Zygote or Baby?

[david starling]

[Hot Topic Alert!]

One sneaky semantic trick is commonly used by anti-abortion advocates:

The use of the term "baby", or "child" as applied to zygotes and embryos, and early term fetuses, to elicit an emotional reaction.

Just once, I'd like to see an abortion protester holding up a sign with the unenhanced photo of an embryo (zygotes are too small to even depict), that says, "Save the Embryos", regarding early term abortions. "Save the Potential Children" would be an honest slogan, but it wouldn't have the dishonest emotional impact the protester is trying to elicit.

[Posts moved from another thread where they were off topic. - Moderator]

[Alert: Abortion is a sensitive subject that tends to invite heated debate. This thread will be watched closely. ANY personal attacks will be deleted and may result in this thread being closed. - Moderator]

Since I'm now the OP, no memes please.

 

[wan]

Re: Member Bannings

[Hot Topic Alert!]

One sneaky semantic trick is commonly used by anti-abortion advocates:

The use of the term "baby", or "child" as applied to zygotes and embryos, and early term fetuses, to elicit an emotional reaction.

Just once, I'd like to see an abortion protester holding up a sign with the unenhanced photo of an embryo (zygotes are too small to even depict), that says, "Save the Embryos", regarding early term abortions. "Save the Potential Children" would be an honest slogan.

Your side does that too. They always go on and on and on about how the unborn is not a person. But so what? The unborn might not be a person, but it is still a living human. What is so special about being a person? Why do abortion-supporters mention this?

And it's not just about zygotes and embryos that get aborted. I have seen pictures with very fully formed, late-term fetuses. And I guess "potential child" is technically correct, but these are like, almost 2 days away from being birthed. So, showing pictures of their mutilated bodies is acceptable in my book.

 

[Bunraku]

Re: Member Bannings

[Hot Topic Alert!]

One sneaky semantic trick is commonly used by anti-abortion advocates:

The use of the term "baby", or "child" as applied to zygotes and embryos, and early term fetuses, to elicit an emotional reaction.

Just once, I'd like to see an abortion protester holding up a sign with the unenhanced photo of an embryo (zygotes are too small to even depict), that says, "Save the Embryos", regarding early term abortions. "Save the Potential Children" would be an honest slogan, but it wouldn't have the dishonest emotional impact the protester is trying to elicit.

So what? It's all the same. baby, child, crotch goblin, child, parasite , $1million down the drain, etc.

 

[Bunraku]

Re: Member Bannings

I propose:
Pronouncing Zygotes like Quixote.

 

[david starling]

Re: Member Bannings

Your side does that too. They always go on and on and on about how the unborn is not a person. But so what? The unborn might not be a person, but it is still a living human. What is so special about being a person? Why do abortion-supporters mention this?

And it's not just about zygotes and embryos that get aborted. I have seen pictures with very fully formed, late-term fetuses. And I guess "potential child" is technically correct, but these are like, almost 2 days away from being birthed. So, showing pictures of their mutilated bodies is acceptable in my book.

That's really my point. Once the human brain has begun forming, and the fetus is very child-like in appearance, (18 weeks), I am totally against abortion, unless it's really necessary for the survival of the mother. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the dishonest claim that a zygote or an embryo is a "baby" and a "child" makes that nearly impossible.

Another claim I consider dishonest is, that the term "Human life is sacred" isn't a reference to a religious belief. There's an attempt to claim it as a non-religious argument for the total suppression of abortion services, to avoid the obvious connection to religious tyranny.

 

[wan]

Re: Member Bannings

That's really my point. Once the human brain has begun forming, and the fetus is very child-like in appearance, (18 weeks), I am totally against abortion, unless it's really necessary for the survival of the mother. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the dishonest claim that a zygote or an embryo is a "baby" and a "child" makes that nearly impossible.

I would not call that "dishonest". I think they are just trying to make an impact. But I agree with you that it is technically incorrect.

Although, I am sure you know what they say, "the only difference between a zygote and a baby, is time".

