Was anyone here NOT an embryo at one point?

Question

How can sane human beings believe it is okay to destroy one of the earliest stages of human life in order to MAYBE help people who have experienced life already?

America should most certainly be above this.
We are founded on morals that this idea just mangles.

A sperm only contains half the chromosomes for life.
An embryo is fully human.
No test given to show an adult is human would show different results on an embryo.
The Senate is debating this right now, why not discuss it here?

Bullwinkle...
The preamble to the declaration of independence. All men are created equal.... LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why does this NOT apply to people conceived (fertilized egg) but not yet born?

Some logic escapes me here...

We are ALL going to die, does that mean we can be taken as lab-rats?
The leftover embryo's should be allowed to die and not be "used". The proccess that causes extra embryo's should be stopped. There's no REAL need to have extra. Patience is still a virtue.

Andrew,
So ones abilities define what they are?
A cyst will NOT show identification as human.
You mention "devine", is that the same 'devine' that says everything about embryonic stem cell research is wrong?

KooKoo,
That's about the saddest thing I've ever heard. I've never seen an expectant mother refer to her child as "my parasite". It is as WRONG as can possibly be. IT'S A BABY, NOTHING ELSE.

Elway,
There's no such thing as anti-choice.
Life is the foundational standard because it existed before abortion therefor the terminology is pro-life and anti-life or pro-death.
I can't understand how abstinence will not work. I DO understand that people are not capable of controlling themselves but that would be a different issue. By that argument, the laws forbidding rape don't work so we should elliminate them and be allowed to rape.
I would NEVER do such a thing.

jw,
Life is defined simply as animated matter. By your definition, is a tree life? it has no organs.
Dependancy on others (mothers womb) does NOT define ones state of humanness. YOU are still as dependant on others as that embryo is in the womb. Do you eat? Did you hunt the food or depend on others to produce it?
Also, viability outside the womb is not the issue. If you substitute what is needed by the embryo in the form the embryo needs it, will it not live? I mean everything it needs, nothing overlooked.

Answer 1

MOST Americans are good people indeed with morals, and values, but then you have the ultra, Liberals, and their Feminazis. They'd rather try, and save an elk, or Caribou rather than a human baby's life. They're indeed sad little people. Great question by the way.

Answer 2

An embryo is fully human? So is the cyst I had removed last week. So is a cancerous tumor, by your standards. So is someone whose entire frontal lobe has been destroyed by injury. Physically human, but alive, and a "person"? No.

What separates humans from the animals? Awareness, spirit, soul, that "divine spark" - it's not present in embryos, because because the place where all the activity that makes that happen isn't formed yet. It isn't even fully formed at birth.

Is the potential there? Sure, but potential isn't actuality. DNA makes humanity possible, but, as shown with my cyst and tumor examples, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Maybe you think an egg is fully chicken, which, genetically, it is, but if you order a bucket of fried chicken, and they give you a fried egg, I don't think they'd get very far trying to tell you they are one and the same.

Edit: Yes, our abilities make us different from the animals, without a doubt.

Yes, a cyst is made of human tissue, and if you tested it's DNA, it would be the same as any other cell in the human body. Know what you are talking about before you open your mouth to scold.

No, the divine comes from something greater than man. The only pronouncements are from men, like the pope, or like religious fundamentalists. If you read the bible, Old Testament, they specify that the unborn is not equal to the born. In the "eye for an eye" passage, they specify that the punishment for taking a human life is human life. They also specify that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is a payment to the husband. If the bible considered pre-born to be equal, it wouldn't specifically delineate such a disparate punishment. Not that one has to go by the bible, but I assume that's where you are going with your "divine" argument.

Answer 3

First off, the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, so what does it matter to you if they use it for science first? Shouldn't you be upset at the Invetro Fertilization Clinics and not the scientists? Second, were do you draw the line? Is an unfertilized egg a stage of human life? Sperm? And do you describe human life as being cells with no brain? Because I consider that a little different then a human.

Edit:"an embryo is fully human"
The day you can get this "fully human" to tell me not to let it die, I will side with you.

Answer 4

Everyone was also a sperm at one point, but you destroy millions of those every time you get off.

What do you mean when you say that an embryo is fully human? An embryo has no arms, legs, heart, brain, or anything else that would make it a recognizable human. An embryo simply has the potential to grow into a human being, IF it is implanted into a uterus, and IF the uterus does not reject it, and if a bunch of other conditions are met. A sperm or an egg is the same. Granted that they only have half of what it takes to make an embryo, it is still just as true that a sperm, or an egg, each have the potential to become a human life, IF they meet their mate, and all the other above conditions are met.

And by the way, the embryos we are talking about using to help others, are embryos that are sitting in freezers that are going to be discarded if they are not used for research. They have no potential ever to become humans. So what you are really saying is that it is better to flush those embryos down the toilet than use them for research that might help save lives.

Answer 5

Well, you have failed to define "life".

Is it defined as having a majority of necessary organs functioning at a minimal level to support life (28 odd weeks, check me here)?


Is it merely the capacity to achieve such?

Is it sustainability outside the womb at the point of termination (abortion)? That is, if the fetus/embryo/blastosphere where to be "born, would it survive? Do we consider medical technology? Why or why not?

You have failed to lay the foundation of the argument...namely, what is life as it pertains to our fetus...lets call him Joe.

**REPLY to Poster**

Life is animated matter. Thusly, animation equals life. However, now you must define animation. Is it locomotion? Perhaps thought? Independence from the mother (sustainability of life as individual)? Is thinking animated? How about instinct? I push a rock down the hill and, for its short trip, it is animated. Is it alive? What about a virus? Are they alive?

What about a morula? It is NOT a single creature but rather a collection of cells (about 24) traveling to the uterus after a sperm fertilizes an egg. Is it human before "compaction"? If so, explain yourself.

I sustain myself through barter...I trade a dollar for a Big Mac. I earned the dollar through work (more barter). So this human sustains itself through barter...that is I can provide for myself the means by which to live. Your "point" here was very weak...I hope you can do better.

Lastly. Trees do have organs. You probably know them as fruit however. Please, get your facts straight before posting.

And I made no comment either way as to what life was...I merely asked you.

Answer 6

Your definition of "human" is entirely flawed. Just because something contains human DNA it doesn't mean it's a human being.

Also you are making the incorrect assumption that termiation of life is on a par with termination of humanity.

Humanity is defined by self-awareness and sentience. A zygote does not posess either of the two any more than a banana does.

Answer 7

Lobby your State Reps to end the silly abstinence only education. More States are moving away from it even though it will mean a cut in Federal funds. More sex education along with available birth control will result in fewer abortions.

Recent changes in Medicaid has resulted in birth control prices doubling or tripling on college campuses.Will this increase or decrease abortions?

Answer 8

The human genome is about ninety 8% comparable to a chimp. we've a brilliant volume of genes that are clone of that in flies. I see it, everybody is ego-centric. they need to experience that their kinfolk, their us of a, their species, is in a roundabout way particular. perhaps people are, yet no matter if it really is, it really is not contained in the genes. it really is a step ahead, scientifically and ethically. there is not any assure, notwithstanding it has the potential of improvements in drugs and high quality of life.

Answer 9

In vitro fertilization leads to numerous embryos. After the couple concieves, the rest of the embryos are destroyed. Democrats support using those embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway for stem cell research.

Answer 10

Here's the deal as I see it. Abortion is not going to go away. I don't care how many rallies you hold, how many Congressmen you write, or how much you protest, it is NOT going away. A majority of the population approves of pro-choice, and they aren't all Democrats or liberals.

I think that those who are anti-choice needs to get their heads out of the sky and admit that Bush's abstinence only programs are not going to work. If you wish to prevent abortions, you must address birth control in a mature and realistic way. It is nice to teach our children abstinence, but silly to think they will always comply. Do those girls who have lost their way in a passionate thoughtless moment have to suffer for their all too human weakness by then becoming pregnant because their parents were too blind to understand they need to know about and have all birth control options available to them? Those who are pro-choice don't like abortion and don't believe in it as birth control. They would like to reach common ground on one small area at least, that of birth control.

Last year Planned Parenthood approached the most visible and largest anti-choice organizations in the United States to hold a forum regarding having a meeting of the minds on preventing pregnancy to avoid abortions. They were rejected out of hand, not one organization would talk to them or work with them. Until anti-choice people admit that abstinence only programs are a horrible failure and face up to educating our children about birth control in a realistic and adult way nothing will change for those on your side.

I for one am sick to death of hearing you people complain and then watch you take this Pollyanna attitude toward abstinence and birth control.

EDIT: You're being deliberately obtuse and it's insulting, but that's no surprise. You know EXACTLY what I am saying. Of course abstinence works, it would have to work, it means no sex. You know that I mean parents cannot reasonably expect every child to keep that promise of abstinence, and to count on them doing so is blind and stupid. It's just plain bad parenting not to give your child every protection available in case they find they can't be perfect and end up being human at the wrong time. Don't tell me what to call your group, your arrogance is astounding. None of you ever think twice about calling pro-choice people pro-abortion or some other insulting name you think will make them sound like Medusa. You're anti-choice in my eyes, and I will call you that whether you like it or not you pompous fool.