CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

You've been owned by your own poll. Perhaps you're the one with the shortcomings.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good defense of where you are at, Chuz.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

It is clear that you are not familiar with how the Supreme Court works.

The Supreme Court does not throw cases out.

Arguments are made in advance on appeals and then either the Court decides to hear the case and make a decision or they dont.

Once they decide to rule on a case. . . That is when they will try to reconcile our fetal homicide laws with Roe.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

 

[Faun]

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

Some 70% disagree with your position according to your poll.

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

It is clear that you are not familiar with how the Supreme Court works.

The Supreme Court does not throw cases out.

Arguments are made in advance on appeals and then either the Court decides to hear the case and make a decision or they dont.

Once they decide to rule on a case. . . That is when they will try to reconcile our fetal homicide laws with Roe.

Of course they do -- they refuse to hear it.

And if such a case were to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the law subject to being overturned would be the feral protection law which they were found guilty of violating. It still wouldn't touch Roe v. Wade.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

The burden of unintended and unwanted childbearing often compounds social disadvantage, falling disproportionately on women who are young, poor, or members of ethnic minority groups. In 2011, 45 per cent of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, with the highest rates of such pregnancies found in women who were between 18-24 years of age, poor, unmarried, Black, or Hispanic. When abortion is legal, women who are the most motivated to avoid unwanted childbearing are most likely to seek this option. If they are able to exercise it, the correlation between unwanted childbearing and negative outcomes in the remaining population giving birth is reduced (albeit not eliminated).

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

There is substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting.

Below is a list of reference materials that discuss the outcomes summarized above of unwanted children being born. Some of the noted references are also linked in my remarks above. In each of them, one'll find additional reference materials on similar/related topics.

• Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing responsibility: Women, society, and abortion worldwide. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Axinn, W.G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The Long-Term Impact of Parents' Childbearing Decisions on Children's Self-Esteem, Demography, 35, 435-443.
• David, H.P. (1992). Born unwanted: Long-term developmental effects of denied abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181.
• Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancies in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 24-29, 46.
• Kost, ., Landry, D. J., & Darroch, J. E. (1998) Predicting Maternal Behaviors During Pregnancy: Does Intention Status Matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 79-88.
• Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W.B., and Roth, Z. (1995). Childrenfrom unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age Thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91, 361-369.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V. (1978). Children from unwanted pregnancies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 67-90.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V., (1992). On the prognosis of children from unwanted pregnancies (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23,1838-1842.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z, and Schüller, V. (1992). On the prevention of psychological subdeprivation (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23, 1843-1845.
• Myhrman, A.,Olsen, P., Rantakallio, P., and Laara, E.,(1995). Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child's educational attainment? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 116-119.
• Myhrman, A., Rantakallio, P., Sohanni, M.,Jones, P., and Partanen, U. (1996).Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
• Russo, N. F. (1992). Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J. D. Butler & D. F. Walbert (Eds.). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. 4th Edition (pp. 593-626). NY: Facts on File.
• Denious, J. & Russo, N. F. (2000). The Socio-Political Context of Abortion and its Relationship to Women's Mental Health. In J. Ussher (Ed.). Women's Health: Contemporary International Perspectives (pp. 431-439). London: British Psychological Society.
• David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Matejcek, Z., and Schuller, V. (1988). Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

The burden of unintended and unwanted childbearing often compounds social disadvantage, falling disproportionately on women who are young, poor, or members of ethnic minority groups. In 2011, 45 per cent of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, with the highest rates of such pregnancies found in women who were between 18-24 years of age, poor, unmarried, Black, or Hispanic. When abortion is legal, women who are the most motivated to avoid unwanted childbearing are most likely to seek this option. If they are able to exercise it, the correlation between unwanted childbearing and negative outcomes in the remaining population giving birth is reduced (albeit not eliminated).

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

There is substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting.

Below is a list of reference materials that discuss the outcomes summarized above of unwanted children being born. Some of the noted references are also linked in my remarks above. In each of them, one'll find additional reference materials on similar/related topics.

• Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing responsibility: Women, society, and abortion worldwide. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Axinn, W.G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The Long-Term Impact of Parents' Childbearing Decisions on Children's Self-Esteem, Demography, 35, 435-443.
• David, H.P. (1992). Born unwanted: Long-term developmental effects of denied abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181.
• Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancies in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 24-29, 46.
• Kost, ., Landry, D. J., & Darroch, J. E. (1998) Predicting Maternal Behaviors During Pregnancy: Does Intention Status Matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 79-88.
• Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W.B., and Roth, Z. (1995). Childrenfrom unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age Thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91, 361-369.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V. (1978). Children from unwanted pregnancies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 67-90.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V., (1992). On the prognosis of children from unwanted pregnancies (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23,1838-1842.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z, and Schüller, V. (1992). On the prevention of psychological subdeprivation (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23, 1843-1845.
• Myhrman, A.,Olsen, P., Rantakallio, P., and Laara, E.,(1995). Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child's educational attainment? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 116-119.
• Myhrman, A., Rantakallio, P., Sohanni, M.,Jones, P., and Partanen, U. (1996).Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
• Russo, N. F. (1992). Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J. D. Butler & D. F. Walbert (Eds.). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. 4th Edition (pp. 593-626). NY: Facts on File.
• Denious, J. & Russo, N. F. (2000). The Socio-Political Context of Abortion and its Relationship to Women's Mental Health. In J. Ussher (Ed.). Women's Health: Contemporary International Perspectives (pp. 431-439). London: British Psychological Society.
• David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Matejcek, Z., and Schuller, V. (1988). Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Just think, we could solve all child welfare problems by simply redefining personhood to be age 18, the age of being an adult. Then we could simply terminate all children (but not-persons) with welfare problems.

I know the above paragraph seems outrageous; however, to those that consider a fetus to be a person it is just as outrageous to consider abortion a preventative measure to child welfare problems.

 

[Valerie]

Chuz Life i just noticed your sig.. also noticed you ignored my post #53

fyi your imaginary 'onus' is on you to comprehend what you cite.



"I am fighting for laws to criminalize abortion and to make the criminal killing of a "child in the womb" a crime of "murder."

The onus is on you to show how my citing of an existing law (fetal homicide laws) which ALREADY make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" is in any way. . . taking it out of context."





"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[320 Years of History]

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

It is clear that you are not familiar with how the Supreme Court works.

The Supreme Court does not throw cases out.

Arguments are made in advance on appeals and then either the Court decides to hear the case and make a decision or they dont.

Once they decide to rule on a case. . . That is when they will try to reconcile our fetal homicide laws with Roe.

Of course they do -- they refuse to hear it.

And if such a case were to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the law subject to being overturned would be the feral protection law which they were found guilty of violating. It still wouldn't touch Roe v. Wade.

To the best of my knowledge....The SCOTUS doesn't throw out cases of the sort you have in mind. Its justices either agree to hear a case appealed to them or they don't. That's not the same thing in legal parlance as what you call "throwing out a case," or what courts call "dismissing" a case. A dismissed case does actually appear in the court's roster of cases; however, if it gets dismissed and that's the end of it, or the part of it that was dismissed. It's worth noting that dismissal can occur at any point in the trial process, and isn't concomitant with hearing or not hearing arguments, pleas, etc. That's generally what lay folks mean when they think of a case as being "thrown out."

The SCOTUS can throw out a case, but they can only do so for cases submitted to their purview over matters for which they have "original jurisdiction." Because they have original jurisdiction, the option of dismissal exists. The remainder of matters that appear before the SCOTUS are appeals cases. They've already been heard and decided by at least one other court, so dismissal isn't an option.

The SCOTUS justices may, at their option, hear or not hear a matter that's appealed to them from a lower court. I get that if they decline to hear a case, that seems the same as the case being thrown out. However, it's not because the case has already been heard and decided; thus it cannot be and was not dismissed. The lower court's decision on the case stands. Yes, the distinctions are procedural in nature. Yes. the language is precise and seems quite similar in some regards, but that's the nature of effective communication in general and the law in particular.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Yet another debate in masquerade. Personhood, as a concept, has affected a number of issues, from slavery to LGBT rights, but the legal question of when personhood begins relates solely to abortion.

