to do these things - no cortex, no cerebellum, no brainstem - be a person? Biologically speaking, there is nothing a zygote possesses which a skin cell doesn't also possess. Why do you assign personhood to one but not the other?

You have completely ignored this part


Plants aren't sentient, nor are they potentially sentient.
An egg is not always a chicken. Most eggs aren't fertilized.


Fertilized eggs are indeed little chicks.

Can you elaborate why you think a zygote isn't a human being?

I so much believe and support the answer you just provided above and whoever still have a contrary opinion  should remember that there is a repercussion for their action and in action about killing an innocent child.

This sentence is a great example of why people argue about abortion.
Some will never accept that a zygote is a human. I also don't believe that it is. For me it's just a process that is supposed to form a human, not a human (but we cannot be sure that it will). For the same reason I do not believe that a body with a dead brain is a human being. We exist as long as our brains function. A body connected to machines that keep it alive while the brain is dead is not a human anymore. It's the remains of a human.
A child becomes a human being when its brain is formed and it starts feeling things and its life ends when those brain functions cease.

An acorn is a tree in process, just like an oak tree.
A seed is a plant in process, just like the plant.
An egg is a chicken in process, just like the chicken.
A fertilized human egg is a human in process just like an adult man or woman.

How many times do I have to say this. I agree that a zygote is human life. What it isn't is a human being.

Is an acorn a tree? No.
Is a seed a plant? No.
Is an egg a chicken? No.
Is a zygote a human? No.

No matter what the age of a person, killing him/her is murder. The first 9 months of life are simply a stage of life of a person.

Murder is about the murderer, not the bystander. So its not the responsability to force a guy to do something. Nor is the responsability of the bystander to critique the murderer.


Skin cells can be injected with genes that transform them into eggs or sperm.
They're still not human. They're eggs or sperm.
When these are matched together a zygote can be made.
Only a fertilized egg is human life.

Skin on itself is just skin. It's not human life.
Just because you can inject skin cells with genes that transform it into sperm doesn't make it human.
If that sperm fertilizes an egg, then that zygote is indeed human life because biologists agree that fertilization of an egg marks the beginning of human life.

I agree, as I stated in a previous post here:


A fertilized egg, a skin cell, a tumor, a transplanted organ - they are all human life, but they aren't a human being. Removing a few fertilized cells is not murder any more than exfoliating your skin is.

Right, so this is the logic I would use in explaining why it's less tragic to abort a zygote when comparing it to the abortion of an 8.5 month fetus which is why I tend to be pro-choice for early termination. A zygote cannot feel or respond to stimuli -- it isn't sentient.

Regardless though, that zygote is human life. So I have to make the unfortunate concession that I am okay with ending innocent human life in regards to terminating a zygote.

pregnancy is about the female. not the man. so its not the responsibility to force a guy to do something. nor is it the responsibility of the man to force the woman..

yes people need to take better precautions. but if u told everyone to look both ways when crossing the road. does not mean that people no longer get run over.. it will still happen.

all that we can do is make sure the woman who is pregnant is making a educated decision. but that decision is her own. there is no need for those shouty 'its murder' stuff because 'death' alone is not just murder. death is a natural part of life. its the moral/reason for the death that makes  difference. yep assisted suicide is a moral positive. its not murder. if the benefits of death outweigh the negatives of life. then the morals are clear. thus a fetus has no chance of a good life or even surviving birth. means abortion should be ok

i truly find it ever so funny that americans are the loudest 'its murder' preachers. yet they are the same ones that want to own guns to protect themselves from invaders. both foreign and domestic. so if death is ok for self defense. than so should some reasons for abortion linked to self defense of the mother.

but hey im just ranting. as my opinion does not count the only people that should even have an opinion are women that are currently pregnant

In order to prevent all these arguments when it comes to abortion why don't the people who engages with sex for just pleasure and not for babies just use condoms for the sake of everyone because this prevents abortions and prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

Precisely! Just the same as zygotes and embryos, up until around week 22. They can't think, feel, sense, interact, respond. They don't even have a functioning nervous system. They are a mass of cells, not a human.

