Are embryos people??

MayCaesar

Living organisms do not automatically inherit their parents’ wealth. If the wealthy people in question wrote a will to hand all of their possessions over to the embryos once they are born upon death of the former, then the answer is yes. Otherwise, there is no objective way to resolve this question, and the court’s decision will be based on the local legal and cultural standards.

In my subjective view, ideally, in case no will of any kind is written and no immediate family members are there to claim it, the wealth should go to whoever was its previous owner or closest to the owner - for instance, a car purchased from a dealership should go back to the dealership - or, if the dealership no longer exists, to the manufacturer. In case the piece of wealth was created by the person who died himself (for example, a house that the person built with his own hands), it should be auctioned and sold to the highest bidder, perhaps, by a special reacquisition company.

Ampersand

The specific question of the debate is kind of niche as you can gift money to things that aren’t people (trusts o. Behalf of your favourite pet cat, etc) so whether or not embryos are people doesn’t really matter there.

In answer to the question: No, I don’t view embryos as people. Fetuses are within the first 8 weeks following gestation, before there is a mind with any kind of brain activity. I can’t count something with no sentience or sapience as a person.

Dee

No they’re not , those who say so use this as an argument they somehow feel is decisive 

A person has capabilities as in the ability to reason , moral positions on life situations , the ability to love hate in other words they have a personality , an embryo does not it only has a future potentiality of such 

Barnardot

@MayCaesar well giving a car back to the dealer is dum any way . I bet your a car sales man right because that’s being real subject I’ve I reckon. You have to track back to the next in line which makes sents but then it might be that you got the car from your brother whoose a car dealer and he gets the car then that wood be the circle of life

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
Living organisms do not automatically inherit their parents’ wealth Read the fine print in some states they do, and the argument is over basically liquidating an estate.

 A will controls the way estates are to be broken up, if broken up. However, there is a much deep and bigger issue with states which declare a personhood law. That the children, the people who adopted a child, the people who donate to in vitro fertilization take part in children can be charged with murder at some point in history. There are some serious legal malpractice issues going on as a basic argument of law before the voter. A general voter requires a need to be given legal counsel before even being allowed to vote on such issue Which by the way is the Legal Precedent set by Roe versus Wade. So, any vote handed off the public on a ballot is not questionable as being authentic if ever legally challenged in court. The dumbest course of action a doctor or scientist can enter is the feasibility of if a human embryo is human. It is a perjury trap. The argument of law is that a lawyer at some point had made a medical doctor, scientist, or both an improper witness in an argument of law outside the scope of just a medical question. This becomes an ethic issue as a much larger part of a malpractice of law. 

@excon
.Your question is not a whole truth and becomes part of a problem, the question can be asked as a whole truth in this way which details the basic idea of coaching a witness. We are pushing a person to a desired answer in court or outside the court room. Coaching is a form of education and was why the argument why a public schools should have been held more constitutional as a united state. So, here is your question again asked as a whole truth the argument being the question now leads the witness to the fact already know and argued for other reasons before the courts.

Are human embryos people?

A question that requires an answer in relationship to issues. Are human embryos citizens or are the mothers the ambassador of the embryo by connection of legal precedent, also known as established justice?.  

John_C_87

Yes, embryo and sperm are people...
No, embryo and sperm are not citizens......yet.

The moment any State makes move making a embryo or sperm a citizen the active partisipatioin in criminal murder taking place in that selected State will skyrocket...

As it stood Roe Vs. Wade insured the people who argue abortion by law all can be charged with criminal murder in any State. The only interpritation to be made in abortion is not about pro-life or pro-choice it is about who is the victum of the murder or attempt at murder created by only the order to abort.

None of this is helping the massive malpractice of law as we all wait for the disclosure of professional malpractice insurance provider of those who have written the abortion laws…as it will most likely be they who foot the legal bills for to correct the negligence people refuse to understand pending legal implications or do not understand by proven incompetence or criminal negligence.

OakTownA

All people have been born, so no, a zygote/embryo/fetus (ZEF) is not a person. I have another question: If a ZEF is a person, can it be charged with manslaughter if the pregnancy kills the person carrying it?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA Irrelevant.  If a baby grabbed the steering wheel in a car and caused a wreck, the baby wouldn't be charged with anything.

@excon

If we are assuming the offspring of people inherit the wealth then why not.  The embryos are undoubtedly the parents children.
I'm not sure why a newborn would inherent the wealth but not the embryo.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"@OakTownA Irrelevant.  If a baby grabbed the steering wheel in a car and caused a wreck, the baby wouldn't be charged with anything."

How is that irrelevant? If a person carrying a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) can be charged with murder or manslaughter for ending their pregnancy or having a miscarriage, because the ZEF is a person, why shouldn't the ZEF be charged with manslaughter if it kills the person carrying it?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

Because we already understand a baby cannot be legally charged with killing someone even if they completed the action.  I.e a baby would not be blamed for moving the wheel.

However a parent is charged for killing an infant.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

Yes, because infants, AKA neonates, have been born. To you, what makes a person a person?

John_C_87

@OakTownA

How is that irrelevant? It is important this question be answered.
 "If a baby grabbed the steering wheel in a car and caused a wreck, the baby wouldn't be charged with anything."

The truth is when a baby can be proven to grab a steering wheel and cause a reck it will be charged with a crime. The reason to claim irrelevance is to hide a fact of danger created by birth as that danger is to be totally untruthfully minimized by the idea of simply having chance to receiving medical treatment. Hiding some else is in fact grabbing the wheel by remote.

The word abort is an order from distant sovereignty to grab a wheel of something moving car or other found by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade in 1973.  The argument then becomes well only the mother in the car can obey the order she herself gives to grab the wheel. There have been mechanical devises remotely operated since the creation of the first human booby trap. 

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

What does that have to do with your argument?

You asked if a person can be charged for manslaughter why can't ZEF.
I showed that doesn't follow.  A baby can cause death theoretically but cannot be charged with manslaughter.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"What does that have to do with your argument?"

It has to do with the OP's question. So, again, to you, what makes a person a person?

"You asked if a person can be charged for manslaughter why can't ZEF."

That's not what I asked. I asked that if a pregnant person can be charged with murder or manslaughter for having an abortion or miscarriage, why can't a ZEF be charged with causing the death of the person carrying the pregnancy? Seems like a double standard. If it isn't why not? WHY should the ZEF not be charged with manslaughter or murder when they are directly responsible for the death of the person carrying the pregnancy?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

I was just summarizing what you said.  There is a double standard for children.  They cannot be convicted of manslaughter

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers said:

@OakTownA

I was just summarizing what you said.  There is a double standard for children.  They cannot be convicted of manslaughter

Look those up...

Carl Newton Mahan, 6 years old at time of killing, charged and convicted in 1929...
Kyle Alwood (9 y/o at time of killing) in 2019, ongoing, will probably be convicted... 
James Arcene, 10 y/o at time of killing, convicted and executed,  1885 but still he was executed...
Joseph Hall, 10 y/o at time of killing his father in 2011, was found guilty of murder...
Nathaniel Abraham, 11 y/o in 1998, charged and convicted...
And the list goes on, and that's just the US..

Children absolutely can and are convicted of manslaughter and murder... They just rarely get the same sentence as adults... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Sorry I meant babies.  Try applying that to someone 3 or less. That would be insane.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Not that I disagree with you on the absurdity of it but please tell me, what is the age bracket for being a "baby"? When does one stops being a baby and becomes just a child? 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I think personally no one really has the ability to really understand the impact of killing someone until at least around 9.  I am willing to admit I chose that arbitrarily, Id have to dig a lot more into psychology and brain development to give you a detailed and well reasoned answer.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
I was just summarizing what you said.  There is a double standard for children.  They cannot be convicted of manslaughter

It is not a double standard it is a point of fact. Age of a juvenile brings up the issue of citizenship, has a juvenile been officially recognized as a citizen or not. Legal council is simple failing to address the mother’s authenticity as ambassador on behalf of the child.

Are embryo's people? No.

