Actually, it does https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-life-begins/ What do the experts say? "The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception." When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004 "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981
The snails I kill in my garden are living things. So is the kale I eat. The bacteria I scrub away. Every poop is full of living things. And a woman is a living thing and a sentient being. Not an incubator.
No. There is biologically no such thing as a moment of conception. It's a process. Scientific position is life is continuum. Gametes might or might not unite to become zygote. Zygote has potential to be a chicken or person or blue whale. It's not identical to chicken or person or blue whale.
@Mediocre Man, American College of Pediatrics is an extreme right group that split from the professional pediatric association when the real pediatricians said children raised by same sex parents are just as well off as children raised by straight parents. Many of their members are not pediatricians. They are classed as hate group by Southern Poverty law Center due to extreme homophobia and religious bigotry. They are also against any family planning and Covid vaccine. Not in any way a scientific organization.
We are up waaayyy too early. so basically, some living things matter and some dont? Techinically the mother IS an incubator. No one is saying ONLY an incubator. But the reality is a chicken has its own life, growing and developing inside an uncracked shell. But its still living and growing, but needs the right environment. Just because the egg and shell are outside of the mother chickens body instead of inside, does not matter to the developing life in the egg, other than relying on the environment to keep it nourished and warm. so if women laid eggs, Would you think it okay for the woman to crush said eggs in her nest?
Ok, but there are literally hundreds of articles supporting it. Please also remember we are 100% on the same side
I love how a woman requires a man to create life within her body, but once conception has happened, man has no say or rights to the marriage of cells he partook in in the eyes of some women. We are just a meat stick to help them have offspring. we have no say in the development of the offspring. if men had babies instead of women, would women's maternal instinct be denied and would society accept that? i doubt it…. So why some women believe men have no rights to protect the embryo they helped create, is beyond me. One baby cant grow in both parents body. Just because one carries the growing fetus does not mean the other has no say or rights to the shared creation of said fetus.
Point is, you can't have it both ways. The cleanest solution is to let the woman choose. It also happens to be the most moral solution. It also happens to be the best solution for society.
I think you’re speaking for half of society though Some would say there is nothing moral about intentionally killing for convenience, and as orion Bailey pointed out some people would also argue that the man should have some say because while the woman carries the child, isn’t it half his?
Science doesn't say they are somebody. No more so than sperm cells or lettuce are somebody... Again, this comes back to not knowing right from wrong unless a book (either a medical journal or The Bible ) tells you. Not you specifically, MM, as I know you're just devils advocating. Neither publication is an accurate gauge of morality. Though, at least science can help you understand the consequences of policy by observing the actual facts. The more I deal with religion the less respect I have for it. It really is counterproductive to healthy society.
whole heartedly disagree. Not the best solution. The best solution is for the mother to make a decision WITH the father, (unless it was a forced pregnancy, rape,etc) and everyone else to butt the F out of thier decision. This ideal that it should be her choice and her choice alone i think is reverse bigotry against men. All for it being a personal choice and the government has no say. But it isnt just the mothers choice, in my opinion. The father should have equal say(provided it was an up and up relationship resulting in a child, regardless if that relationship maintains or not). A Father should have the equal right to have a say in his child growing in the mothers body. For all things to become equal, thats the best solution.
No. It's not a child. As we've already established, it's no more a child than broccoli or sperm. In fact, for quite a while it's much less of a complex organism than broccoli. If you are ok with jerking off or growing your own food this is no different, except you're forcing an actual person to suffer by making laws restricting a woman's rights. And no, men don't get a say what happens to the cells they gift to a woman. Not sperm cells, bacteria, or saliva. None of that is moral.
woildnt the moral thing to do would be to accept the obligation of the responsibility took upon ones self to have unprotected sex? to not destroy it but offer an opportunity and if the mother feels she cant or doesnt want to provide that, she should at least birth the child and then give it up for adoption so a loving couple can raise the infant properly? isnt it immoral to accept such a responsibility to engage in actions that can create life and the. Just destroy such creation? talk about moral. The moral thing to do is to realize the seriousness and long term ramifications of casual sex and take on the resulting effects.
Wrong. A man has no say. That seed stopped being his when he gave it to her. She now has full control. If you didn't want her controlling cells you produced then you shouldn't have given them to her. It is not moral to allow any person other than the woman to control what happens to HER BODY.
i think it is hard for some to accept that ones moral gauge may not be the same as others. I, for one, disagree with tour moral line. Does that make me right? No. Does it make you right? No. Morality is in the eye of the beholder and to state morals as a fact or right or wrong is extremely narrow minded. Your opinion is you established life doesn't start at conception, which goes against many studies. So your opinion is not the only moral gauge we should hold our own standards too and is. Ot any type of Fact that should be a clear line of right and wrong. Sorry. How about holding individuals accountable for their actions instead of giving passes all the time??
says you. My opinion is you are wrong. It wasnt a gift. It was a joining of two people who agreed to partake in actions that can create life. What the hell. A gift? Lol. If thats the case then woman gift man the vagina. So we own the vagina and all that comes with it, the moment she gave it to us to stick our meat stick in it. Gift… lol.
bullshit. If she didnt want us to have a say then she should have never accepted our penis in her. See how that works?
No. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy drastically increases the odds of death and disease for her and substantially increases the odds of resulting human being a stain on society. I'm ok with freezing it as an option. But not forcing it. There is no societal benefit to any of those proposed laws. And every one of them removes the right of a real, undeniably living member of society to control their own body. Your hangups about sex don't matter. People are going to have unprotected sex. Everything you have suggested is immoral and worse for society. Even if unprotected sex is somehow immoral, two wrongs don't make a right. Forcing a person to go through 9 months of torture and social humiliation culminating in the greatest pain imaginable can not ever be moral.
