Unfortunately that was replaced with 230 hours of My Lil Pony. My poor daughter is like, "Dad you've seen this episode a thousand times!" Whatever, Rainbow Dash is the boss!
Well according to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, "If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion."
So, even she admitted that what they would be doing in this situation ought properly be called an abortion.
there aren't any human characteristics in a blastocyst.
Well sure except for of course the fact that that blastocyst is not "a blastocyst". I believe what you're talking about is a human being in the embryonic stage of development. What this means is that if you do nothing other than provide the necessities for continued human life (such as oxygen, water, and nutrients), then in approximately 9 months that "blastocyst" will be an "infant". By that I mean of course a human being in the infant stage of development.
Well a) you don't fertilize ovum's in a dish in the first place, and b) those human being's that are already in an embryonic state of development in a dish are offered a chance at surviving further by making them available for adoption. Gee, that was tough. What's the next big moral dilemma.
Ah, so using your argument then if I decide to kill a bunch of folks it's ok because I'm not ending "life" since "life" simply continues on right?
It's not "life" we're interested in protecting. It's an individual human's life. That begins at conception.
Quoting Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood the nation's largest abortion provider):
"If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule
and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its
further growth is called abortion."
Why is a Kilobyte 1024 bytes, if "Kilo" means 1000, both according to the SI and the greeks (Kilo is derived from khilioi). If 1 kg = 1000g, 1 kV = 1000V, 1 km = 1000m, why should hard disks break the pattern?
"A newborn is obviously human, whereas a zygote is obviously not."
Could you explain this? I assume you're talking about a human zygote ("and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal..")?
A human zygote is actually obviously human. Perhaps you meant to say something else?
"Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?"
No. Which is why IVF is just as bad as embryonic stem cell research. Look when Nazis were killing folks anyway they decided they ought to at least benefit from the killing. They then decided that experiments should be performed on them. You know. They were going to be killed anyway so it was moral research right?
From the Nuremberg Trials Count 2 Paragraph 6:
Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects' consent, upon civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the following:
A) High-Altitude Experiments
B) Freezing Experiments
C) Malaria Experiments
D) Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments
E) Sulfanilamide Experiments
F) Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation Experiments
G) Sea-Water Experiments
H) Epidemic Jaundice Experiments
I) Sterilization Experiments
J) Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber) Experiments
K) Experiments with Poison
L) Incendiary Bomb Experiments
Count 3 Paragraph 11:
Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.
And of course Count 3 Paragraph 14 details their Euthanasia program
"IVF leftovers cannot proceed past whatever state they're in without technical intervention
Ahhh. I see the problem here. You believe that a blastocyst in a dish is less human than a blastocyst in a womb. Well last I checked location did not change the nature of a being. Remember that that human being that is in the blastocyst stage of development in that dish is there due to technological intervention in the first place. So, yes, to undo that (i.e. to put that human being back into a place where she can get the nutrients that she needs to survive), technological intervention is necessary.
"In most cases, they're simply going to be discarded, regardless. You can impact their fate by throwing them away, by putting them in a freezer indefinitely, or by putting them to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc).
In all cases we're all going to die, regardless. You can impact our fate by killing us, freezing us indefinitely, or by putting us to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc.)
Do you see how odd you sound to me?
"Either way, they're not going to be put into a situation that would ever form an embryo, period."
Why not? These human beings were created in such a way that they were stripped of the only way in which to obtain the nutrients they need to continue growing. They a) should not have been placed into such a situation in the first place and b) ought to be placed into a situation where they can obtain the nutrients necessary to continue growing as soon as possible. They are not being given those options and instead are frozen by technological intervention to prevent them from attempting to grow to the embryonic stage, fetus stage, infant stage, etc.
"At that stage, and under those circumstances, you've got the same potential for an eventual human as you would with a skin cell culture.
Absolute rubbish. A skin cell culture cannot of it's own volition become an adult human being. A blastocyst as a fully contained human entity and has all of the equipment necessary to become an adult so long as she is allowed access to the necessities of life (i.e. food, water, oxygen).
"An adult human is a human being. Twelve cells are not, and in the case we're talking about will never be, ever."
An adult human is a human being in the adult stage of development. These "twelve cells" that you speak of are a human being in the blastocyst stage of development and will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal, access to nutrients is allowed, and technological interventions preventing progress are removed. It's simple biology.
"Of course, you can invest meaning in those cells by dedicating yourself to actually hatching them further into an embryo, and down the road - it things work out right - an infant.
