Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

it's too bad, I thought to expect more of you than to make weak insults against anyone who disagrees with you.

 

It is the same thing no matter what you call it.

 

Feel free to find me a picture of a single celled fertilized egg with the readily visible differences with a born baby. And then you can talk about honesty. Thanks.

 

Why would I "recognize" something that I've demonstrated is false?

More semantic games by you.

She didn't have them at conception. A fact you cannot deny.

You think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A single cell fertilized egg is not capable of reproduction.

An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell. An organism may be either a prokaryote or a eukaryote.

How can a single celled fertilized egg be a human organism when a human is "comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs"?

I'm not aware of any definition of "human being" as a "single celled organism."

"h a human being in the zygotes stage of their life does not have very many 'human' attributes"

Exactly. It has hardly any.

So why should something that you admit does not have very many human attributes have the same rights as a born baby that does?

Semantic definitional assertion.

That is the entire basis of your position.

Semantic definitional assertion.

You simply label them the same thing to claim they have the same rights when if fact they are not the same thing, as you've conceded, "the zygotes stage of their life does not have very many 'human' attributes"

You juvenile labeling is not a logical argument.

And again, I'll remind you, until that passage of time they are very different things, and your repeated attempts to portray this:


[Reduced from life size]

is "the same thing" as this:


[Magnified about a zillion times]

is just exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

 

Correct. I pointed out the same false premise of his question earlier in the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I already told you.

The fair and proper question is: Is a zygote a "human being"?

 

It still wouldn't be proper because as the foundation of the question he is asserting that a zyglote is a human being: "whether or not a human being in the zygote stage ..."

Question is based upon a false premise, or at least based upon the premise that is the question.


"

- - - Updated - - -

Another false question. The statute in your sig says no such thing, as I demonstrated earlier in the thread, proving you're just making up word and meanings that don't even appear in the statute.

- - - Updated - - -

Such a law as he pretends it to be would not only be fatally inconsistent but unconstitutional as well because then abortion would be murder. Which it is not.

 

Not under Federal law. Murder under federal law is the unjustified killing of a human being:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. 18 USC 1111.

A human being is someone who has been born:

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

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.

A fetus is not a "human being" or "person" or "child" or "individual" under federal law.

 

I have no need to depict the actual enormous size disparity.

It has occurred to me when I have seen fanatics carrying on outside of women's health clinics that, if the huge blow-up of early-stage fetuses on the placards they flail were true to scale, an actual newborn would be bigger than the building in front of which folks are forced to run their gauntlet.

The microscopic, mindless amalgam of a few cells will still only be the size of a kidney bean two months into gestation.

Over half of legal abortions are performed in that first 8 weeks, 88% in the first trimester.

Roe v Wade is actually a compromise that has worked very well in balancing the State's relationship with a developing fetus with those of the woman who controls its its existence within her body. Neither extreme should be permitted to force their notions upon everyone else.

 

So what?

So what?

So what?

So what?

So what?

How does any of that address what you suggested was the dishonesty of my depictions or help to remedy it?

 

I noted the vast disparity.

Were I to depict an entity the size of an ant in comparison to an entity the size of an elephant, I feel that acknowledging, rather than ignoring, the truth of the disparate proportions only serves to help clarify the actual relationship.

I suggested no "dishonesty" in your posting comparably-sized images, merely that the reality of the subjects of those images is, in fact, quite enormous, and the comparably-proportioned images fail to convey that fact.

The captions subsequently supplied serve to address the issue, and I do not understand why you would still have a problem. I do not.

 

As I stated, I thought it would be obvious to most our members that a single celled egg is in fact not the same size as a born baby.

Sorry you felt so mislead and that I was wasn't being honest. I disagree with your sentiment, but to make it clear for those I suspect very few people who actually might think that a single celled fertilized egg is actually the same size as a born baby, I have captioned the photos to indicate that.

If that is insufficient for you, you have yet to suggest a way that would make the depictions more "honest". Did you have anything else you wanted to know?

 

Again, I thought better of you too.

Or did you not think rolling your eyes with nothing intelligent to say would be taken as an insult?

 

Seriously...

HUH?

 

yeah, I meant it to say: "Feel free to find me a accurately sized picture of a single celled fertilized egg with the readily visible differences with a born baby. And then you can talk about honesty. Thanks.

 

The mods can decide that.

More personal insults.

That is the typical MO of someone who could not rebut even one of the incontrovertible arguments and points I made.

 

It's clear you are frustrated - but I have nothing to gain by making any of this about you personally.

YOU are vocalizing a point that many others no doubt have.

I do not try to hide the fact that I view your denial (about the expansion of murder laws by the UVVA) as 'idiotic.'

However, my goal is was and always will be to get you see how idiotic that denial is.

It's not been my goal to simply throw insults.

This is not unlike your own posts and incredulance about how I (or anyone else) can look at those two images and see that they are (or can be) the very same child.

 

Wow, I actually somehow missed that - I must have been reading too quickly, because that's the problem I originally objected to.

Yeah I'm not sure those laws exist written in that way, but I know of guys who were convicted for two counts of murder for killing one pregnant woman, which I assume to be his point. Hell, it's a crime to in any way destroy Eagle eggs at any point. I see that there are vast inconsistencies in the law. The thing about abortion, insofar as I could tell from the laws and cases I've seen, is that the effective standing of the law is that the pregnant woman's child is only a child if she wants it. There was one case, so far back excuse me if I don't remember the names involved, where a woman was killed and the man charged (and I think convicted) with two counts of murder, whereas if she had at that point in her pregnancy just had an abortion it would have been perfectly legal. That is an inconsistency, and something that should be addressed.

Like I've said, I don't like saying that it's a child suddenly at conception, or when it leaves the birth canal. Both are absurd extremes. The first would require us actively believing that every chicken egg we eat is a chicken that we've killed - which isn't the problem with it, I'm just pointing out the absurdity. And the latter point I think is pretty self-explanatory. That's why I think the markers of death should be applied for the beginning of life. You generally take someone's pulse to see if they're dead. If you want to get technical, you can check for brain waves, and I think I'm okay with that. If the 'parasite' has a human heartbeat and human brain waves, it should not be okay to kill it. And that is months into the pregnancy, so it's rare that a woman would find out about the pregnancy after that point.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, I actually somehow missed that - I must have been reading too quickly, because that's the problem I originally objected to.

Yeah I'm not sure those laws exist written in that way, but I know of guys who were convicted for two counts of murder for killing one pregnant woman, which I assume to be his point. Hell, it's a crime to in any way destroy Eagle eggs at any point. I see that there are vast inconsistencies in the law. The thing about abortion, insofar as I could tell from the laws and cases I've seen, is that the effective standing of the law is that the pregnant woman's child is only a child if she wants it. There was one case, so far back excuse me if I don't remember the names involved, where a woman was killed and the man charged (and I think convicted) with two counts of murder, whereas if she had at that point in her pregnancy just had an abortion it would have been perfectly legal. That is an inconsistency, and something that should be addressed.

Like I've said, I don't like saying that it's a child suddenly at conception, or when it leaves the birth canal. Both are absurd extremes. The first would require us actively believing that every chicken egg we eat is a chicken that we've killed - which isn't the problem with it, I'm just pointing out the absurdity. And the latter point I think is pretty self-explanatory. That's why I think the markers of death should be applied for the beginning of life. You generally take someone's pulse to see if they're dead. If you want to get technical, you can check for brain waves, and I think I'm okay with that. If the 'parasite' has a human heartbeat and human brain waves, it should not be okay to kill it. And that is months into the pregnancy, so it's rare that a woman would find out about the pregnancy after that point.

 

I'm not frustrated at all. Why would I be frustrated? I've demonstrated with incontrovertible facts and argument, which you have not even attempted to rebut, how your position relies on definitions and meanings that are not in the statute you falsely claimed them to be, and how your entire position is simply a game of semantics definitions trying to claim that this:


[Reduced from life size]

is "the same thing" as this:


[Magnified about a zillion times]

The inconsistency of your positions, the failure to rebut my facts and arguments, and intellectual bankruptcy of your position is self evident. I have no reason to feel frustrated at all. You do, however, hence the resort to insults, as we typically see in forums like this one.

 

That is a pretty fair way of paraphrasing it. The UVVA, the federal statute (the one Chuz references; I haven't attempted to canvas all the state laws on the issue) does not define an "unborn child" as a human being, because if it did, then abortion would be killing a human being, which is murder under 18 USC 1111. And it would be unconstitutional under Roe. Rather, that federal statute (18 USC 1841) provides that killing an "unborn child" (defined to be a prior to birth) is wrongful, and if done intentionally, can be penalized "as if" the person had killed a human being.

But the federal statute explicitly exemptions abortions from its coverage.

Chuzlife, as do pro-lifers in general, use semantic games for their position. They call the singled celled fertilized egg a "child" and "human being" to justify their position that the singled celled fertilized egg should have the same rights as a born baby.

But of course, they aren't the same thing at all. But they cannot acknowledge that obvious fact, because it kills their position.

Hence you've seen Chuz strive mightily for 35 pages in this thread, just like all the other abortion threads, that this:


[Reduced from life size]

is "the same thing" as this:


[Magnified about a zillion times]

Which is obviously a ludicrous proposition.

 

This was not intended to be taken personally.

Correct?

 

Some might see your views and think it reflects negatively on you personally. That is up to them.

 

Ditto that for your views.

In fact, that's what I was saying - when I called the denial of the fact that the UVVA expanded existing murder laws - is 'idiotic.'

 

Logically - these could be images of the very same child - taken only a year or so apart.

 

Logically, regardless of whether or not that could be true, they are not even close to being the same thing now.

- - - Updated - - -

The record of what you posted is clear, despite your efforts to mischaracterize./

 

Nor did I ever opine that folks might assume that comparable-sized images must portray comparable-sized subjects, merely that the vast disparity in size is as significant as the vast disparity in appearance. You were not being "dishonest" as you put it; you were merely failing to emphasize a second, major differentiating factor. Your belatedly adding captions, however nebulous "about a zillion times" might be, did redress the pretermission satisfactorily, imho.