Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

Yes you do.

Nor do you about me unless I tell you.

I don't deny children their rights, yet you want to consign women to the hell of improper abortions.

Of course I do. Do you have any problem whatsoever in denying children their mother?

 

I support the right use deadly force in an act of self defense when and ONLY when that act can be legally and Constitutionally justified and regardless of whether or not I can 'morally' justify it personally.

That's because you see it only as a misconception.

 

Thats funny. (and ironic)

When did I tell you that "I want to consign women to that hell again?"

Can you quote it for me?

That's good.

Are you consistent in your views about that?

What an odd question.

If a child wants their mother - who would stand in the way of that and why would they stand in the way of it?

 

The fertilized one (regardless of which image it is) is the 'person' but beyond that - awesome pics.

Awesome pictures

 

Your question contains an unsupported presumption that is the issue presented: that a zygote is a human being.

How can a human being not be a human being?

The fair way to ask the question would be: "whether a zygote is a human being."

But then, debate on this issue is seldom about asking questions in a fair manner.

 

You accuse me of killing babies, but that irony seems to escape you.

Making abortions illegal means women will die from illegal and improper abortions. That also means any children those women do have will be motherless. You should be ashamed of yourself, but your self-righteous indignation won't allow it.

 

Guess again;

 

The fact that you can claim that it is unsupported is only that.

A claim.

When we have laws that say they are human beings "in any stage of development" .... How much more support of the fact do you need?

Indeed.

Don't be silly.

Only human zygotes are human beings. No one is claiming that zygotes in general are human beings.

The question is posed in the manner necessary to help skeptics realize the depth of their own denials.

 

Quote where I have ever accused you of killing babies.

I know that you can't do it because I never said it.

That's like saying making rape illegal means men will suffer from having illegal and improper sex.

You are ignoring the fact that an abortion involves more lives than only the woman's.

If a woman kills herself and leaves her remaining children motherless - despite my efforts to protect her children and herself?

It's a tragedy.

However, using that as an excuse or reason to turn a blind eye to the denial of prenatal children's rights and lives is just not acceptable to me.

 

There is nothing in the OP to support your presumption that a zyglote is a human being. That is a fact.

Are you taking that position that whatever is in law is a conclusive argument in favor of the proposition?

Why would that be silly? If that is not the question you are ultimately asking in your OP, then what is the question you are asking? Whether a human being is a human being?

Yes, a human being is a human being. I think everyone can agree on that.

But asking that question would be .... silly.

No, the question was posed by stating the fact at issue as a presumption in the question. It was a false question.

 

See Post #2

Only for the current legal context.

For the other? Again, see post #2.

Yes. I was actually asking "is a human being -a human being - and regardless of what stage of life, growth or development that human being is in" but specifically - I am asking about the zygote stage.

Not according to the results of the poll.

One would think so, but then look at the results and the discussion it has started.

Yours is a baseless allegation.

There is nothing false about my question.

 

That is a discussion of when human life begins. Not a human being.

LOL - you mean only when it suits your position.

A human being is a human being by definition. Whether a zygote is a human being, the fair question, is a completely different question that I would answer in the negative, for reasons I've explained in previous threads.

So what should my answer be to your question? Yes because a human being is a human being? Or no because a zygote is not a human being?

Therein lies the false premise of your compound question.

What would you expect from such a poorly worded question?

I've explained why IMO your question unfair and false. Others can decide for themselves.

 

Truth be told, you didn't say that directly like Junior did, so I'll retract that; nevertheless you did say I defend the killing and murder of babies, and you said I systematically deny children their personhood and rights which, taken together, is pretty damn close to calling me a baby killer:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=340786&page=11&p=1063553059#post1063553059

In which you accused me of 'defending the killing of babies'.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=340786&page=12&p=1063553090#post1063553090

In which you said you, "used to defend abortion - and in doing so I now realize that I was essentially defending the murders of children in the womb."

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=340786&page=12&p=1063553157#post1063553157

In which you accused me of "systematically denying children their personhood and rights'.

The last one is where you came closest to calling me a baby killer.

Huh?

But an acceptable tragedy for you. It seems you are the one who ignores the fact that abortion involves more lives than only the woman's.

Turning a blind eye toward the children left motherless to a botched and illegal abortion is not acceptable to me.

 

What does that have to do with your "support[ing] a woman's right to an abortion in most rape cases."

If you like to consider that mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells to be a "person" why do you condone deadly force againt it?

 

I have no need to "guess." An acorn is simply not an oak tree, even if someone wants to pretend otherwise.

It may, over time, develop into an oak tree, but it is not one unless and until is does.

 

It's not a discussion and it's about both "is it a human individual" and it's beginning as such.

Did you miss the title?

"IS THE ZYGOTE MERELY A NEW HUMAN CELL OR
IS IT A NEW HUMAN INDIVIDUAL?"

How is the question "is a human being in the zygote stage of their life a human being?" significantly different from the question "is a human being while in a coma a human being?"

I share you're summarized take on it - by the way.

I agree that a human being is a human being - regardless - of what stage of life or condition they are in.

It seems others don't find that as obvious as we do.

If you don't think that a human being in the zygote stage of their life/ growth or development is a human being?

You should vote no.

It's a question. Not a declaration. So, there's nothing true or false about it.

You're the only one (it seems) who is having a problem with the way it was worded.

Yep.

 

I didn't miss the Title at all. "When Does Human Life Begin?"

But your OP was about human beings, not human life or whether it is individual.

Aside from the subject oft he question, it's not.

I share you're summarized take on it - by the way.

Good for you. I don't agree that a zyglote is a human being. It has few of the characteristics of a human being. It is a potential human being.

They probably don't worry about the subtleties of your wording.

I human being forms IMO when the fetus has developed the major attributes of a human being.

But I agree a human being is a human being.

Sure, questions can have false premises. For example, if I were to ask you "when did you stop beating your wife" when you never beat your wife, that would be a false question because it is based upon a false premise.

Could be. I tend to be more specific as to wording than most.

 

Thank you.

I care about those children too.

I just don't think keeping abortion (and the denial of children's rights) legal is the most prudent way of preventing women from orphaning their kids by resorting to illegal abortions. I am open to ways of preventing women from doing that - but making compromises on the rights of prenatal children is not something I can endorse.

 

Like I said.

That's a discussion for another thread.

I don't.

Like I said a few posts ago. I don't have to agree with it - to see when and where a legal or Constitutional case can be made.

You keep wanting to make this about me personally and it has nothing to do with me personally.

(nor you for that matter)

 

it's kinda like saying a bowl of ingredients is a cake.. when in reality it will become a cake after it's cooked

 

Forgive me if I mistook your earlier comment.

I agree that an acorn is not an oak tree.

That is - it's not a living member of the Quercus species until germination has began

I think that happens much quicker than you seem to be willing to acknowledge.

 

Only, the ingredients to create a new human is a "sperm and and egg cell" and when they are combined, their job as "reproductive cells" is over.

The zygote (to use your analogy) needs no more ingredients to be added to it for it to be what it is.

 

Se...I see no difference between the two from an abortion standpoint.

It does present a contradiction to me because women who sustain injuries during any stage of pregnancy that cause miscarriage should be able to file charges against whoever inflicted those injuries.

It's all about choice for the mother.

The mother needs to control when legal "personhood" begins, not some old white christian conservative politician, or God.

 

They can do EKG or whatever they are called in fetuses fetusi sp? now. You do 1000 exams and then take the fetus that has brain activity the earliest (not the average, the earliest time to be on the safe side) and use that is the cut off time. Basic statistics.

 

I don't know what you're getting at there.

Lawmakers don't need to be able to literally discern between images of fertilized and un-fertilized cells - to make policy relating to when one becomes a human being entitled to the protections of our laws. They can do that viciously.

Are you aware of the fact that some laws already see her child as a potential victim too?

That's In your view.

Correct? You can accept that others may see it differently, I hope.

I can't disagree more with that.

That would be like giving slave holders the right and exclusive power to decide the personhood rights of the slaves they (sic) 'own.'