• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ZEFs are not citizens

mac said:
All requirements must be attainable by the organism in some form of it's existence. No organism pops into existence with all or even most of them.
Click to expand...
There is a minimum criteria, it is homeostasis, otherwise a rock could be called an organism.

My religion has very little to do with my stance.
Click to expand...
Right and we have you good word for that. No thanks.

Primarily because the Bible does not specifically support my stance.
Click to expand...
An admission or Freudian slip?
 
mac said:
Until the fetus and pregnancy are threatening the life of the mother, then they are not threatening the life of the mother.
Click to expand...
That is like saying that screening at airposts is not necessary because no one is making threats then.
 
mac said:
So has murder, rape and war. Let's keep those around too, right?
Click to expand...
Splat. The other poster had suggested longevity of linguistic usage as some sort of standard. His point is undone. You don't have a point here. Just free-floating rant.
 
mac said:
Why are you avoiding the question? Do you think that a human toddler is an organism?
Click to expand...
Does it have a capacity to reproduce? Is a capacity to reproduce one of the defining characteristics of an organism? Do zygotes have a capacity to reproduce? Did you at one time carry on at some length over contentions that a zygote is an organism?

mac said:
My precious fetus is as much a human as you are, and deserves the same right to life as you do.
Click to expand...
Only in MacFantasyland, it appears, as no convincing secular argument for the notion's applicability in the real world has been forthcoming. None is expected at this late date.

mac said:
Discriminating against it based on it's capabilities due to developmental stage is not different than discriminating against any other human for any other reason.
Click to expand...
Hey, don't talk to me. Talk to those biological bigots who stuck "capacity to reproduce" into the job description for "organism".

mac said:
This is not a function of the fetus specific ability, power, or intent.
Click to expand...
It is as soon as you try to claim special status for a fetus on the basis of its being an organism if in fact it is not one. You have only yourself to blame here.

mac said:
A similar argument would be to claim that if a woman wants to be treated equally with a man, then she must get a sex change.
Click to expand...
Wow. These are actually getting worse as we go along. Pretty surprising given how inapropos the first one was.
 
mac said:
My statement was not about whether or not someone should have sex, it was about your claim that the ZEF is an invader.
Click to expand...
You found the facts that it was uninvited, unapproved, unpermitted, unlicensed, unauthorixzed, and unwelcome insufficient grounds to brand it as an intruder? A fetus has no right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will. Period.

mac said:
Now you are comparing what someone else can do to you with what you do to yourself and the baby you create. Bad analogy.
Click to expand...
You've pretty well been drummed out of the analogy judges corps. In this case, a reasonable person confronts licit and rightful situations that have known but small risks, takes sensible precautions against those risks, but falls victim to them anyway. You blame the victim. The law does not in any sense and never has. You have to invent stuff out of whole cloth in order to have as much as a false-leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Until the fetus and pregnancy are threatening the life of the mother, then they are not threatening the life of the mother. Simple existence is not a threat to the mother. Not a tough concept to understand.
Click to expand...
No reason to fear gasoline-soaked rags in your bedroom closet until they burst into flame either. Before that, they are no threat. Any idea how ineffectual your bleating is becoming?
 
joko104 said:
The constitution defined as citizen as a person "born" in the United States, not "conceived" in the United States. Thus, a ZEF of an American mother is not a citizen of the United States.

For those who claim a ZEF should have identical civil and legal rights as a born child must then absolutely insist that all children illegally in the United States also are entitled to the same benefits, social programs, public assistance, education and legal status as a child born in the United States.

IF, as some pro-lifers want, the constitution is amended to declared a person comes into existence "at conception," then any woman who visits the United States as a tourist and who became pregnant in a way that the time frame allowed conception to have occurred in the USA can claim the child is a citizen. Or literally stepping across the Southern border or taking a boat within US jurisdictional limits and having sex would then also establish that child as an American.

Currently, USA law generally does NOT recognize the marriage of an American to a non-American that marry outside the USA. This prevents bringing in people from other countries by marriage. BUT if citizenship occurs at conception, this vastly opens that doorway - as the government could NOT prohibit a foreign nation pregnant with an American citizen from entry - meaning making a case that you had sex with a woman within USA territory resulting in pregnancy then required allowing that foreign woman into the USA - and with all public assistance for that "American" ZEF.

"Anchor baby" would be replaced with "Anchor sex."

While in law an illegal parent of a child born in the USA can be deported (but not the child), a woman illegally in the USA with an "American ZEF" could not because the ZEF could not be deported. Since medicine does recognize that natural breastfeeding is a health benefit to a newborn, she couldn't be deported after birth as cruel and unusual punishment to the American newborn baby.

