And they try again...

[BmorePat87]

(01-25-2017, 12:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The reason this makes the most sense, is because after fertilization has occurred, the Zygote is now genetically unique from its parents.
One of the main arguments against it was the egg can split up to 15 days after fertilization has occurred and create multiple individuals with the same DNA code. However, science has discovered that twins do not have the exact same genetic code. Anyways, that is another possible legal point to start with, 15 days after fertilization when the zygote can no longer multiply.

"A person's is a person no matter how small."  Dr. Seuss

Is an unborn human any less of a human?

Fair enough, thank you for explaining your view. So as soon as you have our legal definition, aligned with your scientific reasoning, we are recognizing life and the fact that they are a person with constitutionally protected right?

I guess for my own point of view, I have a harder time saying that something is a person with rights if it is unborn and unable to survive outside of the womb. 

I mean, ideally I wish we lived in a world where we did not need abortions and we could prevent pregnancy long before that was necessary, but until then, I also have trouble suggesting that a zygote is its own person with rights when it lacks an identity or survival outside of the woman carrying it. A good first step is providing free or nearly free birth control to all Americans.