thinkagain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 914
- Reaction score
- 278
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Do the E and the F also stand for zygote?
No. (E) stands for Embryo and (Z) stands for Fetus.
Do the E and the F also stand for zygote?
No. (E) stands for Embryo and (Z) stands for Fetus.
(Z) stands for (F)etus??
Oppps... typo .. (F) for Fetus (Z) Zygote (E) embryo
I figured... all good. But the point remains. A (Z) is not a ZEF. It is PART of a ZEF.
Correct. The poster was claiming that the ZEF was not a zygote. My point was that the Z in ZEF stood for Zygote such that the term at least includes Zygote.
As I said, I am sure that these events do happen but Etopic pregnancies happen 1 out of 100 times but babies are dying near 99.999 percent. I missed what the numbers are for preeclamsia was. I do have feelings for anybody who suffers. 1 out of 100. No wonder I never saw it, or heard of it until I came here and heard it from you guys.
1out of 100 is actually frequent. So you never heard of a fairly common pregnancy emergency and yet you think you are quite knowledgable enough to decide exactly what women should and shouldn't be allowed todo about an unwanted pregnancy.As I said, I am sure that these events do happen but Etopic pregnancies happen 1 out of 100 times but babies are dying near 99.999 percent. I missed what the numbers are for preeclamsia was. I do have feelings for anybody who suffers. 1 out of 100. No wonder I never saw it, or heard of it until I came here and heard it from you guys.
The unborn covers a formed baby and a clump of cells. So the answer is nuanced.I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.
Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.
So what is your position and why?
Exactly how would an embryo or a fetus arrive at a position where it has self-determination? And, how would self-determination exhibit itself in a being with no usable brain, no self awareness?Should the unborn have a right to self-determination? It's strictly a philosophical question. So what is your position and why?
Would you be selfish enough to demand that a woman continue to be pregnant with you when she doesn't want to, despite your increasing her risk of death and/or serious injury and imposing significant hardship on her body?As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.
If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.
The pregnancies that do no permanent harm to women's bodies usually are those for which very unhealthy women who decide to continue them then make efforts to improve their health behavior. In that sense, pregnancy can cause better health. But that is quite rare.That's a bit vague. Are you claiming that all pregnancies do permanent harm to women's bodies?