Not at all. If the mother dies, the embryo dies, too. We call that total dependence. It is a mothers call concerning her own body. Arguments and questions, eh? It's a debate, chief. What exactly were you expecting?
You are deluding yourself if you believe it is not a religious issue. And you miss my point again. Of course the cell would be human, if it is part of a human body. What I said was that it doesn't enjoy the same legal rights as a human being.
For something to die does it not have to be alive? Check and mate. Yeah. I get it. Since all yout arguments are strawmen and you can't answer mine I must be winning.
Duhh! If the mother dies then all of her cells die. Is that so hard to understand? It doesn't mean another being died, but it does squash your notion that the single-cell human embryo exists and funtions "regardless of the activities of the mother." This ain't not a chess game, it's an argument. You don't get to pronounce checkmate when I'm still moving. Nor do you get to pronounce my arguments "strawmen", then declare "victory". Get real.
1. If the embryo is just some of the mother's cells, then why does it not have the mother's DNA? How many parts of your body have different DNA than the rest? 2. You are taking my "regardless of the activities of the mother" comment out of context. Another sign of crawfishing methinks. If it swims and quacks it must be a duck.
It does have the mothers DNA, it was originally a egg cell. It also has aquired the father's. I don't argue that it couldn't someday be one, just that it is not instantly a human being with the legal rights and privileges of such. Why do you keep ignoring this vital point? Sorry, I forgot you've already declared "victory". :lol:
