If personhood begins at conception, when the conceptus subsequently splits to form twinds or triplets, which twin or otherwise multiple birth is the person?
Well maybe the conceptus becomes a person once it's unable to split into any more single human beings.
Obviously all would be "persons" if personhood was established at conception even though the division occurred later. While sometimes ignored in the discussion there are serious legal considerations related to granting "personhood" prior to birth especially as it relates to our tax codes. Currently under our tax codes a "dependent person" is tax deductible when a person files their taxes. Under the equal protection clause this cannot be discriminatory so if we grant "personhood" at conception then that establishes a "dependent person" that is tax deductible. That "dependent person" status exists even if the "person" is only alive for one day of the year. For example a child that dies on Jan 1st is still deductible for the legal guardian of the child for that tax year. So based upon the "date of conception" the "person" would be tax deductible. Enter the problem. http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm So estimates of up to 50% of "conceptions" result in a miscarriage with about 1/2 of those occurring even before the woman realizes she's pregnant and yet every one of these would be "tax deductible" as a dependent person for the tax year. A woman could theoretically "conceive" repeatedly throughout the year with all ending in a miscarriage during the first week and each and every one would result it an additional "tax deduction" for a "dependent person" on the woman's tax return for the year. A woman might be able to claim 6 or more "dependent persons" on her tax returns while not a single one lasted for even a week. They would also be eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children even though the pregnancy ultimately ends in a miscarriage. I hate to put a "dollar" figure on an issue like this but the costs to the government in both tax losses and welfare benefit expenditures would be huge. It is a "pragmatic" consideration of the side effects of "personhood" that cannot be ignored though.
You cannot expect consistancy from people who cannot logically discuss how they would implement their agenda....and use dishonesty and cherry-picking in their arguments. At the same time they'll say "Abortions to save a woman's life are a small percentage"...which is true, that same fact also relates to "Late term abortions are a small percentage of abortions". yet those SAME PEOPLE try to convince us that "most" or even "a lot" of abortions are late-term.....contradicting their OWN claims on "save the life of the mother" being rare. Why? Again, dishonesty and lack of substantive argument....and politics. In addition to being unable to logically argue "a fertilized egg is a person"....they know (in the public arena) that pushing their real goal of total abortion Prohibition would hurt their "pro-life Party" the GOP. Thus you get "slippery slope" bills like the one in Texas....and the LIES about it being about "women's health" that they have to use to defend it.
Actually we can expect consistency even if they appear to be inconsistent in some cases. I'll refer to this previous post: I expect consistency related to that statement because I believe the statement was an accurate reflection of a personal opinion. So when we point out that all late term abortions are based upon a medical diagnosis fundamentally related to saving a woman's life then I expect the same person to oppose legislation that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion when her doctor tells her it's necessary because her life in in peril. Remember that even a diagnosis warning of a "serious health" condition implies that continuing the pregnancy could literally kill the woman. We need to also remember that late term abortions are not based upon the woman's desire to abort the pregnancy. She already established that she wants to have the baby because she elected to not have an abortion. I feel deep sympathy for women forced to make a decision about having an abortion when I know that they wanted the child. I don't believe a single one of these women make this choice without extreme heartache. It's really "their life" or the "life of the fetus" that's on the line and normally the fetus will die if they do. Some are courageous and refuse the abortion and many of those die because of their decision. They take that risk willingly and that is one hell of a risk they're taking. The "baby" may or may not survive in these cases and it would be hard to understand the eventually feeling of the "child" that survives when they grow up knowing that they caused the death of their very own mother. I hope that they feel the love of their mother to give up her life, when she had the option not to, just so the child could possibly survive but it will still be a heavy burden on that child throughout their lifetime. Late term abortions are a heartache in any case and to have politicians sticking their noses into this is the most criminal thing I can think of. They have absolutely no regard for the woman at all when it comes to prohibitions of late term abortions that are solely based upon a medical opinion that the abortion is absolutely necessary for the woman's health and life. So yes, when someone says that abortions should be legal to protect the life of the woman, which is fundamentally true in the case of all late term abortions, I have the right to expect them to be consistent in their opinion related to protecting the woman's right to an abortion in these cases.
I believed the statement made and would expect support for the Right of a Woman to have a late term abortion that would save her life based upon a medical diagnosis. Remember that all late term abortions are based upon this type of medical diagnosis and are never elective. Of note I would not object to a "mandatory" second medical diagnosis in these cases to ensure that someone isn't trying to "slip a fast one over" on the law and the Roe v Wade decision. These should never be "elective" abortions but instead they need to be driven by a medical diagnosis.
Actually, elective-late term abortions are legal in some states. It's not just to save the mother's life.
I believe that such laws could violate Roe v Wade that afforded protections to the "preborn" based upon "potential personhood" of the fetus at natural viability. I could see a legitimate lawsuit based upon the violation of the US Constitution using Roe v Wade as Constitutional precedent. I don't know the specific laws but they do represent a possible Constitutional violation based upon Roe v Wade. Perhaps this is another point of agreement. Late term abortions should not be elective but they also should not be denied under the law when a medical diagnosis specifies that the health/life of the woman is at serious risk as addressed by the Roe v Wade decision. This, as I noted before, is one of two serious problems I find with the recent Texas law that will basically prohibit any abortion after the 20th week even if it costs the woman her life. That is just wrong.
I strongly agree with you. Elective-late-term abortions should be illegal on the basis of federal law, but if it's to save the mother's life, then that should always be allowed.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, Sam. 1. Are abortions to save a woman's life a small percentage of abortions? Yes or No? 2. Are late-term abortions a small percentage of abortions? Yes or No? 3. Are most abortions first trimester? Yes or No? 4. Which do you more often discuss in your debates on abortion? First trimester or late-term?
WOW, just WOW. I can not believe it. Sam you are surprising me. BRAVO, you finally gave to the point and straight answers. I thank you.
So is cancer. Every pregnancy takes its toll on a woman, permanently damaging her body and draining her resources. Every pregnancy is risk to woman's health and life, and there is no way a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will. Meaning the pain and risks to a woman are insignificant? Noted. Because it doesn't happen. If the fetus is viable, labor will be induced or a c-section performed. Feel better?
Explain the need to make a procedure, that only occurs for medical reasons illegal, isn't that just making a law for the sake of making a law when in reality it would have no effect on anything .. seems a bit stupid to me.
Roe vs Wade doesn't actually ban abortions at any stage for any reason .. however, it does allow each state to impose restrictions on, and after the 2nd & 3rd trimester, this does not allow states to ban abortion. a
I explained this at length to you. Giving fetuses rights hurts all pregnant women, even those with wanted pregnancies, like Angela Carder.
This does not explain why the fetus isn't a person, it just shows that you're against granting personhood status to the fetus because it will have supposedly "bad" side effects, without any real reason why the fetus isn't a person.
I have already explained it to you on numerous occasions, so please don't pretend you don't know that is just dishonest debating.
It has been explained to time and time again, if you chose to ignore it you are only proving you are not here to discuss the issue and learning is not in your skill set.
Nope, this has not already been explained. Cady doesn't even sincerely believe that late-term fetuses are persons, she just doesn't want the law to classify them as persons because of a side effect of what would happen.
An acorn is not a tree, because of it's stage of development, not because of it's geographic location. The only difference between a newborn baby and a late-term fetus is its geographic location.
