The more you try to reason as to why you should or shouldn't be able to abort the more you go round and round in circles. Both sides search for an objective foundation but because this is a moral issue - there is none. This is why I support the states resolve this and the fed gov butt out.
well if its an animal cruelty problem perhaps ways to reduce pain should be looked into - - - Updated - - - and what's wrong with electing to get an abortion?
being less intelligent then the pig where my last strip of bacon came from makes a fetus not a person or make all the animals people - - - Updated - - - why should they be considered people?
Addressing only the last point. In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the "preborn" were entitled to certain protections based upon their "potential personhood" and established by Constitutional precedent that an abortion after natural viability could only be performed if, in the opinion of a medical professional, the woman's health/life was in serious jeopardy if the pregnancy continued. All abortions in the last trimester should be based upon a sound medical opinion where the woman's health/life is in jeopardy and, even while this only relates to about 1.5% of all abortions, overwhelmingly they are. If we stick to this very strict criteria where the woman's health/life is in serious jeopardy if the pregnancy continues is there any reason to oppose these abortions? We must assume that the woman's life is literally on the line in all of these cases based upon sound medical advice. We should probably also assume that the woman really wants the child because she did not elect to have an abortion early in the pregnancy. So is there a legitimate reason to oppose them? BTW I will support any pragmatic requirement to ensure that only when a woman's life/health is in serious jeopardy can an abortion be performed after viability of the fetus such as requiring a second medical opinion. That is a reasonable requirement because a second medical opinion related to the diagnosis is always warranted even if the woman isn't pregnant because her health/life is in serious jeopardy in any case.
There are legitimate reasons for wanting to impart "personhood" to the preborn especially at natural viability where the only difference between "person" and "non-person" is that the birth hasn't occurred. At natural viability the "fetus" can be an "infant" without medical assistance outside of the woman's body. This really comes down to an "Inalienable Rights" argument because the "fetus" at viability can be an independent sovereign person if it is separated from the woman's body. As noted this was the foundation for protecting the fetus at natural viability in the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. While Roe v Wade was a "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution that didn't strike down all anti-abortion laws it was a logical and reasonable decision by the Supreme Court.
Not really. While the new born does require assistance, such as the providing of food and shelter, that is a voluntary obligation of the guardian (whether the parent or not). In every state the laws allow the "mother" to walk out of the hospital leaving the infant to the care of the state. When the mother (or father) removes the infant from the hospital they are voluntarily assuming responsibility for it. At birth the "infant" does not infringe upon any other person's inalienable Rights. A healthy infant doesn't "require" medical technology to live and breath. It can eat on it's own and all of it's bodily functions are working property. It imposed no involuntary obligations upon any other person which would violate their Rights as a Person. Any obligations, including medical care, feeding, and shelter are "voluntary" and the "infant" does not infringe upon any other "person's" inalienable Rights. As I've pointed out in other threads, and obviously received a lot of flak over, is that an infant does not have an "Inalienable Right" to be fed. It is because of compassion that we have laws that require the voluntary guardian (whether the parent or not) to provide for the infant but that is based upon compassion and is not based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. An Inalienable Right cannot impose an involuntary obligation on another Person as that infringed upon their Inalienable Rights. This is why the "law" allows the parent to leave the infant at the hospital and not assume the voluntary obligation to care for the infant. Those laws are based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Parent as the Parent cannot be forced to assume the obligation to care for the infant. Then, based upon compassion, if that happens the "government" assumes guardianship of the infant until another person is willing to assume that obligation voluntarily.
Maybe I've missed it...but have ANY of the "pro-lifers" said "Yes, one second after fertilization, it's a 'person'"?
Opinion noted. Of course, we have the opposite opinions believe the language in those laws are very much in line with the wording of the Constitution and we welcome the chance to defend those laws before the Supreme Court. So far, they haven't evn been challenged. The charge for illegally a prenatal child under the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is Murder and the legal definition of murder is "one person illegally killing another person" - Correct? So, you see... the Unborn Victims of Violence does in fact recognize a "child in the womb" as a "person." As a matter of fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and many other Fetal Homicide Laws actually used language that not only establishes the personhood of prenatal children (by making it a crime of murder to unjustly kill one) they had to make a legal exception to that establishment (and conclusion) in order to allow for elective abortions to continue. The law essentially says.... "killing a prenatal child is a crime of murder but we are going to make an exception for women who want an abortion" Your interpretation would not explain how a person can be charged with murder for killing a child in the womb. Neither can it account for cases where someone can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman and her prenatal child. You don't seem to be aware of cases where women have been charged with murder for aborting their own child.
Why do you assume that personhood can only begin at conception just because most lives begin at that point? There are exceptions often found in science which at first appear to contradict certain rules or determinations but on closer examination those exceptions actually (in many cases) support the rule. Science can be used to establish the fact that a new life begins at conception and still allow for new lives to begin in other ways as well (twinning or cloning for example).
Well the way you comment one could be excused for believing you are. Placing a decision on whether a submissive chimera twin is an individual person, when it adheres to all the relevant arguments put forward by pro-lifers who claim "person at conception". Those arguments include. Unique DNA upon conception “Person at conception” pro-lifers will dismiss any counter argument based on development, attachment to the woman, visual characteristics, and viability. If any of those are used to place a decision onto a submissive chimera twin then the person(s) doing so are making just as arbitrary judgements, usually based on one of the above, as they say pro-choice people do.
