The Media will never report this, and the left will never admit it, but...

Only organisms can be alive (or dead). Your sperm is not an organism. It's a mere cell.

You probably never took a biology class in college. I can't believe I am wasting so much time explaining such a basic concept to you.

What are these "attributes of human beings" and why are they important?

When I look at the photo of a black person, it is also very different from the photo of a white person. Does this mean that the black person is not a human?

If you put your sperm by itself in a womb, you can wait a billion years and it won't turn into a baby. But if you put a zygote in a womb, then 9 months later you will have a baby.

 

HOW is a zygote put in a womb?

 

My sperm is not dead. It is alive. And it is human.

It's just definitions.

Here's a good discussion. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Human_being

A black human being has many more characteristics in common with a white human being than either has with a zyglote.

Well, maybe. If a bunch of things don't go wrong. If you put a sperm with an egg in a womb, you might have a baby in 9 months too. So what?

 

What you truly meant is that your sperm cells function. They cannot be said to be alive (or dead, for that matter), because only organisms can be alive (or dead)

And if you use the incorrect definition, I will correct you.

You should try to formulate your own response. Relying on a link to someone else' thoughts is intellectual laziness.

The point is not how different a zygote is from a human being. The point is that you should not rely on apparent looks to determine whether the underlying things are the same or not.

I was trying to say that sperm, by itself, does not constitute a human. It only happens when it (the sperm) is combined with an egg.

 

Maybe your sperm is dead. Mine isn't.

Why?

How is that not the point? Of course it is the point.

I didn't rely on it. I could have used descriptions. But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Are you saying that how something looks or appears is completely irrelevant in determining whether it is a human being?

You should not ignore appearances when evaluating whether the underlying things are the same or not.

My sperm is certainly human, I don't know about yours.

But that's OK. I'm saying that neither a zygote nor a sperm is a human being, and have virtually none of the characteristics of one.

 

Nothing narrow about it. it is for any violent act against a child in utero, except the violent act of abortion homicide.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -[/QUOTE}
WRONG!!!! IT already is a human being. You can remove it from its environment, much like launching you into space without a breathing apparatus, and he/she will die just as you would. All human beings require a suitable environment to remain alive. Oh and not to have their bodies ripped limb from limb by a powerful suction device.

 

WRONG!!!! IT already is NOT a human being.

zyglote



human being


Notice any differences?

The fact that something can die in outer space doesn't make it a human being.

 

Bwhahahahahahaaha

"Didn't call names, irrational defensiveness is sign of a poor debating position and a lack of support for what you are stating. If you don't like your positions being called ignorant, simply don't post ignorant positions."

 

First of all, please refrain from insulting another poster (by insinuating that a presumably male poster has dead sperm). It's against the rules. Secondly, I am actually a woman (how does it feel to be bested by a woman in a debate?) Third, I know that people say things like "the cell is dead" or, "my sperm cells are alive", however this is an informal way that people speak. The correct, scientific way of describing something like a cell, is whether it functions or that it is viable. But of course I wouldn't expect someone like you to know this. It takes me two pages (and counting!) to explain to you that only organism can be said to be alive (or dead) but this honestly feels as futile as trying to teach a pig to sing.

You don't think that you SHOULD try to formulate your own response? Do you honestly not know that posting some other person's thought and then passing it off as if it were your own, is a bad thing? Really? You seriously need this explained to you? Next thing I know, you are going to ask me why murder is bad.

I never said looks are totally irrelevant. I was just trying to show you that you should not reply on them alone, which is what you appear to have done.

You might want to watch out for the personal attacks and insinuations that I am not human. Also, your sperm belongs to the category of cells that are associated with the homo sapiens species, is what you meant to say. They are not humans. I trust that even someone like you knows that sperm cells are not little human beings.

A sperm cell is definitely not human life. But a zygote is. Thought exercise for you. What is the fetus, if not human life? Is it human death, or is it animal life? I know I already said this, but I feel the need to say it again to you, because your brain seems impervious to new information.

 

A human fetus is human and it's alive, it is NOT a human being nor is it a person.......your switching words around doesn't improve your credibility (nor your insults).

 

Why is being a person such a deciding factor? And further, according to whom?

I am of the belief that murder is defined as the deliberate killing of a live human. The entity in question does not need to be a person in order for murder to happen.

I only insulted Iriemon because he insulted me first. Just responding in kind.

 

Being a person is the deciding factor because the law says so and YOU do NOT define the law..........if you don't care for laws, that's your choice...


Do you believe war is murder? It fits your description.

 

"Because the laws say so". This is your exact quote and now I have un-assailable proof that you let laws do your thinking for you.

Technically, yes. And this is also why so many people are against wars.

 

So you don't have an answer so out come the insults?

No, the law doesn't do my thinking but when it has a reasoned explanation that makes sense ( and preserves rights) I am all for it....you seem to want to do away with laws as you consider them evil. Have you ever thought what would happen if there were no laws????

Gee, not quite enough people agree with you on war being murder or there wouldn't be any

 

I never said I wanted to "do away with laws". I do, however, wish to reform some of the laws (through peaceful, legal means). This is allowed.

 

Oh lighten up. I'm just joking.

Why should that make any difference?

.

What would it prove? So what? It's just semantics.

For what purpose?

Oh, OK. And I never said I relied on appearances alone.

So maybe we can both stop putting words in mouths, eh?

You were the one making that insinuation.

Great. Neither is a zygote. So what?

I never denied that a fetus was human life.

What I've stated is that a zygote is not a human being.

 

What criteria do you use to determine whether an entity is a human being?

In your own words, please.

 

Ah, after a few pages of definitional blather, now we're are getting to the real issue.

Why does it matter if it is a sperm or egg or zygote?

 

But you have already been shown repeatedly that federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons!!!!

 

Bipedal, binocular forward facing eyes, two ears, nose, chin, neck, breathes air, walks upright and erectly, advanced cognitive ability, capability for speech and communication, opposable thumbs, ten fingers and toes, lacking of heavy hair or fur all over the body, uses tools, two legs, two arms, ball and socket shoulders.

You know, kind of like my avatar.

So, what are the characteristics of a zygote that you claim makes it a human being.

 

NOPE. Never saw that....

 

I'm not surprised that you ignored it, but here ya go!

118 STAT. 568 PUBLIC LAW 108–212—APR. 1, 2004
Apr. 1, 2004
[H.R. 1997]
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.
18 USC 1841 note.
To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004’’ or ‘‘Laci and Conner’s Law’’.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
‘‘CHAPTER 90A—PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
‘‘Sec.
‘‘1841. Protection of unborn children.
‘‘§ 1841. Protection of unborn children
‘‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
‘‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
‘‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that— ‘‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
‘‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily
injury to, the unborn child.
‘‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
‘‘(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. ‘‘(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j),
Public Law 108–212 108th Congress
An Act
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
19:54 Apr 07, 2004
Jkt 029139 PO 00212 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL212.108 SUEP PsN: PUBL212
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
19:54 Apr 07, 2004 Jkt 029139 PO 00212 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL212.108 SUEP PsN: PUBL212
PUBLIC LAW 108–212—APR. 1, 2004 118 STAT. 569
930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
‘‘(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
‘‘(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person author- ized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
‘‘(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:
‘‘90A. Protection of unborn children .............................................................. 1841’’. SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.—Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919 (article 119) the following new section:
‘‘§ 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child
‘‘(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in con- duct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 1 to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punish- ment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
‘‘(2) An offense under this section does not require proof that— ‘‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
‘‘(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily
injury to, the unborn child.
‘‘(3) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
118 STAT. 570 PUBLIC LAW 108–212—APR. 1, 2004
‘‘(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. ‘‘(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 12. ‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person author- ized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
‘‘(d) In this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of
development, who is carried in the womb.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the begin-
ning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 919 the following new item:
‘‘919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child.’’. Approved April 1, 2004.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1997 (S. 1019):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–420, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
Feb. 26, considered and passed House.
Mar. 25, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 40 (2004):
Apr. 1, Presidential remarks.
Æ

 

What about people born with a very severe form of speech impediment such that they completely lack the capability to speak? Are they still humans? And people who are born with fewer than ten fingers? Are they humans too? What about babies who don't have advanced cognitive abilities? Are they humans?

 

What about them? Sure they are. Does getting your leg cut off mean you are no longer a human being? Of course not.

Why did you dodge the bolded question in my post?

 

So, you rattle off a long list of requirements for being human, and when an entity does not meet them, they are still humans? Then what purpose does your list serve? Zygotes certainly don't fit some of these requirements as well, but I am sure that you are willing to consider them humans too, just as how you gave a pass to all of those beings who fail to meet these requirements.

Besides, I can also say that "does being a zygote mean one is no longer a live human? Of course not", and you'd have no issues with this?

I already explained this. But if you need to be refreshed again: the zygote is an organism that 1. contains human DNA and 2. is alive. An organism that fulfills both of these requirements is human life.