"Personhood" measure in MISS near even

[dogtowner]

read

the bill aims to outlaw abortion by stating that you become a person at inception. a while back it was viewed as a long shot, now its neck and neck. Hope it passes if for no other reason than to see heads explode all over liberal-land.

A controversial anti-abortion “personhood” amendment on the Mississippi ballot Tuesday is a toss up, a new poll shows.


Amendment 26, which proposes changing the definition of ‘persons” or “persons” in the state’s Constitution to include all human beings from the moment of fertilization, is one of a few dozen ballot measures that voters in seven states will consider this week.

If passed, the referendum is expected to outlaw abortion in the state completely and ban some forms of birth control.
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey on Monday, 45 percent of Mississippi voters support the amendment, while 44 percent oppose it. A tenth of the state’s voters, 11 percent, said they were undecided on the issue.


Men are more likely to support Amendment 26 than women, with 48 percent of male voters saying they support the measure, compared to 42 percent of women who said the same.


White people are far more likely to vote “yes” for the personhood amendment than black voters – 54 percent of whites said they support the initiative, while only 26 percent of African-Americans said the same. Almost six out of 10 blacks, 59 percent, oppose the amendment, while just 37 percent of whites are against it.


Support for the controversial measure also falls along partisan lines – 65 percent of Republicans support the measure, while only 23 percent of Democrats do. The majority of Democrats, 61 percent, said they will vote “no” against the amendment, while just 28 percent of Republicans said they are against it.


The poll was conducted Nov. 4-6 among 796 likely voters, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.


Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who supports the belief that life begins at conception, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press on Sunday” that he has expressed some concerns about the particular wording of the amendment.


“Some concerns that I had were about out of what I call ectopic pregnancies where the fertilized egg lodges outside the womb, say the fallopian tubes,” he said. “But there’s no question that the wording down here is what concerned people, not the idea that life begins at conception, but that the wording of it is.”
​

 

[Pandora]

I think its really sad that we have to vote someone into being a person. But I am glad they are getting around to it now. I do not think it will pass though.

 

[dogtowner]

I think its really sad that we have to vote someone into being a person. But I am glad they are getting around to it now. I do not think it will pass though.

Yeah, I guess the framers figured it went without saying. Who could have foreseen the mess we have today. Don't know about passage there or the 7 other places its being worked on but you can bet the ranch the lawyers will be lined up to overturn the will of the people.

 

[Dr.Who]

the bill aims to outlaw abortion by stating that you become a person at inception. a while back it was viewed as a long shot, now its neck and neck. Hope it passes if for no other reason than to see heads explode all over liberal-land.

Odd that defining a person as something that it has been defined as for a really long time is the long shot?

How ever did we get a new definition of person that did not include all humans?

 

[Openmind]

Odd that defining a person as something that it has been defined as for a really long time is the long shot?

How ever did we get a new definition of person that did not include all humans?

It includes all HUMANS. It does not include all human zygotes and all fertilized eggs that have not even attached to the wall of the uterus yet!

This is a joke at even the Catho.ic Church has problem with!

 

[dogtowner]

Odd that defining a person as something that it has been defined as for a really long time is the long shot?

How ever did we get a new definition of person that did not include all humans?

as I understand it, only indirectly via court ruling or legal vagaries. things like allowing abortion of "cell masses" or some hit and miss stabs when an in uterio baby dies while the intended victim is more like th4e mother. maybe it IS a good idea to settle this basic point definitively.

 

[Dr.Who]

It includes all HUMANS. It does not include all human zygotes and all fertilized eggs that have not even attached to the wall of the uterus yet!

This is a joke at even the Catho.ic Church has problem with!

If the zygote is a human and all humans are persons then the zygote would be a person too. That is a basic logical sylogism.

But if you are arguing that the zygote is not human you should probably refrain from calling it a human zygote. You might try calling it a dog zygote and see how far that gets you.

 

[Openmind]

If the zygote is a human and all humans are persons then the zygote would be a person too. That is a basic logical sylogism.

But if you are arguing that the zygote is not human you should probably refrain from calling it a human zygote. You might try calling it a dog zygote and see how far that gets you.

The Zygote has the potential of becoming human. . .very different from BEING human!

The zygote doesn't have a brain, not even at that stage, as much "brain" as a dog. And, a fertilized egg that is NOT attached has NO POTENTIAL. . .it is only after it has travelled to the wall of the uterus and is successfully attached that it gains a potential of (eventually) becoming a liveable fetus, and then a child.

A spermatozoid can be "human" spermatozoid also. . .but is not "HUMAN"
An egg can be a "human" egg, but is NOT human!

a "human egg" and a "human spermatozoid" even if they meet, are not "HUMAN."

A fertilized egg has NONE of the qualities that make us "human."

Hundreds of thousands of eggs are ejected every months. Billions of spermatozoids are ejected every day.

Fertilized eggs are often ejected without even the knowledge that they were fertilized.

We have played with medical discovery and "progress" to the point that a egg and a spermatozoid can "meet" on a slide in a lab. . .and "fertilized" that way. . .THE ONLY thing that would give that in vitro fertilization the POTENTIAL to become a liveable human being is the DESIRE of a couple (or a single person) to have a child. . .it is not the "process" of fertilization that gives that minute cluster of cells the "human" characteristics, or the "human rights."

You can, and will (obviously) stick to your believes, and not even consider the consequences of those believes if they were imposed on the rest of the world. . .but that doesn't make you correct, or a better person than I am, or a better person than women who decide to use birth control to prevent potentially fertilized eggs from attaching to the walls of the uterus and developping, or than the women who decide to use the "morning after" pill.

May I remind you that our world population is now 7 billions people, and that it is growing exponentially?
May I remind you that MANY children are born only to suffer and die in infancy or in childhood, that many more are "raised" without love, with the bare necessities to survive?
May I remind you that it is very easy to force people to give birth, but it seems a lot harder to force people to provide for those children, to assure that there will be health care for them, education for them, jobs for them, and some reasonable assurance that they will not be "thrown away" in their old age?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The voting is today.

Anyone hear of any exit poll results yet?

 

[Openmind]

The voting is today.

Anyone hear of any exit poll results yet?

It's probably still too early.

The same type of bill was defeated in Colorado (twice) a few years ago. . by over 70% of NO.

I hope the same happens here, but I understand that you may have a different opinion.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Zygote has the potential of becoming human. . .very different from BEING human!

The zygote doesn't have a brain, not even at that stage, as much "brain" as a dog. And, a fertilized egg that is NOT attached has NO POTENTIAL. . .it is only after it has travelled to the wall of the uterus and is successfully attached that it gains a potential of (eventually) becoming a liveable fetus, and then a child.

A spermatozoid can be "human" spermatozoid also. . .but is not "HUMAN"
An egg can be a "human" egg, but is NOT human!

a "human egg" and a "human spermatozoid" even if they meet, are not "HUMAN."

A fertilized egg has NONE of the qualities that make us "human."

Hundreds of thousands of eggs are ejected every months. Billions of spermatozoids are ejected every day.

Fertilized eggs are often ejected without even the knowledge that they were fertilized.

We have played with medical discovery and "progress" to the point that a egg and a spermatozoid can "meet" on a slide in a lab. . .and "fertilized" that way. . .THE ONLY thing that would give that in vitro fertilization the POTENTIAL to become a liveable human being is the DESIRE of a couple (or a single person) to have a child. . .it is not the "process" of fertilization that gives that minute cluster of cells the "human" characteristics, or the "human rights."

You can, and will (obviously) stick to your believes, and not even consider the consequences of those believes if they were imposed on the rest of the world. . .but that doesn't make you correct, or a better person than I am, or a better person than women who decide to use birth control to prevent potentially fertilized eggs from attaching to the walls of the uterus and developping, or than the women who decide to use the "morning after" pill.

May I remind you that our world population is now 7 billions people, and that it is growing exponentially?
May I remind you that MANY children are born only to suffer and die in infancy or in childhood, that many more are "raised" without love, with the bare necessities to survive?
May I remind you that it is very easy to force people to give birth, but it seems a lot harder to force people to provide for those children, to assure that there will be health care for them, education for them, jobs for them, and some reasonable assurance that they will not be "thrown away" in their old age?

Definition of person:

1, human, individual

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Definition of human:

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human

A human zygote meets both those definitions since it is clearly an individual and it is clearly human, i.e. a member of the genus H.S.

In case you try to argue that it is not really an individual:

1.
a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human
b. By or for one person.
2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/individual

You will notice that it becomes very clear that the definition of human and the definition of person are interchangable.

 

[Openmind]

Definition of person:

1, human, individual

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Definition of human:

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human

A human zygote meets both those definitions since it is clearly an individual and it is clearly human, i.e. a member of the genus H.S.

In case you try to argue that it is not really an individual:

1.
a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human
b. By or for one person.
2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/individual

You will notice that it becomes very clear that the definition of human and the definition of person are interchangable.

No. . .I totally disagree that a zygote is a "HUMAN!" It is at best a HUMAN ZYGOTE, that DOESN'T have a life as an individual, as it does NOT EXIST the moment it is ejected or remove from the uterus! It has NO LIFE of it's own, so it is NOT an individual. . .at the extreme, you could call it a "parasite" of the human body.

 

[dogtowner]

No. . .I totally disagree that a zygote is a "HUMAN!" It is at best a HUMAN ZYGOTE, that DOESN'T have a life as an individual, as it does NOT EXIST the moment it is ejected or remove from the uterus! It has NO LIFE of it's own, so it is NOT an individual. . .at the extreme, you could call it a "parasite" of the human body.

if it can do this...

... thats life

you and I are not viable sans a fuel & water supply either.

 

[Openmind]

if it can do this...

... thats life

you and I are not viable sans a fuel & water supply either.

And you believe that a zygoe can survive as long as he gets "fuel and water supply?"

<<mod edit. No personal attacks please>>

 

[dogtowner]

And you believe that a zygoe can survive as long as he gets "fuel and water supply?"

yes.

Sounds like your brain stem hasn't developped quite to the "individual functioning level either!"

each personal attack is reported.