Mike Pence for President.

#290....M-tard3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

That does not make it any less a human being than you are.

You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born.

How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?

Haven't you been constantly asserting that the resultant organism at fertilization is a human being?

Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings. 

Lets take this bit by bit. Using the phrase medical science is obviously an appeal to authority and more is obviously needed to defend this view. Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"? Do you understand where I'm coming from? You keep asserting that science says this and science says that, but ultimately it has very little substance to it. If you wish to argue from this point, you need to bring more to the table.

For example, in your previous post you gave this as evidence

Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).

What does this tell me? It says that a zygote is a highly specialized, totipotent cell which is formed from the male and female gametes. The writer then asserts that this zygote is the beginning of a new human being.

What is this assertion based off? Where is the reasoning? What is so specific about a specialized totipotent cell that allows it to be called a human life?

It doesn't tell me anything! It's just opinionated drivel.

You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so. 

That's because my argument is philosophical reasoning. You're trying to derail it by abusing scientific definitions. But as we found out as toddlers, square blocks do not fit into star-shaped holes.

Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human. 

There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being. 

But of course there's a difference.

Homo sapiens just indicates membership of the homo sapiens species. A human being indicates a member of homo sapiens that has attained personhood

If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words. 

What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being. 

But we are not the beginnings of human beings, which the author writes.

In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization. 

The start of the development of a human being at fertilization is not equivalent to being a human being at fertilization. Much like how I cannot stick a wooden post in the ground and exclaim I've made a house

It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute. 

To be living is not equivalent to have lived. A senile man is not equivalent to an embryo. Both are living, only one has lived. Clear difference right?

IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.

But it hasn't lived. It hasn't attained personhood and it isn't a human being.

You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you. 

The facts are these. I've argued that prenatal-forms of homo sapiens are not human beings.

They have not had any experiences, nor have they provided any experiences, which I've argued are required to be described as a human being and not a husk in the shape and form of one.

They are not people and they have not attained personhood. You haven't made any arguments against this. Instead, you have brought up cherry-picked testimonies from scientists that have also not made any arguments against this.

Are you actually going to say anything relevant against my argument?

Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores. 

Prove it or admit you are lying.

What happens to the souls of the aborted.

You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless. 

You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize all women.

When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].

Proven false billions of times a day.

"First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period. 

Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead."

#290....M-tard3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

That does not make it any less a human being than you are.

And umpteen times Ive stated they are both alive. You seem to have a lack of reading comprehension skills.

You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born.

More lies by you. You repeately insinuate these lies that Ive never ever stated. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity but we know that is your primary problem in this whole issue of womans rights to her body and your attempts to immorally keep sticking your friggin nose *v* in their bodily business without there consent.

Occasionally you admit your doing exactly, that using differrent words but refuse to acknowledge any distinction in the degree of immoral integrity you lack in doing so.

Why are you in denial? Because of religious extremism and basically just a narccistic ego based Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee.

It is not about live and dead, and ive  been clear event tho you keep repeating lies in these regards. You dont get this because or your radical  religous extremism. Scary when people like keep trying to stick your immorally stick your nose inside other peoples bodys. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

1} It is about degrees viable existence as independant/individual aka born-out from pregnant woman,

2} it is about getting your nose *v* out of womens body business where you have not legal or moral rights to do so.

Until you grasp the distinction between fetus/baby and baby that has been born-out, you will remain and immoral, radical, religious extremist sticking your nose *v* into womens bodies where you have not been given consent by the woman. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

You need to be Locked Away!, along with all the other immoral Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees, away from the moral civilized socieity.

I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  

An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact. 

Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?

It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:

It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 

Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.

I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,

We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts. 

What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.

I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it. 

A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization. 

I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.

It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is. 

Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.

Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.  

Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these as He pointed to little children. 

I believe they are with God in heaven, but the point is that those who kill them or are accomplices are guilty of wrong before God. Without repentence and trust in the Savior, those who condone abortion will be judged for their sin. Only God has the right to take an innocent life because only He is able to restore it.

No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 

When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].

I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 

I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  

You are asserting that this fertilized egg is a new living human being. You have continuously asserted this. You have asserted this again in this very post. It is not common sense, nor is it predicated upon scientific fact. It is pure opinion.

An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact. 

You missed this part. "Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).". 

Unambiguously claiming that human life begins at fertilization is both extraordinary and important to your argument. Especially because such a statement is obviously contentious. While you may be content to accept this without further thought or supporting evidence or reasoning, I do not. This is mostly directed to the Moore quote as Ertelt isn't even a authoritative source, and the use of "Medical Science" is obviously equally unconvincing.

Continuing from that..

Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?

It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:

No, it tells me that this person thinks that it's the beginning of a new human being. Note "think" and "beginning". As clearly this is an opinion, and clearly a beginning of a new human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself

It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 

"Some experts say so, therefore I say so". Come back to me when you have the actual basis, reasoning and evidence. Because handwaving "experts say so" on an issue like this is completely insufficient on a contentious issue like this.

"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) ~

Was this definition supposed to refute what I said?

Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date. 

They don't, which is what you were claiming.

You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are. 

You will always be a member of homo sapiens certainly. The rest of what you've said is crud in terms of my argument

Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is. 

I assume you understand that a zygote does not autonomously turn into a baby and requires different inputs from the mother, whether waste disposal of provision of energy

What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?

If it is not living it can't be alive. 

I'm not sure what you're so confused about. It's the difference between living a life and having lived a life. A zygote certainly hasn't lived a life

Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature. 

By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being. 

"will". Future tense. I'm not advocating for abortions once a zygote has expressed its personhood. I'm advocating for abortions when it hasn't.

And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.

No, you seem to keep telling me a human can't change into a dog. Which is cute, but ultimately irrelevant.

Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature. 

This is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is a human being or not, for simple genetic make up is not my criteria.

They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life. 

Appeal to emotion.

When you give me a factual argument I will counter it. 

A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.

Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.

A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.

One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundings

Hence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being

No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 

You deny all women's right to their bodily autonomy you don't do that to men, you are hypocritically lying.

When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].

Here is the godist lie writ large, the bolded is not a part of that alleged quote, but the truth is not somewhere a godist dare approach.

I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 

You have never made the distinction and the context is that billions of humans mate with billions of humans everyday and what you claim happens is an outright lie, but de rigeur for a godist.

Are they both human and alive? 

You are okay with killing them (condoning murdering another human being).

So, why not apply that standard to yourself?

Are you okay with those who make laws and legislate the unborns death determining you are unfit to live because the elite does not see you are as advanced in some manner as they are?

If you recognize they are alive and they are human beings (I believe I could find many posts that you argue against them being such

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you examine your own position. 

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you stop virutal rape

The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happens

False.  Read my lips text and do not come back to tale to me until you can stop making False staments/commnets/etc.  This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.

The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet  is stillintimiate{  inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body  business and you as a  Trunpanzee,

1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,

2} just as grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }

This is just two of the reaons  why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!

Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity

Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity

I want the law applied equally.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),