Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Is this a person?
Legally, no.
Person Definition:
An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.
Person Definition
Fortunately and wisely the courts have allowed individuals, philosophers, ethicists, and religious organizations to make that determination free from government interference with regard to entities that dont meet the legal definition.
Top pic is a kitty cat (its eyes are different and that is most def a developing paw pad)
Bottom pic is a babby (def see five fingers and just look at that developing brain!)
My eyes are untrained but I can see which is which.
A person is a person no matter how small. A just fertilized (human) egg becomes a human the minute it is fertilized and divides. Boom! brand new unique person just came into existence. That's how it works, how it has always worked and how it will always work. What it looks like, what stage of development its in, whether it can live outside the womb or not --- none of those things determine what it is because what it is from the get go is a human being and we all start out as just a teeny, tiny little microscopic blip. Pretty cool, huh?
Is this a person?
If the lab says the origin is human, then one assumes they know what they're talking about. Certainly, splitting hairs about whether or not they're 100% positive accomplishes nothing . . . except to derail the discussion.
going by the pic that was provided..... there is nothing there that says "human" She asked if it is a " person" with nothing other to go on but two cell embryo and laboratory tour. Humans are not the only thing that start out as a two cell embryo.
Also going by the discussions we were in that spawned this thread..... the question was put there gain a response. She got one....
She asked if the picture were a person based on the lab stating it was of a human embryo. That is why it includes a caption. You decided to split hairs in order to try to derail the conversation.
It always amazes me how many people insist their position is absolutely, 100% right, and prove it by trying to shut down any discussion at all.
Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....
I have never been comfortable with the notion that we can define who is and who is not a person. That provides a lot of leeway. I just go with, if it's human it's a person. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that is not being too restrictive.
You can also say if it is human...its an animal.
going by the pic that was provided..... there is nothing there that says "human" She asked if it is a " person" with nothing other to go on but two cell embryo and laboratory tour. Humans are not the only thing that start out as a two cell embryo.
Also going by the discussions we were in that spawned this thread..... the question was put there gain a response. She got one....
She asked if the picture were a person based on the lab stating it was of a human embryo. That is why it includes a caption. You decided to split hairs in order to try to derail the conversation.
It always amazes me how many people insist their position is absolutely, 100% right, and prove it by trying to shut down any discussion at all.
ironic statement ironic.
She did not ask that. She asked "is this a person" Based on the pic and the name of the link..... it is up for speculation.
Agree to disagree, or go to war? There are no other options for moral disagreements.She asked if the picture were a person based on the lab stating it was of a human embryo. That is why it includes a caption. You decided to split hairs in order to try to derail the conversation.
It always amazes me how many people insist their position is absolutely, 100% right, and prove it by trying to shut down any discussion at all.
ironic statement ironic.
She did not ask that. She asked "is this a person" Based on the pic and the name of the link..... it is up for speculation.
No one's trying to shut you down or divert you from the topic. On the contrary, I'm trying very hard to get you to say something - anything - relevant TO the topic. So far, no luck.
I love that "She didn't ask 'is that a person'; she asked, "Is this a person'" line of yours. Are you fooling YOURSELF that you've said something different from what I did? And are you EVER planning to let go of this "what if it's a different species? I'm too uneducated to tell" tangent of yours and actually address the topic?
Never mind. I give up any hope that you were going to contribute anything, even if you DID get the courage to quit dodging. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.
It always amazes me how many people insist their position is absolutely, 100% right, and prove it by trying to shut down any discussion at all.
Not a mystery. Just not identified.
If that little fertilized couple of cells was the result of a couple of humans' sperm and ovum, then it is a pre-born person.
If it's the zygote of a frog's sperm and another frog's little egg, then it is not a person.
Of course it isn't a person. In order to be a person, you must be born. That is just a bunch of cells. Nothing personish about it at all.
Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?
Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.
If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.
Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?
Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.
If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.
Wrong they do you can be charged for killing a fetus.
That means nothing at all and does not address my points.
We pried the lid off in 1973
That means nothing at all and does not address my points.
Really you kidding right,you said that the law give no value to the unborn,so ether your so screwed up you don't understand your own posts,or you GOT NOTHING to back it up
The law gives value to unborn ,its that simple.
The lid has been off since day one.