Sperm or egg cells are not human life by the definition that a zygote, or a fertilized egg, is objectively the beginning of human life according to biologists. The formation of any viable human begins at conception which is the joining of a sperm and egg cell. Skin cells cannot engage in fertilization.



You're using the word "think" loosely here. Skin cells responding to stimuli is an autonomous process that doesn't involve any sort of thinking. Because a skin cell can't think, it can't respond to pain either.


This is like saying a tumor is human life. A mass of skin cells do not result in the formation of a sentient being. A zygote does.


The idea of calling a zygote human life is to apply an objective standard to abortion. I am not one to argue that a terminated zygote is more tragic than the termination of a 8.5 month old fetus in the womb because the latter is devastating while the former does not create the same emotional impulse.  Clearly there are differences between a zygote and a developed fetus and you can rationally reason yourself through the physical differences. I tend to be pro-choice but see the logical flaws in supporting abortion and struggle with the rationality myself.

If you support abortion and want to make an objective argument, you can't arbitrarily assign value to human life based on development or based upon your feelings of the context of the abortion. Many pro-life individuals believe abortion is okay anywhere conception to before "X" weeks. But in this instance, they are arbitrarily creating standards for when abortion is okay and when it's not okay meaning that you cannot objectively say human life has an innate value. In addition, you need to ask yourself this question. For example, if you believe after 26 weeks abortion is not okay and anything before is all right, what makes the fetus any less of a human being before 26 weeks versus after? Sure, you could point to physiological and anatomical differences but major development of organs already happened within the first month of conception. Human life is in fact human life with or without certain anatomical features. So, there's issue in assigning arbitrary weeks as a cut off for an abortion because it's impossible to objectively articulate at what point the "clump of cells", as the pro-choice crowd calls it, becomes worthy human life.

This is wall that separates pro-choice from the pro-life crowd. Pro-life individuals believe that human life objectively has innate value and human life begins at conception. Thus, any form of termination from conception is ending innocent human life. As someone that's pro-choice, they're not wrong in their line of thinking. I just reject the notions that all human life has innate value.

[citation needed]

It is scientifically proven that the soul is introduced into the embryo within 24 hours after conception. It turns out that this is a spiritualized creature, but which so far depends on the mother and doesn't have developed mind. Although it is also proved that the child in the womb feels, sees and hears everything. It also directly perceives emotions from the mother, etc.
I mean that the child depends on the mother, as well as the already born child. But no one says that it’s normal to kill a born child. Why then do we continue to do this?

New life is not our property. If we have created a new life, we must reach the end.

i think that new terms should be defined to make it easier
0-2weeks: pregnancy cancellation
2-12 weeks: pregnancy abortion
12-24 weeks: pregnancy termination
24weeks+: (multiple terms based on circumstance)

after the 24th week when the fetus becomes actually viable of life (can actually live if birthed/surgically removed) .. then at that after point the debate should be the pro's or cons of what should happen.

but debating the pre-24week stuff where the fetus has no chance independantly anyway. then that becomes the mothers sole decision

the reason i also think the 3 categories of the 0-24 should apply is that
each should have their own advice levels.
for instance 0-2 should just be contraception support
2-12: advice. pros/cons of no support system, no job, no father in the picture. but still moths decision
12-24 should be the bit where the cons need to be real negatives like the fetus might have abnormalities and not a good life experience if it was born

after the 24th week .. then abortion should not occur unless there is real harm caused if it was born. such as if a mother has cancer and the only cure was radiation. but due to pregnancy its a decision of will kid grow up without a mother. mother dying at childbirth..  or stopping the pregnancy to save the mothers life

Except we have the technology to turn any cell in to an entire organism. So a skin cell could grow up to get a job in the right conditions. Just as a fertilized egg cell could grow up to get a job in the right conditions. In your mind, what is inherently different between these two cells that one is a human and one isn't?

Also, if unrealized future potential is what we are going on here, then sperm cells and unfertilized eggs have the same potential to grow in to an entire organism, given the right conditions. Do we make periods illegal too?

Skin is an organ, not a human beign.
Skin cells can't grow up and get jobs.
Zygotes can.


So, the vaginal canal magically turns someone into a person?
He's not a person 1 minute before birth, but the minute later he's a person?
Are babies born with caesarean section actually people o.o