The Satanic Temple challenges new Texas abortion law citing religious freedom

submitted by carn0ld03 from (khou.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Would you say that an embryo is 3/5 of a person?

Nope. A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

I don't know the answer, but I think the heart of this debate is where each person thinks life begins.

Agreed.

I used to be totally pro-choice until I became a father. Now, I don't understand how anyone who is a parent can be pro-choice.

Even when the embryo are a rapists genes, and you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

I agree that a 2 month old embryo is not the same as a 2 month old baby, but it's still life, in my opinion, and I'm non-religious so that doesn't factor into my beliefs.

A bacteria is life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

A bacteria is life.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

I think all of this comes down to the when we think that an embryo or infant or adult is a human life. No bad people in this debate.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

Ethics committees can get a bit overzealous.

For research purposes iirc you can get 8 or 16 cells. So cell division can occur 3 or 4 times. That was chosen because all the cells are still embryonic stem cells. There's no differentiation between the cells. So augments about whether it's human yet or not can't even begin, because there's no different parts. Just a cell clump.

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

"Murder" is a bit strong for "choosing not to get involved in supporting the life of".

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

But I agree it matters where life begins. Not because some innocent person could ethically be fingered by the state to give of their body to keep a person who they want nothing to do with alive, but because rights must be balanced ... And a clump of cells doesn't have rights.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

Then no. A 2 month old embryo is not human life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

If we took food from them with the intent for them to starve to death, then yes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But not for not taking food to them?

A clump of cells will die if you don't pass nutrients and oxygen to it from your body, unless its about halfway through the pregnancy, and even then it's touch and go with the best tech available.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

But not for not taking food to them?

A clump of cells will die if you don't pass nutrients and oxygen to it from your body, unless its about halfway through the pregnancy, and even then it's touch and go with the best tech available.

Which side are you arguing?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That a person isn't obligated to feed even a person that they have nothing to do with.

It's certainly nice.

But when it's not a person, there's no obligation. When giving them food takes from your own health and mental well-being, the lack of obligation is a no brainer.

But if you do want to argue that someone is obligated to keep a fetus alive despite their own health, and give birth to it in pain, surely it follows that we as people with some excess resources are obligated to stop real actual living people from starvation.

I mean they're actual people, and you're arguing that we have an obligation to suffer to support the lives of not-yet-people that we have no interest in.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

When you create another life, or an embryo, in my opinion you certainly are obligated, unlike a person you had no part in creating. Again, you're arguing from a perspective that an embryo is not a human life. Without an agreement on that aspect, all of this other talk is moot.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When you create another life, or an embryo, in my opinion you certainly are obligated, unlike a person you had no part in creating.

Does it matter if you were raped?

Again, you're arguing from a perspective that an embryo is not a human life. Without an agreement on that aspect, all of this other talk is moot.

Okay, we can investigate that if you want.

The reason that a human life is more important than a bacterial life, is because of what a human feels. A bacteria has no concept of its life, no fear, no hopes, no dreams, no desires as such, and as such we don't care if it dies.