@jippypippy22@NeuroSGS@grok please explain why confounding variable are important to consider in study design, and when interpreting data so that a high schooler can understand.
I'm confused . . . It seems like the very first sentence in the Abstract section refutes you. "The chromosomal sex of the embryo is established at fertilization."
Moreover, the Introduction section seems like the opposite of what you implied above.
Can you elaborate why you think this study helps prove your point and help me understand what I am missing?
@PukeBuffet@BlankEthan85350@PhrogPollen How exactly has the human formed after it's parent's sperm and ovum fuse violated anyone's autonomy?
They're created, and placed in their location by their parents.
Why do we get to decide an autonomy claim strips these humans of their right to life?
@penelopedidit2@PhrogPollen Who gave that right to us?
Did some spiritual deity grant us the right to destroy other humans for existing exactly where their parents put them?
The biology is clear. When human sperm fuses with a human ovum, a new human, with their own genetic code, is created.
The disagreement comes from questioning why this new human doesn't get protection. This seems especially relevant given the fact the new human was place in it's location by it's parents without the new human's consent.
Why does mom's bodily autonomy claim override the new human's right to life?
@Eve1ynEvelyn@PhrogPollen You posted a false equivalence, suggesting humans are tapeworms, and now you have the audacity to accuse someone else of struggling to think?
If you're saying:
"We're 'allowed' to override it because the fetus has no consciousness or ability to feel pain, and society became more pro-abortion as we got smarter."
That's still just a moral claim about when it is acceptable to end human life.
Who gave us 'permission' to make these decisions?
I understand and agree that unwanted pregnancies can create real financial and emotional hardship. Even so, you're still making a moral argument that it's acceptable to end a developing human life in those situations.
Protection of life has long been treated as the default position. So why do we get to decide when we’re allowed to override that?
You said you already gave the moral grounding, but repeating 'prioritize the conscious mother' isn't grounding, it's just a preference.
A natural right to life and the principle that no one ought to harm another are both grounded in observable biological reality and longstanding moral frameworks.
Where is the actual grounding for your position that a parent can actively destroy the developing human they helped create?
@StintmanDarrell@luvmyjaide@ARealCruick So you're telling me when human sperm fuses with a human ovum, it does not produce a new member of Homo sapiens?
Have you published these new findings for peer review?