New poll/Old poll

poll%20graphic%20correct%20size.bmpThe new poll question is up:

There appears to be a growing movement among state pro-life groups to advance personhood/human life initiatives. These would define legally protected persons as human beings from the moment of conception. Thoughts?

Thanks to commenter Reality for suggesting. Great question.
Janet Huckabee beat all other spouses combined as your pick on who would best grace the President’s arm and East Wing….


Slide1-2.jpg

With 400 votes it might be hard to find your little flag, but it’s there! Click to enlarge:

Be sure to make your comments on either poll here,not on the Vizu website.

45 thoughts on “New poll/Old poll”

  1. Yes it is, I liked Huckabee too. Especially having worked on his first campaign back in 1992. Great man.
    Sad to see that over a quarter of the poll-takers voted for a pro-abortion candidate’s wife.

  2. human beings from the moment of conception? that’s a terrible idea. That would cause difficulties for abortion and many birth control techniques.

  3. There is no beating heart at the moment of conception Heather.
    The heart isn’t even developed to the point of being functional until approx. 3-4 weeks post-conception…the heart begins forming at approx. 3 weeks (as a tube…much like a developed earthworm heart) and it begins beating rhythmically at approx. 4-5 weeks.
    SOURCE: MedlinePlus
    One of these days I have to get my mitts on the embryology books at my college bookstore…

  4. Since some of you are obviously new to this issue, here’s a tip: science textbooks plainly state that a new life begins at the moment of fertilization, not some arbitrary moment after.

  5. bmm39: No shitake mushrooms. I was also just pointing out that a beating heart has no real baring on whether something is “alive or dead”.
    If there are metabolic cell processes occurring (which there are in a developing embryo sans beating heart), then it’s alive.
    It grates my nerves when people say, “OMGZZZ! IT HAZ A BEATING HEART! ITZ ALIVEZZZ!!!ONE!!1!!” Because the beating heart is generally irrelevant to the biological definition of life…considering bacteria are alive and they lack a heart…and organs…and pretty much everything else that we humans anthropomorphically define as “life”.
    *twitch*

  6. Hal,
    A “blob of cells” would be cells not arranged in an orderly or systematic way.
    The systematic arrangement of cells in the embryonic stage is orderly.
    “Blob of cells” thus, doesn’t apply to an embryo.

  7. All four of the presidential spouses were composed of the entire set of DNA they have now back then they were smaller than the dot on the screen. (Okay hows that for trying to get back on topic! lol)

  8. EVERY embryology textbook affirms that human life begins at conception.
    Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
    “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
    Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
    “Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
    “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
    (updated, still the same)
    T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
    “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”
    READ MANY MORE REFERENCES TO HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION IN EMBRYOLOGY TEXTBOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS HERE
    http://www.clinicquotes.com/lifebegins.htm

  9. Doug,
    Janet Huckabee? Ay yi yi….
    The question wasn’t who would you prefer to see in an issue of Playboy…

  10. Hal,
    You got a block of wood.
    You got a “blob of cells”
    One will stay a block of wood.
    One is changing, growing, developing.
    The thing that separates the two is called “life”.
    Life is sacred.
    Life is precious.
    It is this very thing called “Life”, more specifically “Human Life” that we are talking about here.
    It is this that we defend.
    It is this that we protect.
    The very “thing” that keeps wood, wood, but makes embryos human.
    We may not be able to define, duplicate it, create it or hold it, but it is real and it is the most precious thing in this world. At any stage. No matter what organs it has or doesn’t have, no matter whether it is sentient, can feel pain, or date a midget, it is still what it is at the moment that a sperm unites with an egg. Something happens. Something miraculous, indefinable, unfathomable. And Life begins.
    Think about it.

  11. It’s too bad that Huckabee has pretty much lost.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at March 2, 2008 11:12 AM
    Lost what?

  12. human beings from the moment of conception? that’s a terrible idea. That would cause difficulties for abortion and many birth control techniques.
    Posted by: Hal at March 2, 2008 12:28 PM
    Oh the inconvenience of truth.
    Actually it only causes difficulties if you have a system that purports equal rights.
    When only some people have their rights recognized, you can do whatever you want so long as you are in the ‘have rights’ group and you only do it to those in the ‘have no rights’ group.
    When you live in a society like ours that denies rights to some, then the only problem is trying to say people have equal rights when really they don’t. There are those who have the privilege of killing those they don’t want. Instead of equal rights, we have special rights for some people and no rights for others.

  13. Hippie,
    “When you live in a society like ours that denies rights to some, then the only problem is trying to say people have equal rights when really they don’t. There are those who have the privilege of killing those they don’t want. Instead of equal rights, we have special rights for some people and no rights for others.”
    That actually isn’t true. Abortion is not possible because we, as a society, deny a fetus its human rights (assuming, as you do, that it is entitled to them) but because we do not grant them extra-ordinary rights. The right to life does not entail infringing upon another’s body without that other’s consent.

  14. Enigma,
    It’s not that a woman doesn’t have a right to her own body.
    We are discussing two rights here. The baby’s right to life. The woman’s right to autonomy.
    Without the right to life, autonomy is sort of irrelevant.
    Which right is more important? That’s the question.
    I can’t see how any right, anywhere at anytime for any reason can trump the first and foremost right. The right that allows you to live.
    It is so far up there, that no other rights even come close.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing that a woman has the right to her own body. But at what cost.
    Think poker.
    Right to autonomy? Full House.
    Right to life? Royal Flush…in spades.

  15. Enigma, this man was just convicted of 2 counts of murder. He lives in my state. He received a life sentence. Not 1, but 2 counts of murder.

  16. MK,
    Rights are not conditional; that is why they are called rights. You can’t argue that someone has a right when it doesn’t conflict with one of your beliefs and then argue that the same person doesn’t have that same right when it does. It’s either one or the other, not both. Logic and rights are not conditional.
    Simply because one right must necessarily come before another in order for that other to exist does not mean that the first right is more valuable than the other or should take precedence over it.
    I hate to admit this, but your poker analogy fell flat with me…i don’t play poker and have no idea what either of those hands mean.

  17. Heather,
    That in no way contradicts my own opinion; in fact, I applaud that sort of action (well, except for the whole fallacious “unborn child” label).

  18. How about the Scott Peterson case? The media always said that they were searching for Laci and Conner. Conner was also a person.

  19. Heather,
    And what does that prove?
    Emotional stories sell; the media was simply trying to milk a tragic story for all that it was worth.

  20. ” The right to life does not entail infringing upon another’s body without that other’s consent.”
    Once someone has created life, they cannot destroy that life, thats called murder.

  21. Emotional stories sell? Um, it was a true story about the murder of 2 innocent people. I’d love to see you spew that nonsense to Laci’s mother. That’s sad that you feel that you make up the rules.

  22. Once someone has created life, they cannot destroy that life, thats called murder.
    Posted by: jasper at March 3, 2008 3:24 PM————— That’s right. The legalization of abortion makes some people feel that it’s okay. That’s the biggest lie ever. It’s not okay. It’s murder.

  23. Heather,
    “Emotional stories sell? Um, it was a true story about the murder of 2 innocent people.”
    I never said it wasn’t true; I simply said that it was an emotional story. By and large, emotional stories sell news; the more emotional and, in some cases, tragic the story, the more the public will want to read about it. Of course the media would want to play up the emotional side of it as much as they could–that doesn’t mean that it isn’t terribly tragic on its own, but the media does, shall we say, put a certain spin on things.
    Regradless, simply because the media says something does not mean that it is true.
    “That’s sad that you feel that you make up the rules.”
    Where did I ever imply that?
    Ask any member of the media that you want–they’ll tell you that tragedy sells.

  24. Jasper,
    Technically, destroying human life is not murder but homicide.
    There is such a thing as self-defense; it is acceptable to use lethal means if that is the only option.

  25. How would the media benefit from playing into an emotional side? The media reported fact. The death of a woman and her child. Wouldn’t it be just as emotional if it were a dead woman only?

  26. Animal abuse is equally awful. The media reported facts in the latest animal abuse case. Cow slaughter.

  27. Heather,
    “How would the media benefit from playing into an emotional side?”
    You have to be joking; people lap up stories about sex, corruption, muder, and tragedy as though they were made of finely clotted cream. (I hope I got that metaphor right).
    Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is this: the media directly benefits from reporting sensational or “sensationalized” news. It only makes sense that the media would try to use terms to evoke as emotional a response as possible from their audience.
    “Wouldn’t it be just as emotional if it were a dead woman only?”
    There seems to be a gut reaction to children, and babies especially, that can sometims make stories dealing with them seem more tragic; so it would probably depend on the person.

Comments are closed.