Political Crossfire Forums

[Todd D.]

Quote: I don't think there has ever been an actual 'Tyranny of the Majority' for that claim to be true.
Oh really? From 1865 to 1964 the majority in America felt that "Seperate but Equal" was just. Nevermind the rights of the minorities that were trampled at the time, the populace demanded it. Currently, 78 percent of America feels that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights that heterosexuals are with respects to spousal benefits. Again, nevermind the rights to consentual contracts, the populace demands limits upon those rights for actions they feel are morally unjust. Both are examples of tyranny of the majority.

[Selfish_Meme]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I don't think there has ever been an actual 'Tyranny of the Majority' for that claim to be true.
Oh really? From 1865 to 1964 the majority in America felt that "Seperate but Equal" was just. Nevermind the rights of the minorities that were trampled at the time, the populace demanded it. Currently, 78 percent of America feels that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights that heterosexuals are with respects to spousal benefits. Again, nevermind the rights to consentual contracts, the populace demands limits upon those rights for actions they feel are morally unjust. Both are examples of tyranny of the majority.
So why is true democracy worse? all you have proved is that representational democracy is just as bad.

[Todd D.]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I don't think there has ever been an actual 'Tyranny of the Majority' for that claim to be true.
Oh really? From 1865 to 1964 the majority in America felt that "Seperate but Equal" was just. Nevermind the rights of the minorities that were trampled at the time, the populace demanded it. Currently, 78 percent of America feels that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights that heterosexuals are with respects to spousal benefits. Again, nevermind the rights to consentual contracts, the populace demands limits upon those rights for actions they feel are morally unjust. Both are examples of tyranny of the majority.
So why is true democracy worse? all you have proved is that representational democracy is just as bad.
No, what I am saying is that when there is no check on the majority, the rights of the minorities tend to get trampled. Segretgation ended as a result of a court case, Brown vs. The Board of Education. Discrimination against homosexual relationships is slowly being eroded as a result of court cases, most notably Texas repealing Sodomy Laws as UnConstitutional. What is ironic is the opposing side is now accusing the Supreme Court of "Nullifying the Will of the Majority". NO KIDDING! That's part of their job, to act as a check on the majority!

All Direct Democracy does is remove the check and allow a mob rule to decide what is right and what is wrong, as if morality and justice were at the whim of popular sanction. That's preposterous at its very core.

[steen]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: That law has nothing to do with the definition of a child though, which is the stage of development from birth to adolescence. I can't find anything about the law you quote either, have you got a link?
At least in California it's what is known as "Lacey and Connor's Law", named after Lacey and Connor Peterson. Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of murder: Lacey as well as their unborn son Connor. Actually, it was fetus connor, even in the law itself.

Quote: Whether or not they are a "child" is a matter of semantics. The argument on the Pro-Life side is that they are a living being. Despite what the Pro-Choice side wants to say, that can not be refuted simply by saying "utter nonsense" and ridicule. Ah, but "beings" have individual, independent function.

Quote: That entity has separate DNA, Just like a hydatidiform mole.

Quote: separate growth patterns, just like a hydatidiform mole.

Quote: and in later stages seperate organs and a seperate brain. Whose function doesn't begin until quite late.

Quote: You can make a VERY convincing argument that it IS a seperate living entity. Therefore if it is a seperate living entity, then it is not simply a matter of "butting in to someone else's business". Why not? "living entity" is not a descriptor that confers any rights or protection. You are merely engaging in sophistry here, engaging in revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Quote: If that were true, then we shouldn't make laws against any sort of aggressive force. After all, who are we to stop the mugger from robbing someone? Assault asgains a sensate, sentient person. The fetus is none of these things.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Actually, it was fetus connor, even in the law itself.
More semantics. The law recognized the illegality of an assault against a fetus and tried a man for murder for his participation in that assault.

Quote: Ah, but "beings" have individual, independent function
Who defines that "function"? People commonly referred to a "Vegetables" retain their rights of non-agression regardless of the state that they are in. Ditto for any unconscious adult.

Quote: Just like a hydatidiform mole.
And nobody says "Well, that's not a mole because it's a relatively new mole, do they? A mole is a mole regardless of how old it is. Why do we make the difference with a human?

Quote: Whose function doesn't begin until quite late.
Are you then suggesting that a fetus becomes a human once those organs begin to function....which is almost universally before birth?

Quote: Why not? "living entity" is not a descriptor that confers any rights or protection. You are merely engaging in sophistry here, engaging in revisionist linguistic hyperbole.
No, but living entity combined with the assertion that entity is human does, since humans have rights.

Quote: Assault asgains a sensate, sentient person. The fetus is none of these things.
Again, our rights are not conditional upon our congition of them. Mentally handicap humans still have the freedom from agression and the right to liberty, even if they are unable to functionally comprehend what those freedoms mean.

[steen]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Actually, it was fetus connor, even in the law itself.
More semantics. The law recognized the illegality of an assault against a fetus and tried a man for murder for his participation in that assault. Actually, the semantics were yours, as you now proved by providing the accurate and correct descriptors. WHen you used "unborn baby" instead of fetus, you engaged in deliberate deception per semantics. You are accusing others when YOU are the one engaging in such despicably dishonest practices. YOU are a hypocrite.

Quote: Quote: Ah, but "beings" have individual, independent function Who defines that "function"? People commonly referred to a "Vegetables" retain their rights of non-agression regardless of the state that they are in. Actually, "vegetables" don't retain such powers; their guardians do.

Quote: Ditto for any unconscious adult. Who certainly retains independent, individual function. You don't die from being unconscious.

[quote] Quote: Just like a hydatidiform mole.
And nobody says "Well, that's not a mole because it's a relatively new mole, do they? A mole is a mole regardless of how old it is. Why do we make the difference with a human?[quote]But your argument was not about how it functions eventually. Your argument specifically was about DNA, remember? Why the deceptive change here?

Quote: Quote: Whose function doesn't begin until quite late.
Are you then suggesting that a fetus becomes a human once those organs begin to function....which is almost universally before birth? Actually, the stage "a human" would not occur until individuality beginning through birth.

Quote: Quote: Why not? "living entity" is not a descriptor that confers any rights or protection. You are merely engaging in sophistry here, engaging in revisionist linguistic hyperbole.
No, but living entity combined with the assertion that entity is human does, since humans have rights.

Quote: Assault asgains a sensate, sentient person. The fetus is none of these things. Again, our rights are not conditional upon our congition of them. Mentally handicap humans still have the freedom from agression and the right to liberty, even if they are unable to functionally comprehend what those freedoms mean. But fetuses aren't so entitled, your sophistry none withstanding.

[galba]

steen wrote: galba wrote: I answered your question, though. You can continue spewing your deceptive, pro-life, revisionist linmguistic hyperbole. But as "child" is a developmental stage starting AT birth and ending at adolescence, your answer still is nonsense. We would rather have a meaningful quality answer from you, thank you.
I'm using the term child meaning, "developing human".

[steen]

galba wrote: I'm using the term child meaning, "developing human". Actually, the meaning of "child" is a developmental stage beginning at birth and ending at adolescence.

So you felt you had to use some novel meaning to provide the desired emotional appeal that a realistic and straightforward argument couldn't?

Is your position so weak that you have to resort to such trickery and revisionist linguistic hyperbole to make your argument? :lm:

[galba]

steen wrote: galba wrote: I'm using the term child meaning, "developing human". Actually, the meaning of "child" is a developmental stage beginning at birth and ending at adolescence.

So you felt you had to use some novel meaning to provide the desired emotional appeal that a realistic and straightforward argument couldn't?

Is your position so weak that you have to resort to such trickery and revisionist linguistic hyperbole to make your argument? :lm:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

1. A person between birth and puberty.

2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

It can be used to mean fetus.

Do you have a better term for a person between conception and puberty?

[steen]

galba wrote: Do you have a better term for a person between conception and puberty? There is no person until birth.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Actually, the semantics were yours, as you now proved by providing the accurate and correct descriptors. WHen you used "unborn baby" instead of fetus, you engaged in deliberate deception per semantics. You are accusing others when YOU are the one engaging in such despicably dishonest practices. YOU are a hypocrite.
Not really. Murder can only be tried against a human being. That's the very definition of murder: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. Charging Scott Peterson with murder de facto recognized that Conner Peterson was a human being. Being less than 4 or 5, he was a baby. He was not born. Therefore he was an unborn baby. You then felt the need to clarify that he was not an unborn baby, he was a fetus. That is also true, however it was semantics on your part to point that out.

Quote: Who certainly retains independent, individual function. You don't die from being unconscious.
You don't die from being a fetus either. You were suggesting that rights are conditional upon cognition, which in turn insinuates that an unconscious person has no rights, justifying assault against them.

Quote: But your argument was not about how it functions eventually. Your argument specifically was about DNA, remember? Why the deceptive change here?
I didn't change a thing. You said that it's not a human until birth, I would suggest you can make a perfectly logical case that it is a human from the moment of conception. You were the one that brought up the mole example, saying that it retained seperate DNA. At a later point you also brought up that a fetus was not a human because it's lungs and brain were not functioning. That's a contradiction, since we both agree that a mole is a mole, regardless of how old.

Quote: Actually, the stage "a human" would not occur until individuality beginning through birth.
Ah, but you are debating using your conclusion as proof. I was saying that a case can be made that a fetus is a human, and you are responding by saying "It's not a human until birth". I understand that is your position, but I think that you need to prove that statement.

Quote: But fetuses aren't so entitled, your sophistry none withstanding.
Again, I understand this, and what I am saying is that it is unjust that they are not so entitled. Legality and popular saction does not define truth, it doesn't even define justice. A violation of rights is a violation of rights, regardless of what the populace thinks. I'm not saying conclusively that the pro-choice crowd is wrong and that the pro-life crowd is right, I'm saying that you can't cite legal definitions and abortion legaltiy as "proof" that a fetus is not a human.

[Selfish_Meme]

Todd D. wrote: Not really. Murder can only be tried against a human being. That's the very definition of murder: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. Charging Scott Peterson with murder de facto recognized that Conner Peterson was a human being. Being less than 4 or 5, he was a baby. He was not born. Therefore he was an unborn baby. You then felt the need to clarify that he was not an unborn baby, he was a fetus. That is also true, however it was semantics on your part to point that out.
Actually Scott peterson was charged under fetal homicide laws, that allow a murder verdict. He wasn't charged with normal homicide in the case of the fetus. Also Fetal homicide laws are only present in half the states where homicede laws are in all states.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

Todd D. wrote: You don't die from being a fetus either. You were suggesting that rights are conditional upon cognition, which in turn insinuates that an unconscious person has no rights, justifying assault against them.
Delta brainwaves continue in unconciousness for healthy adults, and are also the first indicators of fetal brain activity. They are non-existent in the braindead. Also the state of unconciousness or sleep is a resting of these faculties not an absence, you use them when you dream. Just so you know the unconcious person analogy doesn't work for that sort of comparison.

A human belongs to the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens, be it one cell or an adult person, alive or dead.

By law it is not 'a person' until birth. Where it can attain citizenship.

You two are dancing around the concept 'life' and 'a life', what you should say is person. A person is a being with intelligence, sapiency, reasoning, language skills and emotions. By that definition the unborn are not totally persons, though in the end very close. Close enough that most pro-choicers would consider it a crime to abort a late term fetus unless it was to save the mother.

Really the only point where pro-life and pro-choice differ is the point at which it becomes morally wrong to abort. The pro-choice abortion window is not very long, between birth and 23 or so weeks. Before any brain activity or sensory hoopup to the brain even.

[steen]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Actually, the semantics were yours, as you now proved by providing the accurate and correct descriptors. When you used "unborn baby" instead of fetus, you engaged in deliberate deception per semantics. You are accusing others when YOU are the one engaging in such despicably dishonest practices. YOU are a hypocrite.
Not really. Murder can only be tried against a human being. No, against a person. Now you even have to lie to make your argument. How lame. Are you even worth it? Will you continue to be dishonest in every post? Sophistry is not facts, get a grip.

Quote: That's the very definition of murder: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. False. Substitute "human being" with "person," and THEN it is accurate.

Quote: Charging Scott Peterson with murder de facto recognized that Conner Peterson was a human being. Being less than 4 or 5, he was a baby. He was not born. Therefore he was an unborn baby. YOU ARE LYING. The law that Scott Peterson was prosecuted under specifically talked about the killing of a fetus. The law in no way assigned personhood to the fetus or claimed it "a human being." next time you want to spew a claim, at least be sure of the factuality of what you claim. :roll:

Quote: You then felt the need to clarify that he was not an unborn baby, he was a fetus. That is also true, however it was semantics on your part to point that out. I need not do anything. The law is clear, mentioning the fetus, not any other of your silly and deceptive semantics.

Quote: Quote: Who certainly retains independent, individual function. You don't die from being unconscious.
You don't die from being a fetus either. You were suggesting that rights are conditional upon cognition, which in turn insinuates that an unconscious person has no rights, justifying assault against them. MUST YOU LIE ABOUT ME? I pointed out that the embryo or fetus have NO cognition, no sentience. An unconscious person has both. Are you done with your silly semantic word games and dishonest sophistry? If all you are doing is trying to turn word definitions inside out and string them together until you can twist them into something that can fit your argument, then you are not worth anybody's time. While pro-lifers like the sophistry of semantic word games, the rest of us operate in the REAL world.

Quote: Quote: But your argument was not about how it functions eventually. Your argument specifically was about DNA, remember? Why the deceptive change here?
I didn't change a thing. You said that it's not a human until birth, SIGH! The dishonesty of pro-lifers. Utterly disgusting. here is the flow of the discussion:

Todd: Whether or not they are a "child" is a matter of semantics. The argument on the Pro-Life side is that they are a living being. Despite what the Pro-Choice side wants to say, that can not be refuted simply by saying "utter nonsense" and ridicule. That entity has separate DNA,

Steen: Just like a hydatidiform mole.

Todd: And nobody says "Well, that's not a mole because it's a relatively new mole, do they? A mole is a mole regardless of how old it is. Why do we make the difference with a human?

Steen: But your argument was not about how it functions eventually. Your argument specifically was about DNA, remember? Why the deceptive change here?

So yes, you did "change a thing," Now you are dishonest. Can you please stop that?

Quote: I would suggest you can make a perfectly logical case that it is a human from the moment of conception. I can make a "perfectly logical case" that you are a rock. So what? When the "logic" flies in the face of reality, then you clinging to your sophistry merely shows your dishonesty.

"a human" is an individual, a separate, independent entity with its own homeostasis. There is that pesky thing called an umbilical cord, invalidating your nice artificial construct for your semantics.

Are you done with your silly word games and misrepresentations by now?

Quote: You were the one that brought up the mole example, saying that it retained seperate DNA. Showing your claim of "That entity has separate DNA" also applies to the hydatidiform mole.

Oh, gee. I didn't know that you would get upset if your arguments are being challenged to the point where they become invalid. I am sorry you are THAT sensitive. :roll: Get a grip.

Quote: At a later point you also brought up that a fetus was not a human because it's lungs and brain were not functioning. Did I? I talked about lungs? My argument against your semantics and terminology is that for something to be "a" human, it must have individuality.

Quote: That's a contradiction, since we both agree that a mole is a mole, regardless of how old. Huh? Do you KNOW what a hydatidiform mole is?

Quote: Quote: Actually, the stage "a human" would not occur until individuality beginning through birth.
Ah, but you are debating using your conclusion as proof. I was saying that a case can be made that a fetus is a human, and you are responding by saying "It's not a human until birth". I understand that is your position, but I think that you need to prove that statement. That is done per its individuality, which directly pertains to whether the "human" fetus or embryo is also "a human."

Quote: Quote: But fetuses aren't so entitled, your sophistry none withstanding. Again, I understand this, and what I am saying is that it is unjust that they are not so entitled. Ah, ok. That's something entirely different. yes, it is certainly valid for you to disagree with the legal status of the fetus.

Quote: Legality and popular saction does not define truth, it doesn't even define justice. Correct. It defines the law and little else.

Quote: A violation of rights is a violation of rights, regardless of what the populace thinks. I'm not saying conclusively that the pro-choice crowd is wrong and that the pro-life crowd is right, I'm saying that you can't cite legal definitions and abortion legaltiy as "proof" that a fetus is not a human. Correct. This is derived from the lack of individual function.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Actually Scott peterson was charged under fetal homicide laws, that allow a murder verdict. He wasn't charged with normal homicide in the case of the fetus. Also Fetal homicide laws are only present in half the states where homicede laws are in all states.
So what if they are only present in half the states. Again, you are hinging your argument on the faulty reasoning that legality = justice. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. Just because something is illegal, that doesn't make it wrong. We are arguing the morality and the logistics of this. Legality is the result, not the cause, of those conclusions.

Quote: Delta brainwaves continue in unconciousness for healthy adults, and are also the first indicators of fetal brain activity. They are non-existent in the braindead. Also the state of unconciousness or sleep is a resting of these faculties not an absence, you use them when you dream. Just so you know the unconcious person analogy doesn't work for that sort of comparison.
Fair enough, but by your admission, fetuses at some stage carry delta brainwaves. Are they then a living being once those brainwaves begin?

Quote: A human belongs to the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens, be it one cell or an adult person, alive or dead.
Agree.

Quote: By law it is not 'a person' until birth.
Again, the law does not decide what is right and wrong, only what is legal.

Quote: Where it can attain citizenship.
Rights are not conditional upon citizenship. It is just as illegal to assault an American citizen in LA as it is to assault an illegal alien in LA.

Quote: You two are dancing around the concept 'life' and 'a life', what you should say is person. A person is a being with intelligence, sapiency, reasoning, language skills and emotions. By that definition the unborn are not totally persons, though in the end very close. Close enough that most pro-choicers would consider it a crime to abort a late term fetus unless it was to save the mother.
Newborn children contain the very same capacity for intelligence, reasoning, language skill, and emotions that a 7, 8, or 9 month old fetus contains. Best I can tell the only functional difference between a fetus at that age and a newborn baby is the fact that they are breathing air and that they are outside of the womb. The first is definitely not a definition of a human, and the second is a matter of residence. I don't believe it can be stated definitively that either of those two factors absolutely determines personhood.

Quote: Really the only point where pro-life and pro-choice differ is the point at which it becomes morally wrong to abort. The pro-choice abortion window is not very long, between birth and 23 or so weeks. Before any brain activity or sensory hoopup to the brain even.
True. It is essentially "When does it become the difference between removing cells and ending a person's life"? I think both sides can make good arguments. I just feel that it's innapropriate for the Pro-Choice crowd to act as if it is a definitive conclusion that a fetus is NOT a human life, lest you be labeled as ignorant or dishonest. Neither is the case.

[steen]

Todd D. wrote: Fair enough, but by your admission, fetuses at some stage carry delta brainwaves. Are they then a living being once those brainwaves begin? They are living from even before the conception, they are not beings until birth and brain waves can begin at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.

So none of these three concepts tie together.


Quote: Quote: By law it is not 'a person' until birth.
Again, the law does not decide what is right and wrong, only what is legal. But "person" is a legal term.

Quote: Newborn children contain the very same capacity for intelligence, reasoning, language skill, and emotions that a 7, 8, or 9 month old fetus contains. Best I can tell the only functional difference between a fetus at that age and a newborn baby is the fact that they are breathing air and that they are outside of the womb. the difference in function is huge. (If that is what you meant. Did "function" refer to the difference or the fetus?)

Quote: Quote: Really the only point where pro-life and pro-choice differ is the point at which it becomes morally wrong to abort. The pro-choice abortion window is not very long, between birth and 23 or so weeks. Before any brain activity or sensory hoopup to the brain even.
True. It is essentially "When does it become the difference between removing cells and ending a person's life"? No, the difference between sentience and non-sentience of the fetus that might be aborted. "Person" doesn't factor in here.

Quote: I think both sides can make good arguments. I just feel that it's innapropriate for the Pro-Choice crowd to act as if it is a definitive conclusion that a fetus is NOT a human life, lest you be labeled as ignorant or dishonest. Neither is the case. Could you please cease the interchange of terms that do not necessarily mean the same? If you are arguing one specific term, please stick to that term and don't throw all sorts of other terminology in as if they were all the equivalent.

If you want to talk about "a" human life, then we need to address the factors of individuality and independent function. If you merely want to say that it is human or it has life, then we are not in disagreement.

[Todd D.]

