Stupid things religious people say

[Angrboda]

Well, that's the $64,000 question, if you include things that aren't fully human in the usual sense the word is used, do they still possess that right?

You only get to that position, usually, by ignoring actual differences that exist in a pretense that a zygote is no different from a 36 year old person.

Yes; "human rights" should belong to all who fall under the category of "human" - by any scientific metric a fetus would fall under that category.

In that regard there is no meaningful difference between a zygote and a 36 year old individual; their rights are not dependent on their physical traits or accomplishments but rather the innate act of being human.

Again, it would be asking me what the difference is between an Ethiopian and a German in the attempt to explain why the Ethiopian deserves less rights; I don't care about the physical difference but their innate humanity.

As a starter, note that we do not object to killing animals that have more in common with the 36 year old than does the zygote. Why is that moral if some characteristic or set of characteristics is the bar for acquiring the right you want to liberally apply?

We absolutely object to animal abuse, with all states in America and - to the best of my knowledge - all our allied nations having fairly strong animal abuse legislation.

That said - animals are not humans, therefor they don't have an inherent right to human rights. It seems logical to limit the rights to human rights to those who meet the characteristics of being a human.

Animal abuse was not what was being asked about. Nice try moving the goalposts.

Anyway, you've yet to show how humans meaning the unborn being killed is wrong is anything but a bare assertion. If that's all it is, it bears no weight.

I don't tend to engage in debates about abortion. I let you taunt me into feeling that I had to answer. So let's try to wrap this up, please.

Show how "humans in the womb have the right to life" is anything but a bare assertion. Deriving it from any other usage of 'humans' wherein the usage referred to something other than the life inside the womb is a form of equivocation and thus invalid. As a matter of history, taking the life of certain life in the womb has not been seen as wrong. If you're going to establish a right for a class of beings, you'll need to do more than just declare it so.

As to whether there is any meaningful difference between a zygote and a 36 year old, of course there is. Your attempt to restrict it to a certain aspect of being is again simply an attempt to pretend such differences don't exist when they certainly do, and as can be shown readily, such differences have historically been shown to be important. So again, you're simply asserting what you need to establish as well as engaging in a form of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

To put a final thought on this post, we establish rights somewhat arbitrarily in many cases. An 18 year old can vote in one state but cannot drink alcohol in that same state. A cluster of cells may be protected while a fully grown chimpanzee may not. It's not a logical process at all, despite some people throwing around loaded words in pseudo-syllogistic form in an attempt to mislead and prejudge.