Cite?
Well, that’s the trick, and it’s actually making an argument against you: the placenta, before it’s removed, is part of the mother, and you can’t adopt part of a person. After you remove it from the mother, it dies and, again, can’t be adopted.
Same with fetuses at that age. Go figure.
What makes an embryo different from a placenta (organ) at the time it is destroyed?
The fact that, in the majority of cases, if left undisturbed, it would eventually develop into a human baby.
So? That is not what it is at the time. What is the difference at the time?
Sure, that’s what it is at the time…it’s something that develops into a human baby. One deveops into a human baby. One doesn’t. That’s the difference.
ETA: You may not be able to SEE the difference, but if one has the capacity to develop into a human baby, and the other doesn’t, there’s clearly a biological difference of some sort.
… what?
At the time that an embryo is aborted, the difference between it and a placenta (which I’m assuming is the point of this thread) as far as pro-life/pro-choice “debate” is concerned, the reason why pro-lifers don’t want it aborted, is that the embryo has the potential to develop into a separate human being. The reason why pro-choicers believe they have the right to abort is that at that time, it is not a human being yet, but it is part of the mother, and therefore, legally, just as much her choice as to whether or not to abort it as her choice as to whether or not to have a healthy appendix removed.
An embryo is composed of several developing organs and has the potential to develop into a functional organism (I’m not talking humans only here, get that clear, I’m talking horses, cows, pigs, cats, dogs, etc.). A placenta is an organ developed by the embryo (the organism). It is not a good comparison…
If the placenta (which has different DNA than the mother) is an organ of the mother, is the unborn thing (embryo/fetus)?
At the time it is destroyed it is what it is not what is to become.
Sorry, my bad. I thought the placenta was made by the mother. If it’s made by the fetus and is aborted along with it, I’m comfortable saying that the placenta is part of the fetus. So, seeing a difference between the fetus and the placenta is like seeing a difference between me and my left hand. Or a book and its cover.
Right… so an embryo contains developing or developed organs (eyes, brain, heart, notochord, muscle, skeleton, digestive tract, etc.), while the placenta IS an organ. Do you see the difference?
Ethilrist, yes, your last two sentences are correct.
But the potential is still there for an embryo/fetus. Pro-lifers would say that a unique human life has been created and it’s not for us to destroy. Yes, the physical body isn’t fully developed yet, but it’s a unique human being. This is not the case for a placenta.
As mentioned above, some pro-choice people would say the embryo isn’t capable of thoughts or emotions and so it’s acceptable to kill it. Others would say even after it is so capable, it’s still acceptable to kill it because it’s living off the mother.
Exactamundo. JHC has created a straw-man-filled scenario, where the only thing that is important is the status of 2 comparable tissue masses as of a particular instant in time. In the real world, the comparison isn’t based on a snapshot. Potential is an important criterion.
[QUOTE=Ethilrist;10432711At the time that an embryo is aborted, the difference between it and a placenta (which I’m assuming is the point of this thread) as far as pro-life/pro-choice “debate” is concerned, the reason why pro-lifers don’t want it aborted, is that the embryo has the potential to develop into a separate human being.[/QUOTE]
Actually, pro-life debaters would typically say that it’s already a human being, just at an earlier stage of development. (I use the word “typically” with caution, since your typical Joe Schmoe combatant – whether pro-life or pro-choice – seldom argues with any fine degree of precision.)
Either way though, we have a very clear and substantial difference between the unborn and its placenta. Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, it’s foolish to treat the two as though they were scientifically or ontologically equivalent.
The pro-life crowd is picking an arbitary point in the future and judging th unborn thing by what it could be. Since, as President Bush says: In history we’ll all be dead. We could just as easily judge the unborn thing (or a living person) as potentially (certainly) dead in the future.
The standard has to be what it actually is, not what it can possibly become.
It does? Did I miss the memo where you were appointed God Emperor?
Right, but what it actually IS is different from what a placenta actually is. They are two different things…not interchangable, not identical. The REASON the zygote will develop into a person and the placenta won’t is because they are different from each other in some specific, observable, and definable way. It’s not just the results of the development that makes them different, it’s the capacity for development. Whatever the zygote has that gives it that capacity is what makes it different from a placenta.
Can I bury you alive because one day you’ll be dead?
Uh, no.
Precept: the worth of an organism is partly determined by its future status.
Applies to embryos.
Does not apply to people.
The contradiction apparently causes your head to explode. I’m sure the universe would be a much tidier place if any precept was logically applicable to any and all possible scenarios. But it’s not, and I’m afraid you’ll just have to come to grips with that.