Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Chuz Life, Jan 27, 2014.

?

"Even in the zygote stage, a human being is a human being"

  1. True

    52.6%
  2. False

    47.4%
  1. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I comprehend it perfectly, even when you changed the language of the statute to suit your purposes.

    It says a person who intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, shall be punished as provided under sections 1111 , 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

    It says that a person doing that shall be punished as for murder. What it doesn't say is that it is murder. Nor could it, because murder, as we know, is defined in section 1111 as "the unlawful killing of a human being." And since an "unborn child" is by law not a "human being", a violation of sec 1841 cannot be murder, because then every abortion would be a murder, which it is not.

    I'll bet you will still pretend you can't comprehend it.

    right?
     
  2. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I see now what you are missing - despite my efforts to emphasize it .

    Section C is the EXCEPTION that line #2 is talking about - where it says " (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,"

    You are missing the fact that Section C (by being the exception to the rest) is making the 'intentional killing of a child in the womb in any stage of development' a crime of MURDER under U.S. Code 1111.

    Your denials not withstanding.
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sec 1841 is not making "is making the 'intentional killing of a child in the womb in any stage of development' a crime of MURDER under U.S. Code 1111" at all. There is nothing in sec. 1841 that says that, and you can't just read it into it.

    The "Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph" has the effect of defining what penalties apply, not what the conduct is. The penalty for violating the statute is the same as if the harm occurred to the mother except as provide elsewhere. And in section (c), it provides that if there is more culpable conduct, (intentional killing or attempted killing) then the penalties are to be the penalties for murder or manslaughter.

    The fact that one statute references the penalties provided for in another statutes (which happens frequently) does not make the conduct proscribed by the one statute the same as the other statutes.

    Which illustrates another logical flaw you are applying. You've been trying to argue that sec. 1841 is murder because section 1111 is referenced as a penality for certain conduct. But so is 1112, which is manslaughter. Why then isn't 1841 "manslaughter" as opposed to "murder"?
     
  4. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "More than half the states have expanded their legal codes to include feticide law, which makes killing of an unborn fetus murder (see
    Exhibit 3.3 for an example). "
    ~ Monroe College Resorces
     
  5. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It may be, I haven't done a careful review of the state laws.

    But we are talking about the federal law. And as I've demonstrated, sec 1841 isn't murder. Murder is section 1111, the intentional and unjustified killing of a human being. Section 1111 is talking talking about killing human beings. It's talking about killing fetuses, or "unborn children" as the statute's authors put it.

    Your attempt to pretend it is otherwise simply illustrates the point I made pages ago:

    Your abortion argument is always the same thing that other pro-life people do. You use semantic definitions and labeling to pretend a single celled fertilized egg is just the same as a born human being.

    It is something you cannot do and is a complete fiction. The single celled fertilized egg is not the same as a born human being, no matter how much you may wish to deny that fact.
     
  6. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

    AT THE SECOND SESSION
    Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

    An Act

    To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But they knew they couldn't call it murder in the statute because murder is the killing of a human being, and an "unborn child" is not a human being.

    Of course, they could have just said that an "unborn child" is a human being, but then that would have made abortion murder.
     
  8. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "The UVVA, by making murder of an unborn fetus a federal crime, has federalized a quintessential state-law crime.
    Such action violates the spirit of the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison. It might seem, then, that the UVVA
    is unconstitutional as written. Because the UVVA criminalizes only killings in connection with another federal crime,
    however, Congress is (likely) technically acting within the parameters of the Court's federalism doctrine"~~Indiana Law Journal
     
  9. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You Democrats are effective in being able to walk with two legs all over Conservatives/Republicans/et al. The first leg, as we have seen in hyperliberal socialists from Frankie Roosevel to Barack Obama, is the Welfare State and the plentiful handouts that turn people into purposeless parasites, forever dependent on government. The other leg is this "abortion thing", and it is very skilfully utilized; indeed, it is the fulcrum upon which this whole "War on Women" mythology is leveraged....

    Memo to Conservatives/Republicans/et al (especially you, "Crusader Rick" Santorum):

    GET OFF THE "ABORTION THING"! If hyperlibs want to kill their zygotes, cells-that-are-no-more-than-urine, "unborn" children, or whatever -- then shut up and LET THEM! The sooner these socialists remove all traces of themselves from the human gene pool, the better! Sure, you cringe at video clips of partial-birth abortions, but because the "zygote" hasn't yet pushed outside the uterus, it is eligible to be killed on the spot, according to the Letter of the Law we have had for 40 years!

    It's bad enough having to fight Socialism when it promises the cattle a life of ease and plenty, paid for by people who are successful and productive, and assuring them that all they have to do is vote for Social-Democrats and they can lay around on their worthless asses for the rest of their lives, living off the government. Don't make things worse by playing into their hands on the "abortion thing"....
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks Pollycy. What this discussion needed was a good irrelevant rant.
     
  11. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your confusing common language use with the specific language of the statutes.

    Section 1841 (UVVA) doesn't define murder, section 1111 (Murder) defines murder.
     
