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

[D Truth]

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.

OTHER

The lets-avoid-the-facts religious belief of "Personhood" is a relatively new argument presented by those who wish to kill babies for money. The reference to the constitution is not explicit as your argument pertains, personhood is not a word and is not mentioned, just the word "person". However you are correct, a person is a human being. Just look at spellcheck on this site... personhood is not really a word. What is a human being? Factually, it is a living being of human DNA, which is precisely what we all are (born and unborn).

Now that the baby killing religion has realized it's former arguments have no factual merit within the public discourse, we are moving further into the realm of "feelings" and "theories" of the matter. Still, the bizarre belief that a person isn't a person until they are born was always rooted in a religious belief. It's all about money to those "people", facts be damned.

 

[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.

OTHER

The lets-avoid-the-facts religious belief of "Personhood" is a relatively new argument presented by those who wish to kill babies for money. The reference to the constitution is not explicit as your argument pertains, personhood is not a word and is not mentioned, just the word "person". However you are correct, a person is a human being. Just look at spellcheck on this site... personhood is not really a word. What is a human being? Factually, it is a living being of human DNA, which is precisely what we all are (born and unborn).

Now that the baby killing religion has realized it's former arguments have no factual merit within the public discourse, we are moving further into the realm of "feelings" and "theories" of the matter. Still, the bizarre belief that a person isn't a person until they are born was always rooted in a religious belief. It's all about money to those "people", facts be damned.

Not sure I can agree with all that but you did a good job of shedding some light on a perspective I have not read before.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
That is not 100% accurate, but it is what most often gets a matter before the Court. You'll want to review Marbury v. Madison. (Judicial Review and the Supreme Court) The Court can take it upon itself to strike down laws passed by Congress and the states. The only laws the Court cannot strike down are those found in the Constitution itself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those hostile to privacy rights and who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by ‘banning’ abortion have offered nothing new to the debate.

What they might believe or think is subjective and personal, devoid of legal merit and in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end; the disagreement concerns how in fact to end the practice, where the conflict exists between those who advocate violating a woman’s protected liberty of privacy and those who wish to find a solution to the problem that will actually work, and comports with the Constitution and its case law.

One is at liberty to believe ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to express that opinion as a private citizen in the context of private society.

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ – all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Red:
That is not 100% accurate, but it is what most often gets a matter before the Court. You'll want to review Marbury v. Madison. (Judicial Review and the Supreme Court) The Court can take it upon itself to strike down laws passed by Congress and the states. The only laws the Court cannot strike down are those found in the Constitution itself.

Not only does the SCOTUS have the authority to strike down passed laws. . . The SCOTUS also has the authority to overturn any of its own past rulings as well.

 

[Chuz Life]

Those hostile to privacy rights and who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by ‘banning’ abortion have offered nothing new to the debate.

What they might believe or think is subjective and personal, devoid of legal merit and in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end;

the disagreement concerns how in fact to end the practice, where the conflict exists between those who advocate violating a woman’s protected liberty of privacy and those who wish to find a solution to the problem that will actually work, and comports with the Constitution and its case law.

One is at liberty to believe ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to express that opinion as a private citizen in the context of private society.

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ –

You mean except for those cases when an abortion actually IS a murder.

Right?

all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

If a woman is pregnant - the only way to become UN-pregnant is to "give birth."

What do you call an abortion attempt that fails to kill the child being aborted?

Answer: BIRTH!

Given that surgical deliveries of children from the womb is such a common practice, the only real difference between most aborted children and any typical surgical delivery is the INTENT of the woman and the doctor (sic) involved.

An aborted child is just as "born" as is any other child which has been surgically delivered from the womb. The difference is that the aborted child is BORN into the hands of their killers.

 

[alang1216]

Apologies if this has been already beaten to death on this thread but...

I saw lots of talk about when "personhood" begins but has there been anything on when personhood ends? I wonder if there are personhood laws passed how will they affect end of life care?

 

[FA_Q2]

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ – all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Except that most states have laws against late term abortions - many at the 22 week mark - so your statements are factually false.

 

[320 Years of History]

Apologies if this has been already beaten to death on this thread but...

I saw lots of talk about when "personhood" begins but has there been anything on when personhood ends? I wonder if there are personhood laws passed how will they affect end of life care?

