• 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
Jerry said:
Well, after a little while we call them saplings, and saplings are oak trees too.
Click to expand...

So why do we call them acorns or saplings? It's still quite puzzling. I mean, why wouldn't we just call them oak trees while we hold the acorn in our hand?
 
rivrrat said:
I wonder why we call them acorns then? Puzzling.

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:
Click to expand...

What we blindly, ignorantly, unthinkingly call something doesn't change what it is.

An acorn is a very young "organism."

The offspring of an Oak tree.

Your sarcasm asside, I think I'll do the poll for my own reference.
 
rivrrat said:
So why do we call them acorns or saplings? It's still quite puzzling. I mean, why wouldn't we just call them oak trees while we hold the acorn in our hand?
Click to expand...

I suppose for the same reason we call them "babes" or "children".

"Acorn" is a stage of development, not a species. Like a ZEF, an acorn is a unique organism even while still attached to the tree.
 
Jerry said:
I suppose for the same reason we call them "babes" or "children".

"Acorn" is a stage of development, not a species.
Click to expand...

Indeed! So do you think it would be unusual to call an acorn a 'sapling' or an 'oak tree'? Or to call a full grown oak tree a 'sapling' or 'acorn'?
 
rivrrat said:
Indeed! So do you think it would be unusual to call an acorn a 'sapling' or an 'oak tree'? Or to call a full grown oak tree a 'sapling' or 'acorn'?
Click to expand...

Would it be unusual to refer to each of them individually as "oaks?"

I don't see why it would.

Sleep happens,... I'm outie.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
What we blindly, ignorantly, unthinkingly call something doesn't change what it is.
Click to expand...
So, calling an acorn an acorn is... ignorant?

An acorn is a very young "organism."

The offspring of an Oak tree.
Click to expand...
And yet, we don't consider it an oak tree.

Your sarcasm asside, I think I'll do the poll for my own reference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how about you don't quote me out of context again and use the out of context quote to make a poll about something my quote had nothing to do with, mkay?
 
rivrrat said:
Indeed! So do you think it would be unusual to call an acorn a 'sapling' or an 'oak tree'? Or to call a full grown oak tree a 'sapling' or 'acorn'?
Click to expand...

"Tree" is not a stage of development, but a family of species.

"Tree" as opposed to "shrub" or "fern".

It would indeed be unusual to call an acorn a sapling just is it would be unusual to call an infant an adolescent.

However, calling an acorn a "tree" is no more unusual then caling an infant a homosapien.
 
Jerry said:
"Tree" is not a stage of development, but a family of species.

"Tree" as opposed to "shrub" or "fern".

It would indeed be unusual to call an acorn a sapling just is it would be unusual to call an infant an adolescent.

However, calling an acorn a "tree" is no more unusual then caling an infant a homosapien.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we're in agreement. Too bad Chuz doesn't get it.
 
rivrrat said:
I'm glad we're in agreement. Too bad Chuz doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

Win a WG for me :2wave:

My personal favorite is driving a catapult in defensive battles :mrgreen:
 
rivrrat said:
So, calling an acorn an acorn is... ignorant?
Click to expand...

It is if you do so with the intent of denying the fact that it is a very young oak tree,.. yes.

Absolutely.

rivrrat said:
And yet, we don't consider it an oak tree.
Click to expand...

As if intent would change what it is.

I consider it an oak tree,... because it is to be a very very young oak tree. My intent, however is not what makes it a very very young oak tree. It would still be an very very young oak tree,... As it would still be what it is,.. even if I were to deny it.

rivrrat said:
Yeah, how about you don't quote me out of context again and use the out of context quote to make a poll about something my quote had nothing to do with, mkay?
Click to expand...

You were not taken out of context in any way shape or form. I'll note that you even voted in the affirmative on the poll.

That's a bit of an odd way to feign outrage,... dontcha think?

