The state of young women
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (150)
sorted by:
Scientifically, you are completely idiotic. I am a molecular biologist, and if one of my students said something so idiotic I would send them back to remidal instruction.
DING DING DING, we have descended to "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE"-tier arguments.
Well, I hope you would be able to spell 'remedial'. I also hope that you would be able to figure out the difference between a human being and a fertilized egg, and realize that a fertilized egg does have more in common with a bacterium than with an actual human being. You know that intuitively, as you wouldn't rush out a bunch of frozen cells if a building was on fire, but actual humans.
But somehow, you have convinced yourself of something so absurd, that you will actually pretend to believe that a fertilized egg is a person worthy of as much protection as an actual human.
Ideology is a helluva drug.
You are being idiotic. Even little children can understand that like begets like. Cats don't beget cockroaches. Humans don't beget bacterium.
A human zygote is entirely human DNA. It is zero percent cat. Zero percent bacterium. A human zygote has more in common with any other human than it does with any other living thing.
The differences you speak of in reference to a human zygote compared to an average, adult, awake human are differences of circumstance or degree not kind. For example, a really small human, like an infant is clearly a human. Likewise someone who has their limbs amputated or someone in a coma (unconscious). The differences between a zygote and a normal adult human are indeed great, but they represent only difference in development.
You were a zygote once, like everyone else reading this.
The matter of being "worthy of protection" as you put it is another matter, a question of ethics/mortality. I view many of the distinctions our legal system has erected to separate an "abortable fetus" and a non abortable infant as arbitrary. Literally the ability to respire independent of the mother is the standard. It's so arbitrary that broader application of the principle would mean we could freely murder someone on a ventilator, as they are not independently respiring. You seem to draw an equally arbitrary and more vague distinction at some point of gestation. Where is that event, week, etc.?
I draw the line at conception...the moment that one becomes human. Before that you are just gametes. Non vague, non arbitrary. But the truth is that because such a legal standard would not admit the free sex ethics so many in our democratic society desire, our courts/legislatures have devised a bunch of nonsense to justify abortion. If you want to know who's to blame, most people need to only look in the mirror.
Bacterium isn't plural.
Correct. The relevance of that is zero, because functionally, it is indistinguishable from a bacterium. It is not conscious and cannot see, think, hear, etc.
Sufficient levels of difference to dismiss the notion that these are in any way comparable and should be entitled to the same level of protection.
This, however, is a fairly good point. I'd argue for drawing the line safely, at a point where it is manifest that we are not talking about a creature of the same level as a human being. First trimester.
I agree. I think banning abortion would have desirable effects (or rather, never legalizing it would have prevented adverse effects, I am not sure you can put the genie back into the bottle). That said, the conception standard does not make logical sense to me.
Bacteria is plural. Bacterium is singular. A woman begetting even a single bacterium is still impossible.
If you can't distinguish a bacteria from a zygote you've got a really shitty microscope or you're blind. They are exceedingly different, and trivially distinguishable. I once worked in a micro lab, high school students can tell a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic. Easy peasy.
The more important thing to note is that a bacterium remains such. A human zygote unless killed will develop into a human embryo, than fetus, then infant, child, adult, and senescence and die unless it is killed prematurely.
How is drawing the line at first trimester, or 12/13 weeks not entirely arbitrary? Something physical/biological you want to tie it to? Because people will just say whatever age you draw the line to get what they want.
Your arbitrary pregnancy week line makes no logical sense to me, is not based in any biological or moral distinction of significance.