God's Not Pro-Life

[Gods Jester]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Gods Jester]

Sinner

Cometh The Inquisitor

Sinner

Your assertion that a human is "created" at conception and not birth is unjustified. Just as a car is "created" when the parts are assembled, not when they the parts are made.

But the parts are assembled.

Except that living beings aren't simply assembled, but also grown. A car may be finished as soon as the assembly is finished, but it's absurd to say that a zygote is a finished human.

So you presume to assert that a human being, even in the US that is the land of (alleged) equality, people don't have the right to live until they are full adults? That's sure what it sounds like.  

[Sinner]

kajun_chicken

So you presume to assert that a human being, even in the US that is the land of (alleged) equality, people don't have the right to live until they are full adults? That's sure what it sounds like.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a fetus isn't a person. Therefore, it doesn't share the rights of people.  

[Gods Jester]

Sinner

kajun_chicken

So you presume to assert that a human being, even in the US that is the land of (alleged) equality, people don't have the right to live until they are full adults? That's sure what it sounds like.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a fetus isn't a person. Therefore, it doesn't share the rights of people.

But the fetal stage is just another stage of growth!!! So you're saying that if a man attacks a pregnant woman and she has a miscariage, it isn't right for the woman to sue on behalf of the baby that was KILLED?!??!?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

Except that living beings aren't simply assembled, but also grown. A car may be finished as soon as the assembly is finished, but it's absurd to say that a zygote is a finished human.

I'm back, yo.

Neither, I would add, are teenagers and people to, around, the age of 25 or so.

so do they get rights?  

[Tarrou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Neither, I would add, are teenagers and people to, around, the age of 25 or so.

so do they get rights?

By what standard are you making that judgment? Because, if you want to go with the law, then you'll find that the age at which you gain legal autonomy (the closest thing to legal 'personhood') is at 18. However, in many states (and bear in mind, I'm only talking about the U.S. here), it's legal to marry and drive at earlier ages. Moreover, you are considered a citizen the moment you're born and thus are afforded equal protection under the law. No-one maintains, for example, that people under the age of 25 don't qualify for protection under the 14th amendment to the constitution (the 4th amendment, on the other hand, well, they seem rather willing to waive that in public schools) or that, say, laws against assault and battery don't apply to them either. Twenty-five is just the age at which rental car companies will allow you to rent from them -- not exactly what most people would call a reasonable barometer of whether or not you're a human being.

I'm afraid that you're going to have a very hard time proving that I'm not a person, either legally or philosophically (operating under the assumption that I exist, mind you), although I do invite you to try if you're feeling particularly cheeky.  

[Gods Jester]

Apparently you are too mislead to see the error of your thinking, so with that, I will retire from this forum.  

[Jedediah Smith]

Sinner

kajun_chicken

So you presume to assert that a human being, even in the US that is the land of (alleged) equality, people don't have the right to live until they are full adults? That's sure what it sounds like.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a fetus isn't a person. Therefore, it doesn't share the rights of people.

Perhaps you should read this.

My Conscience

My defence for being pro-life is found in biology and in the consitution. Please take the time to read this entire post. I spent a couple hours writting this out. I tried to make it as easy to understand as I could.


IN THE BEGINNING:

• The sperm and ovum each have 23 haploid chromosomes.
  
• When the sperm and ovum fertilize the 23 haploid chromosomes become 46.
  
• The required amount of chromosomes for a homo sapien is 46.
  
• A zygote/fetus has 46 human chromosomes.
  
• The zygote/fetus can produce its own human DNA.
  

BIOLOGY:

• A homo sapien is the scientific term for human.
  
• Humans are taxonomically classified as homo sapeins.
  
• The offspring of any taxonomically classification is the same as the host.
  
• The zygote/fetus of a B. Taurus (cow) is a B. Taurus.
  
• The zygote/fetus of a C. Lupus (dog) is a C. Lupus.
  
• The taxonomic classific classification doesn't change.
  

DICTIONARY:

• A zygote/fetus is a homo sapien like I explained in the 2 sub-catagories above.
  
• Since a zygote/fetus is a homo sapien, then the fetus is a human like I explained in Biology, the zygote/fetus is a human.
  
• The most appropriate definition of a person:
  
• Person:
  Webster

  a : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being;
  
  
• That definition explains that a person is a human.
  
• Since a zygote/fetus is a human then by definition it is a person.
  

LAW:

United States Consitution; The 14th Amendent

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• My opening statement to this Amendment is that I believe it protects zygotes/fetus by guaranteeing every person the right to life.
  
• Here is my lingustic anaylsis:
  
• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." - This just states that all people who have a naturalization card or were born on United States soil are citizens of this country and have to abide by the laws.
  
• " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." - no state can make or enforce any laws that go against any citizens civil liberties.
  
• "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" - hence how they used citizen throught the amendment but used person instead in this section. Every person on United States soil, whether citizen or not, has the right to life and due process. This is the part that protects illegal aliens from being killed on U.S. soil and makes it illegal.
  
• "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - every person, including non-citizens, are guaranteed equal protection of the laws with due process.
  

CONCLUSION:

• Since the zygote/fetus is a person it is protected under the 14th Amendment.
  

Note: Credit goes to 'My Conscience'.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

I'm afraid that you're going to have a very hard time proving that I'm not a person, either legally or philosophically (operating under the assumption that I exist, mind you), although I do invite you to try if you're feeling particularly cheeky.

I'm not trying to say that you are not a person. I am saying that you are not a 'finished' person, and that you probably will not be 'finished' until your mid-twenties. After all, your brain is re-wiring itself to it's adult stage.

Which also brings up another arguement. People with genetic defects such as severe down syndrome or a hormonal imbalance are also not 'finished' humans. Do they get rights?  

[Sinner]

kajun_chicke

But the fetal stage is just another stage of growth!!! So you're saying that if a man attacks a pregnant woman and she has a miscariage, it isn't right for the woman to sue on behalf of the baby that was KILLED?!??!?

You realize that this post doesn't actually contain any sort of argument to disprove my assertion, right?

But no, of course they can sue. Just as I can sue someone for attacking me and destroying, say, my liver.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Sinner

Except that living beings aren't simply assembled, but also grown. A car may be finished as soon as the assembly is finished, but it's absurd to say that a zygote is a finished human.

I'm back, yo.

Neither, I would add, are teenagers and people to, around, the age of 25 or so.

so do they get rights?

Well, I wouldn't say that people are ever "finished". Even when the braind and body are fully developed, one is never truly "done" growing and changing. Such terminology doesn't really apply, and I simply used it for lack of a better word in this situation.

Being "finished" isn't a defining characteristic for living beings as it is for cars. But that's not the point I was making. Your point relies on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and the car metaphor is simply to demonstrate that being in development is incredibly different from being the real thing. But people aren't cars, and the metaphor has to stop at that.

Basically: People don't "finish". The word is meaningless in regards to humans. But there is no reason why something that is in the process of becoming a person should be treated as a person.  

[Sinner]

Quote:

The most appropriate definition of a person:

Person:

Webster

a : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being;

That definition explains that a person is a human.

Since a zygote/fetus is a human then by definition it is a person.

This is where it clearly falls apart. You are assuming that a "person" is a viable synonym for "human". However, this definition is archaic and not based on any valid reasoning, but just common assumption. In our common vernacular, we have no need to make the distinction between a human and person. After all, how often do you deal with any issue where the difference between a human and a person is being challenged?

The dictionary's definition is simply being taken out of context, and doesn't apply here. It wasn't written to deal with this sort of situation, and trying to apply it here is ridiculous.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

Well, I wouldn't say that people are ever "finished". Even when the braind and body are fully developed, one is never truly "done" growing and changing. Such terminology doesn't really apply, and I simply used it for lack of a better word in this situation.

Being "finished" isn't a defining characteristic for living beings as it is for cars. But that's not the point I was making. Your point relies on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and the car metaphor is simply to demonstrate that being in development is incredibly different from being the real thing. But people aren't cars, and the metaphor has to stop at that.

Basically: People don't "finish". The word is meaningless in regards to humans. But there is no reason why something that is in the process of becoming a person should be treated as a person.

what you say is just as faulty as what I said. Why should your definition of what a 'person' is be any more correct then what my definition.

And on that topic, just what is your definition of a person, so there's no confusion.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

what you say is just as faulty as what I said. Why should your definition of what a 'person' is be any more correct then what my definition.

And on that topic, just what is your definition of a person, so there's no confusion.

I'm not here to offer a counterdefinition. Such a thing is not required to prove my point, nor will it do anything other than make this issue needlessly complicated. It wouldn't reduce confusion, it'd just drag this off-topic.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

I'm not here to offer a counterdefinition. Such a thing is not required to prove my point, nor will it do anything other than make this issue needlessly complicated. It wouldn't reduce confusion, it'd just drag this off-topic.

Actually, you kind of have to put up a counterdefinition, according to the rules of debate. We put forth evidence and a thesis, now you need to put forth counter-evidence and a counter-thesis, which would include your definition of a person.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Actually, you kind of have to put up a counterdefinition, according to the rules of debate. We put forth evidence and a thesis, now you need to put forth counter-evidence and a counter-thesis, which would include your definition of a person.

Actually, my definition of a person is completely unnecessary. At least, for the time being. Just because you made a claim doesn't mean that I have to provide a counterclaim. First, I have to disprove your claim. Once that's done, we can continue.