Someone attempted to inject the "when personhood ends" element into the discussion, but it's not remotely the same set of issues, so that was non-starter, particularly since the thread isn't about when personhood ends.

 

[alang1216]

Apologies if this has been already beaten to death on this thread but...

I saw lots of talk about when "personhood" begins but has there been anything on when personhood ends? I wonder if there are personhood laws passed how will they affect end of life care?

Someone attempted to inject the "when personhood ends" element into the discussion, but it's not remotely the same set of issues, so that was non-starter, particularly since the thread isn't about when personhood ends.

I thought knowing when personhoods ends would shed some light on when it begins so I thought it would be appropriate. But I guess I was alone in that belief. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[320 Years of History]

Apologies if this has been already beaten to death on this thread but...

I saw lots of talk about when "personhood" begins but has there been anything on when personhood ends? I wonder if there are personhood laws passed how will they affect end of life care?

Someone attempted to inject the "when personhood ends" element into the discussion, but it's not remotely the same set of issues, so that was non-starter, particularly since the thread isn't about when personhood ends.

I thought knowing when personhoods ends would shed some light on when it begins so I thought it would be appropriate. But I guess I was alone in that belief. Thanks for the heads up.

YW & NP

Here's the brief discussion I had in that regard:

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

 

[D Truth]

Those hostile to privacy rights and who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by ‘banning’ abortion have offered nothing new to the debate.

What they might believe or think is subjective and personal, devoid of legal merit and in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end; the disagreement concerns how in fact to end the practice, where the conflict exists between those who advocate violating a woman’s protected liberty of privacy and those who wish to find a solution to the problem that will actually work, and comports with the Constitution and its case law.

One is at liberty to believe ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to express that opinion as a private citizen in the context of private society.

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ – all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

This is actually a half decent argument. Well stated Jones.

However, while most agree with you that abortion is a homicide. How does privacy factor into homicide investigations?
Yes, that is the position you must now defend.

The argument proposed:
Legally, the person who is committing the homicide is the abortionist. They are the ones subject to the most damning punishment(somehow I'm guessing you think the stressed out female is at most to blame?). The almost mother? That is conditional.... most often the woman is a victim too.

I've been there for women, counseled them after they have to deal with the omnipresent guilt that follows. It doesn't go away. Every abortion has two victims...one is dead and one wishes they were dead. Funny thing is that once planned parenthood gets it's money, they could not care less about their "patients". Then again, planned parenthood doesn't care about anything but dead babies and a few shekels.

Bonus points:
Also responsible are those who would commit hate speech against the unborn, referring to them as not human (clearly a scientific falsehood). Thus a matter of butchery for profit... Hateful ones are arguing that people of a certain age are not "personhood". They place an ambiguous, undefined non-word as a measure of when it is fine to kill someone? Isn't that frightening?

Shouldn't people who argue such be subjected to calls to their employers to notify them that they are employing a homicidal person who committed hate speech? Where is the hate watch groups on this? Come on democrats! isn't this what you are all about?

 

[320 Years of History]

Those hostile to privacy rights and who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by ‘banning’ abortion have offered nothing new to the debate.

What they might believe or think is subjective and personal, devoid of legal merit and in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end; the disagreement concerns how in fact to end the practice, where the conflict exists between those who advocate violating a woman’s protected liberty of privacy and those who wish to find a solution to the problem that will actually work, and comports with the Constitution and its case law.

One is at liberty to believe ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to express that opinion as a private citizen in the context of private society.

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ – all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

This is actually a half decent argument. Well stated Jones.

However, while most agree with you that abortion is a homicide. How does privacy factor into homicide investigations?
Yes, that is the position you must now defend.

The argument proposed:
Legally, the person who is committing the homicide is the abortionist. They are the ones subject to the most damning punishment(somehow I'm guessing you think the stressed out female is at most to blame?). The almost mother? That is conditional.... most often the woman is a victim too.

I've been there for women, counseled them after they have to deal with the omnipresent guilt that follows. It doesn't go away. Every abortion has two victims...one is dead and one wishes they were dead. Funny thing is that once planned parenthood gets it's money, they could not care less about their "patients". Then again, planned parenthood doesn't care about anything but dead babies and a few shekels.

Bonus points:
Also responsible are those who would commit hate speech against the unborn, referring to them as not human (clearly a scientific falsehood). Thus a matter of butchery for profit... Hateful ones are arguing that people of a certain age are not "personhood". They place an ambiguous, undefined non-word as a measure of when it is fine to kill someone? Isn't that frightening?

