You are very entitled to hold that opinion because that's all it is, but you are not entitled to force others to comply who honestly don't see it your way.
LH you are clearly confused, I don't think I ever actually mis-spelt it, find my quote if I did, and gc didn't either on the first occasion anyway, so you are not only being a spelling Nazi and pedant but a rather dishonest one at that. :nono:
Both remain unedited except to highlight.
I wonder if you realise that most zygotes actually fail as a matter of course?
That is EXACTLY my point. We all agree that killing a 5 year old is a tragedy and an intrinsic wrong.
There is no justification for execution, god created the person and you are destroying what god created, you are not only defying god you are murdering someone and you will go to hell for it.
Whatever individuals may do rather pales into insignifigance compared to the human tragedy going on as perhaps arranged by God if a new human being really is created at every conception.
lain: No, I bat for the rights of individual persons, not potential ones, to lead meaningful lives with dignity.
You otoh live your life apparently as a willing slave to an invisible destroyer of two thirds of humanity, and then you criticise those who simply want to be able to make their own choices about it all and not to be compelled to go along with your version.
Perhaps you will first explain what "dignant" means, I've never heard of it least never used it.
Zygote is OK for now. But whatever it's name is when it's at the one cell stage, that's when we would protect it as a human.
And the "correct environment" is...? Has there ever been a pluripotent cell that came from a skin cells that ever naturally ended up in the "correct environment?"
Wow. I'm either reading this wrong or my satire has exposed your predilection for euthanasia.
It doesn't actually say not to kill the unborn either.
Show me these myriad of cases where another person (or just another organism) can lawfully access your internal private parts without your ongoing consent.
A one celled zygote is a complete human. Why shouldn't it get the same rights? It isn't assertion, it's a logical conclusion.
As irrelevant as this is to the discussion, what is amazing is that a woman's body knows when there is a fertilized egg getting ready to implant.
Despite the failure of drug prohibition, there would not be a huge black market for these chemicals because women don't want to take them *now* when they are easy to get and relatively cheap. Despite the ease of taking a morning after pill, women prefer to get "surprised" and go through some very expensive and invasive surgery to get rid of their babies. Thus, they will either have the baby or modify their behavior if the option of killing the innocent baby is not available in most cases. Sure, there will be a black market for abortifacients, but it won't be a big market like the market that is the cause of imprisonment of 1/2 the federal prison population.
Of course, none of these ludicrous things will be done. It will probably be similar to what is being done in places that already make illegal the killing of innocent humans before they are born. Probably similar to before killing innocent humans before they are born was legal in this country. What were we doing then?
But my point was that killing any human is just as much an intrinsic wrong and it carries consequences you don't want as a society.
Huh? You aren't being clear. Do you mean I want to call every human even when they started as a single cell a human?
The emotional appeal of a picture is valid because those woman that are murdering their babies even by your criteria should be persuaded not to.
You are letting your emotional bias get in the way of a sound moral code.
And if you start defining which humans are persons, there are consequences for those humans being intentionally killed.