Quote: No, against a person. Now you even have to lie to make your argument. How lame. Are you even worth it? Will you continue to be dishonest in every post? Sophistry is not facts, get a grip.
Differentiating between the two is again semantics. Insulting me does little to address that point.

Quote: False. Substitute "human being" with "person," and THEN it is accurate.
Murder - "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being"
Source
Murder - "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
Source
Your argument should be with the Dictionary, not with me.

Quote: SIGH! The dishonesty of pro-lifers. Utterly disgusting. here is the flow of the discussion:
[...]
So yes, you did "change a thing," Now you are dishonest. Can you please stop that?
No, I expected you to recognize that I was combining conclusions from two seperate points of your discussion. I don't think that was an unreasonable request.

Quote: I can make a "perfectly logical case" that you are a rock. So what? When the "logic" flies in the face of reality, then you clinging to your sophistry merely shows your dishonesty.
What reality? You're reality lies not on logic but on legal definitions and matters that are not conclusive. When someone challenges them, you accuse them of dishonesty and sophistry instead of addressing their arguments.

Quote: "a human" is an individual, a separate, independent entity with its own homeostasis. There is that pesky thing called an umbilical cord, invalidating your nice artificial construct for your semantics.
So now it's the absence of an umbilcal chord that defines humanity? A feutus is not a human until their umbilical chord is cut? But that would mean that newborn babies are still fetuses after leaving the womb. Or is it when their umbilical chord ceases to function, which would be hours before they are ever born? Don't worry about addressing these, just accuse me of sophistry.

It is undeniable that a fetus relies on the mother for sustinence. However, it is not a definition that dependence precludes humanity.

Quote: Did I? I talked about lungs? My argument against your semantics and terminology is that for something to be "a" human, it must have individuality.
I agree, however it is the assertion of the pro-life camp that regardless of dependence, a fetus does have a degree of individuality that defines it as human.

Quote: That is done per its individuality, which directly pertains to whether the "human" fetus or embryo is also "a human."
Again though, this is little more than a restatement of "Individuality begins at birth".

[galba]

steen wrote: galba wrote: Do you have a better term for a person between conception and puberty? There is no person until birth.
I disagree. You are just as much a person 1 minute before birth as you are 1 minute after birth.

[Selfish_Meme]

galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: Do you have a better term for a person between conception and puberty? There is no person until birth.
I disagree. You are just as much a person 1 minute before birth as you are 1 minute after birth.
The question is, are you as much a person 5 seconds after conception as you are after birth, I certainly don't think so.

If you don't think a single cell, which has no brain, no heart, no reasoning, no sapiency, no feelings, no memory, no history, no independence and you certainly can't have a relationship with it, in fact you probably don't even know it is there, is a person, then abortion is acceptable until the point where it attains some or all of those attributes. That is the point where abortion becomes unacceptable.

The pro-choice consensus seems to be around 23-26 weeks, no one is talking about late term abortions being acceptable except in an effort to save the mothers life.

[galba]

Selfish_Meme wrote: galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: Do you have a better term for a person between conception and puberty? There is no person until birth.
I disagree. You are just as much a person 1 minute before birth as you are 1 minute after birth.
The question is, are you as much a person 5 seconds after conception as you are after birth, I certainly don't think so.

If you don't think a single cell, which has no brain, no heart, no reasoning, no sapiency, no feelings, no memory, no history, no independence and you certainly can't have a relationship with it, in fact you probably don't even know it is there, is a person, then abortion is acceptable until the point where it attains some or all of those attributes. That is the point where abortion becomes unacceptable.

The pro-choice consensus seems to be around 23-26 weeks, no one is talking about late term abortions being acceptable except in an effort to save the mothers life.
I doesn't get those things until many months, or in some years after birth. What matters is the potential to become a human. An embryo has the potential to become an adult, as does a 1 minute out-of-the-womb baby. By themselves, each is worthless. They both, however, have potential to develop into a reasoning, normal person.

[steen]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: No, against a person. Now you even have to lie to make your argument. How lame. Are you even worth it? Will you continue to be dishonest in every post? Sophistry is not facts, get a grip. Differentiating between the two is again semantics. Each term has its own specific meaning. You are the one with the semantics, when trying to dishonestly mix up the terminology.

Quote: Insulting me does little to address that point. It is documented that you are dishonest in your posts. A factual observation is not an insult.

Quote: Quote: False. Substitute "human being" with "person," and THEN it is accurate.
Murder - "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being"
Source
Murder - "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
Source
Your argument should be with the Dictionary, not with me. Well, I took a look at a REAL law library. It reports as follows:
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=be/be64ca4a0556eff260179ac64b7b4596
murder
['mer-der]

partly from Old English morthor; partly from Old French murdre, of Germanic origin

: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)

esp
: such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape)

Seems like they didn't like either of our arguments.

That leaves us with the reality of murder most certainly being illegal, sinking your argument anyway.

Quote: Quote: SIGH! The dishonesty of pro-lifers. Utterly disgusting. here is the flow of the discussion:
[...]
So yes, you did "change a thing," Now you are dishonest. Can you please stop that?
No, I expected you to recognize that I was combining conclusions from two seperate points of your discussion. I don't think that was an unreasonable request. You made a claim, your claim was false. That you are unable to admit this and stand by what you wrote, that is pathetic. Do you need to see it again?

Todd: Whether or not they are a "child" is a matter of semantics. The argument on the Pro-Life side is that they are a living being. Despite what the Pro-Choice side wants to say, that can not be refuted simply by saying "utter nonsense" and ridicule. That entity has separate DNA,

Steen: Just like a hydatidiform mole.

Todd: And nobody says "Well, that's not a mole because it's a relatively new mole, do they? A mole is a mole regardless of how old it is. Why do we make the difference with a human?

Steen: But your argument was not about how it functions eventually. Your argument specifically was about DNA, remember? Why the deceptive change here?

It is STILL clear that you changed your claim.

Quote: Quote: I can make a "perfectly logical case" that you are a rock. So what? When the "logic" flies in the face of reality, then you clinging to your sophistry merely shows your dishonesty.
What reality? You're reality lies not on logic but on legal definitions and matters that are not conclusive. And yours are not based on logic, as they end up assigning personhood to a hydatidiform mole.

Quote: When someone challenges them, you accuse them of dishonesty and sophistry instead of addressing their arguments. A lie. I address the points. YOU, on the other hand merely try to change the subject in a dishonest fashion, as I have come to expect by pro-lifers.

Quote: Quote: "a human" is an individual, a separate, independent entity with its own homeostasis. There is that pesky thing called an umbilical cord, invalidating your nice artificial construct for your semantics.
So now it's the absence of an umbilcal chord that defines humanity? No, it is what defines "A" human, an individual human. It does not define humanity. Why is it that you always HAVE to dishonestly switch vocabulary in your deceptive semantics game? Is your argument so weak on its own that you are unable to make it without such trickery?

Quote: A feutus is not a human until their umbilical chord is cut? Or clamped. That is when it obtains its individuality. but it really is a process. The first breath also starts physiological processes that leads to independent homeostasis.

Quote: But that would mean that newborn babies are still fetuses after leaving the womb. There is a range of about 5-10 seconds where it changes from a fetus to "a human."

Quote: Or is it when their umbilical chord ceases to function, which would be hours before they are ever born? If the umbilical cord stopped functioning hours before birth, the fetus would suffocate hours before birth. You don't know much about umbilical cords and fetal physiology, do you?

Quote: Don't worry about addressing these, just accuse me of sophistry. In this case, no it is ignorance you are exhibiting.

Quote: It is undeniable that a fetus relies on the mother for sustinence. However, it is not a definition that dependence precludes humanity. Of course not. I never said anything about "humanity." That is a term YOU decided to introduce to fit your semantics and sophist manipulations.

Quote: Quote: Did I? I talked about lungs? My argument against your semantics and terminology is that for something to be "a" human, it must have individuality. I agree, however it is the assertion of the pro-life camp that regardless of dependence, a fetus does have a degree of individuality that defines it as human. As "human"? Certainly. The species assignment has never been in doubt.

Quote: Quote: That is done per its individuality, which directly pertains to whether the "human" fetus or embryo is also "a human."
Again though, this is little more than a restatement of "Individuality begins at birth". Well, it does, so what is your beef with this?