the hated abortion discussion.

[doorknob]

"It ends a potential human life, not a babies'. A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken. A baby is, by definition, an animal that has already been born. That is not flowering it up, that is the simple scientific truth and definition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the scientists who decided at what point a zygote becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a baby becomes a....

Abortions take place when an embryo resembles a human about as much as it resembles a chicken, a lizard or a elephant. You can argue that you are terminating a future human, but ultimately at the point of abortion you are "killing" an entity that cannot sustain itself, cannot think or have any sort of sentience, most likely has the most basic of feeling...

While I have some ethical issues with ending that, at the end of the day I think the termination of life at that point is preferable to it being born into a world where it is at best not wanted, at worse going to be abused, tortured, and who know's what else."

Scientifically speaking a zygote and an embryo are stages of human life there is nothing potential about it. Conception is the start of the human life cycle. Zygote is a form of a human in a stage of a human life cycle. It even has it's own unique human genome proving that it is a human.

that is scientifically correct. Not flowered up for political reasons.

[Shiranu]

Scientifically speaking a zygote and an embryo are stages of human life there is nothing potential about it. Conception is the start of the human life cycle. Zygote is a form of a human in a stage of a human life cycle. It even has it's own unique human genome proving that it is a human.

that is scientifically correct. Not flowered up for political reasons.

That is clearly debatable, considering it is a major point of debate amongst both religious and secular communities.

The embryo is nothing more than a parasitic (I mean that in a blunt, not derogatory) being attached to the mother, or perhaps could even be considered an organ of the mother, until it is able to be self-sustaining. A being that has zero mental capabilities, is fully dependent upon it's host for even the most basic of resources and operates as, until birth, basically an additional organ to the mother simply does not deserve the title of "human".

Human implies sentience, emotions, the ability to feel pain, to exist on it's own by consumption of resources and not through another living creature's organs... criteria the fetus simply cannot meet.

[doorknob]

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

It maybe debatable but clearly any scientist making this argument is doing it for political reasons and not scientific reasons.

No scientist wants to come out and get politically slaughtered for taking a side in the abortion issue.

[Shiranu]

It maybe debatable but clearly any scientist making this argument is doing it for political reasons and not scientific reasons.

Or... you know... there is no concrete definition because it's not a matter of science but a matter of philosophy and ethics, which means it can never truly be answered.

To call an embryo a human is about as useful as calling an omelet a chicken. While you can argue it scientifically (though it's debated) is, at the end of the day... so what? The omelet was never a sentient being and a embryo was never a sentient being. Saying, "it could have been a human though!" is also about as useful as saying, "my Nintendo 64 could have one day been an android that had artificial intelligence and gained sentience!". It... could have?... but it didn't.

The core issue was you equated the death penalty to "killing" an embryo... killing a sentient being to killing a non-sentient parasite. If we are keeping that as the core issue then you simply have no scientific or ethical comparison you can draw between the two.

[doorknob]

excuse me an embro is still a human. even in the definition of abortion the term human fetus is used.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

"In common parlance, the term "abortion" is synonymous with induced abortion of a human fetus."

as I've said before It is a stage in the human life cycle. Sentient or not.

as for a chicken egg It still has chicken DNA. Simply because you are eating it at the beginning of it's life cycle doesn't make it not a chicken.

[Moralnihilist]

Meh.

I can't carry a child in my body. I get no say on the people who can if they don't want to.

The rest of the argument is just semantics to me.

[Johan]

A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken.

That's not exactly true. At least in the vast majority of omelets. Hens drop an egg every 23 hours or so regardless of whether the rooster has come a callin' or not, the same way women drop an egg every 28 days or so regardless of whether she's gotten lucky or not. So if you're making that omelet with store bought eggs or eggs from any chicken owner who knows enough to keep the hens and rooster separated at all times, that omelet was never going to be a chicken no matter what you did. Didn't really mean to ruin your breakfast or derail the conversation but I thought it should be pointed out that your analogy is kind of bogus.

[doorknob]

 "Saying, "it could have been a human though!" is also about as useful as saying, "my Nintendo 64 could have one day been an android that had artificial intelligence and gained sentience!". It... could have?... but it didn't."

there is a huge difference to an embryo becoming a human and your nintendo 64 becoming an android. An embryo is already human first of all. If left alone it will definitely become a fully formed human with out a doubt. Leave your nintendo alone and it will never become an android.

[Shiranu]

Didn't really mean to ruin your breakfast or derail the conversation but I thought it should be pointed out that your analogy is kind of bogus.

That was mine, and let's say for argument sake it was an old-school, self-sustaining farmer who picked up one of the eggs his hen's laid-as they would have done for thousand and thousands of years of human history before mass chicken farming.

Some of those eggs will have been fertilized.

An embryo is already human first of all.

No, a embryo is a parasite with the genetic material to develop into a human.

If left alone it will definitely become a fully formed human with out a doubt.

Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 15-20%

That is a pretty high failure rate to say it would DEFINITELY had become a human, especially when you consider that many abortions are preformed on women in high stress situations which increases the mortality rate.

Leave your nintendo alone and it will never become an android.

Leave an embryo alone and it will never become a human. It is only through the constant nourishment of resources from a woman's body that it is able to develop, just as the constant adding upgrades could one day lead a n64 to become an android capable of self-sufficiency.

I can't carry a child in my body. I get no say on the people who can if they don't want to.

The rest of the argument is just semantics to me.

Completely agreed on both points. As I said, it is ultimately a matter of philosophy and ethics which means there will never be a "right" answer.

[doorknob]

"eave an embryo alone and it will never become a human. It is only through the constant nourishment of resources from a woman's body that it is able to develop. "

you'd have to remove the embryo from the body and that is not leaving it alone.

[stromboli]

Taking the logic of prolifers to its conclusion, if a woman has a period and passes an unfetilized egg from her body, she has in effect also killed a potential human. Just because the egg is unfertilized, it still has/had the potential to be fertilized. And it is not unrealistic that we could wind up there, because personhood laws criminalize women for miscarriages where the mother is theoretically the cause, i.e. drinking, unsafe behavior doing something that could be seen as intentional to create a miscarriage.

You can talk and philosophize all day long about whether an egg is human or not, and at what stage it can be considered "not human" enough to be aborted. To me it comes back to simple logistics. If a baby by being born is facing a future of neglect, and by being born bring a negative condition for itself and the parent into existence, abortion is justified. Sounds cold and hard, but so is reality. If a baby by being born will face a life of dubious potential or in constant need of care and is a burden on society with no realistic justification for its life, abortion makes sense. Giving birth to diseased monsters or unwanted, unsupportable offspring is stupid, period.

[GSOgymrat]

While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."

[Shiranu]

While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."

Note: I am taking it to the extreme because it is ultimately a semantics issue;  as I said I am not a big ethical fan of it,  but op was comparing it to executions,  which I find completely unrelatable.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

My moral code only extends to sentient beings. Embryos are not sentient. They can become sentient, but they themselves are not. Far as I'm concerned, it's a hunk of meat, and I care not what happens to it.

[stromboli]

While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."

This. I grew up in a religious environment and have 3 kids of my own, so no, a child/fetus is definitely not a parasite. And women should always be treated with compassion in that regard. I know women who have had miscarriages, and I know how devastated they were. Likewise, women who do get abortions still feel biologically connected to the fetus and can go through depression because of it.

Note: I am taking it to the extreme because it is ultimately a semantics issue;  as I said I am not a big ethical fan of it,  but op was comparing it to executions,  which I find completely unrelatable.

and this. A medically justifiable abortion is not murder in my eyes. If I do not see how bringing an unwanted or monstrous baby into the world is compassion. I have, as a religous person, seen children who will spend their lives in constant medical supervison and treatment, and I see them as a burden, not a blessing. Personal choice.