FlySwatter
Member
Also, you are using some unstated criteria of the baby to dehumanize it as a life form. Fact is, it is human from the moment of conception - and not any other species.
No I'm not. Calling a fertilised egg a baby is both ridiculous and divisive and science would definitely not be on your side. It's simply an appeal to emotion which all anti-abortion supporters do in the absence of any tangible sound argument. A zygote, fetus or other barely developed organism is not a baby nor a human being. It may eventually become one but at that point it is definitely not one.
The question of species is irrelevant here.
Saying it is not human in ‘a’ sense does not make it non-human in ‘a’ sense. Just another example of atheists attempting to define their way out of the problem of being human.
Where did I say it was not human? At no point. That's twice now you have claimed I said things that I did not in order to state something you want to say. A poor debating style.
The organism is patently human by which is meant of the species Homo (esp Homo Sapiens). It has the DNA associated with Homo Sapiens. But then so does an appendix, liver or kidney. None of them are actual human beings. They are all organisms with human DNA.
Anti-abortion supporters have a desperate need to refer to a fertilised egg as a human being because they have no sound argument and thus need to use emotional content to try and dupe people.
A zygote is not a baby. It is not a human being. It is an organism, indeed a parasitic organism as another poster here pointed out, which has human DNA but lacks everything that would be needed for it to be a human being.
Last edited: