Any consensus yet on when a zygote becomes a real human?

The Charlotte Lozier Institute is yet another pro-life propaganda machine spouting ill informed rubbish dedicated to the de-funding of PP - http://www.politicalresearch.org/20...ategies-in-war-on-women/#sthash.WKcG8E3e.dpbs

If you want to know the really laws of the Worlds countries abortion laws, you can find them here = http://worldabortionlaws.com/

Pretty much EVERY 1st world country allows elective abortion up to a varying gestation level.

 

Only applies if the female has not consented, UVVA type laws are nothing more than an extra enforcement of a females right to consent what happens to her body, find a single convicted case of a person killing a fetus where the female has consented.

Whether ethics or morality are involved in the argument isn't relevant, I can no more dictate your ethics or morality than anyone else can dictate them to a pregnant woman, furthermore both are fluid and change as society changes, there is no such thing as universal ethics or morality no matter how much theists would like to suggest there is.

 

As usual you fall into the misconception that SOCIALLY dependent is the same thing as BIOLOGICALLY dependent.

 

The above is known as a misinterpretation, or if you prefer a strawman .. in no reply does the poster state anything about whether LIFE is determined upon who feeds and shelters.

 

you do spout some utter rubbish, most of the rest of the worlds societies accept elective abortion, furthermore your so called dignity argument does not apply in anyway shape or form to the unborn . .even The Universal Declaration of Human Rights only applies to the born as can be plainly seen in Article 1 - "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

 

Just another nonsensical excuse to off a defenseless human for selfish desires.

 

Just another squirming avoidance excuse for things you cannot comprehend or answer.

 

A Carrot is alive...a cabbage is alive.

A Human Being does not exist until it is born and is separated...cord cut...from the female.

AboveAlpha

 

Ya, the Pentagon likes to call it "collateral damage" and LOTS of Americans are all for it...

 

I don't think the zygote becomes a human for a long time.

And I think it's perfectly right and moral to let it grow for a few weeks and then cut it up in a DNA experiment.

The aliens have this thing, see? And you shouldn't ever consider it cutting up a baby. They do it before it becomes aware of the environment.

This was the most sensible thing I have ever heard! And this was back when I was still a Christian.

 

Arkansas Act 301 already passed in Arkansas and then overrode Governor Beebe's veto. The PASSED 12-week ban on abortions does not include ANYTHING where there is a medical necessity to abort gestation.
Frivolous is a loaded word and certainly applies very often "in my opinion".
I do not hate women in general and do not generally hate anyone.

 

It may seem cold to write off life as "non-human" simply because it doesn't possess a complex brain or consciousness. However, most of us do this already simply by eating meat. In fact, I guarantee you that the pig who died so that you could have pork was more neurologically developed than an aborted fetus.

Not so say that I'm against eating meat, but if we're going to be consistent here, it would seem that we have to use neurological complexity as a moral guideline.

As a side note, I am a father. I never considered an abortion when my son was on the way, even though it wasn't convenient. It's a hard thing, to say no to a potential human being. It should make anyone hesitate. However, do I believe he was a full-fledged human being at the time? NO. Only a possibility, which was enough to convince me I wanted him. I think everyone should be allowed to make that choice.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure most of us aren't cannibals.

I don't give a damn if that pig can do tensor calculus, it ain't a human being.

Consistent with what, exactly?

Not what we're talking about, obviously.

And what, precisely, is the difference between that and a human being which is not "full fledged"?

So do I, the minute he or she can prove that fetus isn't a human being.

 

Uh, only women make the choice in reference to aborting or not.

 

You are being selfish expecting women to gestate and give birth against their will just because *you* think they should.

 

Proof that it isn't in my country:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-223.html

 

In my country in 1857 it was "proved" that black people were not human beings.

 

And that was wrong and that has changed.....did you have a point?

Whether one is a person or not has nothing to do with skin color but one must be born to be a person.


See, women are human beings, too, with all rights men have......they weren't always considered fully human but are now and have the same rights anyone else has..

 

#301 will be ruled Unconstitutional.

AboveAlpha

 

Incorrect. SLAVES were considered 3/5 persons SOLELY for the purpose of the census and political representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise


Not that this has anything to do with zefs or abortion anyway.

 

Not in the least, trust me.

Which might be interesting had I appealed, even implicitly, to the 3/5 clause.

It has plenty to do with your preposterous implication that a being can transition from human to nonhuman by crossing a geographical boundary.

 

Prove it.

Then what were you referring to?

I never said it isn't human. Ever. Please do not misrepresent me.

 

Scott v Sandford, obviously.

Of course you did, in #91.

 

She posted ""A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act """


NO where did she say it isn't human.

 

where in post #91 does the author claim that a fetus is NOT a human being, or is this yet again your attempts to misrepresent other people?