3RU7AL

Stopping the selection process de facto stops development.

It doesn't "stop" it. It prevents it from occurring.

In the same way, if I sterilize you, then I am de facto killing your unborn children.

You can't kill children who haven't been conceived. You can only put an end to the prospect. The prospect of children is not the same as children.

What is your suggestion?

It's already in the part you quoted.

Then the description of the genome needs expansion to include that which constitutes one's person.

Genetic coding contains errors.  Every time you copy 725 megabytes of data, single bit errors are prone to occur.  Also, environmental toxins and cosmic radiation can cause errors (mutations) in a human's genetic code. 

Are the distinctions a result of a dissimilar code or dissimilar expression?

So by the law of excluded middle, DNA determines Rights (at least in your proposal).

Define commensurate; and define determine.

The fact that a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 99.99999% biomass of the mother does not change in either scenario.

We weren't talking about biomass. If that's what you meant, then that's another matter.

I don't see how the statement "all human life is precious" contradicts the death penalty.

Those who are on death row (usually) have committed horrendous crimes typically involving homicides.

In order to create a deterrent, they take away what's most precious: life. It doesn't undermine it at all.

In fact, it informs it. If the motto instead were, "no life should be ended," then you'd have a point, assuming they sustain both a pro-life and pro-death penalty position.

The deportation point doesn't make sense (it's not that their lives aren't precious, it's that they want to submit them to the same legal paradigm in which they are subject.)

You don't know that they don't help the homeless,

...and military is seen as a means of defense.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them. 

Then the description of the genome needs expansion to include that which constitutes one's person.

And do sperm cells, egg cells, tumors have different genetic coding or different genetic expressions?

And once again, it's not about "deserving rights"; it's creating a distinction between the zygote and its mother. If we were to consider your statements earlier, then your claiming that the blastocyst is 99% its mother is completely meaningless.

No one's arguing against the necessity of a selected egg and sperm. But that doesn't mean that the development starts when they are selected. You should already know that this is tautological.

Also, I believe Barr is looking into it on our shores.

If DNA is your primary guiding light, then all mammals should be protected with 97% of the fervor that humans deserve.

DNA makes it its own person. I never said that Rights were commensurate to DNA content. My mention of the genome was in response to your statement that zygote/embryo/fetus was akin to sperm cells, and the like, where the former has its own genome, and the latter is an extension of another.

...development doesn't start until the egg is fertilized by the sperm.

What about twins and clones?  Their genome isn't distinct.

Axioms immediately embodied based on what exactly?

Based on nothing else; they're axioms.

And given that the zygote marks the first phase of human development, they're "claims" that they are more like newborn babies is more consistent than claims they are not.

But not legal accountability?

Where did you get that?

Are we in agreement on this?

No. I'm not arguing that citizenship creates rights or accountability. Rights are axioms which are immediately embodied in all interaction, not successive of one particular form (citizenship.)

How would any public entity know of her miscarriage without the medical examination in the first place?

If the argument is that every person is responsible for the welfare of their offspring, whether it be sustaining custody or transferring custody to another, and "citizenship" creates accountability, then yes, registration would be necessary.

Pick one and stick to it.

I already did. My arguments focus primarily on accountability.

...deism has implications that atheism clearly does not have.

And as expected, diests have worldviews very different than that of atheists.

Please present even one "very good" argument for theism.

I haven't a clue what you consider an argument for theism. I don't even know what "theism" is to you.

No no cares, how fitting

ALL MISCARRIAGES SHOULD BE TREATED AS POTENTIAL MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER CASES, AND ALL HUMAN PRIVACY SHOULD BE ERADICATED,

Not all deaths have cases made out of them. If there's no cause for suspicion, usually determined by an initial medical examination, then the prospect of a case is scrapped. If she forgoes this examination then there's nothing the pro-lifers can do. (Not that I would suggest they do anything to begin with.)

THE STATE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED EVERY TIME TWO PEOPLE COPULATE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE POSSIBLY RESULTING EMBRYO IS NOT MALNOURISHED OR MISTREATED OR INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY KILLED, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE DOES NOT END AT BIRTH AND ALL HOMES SHOULD BE MONITORED BY CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES IN ORDER TO DETECT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. 

