CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[Chuz Life]

'Belief' in female genital mutilation is tolerated in the U.S, but not the practice. 'Belief' in bigamy is tolerated in the U.S., but not the practice. 'Belief' that 'life' 'begins' at conception ignores fact.
Believe what one wants, one does not have the right to force a woman to conform to one's beliefs.

Agreed. If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Federal law defines "personhood" beginning at live birth in normal situations (when there is no illegal killing). That view corresponds with a milestone reflecting independence (from mother's body).
When the physiologically independent person reaches age 18 or 21, they are then considered legal adults (or no longer minors) and have cultural/social independence.
Obviously, age matters, and there is a HUGE difference between a zygote and a newborn ... to those not blinded by irrational ideals.

Conjoined twins.

One person or two?

Or in your view are they NO persons at all, since in many cases they can never be separated?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[TWinTX]

If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Please explain for me the difference between "a human being / person" who is in their very first days of life, growth and development immediately following the event of their own conception. . and "a human embryo, zygote or fetus."

Please be as detailed in your explanation as possible.

The point of my last post was that it is "human" all the way. It does not follow that a 1st trimester fetus should be afforded the same protections as a 3nd trimester fetus. Not saying it should not, just saying it does not follow. I am saying society has to decide. Historically the spectrum has ranged from a probation from spilling your seed upon the ground to the Spartans being allowed to dispose of handicapped children up to the age of 12.

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Please explain for me the difference between "a human being / person" who is in their very first days of life, growth and development immediately following the event of their own conception. . and "a human embryo, zygote or fetus."

Please be as detailed in your explanation as possible.

The point of my last post was that it is "human" all the way. It does not follow that a 1st trimester fetus should be afforded the same protections as a 3nd trimester fetus. Not saying it should not, just saying it does not follow. I am saying society has to decide. Historically the spectrum has ranged from a probation from spilling your seed upon the ground to the Spartans being allowed to dispose of handicapped children up to the age of 12.

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are EQUALLY entitled to the protections of our laws. . .

So, where in the Constitution does it say we can "afford" less protections to a child in the first trimester than we afford to a child in the third trimester?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[TWinTX]

If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Please explain for me the difference between "a human being / person" who is in their very first days of life, growth and development immediately following the event of their own conception. . and "a human embryo, zygote or fetus."

Please be as detailed in your explanation as possible.

The point of my last post was that it is "human" all the way. It does not follow that a 1st trimester fetus should be afforded the same protections as a 3nd trimester fetus. Not saying it should not, just saying it does not follow. I am saying society has to decide. Historically the spectrum has ranged from a probation from spilling your seed upon the ground to the Spartans being allowed to dispose of handicapped children up to the age of 12.

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are EQUALLY entitled to the protections of our laws. . .

So, where in the Constitution does it say we can "afford" less protections to a child in the first trimester than we afford to a child in the third trimester?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Since I made no such claim I assume that is an open question to the forum.

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]You keep going back & forth between law & your personal opinions. I was asking you your personal opinion on the similarities & differences between a zygote & newborn.
No can do? Afraid to reveal your ignorance? So you punted to law.
LOL.
Ok then. Let's go back to law.

The Federal law says a "person or human being" does not begin until a live birth occurs. The exception is when the unborn is "murdered" by someone other than the pregnant woman (abortion is not murder).

Equal rights & age discrimination?
You cannot apply that to a zygote.
LOL!!!
Have you not heard of laws on The Age of Maturity? The Age of Consent?
You are not aware of differences between a child and adult in law?

You are off the rational map ...[/QUOTE]

So, of course, the issue is not of a 'straw man', but a 'straw person'. By insisting that 'personhood' begins at conception, the religious objection to a woman controlling her own body can be attacked without 'misogyny'. It doesn't wash.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a live human sperm fertilizes a live human egg cell resulting in a live human zygote/embryo that will (in 21 years and 9 months) become a live human adult there is no point in this scenario that it is NOT alive and or NOT human. That still leaves us with the issue of personhood and at what point society extends the protection of human life.

Please explain for me the difference between "a human being / person" who is in their very first days of life, growth and development immediately following the event of their own conception. . and "a human embryo, zygote or fetus."

Please be as detailed in your explanation as possible.

The point of my last post was that it is "human" all the way. It does not follow that a 1st trimester fetus should be afforded the same protections as a 3nd trimester fetus. Not saying it should not, just saying it does not follow. I am saying society has to decide. Historically the spectrum has ranged from a probation from spilling your seed upon the ground to the Spartans being allowed to dispose of handicapped children up to the age of 12.

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are EQUALLY entitled to the protections of our laws. . .

So, where in the Constitution does it say we can "afford" less protections to a child in the first trimester than we afford to a child in the third trimester?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Since I made no such claim I assume that is an open question to the forum.

You did say that it does not follow that a child in the first trimester would be afforded the same protections as one in the third...

Did you not?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

[QUOTE="there4eyeM, post: ]By insisting that 'personhood' begins at conception, the religious objection to a woman controlling her own body can be attacked without 'misogyny'. It doesn't wash.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing religious about my views or observations regarding personhood. I don't need God or religion in order to know when and how a child's life begins. And I don't need religion to know / conclude that their rights should begin when their life does.

For that, all I need is empathy.




Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

There's nothing religious about my views or observations regarding personhood. ...
I don't need religion to know / conclude that their rights should begin when their life does.
For that, all I need is empathy.

You have empathy for a zygote?
That confirms my suspicion.
Your rationality must also be equivalent to a zygote's rationality.

 

[Chuz Life]

There's nothing religious about my views or observations regarding personhood. ...
I don't need religion to know / conclude that their rights should begin when their life does.
For that, all I need is empathy.

You have empathy for a zygote?
That confirms my suspicion.
Your rationality must also be equivalent to a zygote's rationality.

I can have empathy for a human being in the zygote stage of their life because I was once in that stage of life myself. Just as I can have empathy for a new born or a five year old because I too was once that age and in those stages of my own development and what ever effect laws have on them COULD just as easily have had the same effect on me.

I thought leftists and liberals were the ones who claim to be open minded, tolerant, empathetic and for the downtrodden underdogs...

Go figure.

Regardless, my ability to empathize with a child in the zygote stage of their life is not really the issue. We already have laws that recognize them as children and those laws will be easy enough to use to help overturn Roe. Then too, I think of couples who spend tens of thousands of dollars on Invitro Fertilization and how much those couple's "value" their children - even when they are only in the zygote stages of their life. And my empathy is supported by that.

Your wasted appeals to ridicule not withstanding.

 

[Chuz Life]

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

Ummmm. In your hypothetical, If Roe v Wade has been repealed. . . it (the application of the 5th and 14th amendments) already did survive the courts. Didn't it? Why else would you think the Supreme Court would overturn it?

 

[there4eyeM]

SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.

It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.

The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.

The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.

 

[Chuz Life]

SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.

It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.

The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.

The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.

Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?

Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?

 

[there4eyeM]

Defining person is problematic for states because of questions about citizenship and constitutional rights which are clearly in the purview of the federal Congress. The states do have a recognized vital interest in public health and long-established authority to regulated medical practices. The Texas abortion restrictions are based on this legal ground. It isn't foolproof but it is a safer way to go than getting into "personhood."

 

[Chuz Life]

Defining person is problematic for states because of questions about citizenship and constitutional rights which are clearly in the purview of the federal Congress. The states do have a recognized vital interest in public health and long-established authority to regulated medical practices. The Texas abortion restrictions are based on this legal ground. It isn't foolproof but it is a safer way to go than getting into "personhood."

Will you please answer my questions in post #132?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[there4eyeM]

Just a little reminder folks - abortion is a wide ranging topic that covers a lot of ground - ethics, rights, legal issues, etc. The OP has opted to restrict the discussion to whether the LAW of abortion should be left up to the states if R v. W were overturned - if yes, why or if not, why. So it's pretty narrowly defined so as to keep the discussion focused.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just a little reminder folks - abortion is a wide ranging topic that covers a lot of ground - ethics, rights, legal issues, etc. The OP has opted to restrict the discussion to whether the LAW of abortion should be left up to the states if R v. W were overturned - if yes, why or if not, why. So it's pretty narrowly defined so as to keep the discussion focused.

My questions in post #132 are very much in line with the subject of the OP.
Won't you please answer them?



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[there4eyeM]

Human life began at the inception of human DNA.

 

[Chuz Life]

Human life began at the inception of human DNA.

How is that an answer to my questions about rights in post #132.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[TWinTX]

Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.

Ummmm. In your hypothetical, If Roe v Wade has been repealed. . . it (the application of the 5th and 14th amendments) already did survive the courts. Didn't it? Why else would you think the Supreme Court would overturn it?

Actually, in Roe v Wade SCOTUS has already stated that protection of life des not "always" apply to a fetus.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

At one time, Abortion was left up to the people of the States. They were totally against abortion on demand, but then when the Supreme Court was stacked against the people, the rogues voted 5 to 4 to overturn the will of the people(Democracy).. Only when liberals want something will they support the decisions of the black robes, but when the black robes want to follow the Constitution, then the liberal riots begin.