CDZ Question for abortion proponents

[Chuz Life]

Huh?

What do you mean by "they define terms?"

In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.

I can't disagree more.

When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).

Which leads me to ask...

Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.

I can be patient when I need to be.

 

[Montrovant]

Huh?

What do you mean by "they define terms?"

In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.

I can't disagree more.

When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).

Which leads me to ask...

Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.

I can be patient when I need to be.

Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.

The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment. That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Huh?

What do you mean by "they define terms?"

In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.

I can't disagree more.

When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).

Which leads me to ask...

Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.

I can be patient when I need to be.

Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.

They all say "human beings," correct? That's the one thing they all have in common.

So, let me ask what your thoughts are on whether the definition for "natural persons" should be inclusive of all human beings, or do you think it would okay (and Constitutional) to exclude certain human beings that we (Society) might want to exclude? .

The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

Were they right?

Is the Supreme Court infallible?

What about the 35 or more fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed, Since the Roe v Wade decision?

That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.

Personal discussions are fine. However, we are not each entitled to our own set of definitions when it comes to making policy or when dealing with laws.

 

[Montrovant]

Huh?

What do you mean by "they define terms?"

In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.

I can't disagree more.

When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).

Which leads me to ask...

Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.

I can be patient when I need to be.

Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.

They all say "human beings," correct? That's the one thing they all have in common.

So, let me ask what your thoughts are on whether the definition for "natural persons" should be inclusive of all human beings, or do you think it would okay (and Constitutional) to exclude certain human beings that we (Society) might want to exclude? .

The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

Were they right?

Is the Supreme Court infallible?

What about the 35 or more fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed, Since the Roe v Wade decision?

That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.

Personal discussions are fine. However, we are not each entitled to our own set of definitions when it comes to making policy or when dealing with laws.

The definition of natural persons would depend on the context. Where is it used, legally speaking? Whether it should include a zygote, as this thread starts with, depends on how it is being used.

In a general sense, I think the court was correct that a fetus is not a person, not yet covered by the rights of the constitution. At what point those rights begin is a difficult question, and I think that at birth may be too far along in development, but fertilization does not make a legal person IMO.

Some of the fetal homicide laws seem contradictory to me on their face. I do recall reading an explanation of how they can make sense even within the context of Roe, but I have forgotten it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Huh?

What do you mean by "they define terms?"

In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.

I can't disagree more.

When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).

Which leads me to ask...

Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.

I can be patient when I need to be.

Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.

They all say "human beings," correct? That's the one thing they all have in common.

So, let me ask what your thoughts are on whether the definition for "natural persons" should be inclusive of all human beings, or do you think it would okay (and Constitutional) to exclude certain human beings that we (Society) might want to exclude? .

The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

Were they right?

Is the Supreme Court infallible?

What about the 35 or more fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed, Since the Roe v Wade decision?

That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.

Personal discussions are fine. However, we are not each entitled to our own set of definitions when it comes to making policy or when dealing with laws.

The definition of natural persons would depend on the context. Where is it used, legally speaking? Whether it should include a zygote, as this thread starts with, depends on how it is being used.

In a general sense, I think the court was correct that a fetus is not a person, not yet covered by the rights of the constitution. At what point those rights begin is a difficult question, and I think that at birth may be too far along in development, but fertilization does not make a legal person IMO.

Some of the fetal homicide laws seem contradictory to me on their face. I do recall reading an explanation of how they can make sense even within the context of Roe, but I have forgotten it.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

 

[jwoodie]

OK, I'm going to simplify this "debate."

1. Chuz Life should not have used an argument/question without first stating a proposition.

2. Those who claim not to be abortion "proponents" are either illogical or disingenuous. (One either believes murder/slavery/etc. should be legal or not.) Being "personally opposed" to abortion (while supporting its legality) is a canard, since the only moral basis for this opposition is that it constitutes the termination of a human life.

Isn't it time to pull our heads out of the sand?

 

[Montrovant]

OK, I'm going to simplify this "debate."

1. Chuz Life should not have used an argument/question without first stating a proposition.

2. Those who claim not to be abortion "proponents" are either illogical or disingenuous. (One either believes murder/slavery/etc. should be legal or not.) Being "personally opposed" to abortion (while supporting its legality) is a canard, since the only moral basis for this opposition is that it constitutes the termination of a human life.

Isn't it time to pull our heads out of the sand?

Who says that is the only moral opposition?

 

[Chuz Life]

OK, I'm going to simplify this "debate."

1. Chuz Life should not have used an argument/question without first stating a proposition.

2. Those who claim not to be abortion "proponents" are either illogical or disingenuous. (One either believes murder/slavery/etc. should be legal or not.) Being "personally opposed" to abortion (while supporting its legality) is a canard, since the only moral basis for this opposition is that it constitutes the termination of a human life.

Isn't it time to pull our heads out of the sand?

Your post implies that the abortion issue / dilemma is solely an issue based on morality. While there may be a moral component, it's about much more than that.

I personally try to keep morality out of ANY debate and then make and consider arguments from a much more objective viewpoint instead.

 

[jwoodie]

Who says that is the only moral opposition?

Do YOU have some other moral basis for being "personally opposed" to abortion? If so, please state it.

 

[Montrovant]

Who says that is the only moral opposition?

Do YOU have some other moral basis for being "personally opposed" to abortion? If so, please state it.

Do I? No. Can I think of any just offhand? Sure. How about a moral opposition to any unnecessary taking of life, human or otherwise? Such a person could be just as opposed to putting down a pet, yet believe it should remain legal. How about a moral opposition to unnecessary medical procedures? Again, a person with such a view might accept that unneeded procedures should remain legal.

I'm not sure why you think you can make a blanket statement about what others might find morally offensive.

 

[Chuz Life]

Unless an until I can get a abortion proponent or anyone else to explain the physiological differences between a human being / child in the zygote stage of their life and a human "zygote" . . . I am going to go forward on the basis that abortion proponents agree with me that they are one and the same.

 

[Julielikespolitics]

What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a zygote?

A zygote is still a piece of tissue that belongs to the woman to do with as she pleases

You are welcome

I agree that a woman can do as she chooses but then should the law that states when a pregnant woman is murdered it is a double murder (I don't have the actual law on hand) still be a thing? Should if be constituted as a double murder only if the woman wants it or should it be only a singular murder if she planned to get rid of it?
It is a woman's choice but the law needs to reflect that decision in some way.

 

[task0778]

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

Sounds to me like a human embryo is no longer a zygote when it begins to subdivide. Using that term could be an abortionist proponent's attempt to dehumanize an entity which has the potential to become a human being for the sole purpose of killing it.

 

[Chuz Life]

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

Sounds to me like a human embryo is no longer a zygote when it begins to subdivide. Using that term could be an abortionist proponent's attempt to dehumanize an entity which has the potential to become a human being for the sole purpose of killing it.

A human zygote already is a human being (human organism) even before the first cell division takes place, though.

Even Planned Parenthood acknowledges that as a biological fact.

But most abortion proponents will never acknowledge the same.