CDZ POLL: An Abortion Kills a Child

[Lucy Hamilton]

I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.

How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?

Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???

Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..

I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."

If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.

It really is THAT simple.

That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.

There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..

"That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history."

I support abortion in both of the above situations. The first, only the extremists would suggest that it is wrong to abort a baby with no chance of developing a brain the most CRUCIAL organ in the ENTIRE body that without there is no actual life.

The second that is in the section of the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger and so yes if a woman was having triplets and one was crowding and suffocating the others and also endangering the mothers life then one of those triplets would have to be removed, depending on the damage to the other two and the risk to the life of the mother the possibility would be that all three would have to be removed.

I may or may not agree on some if the justifications for an abortion that you just described.

However, What does any of that have to do with whether or not an abortion actually kills a child?

Please.

That is the ONLY topic for this thread.

Intentionally so.

"I may or may not agree on some if the justifications for an abortion that you just described."

I'm not sure I would call those cases abortion per se, because the first I would see as compassion and the second I would see as saving a life and/or lives. Neither one of them would be because of Inconvenience ie. abortion as a means of contraception because having a baby is going to ruin the mother's lifestyle etc

"However, What does any of that have to do with whether or not an abortion actually kills a child?"

Well I was responding to Flac's comments, I always thought that if someone posted something in a thread that the point then was to respond to those comments.

 

[CremeBrulee]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

 

[Chuz Life]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

I applaud your openness about your knowledge and the source of your views.

I know the science maybe too well (if that is possible) and still, I am completely open to being wrong.

Bottom line is that I know what an organism is and Ii know that all organism's have parents.

It is not very likely that is going to change.

Also. one of the things that helps (me) is knowing the biological event that makes my biological parents (especially my father) MY biological father. Conception.

To say that I was not immediately his biological "child" when I was conceived is to say that he is not my biological father at all.
He would have been the biological parent of some thing (less than me) that only later MORPHED into me.

When I finally learned and understood that human beings do not "morph" and that we are the same organism from the beginning to the end of our life cycles, the rest became even easier to understand and appreciate.

 

[Blues Man]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.

They are not the same thing.

A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.

Sorry if you consider this post off topic.

It's not off topic.

But a zygote is not a life unto itself. At what point during gestation does that zygote become a life unto itself?

A cell in not necessarily a human being even if it is a human cell

 

[Blues Man]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Many species use asexual reproduction. Bacteria reproduce asexually. They go through mitosis once to make two cells from the original cell.

Point being, no father nor mother required. Just one "parent."

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

Bingo. But, but, can't we all just make it up as we go along? I insist upon having it both ways! Yes. An aborted fetus may or may not have been viable (a potential child). Murder may or may not be involved depending upon applicable local law. And no. Only those capable of surviving apart from any parents or artificial means of "life" support = offspring = child = "unto itself" = no longer an inseparable part of something else. Yes. But one can keep quibbling like a silly idiot and many do. Nonetheless, majorities arrive at useful meanings and distinctions often neatly listed in common dictionaries.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Propaganda Thread Fail "

* Argumentative About Commonly Understood And Accepted Definition *

Where in the OP was a definition of a child provided ?

The thread should be entitled , " Does the definition of a child include the unborn ? " and we all know the answer to that question is " No . " .

Hence , abortion does not literally kill a child , and any further contention that abortion figuratively kills a child is hubris .

 

[SaxxyBlues]

An abortion is, was, and always will be an abortion.. Why on earth do people take an abortion and personalize it. Every month a woman bleeds. She is used to that. Unfertilized eggs are dropped, her uterus empties. Women who have abortions are putting themselves back on the rag. It is not necessary for me to pick through the contents of an abortion to make moral judgements. It is what it is. Emptying of the uterus by medical means.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Also animals cannot have elective abortions. Having that ability makes us human. I don't want to be treated like an animal. Apparently, abortion is one of those things that make us human. The right to choose.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

The Pro-Abortion crowd in this thread have now reached a new low, not only further displaying zero empathy but now the use of certain Sociopathic terminology - eg. a Homocidal Sociopath does NOT view his and/or her victims as human, he and/or she views them as things and objects and it is this specific de-humanisation of the victim that makes it easy for them to torture and/or murder them.

So we have the literal further de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb and comparing it to nothing more than gut bacteria, the child is a collection of cells, bacteria is formed from cells. It is this evil de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb that enables the Pro-Abortion crowd to justify the continued Genocide of The Unborn as they slumber in the womb, essentially the Pro-Abortion side are no different in this regard to for instance a Serial Killer who would use similar Sociopathic terminology to justify the murder of his and/or her victims who of course are not human but who are things and objects, just like a developing human baby is put literally in the same category as gut bacteria.

Disgusting.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Also animals cannot have elective abortions. Having that ability makes us human. I don't want to be treated like an animal. Apparently, abortion is one of those things that make us human. The right to choose.

I thank you for having all your abortions, nobody wants you and your crowd to reproduce. Your DNA dies with you and for this we are VERY happy. You will never be treated like an animal, animals are far superior to your crowd.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

An abortion is, was, and always will be an abortion.. Why on earth do people take an abortion and personalize it. Every month a woman bleeds. She is used to that. Unfertilized eggs are dropped, her uterus empties. Women who have abortions are putting themselves back on the rag. It is not necessary for me to pick through the contents of an abortion to make moral judgements. It is what it is. Emptying of the uterus by medical means.

"Why on earth do people take an abortion and personalize it. Every month a woman bleeds. She is used to that. Unfertilized eggs are dropped, her uterus empties."

An 8 week developing baby In Utero is NOT a period, your crowd are so sick it makes peoples wonder exactly what psychological and/or physical trauma you went through in early life to get as fucked up as your crowd are.

Also illustrating how stupid you are, you are babbling in typical uneducated fashion about an unfertilised egg, we are talking about FERTILISED eggs you fool, UNFERTILISED eggs do NOT cause pregnancy ONLY FERTILISED eggs do. Hello? Biology 101.

 

[Blues Man]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

The Pro-Abortion crowd in this thread have now reached a new low, not only further displaying zero empathy but now the use of certain Sociopathic terminology - eg. a Homocidal Sociopath does NOT view his and/or her victims as human, he and/or she views them as things and objects and it is this specific de-humanisation of the victim that makes it easy for them to torture and/or murder them.

So we have the literal further de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb and comparing it to nothing more than gut bacteria, the child is a collection of cells, bacteria is formed from cells. It is this evil de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb that enables the Pro-Abortion crowd to justify the continued Genocide of The Unborn as they slumber in the womb, essentially the Pro-Abortion side are no different in this regard to for instance a Serial Killer who would use similar Sociopathic terminology to justify the murder of his and/or her victims who of course are not human but who are things and objects, just like a developing human baby is put literally in the same category as gut bacteria.

Disgusting.

Those who see the world in only black and white are incapable of discussing any other shade

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

The Pro-Abortion crowd in this thread have now reached a new low, not only further displaying zero empathy but now the use of certain Sociopathic terminology - eg. a Homocidal Sociopath does NOT view his and/or her victims as human, he and/or she views them as things and objects and it is this specific de-humanisation of the victim that makes it easy for them to torture and/or murder them.

So we have the literal further de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb and comparing it to nothing more than gut bacteria, the child is a collection of cells, bacteria is formed from cells. It is this evil de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb that enables the Pro-Abortion crowd to justify the continued Genocide of The Unborn as they slumber in the womb, essentially the Pro-Abortion side are no different in this regard to for instance a Serial Killer who would use similar Sociopathic terminology to justify the murder of his and/or her victims who of course are not human but who are things and objects, just like a developing human baby is put literally in the same category as gut bacteria.

Disgusting.

Those who see the world in only black and white are incapable of discussing any other shade

I do not see the world only in black and white but it takes someone essentially Sociopathic to de-humanise something to the degree that they compare a developing child in the womb with gut bacteria.

 

[Blues Man]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

The Pro-Abortion crowd in this thread have now reached a new low, not only further displaying zero empathy but now the use of certain Sociopathic terminology - eg. a Homocidal Sociopath does NOT view his and/or her victims as human, he and/or she views them as things and objects and it is this specific de-humanisation of the victim that makes it easy for them to torture and/or murder them.

So we have the literal further de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb and comparing it to nothing more than gut bacteria, the child is a collection of cells, bacteria is formed from cells. It is this evil de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb that enables the Pro-Abortion crowd to justify the continued Genocide of The Unborn as they slumber in the womb, essentially the Pro-Abortion side are no different in this regard to for instance a Serial Killer who would use similar Sociopathic terminology to justify the murder of his and/or her victims who of course are not human but who are things and objects, just like a developing human baby is put literally in the same category as gut bacteria.

