First you implied "I have a high opinion of myself"....now you imply I am "upset". I have responded without implying anything about you. I've given input as you requested initially. It is debate and I asked a fair question without implying anything.
You didn't answer the question (of course) on whether someone in your country can be charged for murder for killing a fetus during an attack on the mother.
No person's right to life allows them to seize ownership of another's body against that person's will even if their life is threatened.
The poster DID answer...which is a whole lot more than you've done....you have NEVER addressed the issue of how you want fetuses to have no restrictions and more rights than any other human....
A human is a human because that is what their DNA says they are. This goes for every other living organism from a virus on up the chain. I will stand by the genetic definition. Any unique Homo Sapiens with DNA that defines it to be so, in any stage of its unique development is a "human." Of course when one mixes occult studies such as philosophy and psychology into the conversation, one can imagine a human to be whatever anyone identifies one to be. The gender identity movement being the best example of such pseudoscience. Only those with XYY and other genetic abnormalities have a legitimate concern of what sex they are. If a virus can be considered to be life, then clearly a human zygote that is vastly more complex at conception than any virus is, should be considered as a "living human being."
The Founders, The Founders, The Founders. You'd think they'd created the earth. They wrote a Constitution as best they knew how and according to the conditions that existed. Those conditions have very largely changed. The US is NO LONGER the country they founded, and we've come a long way since. Which means the constitution, in certain instances, may need changing. Which is the purpose of "Amendments". You are perhaps assuming that a fertilized egg is a "person"? Or is it the 2nd month, or the 4th? Or just when? A "person" is defined as a human being regarded as an individual. A child is not an individual without its mother, and if otherwise it dies. It requires its mother to attain "birth"; and once born, yes, it has "rights". So, if a judgement must be made as to when the baby inside the womb becomes an "individual" - if ever - it is certainly science that says so and not any national congress on earth ...
What in heaven's name difference does it mean? Let them be the gender they wannabe! Neither governments nor religions have the right to chose for them. Period ...
Just your opinions. Many others say otherwise. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html - - - Updated - - - He did not state his nation, and he did not state the law for such events. Did I miss this?
A human is a human "person" based on their DNA. Unique human life begins at conception. A bacterial cell that is alive and functioning is a bacterial cell, and it has its own DNA to prove that is a bacterium. Our Founders were awesome, France's have always sucked to one degree or another. - - - Updated - - - Subjective rubbish.
you have NEVER addressed the issue of how you want fetuses to have no restrictions and more rights than any other human....
You've forgotten all the lengthy posts just in the thread that I've detailed my views on these subjects. Review them please.
Someone who thinks a human being does not become a fully a human being with a right not to be killed without extreme cause until they have passed out of the womb, had their umbilical cord cut or can breathe on their own---is morally debased. A child is a much of a human the minute before birth as the minute after.
No, I have going back and forth with you on this subject and you have NEVER addressed the issue of how you want fetuses to have no restrictions and more rights than any other human.... You could've posted it in your response here but you didn't...
You are correct, none I know about. However, there are many in this thread who believe these things, and would allow any woman to kill their own fetus at any time. Even Obama said that a fetus does not have full rights as a person even if he/she is already out of the womb, but the cord has not yet been cut.
A person is not a human-being until birth and full dependence upon themselves to sustain life. Until then it is a baby under the responsibility of the mother. You are denying the facts of life for some unnecessary "spirituality" - like preventing abortion ...
So you're all worried about something that doesn't happen.... And, no, a fetus does not have rights until it is BORN. That means the cord has been cut, THEN it is separate from the woman. THEN it is a person with rights.
If they kill the woman, that is murder of her. There is no separate murder charge for killing her fetus.
Thank you for making an argument !. Kind of ? The question here is whether or not a zygote is human. Not whether a human is a human. Human DNA can not speak so it can not "say" anything. What you are trying to say is "A zygote is a human because it has human DNA" or "All entities with human DNA are humans" This claim is refuted by the fact that cells have human DNA, but they are not human. It clearly takes more that having human DNA to be classified as a human. Just because a human cell has human DNA does not make it a human. By the same token, a heart cell is not a heart. What is the difference between the human cell we call a zygote, and all other human cells such that one is a human and the others are not. Both have human DNA. One could claim that the zygote DNA has the codes for "Create a human" turned on. This is one difference. Can you make an argument that shows that this special human cell should be accorded special rights on this basis. I hope you read the "genetic perspective" in the link I gave you - as this perspective supports your claim. Now you have fallen into fallacy again. Of course a Homo Sapiens is a Human. That is the definition of a human. You did not have to include the "with DNA" part. You are committing an "assumed premise" fallacy. Saying a zygote is a Homo sapiens, in a debate over whether or not it is a Homo sapiens - is merely repeating your premise. Using words extra qualifiers such as "unique" does not help as uniqueness has nothing to do with it. Just because twins do not have unique DNA does not make them not human - because they are not unique. "In any stage of Development" is also a dead end. Just because a drawing of a product is a stage of product development does not make that drawing the product. Just because some living thing is more complex than a virus does not make it a human. By your definition every human cell is a human being. The compound noun Human-Being ( means a human). A human cell is not a human. The when you separate the words - a being that is human ( human descriptive adjective) the cell could be classified as a "being" that is human. A human cell. You have been switching terms (which makes things confusing - to you) and this only serves to muddle the issue. Try sticking to one term (a human ) unless the other term is required in which case that requirement should be explained (such as defining what a Homo sapiens means in terms of Biological taxonomy. Speaking of which, I noticed you made no attempt to refute any of my points (such as the fact that a zygote is not classified as a Homo sapiens under the taxonomical classification criteria ) What is really disappointing is that you did address the question: Can we agree that "experts disagree" ?
