Every baby deserves a chance to Live !

I'm not confusing squat. You are making an argument that a sperm deserves constitutional rights, and now, once again, you are trying to backpedal from that argument.

Don't give me anymore of your "human life vs a human life" mealy mouthed word parsing BS. I've heard that claptrap and I'm not falling for it. Don't criticize my opinion unless you have the backbone to state an opinion of your own. If you are backing away from your sperm argument again, when does life begin? And just so you don't try to get cute, yes, I mean "A HUMAN LIFE".

 

Scientifically it is the point at which a unique DNA is created. It may not be a human life as it could be twins, but that is the point at which the process of creation for everyone begins.

 

Which would give her every right to get rid of it.......no one should be forced to carry foreign objects around in their bodies.

 

Except she opened her legs for the foreign object to enter her.

 

What an ignorant statement....you really think a fetus enters a woman through her open legs......

 

What are you talking about ? What I have said is that the sperm is not a living human and therefore does not deserve constitutional rights.

Quit making things up and attributing them to me.

 

What if she boinked with her legs closed?

 

That is the argument you make every time you counter my argument that "life begins at conception" by saying life begins before conception. That is the argument that you keep repeating. If you don't want to make that argument then stop making that argument. That is all I can tell you.

 

Don't blame me that you do not understand the difference between the existence of human life and the existence of a living human.

<Rule 2>

It is not complicated. A living human heart cell is "human life" but, it is not a living human.

 

I don't blame you for that. I blame you for arguing that a sperm deserves constitutional protection. I blame you for not realizing that this is the argument that you are continuing to put forward every time you parse words as if there is a difference between human life and a human life when the meaning of the sentence and the syntax and the subject matter make obvious the implications of the writer. We are talking about abortion and when a human life begins, not when life began on this planet. Stop being so obtuse. This is not 3rd grade. Make a grown up argument.

 

I was not talking about when life begins on this planet. I am talking about when a living human exists.

The sperm is not a living human and so deserves no constitution protection.

What part of this fact is so darn difficult for you to understand ?

 

There is no argument in this as it is a FACT!

LIFE exists previous to conception.

If the Egg and Sperm Cells were not living they could not become a Human Zygote and begin to develop into a Fetus.

AboveAlpha

 

Well every time I say that life begins at conception you keep telling me it doesn't. You are the one saying it begins before conception. So you are the one by inference are saying that sperm deserve constitutional protection. When you stop arguing that life begins before conception perhaps we can argue at what point after conception it begins. As far as I'm concerned, it begins at conception. You have yet to make a logical argument to the contrary.

 

Well see, there you have it. That is your (pl) argument. Not mine.

For the umpteenth time, this is an abortion thread. We are talking about when each human life begins.

Everyone know that life exists before conception, otherwise, conception wouldn't be possible.

We are not arguing whether or not life EXISTS before conception.

 

Why not just say "a new human life begins at fertilisation" instead of saying "life begins at..."? That would eliminate anyone coming back with "life began a long time ago" and you could actually debate the topic instead of the difference between "life" and "a human life".

 

Human Cellular Life exists before and after conception.

The entire time a Fetus develops it is considered a Multicellular Fetal Biomechanical Contruct comprised of Human Cells.

After the Fetus is birthed and even then the Fetus must have the Umbillical Cord Cut whether this be attached to a woman or an artificial womb....THEN....the Fetus can be declared a Baby but it cannot be considered a HUMAN BEING until the Millions of other Non-Human Organisms grow and develop the Babies Immune System, Digestive System, Excretory System and Millions of these Non-Human Organisms must inhabit the Babies SKIN as SKIN is the LARGEST ORGAN THAT IS WITHIN A HUMAN BODY.

The Baby when fully birthed is HUMAN.

But the definition of a HUMAN BEING as I have posted several times is.....A MULTI-SPECIES MULTICELLULAR BIOMECHANICAL CONSTRUCT THAT IS A PART OF THE GREAT APE FAMILY.......SPECIFICALLY......

The family Hominidae, known collectively as the great apes, include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans;[1][2][3][4] alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).

LINK....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

But a HUMAN BEING is not comprised of just HUMAN CELLS WITH HUMAN DNA!!

HUMAN CELLS....HUMAN MULTICELLULAR CONSTRUCTS such as a ZYGOTE or FERTILIZED EGG CELL....which continues to develop as the cells split via MITOSIS.....as well as a FETUS.....are COMPRISED OF HUMAN CELLS..........BUT...

THEY ARE NOT A HUMAN BEING!!!

This distinction is specific and a HUMAN BEING as posted is A MULTI-SPECIES MULTICELLULAR BIOMECHANICAL CONSTRUCT THAT IS A PART OF THE GREAT APE FAMILY.

A Fetus is HUMAN.

A Baby is HUMAN.

BUT A BABY IS NOT YET A HUMAN BEING.......BEING being the key word....UNTIL.....a bit of time passes and all those MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF NON-HUMAN ORGANISMS.....and a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM such as BACTERIA and many others that exist within a HUMAN BEING.....ARE ANIMALS AND LIFE FORMS UNTO THEMSELVES!!!