320's post here is the only honest one on either side of the divide. Abortion is probably an irreducible conflict, and therefore pointless to debate, but if it is not pointless then the debate has to begin with a willingness to understand the other person's POV. There's precious little of that here.

What's the point of this debate by proxy? Abortion was made legal because of the type of arguments that 320 advanced above, not because fetuses have no personhood rights, and therefore can be slaughtered at will. We decided that legal abortion was preferable to trying, unsuccessfully, to suppress it. The rest is just politics, attempts to win the argument by restructuring the debate. No one, who ever advocated for the legalization of abortion or passed laws to legalize it, is unaware that abortion involves terminating a life. The only pro-life argument that can make sense is one which can prove that abortion creates more social ills than it cures. Only then will the personhood of fetuses be recognized.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

The burden of unintended and unwanted childbearing often compounds social disadvantage, falling disproportionately on women who are young, poor, or members of ethnic minority groups. In 2011, 45 per cent of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, with the highest rates of such pregnancies found in women who were between 18-24 years of age, poor, unmarried, Black, or Hispanic. When abortion is legal, women who are the most motivated to avoid unwanted childbearing are most likely to seek this option. If they are able to exercise it, the correlation between unwanted childbearing and negative outcomes in the remaining population giving birth is reduced (albeit not eliminated).

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

There is substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting.

Below is a list of reference materials that discuss the outcomes summarized above of unwanted children being born. Some of the noted references are also linked in my remarks above. In each of them, one'll find additional reference materials on similar/related topics.

• Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing responsibility: Women, society, and abortion worldwide. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Axinn, W.G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The Long-Term Impact of Parents' Childbearing Decisions on Children's Self-Esteem, Demography, 35, 435-443.
• David, H.P. (1992). Born unwanted: Long-term developmental effects of denied abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181.
• Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancies in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 24-29, 46.
• Kost, ., Landry, D. J., & Darroch, J. E. (1998) Predicting Maternal Behaviors During Pregnancy: Does Intention Status Matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 79-88.
• Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W.B., and Roth, Z. (1995). Childrenfrom unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age Thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91, 361-369.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V. (1978). Children from unwanted pregnancies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 67-90.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V., (1992). On the prognosis of children from unwanted pregnancies (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23,1838-1842.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z, and Schüller, V. (1992). On the prevention of psychological subdeprivation (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23, 1843-1845.
• Myhrman, A.,Olsen, P., Rantakallio, P., and Laara, E.,(1995). Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child's educational attainment? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 116-119.
• Myhrman, A., Rantakallio, P., Sohanni, M.,Jones, P., and Partanen, U. (1996).Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
• Russo, N. F. (1992). Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J. D. Butler & D. F. Walbert (Eds.). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. 4th Edition (pp. 593-626). NY: Facts on File.
• Denious, J. & Russo, N. F. (2000). The Socio-Political Context of Abortion and its Relationship to Women's Mental Health. In J. Ussher (Ed.). Women's Health: Contemporary International Perspectives (pp. 431-439). London: British Psychological Society.
• David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Matejcek, Z., and Schuller, V. (1988). Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Just think, we could solve all child welfare problems by simply redefining personhood to be age 18, the age of being an adult. Then we could simply terminate all children (but not-persons) with welfare problems.

I know the above paragraph seems outrageous; however, to those that consider a fetus to be a person it is just as outrageous to consider abortion a preventative measure to child welfare problems.

I don't recall having presented abortion as a viable solution option for ameliorating child welfare issues. You know I hold you in higher regard to presume you think I did mean that, so I'm going to for now assume you are just sharing a thought about how some folks may perceive the discussion I offered.

I believe too that you know that though pro-lifers may seek to frame the abortion discussion as one that is tantamount to the outrageousness with which you presented it above. But you and I also both know that presentation merely illustrates either the far-fetched hypothesis fallacy, hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, least probable hypothesis fallacy, extended analogy, or perhaps all of them, maybe even others, depending on how the argument/claim is presented.

 

[JoeMoma]

Nope, no fact, Chuz. A fetus is a fetus, not a human being. Nothing wol change that.

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

The burden of unintended and unwanted childbearing often compounds social disadvantage, falling disproportionately on women who are young, poor, or members of ethnic minority groups. In 2011, 45 per cent of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, with the highest rates of such pregnancies found in women who were between 18-24 years of age, poor, unmarried, Black, or Hispanic. When abortion is legal, women who are the most motivated to avoid unwanted childbearing are most likely to seek this option. If they are able to exercise it, the correlation between unwanted childbearing and negative outcomes in the remaining population giving birth is reduced (albeit not eliminated).

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

There is substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting.

Below is a list of reference materials that discuss the outcomes summarized above of unwanted children being born. Some of the noted references are also linked in my remarks above. In each of them, one'll find additional reference materials on similar/related topics.

• Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing responsibility: Women, society, and abortion worldwide. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Axinn, W.G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The Long-Term Impact of Parents' Childbearing Decisions on Children's Self-Esteem, Demography, 35, 435-443.
• David, H.P. (1992). Born unwanted: Long-term developmental effects of denied abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181.
• Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancies in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 24-29, 46.
• Kost, ., Landry, D. J., & Darroch, J. E. (1998) Predicting Maternal Behaviors During Pregnancy: Does Intention Status Matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 79-88.
• Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W.B., and Roth, Z. (1995). Childrenfrom unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age Thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91, 361-369.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V. (1978). Children from unwanted pregnancies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 67-90.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V., (1992). On the prognosis of children from unwanted pregnancies (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23,1838-1842.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z, and Schüller, V. (1992). On the prevention of psychological subdeprivation (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23, 1843-1845.
• Myhrman, A.,Olsen, P., Rantakallio, P., and Laara, E.,(1995). Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child's educational attainment? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 116-119.
• Myhrman, A., Rantakallio, P., Sohanni, M.,Jones, P., and Partanen, U. (1996).Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
• Russo, N. F. (1992). Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J. D. Butler & D. F. Walbert (Eds.). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. 4th Edition (pp. 593-626). NY: Facts on File.
• Denious, J. & Russo, N. F. (2000). The Socio-Political Context of Abortion and its Relationship to Women's Mental Health. In J. Ussher (Ed.). Women's Health: Contemporary International Perspectives (pp. 431-439). London: British Psychological Society.
• David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Matejcek, Z., and Schuller, V. (1988). Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Just think, we could solve all child welfare problems by simply redefining personhood to be age 18, the age of being an adult. Then we could simply terminate all children (but not-persons) with welfare problems.

I know the above paragraph seems outrageous; however, to those that consider a fetus to be a person it is just as outrageous to consider abortion a preventative measure to child welfare problems.

I don't recall having presented abortion as a viable solution option for ameliorating child welfare issues. You know I hold you in higher regard to presume you think I did mean that, so I'm going to for now assume you are just sharing a thought about how some folks may perceive the discussion I offered.

I believe too that you know that though pro-lifers may seek to frame the abortion discussion as one that is tantamount to the outrageousness with which you presented it above. But you and I also both know that presentation merely illustrates either the far-fetched hypothesis fallacy, hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, least probable hypothesis fallacy, extended analogy, or perhaps all of them, maybe even others, depending on how the argument/claim is presented.

320 Said: I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.


This statement seems to support the use of abortion to prevent or mitigate the ills of children being born unwanted, which I categorized as being child welfare problems. Otherwise, birth, even with the social ills of the children, would be preferable to abortion. I simply extrapolated that logic to extend limit on the age which a life may be aborted. The simplest solution to end the ills of unwanted children is to remove the children from existence.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, I'd be okay with the pro-lifers' stance were the holders of that position willing to, upon a woman's giving birth to a child she doesn't want, adopt the child and raise it as their own. But that is not what they are willing to do. Moreover, they are willing, from now until Gabriel blows his horn, to stand on their "high and mighty" and force those women to have the child, never considering that among the worst things for a child is for it to be brought into a world that is at best, indifferent that it arrived, and at the worst, did not want it to come and upon its arrival, still does not want it. And yet those very same hypocritical pro-life cretins have the temerity to talk about the value of life and morality.

I know several Christian (anti-abortion) families that have adopted children, some of them special needs. That being said, not everyone is in a position to adopt a child.

We have Safe Haven laws in many states. If a mother has a baby and feels she can not take care of the child, she can drop the baby off at a police station, fire department or hospital without repercussions. Also, adoption can often be arrange prior to birth in many situations.

I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

The burden of unintended and unwanted childbearing often compounds social disadvantage, falling disproportionately on women who are young, poor, or members of ethnic minority groups. In 2011, 45 per cent of pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, with the highest rates of such pregnancies found in women who were between 18-24 years of age, poor, unmarried, Black, or Hispanic. When abortion is legal, women who are the most motivated to avoid unwanted childbearing are most likely to seek this option. If they are able to exercise it, the correlation between unwanted childbearing and negative outcomes in the remaining population giving birth is reduced (albeit not eliminated).

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

There is substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting.

Below is a list of reference materials that discuss the outcomes summarized above of unwanted children being born. Some of the noted references are also linked in my remarks above. In each of them, one'll find additional reference materials on similar/related topics.

• Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Sharing responsibility: Women, society, and abortion worldwide. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Axinn, W.G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The Long-Term Impact of Parents' Childbearing Decisions on Children's Self-Esteem, Demography, 35, 435-443.
• David, H.P. (1992). Born unwanted: Long-term developmental effects of denied abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181.
• Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancies in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 24-29, 46.
• Kost, ., Landry, D. J., & Darroch, J. E. (1998) Predicting Maternal Behaviors During Pregnancy: Does Intention Status Matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 79-88.
• Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W.B., and Roth, Z. (1995). Childrenfrom unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age Thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91, 361-369.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V. (1978). Children from unwanted pregnancies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 67-90.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., and Schüller, V., (1992). On the prognosis of children from unwanted pregnancies (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23,1838-1842.
• Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z, and Schüller, V. (1992). On the prevention of psychological subdeprivation (In German). Der Kinderarzt, 23, 1843-1845.
• Myhrman, A.,Olsen, P., Rantakallio, P., and Laara, E.,(1995). Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child's educational attainment? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 116-119.
• Myhrman, A., Rantakallio, P., Sohanni, M.,Jones, P., and Partanen, U. (1996).Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
• Russo, N. F. (1992). Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J. D. Butler & D. F. Walbert (Eds.). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. 4th Edition (pp. 593-626). NY: Facts on File.
• Denious, J. & Russo, N. F. (2000). The Socio-Political Context of Abortion and its Relationship to Women's Mental Health. In J. Ussher (Ed.). Women's Health: Contemporary International Perspectives (pp. 431-439). London: British Psychological Society.
• David, H.P., Dytrych, Z., Matejcek, Z., and Schuller, V. (1988). Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Just think, we could solve all child welfare problems by simply redefining personhood to be age 18, the age of being an adult. Then we could simply terminate all children (but not-persons) with welfare problems.

I know the above paragraph seems outrageous; however, to those that consider a fetus to be a person it is just as outrageous to consider abortion a preventative measure to child welfare problems.

I don't recall having presented abortion as a viable solution option for ameliorating child welfare issues. You know I hold you in higher regard to presume you think I did mean that, so I'm going to for now assume you are just sharing a thought about how some folks may perceive the discussion I offered.

I believe too that you know that though pro-lifers may seek to frame the abortion discussion as one that is tantamount to the outrageousness with which you presented it above. But you and I also both know that presentation merely illustrates either the far-fetched hypothesis fallacy, hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, least probable hypothesis fallacy, extended analogy, or perhaps all of them, maybe even others, depending on how the argument/claim is presented.

320 Said: I realize there are services, organizations and persons that will take the child, but equally, perhaps even more importantly, those solution options suffice in neither quantity nor quality to overcome the ills of a child's having actually been born unwanted.


This statement seems to support the use of abortion to prevent or mitigate the ills of children being born unwanted, which I categorized as being child welfare problems. Otherwise, birth, even with the social ills of the children, would be preferable to abortion. I simply extrapolated that logic to extend limit on the age which a life may be aborted. The simplest solution to end the ills of unwanted children is to remove the children from existence.

