Righties only consider that a "SAD DAY"......no compassion, empathy, sympathy, NO humane feeling whatsoever....
FoxHastings said: ↑ Some people think dancing is immoral.....are they absolutely correct ? Why am I NOT surprised you couldn't respond to a post...
Look - The zygote does not grow into a human .. the zygote is gone after the first cell division.. and a human is not a plant .. having no brain ... and numerous other components required to be classified as a Homo Sapien - a living human. Not a single cell of the human in the DNA blueprint has been created .. and it won't be for quite some time .. After the first division you have 2 zygotes .. then 4 then more .. every single one capable of creating a new human .. none of which will ever be part of the human structure under creation .. these are the builders ... not the building .. discarded after the fact - to research labs for stem cell research. That is the fate of the Zygote Clan .. They do not grow into a human.
I wasn’t aware of this, so knowing this I would argue it’s still the seed of dna, I mean it can’t be created without it right? Can it be used in any other way other than to create a human?
No .. it is not a seed - but even if it were .. a Seed is not a beanstalk. We are talking about a single human cell here .. you don't refer to a single heart cell as a Heart do you - never mind reffering to it as a human. The creator of a human is not a human ... so what difference does it make if the cell has other functions? That this cell has the ability to start a process which might - in rare circumstances creat a human - does not make that cell a human. The heart cell also has this ability -- as do the aforementioned 2-300 zygotes that come after the parent .. the difference being that these zygotes have the codes "Create a Human" turned on... The heart cell has these codes .. they are just not turned on.... We can turn them on in a lab - hence why we are able to bring ancient extict species back to life
More than one pro-abortion person on this forum has referred to the unborn as a “ potential human being.” If it merely has the potential of becoming a human being what else might it become?
Yes, a POTENTIAL human BEING. That does not say it isn't human. NO one has said a human ZEF isn't human....but it's NOT A human as in born legal person, A human. See, there's nouns (a human) and adjectives( human) ....that's just how English works
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, a POTENTIAL human BEING. That does not say it isn't human. NO one has said a human ZEF isn't human....but it's NOT A human as in born legal person, A human. See, there's nouns (a human) and adjectives( human) ....that's just how English works Another non-answer....so typical...
Nope! Life BEGAN 4.5 BILLIONS years ago. At conception all you have is the COMBINATION of two sets of DNA that are NOT unique. There can be a FAILURE during the first two weeks when the DNA is recombining which means that there will be no "new" human. There can be a FAILURE within the fallopian tube which means that there will be no "new" human. There can be a FAILURE during the implantation into the wall of the uterus which means that there will be no "new" human. There can be a FAILURE during the fetal development which means that there will be no "new" human. FACTS matter!
1) Who cares what it might become - it is not that thing now 2) The zygote will never "Become" a human - the zygote is part of the creation process which might result in a human - as is the egg and sperm .. none of which are humans 3) a single human cell is not a human - not a heart cell - brain cell or the totipotent cell at conception.
Yes, I did. You are just choosing to deny it. There is nothing I can do about that, as that is your issue. WRONG. Re-read what I said. You have refuted nothing. You merely continue to evade and deny science and logic. How is "a human in the first stage of human development" somehow "not a human"?? You are now quite literally denying the proof of identity, Giftedone... You are stuck in paradox. In the same manner that an adult is a human, an adolescent is a human, a child is a human, a baby is a human, a newborn is a human, a fetus is a human, and an embryo is a human, a zygote is likewise a human. These are all stages of HUMAN development. If the zygote is not a human, then WHAT SPECIES IS IT??? This is where you get caught up in paradoxes due to your denial of science and logic... Correct, as I've already said. RAAA. RQAA. I have already shown it. Never made such an argument. I've already told you precisely why there is a human in existence at the zygote stage of human development. You are instead choosing to deny science and logic. That is your prerogative. What species is the zygote? What species does the zygote develop into if not a human? Have you ever seen a dog develop into a cat? A tree develop into a snake? A human develop into an elephant? This level of science and logic denial is truly laughable. You just got done trying to tell me that a zygote is NOT a human, remember?? You need to identify the different species that the zygote actually is if "not a human"... You have failed to do this. All of us on this forum are waiting for you to tell us what species the zygote actually is since it is supposedly not a human. The floor is yours. ... but as you admit, the blueprint exists in the zygote. All of the DNA necessary for human development is present right there. IOW, human life is present right there. I'm not interested in what you find difficult to accept. I'm interested in science and logic, that which you are choosing to deny because you deep down in your conscience know that your support of killing a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die is morally reprehensible and abhorrent. Thus enters your need to dehumanize the subject in question... Yes. It is of the homo sapien species, is where the formation of the "human blueprint" occurs, and is where the process of human development begins. (zygote -> embryo -> fetus -> newborn -> child -> adolescent -> adult -> elderly -> dead) Once a zygote is formed, the zygote strives to go through all of the following stages of human development and life. Once there is a zygote, there is a living human. This is science. This is logic. No, it doesn't. You don't speak for scientists. RQAA.
You said so much but then dodged that question ALL Anti-Choicers have dodged: """"" then tell us why this future possibile potential over-rides the rights of a woman.""""" What rights do you want the fetus to have that don't interfere in the rights of the woman it is in? Perpetually unanswered
What monstrous nonsense .. your argument "its a human because its a human" is circular fallacy on steroids .. repetition of premise. You can not claim a developing human exists - until you first show a human exists .. and you have not. We do not give species designation to a single human cell - not how it works - and this was told to you previously Mr. "denial of both science and logic" You then say .. "It is of the homo sapiens spiecies" .. which is correct - something I already told you. A cell from a human "of a human" is not a human .. nor is it a Homo Sapiens (NOUN) .. it is a Homo sapien cell (descriptive adjective) So it turns out that the one who's "level of denial of logic and science" is not me - despite your desperate attemts to project your failings onto others. In addition to this illogical science denial - you yet to get the distinction between a noun and a descriptive adjective - despite having this explained to you numerous times.
Of course it is .. you argued "Its a human because it is a developing human" Since a developing human is "A Human" .. you are arguing a human is a human. circlular fallacious gibberish on steroids.. repetition of premise is not proof of claim mate. You run around claiming others lack logic ..but it seems you are the one who might benefit from a logic lesson. You could also reverse your fallacious circular reasoning ... and argue "Its a developing human so its a human" and that would be equally as fallacious . as you have yet to show that a human exists .. but want to claim a developing human exists. .. Nooooo .. thats not how it works..
Not what I argued. You did not keep up with the discussion very well. Again, you have no clue what a circular argument fallacy even is if you think that a circular argument in and of itself is a fallacy. It is not. Nope, YOU are the one in need of it, as was just displayed above. WRONG. A circular argument in and of itself is not fallacious. It is the attempt to prove it that is the fallacy. You are also incorrect about my reasoning. I am not making a circular argument of any kind. You didn't keep up with the discussion very well. RQAA. It does. It's precisely how it works.
