Actually "personhood" begins at birth if we want to be technically accurate. Life began about 3.6 billion years ago and has been continous since then.
Once again a simple failure of logic and understanding of the laws. Murder is technically the violation of the Right to Life of a Person. For example a person cannot be charged with murdering a chicken even though the person kills the chicken. Historically the "preborn" have never been considered to be "persons" so they haven't established a "Right to Life" that can be violated. Even the "fetal homicide" laws passed by "Republican" legislatures are not about the murder of the preborn but instead are addressing the "assault" of the woman that violates her reproductive rights as a person. These laws are technically mislabeled as "fetal homicide" laws intentionally for political purposes. In fact the preborn cannot be "murdered" when the woman allows it as in an abortion because the woman's rights as a person are not being violated.
People can say whatever they want to believe but being a "human being" is irrelevant because until birth it is not a "person" and only "persons" have inalienable Rights such as the Right to Life.
This is a basic misinterpretation or misunderstanding or misinformation regarding Roe v Wade. The law specifically allows for states to provide protections for the unborn.
thats a big ageist dude..... just because under week 16-18 it doesnt LOOK like a human doesnt mean its not a human. thats like someone arguing that a 3 year old isnt a human because they look nothing like a fully developed human at 18-20. a 16 week old baby already has - a hearbeat -practices breathing -all organs present and in place -Control of facial movements such as grinning and yawning if thats not human im no sure what is
There are no wrong answers, only our opinions... No, actually, there are wrong answers. Life began several billion years ago, and we -- all life on this planet, human or otherwise -- are the result of a continuous, never-broken chain of life ever since that beginning. Parents are alive, sperm and egg are alive, the zygote is alive... If there is a rupture in this sequence at any time, then there is no new life created. So saying that "life begins" at any time more recent than (roughly) three billion years ago... is a "wrong" answer. In fact, of course, the question is wrong. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of both its key words: "life" and "beginning".
I address this based upon the philosophy of inalienable Rights for the Person. When "life begins" is irrelevant to the discussion of inalienable Rights as "life" is not the criteria but instead "personhood" as inalienable Rights only exist for the person. While there is no legal precedent for "personhood" prior to birth I'm willing to accept that legal precedent for "personhood" could be established for the preborn by a Constitutional Amendment. So now I would have two persons, the woman and the preborn, both with inalienable Rights but there are two criteria related to inalienable Rights. First of all is the conditions that inalienable Rights of one person cannot infringe upon the Rights of another person. This leads us to the position that a distinct line needs to be drawn between the woman's Rights and the Rights of the preborn so there is no conflict between the two. Next is the condition that an inalienable Right cannot impose a burden on others as it is inherent in the self. This leads to the position that the preborn doesn't have an inalienable Right so long as it is dependent upon the woman's body to survive. At viability the fetus can survive outside of the woman's body without imposing any involuntary obligation on anyone else so logically it could be removed by C-Section and no longer impose any burden on the woman. At that point it would clearly meet both criteria for inalienable Rights. The only exception would be if having a C-Section by the woman threatened the woman's life or health because then the surgery itself violates the Rights of the Woman. When the Supreme Court addressed abortion in Roe v Wade it acknowledged that the preborn did not have "personhood" established under the law but at the same time the court acknowledged that potential personhood existed so in its decision it accomodated the fact that personhood could be established under the Constitution and the consequences of "personhood" being afforded to the preborn. The Court understood what inalienable Rights were and applied the logical criteria related to inalienable Rights in addressing abortion, the Rights of the Woman, and the potential Rights of the Preborn. That is why I've challenged "Anti-Abortionists" to present anything they could identify as a flaw in the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade because I've read it repeatedly and it isn't flawed because it addresse the issues in what is actually a very wise manner related to the inalienable Rights of the Woman and the potential inalienable Rights of the Preborn. In short, at viability a fetus could be removed from the womb establishing personhood so except in the cases where that surgery would result in a serious threat against the woman's health possibly including the death of the woman then the fetus should be protected. That is exactly what the decision in Roe v Wade established.
A baby is already protected under the law as personhood is established at birth which is when a fetus becomes a baby. What part of "zygote, embryo, fetus = preborn" and "infant, child, adolescent, adult = post birth persons" do so many seem to not understand?
The problem with "viability" is that it is a moving target -- earlier and earlier as technology improves. Some day soon, it will be possible to fertilize an egg in vitro, and then grow the zygote entirely outside the "mother's" body. What will be the "moment of personhood" when all of gestation is outside the womb? It seems to me that any and all points in gestation have the same problem, ultimately. We give whatever point we're defending a "logical, scientific" justification... but ultimately, none in fact answers our real question: what is the difference between a person and a "dumb animal"? For starters, is "human" enough? Some bonobos can use hundreds of sign-language words. And a severely brain-damaged person cannot communicate at all. Which is a "person"? Why?
