Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

You answered only half the question.

"IS EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY AN ORGANISM?"

Yes or no?

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument.

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.

I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree

I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.

But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.

So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on. It's a waste of time.

1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.

The post by me that you replied to was from the beginning of February.

So yeah you did

Silly me, I thought you would know the difference between a "Thread" which is what you said and a "post" which is what you are now indicating.

Since you can't seem to grasp the difference between a potential organism and one that already exists. . . I should know better than to expect much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Thank you so much.

 

[whitehall]

I imagine they used to run polls like that in Germany in the late 30's asking which was more important, the lives of Jews or the Nazi new world order. When you refer to a full term infant, able to live on it's own, as an egg or a fetus you are already skewing the poll. Everybody knows that late term or partial birth abortions are done in such a way that the baby is technically not a person under the law as long as a couple of inches of it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed in the back of the head (without anesthesia) and it's little brain sucked out with a frankenstein machine until it's face looks like a cabbage patch doll. Yet the radical left fights every effort to outlaw the operation that is nothing but infanticide.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Thank you so much.

Oh, it was a pleasure, believe me.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I have a question. What is the egg/fetus/baby considered once the mother in waiting finally learns that she has something inside of her in the first place?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. No matter what kind of sticker it is given, to me, its a kid and not a cancer that must be removed and discarded as soon as possible.

 

[there4eyeM]

Fortunately, the decision is not in other hands than the woman in this country. That is where it belongs.
Abortion is a poor choice, but it is not "evil". Prevention is more desirable and is highly effective, though not 100%. This fact does not 'justify' the quantity of abortions that take place. Women should be making better choices. That said, the entire population on any number of levels should be making better choices, from elections to food to vehicles and on and on. People today make poor choices with little sense of personal responsibility. The examples are everywhere. For a minority to want to punish young women who may have made one poor choice is not very coherent.
We, as a society, make many decisions that determine life or death. It is hypocritical to set aside collective responsibility for this and apply another standard when a female is faced with the excruciating choice of bearing or not.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Thank you so much.

Oh, it was a pleasure, believe me.

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

 

[Chuz Life]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

 

[Blues Man]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end. At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end. At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.

If you are a PROponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.

You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you PRO on abortion. Pro-abortion.

As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, according to you, is not a child. So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.

 

[Blues Man]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end. At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.

If you are a PROponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.

You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you PRO on abortion. Pro-abortion.

As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, according to you, is not a child. So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.

A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell

How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?

 

[Chuz Life]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end. At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.

If you are a PROponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.

You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you PRO on abortion. Pro-abortion.

As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, according to you, is not a child. So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.

A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell

How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?

Can you show me where the ability to walk is a requirement for a child in ANY stage of development to be recognized as a child?

No?

I thought not.

 

[Chuz Life]

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

I absolutely know that I am smarter than most. In the few areas where I am NOT smarter, I am willing to admit that I am wrong , when and where I am proven wrong.

Which is why I ask you (or any other proabort) to explain to me WITH SCIENCE, what it is that makes a biological father a "biological parent" of a child. . . if the THING he parented (a zygote) is (per YOUR claim) NOT a child.

 

[Blues Man]

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?

Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.

For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end. At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.

If you are a PROponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.

You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you PRO on abortion. Pro-abortion.

As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, according to you, is not a child. So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.

A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell

How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?

Can you show me where the ability to walk is a requirement for a child in ANY stage of development to be recognized as a child?

No?

I thought not.

OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.

There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.

 

[Blues Man]

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

I absolutely know that I am smarter than most. In the few areas where I am NOT smarter, I am willing to admit that I am wrong , when and where I am proven wrong.

Which is why I ask you (or any other proabort) to explain to me WITH SCIENCE, what it is that makes a biological father a "biological parent" of a child. . . if the THING he parented (a zygote) is (per YOUR claim) NOT a child.

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust