Abortion: The Facts [W:83605]

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

iangb said:
Huh?

Not at all. Lets do some stating for the record.

From a scientific point of view, I consider a foetus to become a human being at viability (which differs between individual cases but is generally at ~24 weeks).

From an ethical point of view, I consider a foetus to begin personhood increasingly once they are can have awareness, which starts at ~22 weeks.

From a legal point of view though, I am immensely cautious, because legislators may well not agree with my arguments concerning personhood and - more importantly - how important (or not) personhood is. Furthermore, I recognise that my own ethical point of view is a subjective opinion, and therefore other people have may have equally valid subjective opinions which differ from my own. One of the principles of 'pro-choice' is valuing other's ability to chose for themselves rather than force my opinions on them (note that this does not extend to slavery, infanticide etc, because that is a far less subjective matter - though I would agree that there is a level of subjectivity in practically all things).

To vote 'yes' in a ballot you propose would be to risk commiting - legally, not ethically or scientifically - to a laws based on that ballot which I do not agree with. Since I pragmatically value the outcome of the ballot more than what I personally believe, my voting would be affected accordingly.

Politik!

Keep in mind we're talking about legal "personhood" as the 14th Amendment applies. Not ethics, not science, not philosophy; this is about law and when the cops can come arrest you for doing a thing.

"Possibility of awareness" is not your criteria for legal "personhood" under Roe Section 9a and all the consequences that carries with it. You had previously said it was, but you have since shown that it is not your standard. You don't want cops arresting anyone who 'killed' a ZEF who had "the possibility of awareness", you only want the cops to arrest someone if they 'killed' a ZEF who had achieved birth.

All I'm asking is that you please cut out all the other stuff and stick to what actually forms your position on public policy.

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

minnie616 said:
The government has no right to know what happens inside a woman's womb.

Roe v. Wade says otherwise, see Section 11. Would like Roe repealed on that basis?

minnie616 said:
To me forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes early in the pregnancy would be worst kind of unreasonable government intrusion.

If the government has no right to know what happens inside a woman's womb, then rather or not the pregnancy is aborted early or late is not the government's business.

minnie616 said:
The Constitution recognizes certain zones of privacy.

The right to privacy regarding family size is one of those zones.

If that were true then we wouldn't have to report number of dependents to the IRS.

prometeus · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
Look it up yourself!

Ah the predictable cop out. How honest and decent of you. In the least you should have not replied but thanks for confirming that you have zero knowledge on the matter.

minnie616 · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
Keep in mind we're talking about legal "personhood" as the 14th Amendment applies. Not ethics, not science, not philosophy; this is about law and when the cops can come arrest you for doing a thing.

"Possibility of awareness" is not your criteria for legal "personhood" under Roe Section 9a and all the consequences that carries with it. You had previously said it was, but you have since shown that it is not your standard. Viability is not your standard. Rather or not the ZEF is born is your standard.

All I'm asking is that you please cut out all the other stuff and stick to what actually forms your position on public policy.

Legal personhood is when the infant/ preemie is born.

But I still agree with Roe that viability is the point where states can take a compelling interest in potentiality of life.

I think the SC Justices were very wise when 40 years ago they decided that states could take a compelling interest at viability.

It is at that point where the fetus has developed enough to have its own life forces and is no longer reliant on the woman's life forces.

If she died before the fetus becomes viable the fetus would never be able survive but once viable if the woman died the fetus has a good chance of survival if removed quickly and given medical aid if needed.

I also find it very interesting that the gestational age for viability is within a couple of weeks of when fetal brain waves begin to become organized and are measurable.

minnie616 · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
If that were true then we wouldn't have to report number of dependents to the IRS.

Too funny!

The right to decide how many children the couple/woman wants to try for and reporting the number of dependent children they/she has are two different things but you know that already.

iangb · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
Keep in mind we're talking about legal "personhood" as the 14th Amendment applies. Not ethics, not science, not philosophy; this is about law and when the cops can come arrest you for doing a thing.

"Possibility of awareness" is not your criteria for legal "personhood" under Roe Section 9a and all the consequences that carries with it. You had previously said it was, but you have since shown that it is not your standard. You don't want cops arresting anyone who 'killed' a ZEF who had "the possibility of awareness", you only want the cops to arrest someone if they 'killed' a ZEF who had achieved birth.

All I'm asking is that you please cut out all the other stuff and stick to what actually forms your position on public policy.

Apologies then, I was talking about personhood in all it's many factets (legal/ethical/scientific) rather than purely legal.

From a legal point of view, I haven't looked enough into the ramifications of conveying 'personhood' status. I suspect - as mentioned before - that in order to err on the side of caution I would indeed agree that full 'personhood' should begin at live birth.

By analogy with your 'black and white': pre-'awareness' = legally white (all OK), after-birth = legally black (all bad), between-the-two = legally grey (allowed but with increasingly tight restrictions as time progresses). With the occasional exception, of course.

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
Look it up yourself!

Try something like this instead:

SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."

Click to expand...

In the 40 years since Roe we have written laws such as Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law which extends to the unborn rights as a person in over 60 scenarios. This fulfills the Roe Section 9a clause and warrents a SCOTUS revisit to so that Roe can ban abortion.

The life-cycle of a human begins at fertilization:

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote . Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization....
Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

Click to expand...

Brain death marks the end of life, but brain activity does not mark the beginning. The presence of a zygote marks the beginning.

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

minnie616 said:
Too funny!

The right to decide how many children the couple/woman wants to try for and reporting the number of dependent children they/she has are two different things but you know that already.

