Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

without a soul is a person human... or just a empty shell that is either waiting for a soul to enter or left over after a soul has left

the body can live long ofter the life force that gave it life is long gone

 

In the early stage it has human DNA, hence it has the possibility of developing into a full formed human. The more important question is when does that clump of growing cells become a Person. An egg fertilized last night is no more a Person than an egg layed last night is a chicken, development must take place before a fetus becomes a Human/Person.

 

That's a question for another poll.

This poll was only to see how many agree with the fact that "a human being in the zygote stage of their life is a human being."

It's almost comical how some people can't help falling all over themselves trying to read further into it than is necessary to answer the question.

 

A bacteria, virus and sperm are not in the process of development and, an unfertilized human egg will not develop into anything however a fertilized egg is an on-going developing entity whose genetic direction is strictly dictated by virtue of its 2 human donors and it is just as human as the two people who created it.

A zygote is not a clone solely of either the male or female it is a combination of the two with its own unique attributes. Therefore it is separate in that sense. It will develop into a human being if it is not starved of oxygen, nourishment and food by physically removing it from the source. Therefore it is a life in that sense. The fact that it was created by two human beings makes it human. Therefore, it IS a human life.

 

According to the White Paper article I shared in post #2, it's already more than just a potential.. but thank you for sharing your conclusion.

 

it;s just a belief I have, I believe we are more then our shells we call our bodies, you don't?

now I can understand how some Atheists might be pro-life as some think all we are is our bodies, nothing more

.

 

Not necessarily but I would like to see some evidence or proof of it.

I don't know (or really care to know) what religion has to do with it one way or the other.

We all have a right to believe whatever we want to but our laws are only supposed to be based upon the facts.

Souls (whether or not they exist) and religious beliefs have no place in the 'legal' and Constitutional debate. That's straight from the establishment clause of the 1st. Amendment.

 

Does that mean miscarriages are involuntary manslaughter (or murder if induced)?

 

Yes.

As evidenced by the fact that there are people already doing time in prison for murder - for killing a child in the womb.

 

I would argue that instead demonstrates inconsistency in the law.

 

Okay, but the onus would then be on you to show where those inconsistencies are.

 

Fair enough, but one could call my equation of a 1st and 2nd trimester baby to my liver yet another way of dehumanizing a baby.

I don't intend to do that in with opinions I express on the issue.

I sat in an abortion clinic one time when I brought a college roomate there. There weren't any smiling faces. I still haven't met anyone who "likes" the idea of abortion. I think we also need to be careful not to "demonize" women who seek 1st and 2nd T abortions

 

A miscarriage would NOT be an unjustifiable, inexcusable and intentional killing and therefore not manslaughter. However, if you are going to assign blame (as your post suggests) then I would say that an abortion might just qualify as manslaughter given YOUR parameters that is.

 

Allowing abortion but then prosecuting the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide is the inconsistency, at least in cases where the fetus is within the legal abortion timeframe.

- - - Updated - - -

Miscarriages can be induced.

 

Unlike in a birthing place where even the doctors and nurses smile at a successful delivery. Apparently those frowning faces were telling their owners something at that abortion clinic.

 

I said a 'miscarriage' not an 'induced miscarriage' whatever that is....wait that's an abortion. Now let's argue over word meanings....

 

Having an abortion works against the grain of maternal instinct.

I think the notion that all kinds of abortions are frivolously sought by women who can't control their libidos is likely incorrect.

IMO, it's too bad maternal instinct transcends the 3rd trimester, if it didn't, women wouldn't punish themselves for doing the right thing when they shouldn't be a parent, or can't carry the baby to adoption

 

Induced miscarriages were the first form of abortion.

What I'm saying is that, if we consistently define life as beginning at conception and ban all abortion, then every miscarriage needs to be investigated so as to determine if it was induced or not.

 

Here's where your little experiment fails, you are taking a poll on whether a zygote is a human, because no where is that established.
But a woman is a human, the the right to determine how her body is used.
I know you don't like that, and I know you think women should be punished for having sex for pleasure, but those are you opinions, given to you by a cult that worships an imaginary being.
We'll deal with the real world here, when a woman requests a medical procedure that is her right, we'll let her undergo that procedure.
We won't create an imaginary victim who's rights are being trampled, because the victim in this case is imaginary, there is no self aware conscientious that is being destroyed, just a clump of cells, with no more self awareness than an infected appendix.

 

Let's just stop the nonsense shall we: A miscarriage is NOT an abortion and is, in fact, a sad reality for a lot of folks wishing to have a child. Most of these couples PAY for and WELCOME investigation into the cause. This is so typical of the left....If a word offends thee....Change the meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't you glad your mother didn't have her 'infected appendix' removed?

 

I didn't say every miscarriage is an abortion. I said induced ones can be considered them.

I can see you're not interested in a reasonable discussion, however.

 

When we have laws such as our patent laws which forbid patents on HUMAN zygotes because of their policy against patents on human beings and when we already have laws (State and Federal) which make it a crime of MURDER to illegally kill one... I disagree with you when you claim that it has not been established.

It actually has been established. As someone else pointed out earlier, we just have some inconsistencies in those laws when they also make an exception to themselves to (for now) keep abortions legal.

 

It is not 'reasonable' to keep redefining the word 'miscarriage' to mean abortion in the first place.

 

And if you have any reading comprehension, you'll realize I'm not doing that.

 

My mother chose to have children, it was her choice to give me the gift of life.
That is what makes it so valuable, she chose to do it, she wasn't forced into it, she didn't raise a child she regretted having.
Why do you think crime rates began a steep decline 18 years after Roe v Wade?
A decline that occurred in post Roe cohorts, but was not seen in the pre Roe cohorts.....