If a pro-lifer demands ZEFs have child status, unless total hypocrites (commonly so) they also MUST demand that children illegally in the USA also have full legal status too.

ZEFs are not citizens of the United States according to the U.S. Constitution. If they should have full rights as a baby does, then so should all other children illegally in the USA for the identical reason.
Click to expand...

You call pro-lifers hypocrites, yet you seem to care about the illegals entering the U.S.. Yet by your own definition they are not citizens becuase they are not born here and therefore do not have the same rights as you and I. You claim that includes the right to life. So what your saying someone can kill any non citizen without any moral or legal repurcussions??? If these rights are only for citizens then no one outside the U.S. has the right to life. That is rediculous and I know you do not believe this. This is the BIGGEST hypocricy I can think of.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
There is a minimum criteria, it is homeostasis, otherwise a rock could be called an organism.
Click to expand...

No, a rock will never attain any of the characteristics. See?

Right and we have you good word for that. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your problem, not mine.

An admission or Freudian slip?
Click to expand...

Simple truth. The Bible does not define a person from conception. My stance is despite the bible, not due to it. It overlaps at time, but I don't rely on the Bible.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
No, it isn't. It seems that analogies are not your strong suit either.


When will you address the lack of capacity to reproduce? All you have in either case are differentiated cells that grow and develop and have DNA that is different from that of the host. Anything more is a product of your imagination.


This is the contention that you are trying but endlessly failing to prove. I and every other sensible person will continue to ignore it until it is proved. Your mere assertion of the idea does not advance it one iota.
Click to expand...

Do you think a human toddler is an organism?
 
Cardinal Fang said:
No reason to fear gasoline-soaked rags in your bedroom closet until they burst into flame either. Before that, they are no threat. Any idea how ineffectual your bleating is becoming?
Click to expand...

Do you consider a human toddler an organism?
 
mac said:
No, a rock will never attain any of the characteristics. See?
Click to expand...
See what? How do you know. The same cold have been said about this planet and while certainly the planet did not become an organism, parts of it did.

Well, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...
Actually I have no problem with it, just showed how reliable your proclamations are.

Simple truth. The Bible does not define a person from conception.
Click to expand...
Does it define anything at conception the way you understand it?

My stance is despite the bible, not due to it. It overlaps at time, but I don't rely on the Bible.
Click to expand...
Well you shun science too, so what is the basis of your stance?
 
prometeus said:
See what? How do you know. The same cold have been said about this planet and while certainly the planet did not become an organism, parts of it did.
Click to expand...

Life developed on the planet...parts of the planet did not become life.

Actually I have no problem with it, just showed how reliable your proclamations are.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Does it define anything at conception the way you understand it?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I'm not here to preach the Bible.

Well you shun science too, so what is the basis of your stance?
Click to expand...

I'm not shunning either, certainly not Science. A new human life begins at conception....that is entirely supported by science.
 
mac said:
Life developed on the planet...parts of the planet did not become life.
Click to expand...
That is what I said and you have not refuted the underlying principle.

I'm not shunning either, certainly not Science.
Click to expand...
Right, you cherry pick fragments that you can misrepresent to support your position.

A new human life begins at conception....that is entirely supported by science.
Click to expand...
Yes it does and is.
 
prometeus said:
That is what I said and you have not refuted the underlying principle.
Click to expand...

That is not what you said...specially if you think that a rock is an organism.

Right, you cherry pick fragments that you can misrepresent to support your position.
Click to expand...

I've not cherry-picked a thing. Not one. A ZEF is a homo sapien from the moment of conception.

Yes it does and is.
Click to expand...

Well, done.
 
mac said:
That is not what you said...
Click to expand...
But i did, so again you are lying or simply do not understand.
The same cold have been said about this planet and while certainly the planet did not become an organism, parts of it did.
Click to expand...
So tell me how is that different?

specially if you think that a rock is an organism.
Click to expand...
did I say it was?

I've not cherry-picked a thing. Not one. A ZEF is a homo sapien from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
And now the standard denial when shown to be wrong yet again. A ZEF is not a homo sapien but will be one. Just because based on DNA its biological classification is homo sapien it does not make it one. If it was one it would posses the characteristics of homo sapiens. Can you list any?
 
nathanjames1791 said:
You call pro-lifers hypocrites, yet you seem to care about the illegals entering the U.S.. Yet by your own definition they are not citizens becuase they are not born here and therefore do not have the same rights as you and I. You claim that includes the right to life. So what your saying someone can kill any non citizen without any moral or legal repurcussions??? If these rights are only for citizens then no one outside the U.S. has the right to life. That is rediculous and I know you do not believe this. This is the BIGGEST hypocricy I can think of.
Click to expand...

Pro-lifers generally take simpleton approaches absolutely refusing to discuss or being incapable of grasping the tangible legal effects of their own proposals. Instead they just rage "abortion is killing children!" and then try to divert every topic to that issue.

If the constitution were changed to "life begins at conception" - then any woman who claimed she is 1.) fertile and 2.) had sex in the USA could not be deported because their MIGHT be "an American citizen" conceived within her. Any American who became pregnant while on vacation would have a NON-AMERICAN child.

Actually that is a simple legal concepts for your slogans.

You, instead, trying to convert this to my claiming that non-Americans can be killed is what is ridiculous.

"Life begins at conception" means that "anchor babies" (children born to illegal immigrants) would become "anchor sex" - any fertile woman who claimed she had sex in the USA, within USA territorial waters or over USA airspace, plus any tourist or green-card worker in the USA. Obviously you couldn't deport a woman pregnant with "an American citizen" inside her, and numerous medical experts (thousands) could testify truthfully that breast feeding is beneficial to newborns, so she couldn't be deported for at least a year after birth. Even then, it could be claimed that is cruel to the American child.

Airlines and customs generally will NOT allow notably pregnant non-American women into the USA, in part to avoid "anchor babies." There is no manner of preventing "anchor sex."

So, do you support "anchor sex" as a new method of citizenship?
 
joko104 said:
Pro-lifers generally take simpleton approaches absolutely refusing to discuss or being incapable of grasping the tangible legal effects of their own proposals. Instead they just rage "abortion is killing children!" and then try to divert every topic to that issue.
Click to expand...

Not true at all, I am more than willing to entertain discussion of the consequences of a ban, but...all I've ever gotten a pro-choicer to do is say "You don't want to talk about the ramifications!" and then ignore every attempt to do that. :shrug: I guess the paradigm is easier to face than reality.

If the constitution were changed to "life begins at conception" - then any woman who claimed she is 1.) fertile and 2.) had sex in the USA could not be deported because their MIGHT be "an American citizen" conceived within her. Any American who became pregnant while on vacation would have a NON-AMERICAN child.
Click to expand...

A personhood amendment does not necessarily alter citizenship, the "anchor baby" is one who is born in the the US not concieved in the US. Further, regardless of where it's born, the offspring of Americans is an American under current law.

Actually that is a simple legal concepts for your slogans.
Click to expand...

No, it's your slogans replacing simple legal concepts.

You, instead, trying to convert this to my claiming that non-Americans can be killed is what is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not really, considering that you are confusing the definitions of citizen and person.

"Life begins at conception" means that "anchor babies" (children born to illegal immigrants) would become "anchor sex" - any fertile woman who claimed she had sex in the USA, within USA territorial waters or over USA airspace, plus any tourist or green-card worker in the USA. Obviously you couldn't deport a woman pregnant with "an American citizen" inside her, and numerous medical experts (thousands) could testify truthfully that breast feeding is beneficial to newborns, so she couldn't be deported for at least a year after birth. Even then, it could be claimed that is cruel to the American child.
Click to expand...

No, that would require that the definition of US citizen be changed as well.

Airlines and customs generally will NOT allow notably pregnant non-American women into the USA, in part to avoid "anchor babies." There is no manner of preventing "anchor sex."
Click to expand...

Well, considering your conlfation, how would allowing a person who conceived outside the US have anything to do with anything?

So, do you support "anchor sex" as a new method of citizenship?
Click to expand...

I think sex with anchors is probably unhealthy.
 
prometeus said:
But i did, so again you are lying or simply do not understand.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand...and you are moving the goal posts.

did I say it was?
Click to expand...

You implied it could be, and it can't.

And now the standard denial when shown to be wrong yet again. A ZEF is not a homo sapien but will be one. Just because based on DNA its biological classification is homo sapien it does not make it one. If it was one it would posses the characteristics of homo sapiens. Can you list any?
Click to expand...

Well, this is quite simply false. Pretty much everyone knows that but you. :shrug:
 
joko104 said:
Pro-lifers generally take simpleton approaches absolutely refusing to discuss or being incapable of grasping the tangible legal effects of their own proposals. Instead they just rage "abortion is killing children!" and then try to divert every topic to that issue.

If the constitution were changed to "life begins at conception" - then any woman who claimed she is 1.) fertile and 2.) had sex in the USA could not be deported because their MIGHT be "an American citizen" conceived within her. Any American who became pregnant while on vacation would have a NON-AMERICAN child.

Actually that is a simple legal concepts for your slogans.

You, instead, trying to convert this to my claiming that non-Americans can be killed is what is ridiculous.

"Life begins at conception" means that "anchor babies" (children born to illegal immigrants) would become "anchor sex" - any fertile woman who claimed she had sex in the USA, within USA territorial waters or over USA airspace, plus any tourist or green-card worker in the USA. Obviously you couldn't deport a woman pregnant with "an American citizen" inside her, and numerous medical experts (thousands) could testify truthfully that breast feeding is beneficial to newborns, so she couldn't be deported for at least a year after birth. Even then, it could be claimed that is cruel to the American child.

Airlines and customs generally will NOT allow notably pregnant non-American women into the USA, in part to avoid "anchor babies." There is no manner of preventing "anchor sex."

So, do you support "anchor sex" as a new method of citizenship?
Click to expand...
Ohhhhh I see what you are getting at. Still doesnt change the fact that you say that people not born in the U.S. dont have the right to life (which is your reasoning for why ZEF's dont have any rights) and you cant get around that.
Ok so lets assume they do change the law saying concieved in America (which would be rediculous becuase I unlike you think that every human has a right to life regardless of citizenship but for the sake of argument Ill go with it) so what, some more people would get citizenship big deal. I would like to see the law ammended so the whole anchor thing goes away anyways, so sure no big deal.
 
nathanjames1791 said:
Ohhhhh I see what you are getting at. Still doesnt change the fact that you say that people not born in the U.S. dont have the right to life (which is your reasoning for why ZEF's dont have any rights) and you cant get around that.
Ok so lets assume they do change the law saying concieved in America (which would be rediculous becuase I unlike you think that every human has a right to life regardless of citizenship but for the sake of argument Ill go with it) so what, some more people would get citizenship big deal. I would like to see the law ammended so the whole anchor thing goes away anyways, so sure no big deal.
Click to expand...

Prove I ever said that people not born in the USA do not have a right to life after being born.

So I gather you want children born to illegal immigrants in the USA evicted upon birth? So you not ONLY don't care about children upon birth, you want them thrown out of the country! Any other retalitations or punitive actions you want taken against newborn babies for the offenses of their parents? What other crimes of parents would to attach to babies when they are born?
 
mac said:
Not really, considering that you are confusing the definitions of citizen and person.
Click to expand...
Citizenship is a set of rights that attaches to a person through defined natural and other processes. You are quite plainly trying to change the trigger for legal personhood from a standard of being born alive to one of being conceived at all, even though no one can tell when that actually occurs. You either have to move all of the things that are contemporaneous with personhood back by nine months as well, or you have to admit that what your conception-based regime creates is some inferior grade of quasi-person that does not merit having all the rights of personhood attached to it, which would again beg the question of why it should have any at all.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Citizenship is a set of rights that attaches to a person through defined natural and other processes.
Click to expand...

True.

You are quite plainly trying to change the trigger for legal personhood from a standard of being born alive to one of being conceived at all, even though no one can tell when that actually occurs.
Click to expand...

It's quite clearly define when conception occurs.

You either have to move all of the things that are contemporaneous with personhood back by nine months as well,
Click to expand...

No you don't, and...

or you have to admit that what your conception-based regime creates is some inferior grade of quasi-person that does not merit having all the rights of personhood attached to it, which would again beg the question of why it should have any at all.
Click to expand...

Rights are added on as we grow. Infants and toddlers do not have the same rights (or extent of rights) as do grown persons. The law and society recognizes classes, and which rights apply to specific classes. Minors do not have many rights that adults have, this is nothing new.
 
joko104 said:
Prove I ever said that people not born in the USA do not have a right to life after being born.

So I gather you want children born to illegal immigrants in the USA evicted upon birth? So you not ONLY don't care about children upon birth, you want them thrown out of the country! Any other retalitations or punitive actions you want taken against newborn babies for the offenses of their parents? What other crimes of parents would to attach to babies when they are born?
Click to expand...
Yes they are evicted with there mothers. I dont see anything wrong with that, I mean so what they go back and live in Mexico, last time I checked there are worse places to live. I dont attach any punishments to the children. In fact for the child's sake I wouldn't have the parents convicted.
 
Thunder said:
of course ZEFs are not citizens.

seems pretty common sense to me.
Click to expand...

Though many think that (at least the Fetus) should have rights...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom