If a fetus is to be considered a human life at conception (an actual life, not potential life), why isn’t a placenta a human life?
They are both human and alive with the same DNA and capable of the same thoughts and emotions.
This is really for the pro-life crowd.
Placenta is capable of thoughts and emotions? That’s news to me.
BTW, this is the point at which some interject, “A fetus can’t think yet!” Sure, but neither can a preemie or a newborn. That doesn’t strike me as a good reason for deciding that it’s not human.
I’m anti-life in all it’s forms, but a placenta is an organ. it is only alive in the same sense as a kidney or a pancreas is alive.
Stop reading my mind!
At the time of conception, it seems quite reasonable to me to say they have the same thoughts and emotions.
To answer the OP; a placenta is human life in my book, in that it is human in genetic makeup and lives.
Since you addressed this question more for the pro-life crowd, I will refrain from answering from a scientific point of view. As I think you know what a Placenta is, and you’re not trying to just ask a naive question here, but rather a loaded one.
(AH! It’s in great debates not in GQ, nevermind then- carry on- I was getting worried for a second there)
What does this mean?
That pro - choice people shouldn’t participate in this thread?
Because if that’s the case, you obviously intend to preach to the choir.
You picked the wrong board.
A placenta does not have “thoughts and emotions.”
Even I know that.
If ignorance is bliss, I wish I was ignorant.
Because I’d be where you are.
In heaven.
In other words, the same thoughts and emotions that a just-fertilized zygote has.
“My God, Doctor, what an ugly baby!”
“Hmmm. Don’t take it in to the Mom before we have a chance to double-check the birth room.”
Um, ok, may have been answered already, but here goes: a placenta is an organ, and incapable of independent life at any point.
It is an amazing thing, given, but still, meant to generate itself, support the fetus, then shed itself (and end up a lump of dead meat to be 1. eaten (EWWWW!) 2. buried under a newly planted tree in honor of the baby it supported 3. tossed out as medical waste.)
I am strongly pro-choice, and I sympathize with your intent here, but come ON.
A placenta and a FETUS, much less say a BABY or a HUMAN, are not even in the same ballpark. Just speaking as one who has borne 2 fetuses/babies AND 2 respective placentas.
To be fair, the OP isn’t really trying to compare Placentas to Fetuses (I think). He has picked terrible wording though and really odd way of trying to make his point.
As Fetuses have a developing brain and such- perhaps he meant to say something earlier than a “fetus” (so the brain hasn’t yet developed) but yet, still far enough along to have started to develop the placenta.
So perhaps an embryo and a yolk sac are they both considered human life?
Is this what you’re trying to go for, OP?
Or perhaps, you’re trying to state that a brain that hasn’t yet started to function is equal to the placenta, right? But that would lead to an easy set-up that anything with the possibility to have a brain develop could get a potential soul, while that which has no brain or true sensory organs cannot ever have a soul, and that would easily end your debate. So I’m thinking its more the question presented above, right?
-Care to clarify, OP?
That is what I meant.
I might have to stop posting until I get my computer back. It is too hard to post on. Cell phone.
What I want to know is why pro-life people think a fetus at its earliest stages is desearving of protection, but a placenta is not. The two things seem to be in the same position at that time.
And let us not forget 4. examined (in some cases) by a less than overjoyed pathologist for what potentially relevant medical information it can provide (for example yesterday’s diamniotic monochorionic twin placenta - congrats mom and dad, them’s identical twins ya got there).
If the OP had wanted to make a slightly better analogy* between a fetus and non-fetal tissue, he should have picked an ovarian teratoma, which is not an organ, but can have features a placenta would die for (brain tissue, thyroid tissue, lung tissue, teeth, hair etc.)
There are many far better pro-abortion rights arguments to be made.
*still a lousy analogy, since even if you could maintain a teratoma alive outside its host, it would never grow up to wear clothes, need braces and go to Bryn Mawr.
I probably meant embryo, I don’t know the terms well. But the plecenta and the unborn thing seem to be in the same posistioition until the unborn thing is capable of surviving on its own or capable of creating brainwaves capable of allowing the unborn thing to experience thoughts and emotions, including suffering. ypp
I don’t know where the ypp came from. It will not delete.
Do the placenta and the fetus have the same DNA? Do you have a cite for that?
I don’t know of any pro-life people who want the fetus saved but the placenta destroyed. Cite please?
Cool. Go ahead and adopt one and raise it as your own child. Let us know how that turns out.
(Quick, non cited answer):
Yes, as most if not all the layers that compose the placenta (which as said before, is an organ), came from the outer layers of the blastocyst. The blastocyst is one of the developmental embryonic stages (ie, future baby).
Think of the placenta as a combo of respiratory/excretory/endocrine system designed to support the organism inside until it is born.
What would happen if you adopted an unborn thing that was removed before developing brain waves?
I have never heard a pro-life person say a placenta deserves human rights like an embryo from the moment it is created. I have never heard a pro-life person cry about a murdered placenta.
But at the time of destruction they may be capable of the same thoughts and emotions–none–regardless of later development.
Dude… get this in your head… nobody cries about a murdered kidney or a murdered lung either.
Nobody cries for the destruction of an organ! The placenta is an organ! Get that wrapped around your head!
If they’re against abortion, they’re against destroying the organism itself, which will include its individual organs, but they’re not going to babble about the organs themselves.