Because genetic code doesn't equate to life. Brain activity is when a human life starts, not before, and is a defensible position on the liberal and conservative side of things (unless you're one of the "life begins at conception" fags).
Yes, it should be at conception. No, using "when their genetic code first exists" is a stupid argument and is going to get you laughed out of the room.
This is how I try to talk to people who present these types of things :
Have you known many turnips that have gone through their early development and ended up as a human child? Probably not, I assume.
However, in 100 percent of cases, the "entity" that begins its life cycle at conception following the insemination of a human female's egg, will turn out to be a human being. No woman has ever given birth to a turnip, or an otter or a birch tree.
We place (rightly so) a vastly higher value on the life of one unique human being OVER that of one individual turnip.
So saying that a turnip has DNA, ergo you must be arguing that anything with DNA must be protected is intellectually dishonest.
The tiny little two celled "entity" that is only seconds old inside a woman's womb IS human, and it will continue to be human. Whether it lives to be 100, or if it dies before it is able to divide its two cells into four cells. It was and is human.
We've established that humans (SHOULD be) valued an order of magnitude more important and worthy of life than a turnip, yes?
So that holds true whether the human is in the first moment of existence or the final minutes of it.
How about when their genetic code first exists?
That's what you are. The first and only time it exists in the universe is at conception.
Those fags can't spin science against that
Individual sperm cells and egg cells have genetic code.
I always say it's when the sperm fuses with the egg and will naturally grow from there.
Because genetic code doesn't equate to life. Brain activity is when a human life starts, not before, and is a defensible position on the liberal and conservative side of things (unless you're one of the "life begins at conception" fags).
A turnip has a genetic code.
Yes, it should be at conception. No, using "when their genetic code first exists" is a stupid argument and is going to get you laughed out of the room.
This is how I try to talk to people who present these types of things :
Have you known many turnips that have gone through their early development and ended up as a human child? Probably not, I assume.
However, in 100 percent of cases, the "entity" that begins its life cycle at conception following the insemination of a human female's egg, will turn out to be a human being. No woman has ever given birth to a turnip, or an otter or a birch tree.
We place (rightly so) a vastly higher value on the life of one unique human being OVER that of one individual turnip.
So saying that a turnip has DNA, ergo you must be arguing that anything with DNA must be protected is intellectually dishonest.
The tiny little two celled "entity" that is only seconds old inside a woman's womb IS human, and it will continue to be human. Whether it lives to be 100, or if it dies before it is able to divide its two cells into four cells. It was and is human.
We've established that humans (SHOULD be) valued an order of magnitude more important and worthy of life than a turnip, yes?
So that holds true whether the human is in the first moment of existence or the final minutes of it.
It's a great aren't but if you think human dna is there same as turnip dna you're too fucking dumb to get it