Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Person" or not, nobody has the right to occupy another human being's uterus against her will.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason she has a child in her womb is because of the risks and the actions that she and her partner took to create it and put it there. . . So the claim that the child is using her uterus against her will is weak at best.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if she did consent to the pregnancy at one time, as the owner of the uterus she has the right to withdraw that consent at any time.
Red:
This is where you and I differ. I believe the father must have a say in it as well.
Were a woman to have consented at some time to become pregnant and does so with a man with whom she intended to raise the child, even if she has second thoughts (not including for her own health/life), she, IMO, has an obligation to remain true to her promise unless the man involved concurs with her that the pregnancy should be terminated.
I realize my position can result in a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term solely for the man's benefit of having a child, but assuming that is the promise/deal to which she agreed at or around the time of coitus and didn't rescind the deal, she's, in my mind, obligated to carry through with it. Can the man actually prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? Probably not, but that's not the point.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason she has a child in her womb is because of the risks and the actions that she and her partner took to create it and put it there. . . So the claim that the child is using her uterus against her will is weak at best.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if she did consent to the pregnancy at one time, as the owner of the uterus she has the right to withdraw that consent at any time.
Red:
This is where you and I differ. I believe the father must have a say in it as well.
Were a woman to have consented at some time to become pregnant and does so with a man with whom she intended to raise the child, even if she has second thoughts (not including for her own health/life), she, IMO, has an obligation to remain true to her promise unless the man involved concurs with her that the pregnancy should be terminated.
I realize my position can result in a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term solely for the man's benefit of having a child, but assuming that is the promise/deal to which she agreed at or around the time of coitus and didn't rescind the deal, she's, in my mind, obligated to carry through with it. Can the man actually prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? Probably not, but that's not the point.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if she did consent to the pregnancy at one time, as the owner of the uterus she has the right to withdraw that consent at any time.
Red:
This is where you and I differ. I believe the father must have a say in it as well.
Were a woman to have consented at some time to become pregnant and does so with a man with whom she intended to raise the child, even if she has second thoughts (not including for her own health/life), she, IMO, has an obligation to remain true to her promise unless the man involved concurs with her that the pregnancy should be terminated.
I realize my position can result in a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term solely for the man's benefit of having a child, but assuming that is the promise/deal to which she agreed at or around the time of coitus and didn't rescind the deal, she's, in my mind, obligated to carry through with it. Can the man actually prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? Probably not, but that's not the point.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.
Having a say and having authority are not necessarily the same things, though they can be depending on the extent of say and authority one has.
Quit being silly. A fetus is a fetus until it is not. But it is not a human. And a human is a human and cant' be a fetus. Don't confuse 'being' with 'immutability.'Yes, really. A fetus is always a fetus. When it becomes human, it can't become a fetus.A person is always a person, and a fetus is always a fetus.
Well, not really. A fetus can become a person. A person cannot become a fetus.
Please tell me how a fetus carried to term will remain a fetus?
Red:
This is where you and I differ. I believe the father must have a say in it as well.
Were a woman to have consented at some time to become pregnant and does so with a man with whom she intended to raise the child, even if she has second thoughts (not including for her own health/life), she, IMO, has an obligation to remain true to her promise unless the man involved concurs with her that the pregnancy should be terminated.
I realize my position can result in a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term solely for the man's benefit of having a child, but assuming that is the promise/deal to which she agreed at or around the time of coitus and didn't rescind the deal, she's, in my mind, obligated to carry through with it. Can the man actually prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? Probably not, but that's not the point.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.
Having a say and having authority are not necessarily the same things, though they can be depending on the extent of say and authority one has.
I really don't see a middle ground here. Either she is free to make this decision unilaterally, regardless of his opinion, or he is being given inappropriate power over her bodily autonomy.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.
Having a say and having authority are not necessarily the same things, though they can be depending on the extent of say and authority one has.
I really don't see a middle ground here. Either she is free to make this decision unilaterally, regardless of his opinion, or he is being given inappropriate power over her bodily autonomy.
Well, I've got news for you. While the decision to carry the infant to term is ultimately one to which a woman must agree, the ethics of her aborting a pregnancy against the father's wishes are questionable. There's no denying she can do so, but as to whether she should do so, particularly with a man with whom she shares a committed relationship and consented initially to having a child, is highly circumspect. (You'll recall those were the qualifiers of my remarks.) It is all the more ethically amiss when all she had to do prior to coitus was make clear that she didn't want to have a child in the foreseeable future. Consenting at the outset to have a child, and absent nothing of note changing other than her mind, is clearly a misrepresentation of fact, one that didn't need to occur to begin with.
Of course, a woman must bear the overwhelming majority of the burden of being pregnant, and there's no denying that bearing someone else's child is a lot to do when one doesn't want the child oneself. Nonetheless and at the very least, she could agree to have the child and waive her parental rights, thus allowing the father to assume all responsibility for rearing the child. Can the father force her to do that? Doubtful, which is essentially what I recognized earlier as being the case.
Now if you've ever been Roman Catholic or Jewish, you'll understand guilt. Guilt is a powerful tool in inspiring behavior. LOL Women seem especially good at using it, but men can be as well.
Nope, no fact, Chuz. A fetus is a fetus, not a human being. Nothing wol change that.A human being in the fetal stage of their development can be called a fetus.
Still a human being though and no amount of denial is going to change that biological fact.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.
