• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should every fetus have a right to life?

Should every fetus be granted a right to life?


  • Total voters
    53
OK, and if society feels that one isn't really a "citizen" till 10 years old, that's cool too then? So long as it's democratic and "repercussions" are weighed, yes?

When we start having majorities in favor of euthanizing children we can have that discussion. Right now this is a discussion about fetuses and abortion.

To be honest though, with our current government in America. I'd be more worried about our "powers that be" governing the wombs of women than the women themselves. I see our corrupt government more likely to permit euthanasia than the mothers of the children. The government has more to lose from multitudes of bad investments (unproductive citizens) than a mother who would have comparatively minimal bad investments.
 
When we start having majorities in favor of euthanizing children we can have that discussion. Right now this is a discussion about fetuses and abortion.

To be honest though, with our current government in America. I'd be more worried about our "powers that be" governing the wombs of women than the women themselves. I see our corrupt government more likely to permit euthanasia than the mothers of the children. The government has more to lose from multitudes of bad investments (unproductive citizens) than a mother who would have comparatively minimal bad investments.

Ahh the old "I didn't think out the logical ends of my theory here, and I want to ignore it because it brings up potentially sticky conflicts in my own conclusions, thus we're going to overlook it".

But according to you, so long as society approves, so long as it's done democratically, it's OK. Your theory means that should society decide that one isn't truly a citizen until 10, that anything happening before it could be considered simply property crime. You don't get to make incomplete, incompatible theory and then pretend that it is OK if used in the specific context. Theory must be complete.

I don't buy the wishy-washy terms of "citizen" or "person" because they have no concrete definitions and can be made to serve whatever purpose the individual wants it to serve.
 
So when does one get to be a citizen? And if public opinion changed on that, then when we can kill a fetus or whatever by that measure, it can be OK? So long as society is cool with it?

Actually the US Constitution grants citizenship to any person born in the USA.
Our Constitution also recognizes all born humans as persons.

Therefore in order for the US to recognize the unborn as persons a personhood amendment to the US Constitution would have to be passed.
 
Actually the US Constitution grants citizenship to any person born in the USA.
Our Constitution also recognizes all born humans as persons.

Therefore in order for the US to recognize the unborn as persons a personhood amendment to the US Constitution would have to be passed.

So long as that maintains. But if enough peoe feel so and through democratic methods we amend that, then it's perfectly acceptable accoriding to the argument given.
 
So long as that maintains. But if enough peoe feel so and through democratic methods we amend that, then it's perfectly acceptable accoriding to the argument given.

As long as the USA remains a democracy there will not be a personhood amendment to the US Constitution passed.

And I do not say that lightly.
There are too many unintended consequences.
Even Mississippi which is one of our most conservative states could not pass a personhood amendment to their state Constitution.

As choiceone explained in a post on another thread.

originally posted by choiceone:
You know this is not true because you know that your side in this debate will NEVER be able to get a proposed Constitutional amendment to recognize zygotes as persons put into law. Why? If Congress makes the proposal, two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate have to vote for it just to make it a formal amendment to be voted on by the states. It could be proposed to be voted on via the national convention method - two-thirds of the state legislatures is required for the convention. Then, all the states have to have a popular vote on the proposed amendment, and three-fourths of the states have to have a popular vote supporting it. Three-fourths of the current number of states means 38 states.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is a big regional divide on the abortion issue. Widening Regional Divide over Abortion Laws | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The legality of abortion in all or most cases is supported in
the six New England states at 75%,
the five Pacific Coast states at 65%,
the five Mid-Atlantic states (+DC) at 61%,
the eight Mountain West states at 59%,
the five Great Lakes states at 50%,
the six South Atlantic states at 50%,
the seven Midwest states at 47%,
and the eight South Central states at 40%.

This does not mean that the remaining percent of the population in each case is against the legality of abortion in all or most cases, either. There is an unsure percentage of about 5-6% in each case.

Adding up the states that support the legality of abortion at 61% or more, we get 6+5+5 = 16 states. 50-38=12.

This math shows that, if support for the legality of abortion in all or most cases predicts non-support for a personhood for zygotes amendment, and it realistically does, even if it were possible for you to get such an amendment proposed, you could NEVER get it ratified by 38 states.

And as further proof of this, when one of the most anti-abortion states, Mississippi, put forth such an amendment just for the Mississippi constitution for a popular vote in that state, last year, about 59% of that state's voters voted against that amendment.

Post #240

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/177065-good-punishment-24.html
 
As long as the USA remains a democracy there will not be a personhood amendment to the US Constitution passed.

And I do not say that lightly.
There are too many unintended consequences.
Even Mississippi which is one of our most conservative states could not pass a personhood amendment to their state Constitution.

As choiceone explained in a post on another thread.



Post #240

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/177065-good-punishment-24.html

That's not really the question, now is it? The question is that given at base the morality proposed in the argument has no limitation other than society things it's OK and it's been democratically selected. Ergo, should society agree and through democratic means redefine "citizen" or "person" or whatever other floppy definition you want to use; then by those arguments it would be OK to eliminate.

Furthermore, this "As long as the USA remains a democracy there will not be a personhood amendment to the US Constitution passed." is just an assumption of convenience based only in our current view of our current society. As of now you can't conceive of it, but does your inability to envision such a thing then demand that it may not exist? Do you define reality through your commandments of what can and cannot come to pass? This is another failure of the argument and serves only as a deflection away from the base. Which is to say, if your only restriction is going to be that society is OK and that it was done democratically, you've open yourself up to a plethora of dynamics that you'd likely not agree with. Thus when formulating the extent of government force and power, we must pay attention to the FULL philosophy being used.

Can't snap shot it. I know that's a very popular tactic, but it doesn't work with biology or philosophy.
 
In the USA we have a Constitution.

And in order for an unborn to be considered a person a personhood amendment has to be passed.

But abortions are becoming rarer and with more women using long term birth control which has a much lower failure rate the numbers are falling and quite rapidly in the last few years.

Abortions have already fallen to lowest since Roe v Wade was passed in 1973.

Between the years 2008 and 2011 abortion numbers fell by 13 percent.
 
In the USA we have a Constitution.

And in order for an unborn to be considered a person a personhood amendment has to be passed.

But abortions are becoming rarer and with more women using long term birth control which has a much lower failure rate the numbers are falling and quite rapidly in the last few years.

Abortions have already fallen to lowest since Roe v Wade was passed in 1973.

Between the years 2008 and 2011 abortion numbers fell by 13 percent.

That's not really the point. You don't know the world in 30 years, 50 years, 80 years. Thus the base argument has to apply to the various logical conclusions it can be taken to. To say that societal approval and a democratic method are all that is necessary to make force against a life OK, you've opened up many various dynamics. Should the society believe it OK and democratically elect that a human isn't a citizen or a person or a full human or any other floppy term you want to use, until age 10; then by the arguments presented that makes it perfectly OK to kill a 9 year old. That's by effect of argument itself. It highlights the absurdity and incomplete nature of the argument itself.

it's great that abortions are on the decline. Killing for convenience has rarely been a good thing. But it has nothing to do with the point.
 
That's not really the question, now is it? The question is that given at base the morality proposed in the argument has no limitation other than society things it's OK and it's been democratically selected. Ergo, should society agree and through democratic means redefine "citizen" or "person" or whatever other floppy definition you want to use; then by those arguments it would be OK to eliminate.

Furthermore, this "As long as the USA remains a democracy there will not be a personhood amendment to the US Constitution passed." is just an assumption of convenience based only in our current view of our current society. ...

You are trying to make the abortion issue into a morality or a personhood argument.

I did mention that the only way the US Constitution would recognize an unborn as a person would be if a US personhood amendment were passed and added to our US Constitution but before that the right to privacy has to addressed.

Right to body privacy is included in
our (men's and women's ) "zone of privacy" .

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy.
The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important."


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS
 
Last edited:
You are trying to make the abortion issue into a morality or a personhood argument.

No, I merely took an argument presented to its logical conclusion.
 
No, I merely took an argument presented to its logical conclusion.

No, you took an argument about abortion and made it about euthanasia. Talking about the prevention of a fetus to grow into an already constituted person hood is not the same as introducing a new euthanasia law.
 
A fetus doesn't have rights unless it's killed without the mothers consent....then it's called murder. Damn confusing

Actually, it's the woman's rights .. not the fetus' rights.
 
The key is empathy. That's where individual nature spans the distance to social abstract objects. Like empathy, natural rights are inalienable from humans. Again we might note, crazy is not part of a sociological construct.



I believe when the founders wrote ~"by our Creator" they mean "comes from nature" and not "dependent upon a deity". The founders were certainly smart and educated enough to understand sociology and derive natural rights in the absence of metaphysics.

Natural rights is a liberating concept when derived via science and not metaphysics. We do not need authority to know, scientifically, some rights are part of being human.

I believe every 'right' is part of being human and nothing more than a social contract.

Your 'rights' natural or otherwise aren't going to do you any good if you find yourself cornered and unarmed in front of a dozen hungry lions.
 
You mean like it says in the Declaration of Independence? Yes. As fetuses exhibit the qualities of life (organized, use energy, dispose of waste, reproduces, responds to environment, et. al.), they are--in fact--a live and deserve protection.

If you are arguing that anything that exhibits the qualities of life deserves protection from being killed then you are arguing we should all be vegan's and never kill any kind of animal. In fact, under such a broad definition, we're going to starve because plants are suddenly off the menu.

I think logically it comes down to the fact that the mother is feeding the fetus and if she doesn't want to feed it anymore, that's a choice she alone can make.

It's impossible to stop a mother aborting an unwanted fetus, it's also dangerous and impractical.

Pushing abortion out of medical care and into dark alleys and the blackmarket would be a huge mistake. Far darker than even the worst times of the prohibition and somewhere I don't believe we seriously want to consider going.
 
I believe every 'right' is part of being human and nothing more than a social contract.

Of course it's a social contract. When it occurs universally (regardless of violations), it's a natural social contract.

Your 'rights' natural or otherwise aren't going to do you any good if you find yourself cornered and unarmed in front of a dozen hungry lions.

Lions are not capable of entering into human social constructs and a right being violated has nothing to do with it being socially natural.
 
To the 27 people who said no.........What if it was you and your mother was deciding to abort you or give birth and carry you to term? I bet you might change your mind.
 
To the 27 people who said no.........What if it was you and your mother was deciding to abort you or give birth and carry you to term? I bet you might change your mind.

Well, no, because then I would not be here to change my mind. Even if you stated "what if your mother decided to abort your brother/sister, you might change your mind". And then still the answer is no. I do not know what life I would have had without my sister. I love her dearly as do I love my nephews. But if she had not been born would I have lived a different less happy life? I do not know, I would not know any better.

It is still the right of a woman to decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant or end her pregnancy.
 
To the 27 people who said no.........What if it was you and your mother was deciding to abort you or give birth and carry you to term? I bet you might change your mind.
It should not take a mental giant to figure out that if any of us were aborted we would not be making an issue of it or posting inane stupid questions.
 
To the 27 people who said no.........What if it was you and your mother was deciding to abort you or give birth and carry you to term? I bet you might change your mind.


I wouldn't change my mind. I love my mother and I SUPPORT my mother. That includes her right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy.

I would support my daughter in the same way.
 
Last edited:
To the 27 people who said no.........What if it was you and your mother was deciding to abort you or give birth and carry you to term? I bet you might change your mind.

She should have aborted each of her pregnancies. She had no business giving birth.
 
She should have aborted each of her pregnancies. She had no business giving birth.

Yes, some people sadly are totally no parent material but keep putting extra lives on the planet.
 
I voted YES for this simple reason:

A senior citizen is a human being.
An elderly person is a human being.
An adult is a human being.
A young man or woman is a human being.
A teenager is a human being.
A child is a human being.
A toddler is a human being.
A baby is a human being.
A fetus is a human being.
A zygote is a human being.

All are human beings. Why do most of them have the right not to be murdered, but two of them can be murdered at will?

Abortion is murder. Period.


I don't think that it's fair to consider a potential for life to have rights until it has actually been granted life. What are your thoughts?
A fetus is alive. So it is not really an issue of granting a right but of taking it away, I should think. ;)

Great reply joG
 
Last edited:
I voted YES for this simple reason:

A senior citizen is a human being.
An elderly person is a human being.
An adult is a human being.
A young man or woman is a human being.
A teenager is a human being.
A child is a human being.
A toddler is a human being.
A baby is a human being.
A fetus is a human being.
A zygote is a human being.

All are human beings. Why do most of them have the right not to be murdered, but two of them can be murdered at will?

Abortion is murder. Period.

....

Abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade are not murder.

An elective abortion before viability in the US is legal.

The unborn have no rights granted in the US Constitution.


Birth is the starting point for personhood legally. That is a legal fact.
U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
 
Last edited:
. . . . Birth is the starting point for personhood legally. That is a legal fact.

The Law is wrong. The law once called black people 2/3 of a person, and said they were property. The law was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Law is not science.

Scientifically, a fetus is a human being.

Liberals always say Conservatives don't believe in science. Hah! On this issue, liberals SPIT on science.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is human life. That is science. That is fact. It cannot be disputed.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT, and judges & lawyers are not scientists or biologists. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder. And also, it is scientific fact that the child in the womb has a unique DNA, apart from the mother. So the babe is not part of the mother's body, but is an independent being.

Therefore, I repeat:

I voted YES for this simple reason:

A senior citizen is a human being.
An elderly person is a human being.
An adult is a human being.
A young man or woman is a human being.
A teenager is a human being.
A child is a human being.
A toddler is a human being.
A baby is a human being.
A fetus is a human being.
A zygote is a human being.

All are human beings. Why do most of them have the right not to be murdered, but two of them can be murdered at will?

Abortion is murder. Period.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom