• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should abortion providers be given the death penalty?

I did not say the zygote was not an organism (although it is debatable that it is - I have not said what you claim)

You did say this just as you also made the idiotic claim that sai

I did not say the zygote was Homo sapiens ?? My whole premise has been that it is not and I have shown that according standard Taxonomical classification that it is not.

Since the offspring organism of two Homo sapiens parents in the zygote stage of life is objectively that, a member of Homo sapiens, and I did note you made the retarded claim that this is not the case, appropriate of nothing, so I understood well what you were saying.

And in noting what you were saying, I am calling it what it is. You didn't show ****. You didn't demonstrate ****. You asserted, incorrectly, that somehow a Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life is not a Homo sapiens. You went further, you denied that they were hominids, you denied they were primates, you even denied they were animals.

You made these claims based on nothing, you cannot support such insane drivel, and it is entirely at odds with objective, scientific fact; moreover, there is no excuse for you making such assertions if you claim to have graduated beyond middle school.

We do not magically become a member of a species mid-lifespan, and the lifespan of a sexually reproducing organism such as Homo sapiens objectively begins at fertilization with the zygote stage of life.


Whether one is a bigot who holds warped subjective values and chooses not to value the lives of the Homo sapiens in utero... or not... is immaterial to the objective science.

Further -- You have yet to state how a human can exist when no cells that make up it's body exist ?

Another false claim by you.

A Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life has a body that consists of exactly one cell. That cell exists. It will divide and divide and divide and divide until it advances to the blastocyst stage of life. In this stage a blastocyst will either implant in a uterine wall or not; if it does not, that human will die.
 
Regarding this: "I did not say the zygote was not an organism (although it is debatable that it is - I have not said what you claim)
You did say this just as you also made the idiotic claim that sai"

I forgot about this clause in the original post as I moved on to and finished the others first.

In any event, thinkagain, in post #125 you did state the following:
Biology/Taxonomy - the domain science in terms of classifying what an organism is - Classification as Homo sapiens requires membership in a whole bunch of clubs (based on characteristics). The zygote simply does not qualify.

"What an organism is... the zygote does not qualify." This does parse as you stating that the Homo sapiens in utero in the zygote stage of life does not qualify as an organism, and that you are basing this on the science of Biology, when in fact scientific concepts and definitions demonstrate the opposite.
 
Another false claim by you.

A Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life has a body that consists of exactly one cell. That cell exists. It will divide and divide and divide and divide until it advances to the blastocyst stage of life. In this stage a blastocyst will either implant in a uterine wall or not; if it does not, that human will die.


The debate here is whether or not the zygote is Homo sapiens. You have yet to provide any valid (non fallacious) support for this claim.

Since the offspring organism of two Homo sapiens parents in the zygote stage of life is objectively that, a member of Homo sapiens, and I did note you made the retarded claim that this is not the case, appropriate of nothing, so I understood well what you were saying.

The word "offspring" in relation to humans, refers to born children. You have not shown that the zygote qualifies as a child, never mind a born child.

Even if the zygote was a Homo sapiens/a human. This does not change the fact that the single cell at conception will never be one of the cells in the body of a human.

Just because you do not understand the process of how a human is created does not make scientific facts related to that creation false.

The zygote disappears soon after it is created. It splits into two daughter cells which are clones of the parent cell. (the offspring of the zygote).
This is called "asexual reproduction". If it was a human it would reproduce "sexually". Humans do not divide in two during reproduction like a cell does.

Some time later, after the creation of the blastocyst (which will end up being discarded - Placenta) the embryoblast starts to form (inside of the blastocyst).

The cells in the blastocyst start producing specialized and differentiated cells (which are different than the totipotent cells in the blastocyst). It is these cells that form the structure of the human.

A human body is made of cells. Up until the embryoblast starts to form - no cells that will be part of that body yet exist.

A human is not a single cell. If your claim that the zygote was a human was true, this would mean that 2 humans exist (daughter cells) and hundreds more humans during the formation of the blastocyst. All these humans would then be killed as the cells/humans in the blastocyst "afterbirth" are discarded.

This makes no sense from a scientific or logical perspective.

Your claim (at least so far) is based on fallacious arguments and ignorance.
 
Your claim (at least so far) is based on fallacious arguments and ignorance.
Your attempt to have a rational and intelligent discussion will be just that and will receive as reply the same ignorant uneducated rants we have seen time and again over many years. That tripe is not worth your effort.
 
Your attempt to have a rational and intelligent discussion will be just that and will receive as reply the same ignorant uneducated rants we have seen time and again over many years. That tripe is not worth your effort.

Thanks for the heads up. Never good to continue feeding trolls for too long.
 
Regarding this: "I did not say the zygote was not an organism (although it is debatable that it is - I have not said what you claim)
You did say this just as you also made the idiotic claim that sai"

I forgot about this clause in the original post as I moved on to and finished the others first.

In any event, thinkagain, in post #125 you did state the following:


"What an organism is... the zygote does not qualify." This does parse as you stating that the Homo sapiens in utero in the zygote stage of life does not qualify as an organism, and that you are basing this on the science of Biology, when in fact scientific concepts and definitions demonstrate the opposite.

Biology/Taxonomy - the domain science in terms of classifying what an organism is - Classification as Homo sapiens requires membership in a whole bunch of clubs (based on characteristics). The zygote simply does not qualify.

In the above quote I do not say that the Zygote is not an organism. To be more clear I should have said "the domain science in classifying what species an organism is"

In the quote above I merely state that according to taxonomical classification the zygote is not a Homo sapiens. I do not comment on whether or not the zygote is an organism.

We can discuss that if you like as it is not exactly black and white that a zygote is an organism.

Here is some commentary by Dana Krempels PH.D (Prof and the U of Miami) in Evolutionary Biology/visual physiology

I don't know any biologist who would classify a single cell from a Homo sapiens as a Homo sapiens. *Even a zygote, which may have the *potential* to become a Homo sapiens, but is not an organism by any stretch of the imagination, is not considered an individual Homo sapiens by any members of the scientific community that I know.

A colonial organism is defined as one being composed of loosely organized cells, sometimes with a division of labor. *In many truly colonial organisms (e.g., Volvox; some would include sponges), the cells can survive on their own, when taken out of the colony, and even undergo mitosis to produce a new colony (without the help of cloning technology). *So in the strictest, biological sense, no eumetazoan (including a human) is a colonial organism. *

An organism that exhibits *true multicellularity* (as opposed to being colonial) is defined as one composed of various types of cells that are coordinated to perform particular functions by organizing into organs and organ systems. *The individual cells cannot survive for long outside the whole organism.

I do not believe the scientific community in general considers a zygote, blastula or gastrula containing the human genome to be a Homo sapiens. *To a biologist, those cells or conglomerations of cells have only the *potential* to become human. *This may be a matter of debate in social and political circles, but not in serious scientific ones.[/QUOTE]

Biology: Classification of Homo Sapien cells as HS themselves, homo sapien, sex cells

As I stated from the outset .. the best place the Anti-abort position can get to from a scientific perspective is "Experts disagree".

It is then abject nonsense to make "defacto" claims such as "the zygote is a human according to science". While we may be able to find some scientists (perhaps even a few from the Domain Science/Biology) that argue that the zygote should be classified as a human. There are a whole bunch that do not.

The Philosophical and Bioethical arguments are a different story.
 
Another false claim by you.

A Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life has a body that consists of exactly one cell. That cell exists. It will divide and divide and divide and divide until it advances to the blastocyst stage of life. In this stage a blastocyst will either implant in a uterine wall or not; if it does not, that human will die.

What does your above rambling have to do with my statement:

Further -- You have yet to state how a human can exist when no cells that make up it's body exist ?

The zygote cell you are speaking of will not be a cell in the human that is being created. Do you not understand this ?

The cells of the blastocyst will not be cells in the body of the human being created either. It is like you are trying to claim a brick building exists when not a single brick has been laid.

This makes no sense. If not a single cell in the body of a human exists .. does that human exist ?

The zygote contains the blueprint for a human. You can call the zygote a human all you like if you want. This does not change the fact that not a single cell of the human in the blueprint has been created at the zygote stage.
 
The debate here is whether or not the zygote is Homo sapiens.

That is not a topic for debate at all.

We do not change species mid-lifespan. Your assertion that we do is patently absurd and betrays a fundamental ignorance of biological science.

The word "offspring" in relation to humans, refers to born children.
Objectively false. Learn your scientific terminology. There are no organisms that are not offspring. Mammalian young who have not been born are still organisms, they still have parent organisms, they are offspring.

Even if the zygote was a Homo sapiens/a human. This does not change the fact that the single cell at conception will never be one of the cells in the body of a human.

You have made this assertion numerous times. It has no significance whatsoever.

Our lifespan as one contiguous organism begins with fertilization. That one cell divides and divides until a blastocyst of totipotent cells is formed; if implantation occurs, pregnancy begins and the cells from that blastocyst begin to take on specialized roles due to the effects of transcription factors.

Every cell that is you came from that initial cell. Welcome to the concept you should have learned on the first day of middle school life science.

The zygote disappears soon after it is created. It splits into two daughter cells which are clones of the parent cell. (the offspring of the zygote).
This is called "asexual reproduction". If it was a human it would reproduce "sexually". Humans do not divide in two during reproduction like a cell does.

Mitosis.

It's called... ****ing... mitosis.

You just called the first mitotic event in a multicellular organism "asexual reproduction." You do not have a degree in Biology. :lamo

Amazing. This isn't remotely worth my time aside from comedy from now on.

A human is not a single cell.
Objectively false; a human is a single cell in the zygote stage of life.

If your claim that the zygote was a human was true, this would mean that 2 humans exist (daughter cells) and hundreds more humans during the formation of the blastocyst.

Objectively false; the 2 cells following the first mitosis still comprise the entire body of an organism. When those divide to 4 cells, you STILL have a set of cells which comprise the entire body of an organism. ****ing duh.
 
Last edited:
One of the strongest deterrents in stopping abortion imo is increasing the penalty for abortion - the maximum penalty of course would be the death penalty.

Would this decrease the number of abortions in our country? As a just society wouldn't this be a fair solution?

I want to add many of these abortionists and abortion providers are dead inside. The death penalty would be just killing the physical body. Spiritually inside, they are dead.

So killing people that are dead inside sounds reasonable? Can we include non-abortion providers too?
 
That is not a topic for debate at all.

We do not change species mid-lifespan. Your assertion that we do is patently absurd and betrays a fundamental ignorance of biological science.

Objectively false. Learn your scientific terminology. There are no organisms that are not offspring. Mammalian young who have not been born are still organisms, they still have parent organisms, they are offspring.



You have made this assertion numerous times. It has no significance whatsoever.

Our lifespan as one contiguous organism begins with fertilization. That one cell divides and divides until a blastocyst of totipotent cells is formed; if implantation occurs, pregnancy begins and the cells from that blastocyst begin to take on specialized roles due to the effects of transcription factors.

Every cell that is you came from that initial cell. Welcome to the concept you should have learned on the first day of middle school life science.



Mitosis.

It's called... ****ing... mitosis.

You just called the first mitotic event in a multicellular organism "asexual reproduction." You do not have a degree in Biology. :lamo

Amazing. This isn't remotely worth my time aside from comedy from now on.

Objectively false; a human is a single cell in the zygote stage of life.



Objectively false; the 2 cells following the first mitosis still comprise the entire body of an organism. When those divide to 4 cells, you STILL have a set of cells which comprise the entire body of an organism. ****ing duh.

Human offspring refers to born children. It is not a term that is referring to the zygote.

Repeating your claim "Zygote is a Homo sapiens" over and over again is not proof of much. The zygote does not have the characteristics required to be classified as a Homo sapiens
under the rules of taxonomical classification.

You have made this assertion numerous times. It has no significance whatsoever.

Our lifespan as one contiguous organism begins with fertilization. That one cell divides and divides until a blastocyst of totipotent cells is formed; if implantation occurs, pregnancy begins and the cells from that blastocyst begin to take on specialized roles due to the effects of transcription factors.

Every cell that is you came from that initial cell. Welcome to the concept you should have learned on the first day of middle school life science.

Of course it is significant that at conception not a single cell in the structure of a human exists.

Further - the cells from the blastocyst do not begin to take on specialized roles. The cells in the blastocyst "Create" new cells which take on specialized roles.

That every cell in your body has the zygote as it's ancestor - does not make every cell in your body a human and nor does it make the zygote a human. If the zygote is a Human (as you claim) then why are the children of the zygote not humans ?
 
That is not a topic for debate at all.

We do not change species mid-lifespan. Your assertion that we do is patently absurd and betrays a fundamental ignorance of biological science.

Objectively false. Learn your scientific terminology. There are no organisms that are not offspring. Mammalian young who have not been born are still organisms, they still have parent organisms, they are offspring.



You have made this assertion numerous times. It has no significance whatsoever.

Our lifespan as one contiguous organism begins with fertilization. That one cell divides and divides until a blastocyst of totipotent cells is formed; if implantation occurs, pregnancy begins and the cells from that blastocyst begin to take on specialized roles due to the effects of transcription factors.

Every cell that is you came from that initial cell. Welcome to the concept you should have learned on the first day of middle school life science.



Mitosis.

It's called... ****ing... mitosis.

You just called the first mitotic event in a multicellular organism "asexual reproduction." You do not have a degree in Biology. :lamo

Amazing. This isn't remotely worth my time aside from comedy from now on.

Objectively false; a human is a single cell in the zygote stage of life.



Objectively false; the 2 cells following the first mitosis still comprise the entire body of an organism. When those divide to 4 cells, you STILL have a set of cells which comprise the entire body of an organism. ****ing duh.

Repeating "its a Homo sapiens" over and over is not an argument for much...

speaking of ****ing duh ....

What part of this Ph.D Biologists commentary did you not understand ?

I don't know any biologist who would classify a single cell from a Homo sapiens as a Homo sapiens. *Even a zygote, which may have the *potential* to become a Homo sapiens, but is not an organism by any stretch of the imagination, is not considered an individual Homo sapiens by any members of the scientific community that I know.
Biology: Classification of Homo Sapien cells as HS themselves, homo sapien, sex cells
 
Back
Top Bottom