Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Your point is otiose.No, Scrabholic was right, there is nothing civilized about forcing women to remain pregnant/deliver a child against their wishes. You natural thing is just inaccurate and not a valid reason for robbing women of their rights just to make you feel better....
Stay away from dictionaries. You don't seem to understand what they are, and you'll just become more confused than you are.When we look at the definition of human being in the Cambridge dictionary it just gives one description:
person
Which what has been our view all the time. A person with personhood rights is what a human being is.
Abortion is killing. Wake up.Nor should women who have an abortion be accused being killers. The condemnation while having no idea why a woman had an abortion is illogical and even heartless/cruel.
How would you know?Well Plato doesn't make definitions, he just given opinion. And opinions are just like human assholes as they speak, everybody has one. According to our great movie star Clint Eastwood.
No such thing as "a ZEF" -- stop dehumanizing the victim.Yup, inside her womb, which means it is none of your business.
Human life - person
Person means just that, personhood rights do not apply to a ZEF as they are not yet a person and do not have the properties of a human being other than DNA.
Of course he did. Start reading.He did not say it is "just a zef". Stop lying.
Your post is a political construct.The term 'human being' is not a scientific construct. It is a social one and our society bestows it upon live birth. This has been shown here over and over and over again.
Do you know her name?She has a name, and it is not madam.
The fact of life is that women have the right and the option to choose an abortion as their legal and constitutional right. You keep talking about rule of nature but it is mankind who makes the rules.
Your animosity is confusing you more and more. Look to it.You did read the link you provided? These are feticide laws. Killing of the fetus in other words. Not infanticide which is after birth which is murder/killing an infant, a born child.
I'm the only one posting to this thread worth talking to.Why are you talking to yourself....
An acronym that has been reified by political activists. No such thing exists.
Biology tells us that the genetic material for an individual human life is complete at conception.
A "human being" is not a social construct. Don't be silly.
Angel;10l------------------------------- 70743319 said:There is no such thing as a zygote-embryo-fetus. This is a mythical political creature invented by pro-abortion activists. A chimera. It doesn't exist.
Laughable talking points without a shred of credibility.Another inaccurate statement I see, ZEF is a biological and a psychological acronym, to say it was made by political activist is just ludicrous. IT is JUST an acronym, used in books about biology and even psychology.
As said before every single inch of our body has the same identical genetic material. So sorry but not sorry, your comment is again inaccurate, biology tells us also that a human being has several biological properties other than DNA that a zygote does not possess.
And human being is both a social construct, a legal reality and a biological description of what it is or entails to be a human being and other than your claim, it is much more than just genetics.
No such thing as "a ZEF" -- stop dehumanizing the victim.
Who is US? LMAO nobody agrees with your lies and everybody has pointed out they are factually wrong and you have no support for them
FACTS:
Abortion =/= license to kill
Morals are subjective
ZEF = real
If you or anybody could prove otherwise you would simply do it . . but it cant be done . . but to continue our entertainment ill keep asking
If ANYBODY can prove otherwise please present one fact that shows any of the above to be false . .. one, thanks!
I'm philosophically opposed to sloppy thinking, sloppy writing, moral cowardice.
And still no acknowledgment of my response to your "very subjective" post. I'm also philosophically opposed to poor form.
Homo sapiens is the biological designation for human being.
Does "internet bulletin board" absolve one from thinking clearly? If you wish such a dispensation, all well and good -- just don't parade sloppy thinking in reply to my posts.
Correction: to say that morality is objective is to say that the notion of right and wrong is universal, innate to mankind, that there has been moral valuation from the very beginning in the species. It is not to say that mankind's moral judgments are universally the same or fixed for all time. Moral judgments are culturally determined and temporally shifting, but morality is inherent to Mankind, universal and objective.
I can't tell whether you wrote the passage above your series of disparagements or whether it is from the uncited webpage where you got the definition, but its or your error is here corrected.
Now you should not say that, some people agree with her highly subjective opinions, these people (for the vast majority) are pro-lifers.
Like many other Internet Skeptics, you fail to distinguish between moral judgment and morality. Moral judgment is indeed subjective, but morality is objective and universal -- all human beings have a sense of right and wrong as regards human life.Except they were not in error, you are. And while overall adjudged opinions as to what is right and wrong according to the majority of a nation is uniform, it does not make it objective. Morality is and will always be subjective. In the Netherlands the majority of the people approve of gay marriage, in Africa most countries despise that. Their view on gay marriage makes it uniformly disapproved in that country, but that is purely based on location, age, religion, etc. It is not universal and not objective. It is a uniform code of accepted practices, it does not mean it is generally accepted or seen as objective.
Morality is highly subjective. There is not one moral view that is correct for all of mankind/people of this planet.
No pregnany woman in the history of pregnant women has had a creature called a "zef" inside her womb.No, so I cannot think of any reason why people who deny the acronym ZEF as being a simple acronym for Zygote/Embryo/Fetus. IMO these people are illogical in their thought processes. As you said, just being on a forum does not absolve someone from thinking logically.
And no, none of us need the disposition, that would be what you need when you deny the simple acronym for ZEF.
That's what I said.Really? Because I have been taught that homo sapiens is the designation to the species to which all modern human beings belong, it is not I am homo sapiens, it is I belong to the species called homo sapiens.
No such thing as "a ZEF" -- stop dehumanizing the victim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?