CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[Fishlore]

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.

 

[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.

You are clearly overthinking all of the above. Whenever it is that the Supreme Court ultimately decides to revisit the Roe v Wade decision, it will not likely involve debate which compels them to consider whether or not a cancerous tumor qualifies as a "person."

As was mentioned earlier, we already have (fetal homicide) laws on the books that clearly define "children in the womb" as "human beings" and in "any stage of development." So, there is no need for the court to revisit those definitions when they revisit Roe.

Edit: P,S. I don't think anyone is making the claim that a child in the womb is a "U.S. Citizen" yet. The claim is only that they are human beings, children and (as such) persons.

 

[Fishlore]

A child born in the USA is a citizen. Why would not a child conceived in the USA not be a citizen by the same reasoning, if, as you suggest, that zygote is a "person" just as that newborn, you and I are "persons"?

 

[william the wie]

A child born in the USA is a citizen. Why would not a child conceived in the USA not be a citizen by the same reasoning, if, as you suggest, that zygote is a "person" just as that newborn, you and I are "persons"?

That argument and others crop up all of the time in immigration courts and fertility laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

A child born in the USA is a citizen. Why would not a child conceived in the USA not be a citizen by the same reasoning, if, as you suggest, that zygote is a "person" just as that newborn, you and I are "persons"?

Yours is a fair point and even though it makes sense and maybe even SHOULD be the case that citizenship begins at conception... it doesn't.

Possibly because it is near impossible to know precisely when and where a person's conception actually takes place. It can take days after a woman has sex for conception to occur. Much easier to know when and where she gives birth.

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

 

[Fishlore]

The technical problem of knowing when conception occurs is no doubt a factor as you suggest. As I mentioned earlier, the modern understanding of conception is relatively recent. There are other technical issues making the legal status of pregnancy in its early stages hard for government to deal with. Banning abortion in the later stages as matter of religious belief makes sense but is unconstitutional; banning as matter of health regulation is what makes that provision of Roe v Wade legal. It's a wobbly decision but there isn't a better one on the horizon.

 

[PK1]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Read that section c again. Then try reading the definitions under the Unborn victims of violence act along with it

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

 

[PK1]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Read that section c again. Then try reading the definitions under the Unborn victims of violence act along with it

We've been thru this before & you keep cherry picking. If the pregnant woman does not intend to give birth, then it's not murder because the fetus is not yet a "person".
Geez.

Text from Unborn victims of violence act ...
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Read that section c again. Then try reading the definitions under the Unborn victims of violence act along with it

We've been thru this before & you keep cherry picking. If the pregnant woman does not intend to give birth, then it's not murder because the fetus is not yet a "person".
Geez.

Text from Unborn victims of violence act ...
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.

Bwahahahaha

Pot calling the kettle black much?

As is evidenced by your bolded text, You are the one cherry picking. Not me.

I never claimed that our laws don't make exceptions to keep abortions legal. THAT is the part we are trying to change.

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions that already define children in the womb as human beings and as 'children' in ANY stage of their development.

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

 

[Chuz Life]

The technical problem of knowing when conception occurs is no doubt a factor as you suggest. As I mentioned earlier, the modern understanding of conception is relatively recent. There are other technical issues making the legal status of pregnancy in its early stages hard for government to deal with. Banning abortion in the later stages as matter of religious belief makes sense but is unconstitutional; banning as matter of health regulation is what makes that provision of Roe v Wade legal. It's a wobbly decision but there isn't a better one on the horizon.

Yeah well, it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Even an avowed atheist can see/agree that a human child's life begins at and by conception.

It's a simple biological fact. It's what makes your biological father YOUR biological FATHER.

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

 

[Fishlore]

The technical problem of knowing when conception occurs is no doubt a factor as you suggest. As I mentioned earlier, the modern understanding of conception is relatively recent. There are other technical issues making the legal status of pregnancy in its early stages hard for government to deal with. Banning abortion in the later stages as matter of religious belief makes sense but is unconstitutional; banning as matter of health regulation is what makes that provision of Roe v Wade legal. It's a wobbly decision but there isn't a better one on the horizon.

Yeah well, it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Even an avowed atheist can see/agree that a human child's life begins at and by conception.

It's a simple biological fact. It's what makes your biological father YOUR biological FATHER.

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

I think that if you look into the history of the life begins at conception idea, you will find that it comes from religious leaders, not biologists. Both sperm and egg are alive before they meet. Life doesn't begin, it carries on unbroken across the hundreds of thousands of generations during which species have evolved. LBAC isn't a scientific idea.

What "life" really means in LBAC is "personhood" and, consequently "citizenship" or "constitutional rights". These are social, political and legal categories, not scientific ones. They represent the secularization for political purposes of "soul." What LBAC really claims is that the zygote has an immortal soul created by God. It is an appealing idea but a religious one and so has no relevance in a debate about the legality of abortion.

An "avowed atheist" can see that life doesn't begin period. Such a person can also see that although the cells of a zygote are unquestionably human cells, describing them as a child begs the question.

P.S. What is the purpose of beginning your response with "Yeah, well," ? I"m curious.

 

[PK1]

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions ...

I'm curious. why do you care about another family's embryo? Zygote?
How does someone else's personal & private issues affect your life?

 

[oldsoul]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

This would seem to supersede any laws in the various states making the killing of an unborn fetus (by means other than consensual abortion) a murder. This Law seems pretty clear that a fetus is not considered a "person", by law, until a live birth has occurred. Seems as though the argument has nowhere to go from here. Oh, wait. As I am not a legal expert, does this law affect only "acts of Congress" (presumably the U.S. Congress), or does it apply to state law as well? I ask because I genuinely do not know.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

This would seem to supersede any laws in the various states making the killing of an unborn fetus (by means other than consensual abortion) a murder. This Law seems pretty clear that a fetus is not considered a "person", by law, until a live birth has occurred. Seems as though the argument has nowhere to go from here. Oh, wait. As I am not a legal expert, does this law affect only "acts of Congress" (presumably the U.S. Congress), or does it apply to state law as well? I ask because I genuinely do not know.

We don't have to be legal experts to know that others who are legal experts were involved in writing our many fetal homicide laws and thus far, our Supreme Court has (so far) declined the chance to overturn those laws or any of the convictions under those laws.

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

 

[oldsoul]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

This would seem to supersede any laws in the various states making the killing of an unborn fetus (by means other than consensual abortion) a murder. This Law seems pretty clear that a fetus is not considered a "person", by law, until a live birth has occurred. Seems as though the argument has nowhere to go from here. Oh, wait. As I am not a legal expert, does this law affect only "acts of Congress" (presumably the U.S. Congress), or does it apply to state law as well? I ask because I genuinely do not know.

We don't have to be legal experts to know that others who are legal experts were involved in writing our many fetal homicide laws and thus far, our Supreme Court has (so far) declined the chance to overturn those laws or any of the convictions under those laws.

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

True, and legal experts were involved in crafting "Jim Crow" laws that were not overturned...until they were. What is your point?

 

[Chuz Life]

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions ...

I'm curious. why do you care about another family's embryo? Zygote?
How does someone else's personal & private issues affect your life?

I can't give a long answer to this on my phone but I have many many responses to that question. Including some questions of my own, like why DON'T YOU care?

You don't need answer that though because whether or not I personally "care" or whether or not I am personally affected is irrelevant. It's a red herring. I could care less and my observations would not be any less valid. Indeed, I intentionally keep my feelings out of it; both so that I can remain objective and also so my feelings don't get the best of me and cause me to do anything irrational.

Abortions can not affect me personally unless I let them and I can say that is even the case when I learn of a friend or family member who has had one.

What drives me to fight abortion may be different from others but it's certainly not a religious view. I took an oath to uphold, protect and defend our Constitution before I ever actually read and understood it completely. I always understood its importance but never imagined we as a nation could ever repeat anything as wrong as we got it wrong with slavery (for example).

I was taught as a kid in school that ordinary people can do very brave things by standing up for their rights and for the rights of others.... but I thought those things wereally already worked out... including abortion.

I used to be completely indifferent to abortion laws because of that. If anything, I leaned "pro-whatever a woman wants to do.. it's her body"

All of that started to change when I was challenged one day to defend my position. I sat out to prove all of the positions and denials that "pro choicers" still cling to today.

I finally realized and accepted the fact that a child's life begins at and by conception when I couldn't intellectually and honestly maintain that denial anymore.

THEN I started educating myself on what the laws were, the case details, etc. I even corresponded with Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) for a while and spoke with her on the phone... soon after she became prolife herself.

We actually had our "falling out" because she was all about the religion aspects and I was not.

So, here I still am as I have been for more than twenty years... fighting to right an injustice simply because it IS an injustice to deny rights and Constitutional protections to children in the womb.




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

 

[Chuz Life]

Good thing that was the short version. Huh.

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

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the laws.
Read the laws.

Yes, read the laws ... ALL the laws.
Cherry picking shows your bias & desperation.
To be considered a "person" or "human being" across ALL states, a live birth must occur ...

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

This would seem to supersede any laws in the various states making the killing of an unborn fetus (by means other than consensual abortion) a murder. This Law seems pretty clear that a fetus is not considered a "person", by law, until a live birth has occurred. Seems as though the argument has nowhere to go from here. Oh, wait. As I am not a legal expert, does this law affect only "acts of Congress" (presumably the U.S. Congress), or does it apply to state law as well? I ask because I genuinely do not know.

We don't have to be legal experts to know that others who are legal experts were involved in writing our many fetal homicide laws and thus far, our Supreme Court has (so far) declined the chance to overturn those laws or any of the convictions under those laws.

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

True, and legal experts were involved in crafting "Jim Crow" laws that were not overturned...until they were. What is your point?

The point is that we are always welcome to TRY TO change laws we disagree with but until we succeed in doing so, we have to work with and live with the laws and definitions we have.

What other point could there be?

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

 

[Chuz Life]

The technical problem of knowing when conception occurs is no doubt a factor as you suggest. As I mentioned earlier, the modern understanding of conception is relatively recent. There are other technical issues making the legal status of pregnancy in its early stages hard for government to deal with. Banning abortion in the later stages as matter of religious belief makes sense but is unconstitutional; banning as matter of health regulation is what makes that provision of Roe v Wade legal. It's a wobbly decision but there isn't a better one on the horizon.

Yeah well, it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Even an avowed atheist can see/agree that a human child's life begins at and by conception.

It's a simple biological fact. It's what makes your biological father YOUR biological FATHER.

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

I think that if you look into the history of the life begins at conception idea, you will find that it comes from religious leaders, not biologists. Both sperm and egg are alive before they meet. Life doesn't begin, it carries on unbroken across the hundreds of thousands of generations during which species have evolved. LBAC isn't a scientific idea.

What "life" really means in LBAC is "personhood" and, consequently "citizenship" or "constitutional rights". These are social, political and legal categories, not scientific ones. They represent the secularization for political purposes of "soul." What LBAC really claims is that the zygote has an immortal soul created by God. It is an appealing idea but a religious one and so has no relevance in a debate about the legality of abortion.

An "avowed atheist" can see that life doesn't begin period. Such a person can also see that although the cells of a zygote are unquestionably human cells, describing them as a child begs the question.

P.S. What is the purpose of beginning your response with "Yeah, well," ? I"m curious.

I would like to respond to this when I can get to my desktop. Hard to remember and address all the points that I would like to address on a phone.

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