:doh
 
This :

egg.jpg


Is not this :

chicken.jpg


And this :

acorn.jpg


Is not this :

Oak_tree.jpg


Seriously. I can't believe I am explaining concepts with pictures to adults.
 
Last edited:
An acorn is not an oak tree.
 
Hatuey said:
This :

egg.jpg


Is not this :

chicken.jpg


And this :

acorn.jpg


Is not this :

Oak_tree.jpg


Seriously. I can't believe I am explaining concepts with pictures to adults.
Click to expand...

Right, those are all different stages of development.
 
Hatuey said:
This : <sniopped for brevityy>

Seriously. I can't believe I am explaining concepts with pictures to adults.
Click to expand...

Seriously, A fertilized chicken egg is a young chicken and an acorn is the young of it's species.

It seems, some of us can think a little deeper than others,... even at the risk of ridicule by those who can't. (won't)
 
Chuz Life said:
You were not taken out of context in any way shape or form. I'll note that you even voted in the affirmative on the poll.

That's a bit of an odd way to feign outrage,... dontcha think?

:doh
Click to expand...

I hadn't even read what you quoted of me until after I voted. Regardless of how I voted, it doesn't change the FACT that you quoted that statement out of the context it was used. What you quoted of me had to do with you making some asinine assertion that people were stating mammals go through a metamorphosis and actually change from one organism to another. What in the bloody hell does that have to do with 'when life biologically starts'? How can you even pretend not to realize how out of context that quote was used? For people who read the quote prior to voting, it changed the scope and meaning of your poll entirely.
 
Chuz Life said:
Seriously, A fertilized chicken egg is a young chicken and an acorn is the young of it's species.

It seems, some of us can think a little deeper than others,... even at the risk of ridicule by those who can't. (won't)
Click to expand...

As long as you're still claiming that 'birth' starts the moment of conception, you'll be ridiculed. :2wave:
 
Hatuey said:
As long as you're still claiming that 'birth' starts the moment of conception, you'll be ridiculed. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't know that any pro-lifer has ever claimed that.

Life begins at conception, but life does not begin at birth.
 
Hatuey said:
As long as you're still claiming that 'birth' starts the moment of conception, you'll be ridiculed. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
I don't know that any pro-lifer has ever claimed that.
Click to expand...

Chuz Life said:
A person is "born" at the moment of their conception.

That's when they are actually "created" or "brought into existence."

"Birth" delivering a baby from the mother's womb,...is just a change of address for the child who already has been living for about 9 months.
Click to expand...

Now you do. A person claimed you're 'born' the minute you are conceived. Please Jerry. Don't EVEN think about defending such bull**** with your usual semantic games.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
The relevant text of the Constitution (to this question) is this;

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does the Constitution apply to and protect the "biological" aspect of a human individual (person) or the metaphysical aspect (souls, personality, etc.)?

If you are one who believes in the separation of church and state, answer carefully.
Click to expand...

It protects a legal person.
 
Key word in that entire post is : BORN.
 
Chuz Life said:
That is how the writers of the amendment define what a "citizen" is.

Not what a "person" is.

Read what the amendment says.... You do not have to be a "citizen" (person born or naturalized) to have a right to your life, liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is it still going over your heads?



Click to expand...

By my example it defines what a person is. Since it is all one paragraph it is obviously using the same defination of "born". The constitution does not consider a fetus to be a person. I've already shown why. Otherwise a baby concieved in Mexico would not be considered a US citizen even if born in the US. It would be considered a Mexican citizen.

It would be idiotic of those that put that into the Constitution to use two different definations of one word in one paragraph.

Sorry but you can't use one defination for one thing and then use a different defination when it suits your purposes. Everything about that amendment you quoted is specifically geared towards babies (and on up) that are not in their mothers womb.
 
Jerry said:
I don't know that any pro-lifer has ever claimed that.

Life begins at conception, but life does not begin at birth.
Click to expand...

I think what he is objecting to is my pointing out the definitions of the word "born" and showing how "conception" is more the event where a new person "comes into existence" than "birth" is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom