The 51st Annual March for Life

[NxNW]

It’s a human in development

An acorn is not an oak tree and a clump of cells is not a human being.

 

[RileyG]

Which is irrelevant, since abortion harms nobody.

It kills the unborn child and harms the mother. It's profoundly harmful.

 

[RileyG]

An acorn is not an oak tree and a clump of cells is not a human being.

I think you mean sperm and egg are not human beings. Once they are joined together and form new life, a new human being is created.

I'm a clump of cells, too.

 

[RileyG]

I disagree. It has never breathed air, can't think, can't feel. Not counted on a census or tax return or charged admission to events. Not a human being by any standard. A clump of cells.

Biology says otherwise.

 

[NxNW]

Biology says otherwise.

Everything I said, "It has never breathed air, can't think, can't feel. Not counted on a census or tax return or charged admission to events. Not a human being by any standard. A clump of cells", is based in biology or legal fact.

 

[RileyG]

Everything I said, "It has never breathed air, can't think, can't feel. Not counted on a census or tax return or charged admission to events. Not a human being by any standard. A clump of cells", is based in biology or legal fact.

It’s a human in development.

 

[NxNW]

I think you mean sperm and egg are not human beings. Once they are joined together and form new life, a new human being is created.

As I've explained previously, this is impossible. Human beings are distinct and quantifiable. At conception, you have a zygote which might result in a live birth, or possibly two or three or more. Most likely, it will miscarry and we'll never know it. Live birth is the exception, not the norm in nature. Since you can't quantify the number of live births that will result, or even number present in the zygote, you can't have a human being (or beings) at conception. You must be able to quantify it/them at that moment, or else you don't have humans. Why? Because, again, humans are distinct and quantifiable. "A minimum of one human being" is too vague. If the single-cell zygote miscarries before it would have split into twins, how many lives were lost? One or two? Either answer defeats your argument. If one, then at least one "life" began after conception. If two, then you're claiming that two humans exist in one cell, which is biologically impossible.

I'm a clump of cells, too.

You're a human being, because you can think, breathe, and experience sensory input, and you've been born, you're counted in a census, you're accounted for in tax returns, and you pay admission to events (unless you sneak in). An embryo checks none of these boxes.

 

[NxNW]

It kills the unborn child and harms the mother. It's profoundly harmful.

If the procedure is successful, she experiences no harm. I know plenty of women who have had abortions, and they have no physical nor emotional harm from it. For what it's worth, none of them were impregnated by me, but we've discussed the matter at length.

 

[RileyG]

If the procedure is successful, she experiences no harm. I know plenty of women who have had abortions, and they have no physical nor emotional harm from it. For what it's worth, none of them were impregnated by me, but we've discussed the matter at length.

How would you know? She can hide her emotions too, but I think that’s another can of worms here.

 

[RileyG]

As I've explained previously, this is impossible. Human beings are distinct and quantifiable. At conception, you have a zygote which might result in a live birth, or possibly two or three or more. Most likely, it will miscarry and we'll never know it. Live birth is the exception, not the norm in nature. Since you can't quantify the number of live births that will result, or even number present in the zygote, you can't have a human being (or beings) at conception. You must be able to quantify it/them at that moment, or else you don't have humans. Why? Because, again, humans are distinct and quantifiable. "A minimum of one human being" is too vague. If the single-cell zygote miscarries before it would have split into twins, how many lives were lost? One or two? Either answer defeats your argument. If one, then at least one "life" began after conception. If two, then you're claiming that two humans exist in one cell, which is biologically impossible.

You're a human being, because you can think, breathe, and experience sensory input, and you've been born, your counted in a census, you're accounted for in tax returns, and you pay admission to events (unless you sneak in). An embryo checks none of these boxes.

Yes, they’re human beings in stages of development. If the zygote, embryo, fetus isn’t human, what are they? That’s the real question and if people have the right to deliberately kill them.

 

[NxNW]

How would you know? She can hide her emotions too, but I think that’s another can of worms here.

People experience all sorts of negative emotions all the time. I'm sure a lot of football fans will experience sadness today. Does that mean football should be banned? Preventing people from having feelings seems a bit overbearing on the part of the government, wouldn't you say?

 

[RileyG]

People experience all sorts of negative emotions all the time. I'm sure a lot of football fans will experience sadness today. Does that mean football should be banned? Preventing people from having feelings seems a bit overbearing on the part of the government, wouldn't you say?

Football is not related to abortion, but great analogy.

I’m not about preventing people from having feelings, but preventing people from harming others.

 

[NxNW]

Yes, they’re human beings in stages of development.

You're starting the point that you've yet to prove.

If the zygote, embryo, fetus isn’t human, what are they?

Questions are not evidence nor are they an argument. I've explained what they are not human. You've yet to establish that they are, nor have you addressed my "distinct and quantifiable" argument.

That’s the real question and if people have the right to deliberately kill them.

Address my arguments above first, please.

 

[RileyG]

You're starting the point that you've yet to prove.

Questions are not evidence nor are they an argument. I've explained what they are not human. You've yet to establish that they are, nor have you addressed my "distinct and quantifiable" argument.

Address my arguments above first, please.

They are human in development. To say otherwise is denying the basic biology. You’re right the zygote et al goes through different stages, but it doesn’t make them less human.

 

[KCfromNC]

They take an oath that says do not harm

Then perhaps that plus their extensive education and experience should be relied up rather than letting big government types interfere.

 

[KCfromNC]

It kills the unborn child and harms the mother. It's profoundly harmful.

Back to empty assertions, I see. Probably best to try and distract away from the complex reality of the situation using whatever it takes.

 

[KCfromNC]

How would you know? She can hide her emotions too, but I think that’s another can of worms here.

I guess if there were no actual rebuttals to the actual experience of actual women, pretending everyone who disagrees is lying would help quiet the cognitive dissonance for a bit.

 

[NxNW]

They are human in development. To say otherwise is denying the basic biology. You’re right the zygote et al goes through different stages, but it doesn’t make them less human.

If you can't quantify it, it's not a human being.

 

[Velaut]

They are human in development. To say otherwise is denying the basic biology. You’re right the zygote et al goes through different stages, but it doesn’t make them less human.

There is a difference between human (adj) and human (noun).
What do you celebrate on your birthday? The day that you were ...
What does your age represent? The time you are alive since the moment you were ....

 

[RileyG]

Back to empty assertions, I see. Probably best to try and distract away from the complex reality of the situation using whatever it takes.

Just because you disagree doesn’t make it an empty assertion