Protecting insentient "human life"

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12963954850A37092400&page=20#478

An argument I often come across in debates about abortion and/or embryonic stem cell research, is that it doesn't matter that a fetus or embryo doesn't have feelings, or an ability to experience what is happening to it, because it is a human life... a life in the purely biological sense, in that it meets the criteria of life and has human DNA.

I would ask what is so special about a zygote, though, that isn't about, let's say, an egg cell. One would say that the difference is that an egg cell is fertilized by the sperm... but that's a chemical change, just as all the nurturing in the womb it takes to become sentient is a chemical change. So why draw the line at the former instead of the latter?

This post was thumped by the Codfish in a Derby Hat

"I would ask what is so special about a zygote, though, that isn't about, let's say, an egg cell. One would say that the difference is that an egg cell is fertilized by the sperm... but that's a chemical change, just as all the nurturing in the womb it takes to become sentient is a chemical change. So why draw the line at the former instead of the latter?"

Because the egg and sperm are both parts of another human being, with either a partial or a complete copy of their genetic material. As soon as the sperm and egg fuse, however, the genetic code of a new, separate individual is formed.

In what scenario would something insentient need to be protected?

edited 10th Feb '11 7:16:30 PM by Grain

^ It's an abortion thread.

@Grain: Great art?

Assuming you're not making the error of saying "sentient" when you mean "sapient". If you are, then "animals."

Great art isn't really comparable to the situation in the OP. For one thing, however much you value a work of art, you don't get to force anyone else to carry it in their reproductive organs.

well that and people in persistent vegetative states.

edited 10th Feb '11 7:39:57 PM by joeyjojo

Maybe, but the OP's question only applies to the "life begins at conception" idea, and Wanderhome answered it.

For one thing, however much you value a work of art, you don't get to force anyone else to carry it in their reproductive organs.

Oh yeah? I'll show you!

D:

If I could fit Bobby's and Rott's posts in my signature I would sig that.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12973029060A77040100&page=1#12

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

"Isn't there a rule somewhere that says there's an upper limit of the number of threads on a single topic at one time? Why should there be yet another abortion thread in OTC?" - English Ivy

Except that it's NOT an abortion thread; this argument is often used for embryonic stem cell research debates as well, as I mentioned earlier...

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

^ Except, again, the question in the OP doesn't apply to them, since they're fully matured (or at least developed) human beings.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

I've explained the distinction between zygotes and individuals in persistent comas previously, and I'm pretty sure you were there.