Having a say and having authority are not necessarily the same things, though they can be depending on the extent of say and authority one has.
I really don't see a middle ground here. Either she is free to make this decision unilaterally, regardless of his opinion, or he is being given inappropriate power over her bodily autonomy.
Well, I've got news for you. While the decision to carry the infant to term is ultimately one to which a woman must agree, the ethics of her aborting a pregnancy against the father's wishes are questionable. There's no denying she can do so, but as to whether she should do so, particularly with a man with whom she shares a committed relationship and consented initially to having a child, is highly circumspect. (You'll recall those were the qualifiers of my remarks.) It is all the more ethically amiss when all she had to do prior to coitus was make clear that she didn't want to have a child in the foreseeable future. Consenting at the outset to have a child, and absent nothing of note changing other than her mind, is clearly a misrepresentation of fact, one that didn't need to occur to begin with.
Of course, a woman must bear the overwhelming majority of the burden of being pregnant, and there's no denying that bearing someone else's child is a lot to do when one doesn't want the child oneself. Nonetheless and at the very least, she could agree to have the child and waive her parental rights, thus allowing the father to assume all responsibility for rearing the child. Can the father force her to do that? Doubtful, which is essentially what I recognized earlier as being the case.
Now if you've ever been Roman Catholic or Jewish, you'll understand guilt. Guilt is a powerful tool in inspiring behavior. LOL Women seem especially good at using it, but men can be as well.
I am adopting your habit of addressing individual points by text color, since I am having trouble getting accustomed to this forum's quote feature.
RED:
I would say that is entirely too dependent upon the nature of the relationship between the parties to make a universal judgment. In the context of a loving and committed relationship, I would agree that making such a unilateral decision against your partner's wishes is certainly a betrayal of the relationship; in the context of mere acquaintances or a failed romance, I would consider it entirely reasonable on her part to do so without even considering his wishes. Outside of marriage I do not think she has any moral obligation to bear his child at all, and inside a marriage I still think the ultimate authority must rest with her.
BLUE:
It's a matter of moral obligation, and outside of marriage I simply do not see any such moral obligation existing. It is the same for a man denying paternity; he should have the unilateral authority to do so (unless he has previously and officially accepted responsibility) but if his wife wants to keep the child it is certainly an act of disloyalty to the marriage.
Nope, no fact, Chuz. A fetus is a fetus, not a human being. Nothing wol change that.A human being in the fetal stage of their development can be called a fetus.
Still a human being though and no amount of denial is going to change that biological fact.
Nope, no fact, Chuz. A fetus is a fetus, not a human being. Nothing wol change that.A human being in the fetal stage of their development can be called a fetus.
Still a human being though and no amount of denial is going to change that biological fact.
Chuz, SCOTUS in rulings as noted above on Roe disagree with you in terms of law.
Infallibility is not the point. The point is that American jurisprudence and SCOTUS does not agree with you. Show us definite evidence that you have hope that your position will gain traction.No errrrrr. Kidding. Are our laws and Supreme Court Rulings infallible all the sudden? Where is it written that they can not be challenged. Changed or overturned?Chuz, SCOTUS in rulings as noted above on Roe disagree with you in terms of law.
Infallibility is not the point. The point is that American jurisprudence and SCOTUS does not agree with you. Show us definite evidence that you have hope that your position will gain traction.No errrrrr. Kidding. Are our laws and Supreme Court Rulings infallible all the sudden? Where is it written that they can not be challenged. Changed or overturned?Chuz, SCOTUS in rulings as noted above on Roe disagree with you in terms of law.
Not sure why you thought I needed encouragement but okPetition away.
Campaign away.
Full steam ahead.
Not as entities with person hood as you define it. That is your fail.Chuz's examples fall flat. Slaves were recognized as humans, fetuses are not.
Human beings in the fetal stage of their life are too recognized as human beings. They are recognized as such by our fetal Homicide laws and even by our United States Patent laws which forbid patients on human beings.
Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.Personhood is important and relevant to many debates because we are a nation governed by laws with the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land and the constitutional basis for any other laws that are passed.
The word person is mentioned several times in our Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note that the 5th Amendment uses the word "person" and not "citizen" in it's wording. That's because not all "persons" are citizens of the United States but all "persons" within the United States are entitled to this right.
Personhood Matters.
The 14th Amendment also mentions personhood and it says; "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."
Please pay close attention to the distinction the 14th Amendment is making between "citizens" (persons born or naturalized) and "persons" who are not "citizens" but have a right to their life, liberty, property, due process and the equal protection of our laws. . . be they a "citizen" or not.
That is what the Constitution says and that's why "personhood" matters.
It is clear and irrefutable that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, it was not applied fairly nor equally to all "persons" in the United States. Slavery was still legal and was being upheld by our courts and women did not have equal rights to men.
Those injustices have been corrected over time and largely so because it is inarguable that women and African Americans are human beings. They are "persons."
The legal definition for what a natural person is - is simply "a human being."
That is a fairly inclusive definition. Is it not?
Likewise for the sections of the Constitution quoted above. Those are fairly inclusive statements too. Aren't they?
I would like for the discussions in this thread to stay close to the quotes and definitions above. This is not simply about abortion as most people agree that abortion can be debated either way. . . whether a prenatal child in the womb is legally recognized as a "person" or not.
Personhood is also an issue for illegal aliens and their rights while in the U.S. for example.
