CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chuz Life
1. I ANSWERED your question.
You asked for an example of legalized slavery.
I pointed out PRISON LABOR laws
legalize slave labor in that context.

2. If you do not understand my answer,
can we call on one other USER to TRANSLATE FOR YOU.

* PRISON LABOR IS LEGAL
AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW
STATES CAN WRITE LAWS THAT
MAKE SOME FORMS OF SLAVE
LABOR LEGAL BY STATE LAWS*

Can you please
1. explain how "prison labor laws"
do not answer your question?

2. can you select one other USER on here to moderate if you cannot understand
how this answer actual ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION

Yes Chuz Life I gave an example of how "slavery" is legal if people consent to it:

1. by charitable volunteer work. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to being "faithful and discreet slaves". If you religiously submit to work for free, that is legal through nonprofits and religious organizations.

2. If you volunteer your labor for restitution for wrongdoing, where it is in keeping with laws,
then it is not abusing people or labor by "involuntary servitude". Because it is voluntary and follows given guidelines, such as for prison labor.

do you want more examples?

3. Currently we do allow import and sale of products made by FOREIGN slave labor.
We just don't allow certain labor within the domestic US. (again one exception being prison labor)

Is prison labor a good enough example for you Chuz Life?

Many people contest this practice and the laws on it. Some people believe MORE labor should be forced on inmates; other people believe such labor should not be abused.

so this IS ONE AREA where laws are in place that justify slave labor.

Dear Chuz Life
1. Sorry but the abortion laws ARE A MESSY ISSUE: because the laws affect not only the recognition of life and beliefs on the front end
BUT ALSO the CONSEQUENCES "after the fact" which impact Women more than Men.

so THAT'S WHY it's such a complex issue.
There are MANY criteria that have to be met.

2. as for conditions on slavery it's called CONSENT. when people CONSENT to volunteer labor for free it's called CHARITY.
And YES it is legal to WILLINGLY work for free.

Prison labor is tricky -- if there is restitution owed, that's one thing. but workers in prison cannot be abused either.

so YES THIS GETS MESSY ALSO.

Sorry to break the news to you, Chuz Life

Laws not only have to address the issue, but have to ENFORCEABLE *IN PRACTICE* where they don't violate equal protections and due process of law.

It can get VERY MESSY.

That's why we need to be careful and DILIGENT. We need to work together, including ALL SIDES and ALL OBJECTIONS to resolve conflicts BEFORE WRITING PASSING AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION.

so I AGREE WITH YOU the laws need to be worked out VERY METICULOUSLY IN ADVANCE. *** EXACTLY ***

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

You gave a very detailed example of a policy on abortion that you would support.

I would like to see you provide the same as a policy that would allow / permit slavery.

Let's not be cute with the words, here. I am talking not talking consent, charity or working for free. I am talking about the denial of someone's rights and freedoms and even their personhood in order to force them to provide labor for others.

So, again... give me a comparable example to the one that you provided about abortion. . . that would allow for society to keep and maintain slavery under our Constitution.

Thanks for your help in proving my point.

Your hedging, twisting and mental gymnastics speaks volumes.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[emilynghiem]

Chuz Life
Also
1. Do YOU require abortion to be banned
before you choose not to engage in abortion, not to pay or support any activity related or causing abortion?

2. If you do not require laws to force you to oppose abortion, doesn't this mean you are able to avoid abortion by FREE CHOICE.

3. Why can't that same process and FREEDOM be allowed and protected for others?

If you would not engage in any behavior that otherwise results in abortion, doesn't that prove that other people can also avoid and prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE?

By following the same process you do?

isn't that the ideal, and how can we go about ensuring all people choose to PREVENT abortion the same as you and I would by FREE CHOICE? NOT FORCE OF LAW WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR I NOR OTHER PROLIFE ADVOCATES REQUIRE.

 

[there4eyeM]

The insistence on a particular, limited, arbitrary, faith-based definition of 'personhood' makes a safe basis for stamping one's foot and repeating the same thing over and over. Pretending that a woman's decisions about her reproduction has any impact on the liberties of another person functioning in society is merely an excuse for domination. If we want fewer abortions, education and persuasion are the methods. How strong is a faith that depends on the police to enforce it? There is separation of religion and government in the U.S., as well there should be. You should thank 'God' for it, and allow 'God' to know who is whom.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you there4eyeM
I wish BOTH sides would get it,
that "right to health care" can be chosen and practiced freely WITHOUT MANDATING IT THROUGH GOVT.

Also respect for people's beliefs about same sex marriage and transgender identity CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT IMPOSING THROUGH GOVT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

When Obama "changed his mind" about same sex marriage, he had that freedom to CHOOSE to change WITHOUT IT BEING PENALIZED BY LAW WHICH WAY HE DECIDED TO GO, IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION.

If he got there by free choice,
why not respect the same freedom of others to choose what to believe and whether to change their beliefs?

This I ask of Chuz Life as well.
Chuz Life and all my other Prolife friends don't need to be "forced by law" to avoid oppose and prevent abortion. Why take that freedom from others, when they have the freedom to choose to oppose abortion. It wasn't forced on them by law AND DOESN'T NEED TO BE in order for them to enforce prolife policies. (Same with Obama and his "free choice" to change his beliefs about same sex marriage. Why can't all individuals practice and respect this same freedom of choice? without being forced through govt to change their beliefs???)

The insistence on a particular, limited, arbitrary, faith-based definition of 'personhood' makes a safe basis for stamping one's foot and repeating the same thing over and over. Pretending that a woman's decisions about her reproduction has any impact on the liberties of another person functioning in society is merely an excuse for domination. If we want fewer abortions, education and persuasion are the methods. How strong is a faith that depends on the police to enforce it? There is separation of religion and government in the U.S., as well there should be. You should thank 'God' for it, and allow 'God' to know who is whom.

 

[Chuz Life]

The insistence on a particular, limited, arbitrary, faith-based definition of 'personhood' makes a safe basis for stamping one's foot and repeating the same thing over and over.

The current LEGAL definitions for what a natural person is simply "a human being." That definition requires only a tiny dose of biological / scientific acumen to reach a conclusion.

Where are you getting that the definition is "faith based?"

There is no requirement for "souls" in that definition. Is there?

The answer is No.

The definition is as basic and secular as it gets.

Pretending that a woman's decisions about her reproduction has any impact on the liberties of another person functioning in society is merely an excuse for domination.

Have you no empathy?

How are aborted children not being "dominated?"

If we want fewer abortions, education and persuasion are the methods.

The goal is "equal rights and equal protections under the law" as the Constitution requires. While simply having fewer abortions would be a good thing, simply having fewer abortions would NOT correct the injustice presented by legalized abortion.

How strong is a faith that depends on the police to enforce it?

You wrongly believe that all who oppose abortions are coming from a religious perspective. I encourage you to drop your prejudices about that and actually seek out groups like "atheists for life" and consider other groups views on abortion as well.

There is separation of religion and government in the U.S., as well there should be. You should thank 'God' for it, and allow 'God' to know who is whom.

Straw Dog Alert!

You better kick it before it gets away!

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz Life
Also
1. Do YOU require abortion to be banned
before you choose not to engage in abortion, not to pay or support any activity related or causing abortion?

2. If you do not require laws to force you to oppose abortion, doesn't this mean you are able to avoid abortion by FREE CHOICE.

3. Why can't that same process and FREEDOM be allowed and protected for others?

If you would not engage in any behavior that otherwise results in abortion, doesn't that prove that other people can also avoid and prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE?

By following the same process you do?

isn't that the ideal, and how can we go about ensuring all people choose to PREVENT abortion the same as you and I would by FREE CHOICE? NOT FORCE OF LAW WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR I NOR OTHER PROLIFE ADVOCATES REQUIRE.

Perfect post to answer questions with other questions.

Do you consider yourself a proponent for equal rights?

Do you support laws that make the violation of an individual's Constitutional rights - punishable by law?

When the Constitution says that ALL person are entitled to due process and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Do you consider the word "ALL" to be an INCLUSIVE or an EXCLUSIVE statement?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

There are similarities and differences between a human zygote and a newborn. You emphasize the similarities (which i probably don't dispute), while i try to take a balanced perspective that includes differences that i consider crucial. So ...
1) What are the similarities, besides same DNA?
2) Do you see any significant differences, besides "less developed"?
I see major differences between a zygote and newborn!

