• 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
Chuz Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

What makes a person a person?
 
Chuz Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't point out anything. You made up a definition for the event known as a birth to fit your agenda. Do you not understand this yet?
 
Hatuey said:
You didn't point out anything. You made up a definition for the event known as a birth to fit your agenda. Do you not understand this yet?
Click to expand...

I don't need to make anything up.

BORN

    1. Brought into life by birth.
    2. Brought into existence; created: A new nation was born with the revolution.- American heritage Dictionary
 
Kal'Stang said:
What makes a person a person?
Click to expand...

This is a fair question. I will answer it in greater detail later (time permitting)

The short answer is; A "person" is at the very least a living "human being." A human individual. A human "organism." All different ways of saying the same thing.

And even a human zygote qualifies for that narrow and basic standard/ definition.
 
Ethereal said:
It (the Constitution) protects a legal person.
Click to expand...

I agree.

That is one of the reasons for why Roe. v. Wade is Un-Constitutional law.

PERSON. - FindLaw.com - Legal Dictionary

[SIZE=+1]natural person[/SIZE] : a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law
 
Chuz Life said:
BORN
1. Brought into life by birth.
2. Brought into existence; created: A new nation was born with the revolution.- American heritage Dictionary
Click to expand...
This looks suspiciously like you looked up 'born' in the dictionary, realised that the common use of neither definition matched your agenda (in fact; almost completely opposed it, as do the definitions for birth) and decided that the only solution matching your aims was to attempt to create a new common usage for the second definition, based on your preconcieved (no pun intended) notion that conception is 'the start of existence'.

As your poll on this forum (and others) shows, that is by no means a consensus opinion.
 
Sexual Intercourse does not a baby make. It does necessarily an immediate conception make.

"Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your period begins. To calculate your due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time. "

Fetal development: The first trimester - MayoClinic.com
 
iangb said:
This looks suspiciously like you looked up 'born' in the dictionary, realised that the common use of neither definition matched your agenda (in fact; almost completely opposed it, as do the definitions for birth) and decided that the only solution matching your aims was to attempt to create a new common usage for the second definition, based on your preconcieved (no pun intended) notion that conception is 'the start of existence'.

As your poll on this forum (and others) shows, that is by no means a consensus opinion.
Click to expand...

:spin:<--- detected

Common useage,.. consensus?

Can anyone say "Flat Earther?"

The facts are what they are,... a new organism (forget humans for a second),... a new organism "comes into being," that is,... "comes into existence" at the moment it is "conceived."

It's a biological fact.

Whether it is commonly regarded as a "birth" or whether we have a consensus is a completely seperate matter as to what the biological facts are.
 
Last edited:
The facts are what they are,... a new organism (forget humans for a second),... a new organism "comes into being, comes into existence" at the moment it is "conceived."

It's a biological fact.

Whether it is commonly regarded as a "birth" or whether we have a consensus is a completely seperate matter as to what the biological facts are.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. 'Biological fact' is simply what the scientific consensus states at the time - and there is no scientific consensus on the matter. Nor is it even a particularly scientific question - the argument is almost entirely semantic in nature.

To quote from here:
"[Whether a zygote is an organism or not] isn't a topic of concern in the scientific community. In fact, it isn't even really science! Science is testable and falsifiable; my view is neither. This does not make it a religious view, however; consider the fact that neither is your position in this argument! It is philosophy and semantics; taxonomy with some deep thoughts, if you will!"
 
iangb said:
This is simply not true. 'Biological fact' is simply what the scientific consensus states at the time - and there is no scientific consensus on the matter. Nor is it even a particularly scientific question - the argument is almost entirely semantic in nature.

To quote from here:
"[Whether a zygote is an organism or not] isn't a topic of concern in the scientific community. In fact, it isn't even really science! Science is testable and falsifiable; my view is neither. This does not make it a religious view, however; consider the fact that neither is your position in this argument! It is philosophy and semantics; taxonomy with some deep thoughts, if you will!"
Click to expand...

Ian,.. isn't it beneath you to use one man's opinion on a blog as a reference to support your claims?

There is scientific consensus regarding human conception being the biological beginning of a new human's (human organism's) life.

You just don't want to accept it.

Like I said,.. Yours is a "flat earth" mentality.

From the very source you referenced;

Animals that use internal fertilization specialize in the protection of the developing egg. For example, reptiles and birds secrete eggs that are covered by a protective shell that is resistant to water loss and damage. Mammals, with the exception of monotremes, take this idea of protection a step further by allowing the embryo to develop within the mother. This extra protection increases the chances of survival because mom supplies everything that the embryo needs. In fact, most mammalian mothers continue to care for their young for several years after birth.

Would you like to see even more references from your site?

I've only began to read some of them.
 
Last edited:
Ian,.. isn't it beneath you to use one man's opinion on a blog as a reference to support your claims?
...

From the very source you referenced;
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I'm now a little confused.

Of the three URLs given in my previous post, one links to a post of mine made on 4forums which sums up various 'scientific opinions' on the matter, one links to the Court ruling from Roe vs Wade and one links to a page on allexperts.com, which describes itself as being "the very first large-scale question and answer service on the net!". None of them are 'one mans opinion on a blog', unless you are counting Dr. Kalstrom's answer from AllAnswers, which I included because he is somewhat qualified to talk on the subject, having as he does a PhD in biology.

Furthermore, none of the links went to (or even made further reference to, as far as I can tell) the about.com page that you say I referenced. Where did it come from?

Even more furthermore, with regards to the contents of the about.com page itself: how is this related to your claim that a zygote is an organism, or that a humans life begins at conception? The fact that a human embryo develops within the mother is not one which you will find me contesting - just as sperm cells develop in the testes. This says nothing about whether a zygote (or even the developing embryo mentioned) is a person, nor an organism in it's own right. All it says is that an embryo is alive - a fact that I also do not question (albeit on a cellular level).
 
Last edited:
Chuz I think see what you're saying:

The 9 months in the womb for mammals (Humans in this case) are like the first 9 months after conception in other animals/organisms, regardless of where they are (physically residing)?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Chuz I think see what you're saying:

The 9 months in the womb for mammals (Humans in this case) are like the first 9 months after conception in other animals/organisms, regardless of where they are (physically residing)?
Click to expand...

That's correct,... even though I hadn't actually thought of it like that, myself.
 
Chuz Life said:
That's correct,... even though I hadn't actually thought of it like that, myself.
Click to expand...

Then for you "birth" isn't any more of a definition of humanity or personhood than learning to walk or starting to eat solid foods? It's just another step on the path to maturity/development. Because if the new human begins at conception, all points afterwords are just benchmarks.

am I close?
 
iangb said:
I have to admit, I'm now a little confused.

Of the three URLs given in my previous post, one links to a post of mine made on 4forums which sums up various 'scientific opinions' on the matter, one links to the Court ruling from Roe vs Wade and one links to a page on allexperts.com, which describes itself as being "the very first large-scale question and answer service on the net!". None of them are 'one mans opinion on a blog', unless you are counting Dr. Kalstrom's answer from AllAnswers, which I included because he is somewhat qualified to talk on the subject, having as he does a PhD in biology.

Furthermore, none of the links went to (or even made further reference to, as far as I can tell) the about.com page that you say I referenced. Where did it come from?

Even more furthermore, with regards to the contents of the about.com page itself: how is this related to your claim that a zygote is an organism, or that a humans life begins at conception? The fact that a human embryo develops within the mother is not one which you will find me contesting - just as sperm cells develop in the testes. This says nothing about whether a zygote (or even the developing embryo mentioned) is a person, nor an organism in it's own right. All it says is that an embryo is alive - a fact that I also do not question (albeit on a cellular level).
Click to expand...

Ian,.. do tell me what you require in the way of proof that a zygote is an organism,... and that there is a consensus in the scientific community as to the fact that conception begins a new organisms life...

Maybe then I can address your concerns in a more direct manner.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Then for you "birth" isn't any more of a definition of humanity or personhood than learning to walk or starting to eat solid foods? It's just another step on the path to maturity/development. Because if the new human begins at conception, all points afterwords are just benchmarks.

am I close?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are close.

However, you are also slightly understating my case.

I am more driven by the ideals expressed in the Constitution (regarding our basic rights) than I am by their focus (context) at the time.

I believe a child's right to the life they are living should begin when their life begins.... and not just when we (as a society) can't justify their denial anymore.

That's about as far as I go (or feel I need to go) where the "humanity" aspects are concerned.
 
Chuz Life said:
Yes, you are close.

However, you are also slightly understating my case.

I am more driven by the ideals expressed in the Constitution (regarding our basic rights) than I am by their focus (context) at the time.

I believe a child's right to the life they are living should begin when their life begins.... and not just when we (as a society) can't justify their denial anymore.

That's about as far as I go (or feel I need to go) where the "humanity" aspects are concerned.
Click to expand...


Well that's your belief then. :D Excellent.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Then for you "birth" isn't any more of a definition of humanity or personhood than learning to walk or starting to eat solid foods? It's just another step on the path to maturity/development. Because if the new human begins at conception, all points afterwords are just benchmarks.

am I close?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are close.

However, you are also slightly understating my case.

I am more driven by the ideals expressed in the Constitution (regarding our basic rights) than I am by their focus (context) at the time.

I believe a child's right to the life they are living should begin when their life begins.... and not just when we (as a society) can't justify their denial anymore.

That's about as far as I go (or feel I need to go) where the "humanity" aspects are concerned.

EpicDude86 said:
Well that's your belief then. Excellent.
Click to expand...

And your belief is?

What?

Specifically?
 
Chuz Life said:
And your belief is?

What?

Specifically?
Click to expand...


I put a little stake in most sensible ideas, but I probably would say I believe that personhood begins, at the very earliest, when the nervous system and consciousness are fully developed. However, I also believe that the fetus is a parasite while it's inside Mommy (That's my daughter's nickname since her time in utero) and who am I to tell someone what to do with something in their body when it's not directly affecting myself or society on the whole? Even if they were dumb enough to accidentally put it in there themselves.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I put a little stake in most sensible ideas, but I probably would say I believe that personhood begins, at the very earliest, when the nervous system and consciousness are fully developed. However, I also believe that the fetus is a parasite while it's inside Mommy (That's my daughter's nickname since her time in utero) and who am I to tell someone what to do with something in their body when it's not directly affecting myself or society on the whole? Even if they were dumb enough to accidentally put it in there themselves.
Click to expand...

I see.

So help me out here, Dude.

In my summary,... when I say "to *you, a child is not a child nor entitled to a right to his or her life,... until they live too long so as to breech your ability to deny them" what part (if any) of that would you disagree with?

And why?

*You= figuratively speaking -"you"
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
I don't need to make anything up.

BORN

    1. Brought into life by birth.
    2. Brought into existence; created: A new nation was born with the revolution.- American heritage Dictionary
Click to expand...

Funny how you disregard the 1st definition of birth for some obscure romanticized version of it. Your dishonesty is in spades now. Enjoy your fundy thread.
 
Hatuey said:
Funny how you disregard the 1st definition of birth for some obscure romanticized version of it. Your dishonesty is in spades now. Enjoy your fundy thread.
Click to expand...

I posted the definitions.

BOTH of them,...

How do you get that I disregard either of them?

:doh

Per the definitons, it is completely appropriate to say that a child is "born" when they are delivered from their mother's womb.

And per those same definitions,.. it is also completely appropriate to say that a child is "born" (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception.

Same word, different meanings for different sets of circumstances.
 
Chuz Life said:
I posted the definitions.

BOTH of them,...
Click to expand...

And highlighted the one which fit your fundamentalist agenda. Just like you completely ignored the part of the constitution which says a person has to be born to make your argument. You fool nobody with your definition games a la 'define is'. Please stop?
 
Chuz Life said:
I see.

So help me out here, Dude.

In my summary,... when I say "to *you, a child is not a child nor entitled to a right to his or her life,... until they live too long so as to breech your ability to deny them" what part (if any) of that would you disagree with?

And why?

*You= figuratively speaking -"you"
Click to expand...

I'd say that there is no "right" to life, only a chance. Because if there was a right to life then someone may want to have a little chat with Mother Nature...bitch kills babies ALL the damn time. However, that doesn't give grown human beings prudence in deciding when it's time to recognize the "rights" of the fetus or not. As usual it's a little black, a little white, lots of gray issue and it's largely up to individuals rather than the majority to decide this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom