TWS1405_2

A zygote/embryo/fetus is neither a liver cell nor an auxiliary/accessory organ.

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

An observation =/= an ad hominem response.

Please share how you're capable of "observing" my overestimating my own abilities.

They mean it is not [a] human being. That's what is meant.

Then what is it?

No, it is not. You are [a] human being. A zygote is not. 

I'm a human being and so is a zygote/embryo/fetus. Our being subject to different phases of human development DOES NOT exclude zygotes/embryos/fetuses. 

Denialism + Intellectual Cowardice

More "observations"?

Are you daft? Reading comprehension problems?

Sure. Now help this daft and reading inept person understand to which species does a zygote/embryo/fetus belong between its conception and achieved viability.

A newborn is not autonomous.

Depends on the context in which one is applying the term, autonomous.

Being able to survive and biologically mature without further gestational development outside the womb =/= autonomy. 

Please list every synonym of autonomy. If you're going to attempt to dictate how I was applying the term, then I'm sure you are well aware of all its definitions and descriptions, correct?

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

Dunning-Kruger Effect response. 

An ad hominem response. Which do you think is more pertinent in the subject of debate?

To address the abortion debate, a debate that centers around human reproduction, as if someone is inferring some other species,

That is EXACTLY the inference. What is one suggesting when they're suggesting that a being is NOT human?

It is NOT!

It very much is.

Actually, they are. They are solely premised upon human biology and physiology. 

Premised on biology and physiology means nothing. It's nothing more than an arbitrary division that conveniently takes advantage of physiological demarcations.

Every rational and logically thinking and educated person knows it is human in origin, just not [a] human until fetal viability is achieved. 

Then what species is it between its conception and achieved viability?

The ONLY thing fetal viability "suggests" is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb without further gestational development. That's it. 

Redundant.

I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.

What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humans are by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?

But I think a fetus is a human being.

It is.

Facts do not care about anyone's feelings.

Except "the facts" discussed in this article are not facts of biology or physiology, but facts of "legal description" which is subject to referendum.

The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."

Nonsensical arbitrary division. Fetal viability suggests autonomy; it does not suggest whether or not it's human.

Where did you read an unborn pregnancy is not a person protected by the law? 

And words have variable meanings and are open to variable interpretation. Definitions are rarely precise.

Helps if you hit reply so I am tagged.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Statement is about a person's citizenship to the United States, not who has personhood. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Second part protects the rights of citizens and non-citizens of the United States. If you consider a pregnancy a non-citizen, they are still protected by the Constitution and have legal rights. 

Personhood is not established in 14th  amendment.

Some other legal precedence would need to be established to interpret personhood in the 14th Amendment.

Where did you read an unborn pregnancy is not a person protected by the law? 

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

I did prevail, you’re just don’t see it due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, educational level and life experience. It’s okay, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. Just not today, unfortunately. 

That's not how debating works buddy.

You can't just claim your right, and that makes you right.

If my reading and education was a problem, you would have pointed it out, on each part where I messed up with my grammar and definitions.

But you didn't, because you can't, because your wrong.

Swallow your pride.

> 

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

Since your legal expert

A few questions 

Does the 14th Amendment protect Abortion? 

Is this covered under original intent or not?

What do you think of States banning abortion? Constitutional/unconstitutional?

The Constitution doesn't tell us if a pregnancy is person or not

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that confirms a zygote is a human being?  If a zygote was a human being, then scientists wouldn’t do IVF because of all the embryos that have to die for it.  

Zygote: a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes.

A zygote is a human life, by definition. 

If I bake a cake, and it's still in the oven cooking, what would I call it?

If it's not a cake, then what is it. 

Your sperm cells have the potential to be a human life.  You’re not treated as a human being until you are in fact a human being.  Just like I’m not going to treat a college student as a college grad until they actually become one.

Sperm cells have the potential to be a human life, only when combined with a woman's egg. 

-->

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

You CANNOT compare a pregnancy for any reason to a person already born.

Why not? 

The latter has all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law whereas the former does not.

The law does not have moral authority over moral arguments. 

My question was a moral argument question, not abiding by any law. 

The law is good at keeping peace through moral values but is not a valid source when arguing morality. 

The law does not subjugate what is valuable, and what is not, when it comes to moral authority. If we let the law do that, the government would have control over our whole lives. The laws only job is to keep peace, not define what is valuable. 

And you need to stop using misnomers in your arguments. A fetus, viable or not, is NOT [a] "baby." 

Well, it is a baby. I will continue to use the word baby; in the same way you use the word terminate to make the word killing sound better. 

The science is conclusive: That fetus is a baby (desmoinesregister.com)

Yeah, it is. Chalked full of misnomers. 

Enlighten me. 

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Yes. This is factual. 

A pregnancy is not defined by the term "young" at any gestational development.

Yes, it is.

You can't take away states in time just to help your argument.

A pregnancy closer to conception than birth is younger than the months, weeks, or days that come after it. 

A pregnancy is not a "young human life." This phrase implicitly implying this, by definition. 

The phrase isn't implying an 8-year-old little girl. 

The phrase is true. Just because abortion is sad, and you don't want to accept that, doesn't mean you get to say my definition is wrong.

Where exactly is my definition:

Abortion: The killing of a young human life.

Wrong?

Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately:

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:

Abortion: The act of causing death, deliberately on an organism that relates to humans, and has only existed for only a short time. 

In other words, when the child is physically able to survive outside of the womb, without any physical need for growth.

So, the argument basically is:

If the baby cannot be viable outside the womb, then it is fine to kill, because it wouldn't be able to operate on its own anyways. 

Not viable = Okay to kill. 

But this doesn't work, because in order to make this an actual argument you have to look at all of the possibilities. 

Let's say a dude gets into a car crash and gets into a coma. The doctors know for sure that the man will wake up in approximately 9 months but won't retain any memories of his past. But he is in a coma, so he is not viable on his own, so he must be hooked to machines for that 9 months in order to stay alive.

The question is:

Would it be morally acceptable to kill this man?

Abortion is the killing of young human life.

That sentence is not wrong in any way. 

-->

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

Wrong. Typical uneducated opinion of the 14th. 

If that was the only way someone became a citizen, then it would be impossible to become a citizen from a foreign country.  The 14th amendment was written for slaves; not to exclude the unborn.

Honestly, I do not think/believe there is ANY precedence that would support such a punishment. Personal autonomy is paramount in the freedom of human individualism.

If you don’t believe in punishment for late term  abortion, this is the same as legalizing late term abortion.  If you have this opinion, only 19% of the country agrees with you.

If that was the only way someone became a citizen, then it would be impossible to become a citizen from a foreign country.  

03.06.2023 05:03PM

-->

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

The 14th Amendment makes it perfectly clear, that all the laws, rights, privileges and equal protection of all laws does not apply until BIRTH! 

The 14th amendment merely states one way to obtain citizenship.  It does not state who has the right to life or not.

That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

If someone who could carry the baby to term without dying or having a fetal health condition aborted out of convienience, (sic) how specifically would you punish them?

But they could abort illegally, so then you would have to punish the female that got the abortion.

What is your ideal penalty then?  If abortion is banned and tried as murder (which I’m assuming you believe late term abortion is murder), then you have to punish it just like murder.

But if you support banning late term abortions, how would you punish those that do late term abortions?

Punishments for illegal abortion:

Any woman that gets a late term abortion (24 weeks or more) when their life or health did not require it and if there was no fetal defect should be put to death; that’s murder, and the penalty for murder should be death.

Now you know I’m not a liberal.

--> 

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

How many debates have you been in on here? :)

It's just under your profile pic on your posts.

Easy to claim, harder to prove. And you have NOT proven me wrong in anything I posted. Not a damn thing.

Your posts prove that you are an idiot.

You guys think the rest of us are stupid enough to swallow that BS, but we aren't, only right wing (sic) whack jobs are stupid enough to swallow that BS.

Easy to claim it is BS, harder to prove. And you have NOT proven me wrong in anything I posted. Not a damn thing. 

Yes, and all the whack jobs are stupid enough to swallow that BS, so it must be whack job true, alternative facts.

No (sic) you didn't.  You right wing whack jobs  think (sic) you can alter history by changing the narrative, it's (sic) bullshit, you can't gaslight us, and we aren't buying into your conspiracy worldview.

Yes, I did. You're just a whiny immature denialist who couldn't argue his/her way out of a wet paper bag. 

And it is to the LEFT nut cases who think they can alter history; pass lie after lie until idiots like you believe it to be true. And boy, you're sure painting yourself to be the poster child of gullibility. 

Yeah, Floyd was really killed by the jewish space lasers, the levitating cop's knee was only hovering above his neck, the billion people who witnessed it were all mistaken, probably the Democrat mind control rays made them think they watched Cauvin murder Floyd, LOL.

You mean you espoused the actual Aryan Nation alternative facts,   Seig Heil you stupid fucking asshole. 

When you come to understand ---never comprehend-- these type issues, only then will you have any credibility of logical common sense critical thinking.

Running victory on false narrative is typical Trumpsteer cultist behaviour of sour, misdirecting politics. Sad :--( ^ V ^ )--:

You clearly did not READ the Original Post/Comment!!! 

I read it, and it's idiotic. 

You guys think the rest of us are stupid enough to swallow that BS, but we aren't, only right wing (sic) whack jobs are stupid enough to swallow that BS.

Had you done so, you would have learned that Mps1213 challenged me to a debate over the drug cocktail being/not being what killed Floyd. 

I proved it did. 

No (sic) you didn't.  You right wing whack jobs  think (sic) you can alter history by changing the narrative, it's (sic) bullshit, you can't gaslight us, and we aren't buying into your conspiracy worldview.

The knee issue is completely irrelevant because no one but Chauvin knows how much pressure he applied. Despite that glaring fact, the autopsy clearly denoted that there was no evidence of asphyxiation or any restriction upon breathing. The knee causing Floyd's death is a LIE!!!!! 

The knee issue is of primary relevence, (sic) you know, seeing as the knee was  actually (sic) the murder weapon and all.   

You nut jobs think it's been over a year, maybe they have forgotten that they watched it on TV again and again, do you really think you can gaslight us about a murder that was witnessed by around a billion people?  Your tin foil hat it too tight again.  

The drug dealer in the back seat was NEVER subpoenaed to testify at trial as to what drugs he gave Floyd he consumed just before police approached the vehicle. For a lack of better terms, that drug dealer "disappeared" after Floyd's arrest. Think on that.

You are full of crap, think on that. 

Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murder in one of the most highly scrutinized and thorough investigations and legal processes of all time, all of the evidence was conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, and whack job right wing extremists are not gonna (sic) gaslight anybody with your conspiracy theories and bald faced (sic) lies.  The preposterous bias of your Dunning Kruger Effect arrogance makes you think all you need to do is change the narrative, but no matter how much you whine, you aren't going to change the facts.

>

@PREZ-HILTON

the cop hovered his knee above the throat of Floyd barely touching it

LOL, you guys are fucking hilarious.

It;s been almost two years since Chauvin was convicted of murder, when you guys are still whining about something from over a year ago, you should put it in the history forum...at least untill they add a "whiney baby" forum.

-->

@TheUnderdog

@Nyxified

I am not going to give any facts however I am an adopted child 

I was adopted within 6 months of birth and have had a better life than I would of 

My biological dad ran away with house and money leaving my biological mum poor so she put me up for adoption 

I now live with my adopted parents who I love very much, have 7 animals and go to private school, if you don't know what that is it means my parents pay for school.