Mississippi Personhood Amendment fails
So let’s keep this “personhood” stuff to a minimum, OK? It’s been repeatedly shut down because cuckoo-bananas politics simply doesn’t work. Get over it!
And to the freedom fighters out there, remember that Mississippi is far from being out of the woods (remember their one little abortion clinic in the entire state?!).
Keep up the great work!
~ Anti-Anti on the defeat of the Personhood Amendment in the November 8 MS election, Abortioneers, November 9
Nov.09, 2011 9:45 am |
Human Life Amendment |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I find it interesting – Health Care Reform wording was both too specific and detailed (it is 2000 pages plus!) and too vague (not enough specifics on abortion language).
This bill’s downfall is that it was too vague.
What is the desire of people? Something overly complicated that covers all the questions, or something simple that lets the courts decide over time?
Tough call. I was surprised it wasn’t even close – in Mississippi of all places.
Well, I think it’s safe to say that this “personhood” nonsense is pretty much finished. If it can’t play in a deep red Bible Belt state, it can’t play anywhere. Time to move onto the next abortive (pardon the pun) attempt at ending abortion.
enjoy it while you can joan – soon enough you will depart this life – and when you do, if all the prayers being said for you continue to fail, you will receive your just “reward” then
Dear monsters above, the personhood initiative was opposed by you because you are monsters. That is self-explanatory. However it was also opposed by National Right to Life and some Catholic bishops because it is poor strategy and will not accomplish anything on the state level. If it was a personhood amendment to the US Constitution, then the prolife groups would not have been divided.
So you monsters can crow about how even toothless yokels in the deep south (or fill in your own bigoted wording against Southerners) opposed this initiative, but it would be dishonest of you. Oh, look at me, talking about truth and lies to you! These are foreign concepts to you monsters.
Wow – talk about spreading some Christian love this morning.
John - who are you referring to? Your post is a bit vague.
The irony of the sign shown in the picture: “Trust Women.” The truth is, all unborn children are in grave danger becuase they can’t trust many, many women: not the proaborts who clamor for their legalized meaninglessnes nor even their own MOTHERS who can kill them on their lunch hour and pretend like nothing happened.
Sad, sad, sad.
Courtnay – would like your assessment on this.
It seems that there were three camps on this vote:
– Those who would vote yes regardless
– Those who would vote no regardless
– Those who would have voted yes, but thought the bill was too vague (even in the Governor’s endorsement of it, he said he had concerns of its vagueness).
Do you think there is a way that a personhood initiative could be drawn up with more specifics? Or in those specifics, would it render the initiative worthless because they would have to point out some obvious differences between the rights of a person pre birth and post birth.
Thoughts? Or am I being too vague here.
I know people are mad – but there were a lot of good hearted people in Mississippi against this – the vagueness of it was seen as a real opportunity to have R v Wade strengthened at the judicial level.
Wow, Bryan. Nothing brings out the morose thoughts like the early-morning aftermath of a political defeat, huh?
“I know people are mad – but there were a lot of good hearted people in Mississippi against this – the vagueness of it was seen as a real opportunity to have R v Wade strengthened at the judicial level.”
Let’s not overthink things. Most voters do not spend much time weighing the judicial implications of a referendum before voting on it. The “personhood amendment” failed here, and it will fail everywhere else it is tried, for a simple reason: people, intuitively, do not recognize fetuses, much less embryos, as “people”. If I were to ask 10 people on the street, picked at random, what makes a person a person, I would wager that not a single one of them would say that the one and only necessary condition is having unique human DNA.
Joan – I have no hard data – have not seen exit polls nor know if any were conducted…but from just reading articles of voters, it seems like there were a decent number of people that thought the measure was simply too vague.
Now, and my question eluded to it – if you said that a pre-born baby didn’t have the same rights as post-born baby, it clears up the vagueness, but does it render the whole amendment worthless? For instance, that social security numbers and tax breaks aren’t given until the baby is born…that pregnant women can’t drive in car pool lanes…etc…
(extreme sarcasm follows)
There are no persons down in Mississippi, because the state has voted that scientific facts are no longer true – facts are only true when the majority says so. Now human life doesn’t begin at conception/fertilization because a majority says so. What’s the next diktat – that ocean waves never crash against the shore? That the sky is green, not blue?
Will lawyers begin defending their clients from homicide-rape-(name a violent crime) charges by making the case no person was actually harmed, because simply no one knows when a “person” begins to exist or what even constitutes a “person”? If a person is not based on flesh and blood – then a human life may have been “terminated”, but the person was unharmed. Science be dammed – the people have spoken!
When will you take it to it’s logical conclusion, declaring all pro-lifers as non-persons, so you can kill us too? You have the votes – strike while the iron is hot! Then you can have all our possessions and we’ll never bother your consciences again. I hear some Frenchman named Guillotin invented a nifty device that’s great for severing relationships. And using your superior majority-based logic – no persons will have been harmed!!! So rest easy and chop your way to utopia!
(end to extreme sarcasm)
Don’t worry pro-choicers, the issue is not going away.
As for life – it will go on. We have younger generations of our own to teach – those we didn’t abort. Your culture is now ours to own.
It’s amazing to overhear bitter old women who look at vibrant young families and make snide remarks about too many kids. Yes – the ones sitting in retirement communities with no children coming to visit them, but show up at a pro-life neighbor’s door. It’s quite sad, and rather pathetic, and if one gently scratched the thick pancake makeup, I’m sure you’d find a post-abortive woman who made her choices in life never realizing the long term consequences would shrivel her heart tighter and smaller than the Grinch’s stone cold pebble of a heart.
She still votes – but soon she will pass away, and have a funeral with very few attending.
Life goes on.
Ex, excepting post/pro abortive mothers who necessarily must defend the non-humanity of a preborn human for their own mental health, I approach proabortion rights folk with the same disbelief as I would have approached a slave owner, a WWII era German Nazi, a Sanger eugenicist and say, Really?? Not a human? Not worth protecting? REALLY? It reminds me of a conversation I had once with my 3 year old who insisted the sky was green. (But it’s blue, Blaise. That’s the color we define as blue.)
Because we on the prolife side are right about this issue. No matter what laws transpire, no matter what way the wind blows on personhood, what keeps me going is the absolute 100% certainty that our cause is a just and righteous one.
I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker, so while I could argue that the law might have been constructed more specifically, the truth is I really don’t know. My heart is just grieved that we live in a country where the science and the heart all tell us that abortion kills a human being, but we ignore, deny, and hate. The killing continues. God must just be weeping.
Chris A–we posted at the same time! Do you have a child insist that the sky is no longer blue too?? LOL! :)
Trust women – but only if you’re born.
Courtnay – I wonder a bit – if personhood was established at first heartbeat, if that would change things. I do believe people see it as their fundamental right to use birth control – so that could factor in.
I think most people easily acknowledge that a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby has rights. I think where it gets fuzzy for a lot of people is the concept that a person can’t use birth control because they might kill a person that nobody really knows if it is there yet – you know what I mean?
Courtnay – wow that is funny! I had been composing that comment for a while and tried to think of something really simple to get the point across. Maybe the work of the Holy Spirit?
Sorry, but this whole thing was, well, for lack of a better term, an abortion. The fact of the matter is that we, as Christians, are trying to willingly violate and destroy the line that separates government assistance and meddling.
I’m pro-life for the most part (but I am only a guy and I believe that women SHOULD still have the option), but even my rather conservative Catholic family would agree that this personhood issue was just stupid. A fetus is a fetus. The immediate union isn’t a fetus, but a LIKELIHOOD to become a fetus. It could become a cyst and mess up. Does the cyst become a person? To take the slippery slope that created this debate in the first place to its logical conclusion, does that mean a cancer cell can be a person? That skin cells being shed is an act of genocide?
The Christian idea of protecting life is great, but we’re going to far with this question. We need to PROTECT the life we have, not focus on something that could likely miscarry because of medical/biological reasons. How about we protect and care for the elderly and destitute we have? Or those on death row who were actually innocent of the crimes of which they were accused?
EX, that’s an interesting point (defining the beginning of life as at the first heartbeat). I don’t think that’s true, but it may be easier to pass.
I’m not really surprised that it didn’t pass – it hasn’t passed many other places because I think there are too many questions and opinions out there for people to agree on it.
That’s a sad fact, but we really shouldn’t be dismayed. Our side is right. And honestly, if you look at the trends in society, I think the people’s hearts are beginning to change. There are a lot more pro-life young people. Pro-lifers are getting snazzier and smarter. We’re learning from the mistakes of the past.
Who are we fighting against? Death. One of the largest sellers of death is Planned Parenthood. How are they going about waging this war? Clever marketing. They are geniuses when it comes to marketing. I think a huge problem with many pro-lifers is that we are so zealous we fail to win over people who are in the middle, the actual people we are trying to help.
In order to win this fight, let’s try to market ourselves a little better. I’m not saying to change our position, but let’s try to learn to speak the language of the people around us, let’s understand the times and the needs of those who we are trying to convince.
Unlike many of my Catholic bros and sisters on this blog, I do not take a hard line approach to birth control, excepting abortifacients. Preventing babies, to me, is nowhere near the same as killing them once they’re here.
The problem with drawing the line somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is how incredibly random such a day or week is to determine personhood. If we say any fetus after 20 weeks can’t be aborted, what makes the fetus at 19 weeks, 6 days so different and so incredibly vulnerable because of a 24 hour difference?
What kills me is this idea that personhood is conferred from desiredness, not of isness, and that’s just wrong. Does that make sense?
Brony, you can’t be pro-life for the most part. You are pro-abortion because you think a woman should still have the option of killing her baby.
PS–look around you. If you haven’t noticed, many of the prolife folks are also the ones who volunteer at shelters, organize food banks, and hold diaper drops for poor moms.
PPS-You can never go too far in protecting life when the innocent are being picked off at a clip of 3500 a day. Just sayin.’
Don’t gloat too much miss anti-anti abortioneer. One day it will work.
CourtNEY (I prefer to have things spelled correctly), I am still pro life for the most part. I still support the idea of making life good and happy for those HERE. But I can still have a preference. However, I don’t see you lot volunteering. I see you commenting on a fanatic’s blog. Trying to get into an argument with someone.
But you and your fellow fanatics are asking for the government to MEDDLE. You can’t be asking for government aid (welfare, the 501(c)(3) status food banks can have to be tax exempt) and then elsewhere say that the government shouldn’t be meddling in your affairs. Here, the majority of people who view this blog would think that Obamacare is meddling and this amendment ISN’T.
Ex-GOP @ 10:58.
That’s a really valid point re: not being aware of a pregnancy and accidentally killing the child using birth-control. (Although I take that as an admission that birth control does work as an abortifacient.)
Even indicating that personhood begins with a heartbeat wouldn’t stop such accidents from happening – as embryonic heartbeats start at 18-21 days of gestation. 3 weeks may show symptoms of pregnancy for some women, while for others – no.
There’s a distinction between acts of commission and acts of negligence. With miscarriages, autopsies are not usually performed unless late in development and in-utero fetal demise is suspect. (Even with abortion available, some may choose other “methods”).
I don’t think the intent of passing a personhood amendment is to establish a state oversight of pregnancy (although I can see where liberals who love state oversight and big government would be disturbed by that potential reality – what they easily foresee being familiar with their own desires).
I do agree – working through all the implications of such an amendment is daunting, primarily because the legal code itself has become to a great extent void for vagueness.
Chris -
If the definition of life, in this amendement, is the moment of fertilization, than yes, some birth control could be ruled as causing an abortion. Proving it would be a different matter of course.
But yeah – I agree overall – who knows where the law would have been taken – tough to say.
To Chris and Ex-GOP
The problem is that, in cases of miscarriage, the gray area has to exist because miscarriage can happen for many reasons, not just from external forces (actions of people, in this case). The intent of the definition, however, appears to be the doing away with of abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood efforts to stem extra-marital pregnancy and the spread of STDs, and birth control, even if the last one is for legitimate hormone reasons.
Overall, this whole thing screams hypocrisy. Do people want the government to meddle in health care/self-care issues or not? Make up your mind, Ms. Stanek.
Brony, my name is spelled with an A. Have no idea why, but that’s how it’s spelled. You’re going to call me out on that? Really?
Brony, I have to jump in here. (First of all, maybe Courtnay really spells her name like that? Really shouldn’t be rude about people’s names… it just makes you look condescending and rude.)
First of all, we are NOT asking the government to meddle. I don’t necessarily think that the personhood amendments are the way to go, but I understand where they’re coming from. What we are asking is not money, bailouts, tax breaks, anything like that – but for the government to do its job by protecting the lives of its citizens, born and unborn. Is that really so much to ask? The government already has laws against killing born citizens… we are simply asking that the government officially extend the right to life (nothing else! Not the right to vote, receive social security numbers, what have you) to the unborn. We do not want to see babies killed inside the womb. So take a breath. We actually aren’t (at least, I and most pro-lifers on here) aren’t being hypocritical. We are simply asking the government to extend ONE basic, human right to the unborn – the right to life.
Now, as to your silly comments about not seeing us actually volunteer: are you with us every day? No. You have no clue what anyone on here does when they’re not on this board. There are 24 hours in a day. That leaves plenty of time when we *aren’t* commenting to be doing good deeds. And I know many people here do. So please get off your high horse and try to be reasonable. :) Thanks! It helps when we give people the benefit of the doubt, don’t you think?
What a victory!!!
test
Yes, Ashtar, if you want to kill your own child, then yes, it was a victory. For thge unborn child who cannot trust his own mother to let him live? Not so much.
Trust women — to kill?
@ courtnay and chris love the comments. i have to run to work but @ phillymiss can you elaborate on those women whob were sterilized yet not told. i saw a clip of this on tv but i wasnt sure what happened.
yeah trust women with unhealed hearts who will tell you to go kill your children and you too can end up a bitter old lady child hater
Joan: The “personhood amendment” failed here, and it will fail everywhere else it is tried, for a simple reason: people, intuitively, do not recognize fetuses, much less embryos, as “people”. If I were to ask 10 people on the street, picked at random, what makes a person a person, I would wager that not a single one of them would say that the one and only necessary condition is having unique human DNA.
Indeed. What makes a person? There are practically an infinite number of organisms with their own unique DNA, on our planet alone. When is personality present? When is there awareness? When is there “somebody” there?
I’d much rather have an amendment to the Constitution protecting ALL HUMAN life, born AND PRE-BORN….sort of how the 13th amendment abolished slavery.
I was once an embryo and so was everyone else. Your life began BEFORE you were born….its called fetal development and it takes nine months for a human being to grow from the tiny embryo to the newborn.
Courtnay: Unlike many of my Catholic bros and sisters on this blog, I do not take a hard line approach to birth control, excepting abortifacients. Preventing babies, to me, is nowhere near the same as killing them once they’re here.
Good for you, Courtnay. I agree.
____
The problem with drawing the line somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is how incredibly random such a day or week is to determine personhood. If we say any fetus after 20 weeks can’t be aborted, what makes the fetus at 19 weeks, 6 days so different and so incredibly vulnerable because of a 24 hour difference?
This is a valid point. There certainly is a range of time when things are developing in the fetus, becoming functional, becoming operational and connected. So, how about if we “err on the side of safety.” Personally, I’d say 22 weeks, so how about 20 weeks? How about 18 weeks? Are you going to agree? I don’t think so, and it’s not like the abortion debate would end, is it?
____
What kills me is this idea that personhood is conferred from desiredness, not of isness, and that’s just wrong. Does that make sense?
You make sense, but there is the very real question of when there’s enough going on in the brain and nervous system for “somebody” to be there. We’re talking about the physical nature of the unborn.
Doug, it has to be all or nothing. When we start parsing about the nervous system and personality, we get nowhere except at the realization that people have different abilities at different stages. Heck, I have a 13 year old daughter right now who isn’t all the time “there.” And brain function? Haha!
You like to get off on word games and definitions, but for me, that is a poor substitute for justice and equality. When a new human is here, he’s here (and you DO know what I mean by that), and he deserves protection, even from the mother who does not want him. Everyone who is here, young or old, deserves to be welcomed into the human family.
Courtnay – just curious – which BC methods are “OK” to you? I assume you realize that pretty much all hormonal contraceptives (pill, ring, implant, shot) have abortifacient effects?
Anything that prevents fertilization, rather than implantation, is ok with me. My husband had a vasectomy, and so I am thankful that I don’t have to keep up with it anymore. But I have to be honest, I am not one of the posters here who think thebirth control issue is tied to the abortion issue. I don’t care, from a legal standpoint, how many folks you want to sleep with nor do I care how many babies you prevent from making. But once they are here, they are HERE.
“Indeed. What makes a person? There are practically an infinite number of organisms with their own unique DNA, on our planet alone. When is personality present? When is there awareness? When is there “somebody” there?”
Funny how pro-choicers never apply these ridiculous trains of thoughts to themselves and babble on about whether they are really people, and if it is okay to kill for others to kill them.
Doug: Can I really be sure you have “personality present”? Or that you have “awareness”? According to the solipsism unit I had in my 10th grade philosophy class, there is no way to prove you do. Plus there are so many amazing organisms in our grand universe which all have their own DNA and all.
When discussing whether it was possible to determine who was a person and whether it was objectivity immoral to kill those with human DNA, my 10th grade philosophy teacher would babble about the universe and the unbroken chain of life. When I wrote a paper for this teacher explaining that he was not a person and it would be permissible for me to kill kim, he sent me to the principal’s office and I was almost suspended.
Brony says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:32 am
CourtNEY (I prefer to have things spelled correctly)
Seriously Brony? You wouldn’t want to meddle and tell a woman to avoid abortion, but you’ll tell her how she should spell her name? Are you from Candid Camera?
My little Brony, if you support a woman’s right to choose to murder her own child, then you are not pro-life at all.
I don’t mind that people don’t want to identify with ‘pro-lifers’ but I do mind when they kid themselves about what “choice” means and WHO, not WHAT, dies during an abortion.
I am glad that the election has brought this issue right into the mainstream media, however, and I think it presents an excellent opportunity for us to educate people about zygotes, embryos, and all the other awesome stages of human life. At this time in history we should marvel at how much we can learn and see about human development, yet the abortion advocates want to suppress science and biology. Their reasons to deny personhood are purely emotional, idealogical, and completely unscientific.
