Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

real life wrote:

Read the Roe v Wade decision. The majority justices stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, the case for Roe would collapse. It is THE issue.

I still insist you haven't read my post. I have already adressed this. The personhood has NOT been established. Issue resloved.

Diest TKO wrote:

RL - If what you want to try and establish is personhood, then we'll take it there.

Personhood @ Dictionary.com

As you will see it becomes more important to define person.

Person @ Distionary.com

As you read, you will see a legal definition

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

As you will read you will see two major components in the definition.

1) Physical characteristics - being human, etc.
2) Non-physical characterristics - individuality, cuture, personality, etc.

Quote:

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

ASSUMPTION - at the time of Roe v. Wade, there was enough genetic evidence and prior biological data to conclude that an embryo/zygote/fetus is in fact human in nature (as opposed to any other animal).

ASSUMPTION - the personhood of the unborn is the ability to qualify the unborn as a person.

OBSERVATION - The definition of person is defined in physical and non-physical characteristics.

METHOD - Interpret the ruling.

Quote:

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

CONCLUSION - Unless the supreme court had no knowledge of human biology and reproductive mechanics, I conclude that the determination of personood is not solely based on the physical characteristics of the unborn. To satisfy personhood would be to additionally have some/all of the non-physical characteristics.

So move on.

Who has more claim to the rights of the unborn: the mother/couple or the state?

Credentials? I'm going to start assuming you dropped out of highschool soon if you don't answer me.

The Supreme Court said that this is THE issue.

Your own definition states that a 'person' as defined in law is a human being (or group of human beings. I assume one need not be both!).

Therefore the terms are synonomous.

If you think there are 'non-physical characteristics' required to be a person, or a human I'd like to know what you think those are.

real life wrote:

Your own definition states that a 'person' as defined in law is a human being (or group of human beings. I assume one need not be both!).

Therefore the terms are synonomous.

If you think there are 'non-physical characteristics' required to be a person, or a human I'd like to know what you think those are.

There must be non-physical characteristics, regaurdless of my own opinion. Based on the roe v wade verdict, the court was not satisfied that personhood was established by simple biology.

My question to you: "what kind of evidence of personhood do you think that they were referring to?"

BTW, The legal definition of person is not synonomous.

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

The unborn is not recognized as having duties, and the arguement of the prochoice movement is that the rights are the custody of the mother not the state.

If you want to argue that point you have to establish why the state would have a greater claim on the rights of the unborn than the mother.

real life wrote:

]

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Your own definition states that a 'person' as defined in law is a human being (or group of human beings. I assume one need not be both!).

Therefore the terms are synonomous.

If you think there are 'non-physical characteristics' required to be a person, or a human I'd like to know what you think those are.

There must be non-physical characteristics, regaurdless of my own opinion. Based on the roe v wade verdict, the court was not satisfied that personhood was established by simple biology.

My question to you: "what kind of evidence of personhood do you think that they were referring to?"

BTW, The legal definition of person is not synonomous.

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

The unborn is not recognized as having duties, and the arguement of the prochoice movement is that the rights are the custody of the mother not the state.

If you want to argue that point you have to establish why the state would have a greater claim on the rights of the unborn than the mother.

What 'duties' does a newborn have?

How 'bout a 3 year old? What are his/her duties?

Are they therefore 'not human beings' by your definition?

C'mon, Diest. You're grasping at straws, my friend.

Straws would be all I needed to trump your arguement.

Here'a an example of a "3 year old."

The Uncompromising Demand of a Three-Year-Old for her Own Mother

Eleanor Pavenstedt, M.D. and Irene Andersen, M.S.


Betty came to the Children's Center at the age of three-and-a-half, referred by a children's agency because she had been declared unmanageable in a series of foster homes. The complaints were destructiveness, aggressive behavior toward other children and adults, poor toilet habits, temper tantrums and running away. Only one foster mother had made some kind of contact with the child during the two years that she had been moving about. It seemed as though she had clung to her feelings for her own "Peggy-Mummy" from the time when, at eighteen months, she was first separated from her mother, and that she had resented everyone who tried to take her mother's place.

The mother had herself been an orphan from the age of eight. Infantile paralysis then caused her to spend the next eight years in a home for crippled children. From there she went to a wage home where she remained another eight years. She had an illegitimate son while there, whom she immediately gave up to her brother

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

I told you what I thought of the word 'person' , that includes the Supreme Court's use of the word. It is synonomous with 'living human being'.

Now you may argue that it's not, if you wish.

But you asked what I thought.

And the definition you posted also shows them to be synonomous. Perhaps that's why you tried to twist it to say that one MUST have 'duties' to qualify as a human being (or person).

But that's clearly not what it says.

A human being MAY have duties, but having 'duties' is not a requirement to be a human being (or a person).

If it is, then you have the question about the newborn and the 3 year old still to answer. Apparently you can't do so.

Cannot answer the question, Diest?

You previously stated that the unborn could not be a human being, because he/she had no 'duties', and you had posted a definition that you wanted to interpret as requiring one have 'duties' to qualify as a human being.

The 'persons' that the justices referred to are synonomous with 'living human beings,' as I stated numerous times.