Outlawing abortion

[Aught3]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-embryos-personhood28-2009sep28,0,7467778.story#

Abortion foes, tired of a profusion of laws that limit but do not abolish abortion, are trying to answer the question in a way that they hope could put an end to legalized abortion.

Across the country, they have revived efforts to amend state constitutions to declare that personhood -- and all rights accorded human beings -- begins at conception.

From Florida to California, abortion foes are gathering signatures, pressing state legislators and raising money to put personhood measures on ballots next year. In Louisiana, a class at a Catholic high school is lobbying state legislators as part of a civics exercise.

"We have big and small efforts going on in 30 states right now," said Keith Mason, co-founder of Colorado-based Personhood USA. "Our goal is to activate the population."

In Colorado similar measures where rejected 73% to 27%, is this movement a problem for reproductive rights? Is the definition of a person something to be decided by a ballot?

 

[IBSpify]

Across the country, they have revived efforts to amend state constitutions to declare that personhood -- and all rights accorded human beings -- begins at conception.

I hereby propose that for everybody that things this way any member of their direct family who is pregnant and in a moving car should be pulled over for violating traffic codes stating that all persons need to be wearing their own seat belts and be sitting in their own seats

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As soon as a fetus can get a job and pay taxes, they'll count as a person. :lol:

This is just like theists though, isn't it? When reality doesn't suit them, they don't change their minds. They instead try to redefine reality by making laws to force their views on others.

 

[nemesiss]

As soon as a fetus can get a job and pay taxes, they'll count as a person. :lol:

This is just like theists though, isn't it? When reality doesn't suit them, they don't change their minds. They instead try to redefine reality by making laws to force their views on others.

does quotes from the article answer the question?

Establishing personhood would topple the rationale for legal abortion, their thinking goes, though many people on both sides of the abortion debate consider this logic farfetched.
Defeats of personhood measures around the country -- notably in Colorado, which in 2008 became the first state to put a measure before voters -- have not daunted proponents, a loose confederation of evangelical Christian and Catholic antiabortion groups.

The American Life League, a well-funded conservative Catholic group, is advising Hoye and Rose on the initiative, which would require about 690,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot. The group is also helping with initiative campaigns in Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Montana.

 

[Giliell]

Well, I'm sorry again for you Americans who have to live with those sort of things.
Hearing those things always makes me want to vomit.
So, did they really think about what that would mean?
Apart from the fact that about 50% of fertilized eggs (therefore "people") don't even get settled in the uterus?
What rights will the unborn person take over the born person (the woman)
On the other hand: I don't have to give any of my bodily resources to another person, even if it's a life and death situation. I don't have to give you a single drop of my blood, even if I was to blame for you needing it in the first place.
So why should that interfere with MY right to deny that "person" further access to the usage of my body-resources?

Did a little digging:
This is what happens when feti are considered more important that women:
Angela Carder
Laura Pemberton

 

[borrofburi]

Apart from the fact that about 50% of fertilized eggs (therefore "people") don't even get settled in the uterus?

But that's manslaughter!

On the other hand: I don't have to give any of my bodily resources to another person, even if it's a life and death situation. I don't have to give you a single drop of my blood, even if I was to blame for you needing it in the first place.
So why should that interfere with MY right to deny that "person" further access to the usage of my body-resources?

Hah, good point, such a thing actually promotes abortion.

 

[Giliell]

Apart from the fact that about 50% of fertilized eggs (therefore "people") don't even get settled in the uterus?

But that's manslaughter!

Call the police, I had a miscarriage once. :evil:

 

[Wainscotting]

Apart from the fact that about 50% of fertilized eggs (therefore "people") don't even get settled in the uterus?

But that's manslaughter!

I once heard the argument somewhere, that that's OK, because the foetus chooses to die; ie. it consciously doesn't deliver the hormones needed for the uterus to accept it, or some shit.

That would mean that about 50% of fertilized eggs and foeti are commiting suicide. Which is, so far as I know, a sin. Which means that they're all going to hell.

Damned fertilized eggs, throwing away God's gift of eternal life because they can't be bothered attaching in the uterus.

 

[xman]

I once heard the argument somewhere, that that's OK, because the foetus chooses to die; ie. it consciously doesn't deliver the hormones needed for the uterus to accept it, or some shit.

That would mean that about 50% of fertilized eggs and foeti are commiting suicide. Which is, so far as I know, a sin. Which means that they're all going to hell.

Damned fertilized eggs, throwing away God's gift of eternal life because they can't be bothered attaching in the uterus.

:roll: :facepalm:

 

[Giliell]

I once heard the argument somewhere, that that's OK, because the foetus chooses to die; ie. it consciously doesn't deliver the hormones needed for the uterus to accept it, or some shit.

That would mean that about 50% of fertilized eggs and foeti are commiting suicide. Which is, so far as I know, a sin. Which means that they're all going to hell.

Damned fertilized eggs, throwing away God's gift of eternal life because they can't be bothered attaching in the uterus.

Holy crap!
He should tell that to women who suffer several misscarriages because they have a hormonal imbalance themselves or a problem with blood clotting or the thyroid glands.
He should wear heavy combat gear....

But I got similar nonsense once about the "abortion leaves the body damaged and infertile and whatnot" nonsense.
I pointed out that no valid data existed and that in fact women with miscarriages would make a much better sample group since they are more numerous. The procedure is the same, so same results could be expected.
He (no generic he, a real he) claimed that it wasn't true for miscarriages because then the fetus was already dead and not fighting against the abortion :roll:

 

[Zylstra]

As soon as a fetus can get a job and pay taxes, they'll count as a person. :lol:

So a 14-year old is not a person?

If I make the law read that you must me 90 to work, do most Americans become non-persons?

Should non-persons have legal rights or protections?

 

[Zylstra]

"I don't agree with the homosexual agenda, but I say, look at the tenacity of what they have done to fight for what is right," he said.

he doesn't agree with it but thinks it's right?

So he disagrees with what is right?

He actively supports what he believes is wrong? Including this?

"The term 'person' applies to all living human beings from the beginning of their biological development -- regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability."

Define:beginning of their biological development

define:they

Are we talking egg and sperm, fertilized egg, blastocyst?

I started a thread about the personhood argument some time ago...

 

[RestrictedAccess]

In Colorado similar measures where rejected 73% to 27%, is this movement a problem for reproductive rights? Is the definition of a person something to be decided by a ballot?

Personally I don't think it should be left up to a majority rule, but a standard needs to be found. Right now the entire issue is a jumbled mess. That raises a question towards those of pro-choice leaning, though.

If a stranger were to purposely punch a pregnant woman in the gut, and induced a miscarriage, what sort of crime have they committed? Destruction of property? Manslaughter? Many base their pro-choice opinions on what the woman wants, but what if the woman wanted the child? Does the loss of her offspring count for nothing because the fetus was not a 'person'? I know some will say yes, though I wonder how many would still hold that position were it them or their wives that this happened to. How many people are willing to make that inevitable legal trade-off, I wonder?

 

[Giliell]

If a stranger were to purposely punch a pregnant woman in the gut, and induced a miscarriage, what sort of crime have they committed? Destruction of property? Manslaughter? Many base their pro-choice opinions on what the woman wants, but what if the woman wanted the child? Does the loss of her offspring count for nothing because the fetus was not a 'person'? I know some will say yes, though I wonder how many would still hold that position were it them or their wives that this happened to. How many people are willing to make that inevitable legal trade-off, I wonder?

Well, I can tell you the current German ruling:
Illegal abortion.
It is a difficult topic, also for the legal system in any way.
I'm about a week before my due date. The child could have been born weeks ago prematurely. With modern healthcare, not much of a problem. In that case, the child would already be a legal person.
Since she's not and still comfy in my womb (get out of there, I want to see my feet again), she isn't a legal person.
But say if my hubby was killed in a road accident where another person was guilty, that other person would have to pay a rent not only for me and our older daughter, but also for the unborn.
The thing is: you have to draw a line. That line is always more or less arbitrary.
My personal pro-choice stance is that convenience abortions should be perfectly legal and OK during the first trimester. Reasons for that "date" are, for example, that this is, more or less, also a huge line in fetal developement, when a change in "quality" happens. It is also the time in which most miscarriages happen, when the whole developement is on the fence anyway.
Now, apart from IVF, we usually don't know exactly WHEN the egg was fertilized. It can be about a week to either side. So in one case, the fetus would have crossed the line I draw a week before the abortion, while another one would still be a week away.
Still, you have to make a decission. That decission can always only apply correctly to "the normal way of things", not about the exceptions.

 

[Nogre]

Let's give personhood to a bundle of cells not significantly different from bacteria while denying real, undeniable people who love each other the right to make the most binding and (usually) meaningful vow of that love. This makes so much sense. If you're a dogmatic theist, of course.

 

[Wainscotting]

Debating Abortion on the internet can be fun. (I want everyone to vandalise the Conservapedia Abortion page. Something like "Abortion is fun! I'm having one right now!" - just slip it in somewhere. --[EDIT: It's Locked ])

I started the debate once on another forum a couple of years ago and we (sort of) came to the conclusion that women can do whatever they will with their own bodies (the idea of foetus-as-parasite got a lot of serious traction).

While, for various reasons, I personally dislike convenience abortions, I know I must keep my judgement out of the way. For those women who are raped (and I just read somewhere that rape is twice as likely to result in a pregnancy - go figure), teenagers who don't understand sex and are afraid of their parents or those with health complications, it is vitally important that they have private, no-questions-asked access to abortion clinics.

If 99% of all abortions were just out of callous convenience, I would still support it for that 1% of women who need it - not just to prevent them from getting back-alley abortions, but also to remove the stess and other health concerns associated with their pregnancies.

People who oppose abortions - well, the Pro-life crowd, at least - are trying to push a purely ideological agenda. They don't realise that by preventing access to private abortions, they are doing society more harm than good. The last thing we need is to revert womens' rights and fill our cities with more unwanted children.

 

[Zylstra]

I used to hold a firm pro-life stance.

I eventually came to realize (when considering vegetative states, braindeath, and other related issues) that it is the conscious mind which makes us 'human' (in the philosophical sense) and that a feotus in the early stages of development differs from a braindead patient or a child born w/out a head in that there is the anticipation of the emergence of a conscious mind. Thus, even if we grant that conscious minds (or specifically human minds) should be protected, the pro-life position is still w/out an argument. If one were to argue that a system with the potential to give rise to sentience should be protected, that would require never removing a node form the internet and protecting every human egg lest we allow an egg to be destroyed that might have been involved in a case of parthenogenesis and given rise to a new mind. this leads to absurdity and (if followed through all the way) requires the protection of just about everything in the universe we suspect might ever give rise to any sense of consciousness.

Basically, since there is no human mind present, it is roughly equivalent to an arm or a leg- genetically human but possessing no 'self' and not constituting an individual as we understand the individual to be (a conscious and self-aware individual mind). Thus, I view abortion at such a stage in much the same light as allowing a braindead patient to die (there is, inn theory, the possibility of a sudden resurgence of brain activity) or letting the organs of a headless body cease to function. While I may find the concept abhorrent and have a strong personal revulsion at the thought, I am unable to leverage any strong logical argument for treating it the same as the killing of a person. Thus, i support legal abortions until ~6 weeks of gestation (the earliest signs of brain activity according to the only study I've heard of)