striktlymi:


I do not agree with the bold...

The foetus and the mum have equal rights to life. No one supersedes the other. The case we find ourselves is one in which the mum has a chance of surviving while the foetus does not...this is the constraint we need to work with. Given this constraint, the lady reserves the right to choose to live as against dying with her child.

Now, there is a difference between a foetus dying in the process of trying to treat the mother of her ailment and just killing the foetus....if medical science has advanced to a stage where the 'procedure' can save both mother and child, it would have been her choice.

Taken medications that gets rid of the foetus leaves no room for the survival of the child, even when there is a chance in saving the child...and this is assuming there is an advancement in medical science in this regard.

In summary, one method is outright abortion while the other method results in the death of the child because for now we lack the know how to save both mother and child.




See the explanation above...

Let me summarize the points again:

Methods directed at killing the foetus demonstrates malicious intent...this method though will save the mother but it is not directed at resolving the ish with the mother but killing the child.

Methods directed at correcting the ailment the mother suffers from demonstrates no malicious intent...this is about saving the mother...child only dies as a result of the procedure.



With respect to our lives here on Earth, I see human life as a state of existence which should have the following characteristics:


1) It must pertain to a human.

2) Have the ability to sap in energy from it's environment and transform it to growth.

3) Ability to pass through the stages of development without changing.

The above is not exhaustive...

Note that you agreed with me earlier that the mother's right overrides the foetus, but since that wld be inconvenient to your position, I wld reply on this.

Also note that since you preserve both the rights of the mother and foetus to life, then there is no power known to law, in a doctor to save the mother or child, at the detriment of the other (child or mother). It would be criminal, and any claim that there is no intent to do so will be null.

For murder to be committed, direct intent isn't necesary and the outcome (even unexpected) of violence is irrebuttably presumed to be intended by the murderer.

Hence nature must take its course and both wld be left to die. Since they have the same rights.

And your definition for human life is so vague, it doesn't even cover zygotes.

Morning Kay,

Kay 17:

Note that you agreed with me earlier that the mother's right overrides the foetus, but since that wld be inconvenient to your position, I wld reply on this.

Well, I believe there is a bit of a mix up here...I did agree that the right to life of the foetus does not supersede that of the mother as depicted in my comment below:

striktlymi:
Hmmmm...I agree that the foetus' right to life does not supercede the mother's right to life...as I have maintained in my arguments, the mother has every right to save her life when faced with a life threatening situation but the way she goes about saving her life should be devoid of any malicious intent...

but this is not saying that the right to life of the mother supersedes that of the child.

Kay 17:
Also note that since you preserve both the rights of the mother and foetus to life, then there is no power known to law, in a doctor to save the mother or child, at the detriment of the other (child or mother). It would be criminal, and any claim that there is no intent to do so will be null.

Not exactly! It is my opinion that it will only be criminal when the child is killed directly irrespective of whether the child has a chance of survival or not.

Holding the rights of both mother and child to life does not make the incidental death of either of them criminal...note that in this case the mother was not saved at the expense of the child...

The child has no chance of survival...the child MUST die whether the mother decides to save her life or not...with respect to this peculiar situation, the following is in order:


Abortion

1) Directed at killing the child.

2) Death is certain for the child, even when the child has a chance of survival.

3) Assumes the source of the problem is the child


Not abortion

1) Directed at curing the mother's ailment

2) Death will be avoided if there is improvement in medical science

3) Know that the child is not the problem

Kay 17:
For murder to be committed, direct intent isn't necesary and the outcome (even unexpected) of violence is irrebuttably presumed to be intended by the murderer.

I don't agree with the above...if there is no malicious intent then there was no murder...if someone strikes another with deadly force then that individual can be suspected for murder but a number of factors would be considered to show that the individual is actually guilty of murder.

Kay 17:
Hence nature must take its course and both wld be left to die. Since they have the same rights.

No!!! The above cannot be implied from my argument. Having the same rights to life does not mean that the mother cannot treat her ailment.

Kay 17:
And your definition for human life is so vague, it doesn't even cover zygotes.

Why do you think it's vague? If it is vague, how did you know that it does not cover zygotes?...and why do you think it does not cover zygotes?