Embryo, infant, blastocyst. All stages of development of one individual human being. Never at any point is anything added or taken away from these wholly contained unique individual organisms. All that is necessary is to allow proper access to the necessities of life. If I were to look at you with a microscope all I would see is cells. All you are is cells. Yet that is not all that you are. You are a particular species of cells wholly contained into one organism. Just like human beings in the blastocyst stage of development.
If I were to take you when you were in the blastocyst stage of development and place you in some other woman's womb, you would still have become the exact same adult human person that you are today. You add nothing to yourself from any outside source from the moment of conception throughout your entire life except for nutrients.
Or, you could take the useful blank-slate qualities of those cells, and use them to perhaps put a broken family back together after a car accident, or allow a grandfather's failing mind to get those precious few m
"That cluster of cells is not going to do anything on its own."
Now that is an out and out lie. That "cluster of cells" will divide, divide again, divide again, etc. One such "cluster of cells" is dividing right now and leaving dead skin cells on his keyboard as he types this.
"It wouldn't even exist but for highly sophisticated processes and technology."
What, like aquiring the nutrients necessary for continued life? Like breathing? Eating? Don't you realize that you are kept alive through similar such "sophisticated processes"?
"Once the technology allows, those millions of skin cells will have every bit the prospects of becoming an embryo as the refridgerated IVF leftovers.
The difference of course being that those skin cells would not be capable of becoming an adult human being without technological intervention. A human being in the blastocyst (or zygote or embryo or fetus) stage of development will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal and so long as she is allowed to obtain the nutrients necessary for continued life (food, water, oxygen).
"Since neither can possibly become an embryo without science doing its work, they will have exactly the same potential and moral value.
Science doesn't have to do Jack S$#t for an embryo to become a human adult. The embryo will use standard biological processes to aquire the nutrients necessary for continued life. No technology required whatsoever. Once a somatic cell of an adult donor has had its nucleus transferred into an ovum that has had its nucleus removed and the cloning process has begun, then yes, the two would have the same potential and moral value. That same potential and moral value that all human beings have. The skin cells, however, have no value in and of themselves.
"Will children derived from other cells have less value to you?
I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between a stage of development (which implies moving from stage to stage) and a sample of a clump of cells then you have major problems. A blastocyst is not an entity. It is a stage that an entity passes through. A clump of skin cells on the other hand is a small portion of an entity in a particular stage of development. This is like the difference of using an individual stem cell from an embryo vs. using the entire embryo. If you take a small sample of cells from an entity without harming the entity then you are well within the bounds of ethical science.
If you destroy the entire entity (whether in the blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or adult stage of development) for the sake of science then you have crossed the line into unethical science.
Can you do wonderful things and advance science rapidly? Absolutely. Should you? No. Just because we could learn rapidly if we experiment directly upon adult human beings (say death row prisoners or someone who is contemplating suicide), doesn't mean we should.
"And then every time you shave it will be a moral dilemma.
"Let's see... "she" is not a she (yet). There's no tissue differentiation yet."
After a brief search I came up with this site UNSW Embryology
Formation of the Zygote
male and female pronuclei
first mitotic division
sex determination
Further down
Sex Determination
based upon whether an X or Y carrying sperm has fertilized the egg
Zygote stage of development is when an individual human's life begins and is before the blastocyst stage of development. Sex has been determined already.
"You also use the phrase "by attaching," which (not very subtly) implies volition on the part of the blastocyst."
Well the uterus certainly doesn't attach to the blastocyst yet they become attached somehow. Are you implying that the attaching is done by some third party?
"So is solar fusion."
Yes, yes, yes. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Yet we are not talking about ultimate origins of the matter we are talking about the origins of the individual human being.
"If I can use the DNA from any cell in your body to produce an organism - a clone of you - then are destroying millions of humans with each scratched itch?"
Don't be ridiculous. Cells from my body will not develop on their own into another individual human being. On the other hand a blastocyst will. So long as she is able to attach to a uterus (artificial or natural once the technology allows) so that she may obtain the nutrients she needs to continue growing.
"a blastocyst . . . sitting in a petri dish isn't going anywhere"
Only so long as that human in the blastocyst stage of development is frozen! Otherwise she would continue to grow and would attempt to get the nutrient's she needs to live just like the rest of us. It just so happens that the only way she is able to get the nutrient's she needs is by attaching to the lining of a womb. At some point she will have developed enough to be able to survive without that attachment. This is all a part of the cycle of the development of a human being.
That's because it was. The Dreamcast was a much better system. Easier to develop for, built in internet capabilities, and beautiful image capabilities.
While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.
For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.
Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion.
There's no such thing as a "fertilized egg". What you are probably referring to are the pre-embryonic stages of development on the human being. Starting at the single-celled zygote and progressing through the blastocyst stage and so on. Again, these are merely stages in the development of a human being. Other stages are infant, toddler, adolescent, adult.
Why would it be ethical to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage? Are you one of those non-scientific types that believes that there is some point that the human body becomes "ensouled"?
Well, at the earliest stages of the embryo, the cells (stem cells) are not differentiated enough for you to tell which is a hair cell, or a liver cell, or an eye cell. That's the point...they are all cells with potential, but, are not live or a living human...just a grouping of cells that, if all goes well, have the potential to differentiate and become a human....
To expect to see brain cells or muscle cells in the earliest stages of the development of a human being would be anti-intellectual and downright ignorant. The brain cells are there along with all of the other cells that make up a human body. Only ignoramouses expect them to look like they would in a fully developed adult. The cells are present, they are alive, and they are developing at their own pace. All these cells need is all that any cells need. Food, water, oxygen, etc.
The necessities for life. Whether the embryo develops in her mother's womb or some other woman's womb or in an artificial womb (if one were to be developed), the embryo will always develop into the same adult. The reason for this is that all that is necessary for an individual human life is present in the embryo and in fact is present in the single-celled zygote. This is a scientific fact.
Get out of the dark ages where people believed that a "blob of tissue" became "ensouled" at some point during development.
Until birth, a child is really just a clump of cells growing in a host body. It is not, in that respect, terribly unlike a tumor.
You've obviously never had a living human child developing inside you before.
I'd like to point out by the way that all you are "is really a clump of cells growing", but I do not use that as an excuse to dismember you callously without regard to your well being.
A The majority of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally.
B Eggs are donated and fertilized outside the womb. Again most may not survive even when implanted. Numbers of extra fertilized cells are used for research.
A This is equivalent to saying "The Majority of human beings will not make it to adulthood." Which is true of course, but does not justify killing human beings who are in earlier stages of development.
B Again just because somebody comes into the world from one unethical practice (In Vitro Fertilization) does not justify removing them with another unethical practice. Discriminating against IVF human beings when science tells us that they are the same as In Utero Fertilized human beings is an act of an incredibly uncivilized society.
No, you've got it wrong. It's more like, you COULD become an adult human being but because so many fail to make it to that stage of development we've taken it upon ourselves to legalizing the killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development for our own benefit/profit.
Just because they are in an earlier stage of development does not make them any less human. You were an embryo too at one point.
You arrogant SoB!! Don't you realize that all you are is a "bag of cells"? How dare you presume that somehow you are worth more than another bag of cells merely because you've been around longer!
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately that was replaced with 230 hours of My Lil Pony. My poor daughter is like, "Dad you've seen this episode a thousand times!" Whatever, Rainbow Dash is the boss!
Well according to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, "If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion."
So, even she admitted that what they would be doing in this situation ought properly be called an abortion.
there aren't any human characteristics in a blastocyst.
Well sure except for of course the fact that that blastocyst is not "a blastocyst". I believe what you're talking about is a human being in the embryonic stage of development. What this means is that if you do nothing other than provide the necessities for continued human life (such as oxygen, water, and nutrients), then in approximately 9 months that "blastocyst" will be an "infant". By that I mean of course a human being in the infant stage of development.
Well a) you don't fertilize ovum's in a dish in the first place, and b) those human being's that are already in an embryonic state of development in a dish are offered a chance at surviving further by making them available for adoption. Gee, that was tough. What's the next big moral dilemma.
Ah, so using your argument then if I decide to kill a bunch of folks it's ok because I'm not ending "life" since "life" simply continues on right? It's not "life" we're interested in protecting. It's an individual human's life. That begins at conception.
Quoting Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood the nation's largest abortion provider): "If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion."
Palin's trying to run away from Stevens as fast as she can. She took money from the same convicted VECO guy that he did -- just not as much.
Damn! I didn't hear about her conviction. When did that happen?
"Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?"
No. Which is why IVF is just as bad as embryonic stem cell research. Look when Nazis were killing folks anyway they decided they ought to at least benefit from the killing. They then decided that experiments should be performed on them. You know. They were going to be killed anyway so it was moral research right?
From the Nuremberg Trials Count 2 Paragraph 6:
Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects' consent, upon civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the following:
A) High-Altitude Experiments
B) Freezing Experiments
C) Malaria Experiments
D) Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments
E) Sulfanilamide Experiments
F) Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation Experiments
G) Sea-Water Experiments
H) Epidemic Jaundice Experiments
I) Sterilization Experiments
J) Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber) Experiments
K) Experiments with Poison
L) Incendiary Bomb Experiments
Count 3 Paragraph 11:
Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.
And of course Count 3 Paragraph 14 details their Euthanasia program
The Nuremberg Trials
"IVF leftovers cannot proceed past whatever state they're in without technical intervention
Ahhh. I see the problem here. You believe that a blastocyst in a dish is less human than a blastocyst in a womb. Well last I checked location did not change the nature of a being. Remember that that human being that is in the blastocyst stage of development in that dish is there due to technological intervention in the first place. So, yes, to undo that (i.e. to put that human being back into a place where she can get the nutrients that she needs to survive), technological intervention is necessary.
"In most cases, they're simply going to be discarded, regardless. You can impact their fate by throwing them away, by putting them in a freezer indefinitely, or by putting them to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc).
In all cases we're all going to die, regardless. You can impact our fate by killing us, freezing us indefinitely, or by putting us to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc.)
Do you see how odd you sound to me?
"Either way, they're not going to be put into a situation that would ever form an embryo, period."
Why not? These human beings were created in such a way that they were stripped of the only way in which to obtain the nutrients they need to continue growing. They a) should not have been placed into such a situation in the first place and b) ought to be placed into a situation where they can obtain the nutrients necessary to continue growing as soon as possible. They are not being given those options and instead are frozen by technological intervention to prevent them from attempting to grow to the embryonic stage, fetus stage, infant stage, etc.
"At that stage, and under those circumstances, you've got the same potential for an eventual human as you would with a skin cell culture.
Absolute rubbish. A skin cell culture cannot of it's own volition become an adult human being. A blastocyst as a fully contained human entity and has all of the equipment necessary to become an adult so long as she is allowed access to the necessities of life (i.e. food, water, oxygen).
"An adult human is a human being. Twelve cells are not, and in the case we're talking about will never be, ever."
An adult human is a human being in the adult stage of development. These "twelve cells" that you speak of are a human being in the blastocyst stage of development and will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal, access to nutrients is allowed, and technological interventions preventing progress are removed. It's simple biology.
"Of course, you can invest meaning in those cells by dedicating yourself to actually hatching them further into an embryo, and down the road - it things work out right - an infant.
Embryo, infant, blastocyst. All stages of development of one individual human being. Never at any point is anything added or taken away from these wholly contained unique individual organisms. All that is necessary is to allow proper access to the necessities of life. If I were to look at you with a microscope all I would see is cells. All you are is cells. Yet that is not all that you are. You are a particular species of cells wholly contained into one organism. Just like human beings in the blastocyst stage of development.
If I were to take you when you were in the blastocyst stage of development and place you in some other woman's womb, you would still have become the exact same adult human person that you are today. You add nothing to yourself from any outside source from the moment of conception throughout your entire life except for nutrients.
Or, you could take the useful blank-slate qualities of those cells, and use them to perhaps put a broken family back together after a car accident, or allow a grandfather's failing mind to get those precious few m
"That cluster of cells is not going to do anything on its own."
Now that is an out and out lie. That "cluster of cells" will divide, divide again, divide again, etc. One such "cluster of cells" is dividing right now and leaving dead skin cells on his keyboard as he types this.
"It wouldn't even exist but for highly sophisticated processes and technology."
What, like aquiring the nutrients necessary for continued life? Like breathing? Eating? Don't you realize that you are kept alive through similar such "sophisticated processes"?
"Once the technology allows, those millions of skin cells will have every bit the prospects of becoming an embryo as the refridgerated IVF leftovers.
The difference of course being that those skin cells would not be capable of becoming an adult human being without technological intervention. A human being in the blastocyst (or zygote or embryo or fetus) stage of development will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal and so long as she is allowed to obtain the nutrients necessary for continued life (food, water, oxygen).
"Since neither can possibly become an embryo without science doing its work, they will have exactly the same potential and moral value.
Science doesn't have to do Jack S$#t for an embryo to become a human adult. The embryo will use standard biological processes to aquire the nutrients necessary for continued life. No technology required whatsoever. Once a somatic cell of an adult donor has had its nucleus transferred into an ovum that has had its nucleus removed and the cloning process has begun, then yes, the two would have the same potential and moral value. That same potential and moral value that all human beings have. The skin cells, however, have no value in and of themselves.
"Will children derived from other cells have less value to you?
