Michigan Votes Forum

We hope that you never are without a voice. Imagine another making a choice about whether you live or not. Sad. Defend life at all of its stages...remembering that you, too, were once upon a time a human embryo. Yet your mother gave you life!

Calling embryos "babies" is political talk, only for political purposes.

any promise they wouldn't be waiting around for the government to steal our money and give it to them. And you mental midgets think the conservatives are in bed with corporations. You want to open the government till and let them run wild. I wish you socialists would take the time to learn something before getting your panties all bunched up. One more reason the libs want this is to validate their opinion that it is ok to kill babies as long as they aren't quite born yet.

If its not an embryo then what is it? A shoe, a car, a dog? What is it if not an embryo?

An embryo is a "human person" in its "earliest stages" of life! And that is "the" truth.

I would agree that a human embryo is life at its earliest stages. If the embryo happens to have human genes it is a human embryo. But I do not agree that it is either a human "baby" or a human "person" at the embryonic stage. The personification of human embroyos is a political ploy, for political purposes.

Yes, relative to your statement...we are speaking about “human embryos” here. Would you not agree that the classic definition of a "person" is; a human being regarded as an individual. If, in your opinion, a human embryo is not a human “person” at the embryonic stage, though you agree that a human embryo is life in its earliest stages, then what do you say it is? Though I suppose, in the culture in which we live, we find “corporations” referred to, many times, in legal language as “persons”. So to put forth an alternate definition for the word “person” beyond its classic definition is to fit that person’s own political purpose. We can parse words, definitions all day long. Fact is a “human embryo” conceived by whatever method; natural, in-vitro, is created by a man and a woman’s “human genes” thus creating a newly forming “human person”. Not to be killed; aggregated for their stem cells. Rather to be valued, cherished and deserving to be afforded life. Dignity of life is something we all should afford everyone. And this includes those persons who suffer with horrific diseases, accidents ~ and some of these persons are showing results via their recent adult stem cell treatments.

“If, in your opinion, a human embryo is not a human “person” at the embryonic stage, though you agree that a human embryo is life in its earliest stages, then what do you say it is?” An embryo. Or, if you like, an embryo with human genes. That is what science calls it. That is a fact-based land factual label. It is not an opinion. “We can parse words, definitions all day long. Fact is a “human embryo” conceived by whatever method; natural, in-vitro, is created by a man and a woman’s “human genes” thus creating a newly forming “human person”.” ‘Tis you, dear correspondent, who attempts to parse words here, or, more accurately, attempts to give them meaning they do not have nor have they traditionally held. By asserting that an embryo is a baby, or a person, you are endeavoring to make the embryo something it is not. It is like you are trying to sell the idea that a kernel of corn (a seed) is the same thing as the developed plant. The whole embryo = baby idea is political talk for political purposes. Nothing more.

It is the beginning of life of a human being, hence a person. Parse words according to whatever theory you are attempting to define "person" against or put forth. Matter of fact, I recall a particular politican who once said..."It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." Tis you dear correspondent, who is attempting to do the same type of rationalization here. Nice try though!

“Rationalization... It is the beginning of life of a human being, hence a person.” What you have said is true, but only in part. A human embryo is in the beginning stage of human life. But at the embryonic stage it has neither the form nor the soul of a person, is not yet a person, and never has been a person in all of history. If the embryo bears human genes it only bears the genetic potential to become a human being, a person. This is not playing word games or parsing language too finely. This is calling an embryo what it is, scientifically and historically. Characterizing an embryo as a person in legislative debate is political posturing, done for political purposes. If you wish to think of an embryo as a human person you are, of course, quite free and welcome to do so. You are free and welcome, also, to attempt to persuade others to your way of thinking. But please do not impose or attempt to impose that definition on everyone or anyone else by means of political force.

Adult stem cells are the way to go, not embryonic. Look at the research and you will see this is the truth. My grandmother and all of my aunts died with alzheimers and now I have cousins with it. I am hoping for a cure but not through embryonic stem cells. Does anyone who believes in God really believe He would allow us to find a cure by killing more of his unborn children? I bought into the abortion lie before but now I know better. Advancement in science shows us we have been lied to for years regarding abortion. Maybe we already aborted the person who was sent to find the cure for the disease you are hoping for. Don't buy into another lie.

an infant requires years of care before it becomes a person, yet it is murder to kill one. at what stage do you consider it no longer murder to kill a human being? a fertilized single celled egg is the beginning of a human being. is it a 'person', no. is it a human being? yes. at what point does a human have rights?

You libs want a baby that is in the womb to be considered a human if someone kills the mother. Didn't scott peterson get charged with two murders when he only really killed his wife and a bunch of cells? Actually when you get right down to it his wife was just a bunch of cells.

Are an abomination.

That is one sad opinion you cited! Yet you are entitled to make it! However, it does indeed demonstrate your complete, yes complete, lack of understanding of the issue[s].

See #10, this applies to you as well.

What are you talking about? Are you really making such statements and asking such questions, so as to be informed? Because if you were stating those questions in a rhetorical manner...well, we suggest you might need to do some personal edification on the issue(s) before posting again such nonsensical yet illogical questions, statements.

A human person is the combination of body and of a soul. I agree. The word “person” as cited as an alternate word in Thesaurus is “organism”. The word “organism” as defined in Thesaurus is: An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. Interesting defintion! New word. "Zygote”. Which is the single cell embryo formed at fertilization of an egg by sperm, or formed by the infusion of a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg (CLONING a.k.a. SCNT). The creation of a zygote is the beginning of a unique human life. To say otherwise in that a zygote is not fully human person is to beg the question, that being. “when exactly then does it become a human person if it were not human person already?” To also state a belief that this new human being is not a person is for one to also to deny the nature of what a human zygote truly is ~ a new human individual who is always a person. A human zygote cannot, nor ever will be born something other than a human person. It cannot be born as a car, not a dog, not a ear of corn, not a boat, not a shoe, but only a human. The human zygote is a human person, and that is the essential feature.

a human being aquire his soul? at what point in the growth of that single cell to a fully grown, voting individual does that person aquire his soul? is it at birth, a process of being expelled forcefully from it's incubation unit?

'organism', but not every 'organism' grows up to be a person. once again, at what point do we draw the line authorizing the lawful killing of a human being?

of proving that an embryo is a person. In order to have confirmed proof we would have to have a talk with the embryo for it to tell us exactly when it began to process with its mind, do you see this happening anytime soon? Didn't think so, so until then if it could even remotely help to find a cure for someone that we know 100% is living then I say go for it. Most of these embryo's come from people who have saved embryos and no longer wish to use them so would you rather them to be thrown in the trash, then used to possible save someone close to you one day? Ridiculous, now you right to lifers are just going overboard with the crusade on this one. In the trash or used to find a cure either way they will not ever be a person, the only difference is that the latter could help to save a person.

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.

online essay