(May 28, 2014 at 11:50 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 10:54 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The question should be why the strongly Pro-Life religious have more abortions than pro-choice supporters.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact4.htm

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4051...-abortions

The fact that Christians have more or fewer abortions has no bearing on the morality of abortions.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 2:58 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Well ok, let me take a leaf from your book.

'Science' actually tends to agree with the pro-choice lobby regarding when the line is drawn where a human becomes a human. It's always going to be a blurred line, but we can rule out stages such as the zygote.

But seeing as you pretty much agree with me that you're not here for a discussion, I see no reason to further engage with you on this subject.

When text books start describing the human lifecycle beginning with a 24 week fetus, then your claim science supports your position might actually have some merit. Textbooks do support my position that the lifecycle of a human being includes the zygote.

It does when the proponents of that morality are complete and utter hypocrites.

Also, yes, you keep repeating that stages of human development in the womb are stages of human development.

This doesn't qualify fertilized eggs, blastocysts or zygotes as persons with rights.

(May 28, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 11:50 am)Heywood Wrote: The fact that Christians have more or fewer abortions has no bearing on the morality of abortions.

---

When text books start describing the human lifecycle beginning with a 24 week fetus, then your claim science supports your position might actually have some merit. Textbooks do support my position that the lifecycle of a human being includes the zygote.

It does when the proponents of that morality are complete and utter hypocrites.

Also, yes, you keep repeating that stages of human development in the womb are stages of human development.

This doesn't qualify fertilized eggs, blastocysts or zygotes as persons with rights.

I don't make the claim the zygotes are persons with rights. I only make the claim that zygotes are human beings with rights.

(May 28, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: It does when the proponents of that morality are complete and utter hypocrites.

Also, yes, you keep repeating that stages of human development in the womb are stages of human development.

This doesn't qualify fertilized eggs, blastocysts or zygotes as persons with rights.

I don't make the claim the zygotes are persons with rights. I only make the claim that zygotes are human beings with rights.

Two gamete cells are human beings with rights?

More rights than the woman carrying them?

(May 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't make the claim the zygotes are persons with rights. I only make the claim that zygotes are human beings with rights.

Two gamete cells are human beings with rights?

More rights than the woman carrying them?

Special rights! Rights that we don't afford to any other being on the planet!

(May 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't make the claim the zygotes are persons with rights. I only make the claim that zygotes are human beings with rights.

Two gamete cells are human beings with rights?

More rights than the woman carrying them?

Gametes are not human beings. When two gametes fuse and become a zygote that is when a human being comes into existence.

So this is totally a person right? You understand that sentient life requires a brain? Self awareness? Independent thought? A temporal lobe?!

(May 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:

So this is totally a person right? You understand that sentient life requires a brain? Self awareness? Independent thought? A temporal lobe?!

You, and many others in this forum, are confusing human being with person....there is a difference.

If human beings have an intrinsic right to life, why isn't anyone suing the state and federal government when homeless people die?

Why is a clump of cells afforded more rights than adult humans?

(May 28, 2014 at 1:03 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: If human beings have an intrinsic right to life, why isn't anyone suing the state and federal government when homeless people die?

Why is a clump of cells afforded more rights than adult humans?

Zygotes are not afforded more rights than adult humans. Your claim is ridiculous.

(May 28, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Heywood Wrote: You, and many others in this forum, are confusing human being with person....there is a difference.

Potential human, not human...big fucking difference.