Mr anony:
I'd very much like to see you try.

We have a fully conscious man,
The man asleep,
The man comatose,
The man deeply comatose,
The man comatose requiring life support,
The man on life support for 10 years,
The man on life support for 50 years,
The man on life support for 100 years,
The man on life support for 200 years,

If you came across the man in his hospital bed at this stage, would you say he was dead?

Mr anony:
I don't see how my preference makes the zygotes or 30 year old any more or less human Furthermore, when saving a person in an emergency, it is not necessarily his humanness that determines whether or not he ought to be saved first. Note that the is is a totally different case when it comes to actually murdering a person. The fact that he or she is a human being makes murdering him/her evil.

So what determines whether or not he ought to be saved first?

Mr anony:
For instance, If President GEJ was in a meeting with 1000 people and there was a fire, saving GEJ first does not make any of the other people any less human same would apply if the 1000 people were saved before the president. Yet murdering another human being is evil.

Has the 30 year old man become a president? This is an example of a red-herring. I'm asking for what you would do not some other hypothetical involving the Nigerian president.

Mr anony:
Apply the same to an emergency scenario where the women and children are prioritized for safety before the men. Does this make the men less human? Absolutely not! and still yet, murdering another human being is evil.

Another red-herring. We know that physically, men are tougher than both women and children. And what I'm asking you for is what you'll do not what some trained rescuers would do.

Mr anony:
I'm afraid your contention is a non sequitor and has really shown nothing.

And finally we come to your actual reason which is that you simply wish to dance away from the implications of your position. My contention shows that you strongly wish to avoid it.

Mr anony:
If I recall correctly, I said: "to murder a human being is simply evil". Do you think otherwise?

And what exactly is murder? Who determines whether or not a case of killing is murder? Is it murder to kill people for the purpose of taking away their land?

Also, are the products of fertilization in a test-tube human? And are your skin cells human?

Mr anony:
Interesting. It seems to me that you are proposing rights without responsibilities. Since you have made your argument clear, it would follow that:-

No I'm not. The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision.

Mr anony:
1. She has the right to her finances and her time and thus is perfectly permitted to neglect her 2 year old toddler regardless of whether it starves to death

Wrong she doesn't that is why in modern societies, there are laws against negligence and the government can still take care of the child. Again, what you're ignoring here is the fact that the 2 year old child can live independently of the mother at this point so if she feels she is unable to cope, she can put the child up for adoption or use any of the other legal means available.

Mr anony:
2. She doesn't have the right to decapitate the limbs of the baby or stop it's heartbeat while it is in the womb. She must deliver it alive and then let it survive by itself. (She does not have the right to actively kill the person who needs her body to survive she only has the right to deny such a person the use of her body)

The age of viability already addresses this issue. That is why there are moral abortions and immoral ones. Remember that you're taking the position that all abortions are immoral.

davidylan:

It is far less effective. It is preferred for ethical reasons only.

Really ! Then I think embryonic stem-cell research should be encouraged.

davidylan:

I suppose you believe we should allow every woman with ectopic pregnancies to die rather than "murder" the baby?

Ectopic pregnacy is a case of saving a life or two, which is different from forcing the death on one or both the mother and the baby. These are extreme and rare events which only happens about 0.004% of all cases involving the possible death of the mother.

davidylan:

Pharisees were just as "sincere" in their faith... sincerely wrong and deluded that is. People like olaadegbu would have condemned Christ for daring to sit at meat with publicans...

Appealing to the emotions of the gallery. Are you not in support of "Planned Parenthood" an organisation set up to further the cause of Eugenics in the past and presently championing the case for abortions? If you are a true Christian you would know that God considers all people equal (Gal.3:28) and the importance of speaking for the needy (Ex.22:21-23).

davidylan:

I have clarified times without number here... that while abortion is horrible, there are times when it is REQUIRED to preserve the life of the mother (cases of ectopic pregnancies or women who develop severe life-threatening hyperemesis). Unfortunately the zealous leaders of the law are more interested in malicious slander.

You know that you are stretching the truth when you say that ectopic pregnancies or women developing life-threatening conditions are the reasons for justifying abortion. Did you not state emotional or social reasons for justifying abortion in one of your earlier posts?