Shouldn't people who argue such be subjected to calls to their employers to notify them that they are employing a homicidal person who committed hate speech? Where is the hate watch groups on this? Come on democrats! isn't this what you are all about?

Red:
There's a huge set of problems with considering abortion as a murder:

• Abortion is an elective procedure, except in cases of rape, incest and maternal health.
• Nobody actively encourages women to have abortions, and even if someone were to do, the women doesn't have to agree to having the procedure.
• In all other murderous sequences of events, were one to, against their will, bring another person before someone whom one knows will kill that person, one would be a party to murder and charged (and convicted) as such. Yet pro-lifers want to "have their cake and eat it too."
  • They want fetuses, which clearly don't will to cease to exist as living things, to be considered "persons."
  • They equate pregnancy termination equipment with murder weapons.
  • They equate the doctors who perform abortions with murders.
  • They don't equate the woman who brings the presumably unwilling fetus to the doctor so s/he can terminate its existence as an accomplice.

Their only real option for not ticking off women in general is to create a special "carve out" in the legal system that says a woman who has an abortion is a victim, not an accomplice. But what exactly is the woman a victim of? Pregnancy? Except for the Virgin Mary, women and men don't have immaculate conceptions; we know the abstinence method of contraception works 100% of the time that it is used. She's certainly not a victim of an abortion procedure because she is nearly always 100% in control of whether she is at risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. Accordingly, if men and women are victims of anything, it's their own perfunctory approach to preventing pregnancy from happening.

There's another problem with deeming abortion as murder.

• Before having sex, a man a woman know they don't want a child.
• Before having sex, the couple both know they can abort the child and they are both okay with that as an option of "last resort" if the woman becomes pregnant.
• They engage in unprotected coitus...she isn't using a female contraceptive method and he doesn't use a male method.
• The woman becomes pregnant and has an abortion to terminate it.

In such a scenario and if abortion is murder and the fetus/embryo is a person, the couple have engaged in an act they know has a reasonable likelihood of creating a life, and they did so with the aim of murdering the life/lives that result from their deliberate act. Now there is another individual who is a party to murder. Moreover, rather than taking the life of a person who already walks the Earth, they are creating a so-called person with near express intent of murdering that person.

Well, one can see from the above why men want to say whether to have an abortion is exclusively a woman's choice. It makes sense that men don't want to be seen as homicide accomplices. It doesn't in the scenario above make sense that they are not. Thus we find the self-serving basis for why some men should refuse to accept any responsibility for a woman's having an abortion.

At the end of the day, the real problem in the abortion debate is emotional and rational cowardice. This matter of fetal personhood, however, doesn't have to be a source of consternation. It is because the philosophical principles we usually espouse with ease in issues such as abortion lead to outcomes that we don't like. The solution isn't to bend the principles; it's to learn to accept them. We all in our lives from time to time must accept things that make us uncomfortable. The abortion issue is just one of those things.

 

[Chuz Life]

Those hostile to privacy rights and who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by ‘banning’ abortion have offered nothing new to the debate.

What they might believe or think is subjective and personal, devoid of legal merit and in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion must end; the disagreement concerns how in fact to end the practice, where the conflict exists between those who advocate violating a woman’s protected liberty of privacy and those who wish to find a solution to the problem that will actually work, and comports with the Constitution and its case law.

One is at liberty to believe ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to express that opinion as a private citizen in the context of private society.

But in the realm of the law and public policy – where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder’ – all citizens must respect and acknowledge the Constitution and the rule of law, where a woman has the fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, as the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

This is actually a half decent argument. Well stated Jones.

However, while most agree with you that abortion is a homicide. How does privacy factor into homicide investigations?
Yes, that is the position you must now defend.

The argument proposed:
Legally, the person who is committing the homicide is the abortionist. They are the ones subject to the most damning punishment(somehow I'm guessing you think the stressed out female is at most to blame?). The almost mother? That is conditional.... most often the woman is a victim too.

I've been there for women, counseled them after they have to deal with the omnipresent guilt that follows. It doesn't go away. Every abortion has two victims...one is dead and one wishes they were dead. Funny thing is that once planned parenthood gets it's money, they could not care less about their "patients". Then again, planned parenthood doesn't care about anything but dead babies and a few shekels.

Bonus points:
Also responsible are those who would commit hate speech against the unborn, referring to them as not human (clearly a scientific falsehood). Thus a matter of butchery for profit... Hateful ones are arguing that people of a certain age are not "personhood". They place an ambiguous, undefined non-word as a measure of when it is fine to kill someone? Isn't that frightening?

Shouldn't people who argue such be subjected to calls to their employers to notify them that they are employing a homicidal person who committed hate speech? Where is the hate watch groups on this? Come on democrats! isn't this what you are all about?

Red:
There's a huge set of problems with considering abortion as a murder:

• Abortion is an elective procedure, except in cases of rape, incest and maternal health.
• Nobody actively encourages women to have abortions, and even if someone were to do, the women doesn't have to agree to having the procedure.
• In all other murderous sequences of events, were one to, against their will, bring another person before someone whom one knows will kill that person, one would be a party to murder and charged (and convicted) as such. Yet pro-lifers want to "have their cake and eat it too."
  • They want fetuses, which clearly don't will to cease to exist as living things, to be considered "persons."
  • They equate pregnancy termination equipment with murder weapons.
  • They equate the doctors who perform abortions with murders.
  • They don't equate the woman who brings the presumably unwilling fetus to the doctor so s/he can terminate its existence as an accomplice.

Their only real option for not ticking off women in general is to create a special "carve out" in the legal system that says a woman who has an abortion is a victim, not an accomplice. But what exactly is the woman a victim of? Pregnancy? Except for the Virgin Mary, women and men don't have immaculate conceptions; we know the abstinence method of contraception works 100% of the time that it is used. She's certainly not a victim of an abortion procedure because she is nearly always 100% in control of whether she is at risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. Accordingly, if men and women are victims of anything, it's their own perfunctory approach to preventing pregnancy from happening.

There's another problem with deeming abortion as murder.

• Before having sex, a man a woman know they don't want a child.
• Before having sex, the couple both know they can abort the child and they are both okay with that as an option of "last resort" if the woman becomes pregnant.
• They engage in unprotected coitus...she isn't using a female contraceptive method and he doesn't use a male method.
• The woman becomes pregnant and has an abortion to terminate it.

In such a scenario and if abortion is murder and the fetus/embryo is a person, the couple have engaged in an act they know has a reasonable likelihood of creating a life, and they did so with the aim of murdering the life/lives that result from their deliberate act. Now there is another individual who is a party to murder. Moreover, rather than taking the life of a person who already walks the Earth, they are creating a so-called person with near express intent of murdering that person.

Well, one can see from the above why men want to say whether to have an abortion is exclusively a woman's choice. It makes sense that men don't want to be seen as homicide accomplices. It doesn't in the scenario above make sense that they are not. Thus we find the self-serving basis for why some men should refuse to accept any responsibility for a woman's having an abortion.

At the end of the day, the real problem in the abortion debate is emotional and rational cowardice. This matter of fetal personhood, however, doesn't have to be a source of consternation. It is because the philosophical principles we usually espouse with ease in issues such as abortion lead to outcomes that we don't like. The solution isn't to bend the principles; it's to learn to accept them. We all in our lives from time to time must accept things that make us uncomfortable. The abortion issue is just one of those things.

I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement.

Our Constitution declares that all "persons" are EQUALLY entitled to the protections of our laws. It's not contingent upon how much or how little the protection of the rights of any one group will have and impact on the conveniences of others.

Once a human being in the fetal stage of their life legally recognized as a "person?"

That's it.

Their Constitutional rights are automatic.

Justice Potter Stewart already indicated as much when Roe was being decided.

The pro-aborts only hope is to maintain the denial of the biological fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" and as such is a "person" according to the legal definitions for what a "natural person" is.

That denial has been chipped away for several years now and sooner or later, their denials and Roe will fall. We are not going to cease our efforts until it does.

 

[alang1216]

NOT A PERSON

PERSON

Seems obvious to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

NOT A PERSON

PERSON

Seems obvious to me.

Is it?

At 8 months, everything that is in your picture of a person is completely present.

 

[alang1216]

NOT A PERSON

PERSON

Seems obvious to me.

Is it?

At 8 months, everything that is in your picture of a person is completely present.

You're right (both my kids were born at about 8 months), however, NONE of those things are present in the picture of the zygote. That much should be obvious to everyone.

 

[320 Years of History]

I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement.

That considering abortion as murder is philosophically and jurisprudentially problematic isn't the point nor is it why I have a problem with the pro-life position. The pro-life rationale necessarily leads to absolving the parties involved -- the mother and father -- from the murder charge is the problem I have with it. Quite simply there is no instance of murder where all the parties to it -- direct and indirect -- are not held culpable.

Here again, were pro-lifers of a mind to hold the mother and father responsible for their role in the murder event, I'd be fine with that aspect of their position. But again, like their pat answer for how to deal with unwanted childbirths, they won't adopt a position that's consistent with the rest of our jurisprudence concerning homicides.

You know exactly what I mean too. You and I both can see you did not address the matter of "carving out" an exception to the accessory to murder aspect that is unavoidable if one deems abortion a murder. You didn't because you, like every other pro-lifer, don't have a legitimate and rational basis for exculpating someone who, in any other situation would be charged as an accessory to a murder.

The only real answer to that is to just say, "we just don't want to, regardless of the legal and logical inconsistency of it, hold mothers and fathers criminally accountable for fetal murders they enable or instigate."

The pro-aborts only hope is to maintain the denial of the biological fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" and as such is a "person" according to the legal definitions for what a "natural person" is.

I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. Plenty of people are pro-choice. The two are not the same.

You earlier claimed to understand the other side of this issue. Your use of "pro-aborts" suggests anything but understanding well that perspective is more likely what is so.

Once a human being in the fetal stage of their life legally recognized as a "person?"

That's it.

Their Constitutional rights are automatic.

Justice Potter Stewart already indicated as much when Roe was being decided.

Nobody is suggesting that a person's Constitutional rights are not automatic. What's being argued here is whether a fetus is a person. I have stated clearly that it is, IMO, not a person. Clearly other people disagree. That's fine; those who disagree can simply not have an abortion. Murder is already illegal.

People who find it wrong to murder a born person daily choose not to do so when they clearly could choose otherwise. That they'd be murdering a person probably has a lot to do with why they opt not to commit murder. There's no reason why expectant parents cannot make the same choice if they see fit.

Deeming a fetus to be a fully fledged person with all the rights appertaining to people just creates a new class of criminal, but doesn't actually solve any problem. It does, on the other hand, create new ones and/or exacerbate existing ones.

• Creates a need for more room in prisons.
• Is inconsistent with the general stance the very same voters have re: government's intervention into the citizenry's lives.
• The above discussed legal and rational incongruity in how murder is penalized.

At 8 months, everything that is in your picture of a person is completely present.

Is anyone actually advocating for 8 month abortions? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of aborting an 8 month old fetus, but I realize that my position necessarily makes that something one can do. I can only hope that expectant parents would not wait that long to do it, but I'm sure some will.

 

[320 Years of History]

NOT A PERSON

PERSON

Seems obvious to me.

Is it?

At 8 months, everything that is in your picture of a person is completely present.

You're right (both my kids were born at about 8 months), however, NONE of those things are present in the picture of the zygote. That much should be obvious to everyone.

FWIW:

Weeks 31 - 34

• Your baby grows quickly and gains a lot of fat.
• Rhythmic breathing occurs, but baby's lungs are not fully mature.
• Baby's bones are fully developed, but are still soft.
• Your baby's body begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.

Weeks 35 - 37

• Baby weighs about 5 1/2 pounds.
• Your baby keeps gaining weight, but probably won't get much longer.
• The skin isn't as wrinkled as fat forms under the skin.
• Baby has definite sleeping patterns.
• Your little one's heart and blood vessels are complete.
• Muscles and bones are fully developed.

Week 38 - 40

• Lanugo is gone except for on the upper arms and shoulders.
• Fingernails may extend beyond fingertips.
• Small breast buds are present on both sexes.
• Head hair is now coarse and thicker.
• In your 40th week of pregnancy, it's been 38 weeks since conception, and your baby could be born any day now.

There's no way around it. Most of what happens during pregnancy has happened by month 8.

Red:
One would think it would be, but obvious or not, there are folks who perceive them as the same things.

 

[Chuz Life]

I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement.

That considering abortion as murder is philosophically and jurisprudentially problematic isn't the point nor is it why I have a problem with the pro-life position.

I don't agree that we have the luxury of such considerations. All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Right? So, once a child in the womb is deemed to a "person" it is no longer a matter of discretion. Their rights are automatic.

