If a fetus is an "unborn child" a born human is an "undead corpse" and a wooden plank is an "unbuilt house" and with your logic, I should have the right to bury you alive or advertise a house and sell you a plank.
What makes no sense - and why. The only one making no sense is you - yammering on about how those who use the word Zygotes are like Nazi's dehumanizing the Jews.
Humans have given themselves different names for stages of human development. The different stages of development contain humans with different rights. A teen can get a drivers license, a toddler can't. Calling a teen an adult to obtain more rights is dishonest. The same when you call a fetus a baby. It's dishonest. Let's call a fertilized egg "human". It's alive and has human DNA. Does it have full human rights? If the woman took an abortion pill. Would she not be murdering a human life? If she murdered her one year old child by poisoning, shouldn't she be charged with premeditated murder? Shouldn't the woman who took the abortion pill also be charged with premeditated murder or do each of these murdered "humans" have different rights?
I am going to say this again. I think its a good idea to identify internal use definitions ( those we seek to define within the confines of a given document/ and shared experience or as I like to describe them '1 use or disposable definitions') terms of law, and terms of science and to avoid mix and matching them. 'Zygote' is a scientific term, defined in the field of science and by scientists and it is always a noun. 'Human' is either an adjective or a noun ( condensed form of 'human being') and it carries either a scientific meaning ( synonym for homo sapiens) or its own internal use definition ( such as in philosophical discourse whereby a new working definition is established , independent of external sources. ' What does it mean to be human? What is a human being -.defined by it essence) So in this case we are smarter if we just stick with science on both sides of this ledger and nouns on both sides of the ledger and rephrase this question. into the following two questions (1) Is a zygote a human being? and (2) Is a human being a zygote? . If both are true, we have two synonyms both expressing the same basic scientific concept. It seems self evident that neither is true. A zygote is a diploid cell or fertilized ovum. A human being is a member of the homo sapiens species. To fuse these concepts in a useful way , we have to turn one of them into a modifier of the other. 'Zygote' has no adjective form that I know of, but 'human being' condensed into 'human', certainly does. So we can talk about 'human zygote' or the fertilized egg of a human being which describes a specific subset of zygotes. That as much sense as I can make of this question.
A "human being" has increasingly complex developmental stages. At what stage do we assign full human rights is the problem. I see it as a sliding scale as compared to the woman's full human rights and i agree with partial rights at viability and full basic human rights at birth. Antiabortion people believe no matter the stage of development the fetus has more rights than the woman.
The fetus has no rights at viability, it has protections. A fetus cannot have rights because they will interfere with the woman's rights....
What is a right? It is the protection of privileges given through our social contract. Rights clash all the time. I have a right to free speech and you have a right not to be libeled. One takes precedence over the other.
No. Rights can never clash; your right to free speech is not in conflict with his right not to be liabled because free speech is not free liable.
Yes I'm sorry but it is. It's the starting point of the growth of a human. Someone who is 20 years old is not "more human" than someone who is 2 years old. The zygote is the first thing that has its own unique dna and carries the genes from both the mother and the father. It already has everything unique mapped out to how tall it will be, it's sex and what eye color it will have. What's left after this is just growing. As we all need to do for roughly 25 years. We all start somewhere. and that's where we start. Got anything else or?
Yes, and the woman's rights should always take precedence over a fetus...it hasn't even been born....and to ban abortion is to give ZEFS MORE rights than born people..
That may make sense to you.... Immorality is a subjective thing. I find a governor banning masks in school immoral given nearly 20% of new Covid cases are children.
That's exactly correct and if enough people vote to have the masks not banned then that's how society is going to be governed. If enough people feel that abortion is immoral then again...society will be governed to match that morality. Science tells me that life begins at conception and while inconvenient that's the reality of the situation. We need to accept that as we progress into the future and be smarter about wielding around the power to create life.
"Starting point for growth of a human" - No it isn't. The first cell of the human in the blueprint will not be created until long after the zygote is gone. Just because the blueprint for the car tell us what color it is - does not make a blueprint a car.
Science also tells us the best way to prevent the spread of Covid is to mask, distance and hand wash. For a leader to ignore that is a dereliction of duty and immoral. We can't pick and choose the "science". Life may begin at conception but the majority believe that that life is worth less than the wishes of the woman as to what happens to her body, that is how society has been governed. You seem to have more concern for the unborn than the born.
So a 2 year old should have the RIGHT to VOTE and sit on JURIES? If they are BOTH equally "human" by YOUR theist beliefs (as established by your own use of theist terminology in prior posts) then they MUST have IDENTICAL rights according to YOU! So WHY does a 2 year old "human" NOT have the same rights as a 20 year old "human"? Is it because a 2 year old is INCAPABLE of making INFORMED DECISIONS for themselves? Why MUST a 6 week FETUS have the IDENTICAL rights when it is has just been ESTABLISHED that we do NOT have the same rights at ALL stages of our lives as humans?
The action of FORCED PREGNANCY and CHILDBIRTH enslavement is IMMORAL regardless of how inconvenient YOU find that to be
