No one is stripping women of any rights. Your camp paint women as victims much like Germans saw themselves as victims of the Jews.
... which is?? You likely already know what it is, as you are avoiding my question rather than answering it. What species is the zygote?
Bingo. The zygote is a human. Is the (human) zygote alive? You already answered your question within your question.
The human zygote is human...it is NOT A human. Why do you want a ZEF to have more rights than anyone else?
I answered your question - quite directly .. You asked what species a single human cell is (The Mighty Zygote) .. same species as every other human cell .. which is all you need to know to realize that the claim that the zygote is a human on this basis, is abject nonsense. A single human cell .. and A Human are not the same. If you want a more direct answer - We don't give species designations to single cells from Homo Sapiens .. other than to say that this cell is from a homo sapiens. A Heart cell is not a Human mate. .. sorry to burst your bubble but, it is a heart cell from a human -- a, Human Heart cell .. or a "Homo Sapiens" heart cell if you wish. Note the difference between the Noun form of the use of the word Human ... and the descriptive adjective. The descriptive adjective use of the word human .. Human cell, human heart, human feces .. does not denote that these things are Humans .. because of the word human in front .. a Homo Sapiens cell is a cell from a human .. just as the feces was from a human .. and is quite living .. just like the cell .. and in fact .. contains vast numbers of living human cells .. and living human bacteria. I hope this resolves any confusion. .. A Zygote is not a Human .. on the basis of being a Human cell or a Homo Sapies cell for that matter .. sorry.
Human, yes. A human, no. Yaaawn. I already know where you are going with this, but whatever. Yes, it is alive . Yet it flew way above your head.
Yes ... living human cells - such as the zygote - are alive. Why is it that you could not figure this out all by yourself .. Serious question ? The sperm is alive as well if it is any consequence - is the (human) sperm alive ? a ridiculously silly question - having no bearing on the issue at hand .. which is whether or not a zygote is A Human (noun) You clearly want to claim that it is A Human .. so perhaps begin with giving some definition of what a human is .. there are many .. but choose one as it is pointless to have such a discussion without defining what one means. Serious question 2 When do you think the soul arrives - and why.
Establishing values in laws and holding citizens to conformity does not strip anyones right. Whether it's abortion, murder, rape, theft, assault, J walking, building standards, road rules and so forth...it is not an intrusion into rights to hold citizens to a certain level of conduct determined to be right and good. Abortion was illegal. Then it was legal. Now the movement is afoot to make it illegal again. It's like tightening and loosening ones belt, or broadening and narrowing ones focus. Things change. What is at play here is/are society's values. While there is no right to an abortion enumerated in the Constitution, it seems self evident that the choice should be up to the person or woman. Then again, from my perspective, legalizing abortion has led to the cheapening of womanhood, motherhood, life, and the family, which has had a collectively negative effect on society. It encourages promiscuity and undermines the divine nature and spirit of our procreative capacity. In tandem with welfare which itself encourages promiscuity and fostering of out of wedlock births, has led to throngs of Fatherless/Husbandless homes and an abundance of crime which would only increase by criminalizing abortion and filling our nation with millions more unwanted, Fatherless children. I guess I'm saying that the two handed pseudo compassion of welfare and legalized abortion has corrupted our people, perhaps beyond retrieval.
And yet abortion has been around for thousands of years.....and so has promiscuity... and if abortion disappeared , promiscuity wouldn't. Banning abortion will lead to the cheapening of womanhood, motherhood, life, liberty , the pursuit of happiness, rights, and will have collectively negative effect on society.
Why do you lump in abortion with all of those clear violations of rights when abortion is not a violation of rights? The laws are there to prodtect indivudal rights not to "hold them to a certain level of conduct" nor does the law determine what is right and good. For example, it is legal to be a parent, but it is not always good and right. What is at play here is a Right that has completely lost all credibility as the defenders of Individual Rights. Clearly, the only question they take seriously nowadays is abortion and - to a certain degree - immigration. It is a very, very, very scary development and I fear we are heading for very, very, very bad times. How has it lead to the "cheapening of womanhood" and what does that even mean? Women having full control over their own bodies cheapens them? How? How is life cheapened by giving women the full right to their own lives? How does it cheapen the family to make sure only those who really want a family has a family? There is no such thing as a "collective good". That is utilitarian nonsense. Your life is yours and only yours. Why is promiscuity bad? How do you even define that term? And what the heck is "divine" about our procreative capacity? Are you trying to bring in your faith to the discussion again? Wait what? Allowing women to abort unwanted children creates more unwanted children? What the ffff.... And, yes. The Welfare State is a massive problem, but then you should advocate for it to be abolished. But, no, no, no. God forbid any Conservative would ever do that. They are too busy with banning abortion and immigration. Ugh. Newsflash: Aborted fetuses are never born and can thus not be fatherless.
Abortion was LEGAL when our nation was FOUNDED. The Bill of Rights STIPULATES that the individual rights that were NOT enumerated still BELONG to We the People. Therefore the Right to an Abortion is PROTECTED by the Constitution as an UNENUMERATED right that was in place when the nation was founded.
Your attempt to distract from the issue at hand does not work with me. The zygote is of the human species (homo sapien). That's all that is relevant here. I don't. Why do you condone humans killing other humans for sake of convenience?
FoxHastings said: ↑ The human zygote is human...it is NOT A human. Stating facts is "distracting from the issue"? LOL Women are also homo sapiens yet you don't want them to have the same rights everyone else has (??) Yes, you seem to...you want ZEFs to have the right to use another's body to sustain their lives....NO one else has that right. You seem to want the ZEF to have the right to harm another without their consent....NO one else has that right. I don't. I support women having the same rights everyone else, including you, has.
Which is human (homo sapien). Glad you agree. It is a human (it is just not fully developed yet). In this particular case it IS the same, as a zygote is just very early on in the homo sapien development process. (IOW, a zygote continues developing into what you eventually see pushed out of the womb upon childbirth). A tree works in a similar way. An embryo within the seed strives to develop into a sprout, then into a sapling, then eventually into a mature tree. That embryo IS a separate tree (in a very early development stage) True, but see above. True, but see above. It's been noticed and addressed. Generally speaking, that's correct (but see a few responses above). Generally speaking, correct (but see a few responses above). Correct. You still seem confused. (or are just choosing to deny science and logic) Yes it is. It is a human that is very early in the development process. I'm not using any of that as my basis.
It is both. Bingo. You are condoning the killing of a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die (for sake of convenience). You are condoning me killing you for sake of convenience. That's just messed up... No it didn't.
Bingo. So a zygote is a living human. Glad we have that settled. I have it figured out already. I'm just walking you through how absurd and morally abhorrent your position on this issue is. The sperm is alive but it is not a human (as it does not have all of the genetic material necessary to begin human development). A zygote is a human (noun). It has all of the genetic material necessary for human development and developing into what you see come out of the womb upon childbirth. I have already claimed that (and explained why) it is A Human. A human is "of the homo sapien species". A human (noun) forms once an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm cell. [IOW, once a zygote has been formed, there is a human (noun) present because all of the genetic material for development into a mature human is present inside the zygote] The same applies for the seed of a tree (which IS another tree... an embryo contained inside of a protective shell). How is this relevant to abortion?
Of course I agree that a human cell is human. Your confusion is thinking this makes a human cell "A Human" The second mistake you make is thinking that repetition of premise over and over constitutes proof of Claim. All one needs to do is look up the definition of Homo-Sapiens - and you will quickly see that a human cell lacks near all the characteristics required to be classified as Homo Sapiens .. True that zygote is part of the human development process .. just as the blueprint for a car is part of the care development process .. but a blueprint of a car is not a car mate.
A zygote is not a living human - never was stated nor inferred by me .. you still confusing the difference betweena noun and verb forms of the word human - despite numerous attemps at education. If the soul has not arrived - does a person exist ?
You not given a definition of a human and explained how a zygote fits that definition. The explanations you have offered have all failed miserably - turned out to be false .. such as being part of the development process - or having a complete genetic code. All human cells have this - but are not humans .. all cells have the codes to "begin human development" Creat a Human - yet these are not humans. The only significant difference in this respect between the zygote and other human cells is that the zygote has these codes "create a human" turned on.
Generally speaking, this is correct. However, a zygote (a human cell) IS a human. It has all of the genetic material required for human development and it is at that moment that human development begins. Any repetition of mine is a result of your repetition of your science denial. Here, you are switching from the word 'zygote' (the specific human cell being discussed) back to the generalized "human cell" terminology. This is an evasion tactic. A zygote IS a human (noun) because it contains all of the genetic material necessary for human development. Hence, that zygote is a living human. Here, you are attempting to equate living things with non-living things.
Does a zygote have all of the genetic material necessary for human development? If yes, then a zygote IS a living human (noun), as we have already established as fact that a zygote is both human and living. It seems to me that you don't like the moral conclusion of the matter, thus you are getting yourself tangled up into paradoxes and science denial. I am not confusing anything. You just don't like the moral conclusion of the matter, thus are choosing to tangle yourself into paradoxes and science denial instead. I'm failing to see how this side tangent is in any way/shape/form relevant to the discussion at hand. I am talking about living humans (and the killing thereof), not about persons or souls.
Dude -- living or non living - a blueprint is not a human. The analogy holds regardless. You are the one in denial of science ... desperately trying to claim a zygote is something other than a living human cell. It is not my fault that according to "Science" - the zygote is a human cell. Your mission - is to show that this "special cell" has other characteristics which the others do not - followed by an explanation of why this makes this human cell .. a human. You are the one evading this mission - you are evading posting a definition of what a human is.. you were trying to claim "Homo Sapiens" - which failed in monsterous fashion .... but feel free to use that definition .. the Subject domain definition in biological science "Taxonomy" So let us not project your failings onto me por favor. You are also the one desperately trying to evade the fact that a zygote is a single human cell. You want to claim it is special .. Great .. then point out the significant difference between this cell and the others .. explaining why this matters. I can do this for you if you like. All you do is repeat your claim . over and over - as if repetion is proof of claim. And technically ..the zygote does not develop into a human - not that this would help your argument if it did .. but just sayin.
The claim that having all the genetic material required for human development means that a human exists - is preposterously false. Every human cell has that material -- the complete blueprint of a human - and all the genetic codes to create a new human. You cry "You don't understand the science" - but it is you who clearly having trouble with the science -along with basic logic - and the game that the young ones play "Which one is not like the other"
No, it is not. It holds the potential to one day be, but it does not actualise that potential until it is born. What makes you say a ZEF is a human? Because it has human DNA? So does your fingerprints, are your fingerprints a human being? Is an organ transplant murder? Human organs have human DNA! I mean it is not just utter nonsense so claim a ZEF is a human, it is flat out wrong. Why did you have to add "for the sake of convenience" in there? And I have not seen anyone in this thread showing support for murder. Abortion is not murder. What? Where? ]
