Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[SmarterThanHick]

No one survives an abortion. Its like saying someone survived being murdered.
If the baby is born alive, then no abortion took place. Abortion kills a fetus, it doesn't result in the birth of a live baby.

So, if the baby survives ATTEMPTED murder --- then it's what again?

Why is it that everytime the libs don;t like the rules they just create more labels so they can rewrite the rules?

So Noomi, if you go to have an abortion and the baby survives, you just say it was a normal birth, God I cant say how stupid that is.

fetuses don't survive abortions. Ever. Please have some basic understanding of the concept before calling someone else stupid. You make yourself look ridiculous.

 

[Katzndogz]

Abortion is the murder of a human being. It is as wrong as Adam Lanza was in choosing to administer post birth abortions to 20 children. Now, the second question is whether or not abortion is always wrong, or whether there might be some extenuating circumstances that would justify abortion. The way someone whose life is threatened has the right to off that intruder in their homes.

When the right to abortion was being debated in the 1970s the issue was providing desperate women a way to end their pregnancies as soon as they found out they were pregnant. DESPERATE women. The Roe decision reflected this. On demand in the first trimester, medically necessary in the second trimester and only to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. There was never supposed to be such a thing as late term abortion on demand. Post birth abortion was murder that could be prosecuted as a conspiracy between the doctor, the mother and any assisting personnel to commit murder.

Whatever abortion WAS, it isn't that way anymore. Today it is a grotesque celebration of bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting. The issue has nothing to do with desperate women but killing a living child, breathing on its own by cutting it's spinal cord immediately after birth. That we actually have people that find justification for this shows just how sick and evil we have become. Take the living child, give it medical care and tell the woman to go have a back alley abortion. At that stage, the use of a rusty coat hanger is appropriate. The child has been born.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

Aaaaah....you think everyone believes abortion is wrong, yet they get them? Do you understand logic?

And if you think abortion is wrong...I want to know WHY you think it's wrong? What makes it wrong in your mind?

Well get to privacy in a bit...but first why do you think abortion is wrong?

People do things that are wrong all the time, that they perceive such actions as wrong is clearly no deterrent.

That one perceives abortion to be wrong is personal and subjective, legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And the right to privacy forbids one from attempting to foist his personal, subjective opinion on society through legislative means.

The Constitutional right to privacy places important limits on government authority where it has no jurisdiction concerning matters best left to individuals to decide:

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is the murder of a human being. It is as wrong as Adam Lanza was in choosing to administer post birth abortions to 20 children. Now, the second question is whether or not abortion is always wrong, or whether there might be some extenuating circumstances that would justify abortion. The way someone whose life is threatened has the right to off that intruder in their homes.

When the right to abortion was being debated in the 1970s the issue was providing desperate women a way to end their pregnancies as soon as they found out they were pregnant. DESPERATE women. The Roe decision reflected this. On demand in the first trimester, medically necessary in the second trimester and only to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. There was never supposed to be such a thing as late term abortion on demand. Post birth abortion was murder that could be prosecuted as a conspiracy between the doctor, the mother and any assisting personnel to commit murder.

Whatever abortion WAS, it isn't that way anymore. Today it is a grotesque celebration of bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting. The issue has nothing to do with desperate women but killing a living child, breathing on its own by cutting it's spinal cord immediately after birth. That we actually have people that find justification for this shows just how sick and evil we have become. Take the living child, give it medical care and tell the woman to go have a back alley abortion. At that stage, the use of a rusty coat hanger is appropriate. The child has been born.

In your personal subjective opinion, which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And the Constitution protects society from the likes of you, your extremism and ignorance.

 

[FA_Q2]

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

Except that the right to privacy and the ability to abort IS a constitutional question (as expressed in Roe vs. Wade) as I read it. That right expressed in the constitution can only really be challenged or limited by another right in the constitution. I would cite that as the general right to life that would bind all other rights together. In that context, the child’s right to life would, indeed, be protected by the constitution.

Grated there is no actual phrase to point out or line that I can bring up BUT that does not mean that the constitution is completely silent on the subject. In that same manner, you have espoused all types of different laws based on lines like the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Somehow, you have construed all those meanings from one line statements but then refuse to admit that the constitution provides some protections to the unborn, something that the courts have never stated either.

You might think that I am reading too far into the constitution by placing a general right to life in there but I do not agree with that sentiment. Either way though, the question is rather moot as the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn are in no way to mean that the right to abort is absolute or should override the right to life. As I have stated many time, not even the court is crazy enough to go that far. There is a point in which the right of a woman to control her body is overridden by the right of the child to live. That is enshrined in CURRENT law.

Current privacy rights case law with regard to abortion is found in Casey, not Roe.

In Casey that issue is addressed, and the Majority determined that prior to birth, the rights of the women are paramount, and the right to regulate abortion rests with the state, not the unborn.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Please expound. As I read that it only really refers to the state placing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion, not that a state cannot outlaw late term abortions. That is the point that I was speaking to as the rights of the mother are essentially overridden IF the state outlaws a late term abortion.

That is the context in which I was speaking because IF an abortion is outlawed because of the fetus’ age (late term) AND the woman retains a right to abort out of privacy rights THEN the fetus’ right to life has essentially overridden the woman’s right to an abortion.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb. That doesn't make them any less of a human being.

This isn't rocket science, people. Humans reproduce humans. Prior to sperm fertilizing egg there is no human. When fertilization takes place and those cells begin to divide, that is the moment when a new human being comes into existence; it is the very beginning stage of development of that particular human being. From that point on it continues through various stages of development both in and out of utero, but it is a human being all along.

The lengths that pro-"choicers" go through to deny this is simply unbelievable. Abortion is a woman's choice and the choice of abortion ends the life of another separate, unique, individual human being. I know you want to ease your conscience of what abortion actually does, which is why you jump through hoops to de-humanize fetuses. Too fucking bad. They are living human beings and abortion ends their life.

What you just described is arbitrary. Many things are needed to create a human being. You are blindly foolish if you think it only takes a sperm and egg. To set that moment as the exact time a human is created is like trying to set an EXACT moment a human adult is formed. And sure, you can point to law and claim 18, but that's changed in the past. We're talking biology, not law. And biology shows it foolish to try to mark a moment in the coarse of a complex development.

Well, no. This is not correct at all. There is an EXACT moment that a human is created and that is the moment that an egg cell is fertilized. Science is not arbitrary unless it absolutely has to be. That is a biological fact and scientifically demonstrable. That is the moment when a unique individual is created and it ceases to be a part of the mother at that instant. What you are claiming essentially makes bacterial and viral infection ‘part’ of the person that they infect. That is not scientific at all. Those creatures are separate. Even though they cannot survive without the host, they are separate life forms. That, in and of itself, does not create rights though and an unborn child, just because it is NOT the mother and IS a separate human being, does not immediately get those rights. As I stated before, and you agreed, that is a process that law looks at and can determine when the moment occurs. Now THAT moment, I can agree with you, is not a hard date or time though the law is somewhat stuck in drawing a hard date by its very rigid nature. A rigid nature that is not shared by biology.

And BTW, biology does, in fact, delineate the exact moment that one creature reaches adulthood though it is different for every individual. That moment is essentially when the individual is capable of reproduction. Of course, like the moment a human is created, legal definitions are not the same as scientific ones and the biological adulthood is meaningless in the context of law where adulthood more directly refers to responsibility and legal options.

In that same manner, abortion has nothing to do with the biological creation of a unique human being. I am sure that it has been brought up before but I am not sifting through this entire thread, a human has MANY chances of death right after conception. There are no funerals etc. for those that are ‘aborted’ through miscarriage the day after conception and this is not an entirely uncommon event. There are many things that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus wall for instance and there are even times where the body decides on its own that it is simply not going to allow the pregnancy to continue.

Make no mistake, that embryo is indeed a unique and individual human. It is just not developed enough for the vast majority of people to care. The longer you get into pregnancy, the grater the chances of bringing that child to full term and the more ‘importance’ people place on the unborn child. Most of the pro-lifers would likely pale if they knew the number of ‘people’ that have died the following day after they were ‘created.’ It happens all the time.

One of the things that drives me nuts about this kind of debate though is that many on the pro-choice side (of which I am a part of) simply REFUSES to call a spade a spade and admit that they are killing a person. That is exactly what an abortion is and I think that such a fact NEEDS to be acknowledged in order to understand the gravity of the decision. It is not something that should be taken lightly or a method of birth control. Before anyone gets upset and demands that such does not happen, I have known multiple people that did just that and even have one person in my family that is now sterile because she did it so many times. She was looking to us (my wife and I) for emotional support because she wanted children and my wife tore here a new asshole for it. She deserved that (and more IMHO) for so nonchalantly discarding life. Such is something that I believe my wife and I would be incapable of doing under all but the most extreme cases (aka. the fetus or my wife would have zero chance of survival).

I actually disagree with a good portion of that. I do not believe a human is created at conception. After all, it is one step of many in the developmental process. This is in distinction to your point on adulthood being the moment of reproduction capabilities, which is a good marker. But humans take more than sperm and egg. You use the term "unique individual" when there's absolutely nothing individual about a one-celled embryo. It has the POTENTIAL for individuality, but itself possesses no such traits. And no, to the other people viewing this discussion who don't understand higher level of debate that FA-Q2 is exhibiting: I don't believe people who are the same are suddenly not human, so please don't even go there.

Anyway, FA-Q2, we appear to hold different views on conception, and I don't believe there's enough biology to support either of us either way. You have the adulthood thing though, I'll give you that. But as far as becoming a human being, our views differ, and as such, all the downstream logic you just eloquently explained similarly doesn't hold up in my mind. A one celled embryo is not a human being in my eyes. It is a human cell with the potential to become a human being, but not one yet. But it possesses no characteristics at that moment in time that are any different than any other mammalian embryo.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

Pro-lifers don't understand this point of view. It's pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. They don't have the mental capacity to differentiate the two. Case in point:

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

Aaaaah....you think everyone believes abortion is wrong, yet they get them? Do you understand logic?

And if you think abortion is wrong...I want to know WHY you think it's wrong? What makes it wrong in your mind?

Well get to privacy in a bit...but first why do you think abortion is wrong?

You can't separate the idea that people do things they don't necessarily fully like. Interesting.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

Aaaaah....you think everyone believes abortion is wrong, yet they get them? Do you understand logic?

And if you think abortion is wrong...I want to know WHY you think it's wrong? What makes it wrong in your mind?

Well get to privacy in a bit...but first why do you think abortion is wrong?

People do things that are wrong all the time, that they perceive such actions as wrong is clearly no deterrent.

That one perceives abortion to be wrong is personal and subjective, legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And the right to privacy forbids one from attempting to foist his personal, subjective opinion on society through legislative means.

The Constitutional right to privacy places important limits on government authority where it has no jurisdiction concerning matters best left to individuals to decide:

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The Constitutional right to privacy places important limits on government authority where it has no jurisdiction concerning matters best left to individuals to decide:
Yet you support Obamacare, it should be up to me to get health insurance...major flaw in your argrument. But we'll get to privacy in a minute....lets focus on one issue at time and not shotgun them.

That one perceives abortion to be wrong is personal and subjective, legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

First you said EVERYONE.....so now it's just a few people. This is too easy. Now you said you think abortion is wrong.....WHY?????

 

[Darkwind]

Since when does a transplanted heart grow and develop?

A tapeworm in a person is not part of a person and it does grow and develop.

Does the Constitution protect the rights of a tapeworm?

You sure missed a lot of schooling, didn't you?

This is what happens when primates are allowed to bring their 'moral equivalence' to the table. Babies die.

 

[buckeye45_73]

A tapeworm in a person is not part of a person and it does grow and develop.

Does the Constitution protect the rights of a tapeworm?

You sure missed a lot of schooling, didn't you?

This is what happens when primates are allowed to bring their 'moral equivalence' to the table. Babies die.

So Carbineer thinks babies are like tapeworms? WOW, I wonder why he hates kids so much......just a stupid analogy, from a stupid person.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except that the right to privacy and the ability to abort IS a constitutional question (as expressed in Roe vs. Wade) as I read it. That right expressed in the constitution can only really be challenged or limited by another right in the constitution. I would cite that as the general right to life that would bind all other rights together. In that context, the child’s right to life would, indeed, be protected by the constitution.

Grated there is no actual phrase to point out or line that I can bring up BUT that does not mean that the constitution is completely silent on the subject. In that same manner, you have espoused all types of different laws based on lines like the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Somehow, you have construed all those meanings from one line statements but then refuse to admit that the constitution provides some protections to the unborn, something that the courts have never stated either.

