Do you really not know? You didn’t have bio in your required sciences?
It’s not about knowing but what is the relevance. Prochoice people don’t deny biology; they say what you say, a human organism is not necessarily a person.
I will return. Later.
Answer the question?
And you agree that you are then the same human organism (life) in one individual life cycle?
No…
Oh, you spontaneously appeared in a new life cycle. You aren’t the continuation of the one life cycle that began in your mother’s womb. That organism could’ve been killed and you’d still be sitting here, seeing as you’re not that same organism in the same life cycle. Time to notify the Men in Black. Have fun. You’re trying way too hard to dodge the inevitable.
I always think the whole what is what at one point argument is annoying. I get why everyone goes down that road but legally we certainly don’t treat a pregnant mother as responsible at all points of her pregnancy. And we don’t view her as carrying a life in the legal sense like we do when she is holding a baby.
We don’t jail a mom who is at fault in an accident that leads to the loss of her baby’s life. As far as I know some states you can refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman and others you can’t. Either way it would be unlikely we locked her up a long time even if her drinking resulted in her baby’s death. Now change that to a woman giving a 6 month old enough alcohol that it dies.
For better or worse we have never really treated women who are pregnant the same as an infant. That doesn’t change regardless of where the never-ending what do you call it at what point.
Is a caterpillar a butterfly? A tadpole a frog? A zygote a person?
And since you already answered the last question with no, the rest of your weak Ben Shapiro argument is moot.
Weak? It has you blantanly avoiding and then dodging a bio 101 question. You’re a modern miracle of embryology one minute only to claim you’ve never argued that you aren’t the same organism (life) the next. That weak argument has you looking silly.
You are the same organism in one continous life cycle. Science says as much. There was no magical switcheroo. So funny how flat earther you guys get over this question.
Example.
This was the answer you gave to the question “are you the same organism?”
Umm, that is the same organism. You are naming developmental stages in the life cycle of an organism. They aren’t separate organisms being swapped sequentially by some body snatching aliens. We’re talking intro life sciences here.
You don’t get to call anyone’s argument weak after that kind of display. My gosh.
Then, after I ridiculed your answer you seemed to back down and concede that I am correct on the organism line of questions and statements. You float out the above. Pro choice people do concede to my statements about the same organism in one life cycle.
Well yeah, it’s only bottom floor biology for goodness sake.
But then to clarify your position I ask yet again
To which you then flip flop back to
So out again goes biology and back to magical organism swap outs.
And guys, please stop with the butterfly objections. They are the same organism. The same life. You are using labels for different stages of development in the life cycle of one singular organism (life)…There is no controversy in the biological life sciences over these sequences of developmental stages (Caterpillar/butterfly, tadpole/frog) being the same organism.
Now that we have dispensed with that.
Personhood. My argument isn’t that the human life in the womb is a person. I don’t find that relevant. It’s an abstract thing we can redefine or dispense with. We can define entire races out or define species in (hiya flipper) if we choose. It only exists at the whim of human fancy, not existing as something objective outside of ourselves.
Still…
See, the new human life has a natural endowment in order to act out/demonstrate personhood (as we commonly fancy it, for now). This is self evident (we all expect it) and described in the developmental sciences. We know that the zecarlo life demonstrating personhood on this forum was the same life that was once in the womb. You kill either at either point in time you kill that one singular life. Personhood isn’t a new organism (ie life) swapping out with some kind of place-holding organism at some point. Same life. Kill one of us in the womb you rob us, our life, of a personhood we inherently posses through a natural course of events in our already existing lives. Unlike a gamete (sperm) or somatic cell. The normal and natural course we all self evidently recognize is for that life to display personshood in its own continous life cycle.
The very point of abortion, as even argued here by its supporters (prisoners, unwanted persons, homeless persons), is the robbing of an innocent and already present human life of its naturally endowed capacity of “person” to which it is undoubtedly bound to in its life. Because it is either unwanted or because it might become a criminal. Might.
Own it and live with it. Argue it for what it is
The irony of a bunch of males debating a procedure none of them will ever face or truly understand . . .
I’d like women to be given the reins on vasectomy regulations.
Men have the power to drastically reduce abortion rates simply by wearing a condom.
1 Like
“And since a man can’t make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one.”
-Tupac
1 Like
Settle down Lancelot
As a male you can’t debate it once you’ve personally faced it. Ever. So we have to step in on their behalf. Oh, and for the females who’ve been killed by it, too.
How is a caterpillar the same as a butterfly? How is a zygote the same as an adult human being?
All dealt with above. Ask your teacher about the life cycles of singular organisms. I’m treating these arguments like flat earth level stuff from here on out, ignoring it.
To me it comes down to a woman’s rights vs the unborn’s rights. I believe someone should have full control of everything contained within their body (the implication of this is that the unborn have no rights until they are born).
The pro-life crew argues that the right to life for unborn is greater than the woman’s right to her body.
It then becomes opinion on which people value more. We can’t determine who is right when arguing about opinions.
Endowment? Nature? Nature doesn’t care about personhood. Nature doesn’t have an ability to act as an agent.
True. I was a poster here back then.
And have no natural right to possess. A grizzly will eat a pregnant woman because nature.
You keep bringing up nature but nature doesn’t care. Nature does not guarantee anyone anything other than death. Not even God guarantees life and the Bible is full of stories about God killing people of all ages, directly or indirectly. Babies and pregnant women didn’t get any special consideration.