I mean, it’s a life form of the chicken species. I don’t think it’s vague. The adjectives give you a pretty good hint. It requires further explanation because you insist that an organism that is objectively alive is in fact not alive until you decide that it is rather than based on what can be observed. I remember having this conversation with a complete extremist who actually argued in earnest that vaginas are a magical portal, in the sense that a baby 5 minutes before birth is not a human, but 5 minutes after birth it magically is. Some kind of supernatural event happens inside that birth canal that bestows personhood, I guess. It was baffling. Guys, we can measure those things, that’s what science is for. I don’t have to guess what’s inside of a woman’s womb - we have ultrasounds, I can look at it and determine if it is far along enough to be considered a baby or if it’s a bunch of goo.That's why it's best to stick to specific terminology when discussing matters that require nuance such as these. It doesn't even have to be entirely scientific, as everybody knows what you're referring to when you say "chick," or "chicken." "Chicken life" however, is extremely vague, and can come off sounding ignorant in certain contexts. It also requires further explanation from the get-go.
If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries as a result, you can be charged with homicide - we’ve seen cases like this before. Nobody will treat your ranting about viability seriously in court. The “something” that happened between point A and point B was you - you made it non-viable with your actions. It’s not about whether or not “something can happen” - something can happen to you before you reach 60, you could have a car accident tomorrow. We don’t assume that you’re not human because your viability as a geriatric is questionable.Humanity has reached the point where we're capable of manipulating that growth, yet not the point where we can always guarantee positive outcomes even if we don't manipulate it. An embryo is not guaranteed to become a fetus, and a fetus is not guaranteed to reach birth. Thus "human life" in common parlance would refer to a baby, as historically we would not want to grow attached unless there was a high chance of survival.
The Constitution is a philosophical text, it was always conceived as one. It’s all about things We The People find self-evident, it’s about people’s inalienable rights and all sorts of strictly philosophical beliefs as codified into law.I mean personhood specifically in this context, as defined in a philosophical or religious sense before birth. The constitution is not a philosophical or religious text, but the first amendment does protect religious and philosophical freedom in the broader sense.
Edit: I just saw your “humouse” addition. That’s pretty funny. Of course not, we’ll treat it as human, because we can identify it as human on the basis of DNA. Now, presumably it’s based on somebody’s DNA and is a replacement ear, so we could probably find the person who owns it. I wouldn’t call it an independent organism for the same reason why I wouldn’t call a chopped of finger an independent organism - it’s a specific body part removed from the whole. I talked about this earlier, but you may have missed it. It’s *somebody’s ear* that’s growing on a mouse. You are right however, in the sense that it is alive - it’s growing. The body of a human with no brain function (on account of the brain being destroyed) hooked up to life support is alive too, it’s just not a person anymore, really, which is the whole point of this argument. You could keep that body alive for a very, very long time with the right equipment, but there’s no reason to do that besides making peace with it - you don’t recover from that. The person is gone. Your ear isn’t a person either, so there’s no reason to treat it as one.
Last edited by Foxi4,