Abortion

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What I proved was that HUMAN...HUMAN life does NOT begin at conception, which is what you claimed. You claimed HUMAN life begins at conception. It's not a human at conception, it becomes a human at the end of the eighth week, so that's when- arguably- human life begins. Not at conception, as you claimed.

See above. The beginning of the path to becoming a human life, not actually being one. A zygote isn't a human.

When is a human formed? Dun dun dunnnn...end of the eighth week after conception. Not rocket science, Whob.

You claimed that HUMAN life began at conception, I proved you factually and undeniably wrong.

"Human life begins at conception."

I proved you factually wrong and you changed to a different stance by posting irrelevancy.

You, previously: Human life begins at conception.

Me: *Proves it doesn't*

You: The zygote is the first stage.

Me: A zygote IS the first stage, a zygote is NOT a human, the cells (non-human) that are there at conception (pay attention) become a human by the eighth week after conception.

Proving that HUMAN life does not begin at conception.

AC, unless you are a doctor or have some sort of medical degree, you cannot prove anything. As you are not a doctor, you can't really claim that someone is wrong and you are right, can you? Can you prove that a zygote is not a human? No. You are not autherized to make any such statement about it eithor way. You can prove nothing. Go to med school, then you might have an arguement.

Originally posted by Makedde
Can you prove that a zygote is not a human? No.

A zygote is a cell, a cell is not a human. A zygote does not become a human until it becomes a foetus, which is nearly 9 weeks after conception.

Hence human life doesn't begin at conception. HUMAN life.

Leave. Tired of dealing with you. Might as well stay out of the thread.

-AC

I think the fact that a lump of cells isn't pondering the big questions in life should count for something in this discussion.

Just to clarify, because I've only ever been debating one point with Whob and in general recently, since Makedde has trouble: "Human life begins at conception."

Whob, you said this:

"human life begins, at the moment of 'conception.'"

I posted this, proving you wrong:

"In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. "

You started going on about being viable, but you neglected to highlight something, so I figured I'd save it for now:

Viable:

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

You highlighted this, saying it was capable of living when this was never denied. What you failed to mention:

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

Used...of a FOETUS. What's a foetus? Something that is created at the end of the eighth week...after conception.

So let's quickly run through the whole shebang, shall we?

You: Human life begins at conception.

Me: It doesn't, because it's not a human till it's a foetus. It's a foetus by the end of the eighth week AFTER conception.

You: It's viable *Highlights that the zygote cell is capable of living.*

Me: So? Nobody denied it was capable of living, just that it's not a human life. It's a cell, not a human. Ergo, human life doesn't begin at conception. Considering the crucial fact that a cell is what it is at conception.

Now we see that the alternative definition of viable ALSO sides against you.

Extra short wrap-up of the human life/conception argument for those with short attention spans:

Is a zygote capable of living? Yes.

Is it a human? No it's not.

When does a zygote form? Conception.

So is there any human life at conception? No.

Why? Because a zygote is formed at conception, and a zygote is not a human.

Homework is due in on...whenever really. Preferably don't come back to class, you're too old to be getting schooled on what words mean.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A zygote is a cell, a cell is not a human. A zygote does not become a human until it becomes a foetus, which is nearly 9 weeks after conception.

Hence human life doesn't begin at conception. HUMAN life.

Leave. Tired of dealing with you. Might as well stay out of the thread.

-AC

You should stay out of the thread, too. Before there is a fetus there is an embryo. An embryo is not a zygote. It is a zygote for only about 5 days, then it's an embryo, when it is a human.

Originally posted by Makedde
You should stay out of the thread, too. Before there is a fetus there is an embryo. An embryo is not a zygote. It is a zygote for only about 5 days, then it's an embryo, when it is a human.

It's not a human until it's a foetus. See previous post.

Second, you just proved me right even more. A zygote is what there is at conception, so if a zygote is not a human, but a cell...then there's ZERO human life at conception.

Embryo:

"In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

Not only proving there is no human life at conception itself, but I have proven throughout this thread that it's not a human till it's a foetus.

Like I said, leave if you can grasp anything.

-AC

Yes, Mr. I-Know-Everything-And-I-Am-Always-Right.

Let's be sure to not overlook the fact that:

A) I don't think I know everything.

B) In this case I'm factually right. Don't attempt to make me look bad just because you got it wrong...again. Like you ALWAYS do.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
Yes, Mr. I-Know-Everything-And-I-Am-Always-Right.

Damn, I actually predicted this response.

Is it really going to make any difference to this debate whether or not a person is FACTUALLY right or wrong? It's no big deal to be factually wrong or right, the only person who gives a wally about that is you.

Originally posted by Makedde
Is it really going to make any difference to this debate whether or not a person is FACTUALLY right or wrong? It's no big deal to be factually wrong or right, the only person who gives a wally about that is you.

Hahahahahahaha.

Well yes, if you're going to debate a subject where there are facts involved, get them right or get out.

Originally posted by Wesker
Damn, I actually predicted this response.

Did I or did I not, say that?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahahahahahaha.

Well yes, if you're going to debate a subject where there are facts involved, get them right or get out.

Did I or did I not, say that?

-AC

You did. And anyone who shoves aside facts need to reevaluate their stance on life.

Facts facts and more facts. AC loves his facts, doesn't he?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just to clarify, because I've only ever been debating one point with Whob and in general recently, since Makedde has trouble: "Human life begins at conception."

Again I ask, when does contraception become any different than prevention...or murders of a lifeless mass of cells??

Both imply preventing god's will from cumming to furition.

Originally posted by Makedde
Facts facts and more facts. AC loves his facts, doesn't he?

Hahahaha, yeah, I love to know what I'm talking about and be able to prove it.

I understand this isn't a course of action that is popular with the walking ignorami of KMC, but it works for me.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
Facts facts and more facts. AC loves his facts, doesn't he?

What would be the point of NOT using facts?

Allowing people like her to speak without being questioned, I imagine.

That's why she has a problem with facts and knowing what you're talking about, because she can do neither.

-AC

Originally posted by Wesker
What would be the point of NOT using facts?

When facts are corrupted by opinion...and not even popular opinion at that..

Originally posted by Wesker
What would be the point of NOT using facts?

You can use facts, but if someone has an opinion that is factually wrong, it shouldn't matter. So what if someones opinion is factually wrong? It's still an opinion.

Originally posted by Makedde
You can use facts, but if someone has an opinion that is factually wrong, it shouldn't matter. So what if someones opinion is factually wrong? It's still an opinion.

It's also still wrong and no longer valid. So you continuing to say a factually wrong opinion, KNOWING that it's wrong is not only dumb, but pointless in the thread.

-AC