  12. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Irrelevant" rant? Oh, I think it went right to the quivering heart of the thread topic, Iriemon... and that is exactly what Socialist-Democrats don't want anyone to do. You on the hyperliberal Left get so much great political mileage out of milking the "War on Women" fiction, no wonder that your faction never wants these things to be mentioned!

    Besides, even though I'm the fiscal arch-Conservative, I'm your secret ally in these "social" issue things, even to the point of harsh criticism for clueless nitwits like "Crusader Rick" Santorum. If the Social-Democrat Party wants to make itself extinct through wholesale use of abortion, then so be it! I sure as hell won't stop you, and it would be wise for all other Conservatives to stop banging the anti-abortion drum, too. An aborted "zygote" can't vote. Case made... case closed! :cool:
     
  13. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks, and that explains how the UVVA defines a "human being" how?

    And then maybe you can't point to where I've said anything about a "was on women".
     
  14. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Feel free to show me where I ever claimed that the UVVA 'defines' murder.

    I'd like to see where you got that from.
     
  15. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well great. Now that you agree that it doesn't, what possible basis do you have for claiming that federal law defines a "human being" to include a fetus?
     
  16. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I never claimed that either.

    You should pay closer attention.
     
  17. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Aaargh! Gimme a proverbial break! Don't you see, I'm saying that Conservatives should drop the whole issue of who and what a "human being" is altogether! Isn't that supposedly what you on the Left want? I'm serious. Who cares if it's a "zygote", a few random cells in a urine stream, or something that can emerge from a uterus telling you what the cube-root of 27 is? Until it's poked all of its body out of Mommy's vagina, it's fair game to be killed by Mommy at her whim and discretion (in much the same way that Obama governs, for instance). Hmmm... but I suspect that you on the Left want to keep this whole "what is a human" thing on the front burner so that you (in this case, your liberal political faction, Iriemon) can keep the fires stoked under the "War on Women" pot.

    We Conservatives are bone-head stupid to continue to give you guys a stick to hit us with. So, we should say, "To hell with it!" Those of us on the Right with any sense should say that you on the Left can feel quite welcome to go right on killing your unborn children, zygotes, cells-in-a-stream-of-urine, or whatever you're calling them now. But don't worry... people like "Crusader Rick" Santorum will be sure to provide your faction with all the targets they need to keep the War on Women tempest-in-a-pisspot roaring at full boil! And no doubt Hillary is desperately counting on that to at least partially drown out all the chants of "What difference does it make" she's going to be serenaded with as the months roll on toward 2016....
     
  18. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I voted no, a zygote is not a "being". "Being" is something with mental attributes, sentience, consciousness, mind. Zygote is not a being yet, not until brain develops at least a little.
     
  19. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Can you support that claim with anything of a scientific reference?

    As I recall in my science classes, even a one celled organism like an amoeba is a 'living being.'

    Were you not taught that all living organisms are beings too?
     
  20. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Living organism is not necessarily a being. Are plants or bacteria beings?

    "A being" implies some mental faculties, or sentience.

    I dont think there is any scientific definition of a being, its more an area of philosophy.
     
  21. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How is a living member of any specific species not a 'living being' of that species?

    If they exist, they are beings.

    If they are alive, they are LIVING beings...

    Have you looked it up?

    The definition for a living being is literally "ANY living thing"


    That is only your own prejudices talking.

    You are running in circles by both claiming that a 'being' doesn't exist without metaphysical attributes and the by demanding a scientific definition that says the same.

    The fact is, the scientific definitions are much more 'inclusive' than you would like for them to be.

    Your prejudices are showing.
     
  22. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    definition of a being (noun):

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

    There is no scientific definition of a "being", because it is not a scientific question or term, at least not a hard sciences one. Linguistically, "being" has many definitions and one of them is based around stuff like consciousness. And I believe thats the one relevant for our discussion.
     
  23. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Did you not think I would click on your link and see that you have omitted the part that says:

    1. BEING
    : a living thing <
    : the state of existing <
    : the most important or basic part of a person's mind or self

    And since you seem to like Webster's as a source, let's see what their Medical Dictionary says.

    Definition of CHILD

    1 : an unborn or recently born person <
    2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth
     
  24. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same thing I said in my first post in this thread:

    Your abortion argument is always the same thing that other pro-life people do. You use semantic definitions and labeling to pretend a single celled fertilized egg is just the same as a born human being.

    But it is something that is a complete fiction. The single celled fertilized egg is not the same as a born human being, no matter how much you may wish to deny that fact and use semantic arguments to try to pretend otherwise.
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  25. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I don't know where you are getting that anyone is saying a human being (organisms) in the first days of its life is exactly the same as the human being / organism they will be when they develop a little further towards maturity.

    No-one is claiming they are the same in every way.

    However, they ARE the same in at least one major (I think significant) way.

    They are the same 'organism/ being' throughout their development.

    Human beings do not just morph out of one organism that is 'less than a human being' and into an organism that IS "a human being."

    We are "human beings" from day one.
     

Share This Page