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:
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.
Yes, and then you would precede the word with an article.
Why would the human zygote be entitled to more protection based on potential?
You may as well ask at what point a single grain of wheat becomes a heap. Just like the age for driving, there has to be some cut-off point that is reasonable, and that may be considered arbitrary by some, but not unreasonable.
Potential really has little to do with it, and did I say that it was entitled to "more" protection?
A sperm and egg have potential....to become a human zygote...our first stage of development.
A zygote has realized its potential to become human. It will only continue to develop more completely over time.
I think a reasonable cut off point is conception...it's biologically distinct and knowable. It's stringent and so will prevent the problem with time based cutoffs (which are determined by last menstrual period, which isn't verifiable) being at best approximate. At least driving age is based on your birthdate, trivially verifiable.