Every baby deserves a chance to Live !

It's understood by the English speaking peoples. Who else am I speaking for?

It is not necessary for me to rephrase what is plainly obvious.

 

What strawman ? Are you having visions ?

Its not my fault that you keep accusing me of saying things I did not say because you have no support for your silly claims ?

 

English speaking people who are educated know the difference between "life", "human life" and "a living human".

Is English not your first language or is it that you are not educated ?

 

The one that goes, "life begins before conception".

 

I seem to understand the use of implied phrases better than you. Once again, if you can drop the strawman "life begins before conception" argument we can talk about abortion and when life begins.

 

Then don't whine when people respond that life began many millenia ago.

 

I'm not whining, I'm calling them out on the idiotic premise they are presenting in an abortion thread.

 

How is that a straw man ? You should not use words that you do not understand so that you do not look so silly all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

You should start by not using words (strawman) that you do not understand.

 

It has been explained over and over several times. Do you really want me to repeat it? It's like a 3 year old over and over, why? Why? Why? Why?

It is a strawman because this is a thread about abortion. It is not a thread about when life began on Earth. And that is your strawman argument. We are not arguing when life began on Earth, we are debating when life begins in the womb. Your life is a continuum argument has no place in an abortion debate because we are trying to determine when a human life in the womb should be protected against the abortionist. The abortionist is no threat to eggs or sperm.

Just so we're on the same page:

 

You are the one who keeps talking about "when life begins".

I have explained to you numerous times that showing "human life begins at conception or some other point" does not mean its a living human.

I have asked you numerous times to prove that a zygote is a living human and you have come up with nothing. You have even claimed that it is not a living human.

If it is not a living human then the constitution does not apply. End of argument.

 

Life begins at conception. If you have another theory, let's hear it.

 

You have not provided an explanation that shows explains why the claim " a living human exists at conception" is true.

All you have done is repeat your premise over and over. Repetition of a claim does not make it true.

Its not complicated. " A zygote is a living human because ......" and you fill in the blank.

So far you have not done so with anything but "its a living human because its a living human".

This is silly fallacy.

 

I believe I have repeated my reasoning quite extensively over and over. What you have failed to do is present a counterpoint argument or alternative theory of your own. While you are welcome to vehemently disagree with me I see no point in doing so if you have no other reason which to do so.

 

What reasoning ?

A zygote is a living human "because" Why ? can you not finish a simple sentence ?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=406024&page=3&p=1065033265#post1065033265
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=406024&page=6&p=1065057334#post1065057334

Here is the post from way back:

 

Life beginning at conception is not scientific fact:

http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/20...-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/


You will never find a link from a purely scientific source that claims life begins at conception.

When life begins is a matter of opinion,

 

Nowhere in your post is proof given that shows the claim "A zygote is a living human" true.

All you do is repeat the claim "life begins at conception" over and over again which does not answer the question of "Why" a zygote is a living human.

Even if it were proven that life begins at conception (and it has been demonstrated to you that this is not the case), this does not constitute proof that a zygote is a living human.

These are two different questions such that answering one does not answer the other.

Once again, simple question:

" A zygote is a living human" ... because why ? You given no reasons for why this claim is true.

 

I have said life begins at conception. A human zygote is not a living human. That is your poorly worded question/statement. A human zygote is the earliest stage of development of a human being.

Why do you insist upon changing the argument about when life begins? What is your answer to the question when does life begin? Why do you hesitate?

 

I have never changed my argument nor have you given any evidence of this claim

You have said before that the zygote is a living human before (at least by inference). For example, you claimed that the zygote is the life of a human.

I responded then, as I will again .. If no living human exists then the life of a living human can not exist.

If no human being exists then there can not be a human being that can be said to be "developing".

Zygote or embryo development included in the study of human development just as the stages prior to the existence of a building are covered in the study of "construction of a building".

It is your use of such ambiguous language that is the cause of your confusion.

A technically correct and unambiguous claim is "the zygote is a stage in the creation of a human".

When you use technically correct language (such as I have been doing all along), it becomes clear that the zygote is not the first stage in the creation of a human as there are stages that come prior, without which, a human could not exist.

The argument for "human life" beginning at conception is focuses the definition of the term "human" as a descriptive adjective.

The "Genetic Perspective" argues that this descriptive adjective (human) should not be applied unless complete human DNA exists.

There are those that argue that just having DNA is not a sufficient benchmark and there are those that argue that human life exists prior to DNA.

There is no one perspective that can claim to be correct because there is no unanimous agreement on how "what is human" should be defined.

In order to be "a human" a complete human DNA is required but, it is not required for something to be labeled as "human" .. The human sperm and human egg are example of things that are "human".

If there exist entities that are both "human" and "alive" prior to the zygote then - human life exits prior to the zygote. It is also true that the creation of such entities by humans is a "stage" in the creation/development of a human.

To zygote stage is a critical and defining benchmark in the process of creating a human. One could claim that the odds of a human actually being created have are greater at the zygote stage than in the previous stage. Implantation of the embryo results in an even higher probability and there are arguments that this should be the starting point.

In order to justify your claim "human life begins at conception" you have to come up with a coherent definition of how you want to define "what is human" and why this definition should be accepted.

And you have not done so.

Once you have given your definition of "what is human" (something you have yet to do), you then need to show how the zygote meets the defined criteria.

If you want to claim (and I think it is a defendable claim) that having complete DNA is a defining requirement for the existence of "human life" ... GREAT !!

but, if this is what you wan to claim then you need to explain "why" you think this claim is true.

1) you need to defend the claim that DNA is a requirement and,
2) why DNA is the "only" requirement.

 

A human is a member of the species "homo sapien".
Homo sapiens are classified as "living organisms".
A zygote has its own unique DNA, seperate from its mothers or fathers. It is an individual, although not an independent individual.
A zygote is real and not imagined, it therefore exists.

If a zygote is "human", "living", "individual" and "exists" it is A living human being.

The development of a human being begins at conception and concludes at approximately 25 years after birth when its cells start to degenerate. However a human is still capable of growth and repair after this stage.

Whether a zygote is a person deserving of rights is a matter of opinion, not science.

 

Apart from calling it a human being you're more or less in the right area. Human being is a word often interchangeable with person, so calling it a human entity is better.

A zygote is definitely not a person, but it's worth as a human entity is certainly a matter of opinion and should therefore not be subject to law.

 

I consider "being" and "existing" synonymous. But if you don't, thats okay.

 

- - - Updated - - -

And the world's most prolific abortionist is mother nature. Are you aware that up to 70% of fertilised eggs never make it to birth?

 

Yes and 1 in 3 pregnancies never makes it past the first trimester. The question is should we leave abortion to mother nature or to science?

 

Human being is used interchangeably with person legally, so as long as you realise that then there's no problem.

Just as the people who refer to foetuses as babies and children, and pregnant women as mothers, realise that legally that's not actually true is also fine.

Personally, I believe using the correct terms saves a lot of confusion.