@strikl

Is your method a form of Euthanasia? If so, it is murder in Nigeria, regardless of any fact that a rosary was hung round the neck of the doctor.

The simple law is: regardless the huge expectation of the non survival of a person (foetus in this case), no violence should be directed at such person that COULD cause death.

So if a man is most likely to die from cancer or hiv or from natural causes, it does not lie in your power to kill him. This is how untenable your position is.

Kay 17: @strikl

Is your method a form of Euthanasia? If so, it is murder in Nigeria, regardless of any fact that a rosary was hung round the neck of the doctor.

No, it is not Euthanasia! For Euthanasia, the poor fellow, most often, is the one to solicit for death due to one personal reason or the other and he can still decide to live if he so desires but in this case there is no choice to be made as regards whether the child lives or dies either by the child or the mum.

I think it is worthy of note to let you know that I am against Euthanasia also but this is another matter entirely.

Kay 17:
The simple law is: regardless the huge expectation of the non survival of a person (foetus in this case), no violence should be directed at such person that COULD cause death.

I AGREE with what you have above. Every violence DIRECTED at the child is NOT acceptable...this is exactly what abortion is about. Making the child the cause of the problem...for the method I suggest, this is NOT the case...the violence is directed at the cause of the mother's ailment...in this case: the faulty fallopian tube...the child only get's affected because there is no way of getting it out of there without hurting it.

Kay 17:
So if a man is most likely to die from cancer or hiv or from natural causes, it does not lie in your power to kill him. This is how untenable your position is.

The scenario above is quite different because cancer or HIV only affects the individual concerned but the case we are dealing with concerns two different but connected individuals.

The scenario you gave would be appropriate to, say, one who is diagnosed with a deadly ailment right from the womb e.g Tay-sachs disease...the decision call would be whether to kill the child in the womb or allow it be born and then die later...even with this case, abortion is still not an option.

Isn't the doctor aware that by removing the fallopian tube, he becomes the most proximate cause of the child's death?

Kay 17: Isn't the doctor aware that by removing the fallopian tube, he becomes the most proximate cause of the child's death?

He definitely is aware that would be the incidental loss. Again, this loss is only tolerated because we do not know how to save the foetus from that situation.

If this know how is available and the mother or doc decides to kill the foetus anyways, after solving the problem of the mother, then it would be abortion.

thehomer:

We have a fully conscious man,
The man asleep,
The man comatose,
The man deeply comatose,
The man comatose requiring life support,
The man on life support for 10 years,
The man on life support for 50 years,
The man on life support for 100 years,
The man on life support for 200 years,

If you came across the man in his hospital bed at this stage, would you say he was dead?

No I'll say he is alive. I don't even see the slope you are trying to build. A person can either be alive or dead, I really see no inbetween

So what determines whether or not he ought to be saved first?



Has the 30 year old man become a president? This is an example of a red-herring. I'm asking for what you would do not some other hypothetical involving the Nigerian president.



Another red-herring. We know that physically, men are tougher than both women and children. And what I'm asking you for is what you'll do not what some trained rescuers would do.



And finally we come to your actual reason which is that you simply wish to dance away from the implications of your position. My contention shows that you strongly wish to avoid it.

Basically all you did there was split my response into bits and respond to each bit out of context. My point has already been made which is that during emergency situations, we tend to discriminate between humans; which ones to prioritize their safety and which ones to give less priority within the context of the situation. This does not make the humans any more or less human.
Rescuing people in an emergency situation is very different from a situation where one goes about actively and purposefully committing murder.

And what exactly is murder? Who determines whether or not a case of killing is murder? Is it murder to kill people for the purpose of taking away their land?

Lol, very interesting so suddenly you can't tell the difference between murder and other types of killing now? I won't fly with you on the tangent you are setting up. Go pick up a dictionary and look up the word. If you are confused by the meaning you find, come back and let's discuss.

Also, are the products of fertilization in a test-tube human? And are your skin cells human?

Test tube babies are human, skin cells aren't human beings rather they are part of the human body. How exactly do these relate to our discourse?

No I'm not. The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision.

