Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Nope, I'm saying that your claim of (the potential for (developing))"walking, talking and thinking" as reasons for considering embryos as "persons" are flawed.About Polly wanting a cracker, would you truly believe that Polly is capable of as much understanding as a human being? I am not sure what you are doing here, are you equaling animals to humans? It isa clear that most ziggotes are developing an inteligence far superior to any parrot. Not more inteligent in the momt of conception, but since then, developing already tobe far more inteligent. Though I don´t think inteligence would be the only facotr for humanhood, I would guess you don´t think that neither? After all, many animals have the ineligence of 3 year old childs, and I wouldn´t put them the same importance as 3 year old childs.
However, while I recognize that English may not be your first language, the spelling has hit a point where reading your post is a serious struggle.
But you're OK with a doctor killing an embryo to save a person when a doctor would not be able to kill another person to save a person. Otherwise we'd be yanking organs out of people without consent to stick them in other people. So you're saying the value of an embryo is less than that of a person, correct?I am not sying it is the same cost (to lose the life of a human zygote than the life of a 3age human), I am saying the logic is the same for both questions. I just don´t understand the relevance of the question. Do I need to say "just because it happens doesn´t mean it´s okay to make it happen" ?
People die, yet murder is wrong.
So find another comparison besides murder, because murder is the death of a person.
So the value of a mass of cells is determined on how much it is wanted?I´ll humour you and lay along as if the tumor was as important as an actual baby (even for "potential" human being I would believe there would be greater value o.0) and I´ll keep the same posture than with the actual baby. If for some supernatural reason the mother loves her tumor baby as much as to put her own life at risk for it she may let it grow, but given that it risks her life, she may very well remove it.
Or is it based on the percentage chance it will develop into a person?
You claimed human DNA was part of your standard for personhood, tumors also have human DNA.Are you seriously comparing atumor with ababy?! Is there ANY evidence that a tumor can become a human being?! :areyoucra
So, it is very clearly not (morally equivalent to) murder to kill a zygote by your standards. As again, we do not allow doctors to murder one person to save another.You yourself pointed out up ther eI don´t give the human zygote the same value as a born human being.
In any case, I do have talked about this, and yes, if it is survival you may kill someone who is threatening your life (like in die or live, not like die or live the way you don´t want to live), even if s/he is doing so unwillingly.
Although I sincerely question why you get to decide what survival means. What if the mother would live but suffer brain damage? What if she'd live but have crippling physical damage? What if being off her psych meds means her being a danger to her self or others?
That's not the question. Answer the question as asked if you're taking this in good faith.o.o I think it is inmoral to kill your 100% inocent harmless son if it comes to your place even if you are literaly responable of him being there... as crazy as it sounds :areyoucra