It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[buttercup]

Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

So proof by colloquialism is what you're going to use to justify removing liberty?

You do not have the "liberty" to trample over the rights of another… especially the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

 

[MarkDuffy]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

Legally you are correct, it has to be that way to justify a million dead babies a year.

That does not change the science behind the fact that the baby in the womb is a separate, individual being from the day it is conceived. There is no other option with regards to the science of the matter.

It is not a baby

Of course it is, what else could it be?

Are you a parent?

I already explained the difference between a fetus and a baby ~ 20-24 weeks.

No I am no longer a parent. My kids are parents though. LOL

 

[mamooth]

A person is simply a human being.

Yes.

The pre-born is a human being.

No. That's your very subjective opinion, and repeating it over and oever won't make it any ess of a subjective opinion.

By the way, such an interesting PC lingo you pro-lifers have, little phrases like "the pre-born".

If your whole argument rests on what the current law is, then there's no point in even debating this.

Good thing I've never done that then. You're just flailing now.

 

[buttercup]

It’s Constitutionally correct to say that one is not a person entitled to 14th Amendment protections until he is born. That is also not a matter of opinion.

You must not be reading my posts. I've said at least three or four times now that I'm not discussing the legal side of this with you. Laws are not always correct. You can discuss the legal side of it with someone else. (No offense)

 

[MarkDuffy]

At birth. That's the standard all of humanity has used over all of human history.

"Person" or "human being" is a legal and social definition, so trying to make it a medical or scientific definition is historical revisionism, an exercise in attempting to define yourself as correct.

Pro-life logic is basically "I define a zygote as a human being, therefore a zygote is a human being." It's not very convincing. Their standards are entirely subjective, being that objective standards subjectively chosen are still subjective. Hence, they're no better than any other subjective standard.

If you really believe that, please answer this question. If a woman who is five minutes away from giving birth decided she didn't feel like being a mother… Do you think it would be perfectly OK to take that full-term, healthy baby just minutes before delivery, ram scissors into the back of his head, dismember the baby and kill him, for no reason except that the mother simply didn't want the baby?

Please don't answer with "something like that never happens"… I'm asking you what you believe, based on what you said above.

Of course not and that does not happen

EVER

 

[Natural Citizen]

It’s Constitutionally correct to say that one is not a person entitled to 14th Amendment protections until he is born. That is also not a matter of opinion.

Inheritance rights aren't a matter of opinion either. If a unborn childs father dies, the unborn has a legal right of inheritance. And we could go on and on with other examples of the unborn having legal rights.

 

[RWNJ]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Why do you say that? A zygote has the same DNA as a fully grown person. That makes it a person.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It’s Constitutionally correct to say that one is not a person entitled to 14th Amendment protections until he is born. That is also not a matter of opinion.

You must not be reading my posts. I've said at least three or four times now that I'm not discussing the legal side of this with you. Laws are not always correct. You can discuss the legal side of it with someone else. (No offense)

I hope he picks me. Tee hee hee hee hee

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Why do you say that? A zygote has the same DNA as a fully grown person. That makes it a person.

Either you are ignorant or worse pretending to be ignorant.

You know what the law is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

So proof by colloquialism is what you're going to use to justify removing liberty?

You do not have the "liberty" to trample over the rights of another… especially the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

You are not the decider of law.

 

[buttercup]

No. That's your very subjective opinion, and repeating it over and oever won't make it any ess of a subjective opinion.

By the way, such an interesting PC lingo you pro-lifers have, little phrases like "the pre-born".

Absolutely incorrect. Science is not on your side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It’s Constitutionally correct to say that one is not a person entitled to 14th Amendment protections until he is born. That is also not a matter of opinion.

You must not be reading my posts. I've said at least three or four times now that I'm not discussing the legal side of this with you. Laws are not always correct. You can discuss the legal side of it with someone else. (No offense)

I hope he picks me. Tee hee hee hee hee

Clayton kicks you around like a soccer ball.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Then the child should be fed by the government if need be
The diaper better be changed by the government if need be

The government is the people and since the people feel that this baby should be brought into this world.

At the state level, I'd be okay with it. It's constitutial at the state level.

How can something be constitutional at the state level if it is not at the Federal?

 

[mamooth]

Funny, who is disavowing science now?

You, obviously. And you're making logic scream as well. "Human being" is not a scientific term, but you're pretending it is.

You liberals preach science as law when it comes to climate change, but when it comes to when human life begins?

Human life is obviously a continuum. That's what the science says. Your claims about the science are very obviously wrong. Congratulations, you've failed at the science here as well.

Hypocrite. Science is only sacrosanct when its conclusions match up with your preconceived biases.

You being stupid doesn't make us look like hypocrites, you know.

 

[buttercup]

Of course not and that does not happen

EVER

Actually, late term abortions do happen. You can look up the statistics if you don't believe me. They're rare, but so are chainsaw massacres… That doesn't make it OK.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No.

So why did you think that was some kind of gotcha question?

I believe your mistake there is equating "not a person" with "zero value". Since that's only your fallacy, it's only your problem.

What normal people believe, and what I believe, is that the worth of the zygote/embryo/fetus grows as it grows. Something does not need to be a person to have moral value. A late-term fetus is not a person, but it still has significant moral value.

A person is simply a human being. The pre-born is a human being. If your whole argument rests on what the current law is, then there's no point in even debating this.

Not true.

It’s worthy debate as a topic of science, religion, or philosophy.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?

Because Individual...or....what was it....'individuated...'...haha.

 

[MarkDuffy]

It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

Yes, life begins at conception. This was breaking news to you? Life never ended, both egg and sperm are alive and both human.

No, as long as the fetus is in utero, it is part of the woman's body. The fetus does not become a child until about 20-24 weeks. At the child stage there are very few abortions and they occur only when the baby is deformed, brain dead or the life of the mother is threatened.

Abortion is not about the life of the embryo/fetus. It is about the rights of the mother.

The sperm and the egg are not "human" any more than your finger is a human. They are parts of the human body, they are not human.

One day science will be able to make a child from only a female egg by doubling it's chromosomes.

The fetus is in utero, is not part of the woman's body, it is merely using the woman's body for a certain length of time.

If you remove a fetus from a woman's body, it will die. That makes it only part of the woman's body. Perhaps in the future with very expensive medical care and lots of machines, it might be possible.

that does not make it part of the woman's body, that is just wrong. That makes it dependent on the woman, but it does not make it part of her body. The fetus is a separate, individual being.

If the fetus was separate, it would not die if removed.

 

[buttercup]

You are not the decider of law.

I wasn't even talking about the law, I was talking about the simple fact that people do not have the right to trample over the rights of others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course not and that does not happen

EVER

Actually, late term abortions do happen. You can look up the statistics if you don't believe me. They're rare, but so are chainsaw massacres… That doesn't make it OK.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.