OK, so you agree that single celled fertilized eggs are not the same as a born human being. That's obvious, right? It doesn't really matter what labels you apply, does it? They are in fact fundamentally different things. So then the question is, given the fact that a single celled fertilized egg and a born human being are not the same but are fundamentally different, why should we necessarily have to afford both the same rights? We don't even give a born baby the same rights as an adult.
As a much older human organism's life can be traced all the way back to the same point - they are too the same - at least they are, with that in mind. They are both "human being / organisms." One is just a little older and further along in it's development. See above. 1. They are the same in at least a few significant ways 2. As a matter of principle (and logic) - if human beings are going to have a right to their life - their right to their life should (logically) begin when their life does and not just when we (society) can justify denying them their rights anymore. I agree. The Child's basic human rights are not something that is given to them at all.
No, no, they are not the same. You've already conceded that point: 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. Since, as you've already conceded, the single-celled fertilized egg is not the same (and is fact fundamentally different from) a born human being, why do we necessarily have to afford them the same rights? Exactly. A child has no right to vote, marry, contract, freedom of movement, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, are any other multitude of things adults have the right to do. We always have varied the right afforded a human organism based upon its level of development. And as you've conceded a single celled fertilized egg is not the same as a born baby, then why should it necessarily have the same rights?
1. You are trying to take my comments out of context and it's not going to work. You ignore where I said they ARE the same in very significant ways. Readers can see that. 2. Basic human rights are not something that is "afforded" to us by others. The right to life (among others) is recognized and established in our Constitution. Basic human rights are not 'given' to us BY the Constitution. You are confusing our basic human rights with our privileges and liberties. Again, the right to life is not something that is 'afforded' to an individual. It's inherent in being a human being / person. And the 14th Amendment does not allow for anything less than an 'equal protection' of that right. I have not conceded that at all. In fact, I've tried to convince you of the fact that they are the same in a very significant way.
What you said is a matter of record, that "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." But tell us how a singled celled "fertilized egg IS the same in very significant ways." It's not a human right to vote, get married, drive a carry, have freedom of movement, to own property and contract and drive a car and buy alcohol? I as an adult have the right to do all those things. An undeveloped human organism has none of those rights. That's just you applying labels again because you have no logical argument. Why are the same rights inherent to a single celled fertilized egg as a born baby when they are vastly different things? What ways are they "the same" and why are those ways significant?
Scroll back. That's already a matter of record to. Those are not all basic human rights in the same sense that the right to life is. That's correct. You can claim the right if you want to but most of those things you listed are actually liberties and privileges and are not basic human rights. In your opinion. Because that which they have a right to is the one thing they most have in common. They are both human beings and they are both alive as such. As such, they are 'natural persons' and according to our Constitution "all persons" are entitled to the "equal" protections of our laws. See above.
Well OK. You said: "They are the same 'organism/ being' throughout their development." I thought there might be something else. I think we can all acknowledge that a single celled fertilized egg and born baby are both of the same species, i.e. human. But they certainly are not the same in terms of just about everything else. A singled celled fertilized egg is a single celled organism. It has no head, torso, legs, arms, fingers, toes, face, nose, mouth, eyes, ears, reproductive organs, or organs of any type, much less a functioning brain. A totally different organism than the born baby. Being an organism isn't in of itself sufficient to grant similar rights, or a baby should have the same rights as an adult. They are all basic human rights in the same sense that we recognize that people have the right to it, if they are adults. Says who? this statement doesn't make sense to me. Conclusory semantics without logical basis. You've already acknowledged, as you must, the single celled fertilized egg is not the same as an adult. Pointing out that you can label them the same way does not change that fact. Aside from being false, that is a conclusory assertion and semantics based claim without logical rationale.
Nice hedge. Is an organism to be defined by the attributes it has? Or by the attributes it may temporarily lack? Per our Constitution, the right to life is a right and to the equal protections of our laws IS something that a baby has equal to the adult. I understand that is your claim. However, you are still confusing liberties and privileges with rights. They are not all one and the same thing. Fair question but I don't know how best to educate you on that. You should do some research on it and educate yourself. Single cell just beginning life or 80 year old woman in a nursing home.- if they are both human beings they have an equal right to each their own life and to the Constitutional protections of our laws. I don't why you find that confusing and I really don't know why you (or anyone else) has a problem with it.
But true. I've never said there is *nothing* that is the same. Yes, but what difference does it make? A singled celled fertilized egg and born baby are not the same. Our constitution says no such thing. Semantics. It doesn't matter. That is simply a conclusion. I want to know logically why a single celled fertilized egg should have the same rights as a 80 year old woman or new born baby. The reason you don't explain way is because there is no logical reason for it necessarily having the same rights as a born baby, because, as you've acknowledge, they are not the same thing. Because they are not the same but are fundamentally different. I don't why you find that confusing and I really don't know why you (or anyone else) has a problem with it.
Its a dictionary, it explains all the meanings of words, which one is actually used depends on the situation and views of people. The fact that one based on persons mind is listed is enough to prove my point, that it is one of the existing views. I wonder why that is, hm? And you wont find the real answer in a dictionary, this is a philosophical question, not a linguistic one. I have little interest in debating semantics.
Probably because the word has more than one meaning. The point is that they are all valid - so it's a matter of "and" and not a matter of "or." You are trying to use one meaning of the word to exclude one of the other meanings of the word. That's an "or" function and it's disingenuous. Definition #1 applies and is valid AND the same goes for definition #2. That's funny because lawmakers often cite legal and other dictionaries when debating and writing laws.
That depends on what is being compared. Yes it does Dodging. To you. A conclusion based upon what the Constitution says. That's easy. As a human being (even in the first days of his or her life) they meet the already established legal requirement for personhood. Their Personhood then automatically qualifies them (under the 4th and 14th Amendments) for the equal protections of our laws. Refuted above. In as much as they are both human beings and all human beings are to be treated as equals - they are the same. Justice is blind to their so called other 'differences.'
No matter how stridently the fanatics try to spin it, the State is not about to regulate every womb from the instant of conception because the microscopic, mindless, composite of a few cells that forms is not a person in any rational sense of personhood. Extremists at the opposite end of the spectrum can insist that a "person" does not exist until birth, but the overwhelming majority of rational folks understand that a "person" develops during the gestative process. The law of the land respects that reality and, whilst any law might be fine-tuned over time, Americans are not about to kowtow to extremists of either extreme.
Everything about them. The DOI talks about a right to life, not the constitution, and it doesn't say anything about single celled fertilized eggs. Not at all. I've pointed out repeatedly how your entire argument rests on sematic claims that the single celled fertilized egg is the same as a born baby, when it is not like it at all. To the issue. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Quote where the Constitution says "Single cell just beginning life or 80 year old woman in a nursing home.- if they are both human beings they have an equal right to each their own life and to the Constitutional protections of our laws." It says nothing of the sort, and neither does the DOI for that matter. You're simply reverting to your same circular argument, by trying to pretend the single celled fertilized egg is the same as born human being and therefore should have the same rights. What you haven't explained is why they should have the same rights given they not the same, as you've acknowledge, and are fundamental different. You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact because it logically destroys your whole position. You didn't refute it at all. Rather than logically justify why we should give a single celled fertilized egg the same rights as a born human being, you just call them the same thing when in fact you have already admitted they are not the same thing. It's just a semantic game you are playing, the same you do with every thread in this topic. You can call a single celled fertilized egg a "human being" or a "person" or an "organism" or whatever you want. But it doesn't change the fact, that you've admitted, that they are not the same, and it fact are fundamentally different. A basic, obvious act you won't acknowledge because then you have no argument for your position. LOL -- "so called differences." Yep. What so-called differences? They're just the same.
Is it fair to summarize that view as "to you, a child is not not a child (person) until it can live long enough in the the womb and until they can develop past some arbitrarily decided point - a point after which you just can't deny they are a person any longer." Is it fair to say that you require the new child to overcome your ability to deny to them their 'personhood' before you will (reluctantly?) accept that their personhood exists?
