Life is sacred. This sacredness is at the foundation of our entire system of justice. It should alarm you that you take it so lightly as to find it a joke. Your estimation is every bit as succinct as the abortion of a conception.
FoxHastings said: ↑ What is a "conception"... do you mean to say that if a woman conceives she has a LEGAL obligation to gestate !!! WHERE? Why didn't you answer my question? Where is it a legal obligation to gestate? I take your statement that women have a legal obligation to gestate as the joke.......and it is...
No, you said that. I'm saying that our legal system has an obligation to defend the sacred miracle of human life, not a right to end it for the sake of convenience alone. The legalization of abortion is not defending choice but granting the right to kill. Those carried to term would be so anyway. So the law lends nothing to them.
In post 373 YOU STATED : " Isn't a conception a legal obligation? """ And the answer is NO it is NOT the legal system's responsibility to ensure all women gestate....a stupid , preposterous idea!!!!
Yes. It is. But a human quickly outgrows the size of a zygote anyways. (4 days) and no abortion happens in the first 4 days of pregnancy unless we are talking about the morning after pill I guess. Most woman do not even realize they are pregnant for a few weeks after the fact... So why even worry about zygot?
Do you know what an argument is mate ? This is when you give valid reasons why your claim is true. "Its a human .. because its a human" is not a valid argument mate .. it is simple repetition of premise.
No .. lets not do that.. wouldn't want to offend - you were explaining the how you figure a zygote and a Jewish Slave of the Nazi's were the same. you have made this and similar claims numerous times - yet never backed it up with sound reasoning - or any reasoning for that matter .. as you refuse to back up your claim .. crying "I don't have to answer anything" - which is humorous in an odd sort of way.. not in an endearing way.. something different .
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, Anti-Choicers are trying right now to dehumanize women by taking away their right to bodily autonomy so they can control them like animals... Misogynists think, though, that if it's done to women it's OK.. Yes, and those people are Anti-Choicers who want to control women because they think women are not responsible enough to manage their own lives so they want to pass laws to control women like banning abortion....and forcing women to be nothing more than broodstock, dehumanized exactly like Nazis and serial killers and all other misogynists want them to be..... Anti-Choicers are trying right now to dehumanize women by taking away their right to bodily autonomy so they can control them like animals... Misogynists, Nazis, serial killers think, though, that if it's done to women it's OK.. No, you can't hide, deny that Anti-Choicers want to control women by claiming women are "playing the victim"""...THEY ARE THE VICTIMS IF MISOGYNISTIC PRICKS TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.. IF WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY THEY ARE VICTIMS and your trying to minimize that fact doesn't work... I'm sure you think that Jews in Germany were merely "playing victims" IT'S THE EASY WAY OUT TO AVOID MY POST by screaming women are "playing the victim"....that's another way for misogynists to KEEP WOMEN IN LINE... Misogynists think, though, that if it's done to women it's OK.. Yes, Anti-Choicers are trying right now to dehumanize women by taking away their right to bodily autonomy so they can control them like animals... Yes, and those people are Anti-Choicers who want to control women because they think women are not responsible enough to manage their own lives so they want to pass laws to control women like banning abortion....and forcing women to be nothing more than broodstock, dehumanized exactly like Nazis and serial killers and all other misogynists want them to be..... Anti-Choicers are trying right now to dehumanize women by taking away their right to bodily autonomy so they can control them like animals... Misogynists, Nazis, serial killers think, though, that if it's done to women it's OK.. I see, as usual, you can't address my post.... And, again, who and how is anyone trying to "dehumanize unborn children" you have NEVER answered that question... Anti-Choicers Excuse # 1 for not answering those inconvenient posts ...dodging is an art form for Anti-Choicers... """Between the bold print and caps your posts barely make sense" Anti-Choicers Excuse # 2 for not being able to answer posts. I guess you don't know how to use the quote feature but thanks for reprinting my post so many times ...showing everyone how you can't answer it I've quoted you just fine....and thanks again for quoting me Anti-Choicer's Excuse # 3 for not answering those inconvenient questions Excuse # 4....You avoided answering my posts so they all added up to a big post....and thank you for posting it so many times proving you can't answer nor refute any of it
Is a zygote a human? Yes. It is not a cat or a dog or a bear or a tree. It's human. And it's alive. And on its way to becoming a full grown adult.
It's funny to me that, the same people that say that a preborn human isn't a human, believe that an eagle egg shouldn't be destroyed because it will eventually be an eagle.
Did you seriously fall for that one ? Just because a rock is not a cat . dog .. bear or tree does not mean it is a human. Just because a single human cell is not a rock, cat, dog bear or trea does not magically transform it into "A Human" .. Sorry mate but your argument is negation fallacy... A zygote is not on its way to becoming a full grown adult - any more than a blueprint is on its way to becomming a car. The DNA in the zygote contains the blueprint for a human - but the zygote itself will last only a short period of time - succeeded by two clones of itself - and so on until around 200 or so cells .. all capable of independently creating a new human. Not a single cell from the human in that blueprint has yet been created .. . That is the job of these totipotent cells .. who form a ball and then - inside that ball start spitting out the first cells of the human .. differentiated and specialized cell. These totipotent cells go on to form the placenta - highly valuable for research and application these totipotent cell are .. sometimes going on to new purpose .. new creations.. as that is the job of the zygote - and its progeny .. to create human cells. None however go on to become a human .. any more than the builder of a building become the building. .. doesn't work that way mate.
Didn't say you did .. you compared the treatment the zygote to the treatment of a Jewish slave .. as if the two were comparable .. unable to get through the game of "Which one is not like the other"
If the zygote is destroyed, then no human life can develop. Destroying a zygote terminates the earliest stages of a human's life.
The zygote is destroyed - gone after the first mitotic division. The DNA however survives via the progeny of the zygote. If the zygote is destroyed prior to devision yes.. the process of creating a human is also terminated.. kind of like destroying the blueprint for a car - the earliest stages of a car. You can't claim "the earliest states of a "Humans" life .. as no human exists at this point .. The twinkle in your fathers eye is an earlier stage of your life - but that no human exists there either . nor at sperm/ Egg .. a very important stage - life is a continuum .. animate does not come from inanimate .. cept for the first time
Making a package deal of proabortionists and animal rights activists is not just ridiculous, but even outrageous. I hold abortion to be a moral right and do not believe that animals have any rights at all. Finally, a fetus is not a human.
"If a toddler cannot drive a car, then no human can ever have the right to get a license -- Toodlerhood is the early stage of being a teenager!"
Pro abortionists do not recognize this argument nor any argument that assigns human traits to an unborn child.