Beat that straw man!! Beat that straw man!! Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between a stage of development (which implies moving from stage to stage) and a sample of a clump of cells then you have major problems. A blastocyst is not an entity. It is a stage that an entity passes through. A clump of skin cells on the other hand is a small portion of an entity in a particular stage of development. This is like the difference of using an individual stem cell from an embryo vs. using the entire embryo. If you take a small sample of cells from an entity without harming the entity then you are well within the bounds of ethical science.
If you destroy the entire entity (whether in the blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or adult stage of development) for the sake of science then you have crossed the line into unethical science. Can you do wonderful things and advance science rapidly? Absolutely. Should you? No. Just because we could learn rapidly if we experiment directly upon adult human beings (say death row prisoners or someone who is contemplating suicide), doesn't mean we should.
"And then every time you shave it will be a moral dilemma.
Back to that old straw man eh?
After a brief search I came up with this site
UNSW Embryology
Formation of the Zygote
Further down
Sex Determination
Zygote stage of development is when an individual human's life begins and is before the blastocyst stage of development. Sex has been determined already.
"You also use the phrase "by attaching," which (not very subtly) implies volition on the part of the blastocyst."
Well the uterus certainly doesn't attach to the blastocyst yet they become attached somehow. Are you implying that the attaching is done by some third party?
"So is solar fusion."
Yes, yes, yes. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Yet we are not talking about ultimate origins of the matter we are talking about the origins of the individual human being.
"If I can use the DNA from any cell in your body to produce an organism - a clone of you - then are destroying millions of humans with each scratched itch?"
Don't be ridiculous. Cells from my body will not develop on their own into another individual human being. On the other hand a blastocyst will. So long as she is able to attach to a uterus (artificial or natural once the technology allows) so that she may obtain the nutrients she needs to continue growing.
"a blastocyst . . . sitting in a petri dish isn't going anywhere"
Only so long as that human in the blastocyst stage of development is frozen! Otherwise she would continue to grow and would attempt to get the nutrient's she needs to live just like the rest of us. It just so happens that the only way she is able to get the nutrient's she needs is by attaching to the lining of a womb. At some point she will have developed enough to be able to survive without that attachment. This is all a part of the cycle of the development of a human being.
Country________Land Mass (Sq. Mi.)___Cost of Broadband_____Population____Density
_ _________280,562,489___29.14 persons/sq mile_ __________59,765,983____109.25 persons/sq mile_ ____48,324,000____490.70 persons/sq mile
US_____________9,629,091_____________~$45________
France__________547,030_______________~$38_______
Korea, South_____98,480________________~$30_____________
etc.
That's because it was. The Dreamcast was a much better system. Easier to develop for, built in internet capabilities, and beautiful image capabilities.
While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.
For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.
Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion.
Calling it murder would be accurate, however.
There's no such thing as a "fertilized egg". What you are probably referring to are the pre-embryonic stages of development on the human being. Starting at the single-celled zygote and progressing through the blastocyst stage and so on. Again, these are merely stages in the development of a human being. Other stages are infant, toddler, adolescent, adult.
Why would it be ethical to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage? Are you one of those non-scientific types that believes that there is some point that the human body becomes "ensouled"?
To expect to see brain cells or muscle cells in the earliest stages of the development of a human being would be anti-intellectual and downright ignorant. The brain cells are there along with all of the other cells that make up a human body. Only ignoramouses expect them to look like they would in a fully developed adult. The cells are present, they are alive, and they are developing at their own pace. All these cells need is all that any cells need. Food, water, oxygen, etc. The necessities for life. Whether the embryo develops in her mother's womb or some other woman's womb or in an artificial womb (if one were to be developed), the embryo will always develop into the same adult. The reason for this is that all that is necessary for an individual human life is present in the embryo and in fact is present in the single-celled zygote. This is a scientific fact.
Get out of the dark ages where people believed that a "blob of tissue" became "ensouled" at some point during development.
You've obviously never had a living human child developing inside you before.
I'd like to point out by the way that all you are "is really a clump of cells growing", but I do not use that as an excuse to dismember you callously without regard to your well being.
No, you've got it wrong. It's more like, you COULD become an adult human being but because so many fail to make it to that stage of development we've taken it upon ourselves to legalizing the killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development for our own benefit/profit. Just because they are in an earlier stage of development does not make them any less human. You were an embryo too at one point.
You arrogant SoB!! Don't you realize that all you are is a "bag of cells"? How dare you presume that somehow you are worth more than another bag of cells merely because you've been around longer!