Why should I oppose abortion? GIVE ME A VALID REASON.

Perhaps 'short-sighted' would be a better choice. Short-term could certainly apply, if one considers adoption.

 

Obama would have been aborted .

 

I agree that the definition could be better "significant brain function works"

There is no such thing as a living human without significant brain function.

All infants, retarded folks, demented elderly have significant brain function.

A fetus in the early stages does not.

The problem with anti abortion views is that they have basis in reality.

For example:

Defend the claim that that a single human cell zygote or otherwise is, "a human".

Every cell is "human life" a human cell is not that special.

There is a big difference between a single human cell and a born human.

I can list a few of these differences if you like.

 

The main reason we seem to disagree about the value of a recently conceived human life is that you don’t see the conceived human life as any different as sperm or eggs. There is an obvious, distinct difference as described by any human biology textbook: at conception and after we are talking about the start of another separate human life.

Knowing that after conception we are talking about another human life, comparing the inconvenience of a human life with the termination of a human life shouldn’t be necessary.

So, if you had too many grandchildren they would be devalued?

Try to prove that statement. Good luck.

Again, you’re muddying the issue here. From a biological standpoint every human life begins at conception, which is what I’m talking about. You’re talking about human life in general terms. Please answer these questions:

Is a human sperm a human life?
Is a human egg a human life?
Is a blood cell a human life?

 

Define "a life."

 

I will define what "a human life" is, since that is the reference.

I'm referencing the biological definition of a human life and the development from start to finish of that life. Biologically, a human life starts with conception and ends with death.

 

Biologically, it is possible to clone a human being. A clone would be a human life that doesn't start with conception.

 

So a human life is conceived from NOTHING? Don't think so. Look farther back.

 

The start of human life is not "a human"

Just as the start of a building is not a building

 

Regardless, there is still a point during cloning at which the development of a new human life begins.

 

Strawman. Please show me where I've said that.

 

You're right, it is the start of "a human life" which is what I have always stated. I don't see an argument here. I'm talking about the point at which a new human life begins, which is at the beginning of that human life's development.

 

Something at its beginning exists; therefore, a human being exists at conception.

 

Yes, if the unborn baby is determined to be a person, therefore having the unalienable right to life guaranteed by the government, woman's choice is insignificant. Obviously I consider women to be persons... but if the baby is determined to be a person then his or her right to life is just as important as any other person.

 

You must understand that considering a zef a "baby" or a "person" is not something that can be a majority vote and women will just meekly accept. Women have been having abortions for centuries whether they were legal or illegal and they will continue to make up their own minds about personhood.

 

Personhood is silly. The fetus is obviously a human being and sooner or later the law will have to recognize this glaringly obvious fact!

If women who are pro abortion were really confident in theor position, they wouldn't mind admitting the obvious fact that abortion is a homicide.

This is likely why you and your ilk oppose the heartbeat legislation that is the subject of another thread here. A meaningless clump of cells doesn't have its own heartbeat!

 

Most people would expect the definition of "a human being" to include an advanced working brain. At some point the fetus will have that, but not until late in gestation.

Homicide involves killing a person, why would anyone in his right mind connect abortion and homicide?

Really rather primitive animals have heartbeats, reptiles and such. Having a heartbeat certainly doesn't make the animal a person.

 

Absolutely not. All human beings are at a developmental stage where that isn't the case at some point!

Why would anyone in their right mind not see the connection?

But none of those are human now are they. That was pathetically weak.

 

You have to define significant brain function for this to have any meaning. Some texts ascribe HBF to the majority of fetal life.

Guess we agree there.

The definition of human in dictionaries is largely self-referring. A zygote qualifies for pretty much all the common definitions.

No not every cell is a human. Only the cellular product of conception will grow into a human, no others. This is precisely why a zygote is different than collection of liver cells, and thus treated differently.

 

What is right? What is wrong? If you can't answer those questions then you have no opinion.

 

Exactly. If there is no reference frame for why something is wrong apart from personal opinion, or the personal opinions of many people taken together, then there is no answer to this question.

 

Ah, but there certainly is. An abortion is a homicide. We have already decided as a society what we think about homicides, so we do have a frame of reference!

 

First off the use of the term "human life" is awkward and technically unsound. Any cell and a sperm is human life. Better to use the term " start of a human"

The start of a "living human" is not at conception. A living human does not exist until at minimum significant brain and heart function exists.

The second point is that "human life" does not start at conception. It starts much further back than that. There is certainly no agreement or any kind of consensus among biologists that "human life" starts at conception.

The third problem with the term "human life" is that the word "human" in that term is used as an adjective as opposed to a noun (human).

 

The terms "human life" and "human being" are not the same.

A human being/homo sapien does not exist at conception.

 

You are making up semantic differences that simply do not exist in reality!

Is there a difference between a human being and your made up term of "living human"?