no1tovote4
Gold Member
Diuretic said:I didn't make that claim. That is simple misrepresentation.
What claim were you making with your "sentience" comment?
I didn't make that claim.
Forgive me, what claim were you making with your "sentience" comment?
That doesn't relate at all to my point.
I was not the one to bring into the discussion "sentience", in fact, this post was my first in this thread. What point were you making with your "sentience" comment?
You asked me "In other words, does not all of human society carry a responsibility to insure that all Fetus's, and new born humans are protected and given equal opportunity under the law of that society?"
I did not.
I said no. Then you asked me the question above and answered your own question with a claim. My answer is still no.
I did not ask you the question above, I related my opinion. In fact that was the first of my posts in this thread. I gave different information, in a different voice, under a different login, with reference to myself....
That's nonsense. Anything can carry DNA. Spit carries DNA, does that make spit a potential person?
What lunacy, deliberate disingenuousness! Spit is not an entire organism, but only a product thereof, however a fetus is the entirety of a human being carrying its own separate DNA and definable as human life. While it may not yet be a "person" depending on when one believes that becomes relevant it cannot be defined as other than the progeny of humans and a human life in its own right.
It does mean the spit was produced from a human though, if it carries the DNA of a human.
Brain activity indicates signs of life, it doesn't define humanity, those are two different concepts.
You stated sentience, not me. I therefore gave an example of humans, counted as humans, who do not have that sentience in an attempt to get you to expound on your own definition of "human".
You are being deliberately obtuse, it has human DNA. It is an entire organism with separate and distinct DNA signature of a separate human from the incubating parent.What do you mean according to DNA and science? What does that mean? It's a foetus, of course it's got DNA. Having DNA doesn't define anything as human, it defines it as having DNA. Plants have DNA but a carrot isn't a human.
You haven't proved your point yet. You've made vague claims and references but nothing that can be called proof.
I have given an opinion, I did not say I "proved" anything in that statement. You are creating and battling strawmen, the last resort of the disingenuous.
I said before DNA doesn't define humanity.
According to whom? My doctor would be directly in opposition to this statement. This is an opinion directly against scientific knowledge. A fetus is just one of the first stages of the life of a human. After birth we use different names for the stages of that same life... infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. Each of those stages are part of the same lifeline.
Intellectually lazy is not realizing when you are speaking to a different poster, creating different comments, and not extending a previous argument. It doesn't take much to look at the login, or even to realize that I post with an entirely different "voice" than the previous poster.Making claims and then spraying around rhetorical questions is very confusing to follow. What makes this even worse is your misrepresentations of what I was saying. That's just being intellectually lazy.
Intellectually lazy is also simply stating, "DNA dosen't define humanity" when it is the very basis that makes you human, had you the DNA of another species you would not be human. The foundation of a human, what makes you separate from another...