Abortion Statistics and Thoughts [W:59]

[Ikari]

Out of the zygote, the embryo, or the girl, who would YOU save? Who would YOU protect? The cells that are dividing? The embryo that is forming? Or the child that is in your presence and breathing and an individual person? And remember, in your opinion, all three have an age.

Don't know how often I'm going to be struck with the decision to save a human at various stages of development, but only one of them. Kinda pointless question then yes? Those cells dividing all the way to that little girl are the in fact the same organism. If you take out the dividing cells, you take out that little girl.

There's no wishful thinking, there's no mysticism involved, there are not other bodies waiting for life. What is is all that is, reality and this world and the one shot any of us have at consciousness.

Someone close to me dying, I think, is much more tragic. Comparing the abortion (elective and spontaneous alike) of a fetus to a person that dies, that did have a life in which you both cared for one another... I couldn't imagine.

Of course you cannot imagine. Though I don't think it's outside your ability, but rather that your purposefully refuse to see it in order to justify your stance, yes?

 

[Ikari]

And in response to "if the zygote didn't exist, she wouldn't exist."

Yes, you are right. However, in my opinion, a zygote is not a human being, but instead part of the beginning stages of the development of a human being. When the fetus is born, it has completed its development into a human being.

So you view reproduction like alchemy then. There's no point at which one magically transmutes into human. Human is human, this is biology and this is how our species reproduces. Seriously, this is well known.

 

[gilbertc1908]

And in response to "if the zygote didn't exist, she wouldn't exist."

Yes, you are right. However, in my opinion, a zygote is not a human being, but instead part of the beginning stages of the development of a human being. When the fetus is born, it has completed its development into a human being.

As the saying goes you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You may opine all you like that a zygote is not a human being, but it is like having the opinion that the earth is flat.

Not only does denying facts or the obvious, hurt the credibility of any argument, it removes the possibility of reasonable discourse, which is at the heart of the abortion conversation.

The right to "choose" can only be discussed when one understands exactly what is being chosen and denying that a developing human being is a developing human being is not a good place to start.

Now the question is when do you, or the larger question when does society, place sufficient value on that developing human to warrant protection. Either one agrees with present law and thinks the courts have it right or one values life differently and would seek the existing state protection (the issue is not if but when) to be defined differently, either earlier in development or later in development.

But regardless of where you stand on the value question, ignoring or denying the factual nature of the medical and/or scientific elements of human development will not inform the debate.

 

[AGENT J]

And in response to "if the zygote didn't exist, she wouldn't exist."

Yes, you are right. However, in my opinion, a zygote is not a human being, but instead part of the beginning stages of the development of a human being. When the fetus is born, it has completed its development into a human being.

So you view reproduction like alchemy then. There's no point at which one magically transmutes into human. Human is human, this is biology and this is how our species reproduces. Seriously, this is well known.

As the saying goes you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You may opine all you like that a zygote is not a human being, but it is like having the opinion that the earth is flat.

Not only does denying facts or the obvious, hurt the credibility of any argument, it removes the possibility of reasonable discourse, which is at the heart of the abortion conversation.

The right to "choose" can only be discussed when one understands exactly what is being chosen and denying that a developing human being is a developing human being is not a good place to start.

Now the question is when do you, or the larger question when does society, place sufficient value on that developing human to warrant protection. Either one agrees with present law and thinks the courts have it right or one values life differently and would seek the existing state protection (the issue is not if but when) to be defined differently, either earlier in development or later in development.

But regardless of where you stand on the value question, ignoring or denying the factual nature of the medical and/or scientific elements of human development will not inform the debate.

Saying a zygote is factually a human (noun) is incorrect. The fact is its nothing more than subjective opinion and this fact as been proven over and over again whether people like it or not.
It is however a fact that it is living and human (adj)


There are many definitions of a human being (noun) out there

by definition the vast majority exclude anything unborn by its verbiage, it doesnt allow anything unborn to fit the definitions

some definitions actually mention fetus which leaves out embryo and zygote

some definitions have no limits and leave it open to interpretation whether the unborn can be included

so calling a zygote a human or not a human and claiming it to be fact is not correct, anybody claiming its fact one way or another would be wrong.

now calling it a developing human being seems fine,(as in it will be) but thats not the same as a human (noun)

Also for many pro-choice people, such as myself, this fact is absolutely meaningless to the debate and has zero impact. If tomorrow all the science, medical and dictionary sites would claim a zygote is a human (noun), human being, homo sapien, my stance on abortion wouldnt be impacted one bit because I side with womans rights over ZEF rights. :shrug:

 

[choiceone]

"Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."- Luke, 17:35
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."- Romans, 1:26

I was surprised to actually find these! A lot of other instances where God could be referring to lesbians in a general, homosexual sense is whenever the word "sodomite" is used.

