What if life does begin at conception?

Not legally and that is what matters and that is what protects women from those who wish to make them nothing more than slaves.

 

Well that isn't true....I answered.....I said it doesn't matter if it starts then......and commented if life starts then how do dead people conceive?

 

The law does not determine scientific and medical facts. I already told you I agree to the stipulation that in the United States abortion is legal you don't need to keep stating as such especially in a non-legal discussion. This is about when the human life begins and that it is a human life that is killed in the abortion, an unborn baby.

Try to focus.

 

As I said the bogus slavery canard.

 

I'm not obfuscating anything. I believe "it" is human as soon as an ovum is fertilized. How can that confuse you?

 

Then the question in the OP doesn't concern you.

 

what's being asked is, do you agree with agw & abortion, if so explain how the 'what if' is good enough for one but not the other...

 

AGAIN: SO WHAT?


You keep posting the obvious as if you have a point !!!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Good, tell that to those Anti-Choicers who bring it to the discussion in regard to the fetus.



When they do I remind them that banning abortion is taking away women's right to their own bodies which IS slavery.

You keep repeating that BUT you NEVER can refute it.....



You have NEVER shown how it's bogus so you have NOTHING.

 

That seems to be the bulk of his "Debate" tactic and skills.

 

I support Neither. AGW wants to give money to government in order to fix global warming. There is What "what if" are you talking about.

 

If you don't support AGW and if you don't think we should have energy, economic and lifestyle policy based on what if it's true then the question in the OP is not addressed to you.

 

WHO is it addressed to and what is the point (if any) ?

 

So then we can just come grab a kidney from you when we need it?

 

So what does killing a ZEF (since abortion is not limited to the fetus stage) have to do with?

 

You keep asking what if life begins at conception. And not a single person has claimed that it doesn't. So obviously the issue of human life begining at conception isn't an issue. If we have been directly noting that life does indeed begin at conception, how are we avoiding the question?

 

What makes a person a person? Is a brain dead but otherwise functioning body a person?

 

And there it is. The changing of the field goal. That was not the original OP question. Your initial question has nothing to do with personhood, and when we noted about personhood, we were told this is not part of the question.

That said, even if the ZEF is an individual with rights and all, those rights still do not override those of the woman to no longer be pregnant.

So in both cases, the answer to the question is: it doesn't matter. The woman's rights Trump the situation even if true.

 

Please. You know better. If this were only about when a human life begins in scientific terms (something that there has yet to be a disagreement on in this thread) then the thread would notbe in the abortion forum. Because it is, the question obviously relates to whether the woman or the ZEF hold the dominant position of rights.

 

Well, if cells are people, then you are a mass murderer because you and your body have slaughtered countless trillions of cells, bacteria, and viruses. If cells are people and you don't want to kill anymore, I think you know what you have to do to end the killing.

Cells don't have brains and no nervous system, and there is zero evidence that they are even sentient and self-aware. They are biological machines driven by forces of chemistry. They aren't intelligent in any way and don't have the physical and mental traits that we associate with human people. So I am 99.9% sure that cells aren't people. Now, if you are still personally unsure, then feel free to never get an abortion. But don't violate a woman's right to her body by forcing her to go through a pregnancy when you have zero evidence that cells are people. If you want to violate a woman's rights then the burden of proof is on you to prove that cells have rights.

 

refer to this post below...

as for me, i support abortion & i know agw is bs...

 

And there it is trying to avoid the question by obfuscation sndof what was obviously meant by when life begins in the OP. When it is a human life and more than just living cells.

 

And again you want to argue cells are not people and I would agree but the question is what if we are wrong? Can we take that chance? I can but what about those that say we have to act as if AGW is real because what if actually is? We can't take that chance?
Not one person has honestly answered this question and instead has attempted to argue the same old argument of when are those cells human life. I believe I've made my point here and showed the complete hypocricy of the warmer cult. I'll move on.

 

Perhaps you can explain how giving money to government can reverse global warming.

 

I don't.