And as it has been explained to you before 10000000 times, the above is 100% FALSE.
You're being completely illogical. I'll try to explain it one more time.
Two samples are taken to a lab for DNA tests. One sample is taken from the liver of a living, breathing human being and the other sample is taken from a liver of a cadaver that was removed shortly after death. Both tests show they're human material. Neither DNA test will determine whether the sample came from a living person or one who recently passed away which means DNA can not prove what is a human being as obviously the cadaver was not carrying on the processes of life. DNA determines human material only. Not whether something is a human being as, obviously, a liver is not a human being.
Since genetically speaking that is 100% FACTUAL, then yes, I will believe it. You go on believing in your magic baby fairy.
Genetically speaking. And my coffee table is an oak tree, genetically speaking. And when I sit on my back deck will I be sitting in a cedar tree or "on" a cedar tree?
When you order bacon do you ask for two strips of “sus scrofa domesticus”?
See apple, the above is what the argument really is about. When you try to dehumanize the child, you look like a fucking retard. Bottom line, the above is what the argument is really about. Do we afford the same rights to the fertilized egg cell that we do the woman. THAT is entirely subjective and what the discussion is about.
I know that's what the argument is about; certain people wanting to devalue a woman to the point of being comparable to a group of cells invisible to the naked eye. That's why I wrote it.
As for rights being subjective surely all the discussion regarding gay marriage has enlightened you to the fact discrimination is not usually acceptable and if/when it comes to the point where a group of cells is considered a human being any law suggesting a woman has more of a right to life than another human being is going to be tossed in the garbage. Besides its obvious vileness, legally sanctioning one human being more valuable than another, one human being a little less human, (sounds like a familiar road) what damage to a woman could possibly justify the taking of another human being's life?
Now, there are people who talk about self-defence, that should an unborn mass of cells be considered a human being a woman will always have the right to abort if her life is in jeopardy. The State also has a right to protect the mass of cells classified as a human being. If a woman has the right to take the life of an innocent human being to save her own life do you recall the burning building example I have previously mentioned?
Here's a refresher. Let's say a woman and her 10 year old son are standing on a balcony of a burning building waiting for the fire department. The building is old and the balcony is starting to come away from the wall due to the vibrations caused as the interior of the building collapses as it burns. The woman knows (for argument, let’s say she’s a structural engineer)
that the balcony can not hold both her and her son. Does she have the right to push her son off the balcony to certain death in order to save her own life?
If no, what is the difference between killing her son at 10 weeks of gestational age vs at 10 years of age, assuming a 10 week old fetus is a human being?
Let’s say a woman’s doctor tells her she has uncontrolled diabetes aggravated by the pregnancy and she could lose partial eye sight or, if severe enough, could result in the amputation of extremities such as toes, a partial foot, etc. The woman wants an abortion. Does the loss or partial eye sight or a few toes justify killing an innocent human being?
While these situations may be rare they will arise and my reason for asking is I’m trying to determine the value you place on human life.
Doctors, like all professionals, hold differing opinions. Will the Ex-boyfriend be allowed to compel the woman to be examined by another doctor? Does the Ex-boyfriend have a case saying he objects to the murder of his son based on the possibility his Ex may have to wear glasses if she continues the pregnancy?
Will there be national standards or, say, a woman in Mississippi will be compelled to bear a child regardless of the consequences whereas a woman in Tennessee will have options? If she travels to Tennessee for an abortion will the FBI get involved due to a possible interstate crime?
These and many other questions have to be addressed before anyone considers bestowing the designation of human being on anything. The reason is once questions are raised we quickly see the absurdity of it all. Classifying something as a human being and then twisting and contorting laws in order to adjust to reality, including what amounts to preventive murder, devalues every other human being.
