The Reality Of Abortion Clinics Without Buffer Zones

Someone who majored in Biology should know that animate does not come from inanimate.

Where in all the dribble you posted is proof that the zygote is a living human given ?

First off, you do not cite any subject matter experts.
Second, even if you do cite a subject expert they still need to back up their claim " A zygote is a living human because (followed by some explanation)"

You claim to be university educated but I see no academic rigor in your response.

When you took classification of species did they hand you some opinion from an embryologist stating "A zygote is a human being" and that was that ?

NO. They said this is how we classify humans, these are the characteristics of a human and here are the characteristics of humans that separate us from other living organisms.

Biology is the Domain Science. Subject matter experts are those well versed in specific areas of biology related to classification of humans.

Here is a PH.D Biologist and Professor from the U of Miami http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm

There .. now we have two opinions. Mine is a subject matter expert. Yours is not.

Mine states emphatically "This is not even a question in serious scientific circles" A zygote is not even an organism. A zygote is not Homo sapiens.

Yours is from non subject matter experts and does not actually claim that a zygote is a living human.

As I stated earlier to you... the best case you can get to here is "Expert opinion disagrees" (Although my source claims that serious scientist would disagree with your claim) and nothing you have posted gives "The why ... why a zygote is a human"

What are the reasons, evidence, arguments that show that a zygote (a human cell) is any different than any other human cell such that it should be treated as a living human ?

 

I will just repeat my post since you completely avoided the contents of my post the first time.

 

Dictionaries give colloquial language usage. This is reason why you are not handed a dictionary when you start university as your only textbook.

Do you understand what colloquial language usage is ? It simply means what the human using that term means. It is not a science definition.

For example A dictionary will state that the term "with child" means a woman who is pregnant. This does not mean that from a scientific perspective that at the beginning of pregnancy (the zygote) a child exists.

It is easy for an educated person to make such a mistake but only someone who lacks intelect will continue to make the same mistake once it has been pointed out.

 

I call my Pontiac a Jaguar...and it's still a Pontiac... what am I doing wrong

 

A human zygote is a human being in it's earliest state of development.

 

I have no idea why you would ask such a bizarre question since I have said nothing to elicit it.

I have noted that personhood is achieved during the gestative process, and a one-year-old human has, obviously, developed well beyond that stage.

It is neither microscopic, nor mindless.

 

Are we supposed to clap at this use of logical fallacy ?

"A zygote is a human being because its a human being" Repeating your premise is not proof of that premise.

Can you prove that in the earliest stages of pregnancy a human exists ? Do you even have an argument that is mildly convincing ?

... or should we just take your unsupported opinion as fact ?

 

It's not a fallacy. It's life, i.e. a human life in it's earliest development.

 

Claiming your fallacious argument was not fallacy does not make it so. The claim "A zygote is a human because its a human" is a fallacy.

At least this time you tried to make an argument but it is not a valid argument.

You claim "the zygote is living human because it is human life"

This claim is easily proved false. Not everything that is "human life" is a human.

You should learn the difference between the term "human" when used as a descriptive adjective verses usage as a noun.

 

No it isn't. It's very sound. It must be because you don't have any
evidence to the contrary. If you did, and you haven't shown it, you would
provide it. So far, nada, zilch, non.

 

Freedom has its price. If you feel they're harassing you file a civil claim, otherwise you have no right to not be offended.

 

didn't you know, no "normal" people call their car, boat, etc etc their 'baby' . .so you must not be normal

 

Ya, but that was posted by someone who said they didn't have a driver's license yet...which I consider REALLY not normal ....

- - - Updated - - -

What ?

 

Getting back to the topic......I do wonder what goes on in the tiny brain of a protester who is so willing to make fools of themselves screaming "Murderer" at a woman entering a clinic to have a mammogram....do they get some kind of sexual high from it? Do they really have nothing better to do? Don't they have oodles of kids at home to take care of? Like all those foster kids , adopted kids, immigrant kids, and kids of their own to take care of?? Don't they have jobs?

 

Hmm, I didn't see anything violent or harassing about those pictures. Looks like peaceful protest to me. I was expecting to see pictures of in your face harassment.