Very good non-answer, however the fact that you bear responsibility for your actions doesn't really tell us if you ought to do them or not. For instance telling you that a person who decides to molest children bears the responsibility of his/her decision. Tells us nothing about whether or not the person has a moral right to molest kids. You may as well have said that a person who decides to eat amala and ewedu soup bears the responsibility of his/her decision.

Wrong she doesn't that is why in modern societies, there are laws against negligence and the government can still take care of the child. Again, what you're ignoring here is the fact that the 2 year old child can live independently of the mother at this point so if she feels she is unable to cope, she can put the child up for adoption or use any of the other legal means available.

Lolol, What happened to "The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision"?
Are you arguing that a mother is not responsible for her child while in the womb? But should only be held responsible for the child once it is outside the womb?
It appears to me that you are of the opinion that the responsibility of childcare should not normally fall upon the parent but on whoever chooses to take care of the baby and hence the neglecting parent is only wrong as long as someone else (or the government) is available to take up care of the child.
If this is case then it follows that women who don't live in "modern societies" where the government is in the habit of taking care of unwanted babies, have the right to abandon their children.
Consequently, practices like women abandoning twins in the evil forest will also not be wrong in your book since both the women and the community they live in are unwilling to take care of the babies.

The age of viability already addresses this issue. That is why there are moral abortions and immoral ones. Remember that you're taking the position that all abortions are immoral.

I'll be very interested in hearing how you draw the line between moral and immoral abortions.

By the way, the age of viability did not address my point since your argument is that a woman has the right to expel a person from the use of her body, and my counter is that such a 'right' still doesn't allow her to kill the person before he/she leaves her body and if you watched the video in the op, that is exactly what these women are doing.

striktlymi:

He definitely is aware that would be the incidental loss. Again, this loss is only tolerated because we do not know how to save the foetus from that situation.

If this know how is available and the mother or doc decides to kill the foetus anyways, after solving the problem of the mother, then it would be abortion.

Yet I will repeat again it is unlawful for the doctor to take such a step, because a person with right to life cannot be regarded as incidental loss!

The doctor is to hands off the Baby's death and it is none of his business nor an excuse to claim the baby would die eventually.

@anony

What is Murder?

Kay 17:

Yet I will repeat again it is unlawful for the doctor to take such a step, because a person with right to life cannot be regarded as incidental loss!

The doctor is to hands off the Baby's death and it is none of his business nor an excuse to claim the baby would die eventually.

Nah Kay,

The above is not practical...it's just like saying every act of killing is murder.

The fact that someone else has a right to life does not mean that another cannot kill the individual out of self defence when threatened...

Kay 17: @anony

What is Murder?

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another

striktlymi:

Nah Kay,

The above is not practical...it's just like saying every act of killing is murder.

The fact that someone else has a right to life does not mean that another cannot kill the individual out of self defence when threatened...

Hmm not practical, right! At least it is killing. So how do you claim self defence?

Mr anony:
Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another

I just googled the Criminal Code applicable to Nigeria and went through it.

Is abortion murder?

Kay 17:

Hmm not practical, right! At least it is killing. So how do you claim self defence?

Are you saying every act that leads to the death of another by someone else is murder?

OLAADEGBU:

They may not be relevant to you because you see through the lenses of a different worldview.

I doubt they'll be relevant to any sensible person here.

If you are consistent with your worldview you should be angry and that's if your worldview makes any sense at all.

you do not know my world view. Moreover you can't tell me when to be angry or not. You really need to get your head out your posterior and see that very few people outside christianity give a damn about your god and your bible.

There is an absolute moral law for all humans as opposed to the worldview that sees humans as just accidents of nature.

your opinion, which you can't defend and which doesn't make any sense.

The Scriptures interpretes itself and has no need for human interpretation. God's moral Law is written on the hearts of all Christians, and this should make us speak with one voice.

hehehehe. So why are you all speaking with legion voices




Wait! Its because they're not genuine christians else they'll be in agreement with you. Right?

You are truly measuring up to your name, Mr Troller:

No answer there?

Kay 17:

I just googled the Criminal Code applicable to Nigeria and went through it.

Is abortion murder?

yes it is

Mr anony:
yes it is

Our criminal code:

307.         A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-string is severed or not.

This finishes the entire case.

