What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

An infant and an adolescent are living humans. A zygote is not.

It is not up to me to show that a zygote is a living human .. the onus is yours.

So far the only support for your claim is that you have presented is :

"a zygote is a living human, because its a living human"

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

In summary .. the extent of your justification for your claim is "logical fallacy".

 

Umproven, and there hasn't even been a coherent rationale posted for this "theory".

Not at all! If you want to claim the obvious is not as it appears, the onus is on you my friend to prove it.

You apparently cannot read. My rationale is that every living human being on the planet was a zygote in his/her first stage of development. Are you disputing that? If not, lets hear why you consider a zygote sub human.

Did you cut an paste that from one of Reiver's nonsense posts?

And you are 100% incorrect sir!!!

 

Your that one that wants to make a law against abortion, not me.

Laws are not made on the basis of "since you cant prove otherwise" (for the tenth time)

"

OK .. lets work with your stated rational. We will take it real slow so you can follow the logic.

Your claim is this:

"Every living human on the planet "was" a zygote, so a zygote is a living human"

Is every human on the planet a zygote now ?

 

This doesn't even make sense.

Let me respond by following your logic.

Every human being is an infant at an early stage of development,

are all human beings infants? If one is not an infant, is he/she not a human being?

 

What does not make sense to you ?

Do you think we should make a law that says your neighbor should come over to your house and bugger you daily because you can not prove that it is not good for you ?

If we want to make a law .. it is up to those that want to make the law need to provide justification for making that law.

Justification is not "because you can not prove otherwise"

Do you understand ?

 

Originally Posted by Giftedone
OK .. lets work with your stated rational. We will take it real slow so you can follow the logic.

Your claim is this:

"Every living human on the planet "was" a zygote, so a zygote is a living human"

Is every human on the planet a zygote now ?

Good .. you do indeed have some capacity for logic.

An adult is a living human, but because an infant is not an adult, does not mean it is not a living human.

Conversly because an adult is a living human, and that adult "was" an infant at one point in time, does not mean that the infant "is" a living human.

Just because an adult (living human) was a zygote, does not make the zygote a living human.

 

Absent a compelling reason to deny the zygote "living human" status (simply because of his/her age) it does make the zygote a living human. Your capacity for logic seems limited.

 

There are plenty of complelling reasons (age not being one of them).

Absense of a compelling reason to deny the existence of God does not make God a reality.

Logic 100 (Argument from ignorance- argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

There actually aren't any! As you stated in a post above, every human being was a zygote in his/her earliest stage of development.

Is the existence of God self evident like the fact (as you have even admitted) that a zygote is a human being in his/her earliest stage of development?

Name calling just makes you look more foolish and childish.

 

There are many:

Zygote reproduces asexually
Zygote and human cell have no significant differences other than the programming to create a human
Zygote is not classified as a homo sapien .. (single celled eukaryote)
Zygote has almost no human traits other than DNA
Zygote has no heart or brain so even if we were to claim it was a human (which it is not) it is not a living human.


All you have is false premise and logical fallacy to back up your claims

I have admitted that the zygote is a human cell. (human is used as an adjective - for the 10th time)

Since a human cell is a being and human (adjective) you could classify every human cell as a human being.

LOL I never called you a name silly .. I pointed out the exact logical fallacy you were using.

Your above post has the logical fallacy:

Your claim " absence of a compelling reason to deny the zygote living human status makes the zygote a living human"

Wrong: you are asserting that your proposition (the zygote is a living human) is true because it has not been proven false.

You have committed the above logical fallacy. Get it ?

 

No, you are once again mistaken. Both in what you claim my argument is, and in your logical fallacy BS.

You have even admitted yourself that all human beings were in the zygote stage at one point. So where is the separation point? At what point did this human organism become a human being, and why?

You have failed repeatedly to answer this question.

 

And at some point they were sperm and eggs too. Why is the united product more important than the individual components?

At the point where it can sustain its own life with its own organs, because then and only then it functions like all other human beings.

 

NOPE a human being was NEVER sperm and eggs. No human being until a zygote exists. Biological fact!

A newborn cannot do that. A newborn needs an outside entity to feed him/her or death will occur. NEWS FLASH PEOPLE a newborn is not a human being!

Again you FAIL.

 

(Argument from ignorance) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false.

The premise: ( the zygote is a living human)

That the premise has not been proven false, is not a valid argument for the truth of that premise.

.

I only grant this because it is not material to the debate. At the zygote stage no cells that will be part of the eventual born human exist.

It is true that without the zygote there would be no living human.

The above has no bearing on the fact that:

(1) That a zygote stage comes before a living human, is not proof that a zygote is human.

I would be happy to discuss this, and have in the past, but we need to get closure on (1) first.

 

But are crucial ingredients without which nothing can happen. Surely they must be important then.

Of course it can, has ALL the organs any human being has and they are fully functional to sustain life. Not the same about a zygote.

 

That it is self evident is enough for me.

.

 

A human being never exists until the zyhgote exists. Do try to stay on topic.

Of course it can, has ALL the organs any human being has and they are fully functional to sustain life. Not the same about a zygote.[/QUOTE]

A zygote is a human as every human being was a zygote. Even "Giftedone" admits that (finally).

 

Middle line above was Prometeus' , I forgot to put the quote by it.

 

What is self evident is that your argument contains a logical fallacy.

 

True but how does this make a zygote "a living human"

This is a lie .. I have never claimed any such thing

The zygote is a human cell (human - descriptive adjective)

It is not A living human (noun)

I have explained this to you numerous times back to grade 6 and learn the difference between an adjective and a noun.

 

That is circular reasoning and not even a good one.
Human beings HAVE organs that sustain their life functions. Zygotes DO NOT have anything.

 

Is a catapillar a butterfly, because every butterfly was a catapillar ? No
Is a heart cell, a heart, because every heart was once a heart cell? No

Because B developes from A .. does not mean that A=B

If A=B, then B=A

Proof: A = a heart cell, B = a heart

By your logic .. If B develops from A then B=A

Test: A heart develops from a heart cell, but a heart is not a heart cell

This test also works with a human

A human develops from a zygote .. but a human is not a zygote

B does not equal A Your claim is proven false.

B does not equal A .. the claim is false

 

using that standard, old people should be aborted since they don't contribute to society. How old are you? Ready to step out and make room for the productive yet?

 

well crap...are we rattling on about zygotes in THIS thread too?

honestly, it is too durn boring for me...and we all have stated what we think and no one is going to budge.

 

Where did you get the idea that old people don't contribute to society? Many old people contribute a great deal to society, it takes many years of observation and interaction to acquire the wisdom worth sharing with younger people. I think that most old people would prefer a humane death to being sustained as uncontributing members of society. Old people are members of society, zefs are not.