 

In the history of the pro-life movement, they have never killed a person that went in for an abortion--it's a half-myth that lying liberals try to promulgate. The only deaths have been of the abortion providers.

- - - Updated - - -

They have never killed a woman that went in for an abortion. The only deaths have been of abortion providers. Stop promulgating the lies.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing in the linked article by the OP showed harassment.

 

So in other words, it's nature that causes the miscarriages (not God). The view of God you espouse is childish (strawman?), and not that of most religious people.

 

No, Thats not even sane, let alone a fact.

wtf?

Hey, Check this out

Meerkats run their own version of Planned Parenthood in the Animal kingdom.

Meerkats kill their children in order to survive, new study shows



They might look cute but don’t be deceived by their furry, little faces, these are cold-blooded killers.

A group of British scientists followed 12 groups of meerkats in the Kalahari Desert and found that they will do just about anything to survive, including killing their own children and grandchildren.

Most animals will do just about anything to survive, you say. Sure, but according to the study which was published in the journal of Nature Communications, meerkats take it to a whole other level.

The University of Edinburgh’s Dr Matthew Bell, who led the study, said: “The meerkat way of life is a paradox, in which alpha females will attack their daughters, banish them from the group and infanticise (sic) their offspring.

“Our study reveals dominant animals are worse off when subordinates in their group try to breed - explaining why they brutally suppress others much of the time. We expected this result, but its impact exceeded our expectations.”

“Brutally suppress other much of the time” - that’s some strong language from Dr Bell but it’s well deserved. The females in this sinister species often attack each other to ensure they remain the alpha reproducers in the group and with most meerkat groups sitting at around 20 to 50 members, that can mean an awful lot of violence.

They also breastfeed each other’s babies and often banish members from the group who then suffer considerable stress, weight loss and reduced survival.

It should be noted that other animals such as rodents, bees and ants are also known to attack their young but then they don’t pretend to be all cuddly and stuff.

 

I believe that life does begin at conception. Any other point is arbitrary. Absolutely said, a unique human life does not exist before that time. That said, I would be ok (still prefer no abortion at all, but I understand compromise) with us having the same standards for abortion as Germany. No questions asked for the first 12 weeks. After that, no abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you deny that the earliest possible time that a child can exist is the moment of conception?

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion. There is no evidence that suggests that a single cell human zygote is not a human child. It's a matter of your opinion, not scientific fact.

 

Really, then you don't support the state ownership of a woman's uterus for a protracted period of time, should she become pregnant, because that is exactly what making abortion illegal does.

If you do then by default you are supporting a form of slavery against women based purely on a medical condition.

1. A non pregnant woman has complete medical authority over her body
2. once she becomes pregnant she loses the medical authority over her uterus
3. The zef gains a right no other person has, the right to use another persons body in order to sustain their life ie they are a super-person
4. once born the now baby loses the right to use another persons body in order to sustain their life
5. The woman regains her right to complete medical authority over her body.

Why are you trying to be so free and easy with other peoples rights?

interesting but wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ath-orders-spurned-teenager-West-Lothian.html

So no lies at all really.

 

Harassment - Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons. - http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

and there is also the slander item as well

slander - Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation... If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages.

accusing someone of being a murderer when you have no idea as to the reason they are going into the clinic, is an unjust accusation, and even if you knew for certain the person was going to get an abortion it is still an unjust accusation, abortion is not a crime, murder is, so to calls someone a murderer is unjustly accusing them of a crime they have not committed.

 

No, Thats completely false. The woman has total control over her body, and thats how she got pregnant in the first place, by her own actions.

If anything, men are forced into slavery to the government when a woman gives birth.

 

Stop evading the question with a red herring, the question is not about how she got pregnant, the question is about when she is pregnant.

Do you or do you not support the state making abortion illegal?

If you do then whether you admit it or not you are supporting the state ownership of a woman's uterus for a protracted period of time, should she become pregnant.

Not the topic we are discussing and as such a red herring, or if you prefer moving the goalposts

 

Oh gosh, thanks for off topic nature lesson....but , get ready for a shock...women aren't animals and when and if they murder CHILDREN they are prosecuted like anyone else who commits murder......abortion isn't murder, no children are killed.