You said family size is protected by privacy. If it's then still ok to report family size, it should be ok to report to the government how many abortions you've had, right?

Or...family size is not protected by privacy.

minnie616 · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
You said family size is protected by privacy. If it's then still ok to report family size, it should be ok to report to the government how many abortions you've had, right?

Or...family size is not protected by privacy.

The right to decide how large or small a couple/woman wants their/her family to be is a zone of privacy.

Reporting family size is not covered by privacy ...I know not why.( but I have an idea )

If you don't want to claim your defendants and do not want the tax credit then maybe you should write your congreeperson to pass a law that allows people not to report family size. That would go for the census too but I don't think congress would go for that since they rely on the census when forming voting districts.
How could they gerrymander all the districts without a head count ?

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

minnie616 said:
The right to decide how large or small a couple/woman wants their/her family to be is a zone of privacy.

Reporting family size is not covered by privacy ...I know not why.( but I have an idea )

If you don't want to claim your defendants and do not want the tax credit then maybe you should write your congreeperson to pass a law that allows people not to report family size. That would go for the census too but I don't think congress would go for that since they rely on the census when forming voting districts.
How could they gerrymander all the districts without a head count ?

This instantly reminds me of the year I claimed my wife as a dependent for taxes and a defendant in a lawsuit.

year2late · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Bob Blaylock said:
Someone who defends the murder of innocent children is in no position to call anyone else a “jerk”.

Abortion does not murder children. Stop lying.

Crovax · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

minnie616 said:
The government has no right to know what happens inside a woman's womb.
To me forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes early in the pregnancy would be worst kind of unreasonable government intrusion.

The Constitution recognizes certain zones of privacy.

The right to privacy regarding family size is one of those zones.

Once a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her interests involved. Fathers arent able to opt out of the responsibility of parenthood even when they have been raped. Eroding rights of the father and the fetus in the name of privacy is selfish and short-sided.

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

year2late said:
Abortion does not murder children. Stop lying.

And honor killing doesn't murder women.

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Crovax said:
Once a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her interests involved. Fathers arent able to opt out of the responsibility of parenthood even when they have been raped. Eroding rights of the father and the fetus in the name of privacy is selfish and short-sided.

But they are completely opted out of the pregnancy....they are not involved, they are not obligated to pay for a single thing during pregnancy

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
And honor killing doesn't murder women.

IMO it doesnt. It kills them. IMO it is unjustified but if it's legal then it's not murder.

Henrin · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Lursa said:
But they are completely opted out of the pregnancy....they are not involved, they are not obligated to pay for a single thing during pregnancy

Obviously he was talking about after pregnancy, not during.

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Lursa said:
IMO it doesnt. It kills them. IMO it is unjustified but if it's legal then it's not murder.

Thank you for putting elective abortion on the same level as honor killing.

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Henrin said:
Obviously he was talking about after pregnancy, not during.

Right, so once a kid is born...he has rights. Before that, he has none and also has no obligations....as much as they may well be needed or requested, he doesnt have to.

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
Thank you for putting elective abortion on the same level as honor killing.

To you maybe, but that is not my perspective. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I spoke from a legal perspective....for you to compare a living woman suffering in terror and then dying, to a unknowing, unfeeling bit of human DNA flushed from a womb is disturbing tho, if that's what you are suggesting.

Henrin · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Lursa said:
Right, so once a kid is born...he has rights. Before that, he has none and also has no obligations....as much as they may well be needed or requested, he doesnt have to.

Actually, the woman and the state has some control over the man at that point regardless of his individual situation. I pretty sure he made that point clear enough.

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Henrin said:
Actually, the woman and the state has some control over the man at that point regardless of his individual situation as should be clear from his post.

Really? What legal 'controls' do a woman or the state have over a man before the birth of the child?

If he wanted to opt out of fatherhood, he could have done that before sex.

It used to be that way for women too. Biology and medical technology have provided a safe, legal option for women now.

Jerry · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Lursa said:
To you maybe, but that is not my perspective. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I spoke from a legal perspective....for you to compare a living woman suffering in terror and then dying, to a unknowing, unfeeling bit of human DNA flushed from a womb is disturbing tho, if that's what you are suggesting.

Regretting your post now?

Quickly, go delete it before I get a screen cap....

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Jerry said:
Regretting your post now?

Quickly, go delete it before I get a screen cap....

Not remotely, I appreciated the opportunity to expand on it!

(Why do you think I regret it?)

Henrin · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Lursa said:
Really? What legal 'controls' do a woman or the state have over a man before the birth of the child?

If he wanted to opt out of fatherhood, he could have done that before sex.

It used to be that way for women too. Biology and medical technology have provided a safe, legal option for women now.

After pregnancy. The argument is not about child support, but about consent to sex/fatherhood. Does the state actually respect the rape argument for men? No, it doesn't.

Lursa · Sep 25, 2014

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Henrin said:
After pregnancy. The argument is not about child support, but about consent to sex/fatherhood. Does the state actually respect the rape argument for men? No, it doesn't.

Rape? I have no idea what you are talking about but it's off topic.

Please get back to something relevant or dont expect a response.

I probably should not have followed Crovax down that path.

Abortion: The Facts [W:83605]

Jerry

Jerry

prometeus

minnie616

minnie616

iangb

Lurker

Jerry

Jerry

minnie616

Jerry

year2late

IIJAFM

Crovax

Jerry

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

Henrin

Jerry

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

Henrin

Lursa

Tenacious

Jerry

Lursa

Tenacious

Henrin

Lursa

Tenacious

Abortion: The Facts [W:83***605***]

Lurker

IIJAFM

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Abortion: The Facts [W:83605]