What if life does begin at conception?

the vessel begins being built at conception, the life force\soul enters much later and sometime leaves the vessel before the body parishes too.. maybe the soul begins with the breath of life

maybe the tunnel of light you see when you die is a baby opening it's eyes for the first time, as your about ready to enter your next life, if you snap back to this life, another soul takes your place or the baby dies

 

I agree. A fetus, on the other hand is not single human cell.

 

No, and it's not a legal person either.

 

https://shoutyourabortion.com/

Women share their stories on the how easier and happier their lives are for killing babies

 

It's verrrrry dramatic to claim that women are killing "babies" but erroneous .

 

I'm sorry you don't see babies as babies

 

I am sorry you deny science which says fetuses are aborted, not babies...

 

You see them as a bundle of cells. I see them as human beings who are unfortunately not developed enough to fit your criteria of what counts as worthy to live.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I am sorry you deny science which says fetuses are aborted, not babies...

Don't tell me what I see...you can't read minds.

I see fetuses as fetuses and babies as babies and adults as adults....see how easy that is....use the correct words!!!

I NEVER mentioned "worthiness"...


Whether they live or die isn't up to me or YOU, it's up to the one who has to feed and house them for nine months...

You can see them anyway you like as long as you don't legislate your beliefs...

 

Then do not have an abortion. This entire topic come down to one very simple reality:

"Unless you think you should be allowed to force your opinion on perfect strangers you have no standing."

So.....Do You?

 

Me telling people that they are killing babies is not forcing anyone to not have abortions. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

One of many bad laws.

 

Cool...does that mean RvW is okay to you?

 

Correct - but two or more cells does not necessarily make the entity a living human either. Where is your bar - your measuring stick.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, and it's not a legal person either.

Why is it a bad law?

IF it was a legal person the woman would have all the more right to have it taken out

 

Because it authorizes the killing of humans without regard to reason.

Right where you described. It is living human when conception occurs.

 

Look - claiming "it is a living human" and being able to back that claim up are two different things - and frankly - backing up this particular claim of yours - with something coherent and non fallacious - is something you can not do.

 

Backing up " living" and "human" are easy enough. It's backing up the significance he wants to put on those two attributes. And then managing to show how that overrides the rights of another living human.

 

It is not easy - especially when one starts with logical fallacy - "non sequitur - it does not follow". It does not follow that because a zygote is both living and human - that it is a living human

You are confusing the descriptive adjective use of the word "Human" (human heart, human cell, human feces) with the noun "A Human".

You then commit a second fallacy by assuming that the zygote is another living human - Assumed premise fallacy.

Fact - the zygote is a single human cell. Like all human cells - the zygote is both alive and human. This does not make the zygote a living human any more than a human heart cell.

The question then is "what is the significant difference between the single cell formed at conception - and the single cell formed later known as a heart cell) .

You may not have an answer to this question so I will give one difference. The DNA in the zygote has the program codes "create a human" activated.

It is not that these other cells do not have these codes in their DNA - they are just not activated - so the having of these codes does not make the zygote a living human.

How then does having these codes activiated - make this cell a living human ?

Do feel free to come up with another significant difference if you think it can make your case.

 

I think you might be assuming that I am of the opinion that that a ZEF is the same as a being. And while some might be using "a human" as shorthand to "a human being" I see it as "a human body" which says nothing of personhood, which is what human being refers to. Quite frankly, as far as rights go, personhood, human or otherwise, is what matters.

But all that is still second fiddle to the overriding issue, with is bodily autonomy. So whether the ZEF is a person or not, in the end, does even matter.

 

I not see the ZEF as a human body any more than any other human cell. In fact - the zygote will never be a cell in the human that its DNA is in the process of creating.

Its hard for me to believe in the existence of some human - when not a single cell in the body of that human exists.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, and it's not a legal person either.





Why is it a bad law?

IF it was a legal person the woman would have all the more right to have it taken out

It does not authorize the killing of humans, it preserves the rights of women to their own body.

Reason gets thrown out the window when it's claimed that a fetus has more rights than the woman it's in and everyone else.

 

As I said, it's a moot point anyway, and quite frankly a red herring to the issue.

 

If it's obvious why do you have to point it out?

And it is not "obvious" that babies are aborted since they aren't, fetuses are.

 

You are repeating yourself. I don't want another ride on the carousel. Best of luck to you.