The Bible does, however, put a lot more emphasis on "man laying with mankind."

I for one do not understand the Luke citation to have anything to do with lesbianism. It has to do with grinding grain.

As for the Romans citation, I suppose someone with sex on the brain could interpret this as referring to lesbianism. However, it is not at all clear that "change the natural use into that which is against nature" refers to that. I also find it interesting that this is not a statement attributed to God or Christ, so I have no intention of taking it seriously as a criticism of lesbianism.

And FYI, I have never heard of anyone interpreting the Biblical use of the word "sodomy" as encompassing lesbianism. I strongly urge you to check out the Wikipedia definitions of "sodomy" across history.

 

[Alyssa]

Yes, they are ALL living beings. Those ZED pictures are the earliest stages of the development to create that child. Without them, you could not have her.

A being incapable of conscious awareness is not a person.

 

[Ikari]

A being incapable of conscious awareness is not a person.

"Person" is whatever we wish to define it as, and personhood arguments have led to some of the most atrocious of human behavior. I prefer to go off of science and in that light, early human life is still human life. Perchance this "personhood" stuff magically happens at some time, but it's a floppy definition and can create very negative circumstances. Human is human.

 

[choiceone]

If he's a rapist, then no, of course not. If he's the husband, then he has a stake in the decision, don't you think?

I'm not without some sympathy for those who take this position, as long as they do not wish to impose it legally, because there are all kinds of husbands and all kinds of situations in which that would be totally impractical. More pregnant women die from violent partner abuse than anything else. Some husbands who learn their wives are considering abortion or just that they are pregnant might try to kill them or beat them up. Moreover, some husbands have deserted their wives before the wives learn they are pregnant and the wives do not know where they are. Some husbands could be soldiers MIA in war or journalists on assignment in a location remote from internet or cell phone functioning. These are among the practical reasons why spousal notification laws were overturned. The problem has some similarities with the problem of parental notification laws, where a father could, e.g., try to kill his underage daughter on finding her to be pregnant, so an alternative had to be provided of notifying a judge in a law court instead.

There is also another issue. A woman takes risks in staying pregnant and giving birth, risks of dying or being seriously physically or mentally impaired, which her husband does not take and which are far higher for childbirth than for abortion, especially very early abortion, even though in our civilization they are much lower than in some other societies. I don't see why he should have a say if he is not required by nature to take the same type of physical risk to the same degree.

 

[Alyssa]

"Person" is whatever we wish to define it as, and personhood arguments have led to some of the most atrocious of human behavior. I prefer to go off of science and in that light, early human life is still human life. Perchance this "personhood" stuff magically happens at some time, but it's a floppy definition and can create very negative circumstances. Human is human.

Yes, the slavery argument. But slaves are people. They experience consciousness. They can perceive pain. And most importantly, they are fully formed, independent organisms not attached to someone's bloodstream.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm not without some sympathy for those who take this position, as long as they do not wish to impose it legally, because there are all kinds of husbands and all kinds of situations in which that would be totally impractical. More pregnant women die from violent partner abuse than anything else. Some husbands who learn their wives are considering abortion or just that they are pregnant might try to kill them or beat them up. Moreover, some husbands have deserted their wives before the wives learn they are pregnant and the wives do not know where they are. Some husbands could be soldiers MIA in war or journalists on assignment in a location remote from internet or cell phone functioning. These are among the practical reasons why spousal notification laws were overturned. The problem has some similarities with the problem of parental notification laws, where a father could, e.g., try to kill his underage daughter on finding her to be pregnant, so an alternative had to be provided of notifying a judge in a law court instead.

There is also another issue. A woman takes risks in staying pregnant and giving birth, risks of dying or being seriously physically or mentally impaired, which her husband does not take and which are far higher for childbirth than for abortion, especially very early abortion, even though in our civilization they are much lower than in some other societies. I don't see why he should have a say if he is not required by nature to take the same type of physical risk to the same degree.

I actually hadn't thought of that.

You're right. The law shouldn't impose a husband's right to decide. If the couple is really a loving couple, then he will be a part of the decision without the law intervening.

 

[choiceone]

I actually hadn't thought of that.

You're right. The law shouldn't impose a husband's right to decide. If the couple is really a loving couple, then he will be a part of the decision without the law intervening.

Of course. And if the couple is not really a loving couple, the fact that they are legally married is actually a contradiction of the truth.

 

[minnie616]

Well that's convenient, isn't it.

It is belief, not convience.
I told my story.
I had two miscarriges between my 2ed and my 3rd child.
If I had carried to term instead of losing the first that I micarried would have been born in March . The 2ed that I miscarried would have been born in November.
Fast forward a year and half from my second miscarrige I find out I am pregnant but I do not know when I concieved. The doctor orders an utrasound to try to determine a due date.
Doctor says Jan 25 ...well that date passes ...all of Febuary passes. My youngest son was born
March 2ed. 2 and a years later my youngest daughter was born in November.
March and November the same months my little miscarried ones were due.

I believe God gave them back to me but in different and better bodies then they would have had I not miscarried them.
I believe God was watching over me and my little miscarried ones.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It is belief, not convience.
I told my story.
I had two miscarriges between my 2ed and my 3rd child.
If I had carried to term instead of losing the first that I micarried would have been born in March . The 2ed that I miscarried would have been born in November.
Fast forward a year and half from my second miscarrige I find out I am pregnant but I do not know when I concieved. The doctor orders an utrasound to try to determine a due date.
Doctor says Jan 25 ...well that date passes ...all of Febuary passes. My youngest son was born
March 2ed. 2 and a years later my youngest daughter was born in November.
March and November the same months my little miscarried ones were due.

I believe God gave them back to me but in different and better bodies then they would have had I not miscarried them.
I believe God was watching over me and my little miscarried ones.

I think you're right.

Maybe one day you will know that for a fact, but not in this life. For now, it has to be a matter of faith.

I also think that a spirit that would have been born into a body that was aborted will instead be born to a couple (or at the very least a mother) who actually wants a baby and is ready to love and nurture him/her

Maybe some day we'll have that belief confirmed, too, but not in this life.

 

[Ontologuy]

Pro-choice people do not think that abortion is an act of killing embryos or fetuses.

Or zygotes, too.

Some of them don't think there's any killing involved because they ignorantly or knowing-falsely contend that a ZEF isn't a human that's alive as alive can be prior to the abortion.

But then, there are those pro-choicers who have descended so far down into ludicrous fantasy-based denial of reality that ..

They think it is an act of detaching and removing them from the woman's body - their deaths are incidental in that they just don't have live in themselves and so cannot live when detached.

.. They actually think that abortion doesn't kill the ZEF, that the ZEF, removed from the only environment in which it could survive at the time by the abortion itself (assuming it wasn't also injected with kill-it stuff, which the pro-choicer, based on specific situational ignorance, can't logically argue didn't happen!) and placed in an environment where it couldn't possibly survive which the abortion itself did, wasn't killed "by the abortion"! :shock:

You can argue that this is sophistry, but I do not think it is.

"Yes, Dave, I opened the docking-bay door that sucked him out into space, and yes, Dave, I did so before he had his spacesuit on, but opening the docking-bay door didn't kill him, Dave -- his death was simply incidental .. Dave."

"But your honor, I didn't kill her -- the thirty black widow spiders in her bedding were responsible, as the coroner's report shows. Just because I hadn't fed them in a while and I left them there doesn't mean I told them to bite her!"

:lol:

You know, Choicerone, I'm this close to starting a separate thread on this one .. this close ... .

And if you think an embryo is a person, I honestly feel sorry for you, because, from the pro-choice view, you are saying so in violation of obvious reality.

Now don't go hedging your sophistry with an arguing-with-a-strawman diversion via your pro-chioce bigotry of ageism egregiously disgusting excuse for killing prenatal humans.

You are on record multiple times in this thread now exemplifying this "the abortion didn't kill the ZEF" height of pro-choice sophistry! :lol:

Either live with it and suffer a separate expose thread with you as the poster-child .. or quickly print a retraction. (Pssst! The retraction's the best "choice".)

By the way, people who run deeply into that hide-from-emotion place in their mind to concoct these kind of ludicrously absurd sophistries usually do so because they were just presented with some hugely relevent truth of a feeling-affective impactful nature, and, rather than feel the truth of it, they run from their feelings into a fantasy in their mind to hide from it .. where they concoct the strangest reality-defying things.

 

[Ontologuy]

I have already responded with my view on that - you're assuming this is unique to me, with my unique experience, and I know that huge numbers of women who have had very different life experiences share the view I conveyed. It does not depend on childhood trauma - which I basically did not have - or an awful adult experience - which I did happen to have. It depends in great measure on the nature of the society you experienced in those years when you were becoming and had just become a woman. The society I experienced was sexist, in a whole host of ways. It demeaned women, restricted their opportunities, and trivialized their aspirations whether they were to become homemakers and mothers or have other careers. I had one HS friend whose mother ultimately made it clear to her that no matter what she achieved as a person, if she didn't get married or have kids she was worthless. My friend was so horrified by this that she utterly rejected marriage and children. She went on to accomplish other things not dependent upon biological reproductive gear. Another friend was horrified, at the end of a year-long college class in western history, when the male professor, bringing up topics not touched on in class, asked, "What have women contributed to history?" and went to the board and drew a large zero there just before the bell rang. And all this and more was quite usual then. The whole society showed contempt for women when they wanted to get married and have children, too - men talked about such women as "looking for meal tickets." There are so many reasons why the issues of autonomy, control of one's own body and life, and one's self-support and independent career are important to women's dignity as persons that any one of us could write a book or two on it.

I said you would do well to review the new controlled-by relevant information as it applies to you .. but instead, you divert via the defense mechanism of intellectualizing about "others", still not seeing the personal metaphors that you yourself employ.

 

[Ontologuy]

For a counselor, you do not get it.

Said the client in denial.

If I had a dollar for every time a resistent client in the early stages of facing reality understandably defied so facing reality, I'd be a rich man today.

A rapist is not necessarily a "life-taker" in your sense, because your entire sense of life is about mindless biology. A rapist takes your personhood and destroys it, and so only by asserting personhood anew, from a mental well of infinite personhood that cannot be destroyed, can you make a new person. It's amazing that the next person was so different - a different area of study, a different type of study, a different career, a different life.

But you see, that rape was not the only or even the most traumatic experience I had, just my introduction to being destroyed as a person and making a new one. I've done it several times now. I assure you, it's much more difficult to forgive even mentally ill people who enjoy victimizing others if those people are rich, famous, and socially respectable.

But I'm sorry to disappoint - my body never caved to stress, not with poverty and overwork, until my daddy passed away exactly 20 years after he was informed of the rape and my sibling told me in a very mean way that I had killed my parents because she had been interacting with each of them, in probably stressful ways, when they died and she had to project her sense of guilt. And even that never became a virtually impossible problem till Bush invaded Iraq, internationally embarrassing the US while I was teaching foreign students and researchers, and a dear student funded by a peace center soon passed away, which led to a heart attack.

So I don't see the rapist as the big problem at all. And despite its changed composition, I will love the SC all my life because of Roe v Wade.

And your own personal-experience metaphors just keep on coming!

You'll have to do your own work -- I can only lead a horse to water.

 

[choiceone]

Or zygotes, too.

Some of them don't think there's any killing involved because they ignorantly or knowing-falsely contend that a ZEF isn't a human that's alive as alive can be prior to the abortion.

But then, there are those pro-choicers who have descended so far down into ludicrous fantasy-based denial of reality that ..



.. They actually think that abortion doesn't kill the ZEF, that the ZEF, removed from the only environment in which it could survive at the time by the abortion itself (assuming it wasn't also injected with kill-it stuff, which the pro-choicer, based on specific situational ignorance, can't logically argue didn't happen!) and placed in an environment where it couldn't possibly survive which the abortion itself did, wasn't killed "by the abortion"! :shock:



"Yes, Dave, I opened the docking-bay door that sucked him out into space, and yes, Dave, I did so before he had his spacesuit on, but opening the docking-bay door didn't kill him, Dave -- his death was simply incidental .. Dave."

"But your honor, I didn't kill her -- the thirty black widow spiders in her bedding were responsible, as the coroner's report shows. Just because I hadn't fed them in a while and I left them there doesn't mean I told them to bite her!"

:lol:

You know, Choicerone, I'm this close to starting a separate thread on this one .. this close ... .



Now don't go hedging your sophistry with an arguing-with-a-strawman diversion via your pro-chioce bigotry of ageism egregiously disgusting excuse for killing prenatal humans.

You are on record multiple times in this thread now exemplifying this "the abortion didn't kill the ZEF" height of pro-choice sophistry! :lol:

Either live with it and suffer a separate expose thread with you as the poster-child .. or quickly print a retraction. (Pssst! The retraction's the best "choice".)

By the way, people who run deeply into that hide-from-emotion place in their mind to concoct these kind of ludicrously absurd sophistries usually do so because they were just presented with some hugely relevent truth of a feeling-affective impactful nature, and, rather than feel the truth of it, they run from their feelings into a fantasy in their mind to hide from it .. where they concoct the strangest reality-defying things.

Every time you write "sophistry," I understand how weak your case really is.

 

[Ontologuy]

So, this thread has degenerated into a tedious pissing contest. That's too bad. Abortion is an interesting subject. Let's see if I can somehow inject some new life into it:

Getting away from the endless discussion over whether having an abortion is immoral, who gets to decide whether or not it is acceptable? Since no one seems willing to say that abortion is always wrong regardless of the reason (which has an interesting twist for those who say that abortion is murder. Under what circumstances is infanticide acceptable?), who gets to decide what the acceptable reasons are?

Should it be the government?

Or am I wrong? Is abortion always wrong, regardless of the reason?

The same body that eventually in human history decided the unjustified killing of postnatals is murderously wrong will decide this issue: society at large -- that's they way it's always worked with humanity.

Sometimes society legislates, then the government enforces the law.

All the evidence shows that society at large is moving in the direction of wanting further restrictions on abortion on demand "soft" inconvenience egregiously disgusting reasons for killing prental humans, which it considers unjustified killing reasons.

Like with all other society-at-large enactments, it has always been simply a matter of time with regard to the continuing progressive civilizing direction society is moving.

 

[choiceone]

I said you would do well to review the new controlled-by relevant information as it applies to you .. but instead, you divert via the defense mechanism of intellectualizing about "others", still not seeing the personal metaphors that you yourself employ.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just interested in seeing that abortion remains a legal option for others as others were interested in seeing that abortion was a legal option for me, because I think that, when someone does you a big favor, you owe them enough that you should do the same for others. It was one of the joys of my adult life for at least some period of time to know that my society gave me the security of knowing that, in the event of a mistake, I had available to me the means to correct it, that my society gave me the respect to honor my own choices about my own internal body, that my society treated me with the dignity of not reducing me to mindless biology. I wanted young women in the next generations to have that security, respect, and dignity. And I choose the metaphors I do for the sake of effective argument toward that end, and that's all. This has nothing to do with me - fortunately, I've been impregnable a very long time.

 

[Ontologuy]

I believe it will be lived, just in another body.

Whatever gets you through the night.

I wonder if those from Atilla to Mengele also fantasized away their guilt.

Regardless, society at large doesn't employ denial-based mind-game sophistry fantasy excuses, and thus society is facing known reality and is moving in the direction of placing additional restrictions on abortion on demand "soft" egregiously disgusting inconvenience reasons for killing prenatal humans that it deems obviously unjustified killing excuses.

 

[choiceone]

The same body that eventually in human history decided the unjustified killing of postnatals is murderously wrong will decide this issue: society at large -- that's they way it's always worked with humanity.

Sometimes society legislates, then the government enforces the law.

All the evidence shows that society at large is moving in the direction of wanting further restrictions on abortion on demand "soft" inconvenience egregiously disgusting reasons for killing prental humans, which it considers unjustified killing reasons.

Like with all other society-at-large enactments, it has always been simply a matter of time with regard to the continuing progressive civilizing direction society is moving.

It's silly, actually, your argument. Canada is not going to go along with you. So all it would mean for you and your control-lusting friends to make abortion illegal is that many poor women in the US could get stuck continuing unwanted pregnancies and having more health problems and being unable to raise their children effectively enough to lift them out of the poverty into which they were born or having to give them up to selfish people with more money. Meanwhile, wealthier women and women with better education could just go to Canada and end unwanted pregnancies there and get on with their lives afterward.

