Gov't sites ? - proving that the zygote is a living human ? Do post. You posted a bunch of "pro- life" links quoting opinion from embryologists. Most of which did not support your claim - and none which proved the claim. Then there is the problem that "embryology" is not one of the domain's of subject matter expertise - not that this matters because none proved your claim in any case. I refuted every one of your silly opinion quotes by posting "subject matter expertise". One was from a developmental biology textbook which stated that there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins - One of the five (genetic perspective) proposes that human life begins at conception. The other four do not. There is no scientific consensus that a "baby" exists at the zygote stage. When we move to Philosophy (another domain science) again - no consensus. Bioethics (another subject matter domain) again - no consensus. While I responded to your "so called evidence" and refuted it directly. You ran and hid - failed to respond directly - to the evidence I provided.
As the title of this thread indicates, it is useless to debate the issue. The simple answer is if you don't believe in abortions, don't get one. If it's o.k. with you then go ahead and get one.
That's its a baby and human baby is a human life. Prove otherwise. What other genus and species does it belong? I post from textbooks as used today. When did you begin? It's not a scientific matter to prove it is a matter of our language and proper use of it as I have proven over and over and over. And again what is your point about a zygote? A stage of life that only last 4 days anyway.
According to human taxonomy (another subject matter domain which defines what a Homo sapiens is the zygote does not meet the criteria for "Homo sapiens". While it is not up to me to prove your defacto claim false - and laughable that you have yet to figure out this fallacious nonsense that has been explained to you numerous times (not being able to prove the moon is not make of green cheese does not prove the claim "the moon is made of green cheese" true) - the above proves that the zygote is not a Homo sapiens. It is classified as a single human eukariotic cell . Your claim that every human cell is a baby - which is what your claim infers - is nonsense. I refuted your quotes from embryology textbooks .. most of which did not claim that the zygote was a baby - and if there was a couple that did make the claim - no evidence was given in support of that claim nor any refutation of claims to the contrary = Opinion = assumed premise fallacy/ appeal to authority (who is not actually an authority as embryology is not a subject matter domain) Long before the zygote according to the metabolic perspective. A perspective which was previously given you - a perspective which you have not addressed never mind refuted - which makes your defacto "its a baby" claim a fallacy. Given your complete failure to use proper language and make coherent arguments - this claim is preposterous nonsense. If it is not a scientific "matter" why have you posted "science" in hopes of supporting your claim ... science from embryology textbooks. Now while it is not a completely scientific matter - there are also philosophical arguments - you have not made any Philosophical arguments that prove a zygote is a baby. I am completely willing to forgo reliance on scientific definitions of what constitutes "a baby". So have at it - give your best Philosophical argument that proves/shows a zygote should be considered a living human - with rights - including the right to life. That is how the argument was couched when I took the abortion debate - for 1 month - in a Philosophy class taught by a Jewish Professor who had his Ph.D from Oxford. If you do not understand the early stages of pregnancy - how are you to understand later on. Regardless - "Pro life" claims that the zygote is a baby. If you do not understand that this claim has not been proven to be true - how on earth will you understand other stages of pregnancy ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ LOL! You saying your point was proven does not prove your point, (whatever it was, seems you can't define your point) WTF does this response have to do with the post of mine you quoted???? Nothing. As to your post here you will have to refresh my memory as this was a week ago and since you never did have a point I don't know what you're talking about.
It is the zygote of a new homo sapien at that stage of it's life. Were you to take the DNA and classify it would be classified as homo sapien not some other genus and species. Your claim that that is what I said is nonsense. You are confusing the scientific determination of when life begans, at conception, with how we term the new life in the womb. Try to get it straight. No you began at conception, when you entered your zygote stage of life. And again the zygote stage of life is only about 4 days, babies that are killed in abortions are generally much older. So why are you harping on the zygote stage? Well stop trying to confuse the two issues and it might become more clear to you. And now you try to inject "rights" which is strictly a legal matter. Is the newly formed life still in it's zygote stage in the human females womb a human zygote, yes. I understand them fully making a 3.2 when I majored in biology. It's a baby from the getgo and all the way through the pregancy and after it is born. Taking Care of You and Your Baby While You’re Pregnant The doctor may do other tests at your first visit. These may vary based on your background and risk for problems. Tests can include: A pelvic exam to check the size and shape of your uterus (womb). A Pap smear to screen for cervical cancer. An ultrasound to view your baby’s growth and position. An ultrasound uses sound waves to create an image of your baby on a video screen. After your first visit, you will have a prenatal visit every 4 weeks. In months 7 and 8, you will have a visit every 2 weeks. In your last month of pregnancy, the visits will occur each week until you deliver your baby. At each visit, the doctor will check your weight and blood pressure and test your urine. The doctor will listen to your baby’s heartbeat and measure the height of your uterus in your abdomen after the 20th week. You should always discuss any issues or concerns you have with your doctor. https://familydoctor.org/taking-care-of-you-and-your-baby-while-youre-pregnant/ It's a baby in the womb and a baby that is killed in the abortion.
People are animals. They are incapable of setting sexual pleasure aside in order to do what is logical. Maybe some day self awareness will advance enough but until then we must rely on cultural traditions such as marriage to encourage good action.
1) No it is not a "Homo sapiens" a single human cell is not a "Homo sapiens" it is a cell "from" a Homo sapiens. You are confused. 2) The zygote cell is gone a few hours after it is created - "its Life" is no more. You are confused. If your claim is that a zygote is a baby - solely on the basis of having human DNA - as you are trying to do by claiming it is a "Homo sapiens" - you are then claiming that all other cells that have human DNA are also babies. I am not confusing anything - just refuting your confusion. "who is we" and how do you term "new life in the womb" You are talking gibberish and not stating what you are even talking about. The idea that you actually studied biology makes your absurd claims even more absurd. The idea that you went to University - but have not yet figured out what an "assumed premise" is - is equally bizarre. No one denies that the zygote is alive - as is every other human cell - and the sperm - what is under debate is whether this makes that entity a baby. More absurd and fallacious nonsense. Running around crying "its a baby its a baby" is not proof of claim. I already know what you are claiming .. repeating your premise is not proof of claim. Holy Carp this is getting stupid. The rest of your post had zero to do with the discussion. "Pelvic exam ? pap smear? ultrasound" how does this help you prove your claim that a zygote is a baby ? Then you follow up with one more fallacious repetition of your original premise "It's a baby in the womb and a baby that is killed in the abortion" Then - after saying you were going to come up with an non-scientific argument for why the zygote is a baby - and saying no problem as I am open to philosophical arguments - you make no argument ? Do you know what an "argument" is ? An argument consists of 2 things 1) statement of claim or premise 2) rational or evidence that shows this claim is true. All you have done is repeat your premise - you have given no rational or evidence that proves your claim true (other than your DNA argument which is "Science" - not a non scientific argument and 2) is refuted by the fact that other human cells having human DNA are not "babies"
Question: Suppose you are in a building and that building is on fire. There is a 5 year old child in one room and a jar containing 1000 embryo's in another. You cannot save both as by the time you save one the fire will prevent you from saving the other. Which do you choose. A) save the child or B) save the 1000 embryo's.
Why can't you accept the fact that no matter what you call it ( you choose the general term), it is legal for the woman to kill it.... If the scientific and legal term changed to "baby" it would still be legal to kill it. If the scientific and legal term was "giraffe" it would still be legal to kill it . BTW, do you call teenagers "babies".? You should since you think we are "babies" from conception....and you should call everyone "baby" no matter what there age since you deny growth stages in humans.
It would be nice if that was the case but control freak Anti-Rights busybodies keep butting in where it's none of their business seriously attacking everyone's right to their own bodies....they need "educatin'" (ya, I know that seems like a hopeless task but someone must fight for our rights against the oppressors..)
Non-sequitur I was not discussing the legality. Legality does not change the fact it is a human baby that is killed in an abortion. And you can protest the proper usage of the word as I use it and as I have repeatedly cited to you, THAT does not change the fact of what actually occurs in an abortion.
What an absurd question. What is the point of your hypothetical question? What does it do to refute the fact that a human baby is killed in an abortion. Try to focus.
Well first how many abortions are conducted on one cell humans? So what is your point? And second that DNA in that zygote is of the species homo sapien. It never was anything else, it will never be anything else. Third had you ever taken a course in embryology you would know that with the cells of the growing Zygote quickly divide and start to specialize. And each division is just another stage of life of that being which turns from a single cell to multi-cell and single cells no longer represent the entire living being. T Is that the best rebuttal you got? Perhaps you should study some embryology and cell development. Especially the difference between diploid and haploid cells. I have thuroughly shown that referring the life in the womb as a baby is perfectly acceptable and proper use of the word. It's baby as much as you want to deny it. What on earth do you think happens in an abortion??? And so is the fetus, the stage of life when abortions occur. Prove that a noticeable percentage of abortions occur while the life is still in the zygote stage.
As usual you avoid and deflect. Answer the question. Who do you save - the child or the 1000 embryo's. Try to focus.
Why what's the point? How does it dispute the fact that the life in the womb is a baby? And a jar of 1000 embryos would be 1000 dead embryos so as I said you question is entirely absurd. How about two women are hanging off the edge of the Grand Canyon and you can only save one of them. One is pregnant the other is not. Which one do you save? See I can ask absurd hypothetical questions which serve no purpose too.
Just because the DNA in the zygote is human DNA - does not make the Zygote a Homo sapiens. A human heart cell has human DNA - does this make a human heart cell a "Homo sapiens" ? Not even close Clearly you skipped the human taxonomy part of the Biology lecture. Classification of organisms is based on characteristics/traits of that organism. Having a spine, asexual/sexual, and so on. In order to make it into the club "Homo sapiens" the organism has to have membership in all the other clubs - Domain, Phylum, Class, Order, Phylum, Genus, Species and so on. The zygote has membership in one group - Domain .. it is a single eukaryotic cell. Your "stage of life" is flawed - being a stage in the creation of something does not make that stage the thing that is being created. At the zygote stage - not a single human cell in the structure of the human being created exists. Obviously one you can not refute All you have done is repeated your premise as if repetition is proof of claim. The only evidence you have provided so far is that the zygote contains human DNA - same DNA as other human cells that - cells that are not classified as "humans". 1) the subject of the discussion is your claim that the zygote is a baby. Try to focus. 2) You have yet to make a valid argument showing that the zygote is a baby/living human. Were you going to do something other than ask silly questions that do not relate to the topic and repetition of premise or is that all you have ?
Again you avoid and deflect. This is not surprising give out previous conversations. You are so disingenuous that you would claim "the sun might not rise tomorrow" if you thought you could avoid being wrong. Since you refuse to answer the question " Would you save the 1000 embryo's or a 5 year old child " I will answer for you. Unless you are completely deranged - and I'm sure there are some out there that are - you would save the child. The reason you would save the child is because you do not value the embryo the same as a child. (substitute baby if you like). In fact you do not value 1000 or even 10 thousand embryo's the same as a baby. This is because the embryo is not a baby.
Yes it is a zygote of the group homo sapien and no other group. And a heart cell is just one cell of a multicellular being but that heart cell is of the species homo sapien. The subject is whether the life in the womb is a baby. Yes it is as I have demonstrated. You don't get to change the meanings of words. And why do you limit your discussion to just the zygote stage is that tacit admission that after that it is a baby? And again I ask you, what is it you think happens in an abortion?
Of course a human heart cell is human - from a human - and thus from a Homo sapiens. This does not make the heart cell a human, nor does it make the heart cell a Homo sapiens - same thing for the zygote. Prove your claim that a zygote is a Homo sapiens by showing that it meets the taxonomic criteria for Homo sapiens. If it does not meet these criteria - then it is not a "Homo sapiens" The subject is your claim that the zygote is a baby. I realize that you are desperate to move the goal posts to other stages - but this will not help your argument unless you want to make the "potential" argument - that a zygote has the potential to create a human. What happens in an abortion is irrelevant to whether not a zygote is a human. Regardless an abortion stops the process of human creation - both at the zygote stage and many stages later depending on when it is performed. I answered your question -despite the fact that it was completely irrelevant to the topic. You however refuse to answer the simple question of whether you would choose to save the 1000 embryos or the 5 yr old child. This is because you are disingenuous.
The king of non-sequitur (it does not follow) calling out someone on non-sequitur. How quaint. It does not follow that because the zygote has human DNA - that the zygote is a living human. Proof: other human cells have human DNA - and they are not classified as living humans.
Why can't you accept the fact that no matter what you call it ( you choose the general term), it is legal for the woman to kill it.... THE REST OF THE CHERRY PICKED POST: If the scientific and legal term changed to "baby" it would still be legal to kill it. If the scientific and legal term was "giraffe" it would still be legal to kill it . BTW, do you call teenagers "babies".? You should since you think we are "babies" from conception....and you should call everyone "baby" no matter what there age since you deny growth stages in humans. I didn't protest and haven't protested in all the dozen or so posts where I told you you could call it anything you wanted and NOTHING changes.... No, it doesn't ...so? I have repeatedly said you may call it anything you'd like....I am confused as to why you keep arguing about it. Hey, go to the Supreme Court and say abortion should be banned because you call a fetus a baby....those old farts could use a good LAUGH!!!
