Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Chuz Life, Jan 27, 2014.

?

"Even in the zygote stage, a human being is a human being"

  1. True

    52.6%
  2. False

    47.4%
  1. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    1. Our Courts have already ruled that children with anencephalia have to be treated and cared like any other patients are.

    2. Where are you getting this "soul" crap from?
     
  2. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am preempting any arguments that you might make. If you voted yes then you might argue that even a zygote has a soul and if you voted no then you might argue that a baby doesn't have a fully developed brain at 10-12 months both of which are silly arguments to make. If you are arguing something else then by all means please state it.

    The courts are wrong. They are not conscious beings and as such it does no good to keep them alive. I also have an issue with keeping people who are in permanent comas on life support for very extended periods of time as well.

    Edit: Duh! :roflol: Just noticed your username. I wasn't sure before which side you were coming from.
     
  3. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can see why it would drive you nuts.

    In order for pro life folks to get abortion denied, they have to re-demonize it, and in order to do that, they must dismantle the entire concept that a fetus without a functioning cerebral cortex has no thoughts, pain, emotions, or anything that makes us "human".

    As for your opposition, they need to dismantle the emotional appeal common to the pro life argument.

    I however fully embrace the pro life argument, so I can get close enough to pop it in the head, and kick it in the ditch. Roe V Wade is a pefect compromise. Pro lifers get to save the "living", and pro choicers get to terminate non sentient babies before they are capable of suffering from the abortion.

    It is your side that wants to overturn a reasonable compromise, and for almost always religious reasons. If they are not made part of the argument...the pro life groups almost always go to church together.
     
  4. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Goldwater, you may want to read and then edit that ^^

    Strike that.

    Nevermind, I think I can follow what you are saying now.
     
  5. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells is not a person, but may become one, just as an acorn is not an oak tree, but may become one.

    Of course, in sixteenth century Europe, alchemy held that, at conception, a miniature, fully formed human was instantly created.

    Science has since revealed otherwise, that the gestative process is essential to a human being developing but, if someone fancies the antiquated, alchemical notion of an homunculus, he is still free to believe it.

    He just can't be allowed to impose his notion upon everyone else.



    .
     
  6. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My only argument related to any of that ^^ is to remind you of the legal fact that "souls" and or "brain activity" are not required for 'personhood.'



    As my wife was in a coma for three weeks following a cardiac arrest and as she is now severely impaired (brain damaged)....

    I have to wonder what it is that you would consider to be a 'permanent coma?'

    She too was on life support and on two different occasions, I was asked how long I was willing to leave her on that life support.

    Now, even though she's seriously impaired... she can eat, drink, walk talk, swim, dress herself (sometimes backwards) and she even find ways to enjoy herself and what's left of her life.

    Is she a 'person' enough for you?
     
  7. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    FYI!

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If your refuge is merely semantics, any insistance that you should be allowed to impose your notions upon everyone else is feeble, indeed.

    I doubt if you could distinguish, even under a microscope, a zygote from a similarly mindless amalgam of human skin cells.
     
  9. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wow.

    That's nowhere close to what needs to be done - to get abortion criminalized - in my view.

    For me, it has nothing to do with emotional appeals.

    1. The law says that a human being is a 'natural person'
    2. The Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the 'equal protections' of our laws.

    So

    3. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is recognized as a human being / natural person - they are entitled to the same 'equal protections' that everyone else is entitled to.

    No emotional appeals necessary.

    Again, credit for being completely open and honest.

    Well, (see above) I don't share that mindset.

    I don't need God in my life (any more than you do) to know that an abortion kills a child.

    Indeed, we already agree that an abortion does in fact kill a child and I'm thinking you are not religious at all.

    We simply disagree on whether or not a child's right to their life is something that we have a right to make compromises with.

    You seem to think we can and I believe the Constitution prohibits us from doing that.
     
  10. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    When we already have laws which says a child in the womb is a human being and those laws make it a crime of murder to illegally kill one.... It's a bit more than just semantics to call it a child in the womb.

    isn't it?

    Can you give me an instance where it would be (realistically) necessary for me to do so?
     
