
To answer your irrelevant question, yes a person of color is human,
but I still don't know what you mean by human being and you have
merely begged the question without responding.  By trying to inject
the notion of race into the discussion, you muddy the waters without
adding any insight whatever.  The same parallel question could
be "Is a polydactyl person a human being?"  You still have not
answered what you mean by human being.  Please do so.


You won't answer the question and instead drag in irrelevancies.
If you want a definition of human being that does not depend on
the vagaries of law, but holds solid whatever the law may rule,
provide it for me.


More irrelevancies.  As Larry Margolis pointed out, the law
has made special exceptions in order to include fetuses, but does
not follow your version of human being.  And as he pointed out,
brain death is not a means of determining who has the rights
of the living, but rather who has died.  There is a significant
difference.

What I am wondering now is, has your argument so failed you that
you feel it necessary to drag out irrelevancies and leave the
thread you started?  You got answers to your questions when
you began baiting me, if you recall, after you had made some
ridiculous remarks about Adrienne Regard and, having been corrected,
changed the subject with your remarks about having a discussion
of substance.  If you really wanted a discussion of substance,
why then do you disregard logic and substance in order to toss
silly accussations, e.g. "It really doesn't matter to you..."
If it matters to you, then why not define human being and seek
some substance?  You're not going to convince a logical person
of the rightness of your position unless you apply some logic
and show some meaning to your words.


As others point out, one is sacrificed for the other depending on
which has the better chance at survival.  Again, your analogy
fails.  Not precedence, but possession makes a difference here.
A woman's womb is indisputably her own.  Also, I see you ignore
my statement that you would grant rights to a fetus that would
not be granted a born human being.  Was that due to its inconvenience?


Is it?  Please cite a precedent and the basis of the ruling.


You simply assert things without any support.  Your analogy is
not accurate and your assertions are unsupported.  Try this on
for size.  It is not murder for one Siamese twin to kill
the other in the womb.  There.  We now have equal arguments.
But the idea is illogical.  For one Siamese twin to kill the
other in the womb would likely be to kill itself as well.  The
systems are dependent on each other for life.  I'm still struggling
to see anything analagous here and failing to do so.


Your argument is from Fantasy Island.  Your comparison is a total
failure, as I have demonstrated already, and has no basis in
reality, neither legally nor medically.  And for you to assert
that it is not a perfect comparison because of the impossible,
that of coercion or oppression, is ridiculous.  As I said,
you give the analogy too little credit for failure.  On the one
hand you start this by saying you want to take a real, rather than
a hypothetical, situation, then you fly off into Siamese twins
murdering one another in the womb or coercing or oppressing each
other in the womb when the reality of the situation you describe
in now way matches your version.  As I said before, decisions
are made regarding which twin lives and dies in situations where
they cannot both survive.  And, furthermore, as I have already said,
there is a difference between an equal claim to organs and a claim
that is unequal.  You seem to be asserting that a fetus has a
claim on a woman's womb.  When the fetus is born, what happens to
its claim?  And by what reason do you assert its claim?


You haven't answered the question.  The situations are not analagous.


Again you avoid the question.  Dependence can be transferred, and
it is not as slow as you seem to think.


Yes, and I'd hate to have been the one to tell Dr Gunn's children that
he was murdered by a religious, "pro-life" fanatic.  Please do
try to stay relevant.


Clever comeback.  I congratulate you on the readiness of your wit.

What happened to that claim to bodily organs where life is at stake?
Why does this parent now have an indisputable right to his or her
kidney when previously the parent did not, by your standards?  What
is different about the two situations?  I see I have to spell this
out for you since the meaning was too subtle for you.  In the one
case you do not recognize a difference between a fetus and a born
child (you ask why a born child cannot be abandoned but a fetus
can), and in this case you recognize a significant difference
between the fetus and born child where the lives of the two are at
stake.  You can't have it both ways.  Action and inaction are
irrelevant to the principle, but you are wrong about the inaction
anyway.  Ask any of the numerous women who post here and have
borne children how inactive their pregnancy was.  To have a
healthy, live child, a woman does more than hang out, eat as
she chooses, plays volleyball like she always did, drinks at
parties with her friends, etc.  She behaves very differently, and
the provision of her resources to a fetus may be no more voluntary
than the beating of her heart, but it is far from inactive.