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

First, I never said that every item on my list was a necessary component to constitute a human being, but those are characteristics of a human being. Second, you're talking about defects or abnormalities.

Zygotes don't have any of those characteristics.

I never claimed a human zygote was not human. It is not a human being. And yes, being a zygote means you are a single celled organism, not a human being.

So what is it about those two characteristics that in your mind should warrant giving the single celled organism the same rights as a born human being?

 

Maybe I disagree with your criteria for determining whether an entity is a live human. Why do you keep bringing up "human beings" anyway? Have I claimed anywhere that zygotes are human beings?

I never claimed that a zygote is a human being. I said it's human life. Do you dispute this?

My main point is that abortion is murder. It's not necessarily that zygotes should have all the rights that we confer upon persons.

 

Be my guest.

Because we are talking about rights of human beings.

Nope. And I've been talking about human beings from my first post, so I don't know why you're talking about human life.

Murder would be the unwarranted taking of the life of another human being.

Of course it isn't. How would you give a zygot the right to vote?

And so that is the question. Why should a singled celled organism that I think we've agreed have virtually none of the characteristics of a human being have a right that is superior to the mother's, who is a fully developed human being? Or society's, for that matter.

 

No we are not. If you honestly believe that, then maybe I should try to be more clear.

I am not saying that zygotes should enjoy all the rights that we confer upon persons. Hope this satisfies you.

I disagree. I use this definition: murder is the deliberate killing of a human life.

Zygotes no more have the "right to vote" than babies do. I do suggest we should consider granting the right to life on zygotes, though.

I never said the zygotes have a right that is superior to the woman's. I do say however that abortion amounts to murder, so when women go through with abortion, in a lot of cases this is murder.

 

In my very first post I distinguished the zygote from a human being; not human life.

But it sounds like we both recognize that the rights that should be given are, and should be, different based upon the stage of development of the human organism.

Arguments based on definitions. I could show you statutes using terminology of "human beings" or "persons" but where would that get us?

It would be a little tough on the voting rights thing, requiring a photo ID and all that. You'd need an electron microscope to verify its voter identity.

Except you are. When you say the single celled zygote has a right to life, you're saying that it's right is superior to a woman's right not to have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

So the question is, why should a singled celled organism have superior rights over a fully developed human being?

Or conversely, why not say another single celled entity, a human sperm, has a right to life, and make masturbation the equivalent of murder?

More definition based arguments. I could say I disagree and that abortion does not amount to murder, so when women go through with abortion, in most cases it is not murder.

What has that accomplished? It is not an argument for or against why there should be one rule or another, but simply an argument based on a preferred definition. Which is what 99% of these abortion threads do.

 

I agree that if we cannot agree on definitions, then there will be not much to be debated about.

 

No matter how many times you post it the words "a fetus is a person" will not appear.....

 

YES, YOU DO say a zygote has more rights than anyone when you insist it can use another's body to sustain it's own life !

Here's a weird statement:

You:"" I do say however that abortion amounts to murder, so when women go through with abortion, in a lot of cases this is murder. ""

"In a lot of cases"? What? Is it murder or isn't it murder????

 

If the deliberate killing of a human being is murder than obviously killing in war, killing in self defense, and capital punishment are obviously murder. And even failure to provide life saving medical care is murder. By that definition failure to provide cradle to grave medical care makes a society collectively guilty of murder. Not to memtion failure of a society to provide free prenatal care.

 

A child is a person, and no non person can be murdered, so yuk it up. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

YUP! But tell that to those who call abortion murder....especially those who LIKE war and do NOT want to take care of the people who are here now....they are so miserably and thoroughly screwed up........

 

Yes, a child is a person.....and no non person (fetus) can be murdered......you're learning!!!!!

 

I don't know what you think you're agreeing with. I never said that. My point is that a "debate" based on definitional terms is basically silly. If your argument against abortion is that you define abortion to be murder (as it is for 99% of these "debates" on abortion) what does that accomplish? I define murder to exclude abortion, and so what? Where's the beef? It is simply argument based on conclusions. It is, as you put it, intellectually lazy.

Instead, I want to hear your arguments defending your position on why you think that should be so. Hence, I asked you:

So the question is, why should a singled celled organism have superior rights over a fully developed human being?

Or conversely, why not say another single celled entity, a human sperm, has a right to life, and make masturbation the equivalent of murder?

You dodge my questions. Is that because you cannot defend your position without resorting to an intellectually lazy conclusory argument?

 

You just don't read do you, of well enjoy you delusion.

 

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Yes, a child is a person.....and no non person (fetus) can be murdered......you're learning!!!!!

Are you denying you are the "Whaler17" who posted the first post above?

 

As you already know (from me educating you), the UVVA provides for murder charges to be brought against someone who kills a fetus.
So you see, your post just looks stupid in light of the FACTS.

 

Nope, it STILL does not say ""federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons""

 

Could you explain what that has to do with my post that you quoted?

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Yes, a child is a person.....and no non person (fetus) can be murdered......you're learning!!!!!




Are you denying you are the "Whaler17" who posted the first post above?""""

 

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(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.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

These are the general definitions in the United States Code. The statutes you cite do not purport to define "person," but identify the application of those specific laws.

 

Please refer to post 215

 

It absolutely does, you simply cannot murder a non person, or commit homicide against a non person, yet it CLEARLY says a child in utero at any stage of development is protected against homicide!
Read it and weep, if you can read that is.

 

Nope, it STILL does not say ""federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons""

 

Well anybody with reading comprehension sees that it does.

 

No, anyone who sees the word "person" would see that it does....it doesn't have the word "person" so they can't see it.


Nope, it STILL does not say ""federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons""

 

Nope, and it's been proven they aren't. But you know that.