RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[Got Stripers]

Picture says it all.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Picture says it all.

lemme ask you, if abortion is restricted, yes that will be hard on moms no question. and your side makes that clear.

is there anything else that happens, when abortion is not chosen? other than moms having to endure something admittedly difficult, is there anything GOOD that happens as a result of child birth? Can you think of anything positive? Anything? A baby being born means absolutely nothing to you? Not worth mentioning? Not a syllable? that’s very telling, about how slanted this issue is framed.

As always, your side will only talk about the impact to the mom. and that’s an important part of this, but it’s not all of it. the impact to the baby is also part of this, and your side hates admitting that or considering it for a second.

Why are so many people
moving to red states, do you think? NH, TN, NC, SC, TX, FL? If those states are run by people
who are so barbaric, why are people
moving there?

When you live in a place with low taxes that put hundreds of dollars in your pocket a
month ( or more) yiu don’t need, or want, the state to provide some of those things.

Pre exiting condition coverage is a terrific idea, sincerely. that was a real winner for them, and they deserve the reward.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion
This country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from.

You have belittled the notion of intention as the weakest form of argument. Here you quote (without quotes or attribution) an article by Charles I Lugosi promoting intention as highly significant. There is no record I know of by those who crafted the Amendment that the intention was to protect people from harm from other people. I assume that laws to do that were already in place in every state and implicit in various parts of the Constitution.

As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings.

Again, there were and are various laws in every state to protect "born" human beings. Unborn humans are not so universally protected. Nor are they mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so.

The 14th Amendment protects those who are born in this country or are naturalized citizens and refers to these people as "persons." It does not include any other persons. It does not mention the unborn neither as persons nor citizens. There may be a well grounded reason the SCOTUS has chosen not to define the unborn as persons. In any case, the 14th Amendment does not do so, nor does it mention the unborn, not even as citizens.

Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings,

I have not heard of this establishment of personhood.
Human beings? Yes. Persons? Too many connotations and denotations, especially legal to establish that. The unborn are simply not capable of engaging in the activities, legal or otherwise, including the rewards and punishments for "legal person" type activities, to be established as a "person." In law, definitions have to be precise, not vague.

thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It may strongly support Mr. Lugosi's interpretation, but the 14th Amendment, PER ITS TEXT (I am a textualist first) does not support his interpretation. It specifically refers to "All persons born or naturalized"--it doesn't mention the unborn nor say that the unborn are persons. And it says that life is protected by due process of law. It doesn't prescribe a specific federal law, but leaves the law to be defined by the states and the "equal protection" is under the laws of the states.

The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood.

How can the unborn meet the standards that make corporations "persons"? The unborn cannot engage in the activities that make corporations "persons."

There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 14th Amendment does not prescribe a law that pertains to the unborn. Therefor, it clearly leaves that prescription up to the states.

[Got Stripers]

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

ok. so you can log on, talk about how abortion restrictions are tough on women, and when i say “how about the baby” and you lib an insult and scurry off.

you have no response, because there isn’t a response that doesn’t make you look like a Nazi.

so you talk about the woman ( who’s obviously part of this), then when the other side talks you put fingers in your ears and tell LA LA LA LA.

must be exhausting to feel like you have to constantly dodge any challenge to what you believe.

you're saying it's "idiotic" to feel that an analysis of abortion should consider both the cost to th emother and the benefit to the baby.

I bet Hitler used the same argument, "hey, it's good for us, and there's nothing else to consider, right?"

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion

is country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not responding to what I said. I didn't say anybody was trying to "impose those rules on all Americans" or that "anyone is required to get an abortion." I facetiously contrasted what some faiths require to what you said some faiths require when you said "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases. Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional"-- and I said that it also was unconstitutional. That was a mistake on my part because it afforded you the opportunity to skip over the rest of what I said, which was not facetious, but the serious stuff to which you did not respond.

And that serious stuff was a response to your framing the right to abortion as the right of women to control their own bodies. I pointed out that if women actually controlled their bodies, there would be no need for the vast majority of abortions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant it is easy to control her own body so that she won't get pregnant. And, BTW, the fetus is not her own body.

And I pointed out that the notion of wanting to control your own body isn't merely about abortion, and asked if their were societal obligations that accompanied this controlling your own body--if the right to control your own body should require penalties when you didn't control or willfully controlled your body in such a way that it harmed others. Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society. There are, of course, implications in that question that there might be penalties for harming the unborn because of not living up to your obligation to control your own body. But that would be a question for the people of various states to decide.

You avoided responding to that and went off on what nobody was "trying" or "saying."