That seems like a simple solution, but I hardly consider it so. Yes, it's quick and acute in nature, and yes, that kind of solution appeals to many folks, especially Americans, in the abstract, but I don't seen anything having the moral dilemmas associated with abortion as being simple.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can not account for the willful shortcomings of others.

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

It is clear that you are not familiar with how the Supreme Court works.

The Supreme Court does not throw cases out.

Arguments are made in advance on appeals and then either the Court decides to hear the case and make a decision or they dont.

Once they decide to rule on a case. . . That is when they will try to reconcile our fetal homicide laws with Roe.

Of course they do -- they refuse to hear it.

And if such a case were to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the law subject to being overturned would be the feral protection law which they were found guilty of violating. It still wouldn't touch Roe v. Wade.

You think the court would sooner over turn our fetal homicide laws than Roe?

Only one way to find that out for certain.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz Life i just noticed your sig.. also noticed you ignored my post #53

fyi your imaginary 'onus' is on you to comprehend what you cite.



"I am fighting for laws to criminalize abortion and to make the criminal killing of a "child in the womb" a crime of "murder."

The onus is on you to show how my citing of an existing law (fetal homicide laws) which ALREADY make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" is in any way. . . taking it out of context."





"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Yeah.... which ruling did you think was being challenged?

 

[Faun]

Red:
Not that I particularly want you to be successful at doing so; however, even as you cannot and need not account for them, you should want to understand what engenders them. Failing that, you and your allies on this matter will never overcome them. Admittedly, doing that is a steeply uphill challenge for putting themselves in others' position isn't among the strengths of the pro-life crowd.

I used to try hard (much harder) to do as you say. And, for what it is worth, I used to be more along the lines of a pro-abort, myself. So, I 'understand' them from having been one of them myself.

Thankfully or appreciatively(?) I don't feel the need to understand where my opposition is coming from or what 'engenders' them anymore.

That's because, In my view, the legal aspects of the abortion issue is not going to be resolved by even the most heated exchanges we might have on the internet. I doubt that the final decisions made will even be affected by my 20+ years of fighting this issue. And I doubt that any changes that happens in our laws about abortion will be the direct result of anyone else's personal views either.

I believe our laws will most likely change on abortion MOST - when the number of the cases of those convicted under our fetal homicide laws increases to the point that our Supreme Court finally decides to take up one of their appeals. . . as they (the convicted murderers) are trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe. . . THEY will be the ones pushing the Court to revisit the issue - more than anyone else.

The irony of that is not lost one me.

So, my purpose is not so much to understand my opposition on abortion. I could probably do a better job of defending abortion than they do. My purpose is more to share information and to lend a voice to those who may feel the same way that I do about the issue. . . but may be less vocal about it, less educated on it - etc.

Abortion proponents tend to be a bit like playground bullies (wannabes). I especially like standing up to bullies and I like not being afraid to call it like it is.

Let's take your hypothetical Supreme Court case to it's logical conclusion.... the Supreme Court rules a murderer seeking to have their conviction overturned is not protected by Roe v. Wade since they were not the pregant woman carrying the child. Their case is thrown out, just as it would have been in every lower court, and the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade remains.

It is clear that you are not familiar with how the Supreme Court works.

The Supreme Court does not throw cases out.

Arguments are made in advance on appeals and then either the Court decides to hear the case and make a decision or they dont.

Once they decide to rule on a case. . . That is when they will try to reconcile our fetal homicide laws with Roe.

Of course they do -- they refuse to hear it.

And if such a case were to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the law subject to being overturned would be the feral protection law which they were found guilty of violating. It still wouldn't touch Roe v. Wade.

You think the court would sooner over turn our fetal homicide laws than Roe?

Only one way to find that out for certain.

The Supreme Court wouldn't sooner turn down one over the other -- the court only hears cases brought before it. Such an individual, should they get their case to the Supreme Court, would be about the fetal protection law which was used to convict them. They can't challenge an irrelevant law. The court is not going to rule an irrelevant law is unconstitutional.

The only law(s) they are going to rule on constitutionality are the ones the case was based upon.