Nonsense. Logical fallacy and repeating unsupported claims adnausium does not count. I have posted links from subject matter experts (biologists) that claim a zygote is only a "potential" person. These links explain why a zygote is classified as a homo sapien and so on. You responded by referring to someone elses post persenting unsupported claims by Embryologists and Pediatricians. The claims presented by you are: 1) unsupported (an explanation of why is not given) 2) not from subject matter experts You also ignore the fact that "experts" disagree which is the best starting point you will ever get to. (1) has always been my problem with the anti choice position. They can not explain how their position is justified on the basis of science, logic, or philosophy. You have never explained how the only significant difference between the zygote and any other cell (that the zygote has the DNA codes for "create a human" turned on), is a sufficient condition for personhood.
Look up the definition of the word "zygote" as I have asked you to do before. It explains how a zygote is different than any other single human cell. Anyone who can read knows the rest of your post above is pure bull shiite!
But it does not explain why that difference merits personhood. Please address the point do not evade.
"Personhood", in the abortion debate, is a non issue as it is a purely manufactured terminology and has no bearing on whether or not an entity is a human being.
No you haven't, some honesty from you would be a refreshing change. Any legitimate definition you can find shows you to be wrong.
You have changed the topic because you have no response. I have given you definitions w/explanation from subject matter experts on many occasions. This is what constitutes a "legitimate" definition. Citing a "defn" from a common usage dictionary is not legitimate because the dictionary is giving colloquial language usage. This has been pointed out to you in explicit detail many times. Quit trolling and try to stay on point.
That is a baseless denial, you know better. It is the very crux of legal recognition and the foundation of rights. Laws can only be based on on firm parameters, that is why fetuses are not recognized as persons IN THE GENERAL SENSE, as you and all of us are. No it is not, persons have been mentioned in the earliest laws. That is true. The fetus is not a human being and that is why it is not a person, not the other way around.
I understand why you are so defensive about the issue, it is definitely a fragile and exceptionally weak rationale for justifying a homicide.
No you did not. The topic was personhood and you posted some drivel instead of addressing the topic. To be specific you posted this: instead to attempting to refute the argument. Of course by now we all now WHY you do not address or refute points. no doubt because AGAIN you are not capable of addressing and refuting an argument. You don't really expect anyone to believe yet another of your unsupported edicts. Clearly from your side. If you could offer some rebuttal you would go on, but clearly you are calling it quits.
If you have already answered simply give the post number or page. If you havent answered the question, you wont be able to do this.