Thus the term HUMAN BEING is NOT THE SAME AS.....HUMAN.

Reason?

HUMAN just denotes that each specific CELLS DNA and GENOME exists within each cell is of a SPECIFIC GENETIC MOLECULAR ATOMIC PATTERN.

This pattern that is HUMAN is represented in an IDENTICAL CLASSIFICATION REPRESENTED IN STEM CELLS which must first exist as STEM CELLS can change into any type of HUMAN CELL that either the Genomic Baseline Pattern allows them to become thus a Stem Cell can be turned into Skin, Muscle, Heart, Liver...etc

All of these are HUMAN CELLS and each HUMAN CELL IS A LIVING LIFE FORM UNTO ITSELF and a great example of this is a SPERM CELL which is one of if not the most independently mobile and independently operating HUMAN CELL EXISTING.

But that SPERM CELL IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.....and neither is a FERTILIZED EGG CELL....and neither is a FETUS.

They are all Human....some SINGLE CELLED HUMAN GENOMIC PATTERNED INDEPENDENT CELLS.....OR....THEY ARE MULTICELLULAR SINGLE GENOMIC CONSTRUCTS.....which is what a FETUS IS....BUT......

THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS!!!

A HUMAN MULTICELLULAR SINGLE GENOMIC BASELINE PATTERN CONSTRUCT........CANNOT DEVELOP OR EVEN STAY ALIVE AND GROW FOR EVEN THE SHORTEST OF TIMES.....and I am talking about perhaps 30 Minutes to ONE HOUR.......BEFORE DYING....without the addition of the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF NON-HUMAN ORGANISMS OR ANIMALS......which COMPLETE A HUMAN MULTICELLULAR CONSTRUCT ONCE BIRTHED AND SEPERATED FROM THE WOMAN BY CUTTING THE UMBILICAL CORD.

At this point a newly Born Baby begins to take in these other LIFE FORMS from Breast Milk or Formula, BREATHING THE AIR, HAVING IT'S BODY AND SKIN IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET IT IS WRAPPED IN....HAVING IT'S AIR SUPPLY AS IT BREATHS CARRY INTO IT'S LUNGS AIRBORN NECESSARY NON-HUMAN LIFE FORMS...ETC...ETC...ETC.

Thus a FULY BIRTHED BABY INDEPENDENT OF THE WOMAN OR ARTIFICIAL WOMB.....if it was fed COMPLETELY STIRILE MILK THAT WAS JUST FAT'S, CARBS, PROTEIN AND VITAMINS AND MINERALS.....and was only allowed to breath COMPLETELY STERILE AIR....and it's skin and body wrapped in COMPLETELY STERILE OF ANY LIVING ORGANISMS.....you know what will happen???

WITHIN 30 MINUTES THE BABIES HEALTH WOULD BEGIN TO DEGRADE....THE BABY WOULD BEGIN TO QUICKLY DIE!!!

Within 1 Hour without the necessary Non-Human Organisms necessary for HUMAN SYSTEM FUNCTION such as EATING, BREATHING, EXCRETING, ABSORBTION OF NUTRIENTS IN THE STOMACH AND INTESTINES....OPERATION OF THE INTESTINES AND STOMACH.....SKIN HEALTH....ETC...ETC...ETC....

WITHIN 1 HOUR THE BABY WOULD BE ALMOST OR PAST A POINT OF RECOVERY....IN SOME CASES 2 HOURS!!!

If the Baby was born at 3 am on Monday.......by 1 am Tuesday THE BABY WOULD BE DEAD!!!

And it would NEVER HAVE ACHIEVED BECOMING A HUMAN BEING......even if it is HUMAN!!

GET IT NOW????

AboveAlpha

 

Because although it is true that we all began at the point of conception, in the case of twins or multiples, it isn't just a human life, but more that one human life.

 

I have never stated that a living human exists prior to conception. When "life" or "human life" begins is irrelevant to the constitutional question.

 

Then say "A new human life/new human lives begin at fertilisation". Unless, of course, you are baiting.....

 

Or one could say "The end of the woman's bodily sovereignty over what is inside her begins at fertilization"

 

When you learn how to argue without presenting strawman arguments, without parsing words, then maybe you can present a reasoned logical argument as to when life begins.

 

You could say until your face turned blue but it wouldn't make it true.

 

I've said this before and am surprised that I have to explain basic English language usage, but this is a thread about abortion.

It is common to delete words or phrases that are assumed or understood in sentences. This is known as implied phrases or elliptical clauses.

So because this is a thread on abortion, when someone says, "Life begins at conception", it is understood that we are saying, "a human life begins at conception".

I keep asking people to stop parsing words or creating strawman arguments but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

 

Why would one say that when it isn't true?

- - - Updated - - -

It's understood by whom? Don't speak for anyone but yourself.

Since you know how some people will react, your failure to rephrase shows that you really aren't interested in actual debate.

 

Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

AboveAlpha