No a zygote is a baby too the terms are not mutually exclusive as you have been shown over and over. And a baby is not an adult, and an adolesent is not an adult.......................what's your point? And a child and a baby the terms are not all mutually exclusive of each other, they overlap. That is fallacious nonsense to claim so.
A difference without merit in the context of the argument here. A fertilized egg is a COMPLETE human being at THAT stage of a human beings life, it is as complete as every human life that has ever existed is at that STAGE of the humans life. A finger or an arm is a mere part of the MUCH more complicated stage of life of the adult human, with many different parts and tissues and organs. And those arms and legs and organs all exist before the 12th week of that human life while it is alive and well in the womb. And adult human or even the baby in the womb can actually lose one of those parts and still survive it does not define the total human life. So what exactly is the point about arms and legs and I will throw in eyes and ears and toes and a nose...........
A baby is fundamentally different from a teenager . What differentiation are you talking about? EVERY complex life form begins as a simple life form, as it grows and goes through it's various stages of life it gets more complex but most of that occurs while, for humans, that life is in the womb in the first 12 weeks in the astonishing process of the create of life. After that is is merely a size thing.
The content above is typical of the DENIALISM of harsh REALITY all too common among the gun obsessed who don't GAF about actual post natal human life. Sad!
Humans who previously existed do NOT have human LIFE any longer. LIFE is NOT a prerequisite for them being human.
NOWHERE close to being correct! A fertilized egg is the COMBINATION of two INDEPENDENT sets of DNA, one from each parent. At that point there is NO new "human being" because there is NO unique DNA. The PROCESS of splitting and recombining the DNA has NOT yet occurred in order to form a NEW human being. That process takes TWO WEEKS and there is ZERO assurance that it will succeed. FACTS matter!
I GAF about protecting good 'post natal human life' from bad 'post natal human life'. Since I can't often be there to do it myself, other folks need to be able to do it for themselves and eachother.
That IGNORES the CAUSE of the ORIGINAL threat! Keep guns OUT of the hands of the mentally unbalanced and there is no need for any "defense".
No it doesnt. Even if we were able to keep all the guns away from all the bad guys (which you and I both know we cant), people would still need guns for self defense. The average unarmed woman, for example, can be overpowered by the average unarmed man. The average unarmed man can be overpowered by any of the following- another average man with a simple weapon such as a club or a blade, an average man or woman who has trained in a form of martial arts, two or more average men, or one bigger/stronger than average man or woman. But an average woman with a firearm and a general familiarity in its use is not only a more lethal threat than all of the aforementioned, but there isn't a lot anyone can do to outmatch her. Guns make everyone roughly as lethal as anyone else with a gun regardless of their size, strength, ferocity, and even skill. While an experienced marksman will of course have a degree of advantage over a novice, the novice still poses a threat. To put simply, guns negate the 'might makes right' mentality of the criminal world. ...for those willing to actually use them, of course. Guns take away the power monopoly that those who practice violence would otherwise hold over those who prefer to practice peace.
The acorn becomes a tree thus it is a future tree just waiting to sprout and grow. Well considering the acorn is waiting to sprout its baby leaves and become the tree it was intended to be that is impossible. That does not change the fact it becomes the tree.
What a MASSIVE load of gun obsessed DISINFORMATION! Here are some FACTS instead. 1. Handguns are notoriously INACCURATE! 2. People who OWN guns are MORE likely to be shot! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ FACTS matter!
Handguns are inaccurate? Are we talking rifled or smoothbore? At what range? Are we trying to snipe with a derringer? Different weapons have different purposes. If you're trying to use a snubnose revolver at 100 yards, yes it will be 'notoriously inaccurate' ...which is why no one uses a snubnose revolver for long distance shooting. A breach action, long barreled .357 magnum target pistol on the other hand is going to be more accurate than you or I could ever shoot it. I have to say, you're off to a terrible start with such an oversimplified and generalized 'FACT'. Kinda makes it seem like you dkfa about it... First off- Kellerman&co are (at best) biased hacks with an agenda, and only because I can't prove they're just a blatantly lying (they could just be incompetent I guess), selecting high crime/ low income neighborhoods in high crime cities for his 'self defense' study and then discounting from the study all the instances where a gun was used to prevent a crime without actually killing anyone. Only instances where people actually shot at eachother were counted towards the claimed finding 'having a gun increases your chances of dying'... when what they actually found would be more accurately described as 'being in a shootout increases your chances of dying' ...not at all the same thing (and also a huge 'NO **** SHERLOCK!'). And thats just one of the many fails of the Kellerman garbage. You can read more here: Editorial: Deconstructing Kellermann - The Truth About Guns Facts certainly do matter, and its a fact that the Kellerman study is junk. The Hemenway research isn't much better, although its notably less dishonest. The simple fact is that there is no way to determine how much crime is prevented from happening by gun owners before it starts ...because it never happened. Just because Hemenway didn't count how many crimes didn't happen doesn't mean no crimes were prevented (I hope that much is obvious...) However, here's some FACTS related to that without any disingenuous spin: Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. (Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986) Gun Facts | Guns and Their Use in Crime, Sources The question is- how many crimes prevented does that equate to? There's no way to know, because they never occurred, because people having guns prevented them from occurring. However, we can guess based on some comparisons in our 'home invasion' rate and Britain's 'hot burglary' rate: Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13% ...which makes perfect sense given what we learned above, that 'Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.' What's truly great about this is that I am actually helping to protect you're home without even having to be near it, simply by making it more statistically likely that you might have a gun too! You're welcome!
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, I clearly said , " an acorn is not a tree"...that's why it's called an acorn and not called a tree... Wow , brilliant observation but doesn't change the fact that an acorn is not a tree"...that's why it's called an acorn and not called a tree So what ? We all change back into dirt eventually, too...are we called dirt?
But yet you say a baby is not an adult but it IS a zygote ??? Then why aren't adults called zygotes? Yes, but neither are zygotes. . That is fallacious nonsense to claim zygotes are babies but NOT adults...
It is not a distinction without merit. On the contrary, it is your lack of understanding of the distinction that is the source of your confustion. I will take things slow. The claim that a human is "human life" is correct - and we all know this - so the question -"point to human who is not human life" is moronic - as this has not been claimed. What you have not distinquished is that while all humans are human life - not all human life is "A Human" For years you have been using the term "Human life" incorrectly - because you do not understand the above distinction - despite being corrected numerous times. Hopefully one day you will come to understand the fact that just because something is human life - does not mean that thing is "A Human" - so you will stop making the same mistake .. over and over and over and over
Of course a zygote is different than a finger or an arm .. One is a single human cell - the other is a collection of millions of human cells. There are also differences between a human cell in an arm -. and the zygote cell. So what - ? how does this relate to the OP.
Of course it is a distinction without merit and a typical pro-abortion twistin like a pretzel to avoid using proper terms. You're ability to only drag it out changes nothing. It is your argument that is moronic and fallacious nonsense. Human life is human life. For years you have tried to change the meanings of words with your semantical games. That dog don't hunt and your lack of knowledge about basic biology blaring.
Are you really THIS confused? Baby and zygote are not mutually exclusive terms. Do you know what that means? No different than a adolescent is also a teen but not an adult. A zygote can properly be called a child and a baby the terms are not all mutually exclusive. Nothing fallacious about it as for years I have shown you and you have never refuted except with your uninformed fallacious statements otherwise.
No .. it is your claim that all human life constitutes a human that is "Moronic" It is you pretending that the claim under dispute is "Human life is Human Life" is moronic as it gets.. as the claim being discussed is whether or not all human life can be claimed to be "A Human" What is also moronic is you playing semantic games - then projecting your actions onto others .. and of course using a term you do not understand "Semantics" is also moronic. The 4th moronic thing is you claiming "Lack of knowledge of basic Biology" when it is you who has yet to figure out the difference between a single human cell - and "A Human"