Please tell me what part of the "equal rights and equal protections" clauses of our Constitution makes you think that basic human rights can be "balanced" against the "differences" that people might have between one and another?
Is "age" discrimination something you approve of in other areas of social issue concerns?
Clearly you are having a hard time with the concept of "equal" rights.

You keep going back & forth between law & your personal opinions. I was asking you your personal opinion on the similarities & differences between a zygote & newborn.
No can do? Afraid to reveal your ignorance? So you punted to law.
LOL.
Ok then. Let's go back to law.

The Federal law says a "person or human being" does not begin until a live birth occurs. The exception is when the unborn is "murdered" by someone other than the pregnant woman (abortion is not murder).

Equal rights & age discrimination?
You cannot apply that to a zygote.
LOL!!!
Have you not heard of laws on The Age of Maturity? The Age of Consent?
You are not aware of differences between a child and adult in law?

You are off the rational map ...

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no parallel in law or nature to the situation of women in regards to reproduction. No one is in a superior position to decide a womans fate for her in this regard. Education, persuasion and debate may be used to try to influence her choice. Force is unacceptable.
Of course when we speak of a person it is of someone active and present in the world, not a potentiality or possibility. All the immense hypocrisy that has been expressed aside, who can put the will of the woman below something with no will?

 

[emilynghiem]

The insistence on a particular, limited, arbitrary, faith-based definition of 'personhood' makes a safe basis for stamping one's foot and repeating the same thing over and over.

The current LEGAL definitions for what a natural person is simply "a human being." That definition requires only a tiny dose of biological / scientific acumen to reach a conclusion.

Where are you getting that the definition is "faith based?"

There is no requirement for "souls" in that definition. Is there?

The answer is No.

The definition is as basic and secular as it gets.

Pretending that a woman's decisions about her reproduction has any impact on the liberties of another person functioning in society is merely an excuse for domination.

Have you no empathy?

How are aborted children not being "dominated?"

If we want fewer abortions, education and persuasion are the methods.

The goal is "equal rights and equal protections under the law" as the Constitution requires. While simply having fewer abortions would be a good thing, simply having fewer abortions would NOT correct the injustice presented by legalized abortion.

How strong is a faith that depends on the police to enforce it?

You wrongly believe that all who oppose abortions are coming from a religious perspective. I encourage you to drop your prejudices about that and actually seek out groups like "atheists for life" and consider other groups views on abortion as well.

There is separation of religion and government in the U.S., as well there should be. You should thank 'God' for it, and allow 'God' to know who is whom.

Straw Dog Alert!

You better kick it before it gets away!

Dear Chuz Life

A. The CONSTITUTIONAL argument I offer does not require proof.
All we have to acknowledge is that "right to life" as in starting
at conception is a BELIEF and is protected by law from infringement
by govt or discrimination by creed.

so any laws passed cannot infringe on the BELIEF in right to life
starting at conception.

If we'd all get behind that, we don't need to argue.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR BELIEFS
for those to be protected from infringement.

B. Now, the part of this that I see is causing problems.
There is ALSO protection of due process of laws
in the ENFORCEMENT of policies.

You are afraid that by protecting this due process,
that infringes on the right to life.

This has turned into a compromise deal.

but it does NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.

So what I offer is

C. An AGREED deal that laws and govt endorsed
process HAVE TO MEET BOTH STANDARDS:
A. not infringing on right to life beliefs practices and standards
B. not infringing on due process and freedom from oppression either.

So the way to reach AGREEMENT on
C (ie satisfying both A. Right to life beliefs
and B. freedom of choice beliefs)

is to AGREE TO END AND PREVENT ALL SITUATIONS
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE LEAD TO UNWANTED
PREGNANCY. THIS TAKES A COMMITMENT BY
FREE CHOICE AND CANNOT BE MANDATED BY GOVT.

THE PEOPLE HAVE TO AGREE TO PREVENT ALL ABORTION
BY FREE CHOICE, AND THEN WE CAN MEET BOTH STANDARDS.

IT HAS TO COME FROM THE PEOPLE,
AND ONCE WE AGREE TO THIS COMMITMENT
THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CRAFT
LAWS AND PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT THIS GOAL OF
ENDING ABORTION BY CONCERTED EFFORT (NOT COERCION).

