Ok, when does it become a non-serious threat? Does the govt decide?
You’re better off finding a pic of an egg that had only been fertilized moments before the pic was taken.
Then ask, “is there any practical difference between an egg cell that has a sperm cell 99.999% of the way through the egg cell’s membrane, one that had just fully penetrated, one that had penetrated and is in the middle of the process of genetic information exchange between cell nuclei, and one that had just completed the exchange (46 chromosomes)?” as to clarify where their imaginary line for when/where a “human being” had suddenly come into existence.
There are plenty of corollary follow up questions:
-
In which of the above scenarios does a “soul” become mystically imparted.
-
Why put a soul into an egg which winds up failing to embed in the uterine wall (happens 2/3rds of the time).
Good question. If the religious right want to assert “life” via natural reductionism, they have effectively abandoned the belief that our souls are what we are in our purest form. Otherwise, they then have to abandon such reductionism, since naturalism cannot semantically and empirically describe the “soul”.
There is a growing call to respect life. This begins with men. How many men, in the event of pregnancy, have assured their partner that he will take care of her and the child if this is her choice? Does he give her a choice, or does he leave her without a choice?
What the heck is going on with deleted posts?
Which ones have been deleted?
How do you point them out when their gone…dah
Some across the board…nothing objectionable in any of them…no pattern…very weird.
And no notification of deletion is ever given.
When do you think personhood begins?
That’s the crux of the disagreement between the two sides. It seems an intractable question.
“Clear threat to the life of the mother”.
That’s the bar I set and have always adhered to.
There’s some risk of a mother dying due to complications with either the pregnancy or delivery, that’s just nature but not every such possibility presents a “clear threat to the life of the mother” that would justify the killing of a healthy unborn child.
Yes there’s a very clear difference in the two. One is a human egg, the other is a human being with it’s own unique DNA signature different from both the sperm and the egg.
It then immediately begins dividing, assimilating nutrients from it’s environment, and reacting to changes in that environment.
So you won’t set a percent as a bright line. Understood. Each doctor and patient gets to define it. Sounds good to me.
It is the gov’t that gets to decide when the taking of a human life is justifiable and when it is not.
Don’t attribute things to me I never said, it’s patently dishonest.
Personhood is determined by law and by the courts. Currently you aren’t a person until after you have been born and drawn breath although some states seem to now be more than willing to push that line forward by hours, days, maybe even weeks or months so that you can just let a baby starve and/or die of dehydration and basic neglect if you don’t get the result you were hoping for once it’s born live.
1 Like
Then go ahead and tell us where you think that bright line should be.
1 Like
Personally I’d put it around 25% or higher.
Depends on what the law gets changed to some day. Maybe it will be murder. Maybe it will be manslaughter.
I won’t be writing the law.
Today it’s not. And I never claim it is.
All I point out is that it’s the killing of an existing human life. Only a very few of the abortion advocates on this board seem willing to admit that.
