Quoted: Neither does a human fetus. It already is a fetal human, already a human person.

actually it isn't, it is a blastocyst, as I have said. There is no "life", no heartbeat, no brain, nothing to differentiate it between an abnormal growth besides potential. Some people think potential is everything and thus are against abortion; I, however, view potential as it is: something that could be. Just as you could be a doctor, a zygote could become a full-term baby. In both cases, the odds are highly against it coming to be. I don't think anyone deserves to become a doctor, or that a zygote deserves to become an actual human being.

Fun fact: we have the power make blastocysts out of human eggs without sperm or other outside DNA, so it is pretty obvious that a soul cannot be in the blastocyst, because their is nothing unique about the blastocyst itself.

There is a reason why a pregnant woman was always said of as "with child". There is a reason why no one ever says "I am against cutting off moles personally but I would never force that belief on others." There is a reason why no one says "removing moles is a great tragedy but until a solution can be found..."  There is a reason no one says "Having a wart removed can be one of the most difficult decisions a woman can make."

because Americans are still overwhelmingly obsessed with religious ideals and social stigmas coming from those ideals? Why don't you blame God for all the abortions that a woman's body automatically performs on its fetuses; I mean, I thought all life was precious and so it doesn't matter if their are slight chromosomal abnormalities, the little blastocyst has a soul.

And that reason is that no matter which side in the debate does the polling, the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal to one degree or another, and that no matter which side in the debate does the polling the majority of Americans also think that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. In other words, everyone knows intrinsically, it is "self-evident" to almost everyone, that human life, our lives, began when our conception.

It is pretty self evident to me, and most religions, that human life begins at or around natural birth. To the Jews, babies don't even have souls until something like 30 days after birth, and it was even mandated to perform abortions in certain cases, it wasn't like it was a sin. In Islam, there is argument, but most follow the idea that you are alive when you are born, not before.

Us Americans really are the only ones that object this strongly to abortion.

And even if this self-evident truth was not accessible to reason, (which it is) the very fact that it was the Communists and the Nazis that first did away with the laws that recognized the unborns right to life would be enough for me to be against it.

The nazis also performed normal medical research, so I am going to be against medical research.

I hope to God you aren't "pre-med"!

"it is a blastocyst, as I have said. There is no "life" : if a fertilized egg (fetus) isn't alive why is it growing nimrod and why would you need a pill to halt it's growth?

So step one: you're wrong about the blastocyst not being alive (it ain't inorganic matter and it ain't dead..."

Step two, the blastocyst is a descriptive word of a stage in the process of growth from fertilized egg to born baby, it's a continuum from the genetic beginning at the event called conception to death whether that event takes place in utero or out.

You might as well rename the baby "post uterine product of conception" or some other beastly term and then hoo hum "well we're not really killing a BABY, we're merely vacating the product of conception"

But change of names or terms doesn't change the reality. It's also not completely undifferentiated... as in each cell a blank copy...we already know that at the 3 cell stage the cells have produced a chemical signal which while not PREcluding the possibility of twining does seem to suggest that the 3 know they are at least one individual, because it's 1 cell, then 2, then 3 then 4 and then 8, 16, 32, etc.

Too many people try to read too much into the twinning capacity of a human at the blastocyst stage, as though the capacity for division meant there was no individual...that of course

The question we ought to ask is what is this thing? That is, if we were SCIENTIFIC we'd be asking to categorize the object of thought: is this thing human? Is it a growth of  the mother's body? Is it a foreign organism?

The fertilized egg (embryo) is genetically distinct from its mother - the egg donor. But it's of the human kind and specifically, on the genetic level, it's not a cancerous growth, not a lump of tissue...it's a human being.

Once you make this distinction = that of kind, the ethical question of what ought we do with a human being that is innocent of all violence answers itself. We protect, provide, nurture it.

But of course, premed folk have ceased studying logic and philosophy and also history and ethics I suppose....their scientific mindset (such as it is) consists in finding alternatively nasty sounding or innocent sounding euphemisms.

But words mean things. A sperm cell is not a human individual (but is alive and is human) an egg is not a human individual but is alive and is a human egg cell. The fusion of a human egg cell with a human sperm cell creates a completely distinct, unique human individual substance, i.e. a human being.

It is of our KIND, though obviously has much growth to achieve. But morphological immaturity doesn't effect the question of "what is it?" when approached from a species specific point of view. It's not cancer, it's not inhuman, its human and growing from within it's own power (otherwise how would invitro fertilization work pray tell? Humans combine the egg and sperm in a petri dish, in a healthy environment and thus allow the newly formed human being to grow to the point when it needs to implant in the mother's womb.

Any act or drug which we employ to halt or hinder this being's development is an act of unjust aggression, and hence unethical.

Quoted: I hope to God you aren't "pre-med"! "it is a blastocyst, as I have said. There is no "life" : if a fertilized egg (fetus) isn't alive why is it growing nimrod and why would you need a pill to halt it's growth? So step one: you're wrong about the blastocyst not being alive (it ain't inorganic matter and it ain't dead...

you may of noticed the fact that I referred to "life", in quotes, human life to be precise; a blastocyst isn't a viable human life, it lacks a "life", a soul; I never denied it had potential. Obviously the blastocyst is alive in the biological sense, as it does grow, and consists of living cells.

Step two, the blastocyst is a descriptive word of a stage in the process of growth from fertilized egg to born baby, it's a continuum from the genetic beginning at the event called conception to death whether that event takes place in utero or out.

yeah...

You might as well rename the baby "post uterine product of conception" or some other beastly term and then hoo hum "well we're not really killing a BABY, we're merely vacating the product of conception"

I really feel that killing something is only wrong if it is sentient. A fetus is not sentient for most of the pregnancy(exactly when is a matter of question), so I have no problem killing it until it reaches that point in its development.

Thus, I find killing chimps,gorillas,dolphins, orcas, and dogs to be more morally apprehensible than killing a fetus.

We both feel killing human life is wrong; however, I hold a different point of view on what constitutes a human.

But change of names or terms doesn't change the reality. It's also not completely undifferentiated... as in each cell a blank copy...we already know that at the 3 cell stage the cells have produced a chemical signal which while not PREcluding the possibility of twining does seem to suggest that the 3 know they are at least one individual, because it's 1 cell, then 2, then 3 then 4 and then 8, 16, 32, etc.

neither are adult stem cells; however, I don't think anyone calls stem cells muscle cells just because that is what they would develop into if they were left to completely differentiate.

Quoted: I really feel that killing something is only wrong if it is sentient. A fetus is not sentient for most of the pregnancy(exactly when is a matter of question), so I have no problem killing it until it reaches that point in its development.

Why stop at birth?  I've seen babies who are mentally retarded to the point that they would not be considered sentient.  According to your logic, it's ok to kill them since killing something is only worng if it is sentient.    They still aren't sentient even though they have been born.  

Oh, wait, that sounds like something Dr. Singer has proposed.

Thus, I find killing chimps,gorillas,dolphins, orcas, and dogs to be more morally apprehensible than killing a fetus.

I pray you don't enter the pediatric field.  I pray you don't make it through medical school until/unless your attitude on life changes.

Unless you are a woman and you know what it's like to be violated in the utmost way by a parasite of society, you should all probably STFU about what the best thing is for that particular person!

Right decision IMO, regarding the original post.

actually it isn't, it is a blastocyst, as I have said. There is no "life", no heartbeat, no brain, nothing to differentiate it between an abnormal growth besides potential.
Remove a person's heart during a heart transplant and he is still a human.  

Fun fact: we have the power make blastocysts out of human eggs without sperm or other outside DNA, so it is pretty obvious that a soul cannot be in the blastocyst, because their is nothing unique about the blastocyst itself.
The difference being that these are not fertilised eggs. And apparently they can never become human beings. YOU were conceived. There is just no way of getting around that fact.



because Americans are still overwhelmingly obsessed with religious truths.   Why don't you blame God for all the abortions that a woman's body automatically performs on its fetuses;
Blame Him for what?



It is pretty self evident to me, and most religions, that human life begins at or around natural birth. To the Jews, babies don't even have souls until something like 30 days after birth, and it was even mandated to perform abortions in certain cases, it wasn't like it was a sin. In Islam, there is argument, but most follow the idea that you are alive when you are born, not before.
Islam, Christianity and traditional Judism (the one practiced for thousands of years) all hold that human life begins before birth. So what you said is simply a self evident lie.