three little sparrows

opinionlizard:

emilye:

opinionlizard:

emilye:

Just because someone can look at another human being and convince themselves they’re not really a human being doesn’t make it so.  How a woman sees her child doesn’t have any affect on who and what that child actually is.

Someone can call an embryo their infant all they like in the same manor that someone can call their boyfriend “honey” without said boyfriend actually being honey. Pet names for things you want to get attached to (such as a wanted embryo) exist as a means of bonding.

But even if, for the sake of argument I’m willing to say “sure, there’s an inconsistancy of what pro-choice people say an embryo is.”
What the embryo is is irrelevant.
It’s not a matter of denial of personhood. It’s about another organism using someone’s body without consent.

“Human being” is not a pet name; it is what the embryo is, a member of the race Homo sapiens  Calling a human mere “tissue” or a “clump of cells” are not pet names, and they do not accurately or entirely define what a human wholly is.  Convincing yourself an embryo or fetus isn’t a human being and convincing yourself that an embryo or fetus has no value or worth as a human being is entirely different from adopting pet names for a loved one.  You’re right, calling your boyfriend “honey” does not make him a sticky, sweet substance.  Similarly, calling a developing infant a worthless clot of tissue does not make it the truth.  

“What the embryo is is irrelevant.” — Thank you for getting to the heart of the issue.  If you don’t care what an embryo is, then of course you can justify it’s disposal.

“It’s not a matter of denial of personhood. It’s about another organism using someone’s body without consent.” — The woman’s consent was in the act, not in the result.Pregnancy is a very real, natural physiological process that can result from having sex.  If you don’t want to risk the possibility of creating a human being, then you might not want to risk having sex.  But thanks for taking the time to demonstrate your fundamental divorce from reality.

“The woman’s consent was in the act, not in the result.”
So I can only assume that, by demonstrating this method of thinking, you also believe that someone gives consent to be injured in a in a car accident? I mean they did commit the act of getting into a car.

“embryo is, a member of the race Homo sapiens”
And?
Tumors, parasitic twins, etc.

”Calling a human mere “tissue” or a “clump of cells” are not pet names,”
“[calling] a developing infant a worthless clot of tissue does not make it the truth”
Good thing I’m not calling it “tissue” or a “clump of cells,” eh? I like using medical terminology, like embryo.
You brought this argument of “IT’S NOT A CLUMP OF CELLS” into the ring, not me. I do not like calling things something they’re not.

“if you don’t care what an embryo is, then of course you can justify it’s disposal”
It’s not a matter of me caring what someone views an embryo as; it’s a matter of what the pregnant person views the embryo they’re carrying is.
There’s a difference between fact and philosophy. We have the facts about abortion, such as that embryos are not comparable to newborns (for many reasons) and that abortions are safe procedures. The rest, the phiosophical part of the debate, is out of fact’s hands. It’s up to the individual, because philosophical views vary from person to person. This is why choice (not being forced to abort, or not being forced to keep) is important.
To some people, and unwanted pregnancy is a burden to lessen. To others, it’s a life change that must be endured. It depends on the situation and your mindset, but because the facts tell us what we need to know, it’s up to the individual to choose. The already born and established person already experiencing what it’s like to live is always more important than an embryo. Always.

“But thanks for taking the time to demonstrate your fundamental divorce from reality.”
lol

——————————-
 

So I can only assume that, by demonstrating this method of thinking, you also believe that someone gives consent to be injured in a in a car accident? I mean they did commit the act of getting into a car.

lol, I dare say most people who get in a car know and accept that there is risk of an accident, which could potentially result in them being injured or even killed.    Isn’t that why we wear seat belts?  To help lower the risk of injury and death in the event of a crash?  Because people understand the risks associated with driving or riding in a vehicle.

“embryo is, a member of the race Homo sapiens”
And?
Tumors, parasitic twins, etc.”

Are you implying that the fact that embryos have human DNA is irrelevant because tumors also have human DNA?  A flake of dandruff has human DNA too, but surely you are aware of the difference.  A zygote has marked cellular differentiation. At fertilization the egg itself becomes asymmetric and the first two cells of the zygote are distinct, one going on to form ectoderm and mesoderm, the other to form the endoderm.  If we’re using differentiation and organization as the criteria, then it is clear that from fertilization on these traits are present. The first cell of you was not a tumor (or a flake of dandruff for that matter).

Good thing I’m not calling it “tissue” or a “clump of cells,” eh? I like using medical terminology, likeembryo.
You brought this argument of “IT’S NOT A CLUMP OF CELLS” into the ring, not me. I do not like calling things something they’re not.

Well, thank you for that.  But you also said that you accept and approve of a woman determining that her pregnancy can and will be whatever she decides it is and can be terminated for whatever reason she pleases.  If you agree that an embryo is not just a clump of cells, shouldn’t you disagree with them when they wrongly label their embryo as a clump of cells?  They could call it a unicorn if they wanted to, but that doesn’t justify the death of a human.
 

It’s not a matter of me caring what someone views an embryo as; it’s a matter of what the pregnant person views the embryo they’re carrying is. 

Again, just because someone wants to fictionalize what their embryo is, that doesn’t change the truth or give them the right to destroy another human. View that genetically-unique offspring/child/baby/fetus/embryo as you want, but a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. 
 

There’s a difference between fact and philosophy. We have the facts about abortion, such as that embryos are not comparable to newborns (for many reasons) and that abortions are safe procedures. 

No one claims that an embryo is developmentally the same as a neonate.  It is a fact that an embryo is a distinct human being, it’s simply at an earlier stage of development than the neonate.  Stage of development does not determine humanity nor intrinsic value.  A newborn is as much of a human as an adult, the immaturity of the newborn does not make it less valuable than the adult.  To the prolife person, it’s not that the embryo or fetus are the same as an adult human being.  He or she merely has a right to exist and to not be deliberately harmed by others.  

The problem with saying a woman’s will is absolute and can utterly trump anything else is that it gives the newly conceived entity a variable value, depending upon many things that each woman formulates in her own way.  If each woman has a different idea of what her unborn developing child is, according to his or her own personal vision and private values, then when a human deserves to right to live is merely a matter of opinion based off what that one other person thinks.  This turns the physical body, knowable by science, into a trivialized form of raw material.  Then being part of the human race is not morally relevant anymore; it’s like saying “we can kill these humans, but not those humans.”  Some aren’t fortunate enough to meet the right criteria according to the individual setting them and they are demoted to non-persons even though they are biologically human beings.