  11. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're probably talking about the "pop it in the head" and that whole "ditch" thing, right?

    Yeah, just a figure of speech.
     
  12. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She became a 'person' during gestation, at the stage consciousness had developed - or 'the quickening' in traditional Christian teaching as elucidated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

    In the nineteenth century, British legal scholar William Blackstone noted that, "Life begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb."

    I fully respect the law that recognizes the gestative process by which a zygote develops into a person. I have no problem with US law. nor would I attempt to dictate otherwise to others.


    .
     
  13. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not if you just crave imposing your beliefs on others without regard to the scientific reality, no.
     
  14. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Again, she has brain damage and she's forever impaired.

    Is she any less of a person now?

    The UVVA and other fetal homicide laws do not mention anything about the process being the person.

    So, its only you who is trying to play words games about that.

    If you fully respect the law as you claim you do, you would have no need or want to misrepresent what laws actually do or say.
     
  15. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't intend to say the same because only consciousness defines a 'human' the way I look at things.
     
  16. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What belief is it that you think I am pushing 'without regard to the scientific reality?'

    Be specific and then try to be open minded about the scientific proof when it is then presented to you.
     
  17. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Brain damage is not the same as brain dead so don't even try these childish semantic games with me. I used to work with handicapped kids for my church. You know damn well I am talking about people who no longer have any brain activity beyond the base breathing and heart beat.
     
  18. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If the standard for 'personhood' is brain waves (and it's clear that for you it is)... then the question becomes "where is the threshold?" and "who gets to decide?"

    And that's the point I'm trying to get to.
     
  19. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, as I indicated, once she had achieved sentience during gestation, she had become a 'person.'
     
  20. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    But only after she breached your (arbitrarily decided) ability to deny that she was a person.

    Correct?
     
  21. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    43,073
    Likes Received:
    15,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to reject the moral consensus that recognizes the scientific reality that a person develops during the gestative process. You seem incapable of grasping that there are stages of gestative development, and that an actual viable fetus is significantly different from a microscopic zygote.

    Unfortunately, there are extremists who try to use the coercive power of the State to impose their radical view upon everyone when their strident proselytizing fails.

    I recall hearing a man whose wife suffered an ectopic pregnancy that required an abortion. Already grieving for the child that would never develop into personhood, they were assaulted by fanatics when they were entering the clinic. The ordeal that was inflicted upon them by these hateful zealots required all the restraint the man could summon to keep from physically attacking the degenerates. And he and his wife were evangelical Christians.

    If persuasion fails, don't resort to intimidation or force to make other folks accept your radical notions.
     
  22. Chuz Life

    Chuz Life Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The moral what?

    Please provide PROOF that this 'moral consensus' that you are accusing me of being in denial of actually exists.

    Until you can do that, I have no choice but to conclude that it's only in your head.


    The truth is - I understand the biology and the development very well and you are correct about the fact that a human being in the zygote stage of their life differs significantly from the adult they may later become.

    They are still the same human organism (being) though - regardless of what stage of development they are in.

    Aren't they?

    If you mean that there are extremist who try to use the government to deny human rights and personhood to minority groups who can not speak for - nor defend themselves? I agree completely.

    Their child was already a human being / person. Whether or not an abortion was warranted or justified in that situation has nothing to do with the 'personhood' of the child (or of the woman) involved.

    I don't know if abortion is even the right term for the procedure you described. It sounds like I may have been at odds with some of 'those' protesters myself.

    Democracy moves slow.

    Too slow in this situation (in my opinion)... but it's the best system (along with strict adherence to the Constitution) that there is to resolve these issues.

    I'm satisfied we are moving (though too slow for my liking) in the right direction.
     
  23. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    with pro abortionist its a child when they want it to be a child with the ever moving goal post
     
  24. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that doesn't happen till after birth a new born isn't conscience of its self till weeks after birth so according to your requirements of being a so called person a week old new born can be killed with no repercussions
     
  25. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the youngest surviving premature baby is 21 weeks so it is the ever moving goal post with you pro baby killers
    with the advancement in medicine and medicall science two years from now it could be 18 weeks
     

Share This Page