As I pointed out it is clearly ambiguous as the terms can have multiple meanings. Human life can refer to a human skin cell or "a human" The point was to show you the different meanings of the term develop/development. Changing from what it is now (something that is not a human) into a human. This is not really correct however. The zygote does not change into a human. The zygote does not exist after the first mitotic division. The zygote development ends after the first mitotic division. The zygote is a human cell It is never one celled egg. The egg and sperm come together to form the first human cell. The act of creation is indeed separate from the zygote. It is the DNA in the zygote that is doing the creating. The zygote dissappears after the first mitotic division .. the DNA goes on to direct the creation of a human. Termination of the life a cell terminates "developing/changing" human life. What is wrong with terminating the life of a cell. Agreed, until it ceases to exist after the first mitotic division. I have never suggested eating a developing human life however, I have eaten a skin cell or two in my life and I do not think eating developing human life is necessarily immoral. Eating a zygote seems a bit disgusting .. granted. I notice you completely avoided the subject of "what is a human". This seems typical of anti aborts because as soon as we define what a human is it becomes abundantly clear that a zygote is not one.
Our discussion has been about a developing human life. I am saying that abortion terminates that life. That is fact. You keep moving the goal-posts and now want me to define a human being because that way you can minimize the process and convince yourself that a zygote is like a skin cell. I disagree but that is fine, you have your opinion I have mine. But then, as I said, I am a man and what I think doesn't really matter in the eyes of the law. I'm done here.
Of course abortion is the termination of human life. I have never denied this. The only relevent question after this is what kind of human life ? All you have to say at this point is "developing/changing" human life. What does this mean ? "Life that is changing into a human" This refers to what the entity will be in the future .. not what it is now. What is it now ? What kind of developing human life is it ? Is it a human cell? .. of course it is. What else is it ? What attributes does the zygote have that are significantly different from every other human cell other than the potential to create a human, turn into a human, develop into a human which has little to do with the zygote cell but has everything to do with the zygote DNA. You are arguing potential but clouding it with ambiguous language that really means potential when interpreted correctly and nothing more.
Strawman argument In fact it is not even an argument - just a very mouldy straw man sagging in the rain
Wrong, it is a potential human being. Over half of all fertilized eggs are never implanted. 15 to 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Some pregnancies end in stillbirth. If not terminated, that "something" MAY develop into a human being.
WRONG. it is a human being. Natural death by failure to impand does not erase the existence of the human being.
I was very clear...abortion terminates a DEVELOPING human life. Pro-abortion folks always change the discussion to 'human being' because they cannot in good conscience think they are terminating a developing human life. The fact is that a zygote, unless terminated, will develop into a human being. You just said as much. If the zygote is terminated naturally through miscarriage, stillbirth etc. that is sad but just a random act of nature. An abortion is a willful termination which, if one has any kind of conscience, will have a huge negative impact on not only the zygote, but the would-be mother and other close relatives as well.
So then it is the "DEVELOPING" that makes the difference and if so why? Actually it is the anti-choice people who can not reason outside their religious dogma that must insist on the sanctity of "human life" but oddly enough only some of it. So what? Why is random OK? That may be, but why don't you worry about your own and let others do the same?
Pro-abortionists say a zygote is not a 'human being.' This absolves them from any guilt in terminating a zygote because, to them, a zygote is just a bunch of cells. I have presented the FACT that a zygote will develop into a human being unless terminated. No one I know is 'anti-choice' that is a buzz-phrase for pro-abortionists. In our society it is moral to kill in self-defense, to execute a murderer and to kill in time of war to protect one's homeland. The termination of a developing human life falls in none of those categories. I presented a fact, I am not here to preach morals to you. I said it was SAD...Which means it's NOT OK however, one has no control over random acts of nature. Worry is not the adequate word. More like concern over the path we seem to be taking toward the devaluation of human life for what is often 'convenience' sake. I have no power over 'others' just participating in a discussion. OK?
That something will develop/change over time from one thing into something else does not make a catapillar a butterfly. It does not make an infant an adult. It does not make an ape a human It does not make a zygote a human. Your "its a developing human life" claim does not make the zygote a human. The reason that you do not want to talk about what defines a human is because you know that the zygote does not fall within that definition. If you do think a zygote falls within that definition then state why. You have presented no facts.. You have not even clarified what you mean by your ambiguous terminology. I already stated that your terminology could have multiple meanings yet you have not given any clarification to what you mean. How is presenting ambiguous terminology presenting facts ? Such terminology obscures the facts which is the favorite tool of the anti aborts. "devaluation of human life" .. yet another attempt to use ambiguous language to obscure the facts. What is the value of a human cell aka human life .. and who is trying to devalue it. The only argument you have made so far is that there is a "Potential Human" On this point I agree that there seems to be some value in this potential beyond that of a cell.
The discussion is not about metamorphosis. The discussion is not about infants. The discussion is not about an ape A zygote is a developing human life. Never said a zygote was a human being. It is however going to become a human being unless terminated. A zygote is a unique life form with all the genetic code to make a human being. It is a developing human life. What part of "A zygote is a developing human life" is so mystifying to you? And your statements were wrong. See Above I didn't present ambiguous terminology. I stated fact. Apparently you have some trouble processing facts when it comes to a discussion about abortion. I presented facts about human reproduction and you reply with caterpillars, butterflies and apes. What's up with that? You have already devalued a developing human life when you compared a zygote to a skin cell. Depends on which human cell you are talking about...nice try though. Not sure if I used the word 'potential' I think Prometheus used that to blast me. I am discussing a zygote which is a developing human life. It is not a POTENTIAL developing human life because it WILL be a human unless terminated somehow. Of course there is because it WILL develop into a human being. (unless terminated)
Is going to become = Potential Potential Nothing "Developing human life" is an ambiguous term. Developing has many possible meanings. Human life can refer to any human cell or a person. A zygote is a developing human cell until the first mitosis at which time the zygote cell as an entity no longer exists so it can "develop" no further. Developing refers to an entity that is changing .. all the entities mentioned are entities that are changing from one thing to another. The purpose was to show that just because something changes from A to B, does not mean that A is B. The zygote is very similar to other human cells. I "uplifted" the status of the zygote by saying what the siginificant difference is. (Potential to become a human) . The definition of potential is "something that will be in the future" The central question here is how to value of something that "will be" a human in the future but it not a human now. What is the value of something that will, in time, develop into a human but is not a human now ? What is the value of something that is human life, but is not a living human ?
My what somersaults you go through in order to minimize abortion. I see the same old mantra you have been posting over and over again. I have already addressed all your issues at least twice. Time to stop wasting time. Good bye.
Your continued baseless claims and denial of the truth is what is the waste of time here. Your claims have been shown to be nothing more than a dressed up way of saying that the zygote has the "potential" to become a human. You can not quantify the value in that potential and so you are out of material in support of your beliefs. Rather than change your beliefs you seek to demonize those that challenge your beliefs and deny reality. Do take your ball on your way out the door.
Ah the arrogant abortion promoter, gotta love em. Actually you have not proven any of your assertions and a zygote is a human being. So you take your toys and go home!
Indeed, they won't even recognize a zygote as a developing human life. That way it's easier to terminate it. Conscience however, does catch up eventually to a lot of women who have aborted.
Oh please, do try and maintain at least a basic level of integrity. Can you show a single quote by anyone who denied that it is a developing human life? Of course not, which leaves the question whether you are blatantly lying or can not tell the difference between what a being, a human being, is and developing life is?
I see that you still are having difficulty with reading comprehension. Many elementary schools offer remedial reading classes that you could attend to remedy that problem.
You both talk as if you respect human life yet when asked you avoid answering questions to establish that fact as truth. 1. Are you totally against war for any reason? 2. Are you against the death penalty? 3. Are you against abortion (a) in the case of incest, (b) rape (c) in the event the woman could be damaged or lose her life. An answer to those would establish if you are in truth concerned about human life or just a lot of talk. I believe from having read other posts from you both that you are just standing on a soap box to control women.