And your bit about "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies" provokes the question of who exactly are those people? I don't know of such people, or as you might put it "nobody is trying to oppose womens' right to control their own bodies." That's just your tricky, propagandistic way of framing the issue to create some dictatorial, authoritarian, fascistic, etc. characterization of the attempt to reject the power of the federal government to impose Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states where it belongs.

And then, of course, you had to throw in the separation of church and state, as if anti-abortion is a church thing. For some it may be. But the constitutional argument against it is not about religion. It is about the overreach of the federal government. It is about the federal government usurping yet another power from local government. Yet another piece of power it accrues to itself as it grows out of control of the people and into an unconstitutional authoritarian state.

[wdmso]

Texas governor says the state may contest a Supreme Court ruling on migrant education

Seem Abbot and other conservatives have heard the new song coming from the Supreme Court

You've got a friend in me ! And are going to flood the courts with their wish lists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Tennessee Gov. Lee Signs Law Restricting Abortion Pill Mail Delivery

Yet Tennessee does not require a license or permit to own or purchase a gun and does not require owners to register firearms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Republicans put out a memo to their senators advising them on how to respond.

It says, in part, according to Axios, which obtained the memo:

"Expose the Democrats for the extreme views they hold. Joe Biden and the Democrats have extreme and radical views on abortion that are outside of the mainstream of most Americans."
I am guessing the radical view is allowing abortion at all.


Republicans hard at work lying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republicans put out a memo to their senators advising them on how to respond.

It says, in part, according to Axios, which obtained the memo:

"Expose the Democrats for the extreme views they hold. Joe Biden and the Democrats have extreme and radical views on abortion that are outside of the mainstream of most Americans."
I am guessing the radical view is allowing abortion at all.


Republicans hard at work lying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong.

the radical view, is abortion late in pregnancy. americans don’t like that.

you’re correct that there’s not a big appetite to ban abortion. But most americans want some restrictions. Not die hard liberals though.

those are facts. Americans don’t want abortion banned, but they don’t want it unlimited, either

You posted a photo showing countries that ban abortion ( which is never going to happen here, and you failed to mention that naturally).

Dan Crenshaw posted a graphic yesterday, i have no idea if it’s correct, but it was a list of countries that allow elective late term abortions.

US
China
North Korea.

Now, you LOVE finding examples of individual republicans behaving horribly, and claiming all republicans are responsible for their actions. You constantly do that.

Will you apply that logic here? If you judge republicans by the company they keep, will you judge democrats the same way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong.

the radical view, is abortion late in pregnancy. americans don’t like that.

you’re correct that there’s not a big appetite to ban abortion. But most americans want some restrictions. Not die hard liberals though.

those are facts. Americans don’t want abortion banned, but they don’t want it unlimited, either

You posted a photo showing countries that ban abortion ( which is never going to happen here, and you failed to mention that naturally).

Dan Crenshaw posted a graphic yesterday, i have no idea if it’s correct, but it was a list of countries that allow elective late term abortions.

US
China
North Korea.

Now, you LOVE finding examples of individual republicans behaving horribly, and claiming all republicans are responsible for their actions. You constantly do that.

Will you apply that logic here? If you judge republicans by the company they keep, will you judge democrats the same way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep making things up Jim it shows how committed you are to being a conservative

Late term for conservatives is 30 seconds after sex


Abortions late in pregnancy are rare but but conservatives what you to think otherwise.. shocking

Again facts aren’t your friend

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

But keep moving the goal posts

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Keep making things up Jim it shows how committed you are to being a conservative

Late term for conservatives is 30 seconds after sex


Abortions late in pregnancy are rare but but conservatives what you to think otherwise.. shocking

Again facts aren’t your friend

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

But keep moving the goal posts

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i make up?

i never said late term abortions were common. i said liberals want them, and most americans don’t. i’m correct.

abortions after rape are also rare, but the left never stops talking about that.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what did i make up?

i never said late term abortions were common. i said liberals want them, and most americans don’t. i’m correct.

abortions after rape are also rare, but the left never stops talking about that.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most Americans are liberals Jim and not trying to control a person private life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

It has always been striking that the states most committed to ending abortion tend to invest the least in caring for expectant mothers and children after they are born.
Because it’s about control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

As usual if you look into anything supported by the Republican Party you find it’s related to money
The shortage in the “domestic supply of infants” that Alito referred to prevents further growth in the billion plus private adoption industry.
White babies sell for more, so let’s get those uterus’s working
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

When a Supreme Court Justice writes that abortion should be outlawed for the purpose of generating an increased “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking infants to adopt, we aren’t exaggerating by stating that they want you to be brood mares for the state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When a Supreme Court Justice writes that abortion should be outlawed for the purpose of generating an increased “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking infants to adopt, we aren’t exaggerating by stating that they want you to be brood mares for the state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Americans travel to China and Russia to adopt kids and have been for decades

People don’t want addicted babies when abortion was legal ! you think parents are going to want them now from women were forced to carry the baby to term . Will little to no Prenatal Care…

Oh I forgot since Amy adopted everyone should adopt , and l seriously doubt Abortion is the reason it’s hard to adopt children in the US . Or there are no children see below


While technically no longer referred to as orphans, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption pegs the number of children in U.S. foster care at a staggering 443,000, more than 123,000 of whom are considered to be waiting children available for adoption.


According to a report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Children adopted privately from the U.S. are most likely to be white (50 percent); those adopted internationally are least likely to be white (19 percent). The majority of children adopted internationally are Asian (59 percent).”

I’ve said it before this is religious ruling not based on sound legal reasoning it’s just written to sound like one .. now the right loves activist judges

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Americans travel to China and Russia to adopt kids and have been for decades

People don’t want addicted babies when abortion was legal ! you think parents are going to want them now from women were forced to carry the baby to term . Will little to no Prenatal Care…

Oh I forgot since Amy adopted everyone should adopt , and l seriously doubt Abortion is the reason it’s hard to adopt children in the US . Or there are no children see below


While technically no longer referred to as orphans, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption pegs the number of children in U.S. foster care at a staggering 443,000, more than 123,000 of whom are considered to be waiting children available for adoption.


According to a report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Children adopted privately from the U.S. are most likely to be white (50 percent); those adopted internationally are least likely to be white (19 percent). The majority of children adopted internationally are Asian (59 percent).”

I’ve said it before this is religious ruling not based on sound legal reasoning it’s just written to sound like one .. now the right loves activist judges

you’re saying that the reason americans go overseas to adopt, ISN’T because there aren’t enough babies here. It’s because the babies here, are “addicted” and are therefore of lower quality than babies that can be gotten elsewhere?

You will say anything?regardless of how made up it is, to advocate for liberalism.

There’s a years-long waiting list to adopt babies here. And there no large number of babies that go into orphanages or foster.

babies get adopted.

You don’t know anyone who has tried to adopt a baby, who you can ask, who can tell you how wrong you are?

You’re also obviously saying that women who have abortions are all irresponsible drug addicts who are such deadbeats that they can’t prevent their babies from being born addicted. You’re casting people
who get abortion, in a very very negative light. Your pals in the left wouldn’t care for that characterization.

“Americans only go overseas to adopt, because the quality of babies is superior to what’s available here.”

Congratulations, that’s really brilliant.

And if more babies are born here that need some help, i’ll gladly pay higher taxes to give them what they need.

dave thomas data is probably correct, there are a huge number of KIDS in foster care desperate to be adopted. But they aren’t babies. They are older children.

Older children, sadly, have a hard time getting adopted. Babies do not. those kids in foster care didn’t enter foster care as babies and stay there for years if they were available for adoption.

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it. I’ve asked you 5 times to tell us where in the draft opinion, Alito was wrong on the law?

Just because you don’t like the decision, doesn’t mean it was incorrectly decided based in the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Jim all but one of the 4 people I know who adopted babies went to China or Russia and all are white working class .. I also know one who’s a nurse and adopts Aka crack babies she has foster cared for

And they couldn’t afford a baby period . In the USA

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it

So now Jim you are a believer in evidence ? It’s odd you supported the questioning and the election laws being changed .. said it was a good thing

Based solely on Trumps lies and peoples lack of Trust in Voting Aka manufactured by the GOP and promoted via the minority .

So now people question the rational of the overturning of Roe . And how religious feelings seem to supersede 50 years of it being law , only since the newest 3 justices got on stage ,while the Majority of Americans feel the right to an abortion should remain ..

Your response is prove it because you agree with the ruling, is the same reason you supported the voter law changes! because you agreed with the rational not the evidence ..

The tyranny of the minority y

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim all but one of the 4 people I know who adopted babies went to China or Russia and all are white working class .. I also know one who’s a nurse and adopts Aka crack babies she has foster cared for

And they couldn’t afford a baby period . In the USA

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it

So now Jim you are a believer in evidence ? It’s odd you supported the questioning and the election laws being changed .. said it was a good thing

Based solely on Trumps lies and peoples lack of Trust in Voting Aka manufactured by the GOP and promoted via the minority .

So now people question the rational of the overturning of Roe . And how religious feelings seem to supersede 50 years of it being law , only since the newest 3 justices got on stage ,while the Majority of Americans feel the right to an abortion should remain ..