Are human embryo's people? Yes.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

To understand the impact of killing someone? Are you saying that such an understanding is relevant? Or are you talking about intent, because intent is only required for premiditation, intent doesn't matter in manslaughter cases...

excon

Are embryos people??

@excon

Hello ex:

I'm an all or nothing kinda guy, so I agree with Michael Elpers..  If we make a law, should we exempt children?  Nope. Should we call the life growing inside a pregnant woman a zygot?  Nope. How about fetus?  Nope.  What about human beings?  Yup.   If adults can drink, should children be allowed?  Yup.  If adults can drive, shouldn't children?   Yup.  If adults wanna join the army, shouldn't children be allowed?  Yup.  If children are required to be educated, shouldn't adults have that same requirement?  Yup.

Is that gonna cause a few dislocations??  Yup.  Unwinding wrong things is always gonna cause disruptions.. 

excon

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yeah I think an understanding of the immoral nature of murder matters.  You can't really blame someone for an action they cannot reason is wrong or even that there action may cause death.  Infants can't really even understand what death is.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I also agree that understanding should matter but considering the number of mentally ill people, unable to understand the consequences of what they did, that the US have incarcerated or executed, it would seem that the US judicial system does not agree with you... 

John_C_87

@excon

I'm an all or nothing kinda guy, so I agree with Michael Elpers..  If we make a law, should we exempt children?  Nope. Should we call the life growing inside a pregnant woman a zygot?  Nope. How about fetus?  Nope.  What about human beings?  Yup.   If adults can drink, should children be allowed?  Yup.  If adults can drive, shouldn't children?   Yup.  If adults wanna join the army, shouldn't children be allowed?  Yup.  If children are required to be educated, shouldn't adults have that same requirement?  Yup.

Is that gonna cause a few dislocations??  Yup.  Unwinding wrong things is always gonna cause disruptions.. 

What is not made clear to you is that if you are to assume the ambassador’s burden in this matter you are expecting a high risk damped if you do and damped if you don’t situation. A type of person is placing themselves in harm’s way hoping to say a child. However, in doing so in the event the mother dies they are then criminally responsible for the death of the ambassador originally assigned the burden. MichaelElpers & Excon are by legislation of law assigning ambassadors in an official context to governing it may be themselves or other people, but it is these people who now be accountable if the mother of an immigration process dies in the transition made of a person into a country.

To be honest this is a situation created by lawyers who are devoted numbers of religions and could not separate their legal practice from their religious practice. The connection to established justice is highlighted by the fact that a women and man kill the fetus by not having a sexual relationship as the risk to the women’s life may appear to high for them at the time.

MayCaesar

Plaffelvohfen said:

@MichaelElpers

I also agree that understanding should matter but considering the number of mentally ill people, unable to understand the consequences of what they did, that the US have incarcerated or executed, it would seem that the US judicial system does not agree with you... 

Part of the problem is the difficulty of figuring out who is mentally ill, and who just genuinely has terrible ideas. And whether there is a clear difference between the two at all: "mental illness" is a bit of a subjective term. Is it mental illness to not be able to apply logic consistently? I would argue that it, at the very least, a form of mental impairment - yet one could argue that the majority of the population is afflicted by it.

Saying, "Everyone below the age of X is not responsible for all of their actions", has the advantage of removing any ambiguity from any possible situation: one's age is very easy to determine. The peculiarities of the contents of one brain, considering how little we know of neuroscience even today - not so much. One needs to separate theoretical considerations from practical ones: not every policy sensible in the ideal world can be reasonably enforced in the real world.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

Part of the problem is the difficulty of figuring out who is mentally ill,
It is not a issue of metal illness it is a issue of malpractice of law. Maybe you are not a lawyer and are just a person.
Do you, or do you not know a embryo is not a citizen of a nation?

"Everyone below the age of X is not responsible for all of their actions", has the advantage of removing any ambiguity from any possible situation: one's age is very easy to determine.The argument of justice is destressing to people as it becomes frustrating and causes emotional outbursts. Not mental illness.  A human embryo is a person and is not a citizen, not being a citizen does not mean any person is not human. In America I can call this an incompetent connection to established justice and it would have nothing to do with metal health. It is about lying and who between people.

The malpractice of constitutional right is to say this is a freedom of speech, it is not the focus of grievance as an issue of legal liberty and is not of yet held in context to the 1st Amendment and is only in retrospect to the preamble of American Constitution itself. This making it a violation of Constitutional right directly and not an argument of Bill of Rights. This fact would make the legal status of the argument within tribunal a higher priority.

The peculiarities of the contents of one brain, considering how little we know of neuroscience even today.

In basic principle the both of you are assuming that science has no legal tie to experimentation with human life. The argument is about a higher level of body snatching which had taken place globally before the 19th century. How is anyone as a common defense t separate this argument from the much earlier conflict of law body snatching? What is the connection made by private or public investing too people and legislators alike?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

"Everyone below the age of X is not responsible for all of their actions"
This is not the connection made to established justice by the embryo. Citizenship of the embryo is the connection to established justice as citizenship is what is legally missing. Mothers are the ambassadors of the embryo.

 The argument here is if the economic fraud that has been allowed to take place is sufficient to justify the relief of command of Congress and the Federal Reserve by order of court to adjust and correct the numerical axiom of the Federal dollar system. Not understanding this complex matter does not make any person mentally ill. Bull malarkey.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

After doing a Google search, the earliest age for someone who killed another person was 4. The chances of someone younger than that having the coordination and strength to kill is unlikely. However, wold wide, the maternal mortality rate is 152 deaths per 100,000 births. ZEFs (zygote, embryo, fetus) can and do kill thousands of people every year. So, if a ZEF is a person, as you seem to be implying even though you have yet to give your definition of a person, why shouldn't they be held to the same standards as any other person?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

And the ZEF made no decision or action to put the mother in that situation...the mother did.
It's kind of like giving a baby a lighted candle and blaming them for setting the house on fire.  So yes I can think the ZEF is a person, but that doesn't follow every person is treated the same as far as culpability is concerned.

Anyways if the mother dies often the ZEF may as well so good luck charging them.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yeah but mentally ill people often do get treated differently if it's proven they have a mental illness.  That's a common defense to try and get less sentencing.

excon

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Yeah but mentally ill people often do get treated differently if it's proven they have a mental illness.  That's a common defense to try and get less sentencing.

Hello M:

Nahh...  They're not trying to get a lesser sentence..  They're trying to get sent to a hospital instead of the joint..

excon

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

  the And ZEF made no decision or action to put the mother in that situation...the mother did.
1. The Zef does not need to be the decision maker to be involved in a murder. However, the Zef do and have made the decision moving independently of the mother.
2. The Zef can be the murder weapon involved in a murder not just a killer.
3. When the mother is relieved of her ambassador status by another person with then use of law it is the other who takes responsibility for the use of lethal force against the mother.

4. There are 212,800 murders, 212,800 deaths of women pending a criminal charge to be filed against people who have broken the law and used the international term. abortion instead of miscarriage or female specific amputation in America. As it is they and not the state who have assumed command and by use of law moved themselves to be ambassadors to a group of people who are not citizens of a nation at time.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

By using a command like abort an excuse to assume command of an immigration process is made. Because the immigration process has a risk to only one person’s life and lethal force is a possibility to alienate the protagonist from the possible risk of the natural murder charge an illegal violation of privacy to justice has been used in a malpractice of law. The idea is it is the mother who is to benefit from the false claim abortion is make legal by Roe vs Wade by the refusal to criminally charged based on illegal admission. The reason issue is however that the relief of command of an ambassador status created natural is being made in such a way the death caused by malice of the mothers cannot be accounted for by constitutional law.

It is possible that the confusion created by all the lies makes this fact unseen by the general public after the supreme court finding in 1973. Be obscured from view from millions of women and people however does not mean it is not true or fact. The idea of good faith would suggest that the removal of a word such as abortion from legislation as precaution with a replacement like miscarriage would not prove to be a had a simple common defense been brought to light in the understanding that abortion, abort is not an order one person gives to stop. Making the legislation and medical treatment misleading in the judicial process.  

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"And the ZEF made no decision or action to put the mother in that situation...the mother did."

So, according to this statement, pregnant people:

1. actively and intentionally decide to get pregnant

2. develop fatal complications, like preeclampsia, on purpose.

There is a name for when a person kills another person without intent: Unintentional Manslaughter.

You still have yet to answer my question:

What makes a person a person?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

1. It was action on their part, it doesn't really matter whether it was intentional or not.  The situation arose based on their decision assuming they weren't raped.

2.  When did I say that?

And again I'll explain what is a person is a much bigger argument that doesn't need to be answered.  I'm claiming an infant is a person under current law and they wouldn't be charged with manslaughter. I'd say the fetus is too for this argument, it doesn't really matter why.

Would you blame the parents or the infant for setting a house on fire if you gave them a lighted candle?  If someone died the parent would be charged.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"1. It was action on their part, it doesn't really matter whether it was intentional or not.  The situation arose based on their decision assuming they weren't raped."

And if they used contraception that failed? Had a partner that lied about using contraception or intentionally damaged the contraception (like poking holes in a condom)? Even surgical sterilization like a vasectomy or tubal ligation can spontaneously reverse. More importantly, people will have sex without wanting to become pregnant. According to you, regardless of what steps, if any, were taken to prevent conception, that person should be forced to bring the pregnancy to term. Driving my car is also an action. If someone hits me, should I just shrug, and say "oh well, it was my fault for driving?" Yes, actions have consequences. The response to that consequence is what we are discussing.

"2.  When did I say that?"

It's implied by your statement.

"And again I'll explain what is a person is a much bigger argument that doesn't need to be answered.  I'm claiming an infant is a person under current law and they wouldn't be charged with manslaughter. I'd say the fetus is too for this argument, it doesn't really matter why."

Person-hood is the subject of this debate thread, so yes, it does matter and needs to be answered.

"Would you blame the parents or the infant for setting a house on fire if you gave them a lighted candle?  If someone died the parent would be charged."

I noticed you completely ignored my point about how there are no reports of anyone younger than 4 killing anyone, but there are thousands of cases every year of pregnancy killing a person.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

"Driving my car is also an action. If someone hits me, should I just shrug, and say "oh well, it was my fault for driving?"

In most cases you would be the driver fault.

If someone hit you let's say and it caused damages to your body that would require 9 months to recover.  Let's say if you are able to kill the other driver, and that would make you instantly better, should you be allowed to do that?


2. No it wasn't.  I never any of the consequences were intended or in purpose.

You don't think a child has ever caught a house on fire, walked in a road and cause an accident, and caused a death.  Even if they hadn't are you actually arguing you charge someone under 4 with manslaughter? That's ridiculous.

We are discussing whether or not a ZEF should be charged under the law.  My claim in the ZEF is a person and no they shouldn't.  In that context why they are a person doesn't matter.

Do you think all persons are culpable under the law no matter, what age, mental ability, ect is a much .ore important question.  I haven't seen you argue under what premise any western nation would charge a ZEF.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"If someone hit you let's say and it caused damages to your body that would require 9 months to recover.  Let's say if you are able to kill the other driver, and that would make you instantly better, should you be allowed to do that?"

No, because it would violate their bodily autonomy. Again, actions have consequences. Saying "well, you chose to have sex" is similar to saying "well, you chose to drive a car;" both can have unintentional consequences.

"You don't think a child has ever caught a house on fire, walked in a road and cause an accident, and caused a death.  Even if they hadn't are you actually arguing you charge someone under 4 with manslaughter? That's ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? Isn't the child a person equal under the law?

"We are discussing whether or not a ZEF should be charged under the law.  My claim in the ZEF is a person and no they shouldn't.  In that context why they are a person doesn't matter."

We are discussing whether or not a ZEF is a person. If a ZEF is a person, why shouldn't it be treated equally under the law? Context does matter, as this entire debate is whether or not a ZEF is a person, and why or why not.

"Do you think all persons are culpable under the law no matter, what age, mental ability, ect is a much .ore important question.  I haven't seen you argue under what premise any western nation would charge a ZEF."

