• 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!

What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?

The United States Constitution protects

  • Total voters
    20
EpicDude86 said:
Does sperm really qualify as alive? I thought that sperm and eggs didn't qualify because they are not an organism in their own right and cannot reproduce themselves, they are a product of another organ.
Click to expand...
Hmm well then maybe PETA has a point. Why don't animals deserve a right to life as they meet all the criteria of life that embryos/fetuses do (usually more so). But we murder them daily just so McDonald's can stay in business. What's the difference?
 
Toothpicvic said:
Hmm well then maybe PETA has a point. Why don't animals deserve a right to life as they meet all the criteria of life that embryos/fetuses do (usually more so). But we murder them daily just so McDonald's can stay in business. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

I mean, I remember in High School that my biology teacher would talk about the "requirements for life" list of criteria. I posted something about it in that sperm thread in the hole...I'm trying to find a more detailed list, but it had essentially, it stated that if an being could do these specific tasks on its own then it was qualified as alive (And by that same list, Viruses are proven to be inanimate)

I'll find it somewhere, if I can find my old biology book maybe...:lol:
 
EpicDude86 said:
Sex does not a baby make. Sex makes a fertilized egg. Which then undergoes a process, with noticeable stages, before it becomes a fully functioning, or shall I say independently functioning, human being.
Click to expand...

The process of making a child is "sexual intercourse."

After that (if it is successfull in creating the new child,..) the only "process" taking place is the "child's" process of growing, developing and maturing.

The process of creation, the "bringing into existence",...

The BIRTH (in that respect)..... was completed after a sucessful conception.
 
EpicDude86 said:
"born or naturalized"

So I guess the unborn counteth not. I just solved the abortion debate!!
Click to expand...

You would think so, but birth is only a requirement to be a "citizen".

Birth is not a requirement to be a "person".
 
Chuz Life said:
The process of making a child is "sexual intercourse."

After that (if it is successfull in creating the new child,..) the only "process" taking place is the "child's" process of growing, developing and maturing.

The process of creation, the "bringing into existence",...

The BIRTH (in that respect)..... was completed after a sucessful conception.
Click to expand...

Do you eat cookie dough before you bake it because "well, I've mixed the ingredients so...****, I've got COOKIES!"
 
Chuz Life said:
The process of making a child is "sexual intercourse."

After that (if it is successfull in creating the new child,..)
Click to expand...
It is scientifically impossible to create a new child through conception. That would be gestation.

Chuz Life said:
the only "process" taking place is the "child's" process of growing, developing and maturing.
Click to expand...
That is scientifically incorrect. Fetuses/embryos are not homosapien by scientific definition.

Chuz Life said:
The process of creation, the "bringing into existence",...
The BIRTH (in that respect)..... was completed after a sucessful conception.
Click to expand...
That is scientifically incorrect. Birth (in the only respect) occurs after the baby has been delivered from the womb. Even anti-abortion people admit this (that's why they call fetuses embryos "unborn").
 
As far as the supreme court goes, they have not made a ruling on fetal person-hood. There is no scientific criteria either, leaving the term without objective meaning. It ultimately boils down to a subjective discussion about what qualities a fetus posses, what qualities a person possess, and if they overlap.
 
Yeah... weird... where's the sexual intercourse with test tube babies?
Click to expand...

That Tuckers day job actually, as he is the only guy capable of fitting in the test tube.:2razz:
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah... weird... where's the sexual intercourse with test tube babies?

:doh
Click to expand...

Sexual intercourse is one process (the one we are all most familiar with) for achieving conception.... I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be done in another way.

And thank you,.. Invitro fertilization actually helps to make the point (doesn't it?) that a child's life begins at conception.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Do you eat cookie dough before you bake it because "well, I've mixed the ingredients so...****, I've got COOKIES!"
Click to expand...

If cookies were living organisms,... you might have a point.

But they are not.

When you mix the ingrediants required to begin a child's life (sperm and egg)... the life begins.

"offspring" being the end product in creating a new organism,... conception achieves this task. (the rest is growth and further development)

The same can not be said for inanimate objects which do not have a life of their own.
 
Chuz Life said:
If cookies were living organisms,... you might have a point.

But they are not.

When you mix the ingrediants required to begin a child's life (sperm and egg)... the life begins.

"offspring" being the end product in creating a new organism,... conception achieves this task. (the rest is growth and further development)

The same can not be said for inanimate objects which do not have a life of their own.
Click to expand...

Living organism or not, we're talking about the stage at which we recognize it as a final product.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Living organism or not, we're talking about the stage at which we recognize it as a final product.
Click to expand...

No,...

Well,.. maybe YOU are...

I'm talking about the protection of someone's life from the moment it begins.... not just from the moment YOU can no longer stomach denying it.
 
Chuz Life said:
No,...

Well,.. maybe YOU are...

I'm talking about the protection of someone's life from the moment it begins.... not just from the moment YOU can no longer stomach denying it.
Click to expand...

Which is...when? At what point?

For bonus points, no opinions here, documented, scientific evidence if you can.


ok....GO!
 
Chuz Life said:
Sexual intercourse is one process (the one we are all most familiar with) for achieving conception.... I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be done in another way.

And thank you,.. Invitro fertilization actually helps to make the point (doesn't it?) that a child's life begins at conception.
Click to expand...

There is no point to be 'made'. There is no denying that an organism is created at conception.
 
Chuz Life said:
You say that,... but look at the results HERE.
Click to expand...

As I've already stated, that is not what they are denying. I've not seen a single person deny that life exists at creation. Not a single one. There is absolutely no possible way to deny that there is something living at conception.I've not seen a single person deny that an organism is created at conception.

I have, however, seen people deny that whats created is an 'individual' or 'viable' or a 'person' or 'independent' or a human 'being' or a 'homosapien'.

Additionally, the quote you used to start that thread is taken out of context and has nothing to do with life at conception. That probably causes some confusion for folks as well.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
As I've already stated, that is not what they are denying. I've not seen a single person deny that life exists at creation. Not a single one. There is absolutely no possible way to deny that there is something living at conception. I've not seen a single person deny that an organism is created at conception.

I have, however, seen people deny that whats created is an 'individual' or 'viable' or a 'person' or 'independent' or a human 'being' or a 'homosapien'.

Additionally, the quote you used to start that thread is taken out of context and has nothing to do with life at conception. That probably causes some confusion for folks as well.
Click to expand...

1: I linked to your comment,.. anyone who wants to can read your remarks in complete context. As well as the rest of our exchange.

2: If you would like another poll to show if "a single person" will "deny that an organism is created at conception" just say so.
 
Chuz Life said:
That's right.

An acorn is a very young Oak tree.

The "offspring" of it's parents reproductive system.
Click to expand...
I wonder why we call them acorns then? Puzzling.


Chuz Life said:
1: I linked to your comment,.. anyone who wants to can read your remarks in complete context. As well as the rest of our exchange.

2: If you would like another poll to show if "a single person" will "deny that an organism is created at conception" just say so.
Click to expand...

Dude, if I wish for poll to be created, I will create one. I need no one to be my proxy. But thanks so much for offering to be my poll slave. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom