Nowhere in that italicized definition does it categorically state that the zygote is [a] human being, which is what he asked for. Nor within that definition does it equally categorically state that the zygote is [a] human life (which = [a] human being) either. {[a] human life is synonymous with [a] human being}
A zygote is human DNA, that is not part of the mother's body, and is different DNA entirely.
Therefore, a zygote by definition is a human being.
Question:
What definition do you have of human being.
What aspects do you have to have in order to be a human being?
Your ignorance is showing with this piss poor analogy that is a false equivalency to a pregnant girl/woman.
You can't answer the question, without contradicting what you are arguing, can you?
Sperm meet the same basics criteria for life as a zygote does. Sperm from a human is human in origin. Does that make sperm a human life? According to your (il)logic, it does.
Sperm by itself does not have the capability for human life. A female egg does not have the capability of human life by itself.
But when combined, the combination of the two does have the capability of human life.
If you put sperm cells in a woman, with no egg, there will never be a baby.
But if you add a female egg to the equation, you will get a baby.
I explained why within my response. Cherry picking agian?
"The latter has all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law whereas the former does not. As such, the man in a coma cannot be killed because murder is morally wrong."
But as I said before, we are not arguing law, we are arguing morality.
Is it morally right to exterminate a zygote or a fetus. Not lawfully. Morally.
Moral authority - the quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.
Moral argument - is an argument with a conclusion that expresses a moral claim.
Types of moral claims -
here
Actually, the law does have moral authority over so-called moral arguments. Epic fail there on your part.
The law enforcers certain obvious moral principles. It does not create them. Therefore, the law not protecting zygotes and fetuses through legal standards, does not take authority over controversial moral arguments and discussions.
But if you want to bring the law into this, the law in some states does protect, babies in the womb by law.
So, your arguments kind of busted there.
If you're going to argue, you can't just say," Well the law says so, so it must be right."
Because if everyone did that, you wouldn't have any political parties.
The law is not the supreme moral authority, it enforces certain moral principles that some hold dear, and what others hold dear compared to what you hold dear can differ, therefore that is why some states ban abortion, and some states allow it.
For many years in this country, slavery was legal. Does that make slavery morally ok?
A pregnancy is NOT [a] baby. And I do not care what the dictionary says, as it can be manipulated to say whatever floats your boat, just like the definition of woman being changed to float the boats of trans-activists. Dictionaries are not credible anymore, no more than MSM can ever be considered credible anymore, either.
Old dictionaries are though. Use those. We still have those archived.
Yes, a pregnancy is not a baby by definition (trying to be smart), but it does hold a baby.
Also, you're missing the reality of context. Words have meaning, and their meaning is dictated by the context in which they are used.
In the context of the abortion topic:
A zygote =/= [a] baby
A blastocyst =/= [a] baby
An embryo =/= [a] baby
An unviable fetus =/= [a] baby
Since you suck at proper analogies, here is a proper use of an analogy to compare things that =/= along the lines of potentiality =/= actuality (never has, never will):
An acorn =/= an oak tree
An apple seed =/= an apple tree
A chunk of coal =/= [a] diamond
A log of wood =/= charcoal
A tadpole =/= [a] frog
A framed property =/= [a] house
A zygote of human origin =/= [a] human being or [a] baby
This is a dumb comparison. And easily taken down.
A zygote by definition is biologically alive.
A chunk of coal is not biologically alive.
a log of wood is not biologically alive.
a framed property is not biologically alive.
Now that we have taken out the non-living things, because they don't compare to a living thing in any way shape or form, we can now move on to the living things.
An acorn is alive, and with the proper setting can grow to the size of an oak tree. So, there is an oak tree inside of an acorn, just not grown yet.
So, by definition an acorn is just a smaller, and less developed version of an oak tree.
Same goes for a tadpole, and a frog.
Same goes for an apple seed to an apple.
And same goes for a zygote of human origin and a human being, or baby.
No one ever called or identified a zygote as a young human life, or young human being. Or young anything. No one, ever.
Yes, people have.
It is by definition a young human life.
Young: having lived or existed for only a short time:
Human: relating to or characteristic of people or human beings:
Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:
So, a zygote is by definition a life form that relates to humans, and has the capacity for growth, death, and has only existed for a short time.
A zygote is a young human life.
Yes, that phrase does imply [a] "young human life," which includes an 8-year old little girl. Are you denying she is young and [a] human life"? Clearly you are: "The phrase isn't implying an 8-year-old little girl. "
Nope.
A young human life is what one considers young.
If you consider young to be only 2 years old, then anything above that could be young.
So yes, this little girl is a young human life, but so is a zygote, if you consider that little girl a young human life, then any age below hers is young.
Abortion is not defined as "the killing of a young human life," not anywhere you will ever find it in those exact quoted words. Nowhere.
An abortion terminates a pregnancy. A pregnancy is a developmental process. It's the process being terminated. The process cannot be killed.
You're acting as if the words terminate, and kill are two different words in this instance.
Every process has a reason to function. If you take away that reason, then the process is terminated.
In this case the baby/fetus/zygote, is the reason for the process, so that the baby can develop.
In order to terminate the process, you have to take away the reason to process.
In the case of pregnancy, you have to take away/terminate the baby/fetus/zygote, in order to terminate the pregnancy.
There is a source for this process. Understand that.
And (just by "dumb luck" I guess) the source of a pregnancy that you have to terminate is in fact alive and what is the definition of killing again?
Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately:
It just so happens that an abortion causes death to the biologically alive source of the pregnancy, deliberately.
So again, by definition, the word termination used (in this instance), is the same as killing.