I think it's interesting that you mention drawing a line. And I see that you choose to draw the line at when the unborn is developed enough. But to me that is simply a very arbitrary line. A more advanced, more developed fetus that is 8 months old, is still fundamentally the same as a very immature, 1-month old zygote. They are both an unborn entity. For you to kill one but not the other, that's inconsistency.

Another claim I consider dishonest is, that the term "sacred" isn't a reference to a religious belief. There's an attempt to claim it as a non-religious argument for the total suppression of abortion services, to avoid the obvious connection to religious tyranny.

I agree that there are some bad arguments from my side. And just so that you know, I NEVER mention the word "sacred" anywhere. For one thing, I am not religious. Secondly, I can decimate your side's arguments easily without having to use this word.

 

[david starling]

Re: Member Bannings

I would not call that "dishonest". I think they are just trying to make an impact. But I agree with you that it is technically incorrect.

Although, I am sure you know what they say, "the only difference between a zygote and a baby, is time".

I think it's interesting that you mention drawing a line. And I see that you choose to draw the line at when the unborn is developed enough. But to me that is simply a very arbitrary line. A more advanced, more developed fetus that is 8 months old, is still fundamentally the same as a very immature, 1-month old zygote. They are both an unborn entity. For you to kill one but not the other, that's inconsistency.



I agree that there are some bad arguments from my side. And just so that you know, I NEVER mention the word "sacred" anywhere. For one thing, I am not religious. Secondly, I can decimate your side's arguments easily without having to use this word.

The human brain structure is a fundamental feature of what it means to be a "human being". Nothing arbitrary about drawing the line there. Viability is another definite line, but the surgery and incubation to save the child's life outside of the womb at that early a point is much too expensive, and dangerous for the mother also.

How can you logically equate a zygote with a child? Is every acorn an oak tree? Is a fertilized hen's egg a chicken?

 

[wan]

Re: Member Bannings

The human brain structure is a fundamental feature of what it means to be a "human being".

So, if an actual child is born that completely lacks a brain, it will be completely OK to kill him? What about the brain-dead? And what about people who had frontal lobotomy done? If you were transported back in time a few decades ago to when this practice was still around, would you be completely ok about slaughtering these people? And what about people who have some type of surgery done to remove parts of their brains? Is it OK to kill them? And what if the part removed isn't the cerebrum but the brain-stem? Would it be OK to kill them, why or why not?

I never said the brain is unimportant. I just don't see how just because an entity, in our case, the unborn, lacks a functioning brain, that means we can kill it lightly.

Can you tell me why it's OK in your book to kill an entity that does not have a functioning brain, David?

Nothing arbitrary about drawing the line there. Viability is another definite line, but the surgery and incubation to save the child's life at that early a point is much too expensive, and dangerous for the mother also.

Not sure why you bring up "too expensive". I guess people on life-support are also very expensive. So maybe we should unplug their oxygen supply. I mean, after all, too expensive, right?

How can you logically equate a zygote with a child? Is every acorn an oak tree?

Don't ask me that, because I never said that. Though its like I said, the only difference between a zygote and a baby, is time.

It is true that a zygote is not a baby, however, it is still our young. We have a moral duty to rear our young, and that includes not killing them while they are developing in the wombs.

 

[david starling]

Re: Member Bannings

So, if an actual child is born that completely lacks a brain, it will be completely OK to kill him? What about the brain-dead? And what about people who had frontal lobotomy done? If you were transported back in time a few decades ago to when this practice was still around, would you be completely ok about slaughtering these people? And what about people who have some type of surgery done to remove parts of their brains? Is it OK to kill them? And what if the part removed isn't the cerebrum but the brain-stem? Would it be OK to kill them, why or why not?

I never said the brain is unimportant. I just don't see how just because an entity, in our case, the unborn, lacks a functioning brain, that means we can kill it lightly.

Can you tell me why it's OK in your book to kill an entity that does not have a functioning brain, David?



Not sure why you bring up "too expensive". I guess people on life-support are also very expensive. So maybe we should unplug their oxygen supply. I mean, after all, too expensive, right?

Come to think of it, rearing my niece is also very expensive. Maybe I should convince my uncle to kill her.


Don't ask me that, because I never said that. Though its like I said, the only difference between a zygote and a baby, is time.

It is true that a zygote is not a baby, however, it is still our young. We have a moral duty to rear our young, and that includes not killing them while they are developing in the wombs.

It's not "our young", it's the mother-to-be's potential young, and the decision should be hers before it's developed enough to be considered a human being.

You must realize that you're basically accusing every woman who voluntarily undergoes an early-stage abortion of murdering a "child", right?

 

[wan]

Re: Member Bannings

It's not "our young", it's the mother-to-be's potential young, and the decision should be hers before it's developed enough to be considered a human being.

"Our young" is used because I am referring to the fact that the entity in question is a human being, it is a part of humanity, it is one of us. I don't mean that it is literally your or my progeny.

And no, it is not "potential young". It is "young". There is nothing potential about it. The word "young" pertains to all humans to come. All humans that come after us.

And why is it OK to kill an entity just because it's not a human being? What's so special about being a human being?

You are kind of conflicted, David. You are all for women's right to make a decision in regards to their body but you have no problem violating this right when you feel that the unborn is developed enough. When pro-lifers say women can't have abortion, you protest that. But you yourself also say to some women that they can't have abortion. Do you see the inherent contradiction? And I don't care if you say how the unborn has a functioning brain, yadda yadda yadda. You are still interfering with women's bodily autonomy and that's a fact.

You must realize that you're basically accusing every woman who voluntarily undergoes an early-stage abortion of murdering a "child".

I am sick of having to counter arguments that I did not make.

I never used the word "child" anywhere, to refer to the unborn. You are tilting at windmills, Dave.

 

[david starling]

Moderators, please delete this thread! Or, at least close it, and leave it as "food for thought*.

I think good points were raised on both sides of the argument.

 

[Bunraku]

What both sides? It was literally a soliloquy
?????

 

[Bunraku]

Moderators, please delete this thread! Or, at least close it, and leave it as "food for thought*.

I think good points were raised on both sides of the argument.

Again with the binary, as if it's a coin. Explains the american way of thinking of democrat/republican.

Did I finish contributing? No. I will expand your mind. Stay tuned.

 

[Osamenor]

Moderators, please delete this thread! Or, at least close it, and leave it as "food for thought*.

I think good points were raised on both sides of the argument.

We don't delete threads upon request if others have posted in them. Forum policy.

If it turns into an attack thread, then we'll take action. So far, thanks to everyone who's posted in it doing exactly what they should and keeping it civil, it hasn't.

 

[waybread]

So far, nobody has mentioned the (cough, ahem) rights of the actual pregnant woman.

Conservatives who are terribly opposed to government intervention in their lives, nonetheless are fine with the government telling a woman that it controls her body, not her. In Roe v Wade the SCOTUS accepted a woman's right to control her own body under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS did not approve late-term abortions but did approve them for weeks prior to a fetus's viability.

Basically the state cannot deprive a woman of "life, liberty, or property" without due process, and the 14th Amendment guarantees her equal protection under the law.

No doubt some women think of abortion as simply a type of birth control after an "Oopsie." But not the majority. A young teenager may feel she's not ready to be a fit mother, especially with no support for her at home from hostile parents. A poor older mother may have 5 children already, be in poor health, and doesn't see how she could care for one more.

The main reason seems to be financial inability to support a child.

It's not like Republicans are anxiously trying to pass legislation and budgets that would help an 11-year old who was raped by her brother.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589

Apparently, half of all unplanned pregnancies occur when the woman was using birth control.

So why not bring the pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption? Many women have strong reasons to hide their pregnancies. The teenager with ultra-conservative parents at home. Admission of sex with an unsuitable partner (ranging from an abusive spouse to a married man.)

As a mother of two (now adult) children, I can attest that pregnancy is sometimes difficult process. I wouldn't have missed having my children for the world, when I was in a stable marriage and had a modest but stable income.

But I vividly recall the days of the 1960s when there was such a stigma against unwed mothers that girls would insert knitting needs or caustic substances into their vaginas to try to induce an abortion. With terrible results.

Outlawing abortion won't prevent it. It will drive it underground with predictable negative consequences.

Then sometimes pre-natal testing reveals severe birth defects that would terminate a baby's life right after birth.