Disgusting.

Those who see the world in only black and white are incapable of discussing any other shade

I do not see the world only in black and white but it takes someone essentially Sociopathic to de-humanise something to the degree that they compare a developing child in the womb with gut bacteria.

If you bothered to read the posts you would see it was not I who brought gut bacteria into the discussion.

And I am not dehumanizing anything since i specifically said multiple times that a fertilized egg is a genetically unique human cell.

So tell me how can I dehumanize that which I stipulated was indeed human?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Also animals cannot have elective abortions. Having that ability makes us human. I don't want to be treated like an animal. Apparently, abortion is one of those things that make us human. The right to choose.

May be a shame but, whether they like it or not, we too are animals. Not plants.

The trend of aborting babies in the face of strange males is known as the Bruce effect. That’s not a slight against men of that name; the effect is named after the scientist who discovered it – Hilda Margaret Bruce. In 1959, she noticed that pregnant mice will abort if they’re exposed to unfamiliar males. Since then, scientists have found the same effect among other laboratory rodents, and domestic horses. {-More-}

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh good grief. Life begins at conception, you can spin it all day long but it's a scientific fact.

Snuffing that life out is wrong. It's murder

All you pro choice clowns? Learn personal responsibility

 

[SaxxyBlues]

An abortion is, was, and always will be an abortion.. Why on earth do people take an abortion and personalize it. Every month a woman bleeds. She is used to that. Unfertilized eggs are dropped, her uterus empties. Women who have abortions are putting themselves back on the rag. It is not necessary for me to pick through the contents of an abortion to make moral judgements. It is what it is. Emptying of the uterus by medical means.

"Why on earth do people take an abortion and personalize it. Every month a woman bleeds. She is used to that. Unfertilized eggs are dropped, her uterus empties."

An 8 week developing baby In Utero is NOT a period, your crowd are so sick it makes peoples wonder exactly what psychological and/or physical trauma you went through in early life to get as fucked up as your crowd are.

Also illustrating how stupid you are, you are babbling in typical uneducated fashion about an unfertilised egg, we are talking about FERTILISED eggs you fool, UNFERTILISED eggs do NOT cause pregnancy ONLY FERTILISED eggs do. Hello? Biology 101.

Where you any good at spelling in. school?

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Pro-Life people murder. Take a look at this
A Brief History of Deadly Attacks on Abortion Providers. Do Pro-Life activists support these people? I haven't seen anything where Pro-Choice murdered Pro-Life Activists.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

The comparison to outer space is invalid. No animal on this planet can survive the vacuum of space.

And no a zygote is not a life unto itself since it cannot perform the functions of life at that stage of development.

Remove the zygote from the womb and it dies.

And I never said a zygote is not alive. It is alive in the same manner as any cell of the human body is alive. But it is not a life unto itself.

We are not meant to live in the womb for our entire lifespan a gut bacteria has evolved to live in the digestive tract of an animal.

The Pro-Abortion crowd in this thread have now reached a new low, not only further displaying zero empathy but now the use of certain Sociopathic terminology - eg. a Homocidal Sociopath does NOT view his and/or her victims as human, he and/or she views them as things and objects and it is this specific de-humanisation of the victim that makes it easy for them to torture and/or murder them.

So we have the literal further de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb and comparing it to nothing more than gut bacteria, the child is a collection of cells, bacteria is formed from cells. It is this evil de-humanisation of a developing child in the womb that enables the Pro-Abortion crowd to justify the continued Genocide of The Unborn as they slumber in the womb, essentially the Pro-Abortion side are no different in this regard to for instance a Serial Killer who would use similar Sociopathic terminology to justify the murder of his and/or her victims who of course are not human but who are things and objects, just like a developing human baby is put literally in the same category as gut bacteria.

Disgusting.

Those who see the world in only black and white are incapable of discussing any other shade

I do not see the world only in black and white but it takes someone essentially Sociopathic to de-humanise something to the degree that they compare a developing child in the womb with gut bacteria.

If you bothered to read the posts you would see it was not I who brought gut bacteria into the discussion.

And I am not dehumanizing anything since i specifically said multiple times that a fertilized egg is a genetically unique human cell.

So tell me how can I dehumanize that which I stipulated was indeed human?

Sorry I thought it was you who brought gut bacteria into the discussion.