I promise, it its NAY. For the longest time I thought I was the only one. But we have our own Facebook group!
Eric says:
November 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Brony says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:32 am
CourtNEY (I prefer to have things spelled correctly)
Seriously Brony? You wouldn’t want to meddle and tell a woman to avoid abortion, but you’ll tell her how she should spell her name? Are you from Candid Camera?
Very well said, Eric!
Seriously Brony? You wouldn’t want to meddle and tell a woman to avoid abortion, but you’ll tell her how she should spell her name? Are you from Candid Camera?
What do you expect from a pro-abort? Brony can’t think of an intelligent defense for his position, so he has to resort to insults. Immature? Yes. But typical, unfortunately.
Brony, really? your name is Brony but you are picking on Courtnay for how her name is spelled? Um, okay. Typical chauvinist. Of course you support the right of women to choose to kill your chid. Lets you off the hook, doesn’t it Bronie (spell it right, why don’t you?)
You don’t want the government to meddle? Guess that means you can go out and rape women now right? Of course we won’t prevent chauvinists from sexually abusing women or children. Its not the government’s right to meddle! Want to drink and drive? So what if you kill 10 people on the way home from the bar? We shouldn’t pass laws prohibiting driving drunk… why that would be meddling! See something you like in a store and don’t have money? Take it! Why should the government stop you? That would be meddling!!!!!
Get my drift Brony or you really that dense? Government has a DUTY to protect the interests of the innocent and defenseless. People can not hurt and kill other people. I don’t want government to meddle either. I don’t want government to tell me how much water I can have in my toilet bowl or what kind of lightbulbs to use or to fluoridate my water without my consent and knowledge BUT I do want government to prevent men from raping me or my neighbors from breaking into my home and making off with my things. That is not meddling.
Your argument is that a newly conceived human might die? Um again Brony.. hello? We ALL will die! So because I will die some day can you kill me now? When I’m old people with your horrible worldview may very well look at me and say “Well, she’s 80. Most people in their 80’s die anyhow so lets just euthanize her now.”
Human life begins at conception Brony. This is biological FACT. The fact that some blastocysts or embryos may die does not negate the fact that they were a living human being at conception. I believe all human beings should be called a person. If you don’t agree with that you may want to join the “I love slave owners” club and the “I heart Adolph Hitler” club. Cause you probably have lots in common with the other club members like Joan.
My parents chose to stick a capital “A” in the middle of my name, Brony (I was named after my uncle Joel and my great-grandmother Anna). You going to quibble about that, too?
Also, I hate the lie that the personhood law would have caused miscarriages to be investigated as murder. That’s absolute BS (and I say that as a woman who has had two miscarriages). With ANY death, there has to be REASONABLE SUSPICION of foul play for a murder investigation to be initiated. That is true for the elderly who die in their beds, or the toddler who drowns in a swimming pool, or the middle-aged man who dies of a heart attack. If there’s reasonable suspicion in any of those cases to suspect murder, than a murder investigation is initiated. If all three are found to be death due to natural causes, then there is no reason to initiate such an investigation.
I think Ex-GOP is on the right track. Peoples’ sense of when a fetus becomes a ‘person’ is elastic. At, and shortly after, the fertilization of an egg, many people don’t consider that it has reached a ‘tipping point’.
A vast number of women use the pill as a primary contraceptive. Since it is claimed that it is possible that this could cause the loss of a fetilized egg, there would undoubtedly be a campaign to ban it. The evidence lies on these pages. And the same potential impact applies to too many other factors which too many people deem to be not worth losing.
Therefore, the loss of a product or other things so many use on a regular basis because of such a ‘small thing’ simply isn’t justified in their minds.
Then there are doctors who were concerned about the repercussions of various cancer treatments for pregnant women.
“If you don’t agree with that you may want to join the “I love slave owners” club and the “I heart Adolph Hitler” club.” – and that is why you will lose.
“Human life begins at conception Brony.”
Technically non-life can’t beget life. Are the sperm and egg not living?
Technically non-life can’t beget life. Are the sperm and egg not living?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that they’re not humans. In fact, I will go out on an even BIGGER limb and suggest they’re haploid sex cells. Did you not pass sixth grade biology?
A man in Mississippi goes into a grocery store and picks up a carton of a dozen eggs. When he goes to the cashier to pay, the cashier says, “That’ll be $76.80, please.” “What?! How’d you figure that?” the man exclaims. “Well, sir,” says the cashier, ” fryers average 4 pounds, at $1.60 per pound that comes to $6.40 per, and 12 x $6.40 equals $76.80.” “But these are just EGGS!” sputters the man. “Sir,” explains the cashier, “these are FERTILIZED EGGS: they’re chickens.”
Web Pilgrim, I’m borrowing your comment.
Thanks,
:)
Wow Web Pilgrim. That was pretty dumb. Eggs sold in grocery stores are not fertilized but your point was oh so cute. Did you know in human reproduction once the egg is fertilized it ceases to be an egg? And yes, at that moment a genetically unique human being that has never existed before has been created.
The point that all the pro-aborts are trying to make is “But a “fertilized egg” is not like me!” Yes. Of course. I realize that. A human being that was conceived 2 seconds ago is not as developed as I am at 31 years of age. But then again my 5 year old isn’t as developed as I am either. Whats your point? We are all still human beings and I want to live in a world where ALL human beings regardless of physical ability, race, gender, age, intelligence or even good looks are called persons. I want to live in a world where ALL human life is respected.
Some eggs sold in grocery stores can be fertilized. Or what if Web Pilgrim bought their eggs straight from someone who keeps chickens and sells the excess eggs. There is a good chance that some may be fertilized.
To most people, claiming ‘personhood’ for something which was conceived a few minutes, hours or days ago is extreme. As the vote showed.
Yes, Reality, but what your side failed to mention, or neglected intentionally to serve your purpose, is that for the most part, the “minutes, hours, or days ago” is a moot point. How many abortions are paid for by women who are a “few minutes, hours, or days ago”? Neglecting to mention such important facts that apparently more people than I realized are ignorant of is just as bad as lying.
The other point is that chickens are not humans. We are talking about PEOPLE here Reality. I am saying that we KNOW human life starts at conception. When you start saying that “yes this is a human life but not a person” you are doing EXACTLY what the slave owners did to black people and exactly what the nazis did to Jewish people. Human life = person. Thats the point we are trying to make.
Technically non-life can’t beget life. Are the sperm and egg not living?
Let me expand on that. They are human, as biologically, cells carrying human DNA. Until fertilization they are just individual human cells, haploid sex cells, and won’t develop further into full human beings, as in a full human organism consisting of 46 chromosomes (more or less). I have to wonder the same, did you not take middle or high school biology?
Yes, xalisae, but what you failed to mention, or neglected intentionally to serve your purpose, is that I stated that “a vast number of women use the pill as a primary contraceptive. Since it is claimed that it is possible that this could cause the loss of a fetilized egg, there would undoubtedly be a campaign to ban it. ….. Therefore, the loss of a product or other things so many use on a regular basis because of such a ‘small thing’ simply isn’t justified in their minds.” – because it is potentially impacting on something which was only conceived a few minutes, hours or days ago.
I was giving this as a reason why many people voted against it.
Some of you guys… Seriously?
Humans are viviparious. Chickens are oviparious. This basically means that, in humans, the young develops inside of the body while, in chickens, the young develops outside of the body. In the case of chickens, which are oviparious, in order for the young to sufficiently develop outside of the body, there needs to be some kind of self-contained structure for them to develop in. THIS IS WHAT THE EGG IS.
There’s a stark difference between an egg (ovum) and an egg (the types bird and monotremes lay). An ovum is a haploid female gamete. An egg is a structure which females of certain animal species lay as a means of reproduction, sometimes containing a fertilized zygote and nutrition in the form of yolk for the developing offspring. Within birds, the ovum is contained within the yolk and is what if fertilized is a chicken. That’s because fertilized ovum is called a zygote, and zygotes are the, for lack of a better word, simplest form of an organism. In humans, the development of that zygote happens to occur inside of the woman’s body whereas it occurs inside of an egg for birds. Simple.
Anyone who claims that “An egg is not yet a chicken until it hatches” or some form of the argument is a scientific dunce. Eggs don’t turn into chickens; eggs are the structure in which a chicken develops.
“The point that all the pro-aborts are trying to make is “But a “fertilized egg” is not like me!” Yes. Of course. I realize that. A human being that was conceived 2 seconds ago is not as developed as I am at 31 years of age. But then again my 5 year old isn’t as developed as I am either.”
The difference, of course, is that you could (hopefully) make a list of things that your 5-year-old has in common with you (or any other person, regardless of age, race, or sex) that doesn’t begin and end with “human DNA”. This gets at the heart of the debate over what it means to be a “person”. “Person” is a sociological term, not a scientific one.
“Until fertilization they are just individual human cells, haploid sex cells, and won’t develop further into full human beings.”
Yeah, and most of these early-stage “people”–I’ll grant you the label, just this once–actually “won’t develop further into full human beings.” 25% of embryos are miscarried by the sixth week. Should this be considered suicide, under a personhood ruling?
“I have to wonder the same, did you not take middle or high school biology?”
I know, and you know, that this is a deliberately obtuse statement. I’ve taken plenty of biology, as I’m sure most people here have. But pure science doesn’t dictate morality, or solve questions about when it’s appropriate to confer legal personhood on a human organism in its earliest stages of existence, or when a person’s “right to life” can trump another human being’s legal right to “physical autonomy.”
The “life begins at conception” line is just as arbitrary as you claim pro-choicers’ definition of personhood to be. Haploid cells provide the fundamental building blocks for future people. Why can’t they also be deemed sacred?
FYI. There are some who say fertilized chicken eggs are nutritionally better than unfertilized eggs, I haven’t done the research so I don’t know if that’s true. You can buy fertilized eggs at Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s.
lol @ brony re: courtnays name spelling. its really none of your business what screen name she chooses. i think its a cool name spelling myself.
Web Pilgrim,
Your comment shows that you really don’t understand what the pro-life claim is nor, does it seem, you understand some of the basics of human reproduction. The problem is that when sperm and oocyte undergo teh process of fertilization, under normal circumstances the result is a zygote. This zygote is a completely different organism than either the sperm or the oocyte. It is a biological fact that we were all once embryos; that is, that the biological organism that we are now once went through teh embryonic stage, the fetus stage, infant stage, etc. But now, the term “fertilized egg” is misleading because it implies that the kind of thing we are dealing with is an egg (oocyte) which has been fertilized. However, this is not the case as the oocyte simply does not exist any more. In your story, a chicken egg and a fryer are simply different kinds of things. Biologically, teh difference can easily be distinguished. So you really have to be more careful because it is very sloppy to characterize the oocyte and the zygote as the same biological entity when in fact, they are not. Thus the story only serves to illustrate the lack of care, attention to detail, and understanding of biology that some who oppose personhood are guilty of.
my key pad was sticking. but back at brony. my oldest daughters name is melody. some girls spell it mellodie…..so what? its her choice of a moniker. and she was kind enough to even explain. my real name could be maude but maybe i want to use heather. dont label anti abortion folk as anti choice as you anti life people want to take away our choices.
@ joan why are you gloating? you havent won anything except for here on earth. eternity will be much much longer. but you sit there oh so happy that there will be more and more dead babies. why? are you having unresolved pain from an abortion? there is an afterlife. dont make earth your best heaven. i dont care if you believe you are winning the battle on earth. take apart “my body my choice” do you have a say so as to when the body you reside in will pass away? nope. only god knows that. dont spend eternity rotting in hell joan because all the prayers in the world cant help you then. winning? yeah charlie sheen thought he was too. lol!
What happened to Brony? I think we scared him off. ;)
@ courtnay maybe so. i tend to scare bigzz away every time he pops up. i have yet to “school him” as he so puts it but its hard to school someone when they dont show up for class;)
Joan says: “The difference, of course, is that you could (hopefully) make a list of things that your 5-year-old has in common with you (or any other person, regardless of age, race, or sex) that doesn’t begin and end with “human DNA”. This gets at the heart of the debate over what it means to be a “person”. “Person” is a sociological term, not a scientific one.”
What things “in common” are you talking about? That he has hands and feet and newly conceived people don’t? Well I’ve seen war vets missing hands and feet. Guess they lost their personhood. That he can talk? I’ve met people who are deaf and dumb. Guess they’re not people either. That he has ambitions? I’ve met emotionally scarred people who have no ambitions or joy for life. Guess they’re not people. What “in common” things are you talking about?
I say that every human being is a person. We know human beings begin at conception. Thus at conception there is a new person. If we start saying that some human beings are people and others are not we have placed ourselves on a slippery slope. The same slope that led to slavery for hundreds of years and the holocaust which killed over 6 million Jewish people.
The difference, of course, is that you could (hopefully) make a list of things that your 5-year-old has in common with you (or any other person, regardless of age, race, or sex) that doesn’t begin and end with “human DNA”. This gets at the heart of the debate over what it means to be a “person”. “Person” is a sociological term, not a scientific one.
I would like to see you compile such a list in a way which doesn’t exclude some born human being.
@ sydney m. well said! i hope you are feeling well:) i know people like you do. paralyzed deaf one arm or leg. blind. gee i didnt know they were people.
oops above post should say were not people. and joan what happens when your health declines? what are your wishes?
joan should we just exterminate the people you dont see fit to live? sounds hitlerish to me maybe sangerish. one sure thing joan is that one day we all will die? do you like your life or are you miserable? who are you to dare dictate who lives or dies? there a strong warnings in the bible about harming children. id be shaking in my shoes because gods wrath will come upon you. you are evil joan. evil and i dont mind saying so.
and joan when would you consider your personhood non valid anymore? upon illness? based on an age range? like i said id be shaking like a dog pooping razor blades if i were you. advocating the death of children is a huge no no. god is real and he is watching you.
Sorry, Brony, but supporting a woman’s choice to have her own child killed in her womb is not an act of love or tolerance. You’re not allowed to be a brony, and no brohoof for you.
The logic that there are natural miscarriages so abortion is ok is like saying that since we all die eventually, murderers should all be released from jail immediately.
Dying a natural death is not the same as murder. Abortion fans want to gray the matter because they will stoop to any illogical argument in order to justify killing human children. Why? Because it’s that hard for them to say, “We were wrong.” It takes a big person to admit they made a mistake. But it’s ok, ladies, any time that you want to re-join the human race, you can. Just because you’re post-abortive and bitter doesn’t mean you have to remain that way for the rest of your life. It’s ok to embrace life. Cross over, children, all are welcome!
Courtnay: Doug, it has to be all or nothing. When we start parsing about the nervous system and personality, we get nowhere except at the realization that people have different abilities at different stages. Heck, I have a 13 year old daughter right now who isn’t all the time “there.” And brain function? Haha!
:) I know what you mean, but let’s say we took a 13 year old, or a 53 year old, and scooped out the brain while keeping the body alive. There still would be a “living human being” there, but I’d say the person they once were is long gone.
Likewise, in gestation there is a period of time when there is not yet “anybody” there. I don’t think it has to be “all or nothing.” Nobody really wants “nothing,” in the first place, and “all” is too extreme – certainly in the opinions of many, if not most people.
____
You like to get off on word games and definitions, but for me, that is a poor substitute for justice and equality. When a new human is here, he’s here (and you DO know what I mean by that), and he deserves protection, even from the mother who does not want him. Everyone who is here, young or old, deserves to be welcomed into the human family.
Good grief, it’s not “word games” or quibbling over definitions to argue about that “deserves” that you mention. First of all, there is the pregnant woman and the question of what she deserves – thus, there are many pro-choicers.
Adair: Funny how pro-choicers never apply these ridiculous trains of thoughts to themselves and babble on about whether they are really people, and if it is okay to kill for others to kill them.
It’s not ridiculous, and we’ve talked about it right here on Jill’s site.
____
Doug, can I really be sure you have “personality present”? Or that you have “awareness”? According to the solipsism unit I had in my 10th grade philosophy class, there is no way to prove you do. Plus there are so many amazing organisms in our grand universe which all have their own DNA and all.
I’m certainly making assumptions, here, Adair, just as you are. What, really, beyond the fact of one’s consciousness can one “prove”? Nothing. Thus, we – the assumption being that we are individual and separate consciousnesses, etc. – are indeed taking some things on faith, and it’s where the assumptions diverge that the arguing begins.
___
When discussing whether it was possible to determine who was a person and whether it was objectivity immoral to kill those with human DNA, my 10th grade philosophy teacher would babble about the universe and the unbroken chain of life. When I wrote a paper for this teacher explaining that he was not a person and it would be permissible for me to kill kim, he sent me to the principal’s office and I was almost suspended.
Well, that was pretty darn lame on the teacher’s part.
“Objectively immoral” – how could there be any such thing? Morality is a concept of the mind, subjective by definition.
Megan: Technically non-life can’t beget life. Are the sperm and egg not living?
Oh yeah, no doubt. So then it depends on how broad a definition we want to use for “human” and “human being,” etc.
Heather: I tend to scare Bigzz away every time he pops up.
I’m not sure, Heather. He may have gotten a big shipment of socks from Carla. ;)
@ doug roflol….please expound
@Bobby Bambino
Per our very own biology expert Some Guy (Nov. 9, 2011 10:57 PM): “In humans, the development of that zygote happens to occur inside of the woman’s body whereas it occurs inside of an egg for birds. Simple.”
You bless the zygote within a woman’s body with personhood, but the chicken zygote (produced by the union of a rooster’s sperm with a hen’s ovum [BTW, an oocyte is an immature ovum, better check your own understanding of the “basics of human reproduction” — your post]) within the “fertilized” hen’s egg is denied chickenhood. Perhaps, God willing, your heart can be opened someday to accept creatures of the genus Gallas to fowlhood.
In the meantime, here’s something you can use in your fight for Truth:
http://tinyurl.com/ShieldofRighteousness
“Per our very own biology expert Some Guy (Nov. 9, 2011 10:57 PM): “In humans, the development of that zygote happens to occur inside of the woman’s body whereas it occurs inside of an egg for birds. Simple.””
I’m not really sure how this contradicts anything I said or addresses the substance of my post. I agree and again, not really sure how this undermines the fact that the zygote is a different kind of organism than an ovum or sperm.
“You bless the zygote within a woman’s body with personhood, but the chicken zygote (produced by the union of a rooster’s sperm with a hen’s ovum within the “fertilized” hen’s egg is denied chickenhood.”
Now if this is your point of teh story, then it was not at all clear. You seemed to be denying the humanity of the unborn, equating it with a sex cell. But again, I am left speculating as to what you were attempting to claim because the analogy with the chicken had to be done in a way to mock the pro-personhood view rather than give a careful critique. Certainly the best point in your post was that I had confused teh term ovum with oocyte. Other than that, we see mockery and (again, I am left speculating as to what your main argument against personhood is) it now seems to me that your claim is that in order to be consistent, one has to hold that chickens are also some kind of person or should be given rights. But this is certainly false. One is perfectly justified in holding that human beings have inherent dignity and moral worth in light of the kind of thing they are, and that other animals do not.
Yep, all your ‘trust women’ and ‘compassion for women’ platitudes fall pretty flat when you mock babies so that you can justify killing them. A dead baby is a win against pro-lifers, huh? Nice, real nice.
I’ve been thinking about this further, and I think I may have finally figured out what the point was that was attempted to get across. Suppose that what normally most of us consider an egg and would eat as an egg would technically and biologically be classified as the genus Gallas. It seems to follow, so Web might argue, that since we are technically buying a chicken (albeit one that has not developed much), it would follow that we would have to pay the price per pound as we would a full grown chicken (or whatever), even though for all intents and purposes it smells, looks, tatstes, and is used like an egg.
Let me give another analogy that I believe is in line with what I now think teh argument is supposed to be. One could also pose the question “If I accidentally destroy a bag of seeds a farmer just bought and was going to plant, am I liable for his future yield or just the price of that bag of seeds?”
This hits precisely on why we value human beings vs why we value chickens or seeds or anything else. The reason is because we do not value crops the way we value human life. When it comes to crops or trees or almost anything other than human life, the value we put on it is based on “what it can do for us.” Nothing else has any value in and of itself. This can be witnessed by considering something like wine. Suppose I have a brand new bottle of wine. You and I both agree it’s a bottle of wine, and since it is new, it is most likely sold for a cheap price. But suppose I have that same bottle of wine 50 years later (or however long it takes for wine to become “really good.”) This same bottle of wine will be worth much, much more because it has valued and matured according to a collector’s or wine taster’s needs.
The difference between things like old wine and young wine is accidental (in the Aristotelian sense of the word). That is, what-it-is-to-be wine does not change as it ages, but the substance, the essence of what it is is wine, always. But we place our worth of wine based on these ACCIDENTAL differences.
This is in STARK contrast to the human. We do NOT place value on humans due to accidental differences. A human, unlike a bottle of wine which gains more value with age, has intrinsic moral value and worth simply because it is human. It does not need to do something, invent something, or anything of that nature. Once there is a being that is a human, it has dignity and value and hence should not be discarded, which of course is how we treat the “leftover” IVF embryos; like seeds that a farmer plants.
Thus if thing which is technically a chicken but for all intents and purposes is used as an egg, we can put whatever monetary value on it we wish because its value is in what it does for us- NOT what it is intrinsically. That is the real difference. The accidents of almost anything non-human determine that thing’s value. The accidents of a human do not determine their value.
Web Pilgrim wrote:
A man in Mississippi goes into a grocery store and picks up a carton of a dozen eggs. When he goes to the cashier to pay, the cashier says, “That’ll be $76.80, please.” “What?! How’d you figure that?” the man exclaims. “Well, sir,” says the cashier, ” fryers average 4 pounds, at $1.60 per pound that comes to $6.40 per, and 12 x $6.40 equals $76.80.” “But these are just EGGS!” sputters the man. “Sir,” explains the cashier, “these are FERTILIZED EGGS: they’re chickens.”
(*sigh*) Sometimes, lapses in logic and common sense are so vivid as to be painful… and I’m afraid this qualifies… to say nothing of the dreadful motive (i.e. under-cutting the sanctity of human life).
Point #1: The unknown person who made up this witticism apparently has no conception of true farm life and livestock market practices; many beef farmers, for example, would DREAM of being guaranteed payment of “the average price” for each and every calf, yearling, etc.! But I’m afraid it is not so; if one brought in a new-born, lame and sickly calf, it certainly would not earn the “average” market value; and if an extraordinarily fine steer were brought in, do you not think it might (just possibly) earn OVER the average price per pound? (One wonders whether these people know how “averages” are computed; it usually involves an assortment of high and low numbers, yes?)
Point #2: the very idea that the market sets a “per pound” price on a type of animal, and would then pay a flat rate for such an animal, REGARDLESS of its own personal weight (e.g. pay $1200 for an 1800-lb. steer, and also pay $1200 for a 120-lb. calf, if beef prices were $1.20/lb., and the average weight of a beef animal at the sale were 1000 lbs.), is so muddled as to be insane; it makes no sense at all! Would they imagine that petrol is bought by the liter/gallon, but every petrol station will charge a flat fee (based on the average fuel tank of all currently popular consumer vehicles, and based on the average extent to which a typical tank is full when the petrol is purchased? Socrates, where are you (to teach logic to the woefully illogical and ignorant) when we need you?!
Case in point: a fertilised chicken egg is most certainly a chicken; that is simple fact. However–with all due respect to radical Darwinists–the difference between “human and oocyte” is unimaginably beyond the difference between “chicken and egg”, since humans are endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life. Even atheists can (usually) tell the qualitative difference between a chicken and a human person, if in no other way than their own (usual) squeamishness at the thought of frying and eating the latter! (I’ve actually met some atheists who cling so fiercely to the idea of “we’re all biological accidents, there are no moral absolutes, there is nothing beyond matter and energy” that they defend, at least in theory, human cannibalism. I do suspect that most atheists view such singular fellows with a good deal of embarrassment and/or scorn.)
Summary: the author seeks to make “human personhood at conception” seem silly by implying that, in lower animals, such an equivalent dignity would somehow require that all specimens be treated absolutely identically, regardless of weight, number, etc. (and that, somehow, humans should be treated with exactly the same principles… without any distinction between humanity and animality). I hope I don’t have to highlight (any further) how logically wayward this idea is?
Heather: please expound
Heather, it was a post Carla made on Sept. 20, 2011 at 8:10 p.m., on this thread:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/09/abortion-clinic-charges-50-for-counseling/
Bobby: A human, unlike a bottle of wine which gains more value with age, has intrinsic moral value and worth simply because it is human.
Without arguing about humans, Bobby, just let me say that you need to drink more wine. ;)
Paladin: the very idea that the market sets a “per pound” price on a type of animal, and would then pay a flat rate for such an animal, REGARDLESS of its own personal weight (e.g. pay $1200 for an 1800-lb. steer, and also pay $1200 for a 120-lb. calf, if beef prices were $1.20/lb., and the average weight of a beef animal at the sale were 1000 lbs.), is so muddled as to be insane; it makes no sense at all!
Point taken, Paladin, yet we also see people who maintain there are “absolutes” based on nothing that can be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.
In my case, Doug, “more wine” would be teh same thing as “a non-zero” amount of wine.
Doug wrote:
Point taken, Paladin, yet we also see people who maintain there are “absolutes” based on nothing that can be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.
Er… such as? I know the phenomenon exists, but I rather suspect we’d disagree about which cases actually *belong* in that category…
@Bobby Bambino
A Quick FYI: Details — Your November 11, 2011 8:12 am post
A zygote is cell indeed formed from the union of a gamete cell — the sperm, with another gamete cell — the ovum. They are not organisms.
Perhaps you should rethink “a chicken egg and a fryer are simply different kinds of things” since the thread ramrod Paladin (November 11, 20011 12:18 pm) has stated “a fertilised[sic] chicken egg is most certainly a chicken; that is simple fact. ” — Don’t want you to be accused of heresy.
You would do yourself a favor if you throttled the passionate intensity generated by your righteous indignation and proofread your post before clicking on the “add comment” button, e.g., catch the typo “teh” — otherwise some people might conclude that your post serves to illustrate the lack of care, attention to detail, and understanding of biology that some who support personhood are guilty of.
Since this thread is now three days old and is stale by internet standards, and my work here is done, I’m off to another forum to mock the Creationists. I hope to NOT see you there.
Web Pilgrim: “A zygote is cell indeed formed from the union of a gamete cell — the sperm, with another gamete cell — the ovum. They are not organisms.
Do you mean they to refer to the zygote as well? If so, you are an idiot. (Also, maybe the grammar nazi should watch the ambiguous pronouns. He should also worry about his missing article there.)
Doug: “Morality is a concept of the mind, subjective by definition.”
I see you have not studied morality very much, have you. Why make wild assumptions about something?
“They are not organisms.”
What is the antecedent of “they” here? It isn’t clear if you mean the sex cells or a zygote. The former are not organisms, the latter is. You reference a post of mine, but I have no idea what in that post you believe implies that I though otherwise than what I have just stated above.
Yes, a chicken egg and a fryer are indeed kinds of things. This does not at all contradict what Paladin says, as he says that a FERTILIZED chicken egg is a chicken. When I said chicken egg, I was referring to one that had not undergone fertilization.
I should also add that even if I am wrong about this, it would not be heresy. For heresy is the obstinate denial of revealed truth. Since embryology lies in the relm of science and not divine revelation, any denial of it’s truth can not, by definition, ever be heresy.
However, it is quite telling to me that you have chosen to ignore the bulk of my post and instead elected to continue the mockery and now bring up spelling. Actually, I write teh all the time! It’s one of my gimmicks. So it is difficult for me to imagine that a thoughtful observer would come away thinking writing teh is indicative of the stupidity of the pro-life position rather than being extremely unimpressed and disappointed with a compete ignoring of the bulk of a substantial refutation of a bad anti-personhood argument.
Well, now! A few days’ work on real-life activities, and I come back to find that “Web Pilgrim” shows himself to be a troll of the first order… and of the classical variety, no less! Such spectacular flame-outs are usually the result of a troll whose original mastery of their complaint was shaky, and who became irritated when challenged.
So be it… and I was almost getting curious enough to ask him what “thread ramrod” meant, to his particular mind. :)
Bobby: “Actually, I write teh all the time! It’s one of my gimmicks.”
Do you really? I always wondered about that. I kept picturing you saying “teh,” and it always cracked me up.
“Point taken, Paladin, yet we also see people who maintain there are “absolutes” based on nothing that can be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.”
Paladin: Er… such as? I know the phenomenon exists, but I rather suspect we’d disagree about which cases actually *belong* in that category…
Such as many a religious doctrine. If one side of the argument is going to accuse the other of “flights of fancy,” then it certainly goes both ways.
Doug: “Morality is a concept of the mind, subjective by definition.”
Oliver: I see you have not studied morality very much, have you. Why make wild assumptions about something?
No assumptions, Oliver. Just the fact that we are talking about ideas, mental concepts, things internal to the mind rather than having external, objective reality.
Doug: “No assumptions, Oliver. Just the fact that we are talking about ideas, mental concepts, things internal to the mind rather than having external, objective reality.”
See, that is an assumption right there. What makes you automatically assert that things of the mind are more subjective than things of the world? There are arguments that both are subjective and that both are objective.
Morality could, and I think is, very well be objective. Just because you define your moral system subjectively does not mean morality is subjective. After all, you could be wrong about your system, or only coincidentally correct.
Doug: “No assumptions, Oliver. Just the fact that we are talking about ideas, mental concepts, things internal to the mind rather than having external, objective reality.”
Oliver: See, that is an assumption right there. What makes you automatically assert that things of the mind are more subjective than things of the world? There are arguments that both are subjective and that both are objective.
A good bit of it is the definition of “subjective” itself, i.e. “existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought, (opposed to objective).” In the moral realm, all the “good, bad, right, wrong” exists in the mind, rather than being external to it.
____
Morality could, and I think is, very well be objective. Just because you define your moral system subjectively does not mean morality is subjective. After all, you could be wrong about your system, or only coincidentally correct.
Aren’t we talking about what are always thoughts and feelings? What, external to the mind, would you assert is “morality”?
Paladin: I was almost getting curious enough to ask him what “thread ramrod” meant, to his particular mind.
I’m guessing it’s like a Pan-Galactic Straw Boss, on a slightly lesser scale.