Calling people names and insulting is a personal attack, and when people resort to calling names, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
I never said "things like "hospitals kill babies." You entirely made that up.
Are you implying that it is not a human because it is developing? But that logic no child or infant is a human being. They continue to develop until adulthood!
Let me quote a paper that will make things clearer.
"Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."
I ban people for only one reason--personal attacks. If you could be respectful, as JustIgnoreme has been, I would not ban you.
I warned you not to engage in personal attacks, and right after reading that, you do just that, so you have no right to be angry.
It is you who does not understand what the science is saying. I'll bet you never even researched the issue.
You can insult me, but you aren't even making an effort to understand.
"If it hasn't DEVELOPED into a human being yet then it ISN'T a human being, is it, you stupid, delusional twit?"
Yes, it isn't a human being until fertilization takes place, but once that process takes place--one to two days later-- it is a human being. It's really that simple.
A baby is just an informal term for a very young human offspring. A fetus is simply a human being in it's earlier stages, and it's exactly the same organism as the newborn baby. So denying that it is a baby is simply arbitrary. You deny it because you don't like me humanizing a fetus (which also means offspring).
There is no difference between a fetus and a baby. It's a biologically human organism and remains that same human organism throughout its existence. The sources I gave proved rather than disproved this claim.
I did not argue that because the government requires people to wear masks, then it should also require women to carry their babies to term. I was only arguing that it is a bad case for abortion justification.
You reference "abortion providers". But Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion provider. I was specifically talking about Planned Parenthood. If I was wrong for saying that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community, then I concede that. But my real point was that black babies matter too. And there's no dispute that they kill lots of black babies.
“A startling 2016 study exposed (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/
http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/
Also, "Life Issues Institute documented in its 2012 research that Planned Parenthood targets women of color for abortion by placing 79 percent of its surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of minority neighborhoods."
(http://www.protectingblacklife.org/
However, abortion is unjustified no matter what the race, so it is unnecessary to argue these points further.
"Reasonable fear of harm." While some pregnancies may cause reasonable fear of harm, it is unreasonable to claim that all abortions do. You want consistency? If we think all pregnancies are justified killings because of just a possible threat that they may pose, then we are justified in killing just about every human being who we feel threatened by. Abortion can't be justified by this line of reasoning.
"If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it."
This works against your case, as it admits that pregnancy is a unique circumstance. But if you are saying it shouldn't be allowed at all, surely abortions shouldn't, even more so.
"Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm."
This is absurd. Pregnancy does not cause harm as unavoidably and as deadly as an asteroid.
"1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future."
But this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not simply a woman changing her mind. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human beings.
"Intent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear."
You don't have the right to kill someone without strong justification. If there is no imminent threat to the mother's life, and all you have is a bare possibility, abortion is unjustified.
In most pregnancies, there is no reasonable fear for the mother's life. So it is not justified. And your claim that all abortions can be justified as self-defense is just not true.
"While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here."
Abortion is not unplugging. It is actively, deliberately killing. The two are not analogous. Abortion kills a human being which is just beginning it's life and has much potential. But a brain-dead human is for all intents and purposes, permanently dead.
"Are wars and the death penalty moral - even if there may be collateral damage and errors in the justice system?"
Remember, my argument is that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Whether it is ever justified to guilty ones, does not need to be proven or disproven to show that abortion is morally justified. And whether it is ever justified to unintentionally kill innocent human beings does not need to be proved or disproved either. But even if there are rare exceptions, it does not disprove the general rule. It would be fallacious to argue that we may kill people generally without justification, because in some cases we may break the general principle that it is prima facie wrong to kill innocent human beings.
By the way, if you launch into personal attacks instead of reasoning, you will be banned, because you are contributing nothing.
And if you are arguing that the government should require people to wear masks, then that seems to contradict the pro-choice case.
After all, this is about whether abortion is morally justified, not whether the government can require us to wear masks.
You'll have to make a better argument. And it will have to be relevant.
Its amazing how thousands of biologists can come to a conclusion, and yet pro-choicers will twist it into a denial of their very conclusions!
DEVELOPMENT does not begin until after FERTILIZATION, because prior to fertilization it is not a human being. But after "the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization" "Human development begins." And that is in complete accord with what I was saying. Also, you cannot say human development begins at conception if it is not a human being.
Yes, the quote is clear, except to you.
That is utterly false, it never says the embryo is not human. I've already explained that it is referring to the beginning of the process of fertilization.
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which
characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male
meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term
embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
This is a really silly argument, as I never ever appealed to the bible or god, or any religion. I quoted leading embryology textbooks. Your variant reading is not the interpretation of over 5000 biologists. You simply read into it something that it did not mean to say. If you would do more thorough research (I can provide plenty more evidence from various reliable sources) you would discover that.
Notice that it nowhere says "potential human being." or it "become a human sometime after conception."
You do not understand what it is saying.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
The reason it says after is because fertilization is a process that takes 24 to forty-eight hours to complete. There is no dispute, however, that after the process of fertilization has successfully completed, it is a new human being.
Also, you equivocate on the word "beginning". That means the start. That does not mean that it is not a human being. It just means it is in its early stages of development.
It is only refering to the beginning of development.
That much should be clear by reading the other quotes which clarify that
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
You assert: "Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings."
Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.
Let me here quote some of the leading embryology textbooks.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
And, for your information, there is a consensus on this matter among biologists. Just see the link at the top of this page.
No, religious fanatics don't have the right to force women to bear children. But notice the debate isn't about whether women should be forced to have children. Rather it is about whether it is right to kill their children.
