... Blood alcohol is a measure of drunkeness to be sure and it is easy enough to prove that a blood alcohol of a certain amount is likely to impair a person of a certain weight to a certain degree.
Exactly my point.
DNA is the singular most importaint trait of humanness. Every other trait is a derivative of the first and therefore secondary.
You are off-center with that characterization of DNA. DNA is the primary substance that ascertains a species as human, but it is not a trait of humanness. Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chemical, and has a chemical name. That chemical in the right environment has an emergent property. If you don't know what an emergent property is, look it up here as an overview,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
That concept is crucial for the discussion of sentience and humanness.
(The following is an interesting finding, and not a serious argument of anything, so don't get your dander up: The DNA sequences of a male human is closer to the DNA of a male chimpanzee, than it is to a female human. Women love that finding.)
If I am more sentient than you, I am not more human than you.
That is certainly true if there were a measurable concept for "more sentient", which I am not claiming. I am claiming there is a difference between sentience and non-sentience.
Suppose you had no neural system, you wouldn't be sentient at all. That is my point that you keep ignoring. You would have a human potential, but I would have the humanness of sentience.
I am asking you to prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. You are making the claim that prior to achieving sentience, that the unborn isn't human enough to be protected by the law. I am asking you to prove that prior to achieving sentience, that the unborn is not human enough to be proected by the law. Prove that a non sentient unborn is less human than you and therefore less deserving of the protection of the law.
Sentience is a fundamental trait of humanness. A priori. DNA has nothing to do with humanness. Only the emergent properties of DNA bring about humanness. Now you prove that it is not a priori.
Re: Unborns are human beings... references...etc.
None of the references you supplied stated anything about their scientific definition of "human" with respect to the embryo. Your references gave no insight to a clinical definition that is identical to the definition of "person" as implied in legal verbiage used in court documents and the constitution. Why don't you ask the objective scientists that if they substituted the word "sentient human" for the word "human" would they still stand by their statements.
Switching definitions in arguments is older than prank telephone calls. "Is your toilet running?" "Yes it is." You better catch it because I need to take a crap."
In the above joke, the word "run" is used with two different meanings in two different contexts, if you get this joke, then you get my point.
2.Human beings have a right to live.
Amendment 5 of the US Constitution: etc.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 14 of the US Constitution: etc.
Do you seriously think that our forefathers had an embryo prior to the gastrulation phase in mind when they wrote that? The American colonists of embryos are needed to fight the British Redcoats!
Having proved that unborns are human beings, I have also proved that they are persons and all persons, according to the Constitution have a right to live and may not be denied their life without due process of the law.
Again you have not made your case. You switch definitions in going from your point 1 to point 2, and you ludicrously misconstrue the intent of the constitution.
You cannot prove your opinion. I won't get further into that here.
If you appled your logic to overpopulation, you would have to favor killing those who we know are a drain on our resources and don't contribute an amount equal to what they take.
That's a screwball statement. You should have inferred by now that I would not ever wantonly kill a sentient human being.
A very few individuals are born in any generation that are in the upper part of the 99th percentile with regard to intelligence. The present rate of abortion suggests that there is a good likelyhood that the very intellects required to solve the problems you are worried about are or already have been killed.
Your insight will most likely put more kids on the streets on drugs, prostitution, welfare, drive-by shootings......
And again, do feel free to point out any part of my argument that represents irrational emotionalism.
You switch definitions at the start of your argument. A definition of human in a medical book is much different than a definition of person in a legal book. One legal definition of person that I saw even includes "a corporate entity" as a person.
Person: (
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com)
3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
Another discussion of person.
In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statue term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
Yes, I know. Black's book may not explicitly show that breadth of meaning, but the other definitions shed light on just what is the legal tone of "person".
How do you reconcile the medical vs. legal definitions in different contexts? Medical embryo definitions are more at the DNA level of human entity. Legal definitions imply the person in question is born and can independently function. Just one word is needed to characterize the difference between these two definitions? ---
Sentience.
I have no recourse except to believe that your thinking is driven by your deep emotional obsession with abortion and your myopia to any argument against yours. You have not proved your case.
But to your question I would have absolutely no problem telling my grandson that he was wanted by all and that's why he's here today... why would that be a problem?