Consider this a Socratic discussion. If a ZEF is a person, and all persons are treated equally under the law, why shouldn't a ZEF be charged with Manslaughter for killing the person carrying it?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

"No, because it would violate their bodily autonomy."
I'd apply the same reasoning to the human in the womb.

Isn't a child equal under the law...well not exactly.  For example they can't drink legally, they can't get drafted, they can't drive, they can't work, can't give consenual sex, ect.  This is why children are given guardians and guardians are often responsible for their behavior.

This answers your follow up questions.  No children are not treated equally under the law and do not share similar responsibilities to adults.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"I'd apply the same reasoning to the human in the womb."

What about the person who is carrying the potential person? What happened to their bodily autonomy? Currently, no one has the right to use another person's body without their permission. If ZEFs are people, why do they deserve special rights?

"Isn't a child equal under the law...well not exactly.  For example they can't drink legally, they can't get drafted, they can't drive, ect.... No children are not treated equally under the law and do not share similar responsibilities to adults.
"

And why is that?

You still have yet to address the question of this debate:

Are embryos people? This debate is literally about what makes a person a person, and yet you have, again, refused to explain why a ZEF is a person.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

You admitted killing the other person would be an infringement on bodily autonomy.  So either way you are infringing on autonomy. In that instance I'm going to give credence to the innocent.

The rest you didn't address any of my points.

Yes embryos are people.  Any human being is a person.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
@OakTownA

Are embryos a citizen of your country?
Are they a citizen of America?
Embryos have not been made citizens of the United States of America or any Nation globally that I am aware of this was a condition in the order of law.

How many lawyers are there in the world? (legalknowledgebase.com)

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"You admitted killing the other person would be an infringement on bodily autonomy.  So either way you are infringing on autonomy. In that instance I'm going to give credence to the innocent."

You did not answer or address my question. Lets assume a ZEF is a person. Currently, NO ONE has the right to use another person's body without their permission. Why should a ZEF have special rights that no other person has? If someone attacks me, I have the right to fight back, even if it results in me killing my attacker.

"The rest you didn't address any of my points."

I asked you questions for clarification. That is addressing your points.

"Yes embryos are people.  Any human being is a person."

And what rights, as  a person, does King Tut have? The Bog Mummy? Charles Darwin? JFK? Is being a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens all it takes, in your mind, to be a person? If a ZEF is a person, why don't we consider them to be 9 months old on their birthday? If a person has a miscarriage, have they committed manslaughter? 

Right now, a corpse has more protected rights than people with uteri. A doctor has to have permission to harvest a dead persons' organs, while someone with a uterus has no control over what happens to their body should they become pregnant.

OakTownA

@John_C_87

"Are embryos a citizen of your country?
Are they a citizen of America?"

Not until they are born. I'm not sure why you are asking that.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

I did.  You are also giving the mother special rights by limiting bodily autonomy of the ZEF.
If you couldn't kill the driver in my previous example you shouldn't be able to kill the fetus either. If you killed the driver your 9 month complications disappear.

I can make it even closer. Let's say the wreck makes you pregnant, and killing the opposing driver provides instantaneous birth and the child survives.  

They have to be an alive person. I think it's possible for other organisms to be persons but any live human being is a person.

"If a ZEF is a person, why don't we consider them to be 9 months old on their birthday?"

It's just much easier to determine ones birth date than conception date.

"If a person has a miscarriage, have they committed manslaughter"

Not unless they've commited an act to miscarry on purpose.

Maybe because a dead person and a pregnant person have different circumstances.  If harvesting the organs killed another person it would be different. 

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: Embryos contain human DNA.

Yes. Embryos are people since they contain human DNA. There is no debate about that.

Dee

@theinfectedmaster

Yes. Embryos are people since they contain human DNA. There is no debate about that.

So do you always call an embryo a person ? Would you also call an actual person an embryo as they contain human DNA .

There certainly is a debate about that 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

A square can be a rectangle but not vice versa.

Likewise an embryo can be a person without a person needing to be an embryo.

Plaffelvohfen

@theinfectedmaster

theinfectedmaster said:

Yes. Embryos are people since they contain human DNA. There is no debate about that.

So some nail clippings and some hairs are people because they contain human DNA... I see... Makes perfect sense...