Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

Sure. So what. Are you going to claim amoebas have a right to life because they exist?

 

Being human isn't in and of itself sufficient to justify a right to life IMO, otherwise, every time you spit human spit it would be murder.

 

That is absolutely true.

 

Thu word "human" cannot be taken out of life. The word "human" cannot be argued as "lifeless" even in the form of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

To forego such a conclusion is to exalt yourself to something you're not.

 

I take it that your response is strictly to the poll. In this case I can agree.

 

Yes, it is a response to the poll.

 

This might get interesting.

My answer is yes.

Why?

Do you disagree that an amoeba might have a right to live the life it is already living?

When I look at an amoeba (or at any other living thing) - I see its life as belonging to itself.

So, of course they have a 'right to' their own life.

It belongs to them, doesn't it?

 

Whatever notion someone may want to impose upon everyone else, honesty compels one to acknowledge that a microscopic clump of mindless, living human cells, no matter whether it is a zygote or a skin scraping, is not a person.

Any devious word games to evade that truth or contrive otherwise does not alter that reality.

 

Though it is a related subject, this thread and poll question is not about whether or not a human being in the zygote stage of their life is a 'person.'

That's a debate for another thread.

 

I realize that you are only concerned about terminology, but as long as you understand that a microscopic, mindless clump of cells is not a person and try to force others to accept that notion, it's not a problem.

 

Read that again.

Then read this.

 

Good point. So when that infectious e coli bacteria ameoba gets into your body, make sure you let it run its course because it has a right to life.

And for heaven's sake, put that omelet back, you murderer!

 

That section, after defining a "human being" to be someone who is born, says that that section is not to be construed to deny legal right or status to "any member of the species homo sapiens at any point."

That section defines an "unborn child" for purposes of that section to be "a member of species homo sapiens" in the womb.

So what is your point?

 

You seem to have the right that a person (or any living thing) has to the life they are living... somehow confused with some sort of a right to immortality or a right to not be killed.

A e-coli bacteria has a right to its own life because its life belongs to itself.

That doesn't mean that it has a right "NOT" to be killed.

The right to not be killed (unjustly) is a right reserved for 'human beings' and to those creatures that we (human beings) decide to offer that protection to.

 

Correct.

Also correct.

The point was (and is) that the first section was not and is not the final word on 'what a person is.'

Does that help?

 

There you go. We can say that a single celled fertilized egg has a right to life but not a right not to be killed.

Class dismissed.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is the final word on what a "human being" is for purposes of the federal statutes, like the murder statute:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Neither of the sections you quoted changes that definition.

 

Not if it is a human being / person - you can't.

You can dismiss yourself but the class will still be in session.

Yes, it is inclusive.

Does it EXCLUDE children in the womb?

We can see by the UVVA that it does not and did not.

So, how can you ignore the fact that the UVVA has broadened that definition?

The very section yo are citing says that it can not be used to DENY others.

 

Even assuming it is, why not?

Then we'll just have to dismiss the argument that because something is alive it has a right to life.

What is inclusive of what?

Absolutely.

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Being born pretty much means it is not in the womb, doesn't it?

We see no such thing. The UVVA does not define "human being" or "person" or "child” or “individual”.

There is no such fact to ignore. As you know, the UVVA does not define "human being" or "person" or "child” or “individual”.

That is not what it says.

 

The equal protections clause of the Constitution, for one.

I'm sure you would probably like to do that.

It aint gonna happen though.

The definition of 'person' under the U.S. Code is ''inclusive" of all human being / persons.

You have (again) omitted the part that says the above can NOT be used to exclude others.

The UVVA defines a 'child in the womb' or 'a child in utero' as 'a member of the species homo sapiens (a human being) and it makes it a crime of murder for someone to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act.

See above.

Yes it is.

 

The big misconception is that a valid explanation can be given for why a zygote is a living human.

Your article does not even provide an explanation never mind a valid one.

 

Unfortunately the UVVA does not provide a reason for why the zygote is a human.

That some group somewhere in the world makes a law stating " a zygote is a baby" is not a reason why a zygote is a baby.

There is a difference between making a claim and being able to support that claim.

Unfortunately you do not seem to understand this difference.

 

Why is that unfortunate?

Oh but it does support the claim whether you agree that it does or not.

The claim has been supported.

Despite your claim that it hasn't been supported.

 

There is not much of that on this forum. LOL

The poll indicates the even split and one of the reasons I think government should just get out of it. There will be no agreement.

 

If it didn't involve basic human rights, I might agree with you on that.

However, because it does involve basic human rights and personhood and when those rights should begin... I'm afraid I can not agree that we should just expect the government to stay out of it.

Maybe you can or others can - but I can't (won't) do that.

 

Sorry, but no one agrees so just leave it between the patient and doctor and let God sort it out.