Now, you're delving into de facto measures rather than de jure measures which merely ascribe accountability.

AND MORE THAN THAT, ALL LIVING MASSES OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA SHOULD BE KEPT ALIVE AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING CANCER CELLS AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIGS.  LETTING ANY LIVING MASS OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA DIE IS MURDER AND OR MANSLAUGHTER.

Except their (cancer cells, sperm cells, etc.) genome isn't distinct.

YOUR OBJECTION TO RELEASING CUSTODY OF A CHILD IGNORES THE CITIZENSHIP OF THAT CHILD.

BEFORE THE BLASTOCYST IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, IT HAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS.

A CITIZEN MUST BE ABANDONED AT A SANCTIONED FACILITY BECAUSE A CITIZEN HAS HUMAN RIGHTS.

No. For it to be coherent, all citizen sovereignty should be respected, period.

Subjective can be easily described by thinking of it as a contraction of "subject" and "perspective." "Subject's perspective."  While the tautology of supposing the subject's subjectivity is ontologically subjective (a priori) it does not exclude the epistemological foundation on which it is contingent.

This presumes the existence of metaphysical reality (noumenon,) one which you'd have to substantiate before incorporating it as fundamental to the description of subjective.

So you're conflating my desire with my method?

subjective does not equal sample-biased.

You are 100% paralyzed without REACTION and PREJUDICE.

Paralyzed? How do you mean?

Once again, what does my desire to validate have to do with validation?

I know. But we're obviously not discussing de facto impediments, but de jure impediments. A woman can abandon a baby in a dumpster in Atlanta, but if she were to successfully relocate to North Korea, she could practically escape the legal responsibility to her infant without issue. The point is she has a responsibility to her infant dictated by the descriptions of the State. If she were truly her own sovereign territory, she would not have to abide by State dictates and she could abandon an infant much in the same way she can abandon her fetus.

This is the reason I continue to argue that the pro-life arguments generally are more consistent than those of the pro-choice. The pro-life position argues this responsibility persists from conception to mid or late adolescence (though, I don't deny that cut-off is arbitrary as well.) The pro-choice position however arguse that there's no responsibility (zygote/embryo/fetus) then responsibility (infant-->late adolescence) then back to no responsibility (late adolescent-->adulthood.) The main difference is the pro-life argument is a function of dependence. The pro-choice, however, is one neither of dependence, nor of "gyno-sovereignty." It's an inconsistent argument. The only way to reconcile is to completely remove the obligation a parent bears its child, regardless of its age.

More like never being satisfied is bad. Hedonism isn't healthy or happy.

80% of the american population lives paycheck to paycheck.

That is simply a failure of education/religious institutions. Nothing will ever be enough for those people.

But if you take a step back you see that the benefits are massively skewed. If you look at that link you will see a chart showing that 93.3% of stocks are owned by the top 20% of the population.

As I told 3RU7AL, truth is a value. When I state "you are subjective," it requires no values of true or false; it simply is.

No. Provide substantiation that the facility where she carries out the abortion has to be a licensed medical facility.

Yes, but you're not connecting the validation to my reaction--only my desire to validate.

Please present your definition of "objectivity".

Validity established independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.

Substantiate that the properly equipped and sanctioned facility is subject to the dictates of the State.

There are no moving goal posts. It would be like my saying that disposing garbage is under my sovereign jurisdiction, but I'm still obligated to the dictates of the City Dump. That's the reason it's necessary for you to include the qualifier "sanctioned." Once again, could she do this at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse? Why must she transfer responsibility (in accordance to the dictates of the State) and not simply relinquish it (like abortion)?

There are very good arguments for both deism and theism...

I'm not sure how this is considered an extraordinary case.

The time, labor, and resources of all citizens is subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration (whim) of the state.

Pretty much the only thing they don't already own (capriciously confiscate (take ownership of) at will) is your body and whatever might be inside it.

Hence, arbitrary, more so inconsistent. 

This is necessarily true.

Safe haven laws presume the transfer of responsibility even if the transfer doesn't happen in person because those safe havens are legally recognized corporations/institutions.

And the premises are part of their corporate entity.  But could she do the same at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse?