- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You will walk away from this debate clearer and more informed on why you believe the way you do
****
Are the unborn "persons"?
To answer this I first consider: Does it matter?
We now know that establishing "personhood" does matter. It is in fact critical.
But isn't "person" a simply subjective term? What new information can science and reason offer so that we can update the antiquated legal theory of Roe-v-Wade?
"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", spicificly, a “mother”.
My Claim:
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
Therefore, when we apply more recent science and reason to Law, we observe through objective measure that the unborn are in fact disserving of “personhood” under the law. Consequently, RvW Section 9a kicks in and bans all abortions where the mother's life is not in jeopardy.
****
Are the unborn "persons"?
To answer this I first consider: Does it matter?
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."
We now know that establishing "personhood" does matter. It is in fact critical.
But isn't "person" a simply subjective term? What new information can science and reason offer so that we can update the antiquated legal theory of Roe-v-Wade?
"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", spicificly, a “mother”.
My Claim:
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
Therefore, when we apply more recent science and reason to Law, we observe through objective measure that the unborn are in fact disserving of “personhood” under the law. Consequently, RvW Section 9a kicks in and bans all abortions where the mother's life is not in jeopardy.