You’re not pro-life, you’re just pro-70,000-deaths-a-year-from-unsafe-abortions.
You’re just pro-stripping-people-of-their-bodily-autonomy.
You’re just pro-flood-the-system-with-kids-who-won’t-get-adopted-and-who-we-can’t-afford-to-feed-or-provide-shelter-for.
You’re just pro-fuck-you-anybody-with-a-uterus.
You’re just a fucking asshole is what I’m trying to say really.
Unfortunate that abortion is killing a human.
Moral consequences on your head be.
Abortion doesn’t kill A human. It kills human cells forming to create a potential human being.
You’re A human until you are a human being i.e born, autonomously living and completely separate from someone elses body - a fetus is living inside someone’s womb, they are not separate.
I study Biology at the University of Melbourne.
There is no way to morally or legally rationalise the point at which something becomes an organism. It’s pretty black-and-white.
The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.
Ergo, you are killing a member of Homo sapiens.
You just have to justify killing (or murdering, depending on your point of view) a human that isn’t yet fully formed, cognitional or sentient.
Also, since you’re not even one of my followers, you should really just stop being argumentative and piss off.
I really love completing patterns, so as long as we’re sharing credentials that don’t really matter in the discussion of reproductive rights, I’d like to share that I am a Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Biology triple major with a concentration in Genetics at Ball State University. (It’s cool, you can laugh at my school name. I won’t get mad).
I’m four credits away from my chemistry degrees (second semester physical chemistry), and six credits away from my biology degree (botany and methods of ecology), so I’m pretty qualified to speak about issues of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and eukaryotic development. But I’m actually not going to get too deep into the subjects I know extremely well because it’s just not necessary at this point.
First off, you said “The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.” This technically is not true. There are a myriad of steps that take place during fertilization, and most of them occur after the sperm has attached to the oocyte. First and foremost, the oocyte must undergo meiosis II. At the “moment of conception,” as anti-choicers love to wax poetic about, the oocyte has 46 chromosomes and is entirely incapable of developing into the progeny.
While the oocyte busies itself with its second meiotic division, the sperm’s cellular body must degenerate. The tail, mitochondria, and most of its cellular components are digested, leaving only the sperm’s genomic DNA in a pronucleus. The pronuclei of both the ovum and sperm then undergo very rapid DNA replication (while still separate!) in order to prepare for mitosis as a zygote.
Eventually, the pronucleic membranes dissolve, allowing a mitotic spindle to develop. The spindle simultaneously combines maternal and paternal chromosomes while completing the first mitotic division of the new progeny. This is the first point at which the genomic DNA of both the male and female parent meet, and therefore this is the first point at which a progeny exists with an original complement of 46 chromosomes.
Anyway, that’s the only science I wanted to get into. My real point follows ahead.
Yes, the above zygote with 46 combined chromosomes is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. To suggest otherwise would be silly- it’s certainly not Oxytricha or Stylonychia (primarily because both of those are far more complex than a human zygote). However, the argument at hand is whether or not that two-celled human is or is not a person with all of the rights and responsibilities of a developed and born human.
It is logically impossible to argue that two people with equal rights can occupy the same body. With two people (the zygote and the pregnant person, by your argument) sharing one body, the rights of both cannot be equally preserved. Either the pregnant person retains the right they ordinarily hold to make choices about their body or the zygote overrides that right.
So let’s talk about rights. A really touchy subject in medical ethics today is organ and tissue donation. Many laypeople think that donation compatibility, whether live or cadaver, is purely a function of ABO blood group. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are multiple factors to compatibility, most of them genetically determined, and these factors are often so limiting that a person in need of a transplant is only compatible with one family member (if that).
Fortunately, some of our most commonly needed organs can be given by a live donor. More than half of all organ donations are given by live donors and include kidney, lung, skin, and liver tissues. These donations are almost always life-saving for the recipient.
So say your sister needs a kidney. She has been on dialysis for quite some time and her systems are failing. Without a new kidney, she will not survive the month. National databases have been scoured, your entire family and social circle has been tested, and you are the only compatible match. Are you morally obligated to give her your kidney? She will certainly die without it, but organ donation kind of sucks. I mean, it normally goes okay with minimal complications, but it’s painful and inconvenient and expensive and you will need to take time off work. Should there be a law dictating that you must give that kidney in order to save her life?
Most individuals I have spoken to say “no.” One went so far to say “giving her the kidney would be morally laudable but not morally imperative.” So let’s bring it back to abortion. 99.8% of abortions (and 100% of “elective” abortions) take place before 21 weeks gestation. The medical community has established that premature infants have virtually little chance of survival outside the uterus until approximately 24 weeks gestation, so all elective abortions are performed before fetal viability.
Embryos and fetuses prior to 24 weeks gestation cannot survive without using a pregnant person’s body as a host. An abortion serves to stop the donation of the host body to the progeny. Think about your answer to your sister’s kidney dilemma and answer: should a pregnant person be obligated to donate their body to a parasitic organism that will die without it?
At this point many anti-choicers respond with “well, she chose to have sex. You didn’t make your sister exist,” and this is completely true. So let’s change the scenario: your mother is the only match for your sister’s kidney, and it is absolutely her fault that your sister exists and is alive today. It may even be her fault (genetically or environmentally) that your sister needs a new kidney! Should she be legally obligated to give her body to save your sister?
So, to get back to your original statement, “abortion is murder,” I must ask: if you or your mother said no to your sister and she dies, are you a murderer?
If not, neither are people who get abortions.
(We are still doing the passive-aggressive letter bit, right?)