For strikl:

308.         Except as hereinafter set forth, any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person.

^^^ It depends on which country's law or which jurisdiction's law.

Compare section 187 of California's Code defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

From here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

Edited

^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

Kay 17:

Our criminal code:



This finishes the entire case.

For strikl:

By your logic, before slave trade was outlawed, slaves have no right to be free...

This logic is flawed! A law does not make right what is fundamentally wrong!

Kay 17: ^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

I am largely a spectator on this thread; I simply wanted to counter any suggestion that killing a foetus or even aborting a foetus cannot be murder. It can, depending on which country's or which jurisdiction's law -- and depending on the specific provisions of the law.

Secondly, I wonder if you truly understand Roe v Wade: a little test, the abortion of what type of foetus is permissible under Roe v Wade? Every foetus?

^^
I wanted to stress that strklyml's view that life begins at fertilization is supported by 187 because even a 2 month old foetus cannot be murdered cos it can't pass the test of viability in R v W.

^^ You are not wholly correct. Under the California Code, killing even a foetus that is not viable can indeed be murder. That law does not require that the foetus be viable.

Yes you may have a point that, in light of Roe v Wade, aborting a non-viable foetus may not be held to be murder. BUT my point is that even despite Roe v Wade unlawfully killing (and even unlawfully aborting) a non-viable foetus can be murder under the California Code.

Edit:

In other words, the part of your post quoted below is wrong!

Kay 17: ... a 2 month old foetus cannot be murdered cos it can't pass the test of viability in R v W.

Such a foetus can indeed be murdered under the California Code ---- and that is quite compatible with Roe v Wade!

Kay 17: ^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

They probably should try getting passports for these fetuses.

@Kay17

I am keen to leave you guys to get on with your discussion so I'll just give you this example of what I'm trying to explain to you.

The example is that of a man facing a charge of murder by abortion of a foetus that was apparently only six (6) weeks old.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326121/Andrew-Welden-case-Pregnant-woman-boyfriend-tricked-taking-abortion-pill-sought-courts-help.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/john-andrew-welden-kill-girlfriend-fetus_n_3284959.html

Kay 17:

Our criminal code:



This finishes the entire case.

Ah I see, I hope you know that by your argument, nobody was murdered during the holocaust because according to German law then, what they did to the Jews was not murder.
Also during the slave trade, slaves were not counted as human beings but as property. By your logic, those who hung their slaves or had dogs eat them up also did not commit murder?

When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

Mr anony:
No I'll say he is alive. I don't even see the slope you are trying to build. A person can either be alive or dead, I really see no inbetween

No you don't since you think that someone on life support for 200 years is alive. If you seriously believe this, then what you're saying implies that taking someone off life support amounts to murder. And that someone unconscious for 200 years is alive though taking them off life support would "kill" them.

Mr anony:
Basically all you did there was split my response into bits and respond to each bit out of context. My point has already been made which is that during emergency situations, we tend to discriminate between humans; which ones to prioritize their safety and which ones to give less priority within the context of the situation. This does not make the humans any more or less human.
Rescuing people in an emergency situation is very different from a situation where one goes about actively and purposefully committing murder.

What is the reason for this priority that you're assigning? And again, I see that you're really trying very hard not to answer the simple question that shows your absurd ideas.

Mr anony:
Lol, very interesting so suddenly you can't tell the difference between murder and other types of killing now? I won't fly with you on the tangent you are setting up. Go pick up a dictionary and look up the word. If you are confused by the meaning you find, come back and let's discuss.

Oh I can but can you and this creator? It isn't a tangent neither can the dictionary show you how to make the judgement that ascertains whether or not a killing is murder. This is just a side effect of your over dependence on dictionary definitions. Note once more what I said. I asked you who it is that determines whether or not a killing is murder. If you have a dictionary that presents the answer, please show it to me.

Mr anony:
Test tube babies are human, skin cells aren't human beings rather they are part of the human body. How exactly do these relate to our discourse?

Skin cells are potentially human while products of human conception in a test tube doesn't have the "natural potential to be sapient". Saying one of them does means the other does too. Finally, what is the "essence" of being human that is present in a zygote and also present in a 40 year old woman?

Mr anony:
Very good non-answer, however the fact that you bear responsibility for your actions doesn't really tell us if you ought to do them or not. For instance telling you that a person who decides to molest children bears the responsibility of his/her decision. Tells us nothing about whether or not the person has a moral right to molest kids. You may as well have said that a person who decides to eat amala and ewedu soup bears the responsibility of his/her decision.

It is not a non-answer. You asserted that I was making a proposal that I wasn't making. All those people bear responsibility for their actions.

Mr anony:
Lolol, What happened to "The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision"?
Are you arguing that a mother is not responsible for her child while in the womb? But should only be held responsible for the child once it is outside the womb?

She still bears the responsibility for her decision. Or do you think you can take away her responsibility? No, I'm arguing that her rights to her body supercedes the rights of any other person to it. Again, she is always responsible for here decisions.

Mr anony:
It appears to me that you are of the opinion that the responsibility of childcare should not normally fall upon the parent but on whoever chooses to take care of the baby and hence the neglecting parent is only wrong as long as someone else (or the government) is available to take up care of the child.

How on earth did you get this from anything I said?

Mr anony:
If this is case then it follows that women who don't live in "modern societies" where the government is in the habit of taking care of unwanted babies, have the right to abandon their children.

That isn't what I've been saying because you've just constructed a strawman. I just pointed out that a mother can take care of her child or give it up for adoption. They do not have the right to abandon their children. That is why I said there were laws against negligence.

Mr anony:
Consequently, practices like women abandoning twins in the evil forest will also not be wrong in your book since both the women and the community they live in are unwilling to take care of the babies.

This is just you running along with your own strawman.

Mr anony:
I'll be very interested in hearing how you draw the line between moral and immoral abortions.

Okay.

Mr anony:
By the way, the age of viability did not address my point since your argument is that a woman has the right to expel a person from the use of her body, and my counter is that such a 'right' still doesn't allow her to kill the person before he/she leaves her body and if you watched the video in the op, that is exactly what these women are doing.

You should take a look at the techniques for carrying out abortions because most abortions simply involve expelling the fetus and when it is expelled, it doesn't really survive.

Since you watched the video, you should also have read up on the procedure to realize that what he was talking about was an abortion at 24 weeks. And guess what? 24 weeks is the age of viability. The example he went on to give of a delivery at 27 weeks of the ill woman just proves my point. Most abortions are done medically and this means that the fetus is expelled but is not developed enough to survive independent of the mother.

Mr anony: . . .When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

I will say that each debater here who has used the word "murder" indiscriminately has unwittingly weakened his own position. That is my observation as someone following the various points being made.

For the purposes of this debate, personally if I am speaking of e.g. causing the death of a foetus by deliberate abortion or causing the death of a person by striking them in self defence, I will use the more neutral word "killing"; from there one can proceed to considering whether such killing should be described or can be considered as "murder". The indiscriminate use of the more emotive "murder" can be misleading and, in this debate, has actually undermined the position of virtually each user of the word.

thehomer:



Oh I can but can you and this creator? It isn't a tangent neither can the dictionary show you how to make the judgement that ascertains whether or not a killing is murder. This is just a side effect of your over dependence on dictionary definitions. Note once more what I said. I asked you who it is that determines whether or not a killing is murder. If you have a dictionary that presents the answer, please show it to me.

Dictionary definitions matter. I suppose your opponent is using it for clarification so you can't use the bait-and-switch fallacy.

thehomer:
Skin cells are potentially human while products of human conception in a test tube doesn't have the "natural potential to be sapient". Saying one of them does means the other does too. Finally, what is the "essence" of being human that is present in a zygote and also present in a 40 year old woman?

You are stup|d you know. It is secondary school biology knowledge that all sapient humans are the products of in-vitro or in-vivo conception.

thehomer:
Since you watched the video, you should also have read up on the procedure to realize that what he was talking about was an abortion at 24 weeks. And guess what? 24 weeks is the age of viability. The example he went on to give of a delivery at 27 weeks of the ill woman just proves my point. Most abortions are done medically and this means that the fetus is expelled but is not developed enough to survive independent of the mother.

You should read up on partial birth abortions.