useless fact

this argument is nonsensical, because science does not exist to prove or disprove philosophical concepts such as personhood. What these scientific data show is that the zygote/embryo/fetus is indeed ALIVE and GENETICALLY HUMAN. I know of no pro-choicer that disputes this and it is not necessary for us to do so because it does not follow that because something is alive or genetically human, it is a person. Many things are alive that many or most who oppose abortion have no issue with killing.

If you have ever eaten meat, killed a spider or set a mousetrap, sprayed for weeds (or even eaten food that was grown using pesticides and herbicides) you have taken part in, or supported, the destruction of life. Many of the things we do on a daily basis as humans rely on the destruction of SOME sort of life so it is not enough to argue against abortion on the basis that the fetus is alive.

As for the fetus being genetically human, human tumors and cell cultures are also genetically human–AND alive as well, of course. Clearly the mere presence of human DNA does not confer a special moral status and why should it? Why should a human embryo which does not have thoughts, feelings, and experiences etc. be considered to have more moral worth than, say, an elephant which has all those things but lacks human DNA? Why should a non-sentient, genetically human organism be more valued than a sentient, genetically non-human organism? The only argument I can think of is the argument that humans are unique and set apart from other living things because they are specially created in the image of God. However, if you employ this argument, you have obviously backslid into religious arguments, which have no place in policy-making. There is no sound, non-religious argument that human DNA confers innate moral superiority.

The key issue is not life or humanity but personhood and this is not a concept that can be explored by science. It is a philosophical, moral concept that is usually defined by sentience–such things as self-awareness, the presence of feelings, thoughts, experiences, goals, values etc.

the "personhood" argument is not a made up concept,it is a philosophical argument dating back centuries.so I don't know where you were educated or who told you that,but they are talking out their ass.

which is really the main thrust of my argument.that this is a philosophical/moral argument,and is unlikely to ever be resolved on that basis.this is NOT a scientific argument,and no matter how some people wish it to be...it is not..which is the assertion this meme is making.

just look at your comment,and quoting dr condic.
where is the science?
*hint:this is a trick question* there is none.

you made a pretty presumptuous claim about me.
that I am biased.
now I could have a bit of fun here because you foolishly stepped into it,but I don't think that fair considering you have been respectful.

I am pro-life.
but I am anti-bullshit arguments based on emotions and feels.

the base crux of the abortion argument is "when does life begin",and that argument is vast,nuanced and complicated and will not be reconciled anytime soon.

but at it's heart,it is a moral argument
or to be more precise: a philosophical argument.
and not all laws are "moral".
everybody has their own line they have on this issue,for their own reasons,and they usually are not in total alignment.

my point,which you kind of dismissed to promote your own argument which only tangentially relates to mine.
is that the science is not settled,because it is not the purpose of science to validate what comes down to a philosophical argument.

I am not making a pro0life or pro-choice argument.
I am specifically addressing the claims of "science".
it is not science,it is emotionality based on our own subjective,moral understandings of the world.

capice?

maybe I should clarify.
I was not making the argument that personhood is the prerequisite for life.
I was pointing to the fact that it is the personhood argument which is the crux of the pro-life vs pro-choice argument,and that it was not a scientific argument,but rather a philosophical (or theosophical) argument.

I am pro-life.
so I do not adhere to the personhood argument but rather the "potentiality" argument.
meaning that every life is a "potential".(which is where I suspect you are as well)
however,when I see people trot out the "life begins at conception and scientists agree" trope....a part of me dies inside,because it is SUCH a bad faith argument.

i appreciate your honesty and candor,truly.
and i totally understand.
abortion is a very emotional and divisive topic.
but we have to keep things honest,and bad faith arguments are just tedious.
which is not what you did at all.
the OP did,but that's on him/her.

cheers mate!

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/670804

heh..to be perfectly upfront..i just linked the first paper I saw on the potentiality argument,but I didn't read it.

had a case of the lazies.
but I assumed it conveyed the basic point.

and to answer your question.
no..i do not think an embryo is a human.
just like I don't think a pumpkin seed is a pumpkin.
but it does have the potential to BE a human.
hence my "potentiality" argument.

Why is "life begins at conception", such a bad faith argument? Please elaborate.

please quote me correctly.

Don't split hairs, please. I would like to hear why you think this.

a correct quote would have answered your question,and is NO way "splitting hairs".
words matter yo.

correct quote:"life begins at conception and scientists agree"
notice the SCIENTIFIC claim?
THAT is the argument made in "bad faith".

when you remove the SCIENTIFIC claim from the quote,then it just becomes "life begins at conception",which many people agree is the point of life.i.e:fightinguntruth for example.

so please forgive me if I am a tad confused by something that is so blatantly obvious,and why I also am being a stickler on accuracy.

You can't have human life without a fetus, therefore a fetus is human life in its early stages. Convoluting it with "philosophy" still doesn't change the fact that without the fetus, we don't exist to have this conversation.

from this meme,the very thing that started this entire discussion:

SCIENCE:the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg and becomes a zygote is when it becomes a person.

THAT is what this meme stated,and what I was responding,but thank you sooo much for blowing smoke up my ass and wasting my time with this pedantic f**kery.

now i am just f**king irritated.
jesus f**king Christ on a stick this was f**king retarded.

Now, you're splitting hairs, fo sho.

So, you have a problem with the "scientists agree" part of that statement? What is it about that do you have a problem with? Is it that scientists aren't allowed to agree on life beginning at conception? Even when looking at it from the perspective of the scientific method? Please explain your reasoning on both parts, and as a whole. I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

I already made my arguments.
they are public and I assume you have read them.

you want to make the argument that there is scientific consensus that a zygote is a person.
have at it hoss.
gonna need some peer reviewed journals for that,but please..by all means...knock yourself out.

Prove your facts

I have. Repeatedly. You just keep ignoring all the evidence.

You change the subject murderer

When you supported abortion you support murder of children

Prove yourself

How does a fetus become a human once it's out. If comes out a human it should always be a person logically

I'll have you know, that by your logic, picking flowers is mass genocide.

False, genocide is killing an entire species and killing plants is far different that killing innocent children.

Fetuses are just as alive as plants.

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
"a campaign of genocide"
synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing

So killing ONE flower isn't genocide. And again; Human life > any other life. Period. Especially when that human has done no wrong.

A fetus does not count as human life. It only BECOMES human life after a certain stage in development.

"DJFox

A fetus does not count as human life. It only BECOMES human life after a certain stage in development.

"FightingUntruth

Dude you're so far off. If a human fetus isn't human life, than what is it? Is it a horse? Maybe a fish..."

"DJFox

READ what I said.

I said it BECOMES human life. A fetus is, well, a fetus."

READ what he said and just answer the question to your assertion.

If you can.

READ what I said.

I said it BECOMES human life. A fetus is, well, a fetus.

Yeah, that stages is called a Zygote. The moment a Sperm meets an Egg it's scientifically classified as a human being.

You can't have human life without a fetus, therefore a fetus is human life in its early stages. Convoluting it with "philosophy" still doesn't change the fact that without the fetus, we don't exist to have this conversation.

Get used to it with him, that's all he's good for.