The 4th and 14th Amendments do too establish the right to life, due process, equal protections etc. As for specific stages of growth and development? The Constitution just says "all persons..." That's pretty damn inclusive. It's not a play on semantics to note that an organism at birth is the very same organism that was initially conceived. That's a biological fact.
No, it can be both AND or OR, depending on the situation and how the one speaking intends it to be. There is a reason definition involving mind is there, and the reason is that for example a plant or a bacteria (or a zygote) may often not be considered "a being". "A being" implies something more than merely any form of life. Maybe when interpreting them (and even then the spirit and intent of the law should be a lot more important than dictionary definitions). But they do not cite them when making an argument about what the law should be. That is a semantics argument and it is useless.
Your fanaticism compels you to distort the rational position of others, apparently. No zygote/fetus needs to overcome my ability to deny its developing into 'personhood,' nor is it within my purview to "accept" its development into a person "reluctantly," enthusiastically, or indifferently. Whether it ever becomes a person during the gestative process is a decision for the actual person whose womb is essential to that process - not for you to decide, not for me, not for some politicians some would appoint in place of the female to control her own womb. It is fair to summarize your view and that of your ilk as, having failed to convince our democratic society that it should swallow your extremist position, you are now demanding that the State impose it upon everyone. That shall not happen.
Not only is it clearly not a person. The image is enormously magnified to make the undeveloped egg appear the size of the developed human. If the images were to actual scale, the egg would be invisible to the naked eye. It would be as deceptive to shrink the child to the size of the egg in which you'd be able to see neither, and pretend that represented reality. Such dishonesty abounds when fanaticism controls.
You're simply making the same semantical/definitional argument you always do. You label the single celled fertilized egg the same thing as a born human being and on that basis you claim they have the same rights. It's not an logical argument. It's simply labeling. "Child." Yet another example of your labelling and definitional argument. It's your whole gig. But that year apart makes all the difference. One is in fact a "child." They other may become a child in a year. As your post once again demonstrates, your whole position depends on claiming those two things are the same thing, and so you call them both a "child." Any honest, objective person will concede that in fact they are not the same thing and in fact are fundamental different.
It depends on what you're trying to imply by the term "human being". A human zygote is most definitely biologically human, no doubt about that. It is also a being in that it does exist. So in a strict sense of the term, it is a human being because it is a biologically human entity that does exist. We have to be careful not to mix meanings though. Being a human being as a zygote is does not make it a person. That does not come until birth. But none of this really changes anything regarding abortion since abortion legality is not predicated on a zygote/fetus NOT being a biological human being in the first place. Being a biological human being changes nothing about the mother-child relationship or the jurisdiction a woman has over her internal body, which includes the womb and everything in it.
I wasn't trying to imply that the picture of the single celled fertilized egg was the same scale as the baby. I figured the difference would be obvious enough to any objective, honest person. - - - Updated - - - Sure. You'll say you see a "child," "a baby," and a "human being" in the microscopic single cell fertilized egg in the second image, and that it's no different that the baby the first picture. You have to do that ridiculous semantic labeling, or your entire premise falls apart. And thus the intellectual bankruptcy of your position is evident to all.
I don't understand what you mean by that. If it is a 'being' that is "human" by nature and of origin.... STANDING OVATION!!! That was definitely the best (most open and honest) answer so far! While I disagree with you on personhood (that subject was intended as a follow up thread to this one), I'm still thankful for your earlier comment and recognition of the fact that a human being (even in the zygote stage of their life) is 'a human being.' Recognizing the fact that a human being (even in the zygote stage of their life) is a human being - that is the first (if not only) requirement that has to be met for personhood. Even according to the Supreme Court when they were deciding Roe. The personhood of children in the womb is extremely significant to the abortion debate. All things to be debated for sure. The starting point is to recognize what and who we are debating about and you have helped me a great deal with that part. Thanks.