By its medically accurate term…zygote.
By its medically accurate term…fetus.
Yes of course.
They are precisely as identified.
A zygote = a zygote
A fetus = a fetus
Does someone need to draw you a picture before you grasp this simple fact?
It's not part of the woman's body, so it's not the woman's body.
Location, location, location. If it is within her, it is of her.
And if it isn't part of the woman's body, then logically it has to be another living organism.
Cancer is another living organism, yet it is still within her and a part of her…therefore it is part of the woman’s body.
And if it's living then that means it has the potential to grow.
Wrong. Every cell within the human organism meets the basic biological criteria for life. Cellular Life does not always =/= potential for growth.
And with that potential to grow comes out a human.
A cancer cell has potential for growth, and more often than not does grow; even benign tumors grow…doesn’t make either tumor [a] human being, now does it.
So, by definition a fetus or zygote is a human.
Maybe by your uneducated subjective definition, but not the real world fact based and factually accurate definition(s). No. It is not [a] human “being.”
Yes it is. If it is within her, attached to her, feeding off her…it is “biologically” a part of her body.
"It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely “part of the mother’s body.” In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems."
No, it biologically isn't.
In the woman's body, not a part of it.
Cherry picking sources you “think” supports your position =/= proof of your uneducated subjective opinions here.
Again…location, location, location. If it is within her body, it is of her body. Period. Fact. Period.
I do not care about the distinct and separate DNA argument. It doesn’t hold water.
Even the separate living bacterial organisms in our guts are living and yet they are still within our bodies, making them a part of our bodies.
Everything within a human organism is a part of that human organism until it is extracted or comes out by some other means.
Capability (potentiality) =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will
But:
Potentiality = Possibility.
Ignorant and childish semantics argument. The terms are synonymous FFS 🤦🏼♂️
And if there is a possibility of human life, then by definition, doing anything to that possibility is the killing of a possible human life?
You really need to stop saying “by definition” because your conclusions are all wrong. Especially when you provide no context to what’s going on inside the grey matter between your ears without providing what that definition is, precisely.
Is it better to let something try to live, instead of not giving it a chance at all? And in doing that we have to consider those fetuses/zygotes humans.
No. It is not. There are already over 90 million unwanted and orphaned offspring worldwide. Why add another mouth to feed to an already overpopulated population?
At birth, yes. Never before birth.
But life begins at conception.
Quoting out of context fallacy.
The issue is personhood, not cellular life; i.e. you’re confusing cellular life with personhood…still.
And it is a human driven life (in other words) if left to its natural processes will create human life.
Huh? You need to re-read this drivel and rephrase.
Not a baby, but a viable fetus. Because medically that is what it is. A viable fetus.
So, would it be ok to hurt or do anything morally unethical to that viable fetus two days before birth?
Morality is subjective.
And yes, it would if it poses an imminent risk to the pregnant female.
No, it’s not [a] person, not until birth (be it natural or by C section).
Is potential human life ok to harm?
Yup. It’s called an abortion.