 

[Ontologuy]

Out of the zygote, the embryo, or the girl, who would YOU save? Who would YOU protect? The cells that are dividing? The embryo that is forming? Or the child that is in your presence and breathing and an individual person?

Your equate-the-three sophistry is topically irrelevant.

Your "Sophie's Choice" question, which of the three humans to choose to kill, is also topically irrelevant, as no one in reality relevant to this topic has to make that choice you fantasized.

In the topic of abortion, where the woman's life/grave health is not at stake there is no choice of "who" to save -- there's only the topic of who to kill or not.

If fantasy scenarios are all you have to pose, then it is quite clear that you have a problem staying in topical reality .. and for likely understandable reasons.

And remember, in your opinion, all three have an age.

That's right, they do; all three living humans you presented have an age, that according to the laws of physics.

The bottom line of your post here is that you are obviously advocating the egregiously disgusting pro-choice bigotry of ageism as an excuse to kill prenatal humans.

You would do well to read this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/130363-pro-choice-bigotry-ageism.html

 

[choiceone]

Whatever gets you through the night.

I wonder if those from Atilla to Mengele also fantasized away their guilt.

Regardless, society at large doesn't employ denial-based mind-game sophistry fantasy excuses, and thus society is facing known reality and is moving in the direction of placing additional restrictions on abortion on demand "soft" egregiously disgusting inconvenience reasons for killing prenatal humans that it deems obviously unjustified killing excuses.

"Society at large doesn't employ denial-based mind-game sophistry fantasy excuses"!!! Gimme a break!!! Have you paid any attention to politics in the US of A for the last 12 years? People trying to pretend that Bush and Cheney and Rice were not lying when they said there was intelligence that gave good reason to suppose that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, even after the whole thing was exposed. People excusing Bush by saying "His heart was in the right place."

The birther fantasy. The Democrats are communists fantasy. The Ryan fantasy that one could end Medicare by claiming one was saving it and be believed by the majority. The Gingrich fantasy of a moon colony within a short space of years. The Santorum fantasy that one could get enough support for a presidential candidacy even if one publicly opposed contraception. The Romney fantasy that sharing one year's tax returns would be considered adequately financially transparent, that no one would notice his having to "correct" his MA tax return to run for MA governor because he had been manipulating his MA and Utah returns for maximal financial advantage first. The Pennsylvanian Republican fantasy that one could get away with deliberate voter suppression after having publicly stated that the purpose of one's voter ID law was to insure that one's candidate could win. The Mississippi pro-life fantasy that a personhood amendment would draw majority support. The Governor Transvaginal Ultrasound fantasy that if he just protested enough, he would not be joined at the hip to the more questionable aspects of the bill whose conditions he had probably stipulated himself, when in fact his own wife rejected him for it.

Denial-based, mind-game, sophistry fantasy excuses have been thicker than frosting on this society at large for so long that Colbert's report is the proper approach to realistic news on TV. . . .

 

[Ontologuy]

While I may not see a zygote as a human,

What you "see" and what actually is are two different things in this instance.

According to the ultimate deciding body for modern humanity on such matters of what "is what it is" materially, science, the hard sciences of taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, and embryology have been in unanimous consensus for over 35 years that a human begins to live at conception, and from that point, is an organism that is alive as alive can be, a living human.

Because that scientific fact is not a matter for scientific rational conjecture, your "eyes" are obviously mistaken, and they are mistaken for the usual reasons: what one sees external to the discipline of the scientific method is often filtered through reality-distorting personal-experience emotion and pre-conceived ideologies like pro-choice.

... without believing that they're human beings.

But, as employed nearly always in the abortion forum, a "human" and a "human being" are two different things.

You started with "human", the hard-science reality of what a ZEF is .. but now you imply sophistly that it's all about "human beings", human being being a philosophical/religious term in that respect, not a relevant hard-science term.

It is indeed debatable whether a ZEF is a human being or not, obvoiusly.

It is not debatable whatsoever whether a ZEF is a human or not, as science has spoken that it is, and that hard-science consensus has only gotten stronger, without any realistic indication, understandably, that it will ever be otherwise.

Remember, slave-owners and NAZI Holocausters argued that some humans "weren't human beings" so that they could excuse abusing and killing them. :shock:

A word to the wise.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well that's convenient, isn't it.

What do you mean by this?