 

[Chuz Life]

There are similarities and differences between a human zygote and a newborn. You emphasize the similarities (which i probably don't dispute), while i try to take a balanced perspective that includes differences that i consider crucial. So ...
1) What are the similarities, besides same DNA?
2) Do you see any significant differences, besides "less developed"?
I see major differences between a zygote and newborn!

Please tell me what part of the "equal rights and equal protections" clauses of our Constitution makes you think that basic human rights can be "balanced" against the "differences" that people might have between one and another?
Is "age" discrimination something you approve of in other areas of social issue concerns?
Clearly you are having a hard time with the concept of "equal" rights.

You keep going back & forth between law & your personal opinions.

As my opinions are based upon the laws and the Constitution, there is no back and forth to it.

I was asking you your personal opinion on the similarities & differences between a zygote & newborn. No can do? Afraid to reveal your ignorance? So you punted to law.

It wasn't a punt.

According to the Constitution, "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

PERIOD.

So any attempt to draw distinctions between any one group of human beings and another for the purpose of denying them their rights and protections is in and of itself UnConstitutional.

Ok then. Let's go back to law.

The Federal law says a "person or human being" does not begin until a live birth occurs. The exception is when the unborn is "murdered" by someone other than the pregnant woman (abortion is not murder).

That is only partially correct and most significant to this debate, you are using the part of the laws which are being challenged as an authority unto itself and against any arguments which challenge it.

That's a classic "appeal to authority fallacy."

It's a fallacy - NOT because the law and courts ruling are not a real source of authority on any matter they address. . . but because they (laws) are NOT infallible and they are subject to being changed.

But beyond even that, our laws are conflicting and contradicting even to them self - when we have BOTH laws which in one set of circumstances say that a child in the womb is NOT a person and in another set of circumstances say they ARE.

That is what is being debated and that is also why using either definition as the end all to any debate on the issue is deceitful and fallacious.

EXCEPT!

Except that the time frame does matter.

Laws often change incrementally and the most recent changes tend to reflect the most current thinking and reasoning of the courts, lawmakers and even the people.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, Supreme Court justice Potter anticipated that a State COULD establish that a child in the womb is a person. . . and from that moment on, that is exactly what the States and the people have been doing - with the passing of our Fetal Homicide laws.

Equal rights & age discrimination? You cannot apply that to a zygote.
LOL!!!

Despite your appeal to ridicule on that.

Yes. I can.

Have you not heard of laws on The Age of Maturity? The Age of Consent?
You are not aware of differences between a child and adult in law?

There are at least two kinds of Constitutional rights. There are automatic rights that are supposed to be for ALL persons, equally (life, liberty, due process, equal protections, etc.) and then there are "qualified rights" where certain conditions must be met. Namely, the right to vote, enter into a contract, consent, etc.

Your teachers should have explained to you the difference between them in your government or civics classes

Did they not?.

You are off the rational map ...

Your projection is noted.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no parallel in law or nature to the situation of women in regards to reproduction.

There is no parallel to conjoined twins either.

Your point?

No one is in a superior position to decide a womans fate for her in this regard.

The Constitution is the authority and the principles in it are supposed to protect the rights of all persons equally. And that Include the rights of her children at any age or stage of development.

Education, persuasion and debate may be used to try to influence her choice. Force is unacceptable.

Banning abortions is no more an act of force against women than laws against rape are a use of "force" against predatory men. In either case, people are still free to make choices. But we as a society have a right to write laws to make the violations of another's rights - something that is punishable by law.

Of course when we speak of a person it is of someone active and present in the world, not a potentiality or possibility.

Children in the womb are not mere "possible" or "potential" human beings. "potential" things do not physically exist and a child in the womb most certainly does "physically" exist. Simple biology proves that is the case.

A sperm and an egg cell UN-united might have the "potential" to merge and to begin a new human life. But, once they combine (conception) - their potential is already realized, their lives as an individual sperm or egg cell is OVER and the new child they had the "potential" to create is now already in existence, already starting to grow age, develop, etc. towards maturity.

All the immense hypocrisy that has been expressed aside, who can put the will of the woman below something with no will?

EQUAL is not the same as "below."

Children born with NO cerebral cortex at all have no will either. They can not think, see, hear or even feel pain. AND THEY NEVER WILL have that ability.

Yet our courts have decided that they too are human beings/ persons with an EQUAL right to the protections of our laws. . . just like every other person has.

So that begs the question. "Why them and NOT children in the womb who (in most cases) have a much better prognosis than an anencephalic child has?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Belief' in female genital mutilation is tolerated in the U.S, but not the practice. 'Belief' in bigamy is tolerated in the U.S., but not the practice. 'Belief' that 'life' 'begins' at conception ignores fact.
Believe what one wants, one does not have the right to force a woman to conform to one's beliefs.

 

[TWinTX]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

I would like the issue of personhood to be clarified/solidified at the Federal level independently of any potential action on Row v Wade. Your concerns under the 5th and 14th amendments seem reasonable and pertinent in the event of a repeal of Row v Wade. I think wording in the constitution is inadequate regarding personhood since I seriously doubt the framers used that term to refer to the not yet born.

 

[TWinTX]

Since the placenta is a life support cord as long as the rules are more or less the same at both ends of life abortion is not necessarily murder anymore than killing a burgler or other assailant is murder.

I think it is important to remember that "murder" is a legal construct as opposed to a moral or ethical concept. If you kill someone in a legal way it is by definition NOT murder.

 

[TWinTX]

'Belief' in female genital mutilation is tolerated in the U.S, but not the practice. 'Belief' in bigamy is tolerated in the U.S., but not the practice. 'Belief' that 'life' 'begins' at conception ignores fact.
Believe what one wants, one does not have the right to force a woman to conform to one's beliefs.

Agreed. If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

 

[PK1]

'Belief' in female genital mutilation is tolerated in the U.S, but not the practice. 'Belief' in bigamy is tolerated in the U.S., but not the practice. 'Belief' that 'life' 'begins' at conception ignores fact.
Believe what one wants, one does not have the right to force a woman to conform to one's beliefs.

Agreed. If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Federal law defines "personhood" beginning at live birth in normal situations (when there is no illegal killing). That view corresponds with a milestone reflecting independence (from mother's body).
When the physiologically independent person reaches age 18 or 21, they are then considered legal adults (or no longer minors) and have cultural/social independence.
Obviously, age matters, and there is a HUGE difference between a zygote and a newborn ... to those not blinded by irrational ideals.

 

[Chuz Life]

'Belief' in female genital mutilation is tolerated in the U.S, but not the practice. 'Belief' in bigamy is tolerated in the U.S., but not the practice. 'Belief' that 'life' 'begins' at conception ignores fact.
Believe what one wants, one does not have the right to force a woman to conform to one's beliefs.

Your Strawman fallacy is duly noted.

You have distorted your opponent's position by claiming that well known established biological facts about the biological beginnings of a human life are nothing more than a "belief."

If you want to have a discussion on the facts, let's have a discussion on the facts. But calling biological facts nothing more than a belief is a non starter.

Were YOU not conceived by your "parents" yourself?

What makes YOUR father YOUR biological father if it was not HIS DNA being passed onto YOU during YOUR conception?

These are not questions of belief.

They are questions of biological fact.

 

[Fishlore]

The life begins at conception idea is a quite modern one. It was unknown when the Constitution was adopted because the process of conception as we understand it today was unknown. Back then, most people believed that sperm was a tiny homunculus, a "seed" as the Bible calls it, which, when planted in a woman, grew into a person much the way a seed planted in the ground grows into a tree or a tomato.

The question of when the seed turned into a tomato was couched in terms of the immortal soul. According to Christian doctrine, every human has an immortal soul (more accurately, every human is an immortal human soul clothed temporarily in a human body) which is created by God. When this miracle occurs is the closest thing to the "life begins a conception" idea in most of our history.

Lacking any medical or scientific answer to this question, our ancestors turned to the Bible and the story of God's creation of Adam. Because the Bible tells us God created the first human out of mud and spit and breathed life into him to make him alive, the traditional understanding of the moment when the tomato becomes a kid was at the baby's first breath.

A thousand years later, some Christian theologians, troubled by the tragedies of late-term miscarriages and still births, hypothesized that perhaps the magic moment of soul creation occurred at the quickening, when the motion of the fetus is felt by the mother. Nice idea.

But, of course, nobody thought anything happened before then.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Please explain for me the difference between "a human being / person" who is in their very first days of life, growth and development immediately following the event of their own conception. . and "a human embryo, zygote or fetus."

Please be as detailed in your explanation as possible.

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course, all of this gets active and interesting as I have to leave for work.