The Basics, Abortion is a Homicide, Face that Fact

killing a zygote or embryo, is homicide?

LOL!!

no, it is not.

 

Playing semantic whack-a-mole doesn't alter the legal facts one iota!

The UVVA is LEGISLATION therefore the definitions used are LEGAL terms.

It is disingenuous and illogical to try and base your spurious OP premise upon a specific law and then allege that the legal terminology therein are not applicable to your puerile attempt to obfuscate the fact that abortion was specifically EXCLUDED from the UVVA.

 

It is fortunate that YOU do not get to define what is considered a "Human Being".

 

Yes. Abortion is homicide. Not all homicides are illegal. Abortion is legal. Face the Facts.

Now what?

 

It is a homicide but of a human being at such an irrelevant and minor stage that it feels nothing, thinks nothing, does nothing... but it is a homicide... it is also a medical procedure. In the end who cares? There should be more abortions happening. So many poor uneducated idiots are having kids it is unacceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

Sup Tecoyah... long time. Yeah, but even if it is a human being it doesn't matter, abortion is still legal and it should be.

- - - Updated - - -

Technically it is... but so what? It is legal and it should be.

 

In fact, abortions are regulated and some abortions are limited to only certain circumstances. However, there are many who lobby for all abortions being completely unlimited and unfettered, in the same way others make the exact same argument about guns.

 

The exact same argument used to be made about children in the early stages of development, to argue that children were not people and deserved zero protection. It also fails when you consider a person in a deep sleep or under general anesthesia isn't capable of consciousness or pain. The arguments you're using here are just so absurd and backwards that you're better off acknowledging that it's homicide and arguing that it's justified.

 

Glad you see the light, just trying to get others to see the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have to, federal law has already defined a child in utero at any stage of development as a human being, LITERALLY!

- - - Updated - - -

It is obviously logical that if a child in utero is a human being when a stranger kills him/her, the the same child in utero is a human being if his/her own mother kills him/her. it is not ME who is being disingenuous! I have never claimed the UVVA outlawed abortions, NEVER. Pay attention.

 

Nope. A fetus is brain dead. Flush away

 

Regardless of the law, it's a scientific fact that we're human beings at all stages of our development, from the time of conception until irreversible death. Anybody who says otherwise is anti-science and is arguing based on ignorance and alternative facts.

 

Not at all. Being in the early stages of childhood does not mean one does not have a mind. Saying a person who is asleep lacks a mind is like saying a car that isn't turned on lacks an engine. No, it's just not on. It exists physically. Before a certain level of development is achieved in a fetus, the mind cannot exist at all. It's not just a matter of being turned off at that point, it doesn't exist yet. There is a categorical difference and it is at the very heart of morality and ethics.

- - - Updated - - -

How can they be a "being" with no mind at all? What is your definition of being?

 

I agree. No argument from me there.

 

So now you're arguing the mind is something physical (it's not) and that there's some arbitrary level development before which it's ethical to deny recognition of being human, much less having the minimum level of human rights (which again is exactly what others did before to children, women and other cultures). It's a dead end argument.

What exactly do you think you have to lose by acknowledging an individual human being is a human being from the time of conception (you know, that first point in the human life cycle diagram they went over in biology class), and does not stop being one as long as it lives/exists?

 

It is in the sense that it requires physical structures and connections between them.

It's not arbitrary it's neuroscience. Connections between the thalamus (or precursor structure) and cortex are required for a mental existence.

Because it's the crux of the issue. Beings deserve rights. Mindless cells do not. The life cycle begins with the gametes as far as biology is concerned, but not every sperm is precious. Or we could say it began with the first cell billions of years ago. Where you draw the line isn't science

 

You're simply wrong on this. Individual haploid cells are not part of the human life cycle. They are sub-entities of the individual parents, which makes them (literally) subhuman beings. It's only when they combine with their other half that a new human being organism comes into existence, and this is a process which can and has been empirically observed many times. Your arbitrary threshold of "mental existence" is something that cannot.

 

I have never seen anyone say we're not human at all stages.....

BUT I have seen Anti-Choicers DENY there ARE stages.

They insist that at the moment of conception the stage known as "baby" exists ! Ya, I knowwww...stupid right?! ALTERNATIVE FACTS definitely!

That's like saying from the moment of conception a teenager exists....

 

Since I never stipulated in my post that you did you either lack fundamental comprehension or you are engaging in disingenuous semantic whack-a-mole again or both.

 

People in this very thread have been arguing that.

I suspect it's more along the lines of people referring to fetuses as "babies" similar to how others refer to teenagers/adolescents as "children", and you may be confusing people talking about abortion at fetal stage of development and abortion at earlier stages. I really doubt anyone considers it a "baby" immediately after conception.

 

There is a huge difference between "human" (adjective) and A "human being" (noun).

I'm afraid you need to read more back threads...there are many Anti-Choicers who INSIST that a fetus from the get go is a baby. There are one or two who think it looks like the Gerber baby from conception.


But that's because they have no facts and have to use emotional hyperbole , "It's muRRRRdering BAAAAAABIES!" to sway people....

When things get legal a fetus is not a baby and a teenager is not a toddler and a toddler isn't 21 nor a senior.

 

Right, that's why I was talking about a "human being" (noun). I have no idea where you got "human" (adjective) from.

 

A fetus is human, it is not a human being as in "person".

 

A human fetus is both human and a human being. Whether or not it's a "person" is another question entirely.

 

You're picking nits, a fetus is human , it is NOT a person (there is NO question) which it would need to be to have rights. Clear enough?!

 

Nope. "Person" is a social construct which is subjective and we've seen the definition of change over time. A human being is a distinct biological organism that happens to be human.

 

a square is both a rectangle and a square. So people are shapes now. You do realize how stupid this sounds, right? How can you separate human and person? Arent they synonyms, or are you going to continue with the semantic loopholes? Oh the HUMANITY