I thought we just agreed that life began upon birth, according to the inerrant word of Webster. How can you be human and not be alive? Stop confusing me!!
You are confused because you are using adjectives and nouns interchangeably. All (human) cells are human, meaning they come from a human. All of them are alive, as well. That doesn't mean all or any of them are humans (noun).
So I am made of human cells. Check. All cells are alive. Check. But that does not mean they are human? I need another grammer check here. Something has gone terribly wrong. Usually my wife does it for me, but you will have to do for now.
I'm beginning to understand your problem. Try to pay attention. You are made of human cells and all of them are alive. That does not mean they are humans.
Nonsense. No one, absolutely no one, is deciding which of the two to kill. And how about that "zygote" who has been growing for 7.5 months. sorry, it doesn't work.
Please provide evidence that supports your ludicrous claim that "most" dictionaries define "life" as being the definition which you provided. I've done several searches in many well-known reputable dictionaries and the most prominent and common primary definition is: Your definition defines "life" as a period of time, it does not attempt to describe what it actually is. The definition I've provided is descriptive of what actually makes something a "life."
When I said... I meant most dictionaries at the link I provided. It includes 49 general dictionaries, although some are not appropriate. Oxford Online also provides that definition. Most dictionaries include that definition as well, but none of them define life as "the period between conception and death."
I don't make life decisions for other women. They are the only ones who can protect the unborn at their own sacrifice, and it isn't up to me to decide for others what sacrifices they must make.
You don't make life decisions for the unborn because the dictionary tells you that it isn't life if its not born yet. I'm just wondering what your view point would be if the dictionary defined life at 2 years.
I defined earlier what human life is. I don't define human life by how its existence is a benefit or loss to another human life.
However you define it, it is a theory, not fact. You want to impose your own (basically religious) theory, on all women. Their theories are as valid as yours.
So says Bowerbird. That's the reason liberals were adamant about including "mental health" in the reasons for a late term abortion under the law. And, why do women get pregnant? Birth control is cheap and easy to use.
Personhood is a legal term that denotes protection. If your view of what human life can be killed or protected is based on what is currently legal---then you are totally dependent on the government for your moral fabric. You said: However you define it, it is a theory, not fact. You want to impose your own (basically religious) theory, on all women. Their theories are as valid as yours. You must be losing the argument if you throw in the word "religious" as a deflection. None of my arguments had anything religious within them. But that only makes my point. It does say in the Bible--Do not murder. Perhaps that should be disregarded in entirety. If we had no laws at all...no personhood laws----in theory it would be ok to kill any human being of any age. And if women kill the man, woman or child that is causing her pain and strife---who are we to impose our own...theory. Its really none of our business.
Personhood is not a legal term; it means the state of being a person. Just because extremists are trying to pass personhood laws, that does not mean it's a legal term. My view would remain the same, regardless of whether abortion were legal or not. Suuure, they didn't. "Life begins at conception" is a Catholic theological argument. You seem to be confused. Personhood laws are laws promoted by extremists to define a one-celled zygote as a human being. They have been voted down in every election, even the most pro-life state, Mississippi, because people do not agree with them. You are equating a zef with a man, woman, or child--established human beings. They are not the same; anyone can see that.
The only way it can be viewed objectively is if it is being viewed according to the law. The law can define "personhood" as according to the law's standards. Any other kind of definition is completely subjective. So if you're saying you believe that the law's definition of "personhood" is correct, you should probably explain why. No, it is actually a biological and scientifically factual argument. http://www.acpeds.org/When-Human-Life-Begins.html Religion does not factor into this argument, it is simply a biologial fact. A human life begins at conception. I'd love to take your word for the hyperbole above, but I'm not going to. So let's see some supporting evidence for that claim. Our movement doesn't "equate" a "zef" with a man, woman or child, its purpose is to establish ONE primary right for the "zef." The right to exist and live. One stage of life cannot be "equated" with another. Childhood is not the same as adulthood, children have different rights than adults. The older you are, generally the more rights you have earned. We are simply arguing that the "zef" as you call it should be blessed with ONE right--the right that we feel all innocent human life should have--and that is the right to exist and live.
The word "personhood" isn't a legal term nor does it pertain to law in all contexts. It simply means the state of being a person. Your source is a small political activist group of about 60 self-described "traditional values" pediatricians. Their beliefs are not necessarily based on science. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/re-gill-about-american-college-pediatricians There is no scientific consensus that life begins at conception. This bioethics text (copyrighted, so I can't provide a quote) confirms that in its conclusion: http://www.sinauer.com/pdf/BioethicsCh02.pdf Maybe you should ask for evidence, or find your own, before you judge something as hyperbole? http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/08/news/la-pn-mississippi-abortion-20111108 Without regard for a woman's rights, you want to establish a right for the zef to live inside her body against her will. A pro-life doctor's view: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/01/granting-rights-fetus-cost-mother.html
The typical abortion patient is: A white.... ....Christian... ...married woman... ...in her 20s.... ..with at least one existing child... ...and rarely if ever uses birth control. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
