Bryan, thank you - great discussion. TG - A human offspring no matter how small (yes even a single cell embryo) is not a part of the mother. It's a pretty simple and straight forward scientific fact devoid of morality. I saw this very clearly in my college biology lab when my teacher set up a bunch of different zebra fish (transparent fish with 72 hour gestation period) each fertilized at a different hour (e.g., microscope station #1 fertilized one hour prior to class, station #2 fertilized 3 hours before class hour, etc so 24 stations spanning the full 72 hours) so we could go to each station and view different stages of development. The effect was like time lapsed photography - absolutely amazing - the embryo was a self-driven factory of development (the closest/best video I could find on youtube similar to the experience was this time lapse of a salamander development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEejivHRIbE To see this in person is breathtaking). This medical video animation shows similar development for a human: https://youtu.be/8312a32dcQc?t=93 (note that this is produced by a main stream medical animation company -the narration specifically and matter of factly states that fertilization is the beginning of a new human being). The small new human is not an appendage of the mother. She lives inside her mother only needing food and shelter so she can grow stronger. Dependencies that are no different than those facing newborn infants that are as helpless and vulnerable. Even if one were to discriminate against embryonic humans because of their size or shape and insist that protection should only be extended to unborn babies who are more recognizable, one would have to acknowledge the baby at later stages (when surgical abortions are more commonly performed) are unmistakably human even to the uneducated eye. But in the United States under Roe, you can kill that small fragile human for any reason through all stages of pregnancy right on up through birth. Yes, birth. Roe is an abomination. It legalizes the killing of offspring simply because of their location. The question is not of biology, as it is clear a baby inside the womb is as biologically human as one outside the womb. It is whether legal protection should be extended to this class of humans: whether these small vulnerable human beings should be persons recognized by the state. Roe effectively declared every human being living inside her mother as non-persons undeserving of protection. Ironically the law in Roe has its roots in the Dred Scott decision which found that slaves were not persons (see this law review article from Cass Sunstein, not exactly a raging pro-lifer, admitting that "Dred Scott was the birthplace of substantive due process used in Roe v. Wade) (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12942329/Constitutional%20Myth-Making_%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Dred%20Scott%20Case.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). To throw shade on the issue by claiming that a human being at the beginning of her existence is actually a part of her mother's body is a clear attempt to avoid the reality of what we are doing. Declaring, like Dred Scott, that a human is not a person. Legalizing her killing at her most fragile and helpless stage. Once we recognize what our government is doing we can honestly debate whether we as a society want to continue to deny a class of humans the right to live (and in reality to promote their brutal destruction) or to recognize and protect their right to life and to promote a life sustaining culture rather than a culture of death. The only rationale to continue the brutal practice of abortion is based on raw power, the strong over the weak and vulnerable. An ethic that is directly contrary to all other moral and human rights issues that most pro-abortion rights advocates claim they promote. I agree with Bryan - the dependency and location of a human being does not justify its destruction and being heartbroken that states may now have the right to protect the most vulnerable confounds all understanding. I think it's wrong to kill a person no matter how small, young, or fragile she is or where she is located. Here are some additional points regarding the individuality of a embryo from its mother. https://abort73.com/abortion/mothers_body/
I don't think the implication of the EFF saying "heartbroken" is that they "loved when babies died". They were heartbroken because a freedom that was once granted to the women of America (the right to bodily autonomy) is being taken away. You're taking an entirely uncharitable and unfair interpretation, because...reasons?
You're not stupid enough to not understand this; the pro-choice crowd does not view a very-recently-fertilized egg as a "baby". You may disagree with their conclusion, but I really don't see what's not to understand; this really isn't confusing.
Should the government be allowed to force you to donate a lung to keep someone else alive? Of course not. Your body belongs to you, and you shouldn't be forced to share it with anyone you don't want to. An embryo, until it's born, is literally a parasitic organism. Why should a woman be forced to donate her body and organ systems to keep this organism alive if they don't want to? They shouldn't.
Of course you're free to disagree, I'm not trying to cancel you, I just think you're being purposefully obtuse, presumably to fit into the conservative mold you've carved out.
Bryan, thank you - great discussion. TG - A human offspring no matter how small (yes even a single cell embryo) is not a part of the mother. It's a pretty simple and straight forward scientific fact devoid of morality. I saw this very clearly in my college biology lab when my teacher set up a bunch of different zebra fish (transparent fish with 72 hour gestation period) each fertilized at a different hour (e.g., microscope station #1 fertilized one hour prior to class, station #2 fertilized 3 hours before class hour, etc so 24 stations spanning the full 72 hours) so we could go to each station and view different stages of development. The effect was like time lapsed photography - absolutely amazing - the embryo was a self-driven factory of development (the closest/best video I could find on youtube similar to the experience was this time lapse of a salamander development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEejivHRIbE To see this in person is breathtaking). This medical video animation shows similar development for a human: https://youtu.be/8312a32dcQc?t=93 (note that this is produced by a main stream medical animation company -the narration specifically and matter of factly states that fertilization is the beginning of a new human being). The small new human is not an appendage of the mother. She lives inside her mother only needing food and shelter so she can grow stronger. Dependencies that are no different than those facing newborn infants that are as helpless and vulnerable. Even if one were to discriminate against embryonic humans because of their size or shape and insist that protection should only be extended to unborn babies who are more recognizable, one would have to acknowledge the baby at later stages (when surgical abortions are more commonly performed) are unmistakably human even to the uneducated eye. But in the United States under Roe, you can kill that small fragile human for any reason through all stages of pregnancy right on up through birth. Yes, birth. Roe is an abomination. It legalizes the killing of offspring simply because of their location. The question is not of biology, as it is clear a baby inside the womb is as biologically human as one outside the womb. It is whether legal protection should be extended to this class of humans: whether these small vulnerable human beings should be persons recognized by the state. Roe effectively declared every human being living inside her mother as non-persons undeserving of protection. Ironically the law in Roe has its roots in the Dred Scott decision which found that slaves were not persons (see this law review article from Cass Sunstein, not exactly a raging pro-lifer, admitting that "Dred Scott was the birthplace of substantive due process used in Roe v. Wade) (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12942329/Constitutional%20Myth-Making_%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Dred%20Scott%20Case.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). To throw shade on the issue by claiming that a human being at the beginning of her existence is actually a part of her mother's body is a clear attempt to avoid the reality of what we are doing. Declaring, like Dred Scott, that a human is not a person. Legalizing her killing at her most fragile and helpless stage. Once we recognize what our government is doing we can honestly debate whether we as a society want to continue to deny a class of humans the right to live (and in reality to promote their brutal destruction) or to recognize and protect their right to life and to promote a life sustaining culture rather than a culture of death. The only rationale to continue the brutal practice of abortion is based on raw power, the strong over the weak and vulnerable. An ethic that is directly contrary to all other moral and human rights issues that most pro-abortion rights advocates claim they promote. I agree with Bryan - the dependency and location of a human being does not justify its destruction and being heartbroken that states may now have the right to protect the most vulnerable confounds all understanding. I think it's wrong to kill a person no matter how small, young, or fragile she is or where she is located. Here are some additional points regarding the individuality of a embryo from its mother. https://abort73.com/abortion/mothers_body/
I don't think the implication of the EFF saying "heartbroken" is that they "loved when babies died". They were heartbroken because a freedom that was once granted to the women of America (the right to bodily autonomy) is being taken away. You're taking an entirely uncharitable and unfair interpretation, because...reasons?
You're not stupid enough to not understand this; the pro-choice crowd does not view a very-recently-fertilized egg as a "baby". You may disagree with their conclusion, but I really don't see what's not to understand; this really isn't confusing.
Should the government be allowed to force you to donate a lung to keep someone else alive? Of course not. Your body belongs to you, and you shouldn't be forced to share it with anyone you don't want to. An embryo, until it's born, is literally a parasitic organism. Why should a woman be forced to donate her body and organ systems to keep this organism alive if they don't want to? They shouldn't.
Of course you're free to disagree, I'm not trying to cancel you, I just think you're being purposefully obtuse, presumably to fit into the conservative mold you've carved out.