Abortion

[AmyNation]

If its a baby, depending on how it looks, is the reverse true also?

 

[xBiophagex]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

As I've stated, according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: Human Being.
If you acknowledge that an unborn is a human being, then you have to acknowledge that it's a person.

 

[xBiophagex]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

^^this

Feel free to provide some evidence that an unborn is anything other than a person from conception. As I stated in the first post, being a human being is enough qualification to being considered a legal person.

 

[AmyNation]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

As I've stated, according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: Human Being.
If you acknowledge that an unborn is a human being, then you have to acknowledge that it's a person.

Fetus' dont think, or feel or love. They have no functioning brain, and depending on the stage of development, no arms, legs, or mouth.

They are not sentient. If you feel that all that makes us who we are is the body we inhabit, that's your opinion. I however, disagree.

 

[xBiophagex]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

As I've stated, according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: Human Being.
If you acknowledge that an unborn is a human being, then you have to acknowledge that it's a person.

Fetus' dont think, or feel or love. They have no functioning brain, and depending on the stage of development, no arms, legs, or mouth.

They are not sentient. If you feel that all that makes us who we are is the body we inhabit, that's your opinion. I however, disagree.

Again, feel free to provide evidence that the things you mentioned are prerequisites for being considered a human being or person. What you or I 'feel', is irrelevant. Countless medical textbooks have stated that an unborn is a human being from the moment of conception, and thus a person. It's not a matter of an unborn resembling the humans we're normally in interaction with.

 

[AmyNation]

I have not, nor has anyone else so far, denied that a fetus is human. You seem intent on drawing me into a debate about it, when I haven't disagreed with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

^^this

Feel free to provide some evidence that an unborn is anything other than a person from conception. As I stated in the first post, being a human being is enough qualification to being considered a legal person.

Incorrect.

Your position is predicated on the subjective criteria of religion and philosophy, not the law.

The courts have wisely left this determination to a woman contemplating abortion, to her family, her religious beliefs and teachings, and the medical professionals responsible for her health – with the woman’s best interests being paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently the ‘comparison argument’ fails, where an opponent of privacy rights attempts to equate a fetus with that of a child after delivery, unaware of the fact that the Constitution recognizes the mother’s protected liberty, and that she alone is authorized to make decisions concerning her health and life, not the state.

 

[xBiophagex]

^^this

Feel free to provide some evidence that an unborn is anything other than a person from conception. As I stated in the first post, being a human being is enough qualification to being considered a legal person.

Incorrect.

Your position is predicated on the subjective criteria of religion and philosophy, not the law.

The courts have wisely left this determination to a woman contemplating abortion, to her family, her religious beliefs and teachings, and the medical professionals responsible for her health – with the woman’s best interests being paramount:

Feel free to point out at any point where I've injected philosophy or religion into the issue. As I wrote in the first post, Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, the law dictionary used by the higher courts, states,
Person: A human being.
The courts simply denied unborns their most important right.

 

[xBiophagex]

I have not, nor has anyone else so far, denied that a fetus is human. You seem intent on drawing me into a debate about it, when I haven't disagreed with you.

You stated that you do not believe that an unborn is a person, which is in disagreement with my first post.

 

[AmyNation]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Feel free to provide some evidence that an unborn is anything other than a person from conception. As I stated in the first post, being a human being is enough qualification to being considered a legal person.

Incorrect.

Your position is predicated on the subjective criteria of religion and philosophy, not the law.

The courts have wisely left this determination to a woman contemplating abortion, to her family, her religious beliefs and teachings, and the medical professionals responsible for her health – with the woman’s best interests being paramount:

Feel free to point out at any point where I've injected philosophy or religion into the issue. As I wrote in the first post, Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, the law dictionary used by the higher courts, states,
Person: A human being.
The courts simply denied unborns their most important right.

No, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Constitutional right to privacy, prohibiting the state from violating that right by denying a woman access to legal abortion services. Griswold/Roe/Casey is settled and accepted case law, and it is the law of the land.

Given your clear ignorance of that case law it’s logical in infer yours is a religious or philosophical ‘argument.’

It is therefore incumbent upon you to cite the Supreme Court case overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey.

 

[AmyNation]

hu·man be·ing
Noun
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate...

Again, no fetus in that definition either.

 

[xBiophagex]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition is the legal dictionary used by the higher courts. It defines a person as: A human being.

 

[AmyNation]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition is the legal dictionary used by the higher courts. It defines a person as: A human being.

See post 32.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition is the legal dictionary used by the higher courts. It defines a person as: A human being.

Don’t know what to tell ya…

Use your OP as part of an amicus brief should the Court ever review another privacy rights/abortion case.

 

[xBiophagex]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition is the legal dictionary used by the higher courts. It defines a person as: A human being.

See post 32.

I don't know what dictionary you got that out of, but as I said Black's Law dictionary 9th edition is the official dictionary involved. And person is a legal term, so if you didn't get that out of a legal dictionary then it's quite pointless.

 

[xBiophagex]

See post 32.

Ah, it would appear you got that from dictionary.com. You really believe that a definition that you apparently got from a website stands up against the latest edition of the official legal dictionary the courts use, and webster which also defines person as 'A human being.'?

Not to mention that the source you used also says that a person is 'A human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing' in the second line.

 

[xBiophagex]

No, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Constitutional right to privacy, prohibiting the state from violating that right by denying a woman access to legal abortion services. Griswold/Roe/Casey is settled and accepted case law, and it is the law of the land.

Given your clear ignorance of that case law it’s logical in infer yours is a religious or philosophical ‘argument.’

It is therefore incumbent upon you to cite the Supreme Court case overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey.[/QUOTE]

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life trumps every other right. Feel free to point out any other circumstance where the right to life is taken away in protection of another right.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

Well then that human being should have made better precautions to make sure that other human being would have no way of using her body. Once it's happened, there's a big choice to make. Does she murder that human that has begun to USE her body?

Murder is a legal term and abortion is not murder, in a legal sense. I think the question really being argued here is whether she should have the choice at all. If you take the position that the right to life supercedes all other rights, then my right to life supercedes your right to your body. If it does not, then the right to life does not supercede all other rights and the right to life of the fetus does not supercede the right to personal sovereignty of the woman. Whether or not she wishes to allow the fetus to use her body is her choice. Her reasons for that decision are no one else's business.

If one is going to take a moral position, especially if one intends to impose that position upon others, then that position needs to be consistent. I firmly believe a fetus should have all of the rights of any other human being, but no other human being has the right to use the body of another without that person's consent. I do not believe a fetus holds rights beyond that of other human beings, or that a pregnant woman somehow loses rights others have.

As to choices. You can choose to offer me your kidney in order to save my life. However, you can - at the very last moment - change your mind and refuse to give it to me. Even if that last minute decision results in my death. Because I have no claim to your body without your consent regardless of any promise or prior decision. You can even change your mind on your death bed and I would have absolutely no claim to your corpse, even if that meant my death.

So this argument that the right to life is paramount does not stand up.

 

[PratchettFan]

^^this

Feel free to provide some evidence that an unborn is anything other than a person from conception. As I stated in the first post, being a human being is enough qualification to being considered a legal person.

Incorrect.

Your position is predicated on the subjective criteria of religion and philosophy, not the law.

The courts have wisely left this determination to a woman contemplating abortion, to her family, her religious beliefs and teachings, and the medical professionals responsible for her health – with the woman’s best interests being paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently the ‘comparison argument’ fails, where an opponent of privacy rights attempts to equate a fetus with that of a child after delivery, unaware of the fact that the Constitution recognizes the mother’s protected liberty, and that she alone is authorized to make decisions concerning her health and life, not the state.

The law is just as subjective as philosophy and religion. Legal definitions are subjective. What is not subjective is straight biology. A fetus is a human being. A seperate entity distinct from the host, even though dependent upon it. One can argue its legal, religious or philosophical status, but its biology is a fact.

Personally, I do not trust definitions which attempt to differentiate the status of human beings.