The 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....
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.
Huckabee or McCain.Posted by: heather at March 2, 2008 7:17 AM
Wow, there are a lot of people voting on your polls now, Jill!Posted by: Bethany at March 2, 2008 8:44 AM
It's too bad that Huckabee has pretty much lost.Posted by: prettyinpink at March 2, 2008 11:12 AM
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.Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 2, 2008 11:52 AM
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
What are they at the moment of conception?Posted by: heather at March 2, 2008 12:34 PM
blob of cells?
nope. Humans.Posted by: heather at March 2, 2008 1:18 PM
blobs of cells don't have heartbeats.Posted by: heather at March 2, 2008 1:20 PM
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.
One of these days I have to get my mitts on the embryology books at my college bookstore...Posted by: Ari-chan at March 2, 2008 2:03 PM
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.Posted by: bmmg39 at March 2, 2008 4:20 PM
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*Posted by: Ari-chan at March 2, 2008 4:57 PM
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.Posted by: JLM at March 2, 2008 5:41 PM
JLM, right.Posted by: heather at March 2, 2008 5:42 PM
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)Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 2, 2008 5:48 PM
JLM: Here's trying ;)Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 2, 2008 6:15 PM
Janet Huckabee? Ay yi yi....Posted by: Doug at March 2, 2008 10:24 PM
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."
Posted by: zeke13:19
at March 3, 2008 12:37 AM
READ MANY MORE REFERENCES TO HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION IN EMBRYOLOGY TEXTBOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS HERE
Janet Huckabee? Ay yi yi....
The question wasn't who would you prefer to see in an issue of Playboy...Posted by: mk at March 3, 2008 7:50 AM
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.Posted by: mk at March 3, 2008 7:56 AM
It's too bad that Huckabee has pretty much lost.
Posted by: prettyinpink at March 2, 2008 11:12 AM
Lost what?Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2008 8:49 AM
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.Posted by: hippie at March 3, 2008 9:05 AM
lol mk re playboyPosted by: Steven Ertelt at March 3, 2008 9:33 AM
"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.Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 9:35 AM
Doug's mind tends to stray...lolPosted by: mk at March 3, 2008 9:53 AM
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.
Right to autonomy? Full House.
Right to life? Royal Flush...in spades.Posted by: mk at March 3, 2008 9:56 AM
Mk 7:56 you are so poetic. Good post. :)
CANTON, Ohio — Authorities on Saturday arrested the boyfriend of a missing nine-month pregnant woman on murder charges and said they recovered a body believed to be hers.
Jessie Davis has been missing for a week from her home, where her 2-year-old son was found alone, his diaper dirty, bedroom furniture toppled and bleach spilled on the floor.
The Stark County Sheriff's Department said a body was recovered in neighboring Summit County at 3:30 p.m. Saturday. The sheriff's office did not give a location but said they believed it to be Davis.
Television news footage taken from helicopters above Cuyahoga Valley National Park showed authorities carrying a body bag on a stretcher and loading it into a white van.
The aerial views also showed investigators riding off-road vehicles to reach an area of the park that is heavily covered with trees and brush.
Roger Riggins, an investigator with the Summit County medical examiner's office, confirmed a body was found at the southeast edge of the park.
Davis' boyfriend, Bobby Cutts Jr., 30, is to be arraigned Monday in Canton Municipal Court on two counts of murder, including the unborn child, the sheriff's department said. Davis was due to deliver a baby girl on July 3.
(Story continues below)Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 2:48 PM
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.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 2:50 PM
So, I guess my state found this unborn "feti" worthy of being called a human being.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 2:54 PM
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.Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:03 PM
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).Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:05 PM
How about the Scott Peterson case? The media always said that they were searching for Laci and Conner. Conner was also a person.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 3:12 PM
And what does that prove?
Emotional stories sell; the media was simply trying to milk a tragic story for all that it was worth.Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:18 PM
" 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.Posted by: jasper at March 3, 2008 3:24 PM
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.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 3:31 PM
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.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 3:33 PM
"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.Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:46 PM
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.Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:48 PM
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?Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 3:52 PM
Animal abuse is equally awful. The media reported facts in the latest animal abuse case. Cow slaughter.Posted by: heather at March 3, 2008 3:53 PM
"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.
Posted by: Enigma at March 3, 2008 3:58 PM
Sir, yes sir! I'm agreeing with you, but I don't think everybody do. You should not be so rude, it frightens of.Posted by: new blogger at April 6, 2008 12:00 PM
Huh... Slightly addled, but on the whole I like this post. You've got some fresh ideas. But please, write more lucid.Posted by: davesslave at April 9, 2008 5:46 AM