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

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest,

You attempt to draw a distinction between a 'living human being' and a 'person' when there is none. Even the definition that you posted pointed this out.

Incorrect.

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

I'm sure after you meet someone you think about what I nice person they are. I doubt you walk away thinking of what a kind human they are.

Seperations in termonolgy are no simple word game. I can understand why you assign them to be synonomous, however, they represent to different ideas.

Other than the unborn, where we would obviously disagree, give an example of how one could be a living human being without being a person.

If you cannot, then you too are using them synonomously.

I object to the crafting of this question, as it directly disqualifies me to answer it. The occasion in which a human being does not qualify it's person hood is specifically the case of the unborn. So says I and the court.

Not synonomous.

All righty then.

So, you DO use 'person' and 'living human being' synonomously EXCEPT for in the case of the unborn?

If this is correct, then we are back to:

What requirements are there to be a 'person' other than being a 'living human being'?

Last time we tackled this you said there were 'nonphysical characteristics' required, of which you specified one: the unborn had no 'duties'.

So , if you don't want to repeat that fiasco of yours, name specifically what other requirements for being a 'person' other than being 'a living human being'.

And be sure you don't drop the word HUMAN from your response as you did previously, when you stated:

Quote:

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

A 'living being' could be an animal, and that's not what we're talking about, (unless you can name a different species that unborn children belong to if you think they aren't of the human species.)

The distinction is in character, culture, all elements of human development that takes place after birth.

I see that you are really trying hard to avoid specifics here, because you are obviously in a dilemma.

What development of 'character' or development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

How 'bout at 6 months old?

If the answer is NONE, (and it really is), then is he/she therefore not a 'person'?

A little test for those that say a zygote is obviously human.

Please point out which of the following are human and tell me how you know.
At least one is human but not all are.

A:


B:


C:

D:


E:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest,

You attempt to draw a distinction between a 'living human being' and a 'person' when there is none. Even the definition that you posted pointed this out.

Incorrect.

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

I'm sure after you meet someone you think about what I nice person they are. I doubt you walk away thinking of what a kind human they are.

Seperations in termonolgy are no simple word game. I can understand why you assign them to be synonomous, however, they represent to different ideas.

Other than the unborn, where we would obviously disagree, give an example of how one could be a living human being without being a person.

If you cannot, then you too are using them synonomously.

I object to the crafting of this question, as it directly disqualifies me to answer it. The occasion in which a human being does not qualify it's person hood is specifically the case of the unborn. So says I and the court.

Not synonomous.

All righty then.

So, you DO use 'person' and 'living human being' synonomously EXCEPT for in the case of the unborn?

If this is correct, then we are back to:

What requirements are there to be a 'person' other than being a 'living human being'?

Last time we tackled this you said there were 'nonphysical characteristics' required, of which you specified one: the unborn had no 'duties'.

So , if you don't want to repeat that fiasco of yours, name specifically what other requirements for being a 'person' other than being 'a living human being'.

And be sure you don't drop the word HUMAN from your response as you did previously, when you stated:

Quote:

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

A 'living being' could be an animal, and that's not what we're talking about, (unless you can name a different species that unborn children belong to if you think they aren't of the human species.)

The distinction is in character, culture, all elements of human development that takes place after birth.

I see that you are really trying hard to avoid specifics here, because you are obviously in a dilemma.

What development of 'character' or development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

How 'bout at 6 months old?

If the answer is NONE, (and it really is), then is he/she therefore not a 'person'?

Denial tactic.

I gave you specifics, now deal with the answer.

You're in denial, there's nothing more I need to say, or could say to satisfy the needs of a absolutist like you.

Ask yourself, what would the court have needed to satisfy personhood? Ask yourself.

At birth, imediately the infant begins experiancing culture and begins developing character. At six months, the baby has already absorbed several elements of its only family, a elementary social model is developing. WHO the baby is as a portrait, is beginning to be sketched.

The distinction is in character, culture, all elements of human development that takes place after birth.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest,

You attempt to draw a distinction between a 'living human being' and a 'person' when there is none. Even the definition that you posted pointed this out.

Incorrect.

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

I'm sure after you meet someone you think about what I nice person they are. I doubt you walk away thinking of what a kind human they are.

Seperations in termonolgy are no simple word game. I can understand why you assign them to be synonomous, however, they represent to different ideas.

Other than the unborn, where we would obviously disagree, give an example of how one could be a living human being without being a person.

If you cannot, then you too are using them synonomously.

I object to the crafting of this question, as it directly disqualifies me to answer it. The occasion in which a human being does not qualify it's person hood is specifically the case of the unborn. So says I and the court.

Not synonomous.

All righty then.

So, you DO use 'person' and 'living human being' synonomously EXCEPT for in the case of the unborn?

If this is correct, then we are back to:

What requirements are there to be a 'person' other than being a 'living human being'?

Last time we tackled this you said there were 'nonphysical characteristics' required, of which you specified one: the unborn had no 'duties'.

So , if you don't want to repeat that fiasco of yours, name specifically what other requirements for being a 'person' other than being 'a living human being'.

And be sure you don't drop the word HUMAN from your response as you did previously, when you stated:

Quote:

I draw a distinction between a living being, and a something with personhood.

A 'living being' could be an animal, and that's not what we're talking about, (unless you can name a different species that unborn children belong to if you think they aren't of the human species.)

The distinction is in character, culture, all elements of human development that takes place after birth.

I see that you are really trying hard to avoid specifics here, because you are obviously in a dilemma.

What development of 'character' or development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

How 'bout at 6 months old?

If the answer is NONE, (and it really is), then is he/she therefore not a 'person'?

Denial tactic.

I gave you specifics, now deal with the answer.

You're in denial, there's nothing more I need to say, or could say to satisfy the needs of a absolutist like you.

Ask yourself, what would the court have needed to satisfy personhood? Ask yourself.

At birth, imediately the infant begins experiancing culture and begins developing character. At six months, the baby has already absorbed several elements of its only family, a elementary social model is developing. WHO the baby is as a portrait, is beginning to be sketched.

So you have NO specifics?

What development of 'character' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

What development of 'culture' does a newborn exhibit?

The answer is obviously --- NONE.

Those are the qualifications that you gave:

Diest TKO wrote:

The distinction is in character, culture, all elements of human development that takes place after birth.

Is it too much to expect you to be able to specifically cite what 'character' or 'culture' a newborn has developed?

I think not, unless doing so is an impossible task. Which it obviously is.

You stated that 'nonphysical characteristics' are required IN ADDITION to being a 'living human being' in order that one may also be defined as a 'person'.

Yet you are completely incapable of giving ONE specific example which would allow a newborn to qualify as a 'person' by your standard.

Are you an extremist, or am I?

I think the answer is again obvious.

I say the newborn is obviously a 'person'.

You are unable to do so because you stumble over your own definition.

So, your definition apparently is faulty, as I've said all along.

The reason it is? Because it was crafted with a view to excluding the unborn from being defined as a 'person'.

Your position is fatally flawed.

The cries of a despirate man. It is always the wish of the loser, to critique the way his opponent won.

A simple example is whether or not someone likes or dislikes different types of attention. Babies learn basic character traits such as the way to communicate to a mother out of the womb.

A character trait such as intimacy can begin once born, as an infant is touched and people make eye contact with it.

A culture trait a newborn has might be simply the method of birth itself, such as being water born.

Character traits at birth will mostly be tactile in nature, so examples such as intimacy, and basic request for food etc.

You're in denial.

What distinguishable character trait is there one minute after the birth as compared with one minute before?

Remember, a law that protects the life of a newborn 'person' must specifically spell out who or what is entitled to protection and who or what is not.) must he/she acquire to be a 'person' , as distinguished (at least in your mind, if nowhere else) from merely 'a living human being'?

I see no one has been able to tell us which are human and which are not....

parados wrote:

A little test for those that say a zygote is obviously human.

Please point out which of the following are human and tell me how you know.
At least one is human but not all are.

A:


B:


C:

D:


E:

no.

I refuse to split hairs with you. I have given you specifics now, be satisfied.

Quote:

What distinguishable character trait is there one minute after the birth as compared with one minute before?

A shift from biological dependance to affectionate dependance and nursing.

Quote:

Remember, a law that protects the life of a newborn 'person' must specifically spell out who or what is entitled to protection and who or what is not.) must he/she acquire to be a 'person' , as distinguished (at least in your mind, if nowhere else) from merely 'a living human being'?

Who: A newborn.
Qualification: Birth, separation from mother biologically.

Who not: The unborn.
Disqualification: Host relationship with another human being.

I've answered more than you deserve. Move on to a new topic.

A embryo in a test tube is VERY dependant.

Who not: The unborn.

Disqualification: Host relationship with another human being.

I embryo has no ability to absorb character and culture regaurdless of it not being in the womb.

Personhood, not established.

Laws also involve intent and in qualification/differentiation. If by test tubes, you're making a play to use my logic that SCNT would therefore be disqualified, you forget that law allows the allowed destruction of embryos for IVT. Intent has a great deal to do with the law.

By the way, the Missouri right to life is now trying to stop all funding to MO schools. They think that if any money makes it into our schools, it will go to research on stem cells. How repugnent. What things despirate things people will do in zeal. I mean forget about how this will negitively affect all the MO schools, as long as we stop the abortionists! People who go to college are all liberals too, so who cares!

Your klan, you can't stand to lose, so you'll destroy our country as consolation. Smile for the camera ****.

So the law allows it? So what?

Are you using that as justification?

'It should be legal because it is currently legal'?

Great circular reasoning.

You've not established that 'culture' or 'character' are valid requirements for personhood. We've only your claim to that effect.

So now I've given you a scenario where the unborn is NOT dependent on the mother as a 'host'.

Your reasoning goes down in flames, and you simply pretend like you didn't say it and come up with a new dodge.

Diest TKO wrote:

By the way, the Missouri right to life is now trying to stop all funding to MO schools. They think that if any money makes it into our schools, it will go to research on stem cells. How repugnent. What things despirate things people will do in zeal. I mean forget about how this will negitively affect all the MO schools, as long as we stop the abortionists! People who go to college are all liberals too, so who cares!

Your klan, you can't stand to lose, so you'll destroy our country as consolation. Smile for the camera ****.

More political rants and exaggeration?

5) Host elects to

Everyone of your above arguements are void.

Quote:

So the law allows it? So what?

Are you using that as justification?

'It should be legal because it is currently legal'?

Great circular reasoning.

It's called jurisprudence dropuot. Circular nothing. "This holds, so that holds for the same logic."

Quote:

You've not established that 'culture' or 'character' are valid requirements for personhood. We've only your claim to that effect.

Even IF my claim is WRONG, personhood has not been established so says the law. I'm only trying to offer you a reason which seems reasonable for why the court would say it is not ESTABLISHED.

I dont' need to establish anything. My speculation as to what upholds the decicion, is still better than any tactic you try to try and change the issue. You just can't handle being wrong.

Quote:

So now I've given you a scenario where the unborn is NOT dependent on the mother as a 'host'.

Your reasoning goes down in flames, and you simply pretend like you didn't say it and come up with a new dodge.

Then in revision, since you need one law, for multiple issues, I'll revise for you.

Human Life Rights:

Dis-qualifications: 1) Being is not Human. 2) Creation of lifefrom is formed in specific intention for scientific reasearch. Research must not violate and state or federal law. 3) Host elects to not fully gestate lifeform in first trimester. 4) Host elects to not fully gestate in second trimester with pychological and medical consultation. 5) Host elects

Here. Be satisfied.

If you wanted a law for both abortion and SCNT, you should more explicitly state so.

If you think they belong in the same boat, you'll have to qualify how they belong in the same legislation.

We are discussing 'should it be legal?' and you respond 'yes because it's currently legal'.

Yes that's circular.

Give justification why killing a living human being SHOULD be legal.

Quote:

No, Dropout it's not circular. I argue that the Court ruling was logical and justified.

Yes abortion should be legal as I have outlined before.
Yes SCNT for stem cell research should be legal.

for many of the same reasons, some for individual reasons.


If I was making a circular arguement, I'd say that the (singular) reason for why I believe the above should be legal is because of its current legal standing. But I have several reasons, many of which I have posted here including but not limited to the mother being the custodian of the unborns rights, the hierchy of life, and cultural issues or great or related demand

BTW since you've failed to show any distinction between 'person' and 'living human being' , I see that you're now at the fallback position of once again claiming the unborn is not human.

So give proof of that. What species is the unborn , if it is not human?

Quote:

We are discussing 'should it be legal?' and you respond 'yes because it's currently legal'.

Yes that's circular.

Give justification why killing a living human being SHOULD be legal.

Quote:

No, Dropout it's not circular. I argue that the Court ruling was logical and justified.

Yes abortion should be legal as I have outlined before.
Yes SCNT for stem cell research should be legal.

for many of the same reasons, some for individual reasons.


If I was making a circular arguement, I'd say that the (singular) reason for why I believe the above should be legal is because of its current legal standing. But I have several reasons, many of which I have posted here including but not limited to the mother being the custodian of the unborns rights, the hierchy of life, and cultural issues or great or related demand

BTW since you've failed to show any distinction between 'person' and 'living human being' , I see that you're now at the fallback position of once again claiming the unborn is not human.

So give proof of that. What species is the unborn , if it is not human?

I have never said that the unborn is not human. You confuse me with someone else.

Human Life Rights:

Dis-qualifications: 1) Being is not Human.

Your post only shows what kind of crippling stupidity you suffer on a daily basis.

I make a distinction of life rights.

Oh and an update from Missouri. I found out that the only building in the UM schools which could possibly do stem cell research is MU's new biology and Life Sciences building. A building that... And you're going to love this... the MO Right to Life movement suppported to build!

More political rants and exaggeration?

Missouri right to life is now trying to stop all funding to MO schools

The irony kills me.

Keep on destroying the world you nutjobs!