 

[wan]

Funny you should mention women's right to their body. But you conveniently ignore the unborn's right to life. Or at least it's a right that they should have.

Women do have the right to do what they want with their body, however, when this right starts to interfere with the life of the unborn, then it should cease. Same as how you have the right to hold a knife in your hand and swing your arm. But, if you swing your arm in such a way that the knife now falls on my neck, threatening my life, then, your right to do what you want with your own arm is now trumped by my right to life. It's the same thing with abortion.

And I suppose forbidding women from having an abortion (which, by the way, is NOT my position) is now "depriving" her of "life, liberty, property". This made me laugh. Since when is abortion a right guaranteed by the constitution?

And you are also doing something that David is doing, namely attributing to me arguments that I did not actually make. I never said I wanted to ban abortion. Yes I am pro-life and anti-abortion, but I never once said anything about outlawing it. If you don't believe me, review all my posts in this thread, and I am sure you will see that you are, well, making stuff up.

Another thing, just like David (again!), you are turning this issue into a dem/republican thing. I have never once said that I was a republican. Nobody mentioned republicans anywhere, in an capacity, either. So why did you bring them up, bread?

 

[david starling]

Funny you should mention women's right to their body. But you conveniently ignore the unborn's right to life. Or at least it's a right that they should have.

Women do have the right to do what they want with their body, however, when this right starts to interfere with the life of the unborn, then it should cease. Same as how you have the right to hold a knife in your hand and swing your arm. But, if you swing your arm in such a way that the knife now falls on my neck, threatening my life, then, your right to do what you want with your own arm is now trumped by my right to life. It's the same thing with abortion.

And I suppose forbidding women from having an abortion (which, by the way, is NOT my position) is now "depriving" her of "life, liberty, property". This made me laugh. Since when is abortion a right guaranteed by the constitution?

And you are also doing something that David is doing, namely attributing to me arguments that I did not actually make. I never said I wanted to ban abortion. Yes I am pro-life and anti-abortion, but I never once said anything about outlawing it. If you don't believe me, review all my posts in this thread, and I am sure you will see that you are, well, making stuff up.

Another thing, just like David (again!), you are turning this issue into a dem/republican thing. I have never once said that I was a republican. Nobody mentioned republicans anywhere, in an capacity, either. So why did you bring them up, bread?

As the thread title says, "Zygote or Baby?".

Nothing about embryo or fetus, just a zygote.

So, can you prove a zygote is the literal equivalent of a "Baby"?

For example, is an acorn literally an "oak tree"?

If anyone thinks it is, can you explain your reasoning?

Btw, a zygote doesn't become an embryo for 2 weeks after being "implanted" in the womb.

 

[wan]

I never said the zygote is equivalent to a baby. Stop making stuff up.

 

[david starling]

I never said the zygote is equivalent to a baby. Stop making stuff up.

It wasn't about you. I did make the mistake of thinking you used "baby" , or "child", in regards to a zygote, but you've made it clear you do not.

This gives me the opportunity to apologize for thinking you did in the first place. I really am sorry I made that mistake.

You're a "free thinker", and you have have your own ideas which don't fit the cliches and stereotypes.

 

[JUPITERASC]

As the thread title says, "Zygote or Baby?".
Nothing about embryo or fetus, just a zygote.
So, can you prove a zygote is the literal equivalent of a "Baby"?
For example, is an acorn literally an "oak tree"?
If anyone thinks it is, can you explain your reasoning?
Btw, a zygote doesn't become an embryo for 2 weeks after being "implanted" in the womb.

A ZYGOTE is a FERTILIZED eukaryotic cell formed after the union of sex cells aka GAMATES.
Reproduction by sexual means involves male and female GAMATES.


IN HUMANS
male gamete = SPERM CELL
female gamete = OVUM aka EGG CELL.
Both are HAPLOID - THEIR UNION results in a ZYGOTE that is DIPLOID
by a process called fertilization.



This newly formed single cell
undergoes a series of mitotic divisions
and grows into a multicellular form.

The cells that sprung from the zygote
will essentially have the same genetic composition
throughout the body
but eventually will acquire a special role
or a distinct function
as they are organized into tissues, organs, and systems.

.