What if the legal reasoning for Roe is flawed?

[Removable Mind]

There is no myth to fetal personhood. The fetus is a person. The fetus is a human being.

Now, if we decide that a person in the fetal stage can be aborted, that is one thing, but to deny it is a human being or a person is just stupid.

That is debatable and I disagree... the fetus is not a corporation and to make an analogy to "artificial type of personhood" is just silly...

Of course they are not grounded in fetal rights because people have not granted them rights... talk about a cyclical and nonsensical argument. Even then from the Alliance Alert:

The fetus has an interest in staying alive. To deny that is to deny reality. That said, fetal laws obviously are in fetal interest. They can be both...

And there is a clear difference to consensually ending one's own life and a nonconsensual attack but suicide is illegal... bad argument.

... and you seem to have missed the point about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act being the foundation of your entire premise, yet you do not reference it and muddle around with these other aspects instead.

So if a fetus is a person...then there's been a major mistake by the entire judicial system in the U.S. And even science journals don't refer to the unborn as persons....so I guess they've over looked the obvious. Or at least according to you. So what now? Do you suggest that all they have to do is realize that they've been shortsighted and did a huge injustice by not referring to the unborn as persons?

And I still stick with several things regarding the unborn.

It's impossible to give the unborn equal rights to the born. The consequences would be devastating in so many ways.

Labels, definitions, and value systems are necessary to uniformly interpret and execute laws.

To deny women - based merely on the fact that they have a uterus - is beyond discrimination, it forces women into involuntary servitude. Women ALSO have Constitutional rights to life, liberty, self-determination, equal protection, due process, and right to privacy - all of which are essential elements for all persons who participate in our society. These rights are not given in a lesser degree than to men.

Again...there is zero moral obligation for women to proliferate the species, which includes their right to terminate a pregnancy.

Just because an unborn human is "human" doesn't make it exempt from the inevitable that all life forms face sooner or later.

The "necessity" of terminating any given pregnancy is a private matter. It's not open for public debate. To make it a public debate issue is to deny individuals the right to determine the size of family that they desire.

There is no evidence that all of the abortions ever performed throughout human history has had a negative impact on humankind. Humanity has experienced many types of deaths every second of the day since its beginning. There is no means to measure the effects of death from one generation to the next. We die daily from disease, wars, addictions, accidents, death penalties imposed by the state, etc, etc. etc..

If you want to consider the unborn as a "person" - fire away. That is one of the great aspects associated with CHOICE. Choice works for everybody regardless of their personal beliefs.

Bod, you've made it clear about your moral values regarding this issue. It works for you. But to put your moral values to work in a judicial setting would create alarming consequences to both women and men.

The greatest avoidance of personhood I see happening is the 100's of thousand of children in state custody. The safety net for born children is deplorable. FIX THESE ATROCITIES FIRST...then we might take a closer look at abortion. I have no compassion for people who hypocritically condemn women for abortion and DOES NOTHING to fix so many broken systems that have consistently failed to meet the needs of abused, neglected, and abandoned children.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I hear you but do not see how any of that is relevant to the fact that we are not certain at what point a developing human gains consciousness yet we seem to have no qualms as to killing it even though we do not know.

We know it is not in the first trimester and most likely not until 3rd.

JAMA Network | JAMA | Fetal Pain:  A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

 

[Scrabaholic]

I understand that...the question is over the split. Roughly 50/50 which goes back a few years. It teeter/totters a bit, but not by much.

It is a misleading question. Many women would say they are prolife for themselves but prochoice for others. Choiceone has shown how the numbers are different when the question specifically asks if abortion should be legal or illegal.

 

[Lursa]

So if a fetus is a person...then there's been a major mistake by the entire judicial system in the U.S. And even science journals don't refer to the unborn as persons....so I guess they've over looked the obvious. Or at least according to you. So what now? Do you suggest that all they have to do is realize that they've been shortsighted and did a huge injustice by not referring to the unborn as persons?

.

Yes. But even if you leave 'personhood' out of it, everyone still uses the concepts of rights. (Even tho they dont agree on those either).

In America, we have recognized some rights that are pretty universal. And to demand women remain pregnant, make abortion illegal, does grossly infringe on those rights.

So really, no one has explained how they morally justify giving these rights to the unborn if it requires taking them from born women?

And I'd like to see that. I have explained how I do place the rights of the born above the unborn. Why cant someone do the same to support their position? It's not about agreeing with it, I dont care if people agree with my opinion on this.

How is ethical to grossly infringe on women's rights to liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, self-determination, and even life, to demand they remain pregnant? This means that people feel that the unborn are more entitled to those same rights. Morally, ethically, how are the unborn more entitled to those rights?

As you and I have pointed out....in real life it is not possible to treat them equally, as much as that gets tossed around as denial and wishful thinking.

 

[Removable Mind]

If that is the case then why are you writing to him...

Very clever, Bod, but since you've raised the question...

I was simply trying to to encourage him to respond with at least, "I dunt reed whell, tharfour my compryisnton aint the grattest, so try puttin up pitchures".

Wait, I don't think the framers created a picture story to illustrate the meaning of our Constitution and nor has Congress when they've legislated laws. So I guess we can also conclude that Supreme Court decisions haven't been posted in picture form either.

Never mind. Your right - perhaps in the future I'll ask for legitimate source links that support his claims. And he won't, but always has a great story that isn't congruent with our judicial or congressional branches of government...but what the hell?

 

[Removable Mind]

The potential life is the foetus's right... stop trying to play word games. :lol:


Consciousness is self-awareness. Dolphins, chimps and humans have it as they mature. That is about it. Squirrels and infants do not have self-awareness.

That is the point. IT is a self-serving and hypocritical argument.

I'm totally confused about what you believe "Consciousness" is. How do you define it. How are you applying that definition, or lets say, how do you correlate consciousness with the being "Sentient"?

Bod, have you posted any sources that define awareness or lack of awareness in infants? Did I miss that?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Some are counted, the rest are not. At one point, blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person. You really want to base your argument on the census?

SLAVES, not all blacks - and SOLELY for the purpose of the census and political representation. It did NOT mean they were less than full persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

 

[Removable Mind]

Brain waves do not indicate consciousness, as I clearly pointed out with the squirrel comparison



Id don't see anything about "potential life" but I do see that they are talking about the below:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - encyclopedia article about Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

...and that is about killing of an unborn not because it is potential life but because it is human life. In fact, many laws list the fetus as "a person" for the purposes of levying murder charges against a person that kills a developing human un utero making an argument that the fetus does have "personhood" status and should be protected from abortion.

Bod, please post these laws, which identify a fetus as a person.

When the Unborn Victims Act was passed - it only passed because it had to be made clear that the terms used to describe the unborn was not to be confused with person or personhood or any rights that born persons possess.

ALL laws that are similar to the Unborn Victims Act is only applicable when it's been determined that the death of a fetus resulted during the commission of a crime.

The Unborn Victims Act clearly states that it created a special term "Child in utero" and this Act does not imply or explicitly state that the unborn is a recognized person or has the rights of a person as defined by the Constitution.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

MOST IMPORTANTLY...THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION:

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

NOWHERE DO YOU SEE that a fetus is declared to be a person. Nowhere in our Constitution will you see "persons" defined as members of the SPECIES homo sapiens.

 

[Lursa]

SLAVES, not all blacks - and SOLELY for the purpose of the census and political representation. It did NOT mean they were less than full persons.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct, and apparently better educated on our history than some Americans :roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

Actually squirrels are pretty smart ...Take a look at this YouTube video of the
Mission Impossible Squirrel -that squirrel passes an obstacle course to raid the bird feeder.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DsuVLsDyln4

Now, Minnie. You know that squirrels aren't conscious when they do those things...that was just a squirrel DREAMING it did all of those things. Videoing animal dreams is the next super technology coming soon to a pet store near us.

 

[Scrabaholic]

SCOTUS is flawed and legal definitions have nothing to do with biology... and NO, we are talking about biology, not legal definitions. That is the whole point. Pro-choice sticks with legal definitions because they know that biology is inconclusive, yet they want the choice of an abortion so they look the other way and stick to legal talking points in a self-serving manner. I don't care, at the end of the day, if people are in favour of abortion or not... but please be honest about it because then I could at least respect the person.

I don't give a flying fig if the zef is a person, human being, Einstein or the Pope - if a woman does not want it in her body, it is and should be, her right to have an abortion.

 

[Removable Mind]

i don't give a flying fig if the zef is a person, human being, einstein or the pope - if a woman does not want it in her body, it is and should be, her right to have an abortion.

repeat! :thumbs:

 

[RAMOSS]

SCOTUS is flawed and legal definitions have nothing to do with biology... and NO, we are talking about biology, not legal definitions. That is the whole point. Pro-choice sticks with legal definitions because they know that biology is inconclusive, yet they want the choice of an abortion so they look the other way and stick to legal talking points in a self-serving manner. I don't care, at the end of the day, if people are in favour of abortion or not... but please be honest about it because then I could at least respect the person.

Now, since we are talking biology, lets see you put for the scientific argument that a fetus is a 'being'.

 

[minnie616]

....


That is debatable and I disagree... the fetus is not a corporation and to make an analogy to "artificial type of personhood" is just silly...

...

I agree that a fetus is not a corporation but society ( in this case the state ) uses judicial personhood on fetuses " to reduce
violence against women, vindicate women's rights, provide for monetary recovery through wrongful death awards, and punish criminal assailants. "

Fetal personality, like corporate personhood, is also outcome oriented. Corporate personality theory often holds that "person" is a legal fiction; it means whatever the law wants it to mean. (124) In this way, courts were able to characterize corporations as persons in order to achieve a desired outcome. (125) As Blackstone wrote long ago, "artificial [persons] are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society." (126) The way we define "person," then, depends on the consequences society wishes to achieve from such a designation. (127) The personhood comes from the desire for a specific result, not from the metaphysical characteristics of the entity. (128)

The desired outcome for a corporation is to protect the rights of its shareholders. Similarly, society hopes to achieve social good by conferring juridical personhood on fetuses. Such a designation will reduce violence against women, vindicate women's rights, provide for monetary recovery through wrongful death awards, and punish criminal assailants.

Society defines in order to achieve a certain social state, not to recognize an existing social being.

Read more:

The myth of fetal personhood: reconciling Roe and fetal homicide laws. - Free Online Library

 

[JayDubya]

He's glued to the idea that only what he can physically read is all the the Constitution means.

Yeah, which is why I tell you so often to go read a plain English document, because I think only I am literate and you are incapable of reading simple words...? Makes perfect sense, a-derp.

The fact that you actually refuse to read and understand simple words has no bearing on the fact that I do encourage others to not be mindless regurgitating automatons. If the authorities told you the sky was made of butter, you apparently would not only believe them but insist that every one else who knows about this thing called "an atmosphere" was wrong.

Some dudes in robes say text that does not exist does magically exist, and you believe them. That's pretty dumb, dude.

If Jay is right then we need to shut down the S.C. as it is a useless branch of government.

No. Their job is important; among other things, it is to protect the integrity of the Constitution and make sure it isn't violated.

With Roe, they grievously corrupted it and violated it themselves. That's a slight fail. Just a bit.

 

[prometeus]

Peter, it's a waste of finger energy to even attempt to engage in rational discussions or debate with Jay when it comes to the Constitution. He's glued to the idea that only what he can physically read is all the the Constitution means.

And it is a good thing we have him here to tell us what it means. Just imagine how lost this entire nation would be without his learned opinion.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yeah, which is why I tell you so often to go read a plain English document, because I think only I am literate and you are incapable of reading simple words...? Makes perfect sense, a-derp.

The fact that you actually refuse to read and understand simple words has no bearing on the fact that I do encourage others to not be mindless regurgitating automatons. If the authorities told you the sky was made of butter, you apparently would not only believe them but insist that every one else who knows about this thing called "an atmosphere" was wrong.

Some dudes in robes say text that does not exist does magically exist, and you believe them. That's pretty dumb, dude.



No. Their job is important; among other things, it is to protect the integrity of the Constitution and make sure it isn't violated.

With Roe, they grievously corrupted it and violated it themselves. That's a slight fail. Just a bit.

"Interpretation" isn't one of your better talents, Jay. But since you don't believe in it's interpretation - it doesn't matter, huh?

 

[JayDubya]

"Interpretation" isn't one of your better talents, Jay.

Uh-huh.

You rarely need to interpret plain English.

You never need to "interpret" it into meaning things that were never written nor intended (aka lying).

 

[Removable Mind]

Uh-huh.

You rarely need to interpret plain English.

You never need to "interpret" it into meaning things that were never written nor intended (aka lying).

Yeah...just as I expected from you Professor Jay. So I don't guess you mind posting those handful of S.C.case reviews and decisions since it's beginning. And we all know that the S.C. should never lower itself to Constitutional interpretation since its all there in black and white. It shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two.

Oh, and that wasted paper space for the 9th Amendment needs to be thrown out.

 

[Removable Mind]

Amazing....


“Fiscally conservative” lawmaker happy to spend taxpayer millions defending unconstitutional abortion ban - Salon.com

 

[Scrabaholic]

Amazing....


“Fiscally conservative” lawmaker happy to spend taxpayer millions defending unconstitutional abortion ban - Salon.com

Fiscally conservative, my butt.

 

[Removable Mind]

Fiscally conservative, my butt.

A vote hungry ass is more likely the case. There's no such thing as fiscal conservatives in US politics.

 

[Bodi]

That's nice.

It does not work in practice, in reality...if you are concerned about the rights of women...but otherwise, it's what works for you.

It works in reality because it is just simple logic... if the practice is changed then it will work in practice. The rights of the woman are not the only rights that some are concerned with.

And I pointed out the article was really talking about brain waves and being able to feel pain ...not the type of consciousness your example was.

I miscarried a fetus that was about 20 weeks gestation many years ago and so I have researched fetal brain activity quite a bit.

Everything I have read in peer reviewed studies indicates the neural system of a fetus is NOT developed enough to feel pain or have any sort of awareness until after 26 weeks gestion.

Before 26 weeks the brain waves as I pointed out in the article I posted are as unorganized and flat as those of a brain dead person..

I understand and tend to agree with that... but the point is that nobody really knows when consciousness begins. As I have pointed out an infant exhibits less consciousness than an adult dolphin yet the infant is endowed with full personhood status and all the manner of rights. What I am saying is that it is not as black and white as the vast majority of pro-choice proponents indicate. That they are arguing out of ignorance with only some facts and then playing those facts over and over as talking points as if that is the end of the story when it is not.

It gives me great comfort to know that my little miscarried one was not developed enough to be aware or to feel any pain before it died within me

I understand and agree with that sentiment 100% as my wife miscarried, though not that late. That is also part of the point. Emotion. Nobody wants to kill a person so the term person is not applied to the fetus. It helps people sleep at night.

Actually squirrels are pretty smart ...Take a look at this YouTube video of the
Mission Impossible Squirrel -that squirrel passes an obstacle course to raid the bird feeder.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DsuVLsDyln4

That is not conscious awareness though...

I personally think that physian assisted suicide should be legal especially in cases of terminal illness ,but it seems that it does not fall under the "right to privacy" issue.

I know Dr. K from Michigan tried very hard to make doctor assisted suicide legal and even invented a suicide machine that patients could use themselves to commit suicide. Eventually he was arrested and spent several years of a 15 year sentence in jail but it was a cause in which he believed , and a cause I believed in and I was hoping the SC would take it up and make it legal.
The Supreme Court looked at it twice in 1997 but said there was no constitutional right for assisted suicide.

