How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Of course a Zygote can be something other than a human. That is why it is called a zygote - and not a human.

If you want to get more technical - a zygote is a single human cell. That is what it is. Many single human cells are not humans. Heart cells, brain cells, skin cells and so on.

How many times does this silliness of this argument need explained to you for you to understand ?

 

Still wailing on (pun intended) engaging in the same fallacy that has been proven as such countless times by countless posters.

Now that is disgusting. It is disgusting commentary on human intellect.

Since you have never been able to show that your claim "A zygote is a Child" is true - quit stating this claim as if you have.

 

Good grief what a bunch of nonsense. God proscribes abortion in the Bible. Who are you to put words in the mouth of God - the unforgivable sin.

It looks like you are the one who - at least according to Jesus - will end up in the "Lake of Fire".

 

YHWH is not the God of Jesus.

 

IMHO, abortion should be tolerated only in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Otherwise, no. Life begins at conception. Unless some outside force acts on the fetus, or there is some natural issue that occurs that interrupts devolopement, a new living Human Being will be born.

 

All of gods words were invented by man. God says so!

As long as your humble opinion remains on the outside of her humble uterus.

 

Of course but - that is not the point. The point is that those that believe they are God's words - and rail against abortion in the name of God - have no clue what they are talking about as the YHWH of the Bible proscribes abortion.

 

That's because Jesus IS YHWH.

 

Anyone can have an opinion .. humble or honest or otherwise but, is it informed.

1) in the case of rape and incest .. the means of creation of that child has no bearing on weather the zygote is a living human and thus no bearing on whether or not that entity is entitled to rights - including the right to life - on the basis of being a living human.

2) Your " a living human exists at conception" is an assumed premise. If you want to make this claim "defacto" as you have done - you need to show that this claim is true - and you have not done so.

For example - there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins - Genetic, Metabolic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological.

The Genetic perspective agree's with you (albeit this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists) - the other 4 do not.

In order to claim the Genetic perspective is defacto true - you must refute the other 4 claims. Starting with the metabolic which views life as a continuum for example. Since a sperm is human life - obviously human life begins prior to conception. In addition - animate does not come from inanimate.

The next point is that even if one could say "human life begins here" this is not the same as saying "a living human exists" at this point.

You must define what a human is - and show that this special human cell - aka the zygote - meets that criteria.

You must also explain what the significant difference is between other human cells and the zygote - that makes one a living human and the others not.

Have fun.

 

Care to explain the difference in an abortion due to rape and one due to consensual sex?

 

Nope. Is that what you tell jurors who do on a gun murder trial panel?

 

Yawn, excuses excuses, nonetheless children in utero have human rights according to federal law!

 

A human zygote is a human being, just as an infant human child is a human being.
It is so fun to watch people who are in over their heads!

 

Ad hominem nonsense doesn’t win debates.

The fact is that a fetus is a human being. Don’t like it? I don’t care!

 

A lump of cells does not have rights. A parasitic twin does not have rights.

You lose.

 

You haven't proven it. We know you don't care. You are an authoritarian statist who wants to install theocratic dictatorship over the people of this nation.

Your entire narrative was birthed by the same disgusting charlatan RATS that molested children and raped children.

How ironic that the Catholic church would spearhead this disgusting narrative, and you would lap it up.

 

Nope I have already proven you wrong. The UVVA destroys your silly notion.

 

No, you haven't. One piece of legislation does not a scientific ruling make, so can your catholic bleating bullshit and stop injecting your ****ing nose into other folks' business.

 

No, you haven't, being an apologist for those disgusting Rodents in the Catholic church doesn't help your cause either.

It's ironic because you show the same lack of empathy for the fetus post birth as the Catholic church does. To you, they're unworthy of support. To the church, they're worthy of rape and molestation.

Everything your disgusting ideology touches turns black and rots.

 

Yawn. You lose. A child in utero at any stage of development has human rights under federal law!!!

 

I don't care if you're not catholic. The catholics created your disgusting ideology and then evangelist retards like Jerry Falwell catalyzed it within the evangelist movement.

You disgust me.

 

Whew, she is losin it now. Hate hate and more hate, all in the name of justifying child homicide.

 

No. It is not.

Roe exists.

Romans 13:1-7

 

You don’t know my ideology punkin. How about trying to stay on topic.

 

The UVVA exists.