Being Ethical and Moral are two different spects.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

It doesn't say that they are, and it doesn't say that they aren't. In the eyes of the law however, the word person, and the word human being are interchangable refer to Black's Law Dictionary. Now we are back to you needing to prove that zygotes aren't human beings in the face of credible science that says that they are.

Can you do it?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

What you define anything as is completely irrelavent. If you can find a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary, I suggest that you look at it. Black's is the law dictionary that practically every judge in the country uses including justices on the supreme court. When two parties have a dispute over the meaning of a legal term, the judge will call both lawyers to his bench or chambers and refer to Black's Law Dictionary. The definition that is in there is the definition that the judge uses.

If you look up the word person in Blacks, you will find that the definition is "a human being". The judge will then ask if you can provide any evidence that suggests that an unborn is something other than a human being. Lets see the evidence you would show him.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

People are perfectly entitled to use words as they see fit. They aren't entitled to have their arguments respected if they use the word in an incorrect manner.

Clearly she isn't using the word properly as I have presented a boatload of credible science that states explicitly that unborns are indeed living human beings. If her use of the word were proper, then science surely wouldn't call them human beings. If you refer to medical dictionaries, or just good old websters or any dictionary in between, the definition of human being will be something along the line of "any member of the genus Homo species sapiens.

Now if you can prove that unborns are not members of the species, have at it.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Sorry, the zygote is less mature. We don't become more human as we develop. Just more mature. This goes back to using words properly.

Human being is not a legal term. It is a scientific term. If you can prove that unborns are something other than human beings, you have yourself an argument. Fail that, and you have just failed.

Ask a judge. I have. In fact, I have asked several. I have even asked pro choice judges and the answer is always the same. You may believe that it is just a technicality, but the fact is that the law operates on technicalities.

If you and I were before a judge and had a clear dispute over the word person, he would be obliged to refer to Black's to settle the dispute. If you then argued over the word human being, since human being is not in Blacks, he would refer to a scientific, or standard dictionary to end the matter. Both define human being as a homo sapien.

Feel free. Since you are unable to offer up a rational rebuttal, it is really immaterial.

Person is a valid legal term and it has a valid definition. "a human being". Some corporations can also be called persons but I don't think anyone is arguing that unborns are corporations. The word means what it means and the fact is that the issue of personhood is the writing on the wall for roe.


Refer to Black's. That is about as conclusive as it gets. So conclusive, in fact, that the supreme court decided roe on the assumption that unborns were not human beings rather than face the definition of person in Black's.

Where is it stated that they aren't. The Constitution is the means by which the USA is to carry out the mission statement laid out in the Declaration of Independence and in that document the founders said that we come into being with certain rights and the right to live was among them.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So you are making the claim that the material in textbooks is opinion or that the tradition may well be contrary to what is found in textbooks?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

No. But the law is what it is and the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment prevents the law, or government from singling out a particular individual or group to give additional rights or deny basic human rights; namely life, liberty, and property.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

PaleRider, you're giving us one definition of a human. I could give you another infinitly more complex definition of a human that says a lot about what humans actually are. A person without a brain is not a person that fits the definition. Being part of a species doesn't define what you are.

Under the definition I follow an unborn baby without a brain is not a human. I find it just as factually correct as your own.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Given the history of misogyny in America, isn't it all but a certainty that the science re embryology, male dominated as it is, would be biased as a result?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Just out of curiosity, what are we defining "human being" by? Is it the presence of certain organs (or the lack thereof)? Is it genetic code? Cell count? Structure?

These things should be expressed explicitly.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

If a zygote is not at all a person, lacking self-consciousness, whereas an adult human is a person, then it is entirely correct to say that a zygote is less of a person than an adult human.



You're again wrong because it isn't at all difficult to show that Black's definition of "person" is deficient. If it turns out that that bridge needs to be crossed, it is merely a question of when and not if.

First, it's deficient because it completely ignores self-consciousness, which is one of, if not the, most important human characteristics.

Second, if our world was to be visited by intelligent life forms from some other world and friendly relations were to develop, including trade and intermingling, our law would have to be modified so that it could be applied to these nonhuman persons and again, Black's definition of "person" would be entirely deficient.


BTW, I meant to ask you this earlier but forgot: you seem to be fairly familiar with the science you've presented in support of your position so perhaps you can tell me precisely why it is that a zygote is considered to be a human being?



I fail to see how that would resolve the matter as Homo sapien denotes species rather than personhood.



Seeing as how you've acknowledged that the strength of your position rests on mere technicality, which in and of itself is arguable, you're just blowing smoke here. On the whole, your position is specious, and from a philosophical perspective, it's patently absurd. The only thing you have going for you is the current composition of the US Supreme Court, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with rationality.



Again, Black's definition of "person" is easily shown to be deficient. And science which asserts that zygotes are human beings, IMO, can also be shown to be biased.



As long as you have to keep referring back to the founders and their inalienable rights, your position will continue to fall apart, for the reasons previously stated. "Inalienable" sounds real nice but we all know perfectly well how that worked out in practice.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

"My argument"? Which argument is that? I was just having a chuckle at your assertion that deaths in war, via execution, via involuntary manslaughter (accidental running over with a car) are not "between individuals". Your nuance of "sanctioned by the government" is, at least, not absurd like the "between individuals" comment, but we're back at square one because abortions are also "sanctioned by the government".

If you're going to make a distinction, I'd suggest that you cease trying to get all the angels to dance on the head of a pin and simply state that you want certain forms of killing to be legal and certain forms to be illegal based on your subjective preference. I see nothing wrong with that - most people feel that way in general, if not about the same particular forms of killing that you do.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Generally, what is found in textbooks is part tradition and part evidenced based medicine.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin