A new push to define 'person,' and to outlaw abortion in the process, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 12:57 AM by igor_ats
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by Kryties
I don't buy into the whole 'abortion is murder' bollocks. Up to a certain point the bloody thing is a zygote or an egg with no thought processes of it's own (I am waiting to hear from someone claiming they do have them - that will be a laugh a minute).


your whole argument is based on thinking. therefore by your logic, you dont count people in coma's as "people". and apparentlymentally disabled as less "people" than you.


Coma patients etc. have already progressed the sentience ladder (so to speak).

Sentience (and hence cognitive ability) requires a brain. A zygote in an IVF clinic doesn't have a brain, it not only lacks cognitive ability, it doesn't have equipment to possess cognitive ability in the first place thus it's not a someone. This same applies to Hela cultures and cells capable of being cloned.

A brainless organism like a zygote, embryo or early fetus shouldn't be granted the same status as someone born. Failed IVF procedures in clinics resulting in zygotes being destroyed are not treated as deaths of people (nor should they be).

Originally posted by newworld
There HAS to be a definition for when a fetus becomes a "person".


14th Amendment? The very first section reads:

"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"

An infant has been born. . . a zygote, embryo or fetus, of course, has not.

That has been the standard adopted by the Common Law, and by English and American statutory law. If z/e/f's (zygotes/embryos/fetus') were legally persons IVF clinics would be prosecuted for mass murder since they deliberately create and discard "persons" every year.

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
Abortion is an excuse to run from your responsibility. Pretty cruel one too.


People, pregnant or otherwise, do not have any "responsibility" to another person to donate their organs or blood, much less be their life support for nine months - even if they caused the person the damage to the organ(s) or predicament.

If even persons born do not have the right to drop of blood from someone else, (even if that someone else is criminally liable for creating that resource requirement), than neither should brainless organisms such as zygotes embryos and fetuses have that right. Shrimp V McFall has some more info on this.

Originally posted by newworld
there should be a balance between both sides of the argument.


In law there shouldn't be appeasement to religious fanatics who think brainless organisms such as zygotes, embryos and fetuses are equivalent to people just because they have an opposing opinion.

Unfortunately for pro-lifers the right to privacy has nothing to do with "Popular opinion". A rule of law that allows the majority to wantonly impose its will on the minority even at the expense of others' fundamental rights is nothing more than organized mob rule. This sort of democracy left unchecked can be a dangerous force depending on the strength of the iron fist that the majority party wishes to rule.

Roe already limits abortion at fetal viability, something pro-choicers don't seem to have an issue with. Most abortions are early term, way before viability becomes an issue.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 01:20 AM by igor_ats
Originally posted by newworld
What about a woman that has been pregnant for 8 months and two weeks. Is the fully formed baby in her womb a fetus still?

If a person is someone that has been born, in other words outside the womb, then under that definition a baby that is going to be born in two days is still not a "person".


Correct, still not a person under the law.

Originally posted by newworld
therefore if the definition of person means someone that has been born ONLY, then the definition is clearly faulty. Which is why a definition of when a fetus should be considered a person is critical before debating whether or not abortion should be allowed.


Not really, there has to be line. And that line has been the standard. Last I checked elective late term abortions are illegal in most states.

The historic meaning of personhood is born persons! Zygotes, Embryos or Fetuses could not own property, or be heirs to a will. The event that perfected their rights as persons was birth.

The Constitution doesn't define what a person is. It didn't have to. It used the definition already in place under English common law.

There is no example in the Constitution where "person" means fetus. If there was even one, Roe may well have been decided differently.

You have to remember even persons born don't have the right to a drop of blood off someone else, neither would unborns if they were declared persons under the law. See the previous Shrimp v Mc link.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 01:51 AM by newworld
reply to post by igor_ats


Interesting point of view, which does make a lot of sense, although I do see a mistake in the current definition of "person".

under our current definition of "person", it is possible to abort an 8 month old baby in the womb in some states. However, at 8 months old the baby is almost fully formed, it has pain receptors, and a clear cerebral system. so wouldn't an abortion at this point of the pregnancy be considered murder?

the baby would clearly feel pain, so it obviously isn't just a bunch of cells at this stage. Shouldn't we consider it a "human" once it's brain and pain receptors are formed? Clearly the law isn't always correct, which is why there has to be a change of our definition of "person".

the definition of human should not begin at the moment of birth, for a baby in a womb, at some point, stops being a bundle of cells and is clearly a baby waiting to exit from it's mother.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 03:45 AM by GovtFlu
Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by dizzylizzy


You make some intereting points. If I might just pick up on one. You mention that women will abort due to abnormality ect, is this not fitting as within nature itself these abnormalities would be unlikely to survive on their own.The mother would simply abandon such offspring, or eat it. I see little difference. I'm not going to start arguing about quality of life and all that jazz, I just wanted to point that out. It is self correcting [?].



Gotta love the simplicity of nature... We once had stray cat take residence in our garage & pump out a litter of 5, 1 had massively deformed mini front legs, but otherwise alive.. It couldn't kneed, or feed.. mom kitty chewed its head off and started to eat it.

Other cats didn't picket her nest chanting "kitten killer" and no authority from the kitty govt stopped by to judge her decision.



reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:28 AM by tripletau
reply to post by Chronogoblin



This is one of those instances where I really REALLY wish people would mind their own damn business. Abortion is nobody's business but those that helped conceive. That's it. PERIOD


As it stands now, abortion is ONLY the prerogative of the mother. The father has NO say at all. So from your statement, by extension, the father is currently being deprived of his input/"rights" in an abortion, or conceivably could be. Is this fair? For that matter, to say that it IS fair seems to imply that the mother has a more substantial claim on the resultant child than the father. Hmmmmm....


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:29 AM by marg6043
reply to post by tripletau


Sorry but that is what you think and believe, good for you.

Now a womb is part of the genetically disposition of a women gender for reproduction, minus exceptions when a female child is born with no womb, a female egg is part of the reproductive parts of the women body, minus exceptions when a female child is born with not ovaries

But a SPERM that is required for women to develop a fetus in her womb is not part of the female body and is very much a foreign object introduced into the womb by outside help be by sexual act or in vitro (no sexual act required).

So actually unless a women produces her own sperm is not way a women can get a fetus developing in her womb without outside help.

See I am not full of misguided believes or blind by what others wants me to believe I am old enough and been around enough and educated enough to see what reproduction, abortion and the meaning of parasite is.

Perhaps human emotions play a big role in how people understand and interpret believes bases on religious views.

But I am very good at keeping both separated my personal emotional believes and the real issues about reproduction and the rights to abortions.

That is why a women body part as the womb can never be regulated by the law and the government without putting regulations on what can be considered a weapon yielded by the male of the species when it comes to the creation of a fetus.

After all a women womb is very well tucked inside her body, it does need a foreign object (male reproductive parts) for a women to develop a fetus.

So lets regulate the male weapon, how about that one for starters.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by marg6043]


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:47 AM by AshleyD
reply to post by quackers


An unborn foetus is a parasite, it should have no more rights that the common cold or any other virus/disease/parasite.


This post nauseated me.

If we carry on like this, it will be against the law to cure any illness that might be considered "a life".


That was one of the worst examples of the slippery slope logical fallacy I have ever seen.

There is little difference between a feotus and a tapeworm, but I would not want the law telling me I had to live with a tapeworm.


Incredible.

Society makes me so sad.



reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:51 AM by Darth Lumina
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Darth Lumina


I was so hoping someone would ask. Yes I have. I was a child advocate and foster parent for seven years in Seattle.

The more tempid weather environments attract many unwanted and discarded children, so I saw a lot of them. Then there are those who are too young to flee their conditions but the brutal neglect and abuse they wear sadly attract little attention and they go on to bring more unwanted children into the world.

Before anyone takes the moral high ground with anyone's life they need to first hold a three month old broken body in their arms.




Well good for you, you come on an internet forum to boast to us what an upstanding high moral person you are. Want a medal?
So in your opinion, are people trash for deciding to have their own kids instead of adopting? Yes, there are people that shouldn't be parents in this world, but that's just how it is. Kids grow up to make their own decisions, regardless of their living conditions, even if they are left out into the streets or grow up in foster care. Some make it some don't. The mangled up fetus on the floor of an abortion clinic didn't have much of a choice now did it? But I guess the parents decision to do it makes them good people because they wouldn't have been responsible parents anyway, right?


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:56 AM by marg6043
reply to post by AshleyD


Sad that you let your emotions take away the facts, a fetus needs a host to survive that is call a parasite and in many instances it can kill a host or better put the "mother" if that sound more pleasant to you and don't make you feel so sick.

Science can fertilize an egg with a sperm and can provide for the survival of fetus born before their gestation time but without a womb a fetus can not survive on its own and neither without medial care when premature born.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by marg6043]


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:56 AM by Darth Lumina
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by dizzylizzy


You make some intereting points. If I might just pick up on one. You mention that women will abort due to abnormality ect, is this not fitting as within nature itself these abnormalities would be unlikely to survive on their own.The mother would simply abandon such offspring, or eat it. I see little difference. I'm not going to start arguing about quality of life and all that jazz, I just wanted to point that out. It is self correcting [?].



Gotta love the simplicity of nature... We once had stray cat take residence in our garage & pump out a litter of 5, 1 had massively deformed mini front legs, but otherwise alive.. It couldn't kneed, or feed.. mom kitty chewed its head off and started to eat it.

Other cats didn't picket her nest chanting "kitten killer" and no authority from the kitty govt stopped by to judge her decision.



Humans aren't cats. It's so amusing when people try to compare animals and humans. Different species! Try a less idiotic example please.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 11:03 AM by Darth Lumina
reply to post by igor_ats


Obviously you didn't understand my sentence. When you get pregnant, a responsibility from both parents is required. They made the baby, now they have to care for it. But with the abortion option, people don't care they can just have all the unprotected sex they want cause all the woman has to do is get an abortion. It is sooooo convenient! Yes, you conceive a child, you have a responsibility as a parent to that child.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 11:05 AM by AshleyD
reply to post by marg6043


My stance is partly based on emotion, yes, due to my love of children but it is also a fact that human life is precious regardless of how much we are being programmed to see it as a parasite or a choice.

The human race as a whole can be seen as a parasite to our planet as it is our host. Should we be eradicated? No.

A baby in the womb is not a tapeworm or virus, as it was earlier compared. It is true it cannot live without it's mother's womb but we cannot live without our 'mother' planet. Every life deserves to be given its chance. It's not our right to say who deserves that chance and who doesn't.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^