The pro-life rationale necessarily leads to absolving the parties involved -- the mother and father -- from the murder charge is the problem
I have with it.

See above. I don't agree that is discretionary. Any "pro-lifer" who thinks that we can recognize the personhood of children in the womb and NOT have legal consequences for anyone who kills one in a criminal act (like an illegal abortion) is not being rational.

Quite simply there is no instance of murder where all the parties to it -- direct and indirect -- are not held culpable.

I would change that from 'are not' to "should not" but I basically agree.

The charge of "murder" demands culpability.

Here again, were pro-lifers of a mind to hold the mother and father responsible for their role in the murder event, I'd be fine with that aspect of their position.

It's not monolithic. Not all "pro-lifers" would give the parents a pass on their part in their child's death via an illegal abortion.

But again, like their pat answer for how to deal with unwanted childbirths, they won't adopt a position that's consistent with the rest of our jurisprudence concerning homicides.

You know exactly what I mean too. You and I both can see you did not address the matter of "carving out" an exception to the accessory to murder aspect that is unavoidable if one deems abortion a murder.

See above. Again. I have too addressed this.

You didn't because you, like every other pro-lifer, don't have a legitimate and rational basis for exculpating someone who, in any other situation would be charged as an accessory to a murder.

You really should consider getting your facts straight before you make these kinds of assumptions. . . especially about someone like me who is not the typical "pro-lifer."

The only real answer to that is to just say, "we just don't want to, regardless of the legal and logical inconsistency of it, hold mothers and fathers criminally accountable for fetal murders they enable or instigate."

Like I already said above, the charge of murder demands for accountability. We agree on that.

That said, I would not put it past our lawmakers and even our Supreme Court to continue to try to have it both ways as they did with the slavery issue and as they do today with having exceptions in our fetal homicide laws.

The pro-aborts only hope is to maintain the denial of the biological fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is "a human being" and as such is a "person" according to the legal definitions for what a "natural person" is.

I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. Plenty of people are pro-choice. The two are not the same.

Not only do some people call themselves "pro-abortion" our dictionaries already recognize and define the term as well. A person who is a proponent on gay marriage is considered to be "pro-gay marriage." A person who is a proponent for legalized drugs is called - "pro-drug." Same goes for the "pro-gun" crowd, etc. So, why the double standard for proponents for legalized abortion?

You earlier claimed to understand the other side of this issue. Your use of "pro-aborts" suggests anything but understanding well that perspective is more likely what is so.

Shrug.

I would have had no problem with someone calling me a pro-abort during the time that I actually did think it should remain legal as a "woman's choice."

Once a human being in the fetal stage of their life legally recognized as a "person?"

That's it.

Their Constitutional rights are automatic.

Justice Potter Stewart already indicated as much when Roe was being decided.

Nobody is suggesting that a person's Constitutional rights are not automatic. What's being argued here is whether a fetus is a person.

That's funny because you haven't actually discussed the details of what it takes to qualify for "personhood" yet.

I have stated clearly that it is, IMO, not a person.

Okay but, Denial is not an argument. I submit that so long as we have laws which make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in ANY one situation. . . the denials (such as yours) about whether or not other laws can made to do the same for other situations has already been defeated.

Clearly other people disagree. That's fine; those who disagree can simply not have an abortion.

Do you hold that view for any other forms of child molestation?

Murder is already illegal.

True. . . and it sometimes includes the murders of children in the womb.

People who find it wrong to murder a born person daily choose not to do so when they clearly could choose otherwise.

Exactly.

And that is why the "anti-choice" label that pro-aborts use is such a farce. Whether there are to be legal consequences for aborting a child or not. . . (as you said above) people would still be free to make their own choices every day.

That they'd be murdering a person probably has a lot to do with why they opt not to commit murder. There's no reason why expectant parents cannot make the same choice if they see fit.

Agreed.

Deeming a fetus to be a fully fledged person with all the rights appertaining to people just creates a new class of criminal, but doesn't actually solve any problem. It does, on the other hand, create new ones and/or exacerbate existing ones.

• Creates a need for more room in prisons.
• Is inconsistent with the general stance the very same voters have re: government's intervention into the citizenry's lives.
• The above discussed legal and rational incongruity in how murder is penalized.

• 
  

Same response as earlier: "I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement"