My reading comprehension is good enough to know that it is you that uses false terminology and not I. If you are going to accuse someone .. then show some proof. I have shown how the specific terminology that you use is obfuscative and unclear. "a developing human life". What false terminology are you talking about ? Good .. if the zef has nothing to do with human reproduction then you should have no problem recognizing it is not a human. The status of the zygote is one of the primary, if not the primary, argument of the debate ? The reason you do not want to discuss the zygote is because you have no valid rational that justifies not ceding that it is a human being. We can go further down the line if you like.. embryo, fetus and so on. I have no problem with that. You are still going to have the same question to answer which is: "If no human being exists at the zygote stage, then when does a human being exist" Your claim " it is developing human life" or "potential human life" is no more valid for an embryo than it is a zygote. 1)I never said that there was no value in an embryo. 2) your generalization of disagreement to all women is a fallacy.
As I already posted it is a gentle wind. Another example of the pro-aborters wishing to minimize the abortion procedure.
It's real definition is as an abbreviation of 'zephyr' and is used to describe a small puff of wind. It also is used to describe flatulence. Your definition of 'zef' as an acronym makes no sense at all.
OK so now I know you didn't even read the post you were commenting on. Your continual use of 'human being' when I use the term developing human life. You wish to minimize abortion by saying an embryo is not a 'human being' while I maintain that it is a developing human life. That is using false terminology. Moreover the use of the word 'zygote' in relation to abortion when a zygote is not available for abortion. There is no such thing as a 'zef' it is a made-up acronym so pro-aborters can ease their conscience. I told you that and it apparently either went over your head, you failed to comprehend accurately or you are just prevaricating. A zygote is not available for abortion. How many times do I have to reiterate? Again you prevaricate, or misunderstand. A zygote is a developing human life that is not available for abortion. Pro aborters would rather use 'zef' or 'zygote' instead of the reality that an abortions entails ripping either an embryo or a fetus from the endometrium female uterus. Of course you don't that is a given in this discussion. That's because you stubbornly fail to accept that from the point of conception there is a developing human life. Stop trying to yet again move the goalposts. We are discussing a developing human life. Apparently you have no qualms in killing that life for whatever reason. OK answer this: Will a zygote, embryo or fetus eventually develop into a human being if not killed in the process? Well if you are for killing an embryo then apparently it is at most of little value to you. I provided references to women who regretted their abortions. I did not say 'all' women and obviously, if you have even been reading this forum, you'd already know there are women who are perfectly sanguine with aborting their offspring.
It is not a human being. Glad you agree. . I do not use this term.. it was you that brought it up. I have always accepted that a zygote is human life and it is developing. What you have failed to do is show why we should give something rights because it happens to be developing. Stop trying to pretend that you have made a coherent argument stating why development is important. The embryo and the mass of cells after will eventually develop into a human. Agreed. Why should it be given rights on this basis ?
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Human_development_(biology) Understanding Human Development, p. 58 http://www.abbreviations.com/ZEF http://www.acronymgeek.com/ZEF/Zygote,_Embryo,_Fetus http://www.blurtit.com/q8484102.html
Good, do you think it is moral to kill a developing human life for convenience sake? Why should I show that? Without development there would be no human beings. Seems pretty important to me. We have a misunderstanding, I was never discussing legal rights.
A heart cell is a developing human life .. I do not see much of a problem with it. True but we are not talking about stoping all human development .. just a few from developing into humans which is actually a benefit because the world has too many people already.
Your cell analogy is pretty weak. You are in essence just a bunch of cells squashed together. What is the difference Between you and....a length of intestine...which is also just a bunch of cells. Nothing eh?
That's an answer to a question I NEVER asked....An obvious attempt to rephrase, obfuscate and prevaricate. Yet ANOTHER answer to a question I NEVER asked.
I make no such analogy. There is a world of difference between a zygote and a human yet both are "developing human life"
Stating facts is not obfuscation. If you would use proper terms then your meaning would be clear. What is the question you would like answered ?
It's this kind of thinking that brings discredit on nonbelief. We're charged with cynical amorality, because we refuse to acknowledge any such thing as divine authority. You write as if it is self-evident that abortion is morally legitimate. Surely you're not so far into the tank of the choicer kool-aid, as to think that it is self-evident?? The prolife argument is simplicity itself: any entities gestating in the body of a member of a sexually reproducing species, belong to the species. All members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are original life, and entitled to be treated according to certain standards, which include not being subject to arbitrary destruction. The pro-choice position, on the other hand, has justifications that are all over the map: some cringingly simplistic and consequentialist (treating life as a mere means), some just byzantine in their convoluted reasoning. Christopher Hitchens was absolutely right when he spoke of the role of intellectuals in a free society: on the one hand, we have a responsibility to dilate on complexity when confronted with the oversimplifications of the feeble-minded; but we have an equal responsibility to give unequivocal voice to the recognition of realities that it is morally irresponsible to contest. For years, choicers contested whether original human life was even alive. That was an unsustainable conceit, and they have had to acknowledge the plain fact of it. Now they have moved to more esoteric arguments, happily wallowing in bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The whole ethos of the European Enlightenment involved a thoroughgoing working-out of the implications of the traditions of Western Humanism. A comprehensive Pro-Life stance today seeks to do no less. To be pro-life means to be against marking original life for exploitation or even destruction, merely because it is more convenient for us - no matter whether that life be the perpetrator of a "capital crime," or rare habitat, or mere "second-class citizens." The arbitary disposal of all those original forms of life, indeed, is something much more in line with the worldview of religious dogmatists. We are better than they are; and what makes us better, is that we act to uphold our principles, even when it is not convenient for us to do so. It is the height of foolishness, to think that something your opponent thinks, is wrong simply because it is your opponent who thinks it. Humanism is morally serious, and we need to start respecting its moral seriousness.
Here is an outcome of the "right to death" crowd. Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for 'wrongful birth' after child born with Down syndrome http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/portland_couple_sues_legacy_he.html Leave it to the left coast. You now sue if you were not given the opportunity to kill your child.
Which is a problem when two entities occupy the same body. They cannot both have equal rights. Not at all. We believe that women should be able to choose whether to continue with their pregnancy, as it impacts on their body and not the body of any other person.
let me ask, does life begin when your nothing but a joined egg and sperm, or does the vessel grow until it can support life - what about when you die, is it when every cell in your body is dead and gone or is it when your life force has left the vessel
Morality comes from logic? A monkey has logic. Morality comes from being human and all that it entails, from being honest with yourself and seriously contemplating your feelings. None of our logic is perfect, but our ability to produce logic and morals IS. And it IS special. We cannot afford to loose a single human life because it's so special. Abortion is okay ONLY when the woman is raped, she was a victim of incest, or when the birth would endanger the life of her AND the baby. AND DON'T FREAKING WAIT FOR THE FETUS TO DEVELOP IF YOU CAN HELP IT!!!