That is true but then science is not a foundation for the law. Scientists with differing opinions on "when life begins" all agree that their opinions should not be misused for nefarious political purposes by either side of the "arguments" related abortion. As has been noted repeatedly in these discussions on "when life begins" is fundamentally irrelevant to "when personhood begins" as there are number unrelated issues for both opinions. Being pro or against abortion has to do with "personhood" because "personhood" establishes the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" under the laws so only arguments related to "personhood" are relevant. The primary purpose of our laws is to protect the Rights of the Person.
I believe modern technology should make this a mostly, moot point in modern times, as an ethic, if not a moral.
They (pro-lifers) tend to rely heavily on religious and moral arguments. I don't begrudge them from doing that but I think it's not necessary to based arguments that way and in fact, I think it prolongs the debates in many cases and the longer it takes to settle these issues, the more children are being aborted. I applaud them for their convictions and for how we can arrive at the same conclusions by different approaches but we are not the same in those respects at all. I'm sorry but I really can't tell what your point is with any of that. Can you put it into the form of a question for me?
Originally Posted by Chuz Life Science can be used to establish the fact that a new life begins at conception and still allow for new lives to begin in other ways as well (twinning or cloning for example). There is no significant amount of disagreement among scientists about when and how a new life begins. To your point that Science is not the foundation of our laws? I never claimed that it was. Our Constitution is the foundation of our laws. Our Constitution says that all 'persons' have a right to their life and that all 'persons' are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. So. If we can determine (with science) that a human being in the first days of their life is at least biologically a person? The Constitution already says that they too have a right to their life and to the protections of our laws. Just as the justices said in the Roe v Wade decision, "personhood" is the key to the entire issue. The current legal definition for a "person" is simply - "a human being." I would like to know why you feel "a human being" in the first days of their life woul not meet that legal definition.... given that we already have laws which make it a crime of murder to unjustly kill one. See my question above.
Ok so without resorting to fairy stories, I need to find out a few things first, so if you don't mind could you answer the following questions; 1. Do you believe that there is a "person" at conception, you may use "human being" instead of person. 2. Do you believe that stages of development are irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or not 3. Do you believe that total reliance and physical connection to a single other person in order to survive is irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or not 4. Do you believe that higher brain functions (or any brain function) is irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or not 5. Do you believe that physical characteristics are irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or not 6. Do you believe that due to unique DNA, there a unique person/human being. 7. Do you consider elective abortion a form of homicide 8. Do you consider an abortion purely for elective reasons wrong. 9. Do you believe that at conception the embryo should be accorded the same rights as any born person/human being. These are the things (non-religious) that pro-lifers use in their arguments.
1. I may? (wtf?) I digress. My answer is yes. It is "a human being" at conception and that makes them a "person" by definition. 2. Yes. However, I'm open to what other's might have to say about it - so long as they afford the same consideration of my views. 3. Yes. However, I'm open to what other's might have to say about it - so long as they afford the same consideration of my views. 4. Yes. However, I'm open to what other's might have to say about it - so long as they afford the same consideration of my views. 5. Yes. However, I'm open to what other's might have to say about it - so long as they afford the same consideration of my views. 6. Yes and No. My views on that aspect are not based upon DNA alone. 7. Yes 8. I don't look at the abortion issue in that moral way (right and wrong). For me it is either 'justifiable' or not justifiable. 9. No. For one reason, I views conception as the actual 'birth' of a new organism and not parturition which is simply when it emerges from the womb. Secondly, I don't agree that our basic human rights are something that is 'granted' to us, 'accorded' to us or 'bestowed' upon us by others. I believe as the founders and framers of our Constitution did... that our basic human rights are inherent and inalienable.
Sorry that wasn't meant as any type of slight to you. 1. Ok so you believe that at conception there is a person/human being - Chimera twins do not start off joined, they are standard non-identical twins formed from two separate ovum fertilized by two separate sperm, so from your stand point they are both individual persons/human beings. Ok, A born set of Chimera twins such as this View attachment 21027 meet all the criteria you have confirmed as two separate persons/human beings. Both were separate at conception, both have unique DNA different from each other, 1. Stage of development is irrelevant 2. total reliance on another for life is irrelevant 3. Brain functionality is irrelevant 4. Physical characteristics are irrelevant 5. DNA, could be relevant, though both twins do have unique DNA Based on your responses the removal of the submissive chimera is a homicide. justifiable or not justifiable - Based on your responses was the removal of the submissive chimera, which caused it's death, justifiable, if yes, why? Therefore if you place no arbitrary decisions and based on your responses, the submissive chimera twin in the picture should also have its inherent and inalienable basic human rights.
And don't forget Fugazi, as we've discussed..."a person at conception"? Means that twins are really "one person" in two different bodies.
Thanks. That's true. Why do you disagree with it? Okay. Correct. It's very simple.... while we all have a right to each our own lives (the right to not be murdered).... we don't have the right to live at an unreasonable risk or cost to another. I doubt that any doctors would remove or attempt to remove a parasitic twin in any way that would increase the harm to the surviving twin. And, I have noticed that doctors tend to do everything they can do to save both children when that is possible. From the picture you shared... that wouldn't have been possible. It does. However, it doesn't have the right to live at an unreasonable health expense to it's sibbling. So, the doctors would be justified in my view to separate them - even if it is inevitable that the inviable twin would not survive. It's much like a life of the mother abortion - which I would also support as being justified.
