[TimTheTinker]

I’m pro-life, and I think killing an unborn baby for any reason is abhorrent — as you said, it’s the same as murdering an adult. (Although there are cases where the mother’s life is in danger - but that’s always about “who to save” in the middle of a surgery or something - that’s different.)

I don’t know who you’ve heard that viewpoint from (abortion is wrong except in cases of rape/invest) but I don’t believe that and I don’t know anyone who does. I think it appears as a political concession and rarely (if ever) as a sincerely held belief.

[unknownkadath]

A neural tube isn't a baby.

[burfog]

Say what??? A neural tube doesn't instantly transform into a baby at the moment of birth.

The unborn that are getting killed can typically move about, feel pain, and respond to injury. They react in agony when being torn apart or injected with brine.

They have brainwaves, which is the usual standard (varies by state law) we use to draw the line at the end of life, with the loss of brainwaves meaning death. Obviously we don't need to check dusty old bones or a person chatting with the doctor, but we do check in the difficult cases.

Consistency demands that our standard for one end of a lifetime be as similar as possible to our standard for the other end of a lifetime. That standard for death, subject to minor variations in state law, is brainwaves.

Conveniently, such a standard eliminates the rape excuse. There is plenty of time prior to brainwaves.

[unknownkadath]

All those same things apply to house flies. Look, you believe what you believe because a priest or a guy wearing khakis and a sports jacket named "Pastor Skip" told you so. Don't pretend that your opinion came from anywhere else, or that all of the tortured logic in your post is anything other than a post facto justifiction of that religious opinion.

[TimTheTinker]

What do you have against unborn babies? I’m interested to hear your side of the argument.

... so far, it’s sounding eerily like reasons people used to use for enslaving Africans in the 18th century.

[dang]

This is off topic and unacceptable on HN. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the unborn, no internet flamewar is going to improve or resolve anything, ever say anything new on the topic, or ever make any new connections between people. All you're doing is helping to destroy this site, which is fragile enough as it is. Please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[TimTheTinker]

My apologies, Dan. Thanks.

[TimTheTinker]

A human zygote is a person, and so is everything that follows. From the moment of fertilization, there is a single developmental progression of a single organism. There isn't any other meaningful scientific or logical distinction that can be made. Before fertilization, you have the gametes from two separate organisms. Afterwards, there is a new, unique organism (a human being) who has a separate identify.

And yes, that means I think common in-vitro fertilization practices (including making multiple zygotes and throwing some out) are morally wrong and equivalent to abortion.

If anyone disagrees, I contend it's because of the moral implications, not any lack of soundness in the scientific or logical arguments.

[unknownkadath]

You are welcome to your wrong opinion, just like Pythagoras.