My toe-nail clipping is human but I wouldn't go as far as to call it "a" human, while imo a zygote is not "a" human either.
Well, I was talking about "a" human not something of human origin as you have which I hope I have clarified for you above.
Your toe-nail clipping has no potential of becoming anything more, whereas a zygote is a human body, albeit at its earliest stage of development. It is irrelevant if you subjectively consider a zygote "a" human. It is indisputably human.
Lets stick to science and not wade needlessly into philosophy.
DNA from any human cells could potentially be used to create a human person but you want to talk about retaining the legality of abortion, OK but you asked for it:
I personally think it would often be mind numbingly cruel and heartless to force say a raped woman to gestate and give birth to a rapist’s child, particularly so if she had to put her own plans for a family on hold or marriage at risk with the man of her choice.
If, in the general opinion of society based on sound medical science, that up to a certain point there is no actual human “person” involved anyway, despite those who apparently believe in a magic-moment at conception, then what right or physical reason does the state have to deny an early abortion at least, even one based solely on convenience? None imo, any more than birth control should be illegal.
Later abortions imo should perhaps remain moot but not automatically illegal and based on the specific facts of the case, not someone else’s perhaps lay pre-conclusions or belief-led dogma.
Other than that, as per the general non-importance of individual zygotes and yes early term foetuses have in the scale of things (imo) then I personally don’t see any good reason for the state to interfere or deny any woman a desired early abortion on demand even, or risk encouraging the re-emergence of back street abortionists.
Later abortions just become increasingly more difficult to justify afaic but I do rather object to the imposition of dogma based legal sanctions without apparent regard for the facts of individual cases, as forced by those who are not actually involved themselves but perhaps have some greater principle or belief in mind that they want to impose on those who are involved but who perhaps don’t share those beliefs.
I don't sense any great outpouring of grief for what would amount to the majority of human beings/persons not making it passed the zygote stage. Even when this perhaps lesser known fact of life is pointed out I perceive no particular worry from those claiming that a human being starts at conception. Maybe they simply don't want to hear or accept it?
All part of God's mysterious plan perhaps?:think:
I don't know what God has to do with anything other than filling a desire to rail against said deity. We are talking about what is under human control i.e. "legal". If a woman has a miscarriage no one is necessarily at fault. If a pregnant woman has a miscarriage due to criminal behavior or negligence of a third party, that person could be found criminally culpable.
Beyond that, what people choose to grieve for really has nothing to do with the topic.
However I think such factors regarding the status of the foetus, not simply a belief in a supposed magic-moment at conception, are what law makers are actually interested in when deciding. Practical and physical things rather than spiritual.
It isn't something that worries me simply because I don't consider zygotes to be persons, any more than toe-nail clippings, but if I did then it probably would worry me a lot.
That's a rather sad way to look at it but again, how individuals define "persons" is irrelevant as this is a subjective, ambiguous and wholly philosophical topic/definition.
Whether you want to concede the point or not, the fact remain that embryos that can be legally killed for no other reason that inconvenience are human bodies.
Yes, even a zygote is a human body. It is simply at its earliest stage of development.
Do you find this a disputable point?
Yes, I don’t agree that a human zygote is a person which is simply what I think you are trying to say without actually saying it. I also see nothing wrong with birth control and this is no great leap away from that in principal, at least for those who don’t believe in magic-moments anyway.
If it worries you then you seem to be remarkably sanguine about it, why are you not apparently more concerned about this awful tragedy going on around us every day?
What tragedy? If you're talking about a zygote that fails to implant in the womb, I can be as concerned for this "tragedy" as I am concerned for an unknown girl who may or may not have been raped yesterday. If a tree falls in a forest with no one around....
I'm sorry, remind me again what worries you.
Many things worry me but zygotes don’t particularly. Obviously they are very expendable items in nature unless I am wrong and each one has been somehow made into a person at conception and well prior to the emergence of a nervous system.
Are you concerned enough for your unknown girl to allow her an abortion if she doesn’t want to be forced to gestate a rapist’s offspring for him, who may have wanted her chosen partner to be pregnant by instead but who now can’t by law? Do you care for that potential child albeit without the magic-moment part?
I suggest that is not actually true since arguably the egg and sperm were already alive.
With no potential on their own to become anything more.
Nor has my potential child from my comment above, just something that could possibly happen. I think you are perhaps rather too precious about zygotes than you are about actual people with extant lives to lead, but yet strangely don’t seem to worry too much for the two in three I gather that fail quite naturally. Zygotes don’t worry me, people however do.
What you seem to be assuming is a magical moment when "personship" is created or bestowed which is not something that I at least accept from the physical evidence or indeed want to from the fact that most human zygotes fail.
lain:
You are bridging needlessly back into the philosophical realm but with a new term, "personship" (which my ipad is hinting at not even being a word). You're rationalizing again.
Your argument seems to be "most zygotes fail, therefore it should be legal to kill zygotes". Correct? If I'm wrong about that, please clarify.
Yes “personship” is a contrivance that I’ve seen and used elsewhere, why not?
You say “kill” but is preventing zygotes with birth control free from such blame, why shouldn’t all pregnancies be wanted in this overcrowded world? After all that potential life requires the complete cooperation of that very same extant woman anti-abortionists would deny that choice to, perhaps after suffering a traumatic rape or more simply only a failed contraception.
Those who believe in that magic-moment at conception can of course instead choose not to abort in such circumstances; imo that is their choice to make as a human being, not others.
