3 ms·

Biologically life begins at conception [1] [2]. A human fetus has been conceived. Therefore a human fetus is a human life. Unjustly and deliberately killing a h

Biologically life begins at conception [1] [2]. A human fetus has been conceived. Therefore a human fetus is a human life. Unjustly and deliberately killing a human is murder. You may disagree with some of the premises but they follow one another and have decent reasons to believe them. That is hardly irrational. Something to keep in mind. If you want to actually convince somebody in the future, saying their views are as irrational as believing the Earth is flat isn't the best way. [1] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht... [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm...

CuriouslyC 4y ago
How do you even define "life" biologically? Two "living" things combine to form a fetus, and just a few months down the line none of the physical matter of those living things still comprises the growing fetus. The thing that is being terminated isn't a human, it's the potential of a human, which is also the thing that is flushed down the toilet when a used condom is disposed of. Forced birthers are crazy, full stop. A fertilized egg is not a human any more than a sperm is a human.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  If you don't understand the difference between sperm cells and a fertilized egg then you are just being obtuse.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Yesterday you've decided that hydatidiform mole is a human. And here you're making the same mistake again: you're assuming that if someone disagrees with your ideas about biology it means they don't understand it. In reality the reverse is true - pro-life myths might make sense to a high schooler, but not to someone who actually understands the topic.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I already provided links showing biologists agree that life starts at conception. It is not my fault you disagree with biologists.
      - CuriouslyC 4y ago
        Yet you missed the obvious fact that science doesn't even have a good definition for life, in fact it's a hard problem in the philosophy of science. You could say that the replicating mass of cells will in the future become a human being and that is not true of a sperm (unless it later goes on to fertilize an egg), but a sperm is just as "alive" as a fertilized egg.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        If you have some sperm cells laying around they won't grow into a human. If you have a fertilized egg it will (assuming the process completes normally).
      - trasz 4y ago
        Again, this doesn't matter to the discussion. Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body. (Also, you're conflating 'being homo sapiens' with 'being a person'; you've already tried this method of derailing the discussion two days before.)
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body. Of course it would. Should you be able to murder your kids in your house because "your house, your choice"?
        trasz 4y ago
        >Of course it would. Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child? >Should you be able to murder your kids in your house Completely different situation; we are talking about bodily autonomy, not “housing autonomy”.
trasz 4y ago
This argument is based on a logical fallacy equating "human" with "person". It's yet another example of an attempt to derail the discussion. >You may disagree with some of the premises but they follow one another You can say the exact same thing about antivaxers. >If you want to actually convince somebody in the future, saying their views are as irrational as believing the Earth is flat isn't the best way. Honestly, I don't think I can convince a flat-earther or pro-lifer. This kind of brainwashing appears to be unfixable. What can be done is limiting the spread.
- _-david-_ 4y ago

CuriouslyC 4y ago

How do you even define "life" biologically? Two "living" things combine to form a fetus, and just a few months down the line none of the physical matter of those living things still comprises the growing fetus. The thing that is being terminated isn't a human, it's the potential of a human, which is also the thing that is flushed down the toilet when a used condom is disposed of. Forced birthers are crazy, full stop. A fertilized egg is not a human any more than a sperm is a human.

_-david-_ 4y ago
If you don't understand the difference between sperm cells and a fertilized egg then you are just being obtuse.
- trasz 4y ago
  Yesterday you've decided that hydatidiform mole is a human. And here you're making the same mistake again: you're assuming that if someone disagrees with your ideas about biology it means they don't understand it. In reality the reverse is true - pro-life myths might make sense to a high schooler, but not to someone who actually understands the topic.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I already provided links showing biologists agree that life starts at conception. It is not my fault you disagree with biologists.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      Yet you missed the obvious fact that science doesn't even have a good definition for life, in fact it's a hard problem in the philosophy of science. You could say that the replicating mass of cells will in the future become a human being and that is not true of a sperm (unless it later goes on to fertilize an egg), but a sperm is just as "alive" as a fertilized egg.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        If you have some sperm cells laying around they won't grow into a human. If you have a fertilized egg it will (assuming the process completes normally).
    - trasz 4y ago
      Again, this doesn't matter to the discussion. Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body. (Also, you're conflating 'being homo sapiens' with 'being a person'; you've already tried this method of derailing the discussion two days before.)
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body. Of course it would. Should you be able to murder your kids in your house because "your house, your choice"?
        trasz 4y ago
        >Of course it would. Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child? >Should you be able to murder your kids in your house Completely different situation; we are talking about bodily autonomy, not “housing autonomy”.

trasz 4y ago

This argument is based on a logical fallacy equating "human" with "person". It's yet another example of an attempt to derail the discussion. >You may disagree with some of the premises but they follow one another You can say the exact same thing about antivaxers. >If you want to actually convince somebody in the future, saying their views are as irrational as believing the Earth is flat isn't the best way. Honestly, I don't think I can convince a flat-earther or pro-lifer. This kind of brainwashing appears to be unfixable. What can be done is limiting the spread.

_-david-_ 4y ago