Oregon passed a law that allows assisted sucide and in 2006 the SC did allow the Oregon law to stand so maybe it might fall under states rights . I think we are getting closer to making assisted suicide legal.

We can hope.

Agreed.

 

[Bodi]

My personal choice is 15 weeks but am not dead set on it.

No in any significant way.

You don't know that...

If persons are counted and fetuses are not if gores to show that fetuses do not count, never did. How about dependent allowances or identity documentation? Where do you draw the line, because now there is absolutely nothing that shows fetuses to be considered persons.

That is only because they have not been included as persons yet. Blacks were counted as 3/5 a vote and somehow that one changed...

amazing what happens when people think past traditions. :roll:

Squirrels are very good problem solvers.

But not conscious or aware... next?

But they have identity documentation in their native country.

Not always... some countries like Chile had their documentation destroyed and tribal people in many areas are 100% undocumented. Guess they ain't "people". :lol:

 

[Bodi]

So if a fetus is a person...then there's been a major mistake by the entire judicial system in the U.S. And even science journals don't refer to the unborn as persons....so I guess they've over looked the obvious. Or at least according to you. So what now? Do you suggest that all they have to do is realize that they've been shortsighted and did a huge injustice by not referring to the unborn as persons?

I am not arguing that the fetus should be considered a person. I am arguing a devils advocate position and showing the lack of logic in the pro-choice position. Science and medicine do not refer to them as people because that is a legal argument. They refer to them as their biological standing just as they refer to infants as infants, males as males, females as females, etc.

And I still stick with several things regarding the unborn.

It's impossible to give the unborn equal rights to the born. The consequences would be devastating in so many ways.

It is obviously NOT impossible. It would merely be inconvenient. Devastating would be seeing Dennis Rodman as President.

Labels, definitions, and value systems are necessary to uniformly interpret and execute laws.

Agreed but not relevant in this case...

To deny women - based merely on the fact that they have a uterus - is beyond discrimination, it forces women into involuntary servitude. Women ALSO have Constitutional rights to life, liberty, self-determination, equal protection, due process, and right to privacy - all of which are essential elements for all persons who participate in our society. These rights are not given in a lesser degree than to men.

That is incorrect as women can make the choice to not have sex. I am not saying that is what I want... I am merely pointing out the flaw in that argument.

Again...there is zero moral obligation for women to proliferate the species, which includes their right to terminate a pregnancy.

I am not arguing that women are obliged to procreate and have been very clear about that...

Just because an unborn human is "human" doesn't make it exempt from the inevitable that all life forms face sooner or later.

That is an opening to allowing other forms of killing, including murder. Careful there...

The "necessity" of terminating any given pregnancy is a private matter. It's not open for public debate. To make it a public debate issue is to deny individuals the right to determine the size of family that they desire.

I agree. That is, unless a fetus is considered a person...

There is no evidence that all of the abortions ever performed throughout human history has had a negative impact on humankind. Humanity has experienced many types of deaths every second of the day since its beginning. There is no means to measure the effects of death from one generation to the next. We die daily from disease, wars, addictions, accidents, death penalties imposed by the state, etc, etc. etc..

We outlaw certain forms of killing negating disease, etc.

If you want to consider the unborn as a "person" - fire away. That is one of the great aspects associated with CHOICE. Choice works for everybody regardless of their personal beliefs.

I want the legal definition to fit the biological one.

Bod, you've made it clear about your moral values regarding this issue. It works for you. But to put your moral values to work in a judicial setting would create alarming consequences to both women and men.

I have been clear that I am pro-choice for the 9 years that I have been here...

The greatest avoidance of personhood I see happening is the 100's of thousand of children in state custody. The safety net for born children is deplorable. FIX THESE ATROCITIES FIRST...then we might take a closer look at abortion. I have no compassion for people who hypocritically condemn women for abortion and DOES NOTHING to fix so many broken systems that have consistently failed to meet the needs of abused, neglected, and abandoned children.

I agree. The situation with many children is horrendous and needs to be fixed. That is one reason why I donate to various charities and vote...