Your response is prove it because you agree with the ruling, is the same reason you supported the voter law changes! because you agreed with the rational not the evidence ..

The tyranny of the minority y

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok first you said babies in the usa didn’t get adopted because they were defective. Now you’re saying babes don’t get adopted in the usa because they’re too expensive.

which is it?

it’s very difficult to get a baby here. There are t enough of them. Maybe less abortions helps with that.

you’re correct they’re expensive. But there’s still a long waiting list for babies.

the demand for babies far outweighs the supply. that’s why people go offshore, which is also stupidly expensive.

you keep
saying the decision to reverse is wrong, or based on religion instead of the law. but you ofer zilch for support.

i’ve asked at least 5 times for you to back up your accusations. you got nothing.

Ruth bader ginsburg has said the scotus handles Roe incorrectly, that they went too far.

We get you don’t like it. But unfortunately for you, your wishes aren’t a basis for SCOTUS to make rulings, only the constitution.

what’s the minority doing? it’s going to the states, where we all get to decide. that’s the definition of a democratic republic.

9 unelected lawyers making huge decisions, that’s the tyranny of the minority.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

MSNBC host argues for
abortion, because adoption “not always a safe route for black and brown babies.”

that’s what she said. is abortion a safer route for them?

Brilliant.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs...n-black-babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A million Americans died from what you call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&
That’s one out of every 330
The biggest killer of cops and firemen in history is Covid
In South Florida in particular, 33 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty during the past 2 years. Three were killed by gunfire, one died in a car crash, one died due to an injury, and 28 died from COVID-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A million Americans died from what you call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&
That’s one out of every 330
The biggest killer of cops and firemen in history is Covid
In South Florida in particular, 33 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty during the past 2 years. Three were killed by gunfire, one died in a car crash, one died due to an injury, and 28 died from COVID-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You go on & keep believing all that.
Millions as you say died from Covid.
Year in year out….. how many die from the flu ???
All of a sudden everyone dies of Covid but none of the flu ?

I’ll bet you get a hard on every time you pull into a gas station & pay $4-$5 for a gallon of gas or $6+ for diesel

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

You go on & keep believing all that.
Millions as you say died from Covid.
Year in year out….. how many die from the flu ???
All of a sudden everyone dies of Covid but none of the flu ?

I’ll bet you get a hard on every time you pull into a gas station & pay $4-$5 for a gallon of gas or $6+ for diesel

53 thousand die from the flu years on avg in the US

And the global market sets oil and gas prices !

Wow you’re wicked smart and so well informed….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Nor is a fetus
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the past two years, we have been told that we must follow the science. Much of the discussion about whether a fetus is a human being is not purely scientific. The following is a brief "biological" synopsis of when a human being starts becoming a human being.

A fetus does not all of a sudden become a human being only after it leaves its mother's body. A human being does not start becoming human or a "being" only after it is pulled from the mother's body. A human being doesn't switch from being non-human to being human only after it is no longer in the womb.

A human being starts becoming human at fertilization in a woman's fallopian tube creating a zygote.

The zygote is a biological "being." It is human by virtue of its human DNA--the same DNA that the "born" baby and developing adult that derives from a zygote will have for its entire life. (Not the same genetic code as the mother, but a unique DNA).

The zygote is an organism of the human species (Homo Sapiens). It is a human organism. It is alive--a living human organism. An organism is a "being." The zygote is therefor a living human being. It is the same organism as the grown adult, but at an earlier stage of life.

The next step in the stages of human life is the zygote developing into an embryo. The next is the embryo becoming a fetus. The next stage, as we all know, is being "born"--detached from the mother's body--a baby with the same distinct DNA as the zygote which was the first stage of its existence as a human being. A baby that is nearly exactly the same human organism that was in its mother's body before it was removed and "born."

From the "baby" stage, the human being keeps developing into childhood, adolescence, stages of adulthood until the mid twenties when the human body stops developing and begins a long path into senescence.

At no stage, other than DNA, does the human body remain exactly the same. It constantly changes from beginning to end. To claim that some midpoint time in a life is the point at which that life becomes human is not biologically scientific. It begins as a living human from conception (fertilization) and stays so until death.

Some biological (rather than philosophical, religious, ethicl, political) perspective articles:

https://secularprolife.org/2017/08/a...12fe0fdf4d5e51

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...7b2deb2f31c899

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scient...n-life-begins/

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20...nborn-children

To be clear, I am not taking an absolute political, legal, or religious stand on abortion. But whatever arguments are made pro or con should at least consider whether a fetus is a human being, or not. A scientifically neutral definition can ground a basis for which legalities, moralities, values, ethics, philosophies can have at it.