How is it a whataboutism? You used a lower receiver as a retarded example in your feeble attempt to prove a point.
SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
How is it a whataboutism? You used a lower receiver as a retarded example in your feeble attempt to prove a point.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Stop lying. Show me where I said YOU said that.
ExpressLane
Verified User
So you finally understood my question? Good. Small steps.
It is necessary to show that it's murder.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
You need only ask him two questions to completely tear his position apart.
[1] What is the species of the zygote if it is not 'human'? (here, he must admit that the zygote is human).
[2] How is the zygote actively developing through the stages of human life if he/she is not living? (here, he must admit that the zygote is living).
From here, he has now admitted that the zygote is a 'living human', and is thus condoning the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die. --- IOW, a very morally disgusting, reckless, and indefensible position on human life.
He will then, in his irrationality, try to divert your focus off of this fact any way that he can, which usually means continuing to bring up and get you to start discussing the word "BEING", attempting to get you to fall into the rabbit hole of debating what a human "BEING" is, losing sight of the fact that he is condoning the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die.
So long as you stick steadfast to this line of argumentation and refuse to fall for any distraction attempts, you have the winning position on the issue.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Hmm this says nothing about an EEG.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/homicide#:~:text=Homicide is when one human,criminal law
Opinion: The problem that supporters of Roe v. Wade could never solve: There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
Rick Esenberg
Roe v. Wade removed much of the regulation of abortion from the democratic process. Under Roe, if everyone in Wisconsin woke up tomorrow and wished to outlaw third trimester abortions except for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, they would have be unable to do so. For almost 50 years, Roe has, for all practical purposes, created a right to abortion at any time and for any reason.
This may be about the end. Although a court can always surprise you, it is likely that, early this summer, the United States Supreme Court will overturn Roe in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The majority in Dobbs (as opposed to the left-progressive justices who can be expected to dissent) will not turn on whether or when abortion is a good idea or even whether a woman should be able to choose to have one. Our Constitution is not a license for unelected judges and justices to engage in a free-wheeling inquiry as to what rights we should or should not have.
To the contrary, the Dobbs decision will focus on whether such a right can be found in — or fairly implied from — the language of the Constitution. And therein lies the not-so-secret problem with Roe. The “right” to an abortion is nowhere to be found — at least not by any method that can be called law.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/opin...y-decided-there-no-right-abortion/9617605002/
Rick Esenberg
Roe v. Wade removed much of the regulation of abortion from the democratic process. Under Roe, if everyone in Wisconsin woke up tomorrow and wished to outlaw third trimester abortions except for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, they would have be unable to do so. For almost 50 years, Roe has, for all practical purposes, created a right to abortion at any time and for any reason.
This may be about the end. Although a court can always surprise you, it is likely that, early this summer, the United States Supreme Court will overturn Roe in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The majority in Dobbs (as opposed to the left-progressive justices who can be expected to dissent) will not turn on whether or when abortion is a good idea or even whether a woman should be able to choose to have one. Our Constitution is not a license for unelected judges and justices to engage in a free-wheeling inquiry as to what rights we should or should not have.
To the contrary, the Dobbs decision will focus on whether such a right can be found in — or fairly implied from — the language of the Constitution. And therein lies the not-so-secret problem with Roe. The “right” to an abortion is nowhere to be found — at least not by any method that can be called law.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/opin...y-decided-there-no-right-abortion/9617605002/
I already said it's human. Pay attention.
Of course it's alive. Human cells are alive.
In order to prove it's murder, you must define "being" and prove it. If you are capable of that, you'd receive a Noble prize.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Whether the zygote is human or not (it is), the answer to your question is "for sake of convenience".
The "stopping of development" (killing a living human) is being done for sake of convenience. It is absolutely disgusting.
Notice the "being" part?
ExpressLane
Verified User
I like seeing him ineffectively trying to get himself out of a losing hole.
Never try to argue Human development with a doctor.
I like seeing him ineffectively trying to get himself out of a losing hole.
being meaning: 1. a person or """""thing""""" that exists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/being
The zygote exists as a human
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yes, it is.
Correct. The human is living as well.
All that matters is that it is a living human. You are condoning the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor expressed any desire to die. Pure evil.
ExpressLane
Verified User
So are you denying that Princeton University Scientist says a zygote is a human being? Science denier
ExpressLane
Verified User
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species."
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Your standard go to when your argument has been destroyed.
That's a development. You're trying too hard.
Now prove it's a being, not someone's opinion.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Correct. And don't worry, Demonkkkrats are already doing Satan's bidding via efforts to legalize the murdering of newborns as well.
They ultimately wish to destroy human life no matter what developmental stage it is in.