Not if it's addressed from the standpoint of inalienable Rights because viability, under the criteria of inalienable Rights, is based upon when the fetus can live outside of the womb unassisted. As I noted in a previous post on inalienable Right cannot impose an obligation on others. A fetus cannot impose a requirement on a hospital to provide life support equipment and monitoring based upon an inalienable Right. We provide that medical service out of compassion but not based upon an inalienable Right. We have a similar issue related to feeding of infants and children. The law requires the guardian (whether parent or not) to feed and care for a child but the role of guardian (whether parent or not) is voluntary. Even a parent can take a child to the hospital and abandon it giving up all responsibilities for it. They can't voluntarily allow a child to starve though. These laws are based upon compassion for the child and not on protecting an inalienable Right of the child. A child has an inalienable Right to eat but not a Right to be fed.
"... can live outside of the womb unassisted..." That's what... twelve years old, roughly? Almost all mammals are somewhat dependent on their parents after birth, with humans holding the record -- many years. A two-year-old would die very quickly without adult care. A six-year-old a bit more slowly.....
At birth a child can eat, breath, move (sort of) and do all other actions of life unassisted by others. The fact that it requires the voluntary assistance of it's parent(s) or a guardian to obtain food, to be protected from the cold, etc., is not imposing an involuntary obligation upon anyone.
"... not imposing an involuntary obligation upon anyone." Of course not. But a new-born -- even a child several years old -- doesn't meet your criterion of "can live ... unassisted". "Viability" needs several additional criteria in order to qualify children as "persons". When it is completed thoroughly enough to be meaningful, it becomes something of a Rube Goldberg machine. Go ahead; complete the rule so that a new-born passes the test. I think you'll find that it is those supplements that are in fact the operational part, rather than the "viability" part.
The major difference here is, once the child is born, anyone can provide those things that it needs. Anyone. Before birth, ONLY the mother can. Only her. Only one single person out of over six billion people. If you are dependent upon one single specific irreplaceable person for everything required for you to survive, you are not viable.
Very interesting approach. I think you've made yet another demonstration that whatever criterion we may suggest, must be pushed to and beyond the limits its proponents had in mind. "Viability", imho, is seductive because it seems so "reasonable". "Middle of the road." But when we want to really examine its application... we hit insurmountable snags.
The mother and/or father of a child do not have a mandatory obligation to provide for the infant or child. They have the option of turning that infant or child over to the state. If they choose to maintain custody then they do have an obligation to care for the needs of the infant or child under the law but they are voluntarily submitting themself to this legal obligation. Once agian I'll repeat. An infant/child has a Right to Eat because they can do that on their own but they don't have a Right to be Fed based upon an inalienable Rights because having someone else feed them imposes an obligation on another person which is an infringement upon that person's Rights. A inalienable Right cannot infringe upon another person's inalienable Rights nor can it cause a involuntary imposition upon another person because inalienable Rights are those things inherent within the individual not dependent upon someone else. Let's take another example as an analogy. Natural Born Citizenship is an inalienable Right based upon jus soli (a person is a natural born person of the territory where they are born) and protected by the 14th Amendment. It is not dependent upon who the person's parents are and cannot be dependent upon who the person's parents are because inalienable Rights are never based upon someone else. They are inherent in the individual unaffected by the actions or status of any other person. Natural born citizenship is established BY BIRTH of the individual and is unrelated to any other criteria. The 14th Amendment protects this Right as Congress cannot pass any laws that deny the natural born citizenship of the person (Ref the Supreme Court decision in The United States v Kim Wong Ark). So while we understand that an infant and child is basically incapable of sustaining their own life no one has a mandatory obligation to provide for the infant and child based upon inalienable Rights. The "guardian" of the infant or child, whether they are a parent or not, has a legal obligation to do so based upon their voluntary role as the guardian of the child but they can terminate that voluntary obligation at any time legally under the laws of the United States by turning the infant or child over to the State's custody.
I disagree completely when it's addressed as a matter of inalienable Rights which are the natural Rights of the Person. Viability from an inalienable Rights perspective refers to "natural viability" because it's addressing a "natural Right" and not artificial viability which could be provided for with medical technology. When can the fetus live outside of the womb on it's own (not survive on it's own which is different) is the only question of relevance related to viability. The only other issue then is can the fetus be removed from the womb without causing the death or permanent injury to the woman? If the removal of the fetus would cause no harm to the woman, and it can live outside of the womb, then it has established it's inalienable "Right to Life" as a person living outside of the womb independent of the woman. Yes, there is a minor issue of when natural viability begins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) After roughly 28 weeks almost any fetus can live outside of the womb. That could be called "the latest point" where the fetus has established it's inalienable Right to Life but it could be sooner. A line would need to be established based upon consensus and arguably the point were more than 50% would survive (24-25 weeks) might be a more acceptable compromise where consensus could be obtained. That is a minor detail that doesn't present any real problem in resolving the matter from where I'm positioned. Of note though very few abortion occur this late in a pregnancy and overwhelmingly they are to protect the life or health of the woman which has to be an exception to the "viability" consideration. No one can expect the woman to suffer permanent disability or death for the sake of the fetus.
I happen to believe that human life begins when consciousness or awareness (some might call it 'soul') begins, whenever that is. And I don't consider cells reacting to electrical stimulus as consciousness. An embryo or a week-old fetus in not aware of anything.
The beliefs related to when life begins are philosophical and there will never be a decision as to which philosophy is better than another. The Supreme Court refused to address the issue of when life begins in Roe v Wade because it really had no bearing on the issue of abortion which related to Constitutionally Protected Rights of Persons. Just because "life begins" doesn't mean that personhood is established and inalienable Rights only relate to Persons. For example there is not doubt that when a calf is born that it is alive but it is not a person so the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person established in the US Constitution don't apply to it. The same is true for humans because while "life begins" might be a philosophical discussion worthy of debate it has no real bearing on when "personhood" begins because personhood is based upon different criteria. As I also noted even when personhood is established the next issue is inalienable Rights based upon the criteria of inalienable Rights. If, for example, a fetus could never live prior to birth on it's own it would never have inalienable Rights because it is infringing upon the personhood of the woman and there cannot be a conflict between inalienable Rights. If there is a conflict then an inalienable Right cannot exist.
"The beliefs related to when life begins are philosophical and there will never be a decision as to which philosophy is better than another." Ummm.... no. A philosophy that includes a clear logical error is inferior to one that has no such error. Philosophies -- opinions -- are NOT equal. Unless I can defend my opinion with facts and logic, no one should take it seriously. And unless others defend their opinions with fact and logic, I won't take them seriously. "Just because "life begins" doesn't mean that personhood is established and inalienable Rights only relate to Persons." Agreed, and this is essential. "As I also noted even when personhood is established the next issue is inalienable Rights based upon the criteria of inalienable Rights. If, for example, a fetus could never live prior to birth on it's own it would never have inalienable Rights because it is infringing upon the personhood of the woman and there cannot be a conflict between inalienable Rights. If there is a conflict then an inalienable Right cannot exist." I'm not sure I understand this, so correct me if I have misunderstood: I understand you to say, "IF we accept "personhood" before birth, then there is an equilibrium of rights to be found between the unborn person and the mother." I agree, but this is VERY dangerous -- it clearly forbids abortion after the moment of personhood, and probably severely constrains the mother's behavior in many ways after that moment. If we recognize personhood before birth, then from that moment forward the mother is liable to judicial pursuit if anything unpleasant happens to the unborn person. I did not choose "self-awareness" in order to escape the problem of maternal responsibility... but the fact that that criterion disculpates the mother up through birth is a considerable advantage!
"The beliefs related to when life begins are philosophical and there will never be a decision as to which philosophy is better than another." Ummm.... no. A philosophy that includes a clear logical error is inferior to one that has no such error. Philosophies -- opinions -- are NOT equal. Unless I can defend my opinion with facts and logic, no one should take it seriously. And unless others defend their opinions with fact and logic, I won't take them seriously. "Just because "life begins" doesn't mean that personhood is established and inalienable Rights only relate to Persons." Agreed, and this is essential. "As I also noted even when personhood is established the next issue is inalienable Rights based upon the criteria of inalienable Rights. If, for example, a fetus could never live prior to birth on it's own it would never have inalienable Rights because it is infringing upon the personhood of the woman and there cannot be a conflict between inalienable Rights. If there is a conflict then an inalienable Right cannot exist." I'm not sure I understand this, so correct me if I have misunderstood: I understand you to say, "IF we accept "personhood" before birth, then there is an equilibrium of rights to be found between the unborn person and the mother." I agree, but this is VERY dangerous -- it clearly forbids abortion after the moment of personhood, and probably severely constrains the mother's behavior in many ways after that moment. If we recognize personhood before birth, then from that moment forward the mother is liable to judicial pursuit if anything unpleasant happens to the unborn person. I did not choose "self-awareness" in order to escape the problem of maternal responsibility... but the fact that that criterion disculpates the mother up through birth is a considerable advantage!
"After roughly 28 weeks almost any fetus can live outside of the womb. That could be called "the latest point" where the fetus has established it's inalienable Right to Life but it could be sooner." Someday soon, it will be possible to fertilize an egg i vitro, and then grow the zygote all the way to birth in an "incubator". Therefore, your "viability" criterion is logically indistinguishable from "fertilization". Is that your intention?
