Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

If we are to have uniform laws to make punishable the unjust killing of human beings (persons) - it is necessary for the laws to define when the life (and rights) of a new person begins.

In earlier posts, you seemed to be saying that a child doesn't become a 'person' until they live too long (develop too far) to be denied as persons anymore. Now you are claiming only the woman can decide.

Neither of those will a uniform law make.

It is only in your opinion - that our defense of prenatal children's rights is 'extreme.'

The State is obligated by existing laws and the Constitution - to protect the lives and rights of all 'persons' equally.

The Supreme Court said (when deciding Roe) that once the personhood of a child in the womb is established - the case in support of abortion becomes "almost impossible" to make.

We have since made laws which make the criminal killings of children in the womb - a crime of murder.

Murder is defined as one person illegally and or unjustly killing another human being / person.

So, we are edging closer and closer to the day that our Supreme Court will have to revisit the personhood issue - to reconcile the Fetal Homicide laws with the legality of abortion. Something which the court predicted would be an "almost impossible case" for the abortion proponents to make.

 

Utter nonsense and any such law would be struck down as unconstitutional.

That is about as accurate as your claim that a single celled fertilized egg is no different than a born baby.

 

You've been presented with many logical arguments to support the fact that a human being in the womab (even in the zygote stage of their development) is "a human being."

You are either oblivious to those arguments or you are in denial - but you HAVE been presented with them.

If my daughter at 12 is the same child she was at the delivery from the womb .... why wouldn't she have been the same child at the moment of her own conception as well?

Weren't YOU conceived?

"I" know that "I" was.

And your whole position relies on the denial of the same.

Any honest, objective person will concede that in fact they the same thing (human beings) despite the fact that there are fundamentally different appearances dues to aging and further developments.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't wait to see you in court then.

 

"human being in the womb"

Again 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.

Because at age 12, she maturing into a young woman who has feet stomach legs lungs nose bones consciousness arms intestines toes eardrums fingernails throat eyelashes teeth kidneys ears eyes kneecaps fingers hair toenails an opposable thumb brain heart communication skills ability to walk think breath reproductive organs brainwaves sense of smell tongue elbows palms spinal cord ribs thighs forearms self awareness bladder eyebrows forehead knuckles butt eyelids lips gums abdomen chest and muscles.

Just off the top of my head.

The single celled fertilized egg has exactly none of those things.

I was born too. Weren't you? "I" know that "I" was. But of course, we only know that because we have developed brains, consciousness, self-awareness, and the abilities to think and communicate.

Things a single celled fertilized egg does not.

I don't rely on semantic arguments. I don't care what you want to call it. It doesn't change the fact that a single celled fertilized egg is fundamentally not the same as a born baby.

Are you kidding me? Any honest, objective person will not "concede" that a single celled fertilized egg is "the same thing" as a born baby.

How could any honest, objective person possibly "concede" that this:


[Reduced from life size]

is "the same thing" as this:


[Magnified about a zillion times]

You are just exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

 

Roe was never overruled to my knowledge.

 

I understand that is your opinion.

However, as of yet, you have not recognized the fact that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and 38 States Laws are making the same conclusion - USING THE SAME LANGUAGE - that I am.

A human being child in the womb "in any stage of development" is a human being.

She first started acquiring all of those attributes at conception. Not from 'birth.'

Organisms (including humans) are not defined by the characteristics or attributes they may temporarily lack.

They are defined by those they have and even though a human being in the zygotes stage of their life does not have very many 'human' attributes. The attributes they do have is enough to recognize them for the 'being' they are. A 'human - being."

We were both 'human beings" even before we developed all those things that only come later in our lives.

You are not being asked to see them as exactly the same in every way.

The argument is that they are human beings and as such (by law) are supposed to be TREATED equally.

See above.

Again, see above and I'll remind you again - that both images could very well be of the very same child... taken only a year or so apart.

That's a logical fact.

 

I wrote it that way because I wanted to be sure that my not disagreeing that a zygote is biologically human was the same as my saying a fetus is a person. The two are very separate and being a biologically human zygote, which again was never in question, does not equal being a person protected by the law.

It's the right answer. A fetus is a biological human being going by the technical definitions of the word. I can't speak for everyone but I've never been confused about what a fetus is. But again, I have to stress that this does not and never has equaled personhood.

The zygote is biologically human, which makes it human, and it exists, which makes it a being. The reason I've taken great pains to stress the importance of the distinction between that and personhood is that many may not realize there is a difference between the two due to the loose way that we use terminology. Much in the way that I call my wife "baby" when she has not been an actual baby for 30 years, the term human being can take on subjective meaning that strays from the technical definition of the term.

Nope. A person is independent. A person exists on their own. A person is not a part of another person. Until birth, a fetus is very much a biological human being, but it is not a person, and does not get it's autonomy under the law. It is a connected dependent part of it's mothers body until the day that connection is broken, which is the day that it becomes independent and achieves personhood.

No disagreement there. That's why I think it's important to make distinctions between biology and legality, and especially that biology does not automatically equal legality which in this case means that being biologically human does not automatically mean you have the same rights as a born person.

You're welcome. Truth is important no matter what side you're on.

 

Yet that is how they are often represented by fanatics.

Why not be honest and depict them in the actual relative scale? The distortion does not depict reality.

 

Which only confirms what nearly everyone understands - that a few microscopic, mindless cells contain the potential to develop into a person during the gestative process, just as an acorn could eventually develop into an oak tree. That does not mean that the acorn is an oak tree, of course.

You are free to insist that the acorn is an oak tree, and proselytize your notion that the acorn is an oak tree. What you cannot be permitted to do is force everyone else to abide by your notion that the acorn is an oak tree.

 

1st. Exchange:

2nd Exchange:

In this thread and poll - I am only asking if a human being in the zygote stage of their life is 'a human being.'

Again, In this thread and poll - I am only asking if a human being in the zygote stage of their life is 'a human being.'

We can debate "personhood" some other time and -hopefully- in another thread.

For those following - this thread and poll is NOT about personhood.

It's only about whether or not a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth, development etc. is 'a human being.'

Please let me re-phrase my comment.

Before we start debating the 'personhood' of prenatal human beings - we have to first establish the fact that they ARE human beings.

Agree?

 

True or False:

 

I voted false. Anytime I see someone trying to structure a poll in such a strict way (and incorrectly) WITHOUT an 'other' option, I vote false, because the poll question is false.


Your question is structured in a shallow way (maybe not your intention) such that someone who votes false is saying "a human being is not a human being".

 

How strange.

How would you phrase the poll differently - so to ask whether or not a human being in the zygote stage of their life is 'a human being?'

 

Yup, that would have been the proper way to phrase it. To which I would have said no. We determine when someone is dead by the absence of vitals. Therefore such vitals are key to establishing the presence of life, imo.

 

What do you have to say about the laws which make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a 'child' in the womb - of ANY stage of development?

Laws that use the language and definitions like the one in my signature?

 

Such laws are inconsistent. Laws are commonly inconsistent. Medicine not so much. Its rare youll find doctors or the AMA disputing whether or not a person on a table is dead.

 

Considering that there are people RIGHT NOW serving time in prison for murdering a child in the womb...

Don't you feel the least bit obligated to come to their defense - since - in your view, they are wrongly convicted of killing a 'persons' that can't have possibly existed?

 

Yes.

I won't take your poll off-topic. Force of habit in the discussion I suppose

 

Is there a reason why you haven't participated in the poll, yet?

 

I voted "true", but only on the terms I laid out in my initial post.

 

I tried to add to your rep and it won't let me.

So, you'll have to settle for another 'thanks.'

 

Obligated? No. No more than id feel obligated to "pull the switch" on someone who is guilty. Id be willing to defend one and pull the switch on the other, but that's not an obligation

 

Don't you think defense attorneys might be willing to pay big money for your expertise on this?

 

Yeah.

That's what I thought too.