Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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
This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
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?
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?
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.
Apparently you've never heard of embryo adoption.
Tell us more about this "Right to life".
Money wasted on any luxuries could be used to save lives. I assume you're living a monastic lifestyle now, given how concerned you are about the Right to Life.
No? Your own selfish conveniences takes precedence over the Right to Life of others? Imagine that. You ask much more of pregnant women than you're willing to give yourself.
I already explained the difference between a fetus and a baby ~ 20-24 weeks.It is not a babyGG, 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.
Of course it is, what else could it be?
Are you a parent?
No I am no longer a parent. My kids are parents though. LOL
This makes no sense whatsoever.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.
Are you a parent?
Most parents don't think of zygotes as babies, you know.
I have never known a parent in all my 50 plus years that did not view the "thing" in the womb as their baby from the day they found out they were pregnant. Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.
How is a pre-born not a human being? What, in your opinion, makes it any less human? It has the exact same DNA it will have after it's born. So what makes it less human?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.
That is true, but not the pointAre you a parent?
Most parents don't think of zygotes as babies, you know.
I have never known a parent in all my 50 plus years that did not view the "thing" in the womb as their baby from the day they found out they were pregnant. Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
When acknowledging the fact that people do not have the right to trample over the rights of others, we are indeed talking about the law.
And people do not have the right to trample over the privacy rights of others, such as seeking to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.
OK now that I got that out of my system… Have you ever heard of natural law?
The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.Indeed it does not
Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?
This thread is not about the law. It is about the medical definition of when life begins. It begins at conception. No one has been able to refute this yet. But feel free to keep trying. It's pretty amusing.Either you are ignorant or worse pretending to be ignorant.Why do you say that? A zygote has the same DNA as a fully grown person. That makes it a person.Personhood does not begin at conception.
You know what the law is.
That is true, but not the point
A wanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted pregnancy.The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.Indeed it does not
Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?
Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?
You're speaking for libertinism. Not liberty.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
When acknowledging the fact that people do not have the right to trample over the rights of others, we are indeed talking about the law.
And people do not have the right to trample over the privacy rights of others, such as seeking to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.
*Sigh*
And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.Tell us more about this "Right to life".
Money wasted on any luxuries could be used to save lives. I assume you're living a monastic lifestyle now, given how concerned you are about the Right to Life.
No? Your own selfish conveniences takes precedence over the Right to Life of others? Imagine that. You ask much more of pregnant women than you're willing to give yourself.
That's absolutely hilarious that you use those words because that is precisely what abortion on demand is all about… Selfish convenience. Selfish convenience. Selfish convenience. That is exactly it, for your side.
