Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

Source please. I think you are completely wrong as the link I cited indicated you are.

Are you going to answer the question you've been dodging? You can't defend your position? Or does you position depend on whether the fertilized egg has one cell or two?

 

HUH?

Doesn't a human in the zygote stage of their life 'physically exist?"

Isn't a human in the zygote stage of their life 'a living thing?'

Aren't all living things 'beings?'

Help me out here.

 

All living things are not beings.....your welcome.

 

I don't suppose you would be willing to post any definitions that support that claim - would you?

I can post several that says even 'non - living' things are beings.

 

"Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

 

That's an opinion piece from Wikipedia.

I asked you for a definition.

 

You can post whatever link you desire, as there are many definitions to choose from....what you are actually asking is for "MY" definition.

Being~ a living creature.

Human Being~ a living homosapien creature with self awareness.

 

While I respect the fact that people have their own opinions, I am only interested in the facts.

Facts are something we all have in common.

Opinions are not.

So, again I ask for you to provide a DEFINITION that would exclude a living human fetus as a living being.

 

You claim to value fact and decry opinion, yet provide opinion as fact.

I have provided the definitions you request...and await your rebuttal or position.

Please end this waste of my time and get to some point I might argue.

 

Unsupported rhetoric noted .

No you haven't.

If you did provide definitions - you should be able to quote them or link to them.

You can do neither.

You are here voluntarily and so to the extent your time is being wasted, you are wasting it yourself.

The point being debated is your claim that "all living things are NOT beings."

I'm still waiting for something from you to support that claim.

 

You can wait as long as desired.....I will not, but you are correct in at least one thing, this is voluntary.

And I voluntarily dismiss your persona.

IGNORE

 

Just so we are clear.

Do you still maintain your claim that "all living things are not "beings?"

 

The changing of the meaning of words is being done by you alone, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not to medical abortions or surgical abortions. - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

So if you really want to be correct then you need to be accurate as to what you are stating an abortion is, because an abortion covers three distinct things.

spontaneous
medical
surgical

so in reality a miscarriage can also be known as an abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice projected appeal to emotions.

 

It is very strange the way you keep jumping from a biological debate into a legal debate when ever it suits you.

- - - Updated - - -

Point of fact is that RPA is wrong, a miscarriage IS a form of abortion .. it is a spontaneous abortion, and that is a medical FACT.

- - - Updated - - -

rubbish.

 

and this is nothing but a projection of emotional fallacy that pro-lifers feel will guilt trip people into fallowing their dogma.

 

and again the jump from the biological argument to the legal one.

 

Neither would you.

 

and when the biological reality doesn't fit resort to the legality .. seems that someone beliefs that laws can never be wrong.

 

on the 'mother' point you are incorrect, unless the woman already has children she is not a 'mother' until birth.

Mother - a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother

mother (n.1)
Old English modor "female parent," from Proto-Germanic *mothær (cf. Old Saxon modar, Old Frisian moder, Old Norse moðir, Danish moder, Dutch moeder, Old High German muoter, German Mutter), from PIE *mater- "mother" (cf. Latin mater, Old Irish mathir, Lithuanian mote, Sanskrit matar-, Greek meter, Old Church Slavonic mati), "[b]ased ultimately on the baby-talk form *mā- (2); with the kinship term suffix *-ter-" [Watkins]. Spelling with -th- dates from early 16c., though that pronunciation is probably older.

So you can see 'mother' ultimately comes from one of the first items of 'speech' a baby makes "Ma" with a kinship suffix.

now I know someone will jump in and say that conception is the 'birth', but in the terms of pregnancy etc that is not what it means and to try to use other definitions in this case is disingenuous.

 

Like I just answered this same point of yours in another thread.

I understand completely that laws (and courts rulings) are not infallible.

Remember? We who oppose voluntary abortions are challenging Roe.

However, when a law says essentially the same thing that a biological definition does... How is it that you are offended by either one or both being used in a debate or discussion?

Planned Parenthood Acknowledges the fact that a Human Zygote is an "organism."

As the biological definition of organism is "any living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently" - a human organism (being) in the zygote stage of their life is one.

When the laws are saying the same thing the science is saying... "a child (human being) in the womb in any stage of development"

Why are you offended by the conclusion that is being made?

 

Being wrong can be offensive I guess. Plus maybe they don't want to realize that what we say is true and that the unborn really is a human being and even the ones who kill the most(planned parenthood) acknowledge it

 

I think that what it really comes down to is we see that the definitions of words like "human being" and "person" are inclusive enough as to include a newly conceived child and they don't.

We think things are defined by the attributes they have - regardless of the attributes they may temporarily lack.

Our opponents seem to want to select and use definitions and other criteria to exclude those who are newly conceived.

They may as well say "a child is not a child until it breeches my ability to deny them."

 

With respect, you have not proven that fact, I have been following this thread and you have not put forward anything that disputes the legal or biological facts that Iriemon has raised, you assume you have, but in reality you haven't .. and now it is you that is in denial.

- - - Updated - - -

If you read the whole debate between Chuz and Iriemon then you can see for yourself that Chuz's arguments have been basically blown full of holes .. but as you are also a pro-lifer I don't expect you, or chuz, to acknowledge that fact.

 

As usual you resort to your own projection of other peoples thoughts and ideas with no other reason than to demonize them .. typical really.

 

LOL

If you want to wait until Iriemon is convinced, that's fine with me.

I'm having fun bringing him to the points slowly and in a way that others can see both the way I draw my conclusions and the way he draws his.

The biological facts and the laws are in my favor - with respect to when a human life begins.

My beef is with the exceptions being made to allow for voluntary abortions...

LOL - He wants to go all the way back and debate whether or not it's even a child.

Admittedly, we both have big hurdles ahead... But I think my odds for success are better.