An embryo is not a child

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.editorialboard.com/an-embryo-is-not-a-child/

*snip*

Remember, abortion became a religious issue only after it was a political one. In the 1970s, GOP operatives realized abortion was an effective vehicle for achieving unrelated goals. For instance, reducing business taxes and regulation but mostly for getting the federal government off private religious schools built on white supremacy.

Since then, the debate over abortion has been increasingly distilled so that on one side, you had religious believers in “the sanctity of life” while on the other, you had secular believers in the ultimate moral agency of women. A religious argument for abortion had been prominent before Roe. Afterward, not so much. It had moved on.

Is an embryo a child?

That might be the focus of a revival of that old-time religion.

To be sure, abortion champions would rather talk about privacy and freedom to choose. They’d rather leave religion out of it, because the other side has so thoroughly colonized that terrain. I get that.

But most people most of the time don’t get politics. Most of them most of the time avoid conflict. They don’t try to understand. Instead, they rely on feelings that are informed by a variety of religious experience.

*snip*

[JenniferJuniper]

1. And certainly not a human being,

but you know who are human beings?

WOMEN!

[Model35mech]

2. BUT certainly a unique diploid Homo sapiens

at an early stage of development and growth.

[JenniferJuniper]

3. Yep. And totally dependent on an actual human being

for continued existence.

[Model35mech]

7. Yes, that's the nature of embryonic life in a placental mammal.

The "it's not human" argument has failed. It's been failing for 45 years or so.

IMO, you need a better argument. An argument that doesn't hinge on something that will fail so quickly.

Why not go with something honest? Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a part of a woman's right to self-defense of her body and her future?

A successful self-defense argument would neutralize the claim of murder, which is the go-to argument of the anti-abortionists.

[JenniferJuniper]

8. I did not say it wasn't human life,

I said it wasn't a human BEING.

Are you actually trying to claim otherwise?

[Model35mech]

11. I'm saying that for the majority of people it's a distinction without a difference

And that is the reason it has been unsuccessful for nearly 5 decades.

It's very clearly the developing offspring of Homo sapiens. Most people consider Homo sapiens and human beings as synonymous terms.

I have a question for you, why in your response above did you capitalize "BEING"? Being implies existence, in particular in the phrase human being, being that thing suggests the existance of the nature or essence of a person. Go ahead pick a dictionary, I think you'll find that correct.

After many decades of watching abortion advocates try to dodge around the notion that an embryo is a living Homo sapiens and LOSE THE ARGUMENT, I think it would be best to take a rather different tack.

Why not eliminate the endless argumentation over an zygote, embryo, fetus, being names for stages of development and growth of a pre-natal human being? Why is denial of that so critical? I think it's a rhetorical trap, and so a terrible dead-end to arguments for choice.

Why not go for a constitutional Amendment which grants all humans rights to medical self-determination. Why not argue that termination of a pregnancy is at it's essence a choice of self-defense? The protection of a woman's present and her life and welfare and potentially that of her family's future?

Self-defense is a broadly accepted concept in most nations on earth. What makes that so repulsive to Choice?

[SYFROYH]

4. But it is a human organism.

An embryo is genetically as much a human as a newborn or a 50-year old. It's just in a different stage of development from a newborn or middle-aged person. We never stop developing and changing until we die.

For me the issue is legal personhood. We've historically assigned legal personhood at birth and that works for me.

[Model35mech]

9. As it has been, I'm afraid that argument is really just chasing an arbitrary definition.

I'm glad to see it pass out of the realm of calls to science, because biology really will NOT yield a satisfactory answer.

BUT, an argument the doesn't hinge on it being OK to kill a zygote, embryo, fetus if it is a 'legal person' is never going to be settled. There will always be attempts to change what MUST be a very arbitrary legal definition.

Why not admit abortion terminates a life? Why not go for an argument, like self-defense, that actually already has wide support on the conservative side (albeit not yet for the termination of a zygote, embryo or fetus)? Self-defense is a legal standard that already exists and it excuse killing. Why not go for legal standards that allow abortion as a matter of self-defense, which in most cases it is (yes, saving the life of the mother exists in most anti-abortion law, but that's not the most common circumstance for women seeking abortion.

[SYFROYH]

19. Most of the abortion debate rests on arbitrary but rational definitions

Yes, abortion does terminate the human organism as a result of terminating the pregnancy. And it is OK if it is the woman's choice.

I don't think self-defense is a good route.

[Model35mech]

20. Why is it not a good route?

I'd really like to read why you believe that.

[SYFROYH]

21. I don't think existing can be considered a cause for self-defense.

In most cases of self-defense, laws often use the reasonable person's standard for judging a grave threat. Being pregnant in and of itself is not grave threat (although health conditions could make the pregnancy dangerous).

But I'm not a lawyer.

[Model35mech]

22. Well, that's true about the way it's worked up to this point

To make self-defense applicable to abortion the umbrella of self-defense needs to be expanded.

A hill to climbed for sure, but I maybe not impossible. We've got a Secretary of the Treasury that says it would seriously damage the nation.

Janet Yellin says banning abortion would seriously damage the US economy. If abortion would damage the nation's economy in general, it follows that it would be specifically damaging to women and their children along the way.

[SoonerPride]

5. If you can't claim a fetus as a dependent on a tax return the state doesn't think it is a child

It is not a child until it is born.

[Solly Mack]

15. ...

Anti-abortion ‘heartbeat bill’ would also have tax impact for Georgians


Taxes

Expectant parents could claim an embryo on their taxes as soon as a doctor detects a heartbeat in the womb if a proposal making its way through the Georgia Legislature becomes law.

[Walleye]

6. Hypothetical: fireman runs into a burning building, it's a fertility clinic

In one room is a crying baby, in the other room is a container with 100 frozen embryos. The fireman can only save one. Would anybody say he should save the embryos?

[roamer65]

16. Anti-choicers would pick the embryos if they were from whites.

Then have them forcibly implanted into women.

[maxsolomon]

10. Religion is the crux of it.

Christian belief is that God in 3 Persons/Jehovah/Yahweh creates a human soul and places it in the egg at the moment of fertilization. You can't prove that's not true - it's a belief. An embryo doesn't need to be a child. If a zygote has a soul, then that's where RTL fanatics will draw the line.

The "Sanctity of Life" is a religious argument. Evangelicals and Catholics have set the terms for any debate. BTW, hot tip: there is no debate in America, anywhere, and in particular Congress, because Conservatives will always argue in bad faith.

[Model35mech]

14. Well, it doesn't really HAVE to be.

It may be that for many it's a matter of a minister's interpretation of the 10 Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill,
unless you're a soldier in service of your state.

Thou shalt not kill
unless a person jumps up when you kick in the door announced.

Thou shalt not kill
unless you feel you are afraid and you're a cop. etc etc etc

Thou shalt not kill
except to stand your ground....

The exceptions, and the above doesn't account for all of them, take it well beyond the 10 Commandments, and in fact they reveal that an absolute appeal to the 10 Commandments pretty much doesn't have absolute traction in any human society.

If it's not absolute, then all that is needed is a acceptable narrative for an exception. How about going after something that would sound a lot more acceptable and link to an exception for killing that already exists? How about a woman's right to self-defense?

[Mr.Bill]

12. I think what it is should be up to

the person it is inside of. Why would I want to make a decision about what is inside of a woman's body? It's none of my business, and frankly, I'm glad that's the way it is.

[Nevilledog]

13. Agreed.

[treestar]

17. Right wingers refuse to admit

that the biggest event in a human life is birth.

It can't be conception, no one sees it and the day can't be pinpointed.

Birth is a big deal. LOL. Why is that hard to get?

[Noahv]

18. Embryo is up to 8 weeks. Then it's a "fetus"

Is a fetus a child?

[mercuryblues]

23. can it breathe on it's own?

or even survive outside of a uterus on it's own? Can it survive, even with medical intervention at this stage?