You might think that I am reading too far into the constitution by placing a general right to life in there but I do not agree with that sentiment. Either way though, the question is rather moot as the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn are in no way to mean that the right to abort is absolute or should override the right to life. As I have stated many time, not even the court is crazy enough to go that far. There is a point in which the right of a woman to control her body is overridden by the right of the child to live. That is enshrined in CURRENT law.

Current privacy rights case law with regard to abortion is found in Casey, not Roe.

In Casey that issue is addressed, and the Majority determined that prior to birth, the rights of the women are paramount, and the right to regulate abortion rests with the state, not the unborn.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Please expound. As I read that it only really refers to the state placing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion, not that a state cannot outlaw late term abortions. That is the point that I was speaking to as the rights of the mother are essentially overridden IF the state outlaws a late term abortion.

That is the context in which I was speaking because IF an abortion is outlawed because of the fetus’ age (late term) AND the woman retains a right to abort out of privacy rights THEN the fetus’ right to life has essentially overridden the woman’s right to an abortion.

In this or one of the many abortion threads is a citation from Casey referring to the women’s privacy rights prior to viability.

The Casey Court abandoned the first trimester provision in Roe replacing it with the undue burden doctrine – the goal was to allow states more flexibility with regard to regulating abortion. The Casey Majority also wanted to allow for a development of privacy rights/abortion jurisprudence to guide lower courts, establish settled and accepted case law on the issue, and to shield the Supreme Court from never-ending appeals with regard to every variation of the controversy.

This was a very wise action by the Court which has worked out well, an example of this is the Court’s refusal to review a ‘personhood’ ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Prohibitions of late term abortions are therefore Constitutional, but are predicated on the state’s legitimate concern for the health and wellbeing of the mother and unborn child once viability is realized, not the unborn child’s ‘rights’ per se, as one’s rights do not manifest until after he is born.

 

[Katzndogz]

Abortion is the murder of a human being. It is as wrong as Adam Lanza was in choosing to administer post birth abortions to 20 children. Now, the second question is whether or not abortion is always wrong, or whether there might be some extenuating circumstances that would justify abortion. The way someone whose life is threatened has the right to off that intruder in their homes.

When the right to abortion was being debated in the 1970s the issue was providing desperate women a way to end their pregnancies as soon as they found out they were pregnant. DESPERATE women. The Roe decision reflected this. On demand in the first trimester, medically necessary in the second trimester and only to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. There was never supposed to be such a thing as late term abortion on demand. Post birth abortion was murder that could be prosecuted as a conspiracy between the doctor, the mother and any assisting personnel to commit murder.

Whatever abortion WAS, it isn't that way anymore. Today it is a grotesque celebration of bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting. The issue has nothing to do with desperate women but killing a living child, breathing on its own by cutting it's spinal cord immediately after birth. That we actually have people that find justification for this shows just how sick and evil we have become. Take the living child, give it medical care and tell the woman to go have a back alley abortion. At that stage, the use of a rusty coat hanger is appropriate. The child has been born.

In your personal subjective opinion, which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And the Constitution protects society from the likes of you, your extremism and ignorance.

The Constitution says nothing about a woman's right to murder her child, nor does it impose an obligation on someone else to help her. In Roe, the Justices did not find a right to abortion or even a right to privacy. They made it up. They made it up on the spot, and called it a penumbra right. Relying on the Constitution is misplaced and meaningless.

 

[Katzndogz]

Current privacy rights case law with regard to abortion is found in Casey, not Roe.

In Casey that issue is addressed, and the Majority determined that prior to birth, the rights of the women are paramount, and the right to regulate abortion rests with the state, not the unborn.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Please expound. As I read that it only really refers to the state placing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion, not that a state cannot outlaw late term abortions. That is the point that I was speaking to as the rights of the mother are essentially overridden IF the state outlaws a late term abortion.

That is the context in which I was speaking because IF an abortion is outlawed because of the fetus’ age (late term) AND the woman retains a right to abort out of privacy rights THEN the fetus’ right to life has essentially overridden the woman’s right to an abortion.

In this or one of the many abortion threads is a citation from Casey referring to the women’s privacy rights prior to viability.

The Casey Court abandoned the first trimester provision in Roe replacing it with the undue burden doctrine – the goal was to allow states more flexibility with regard to regulating abortion. The Casey Majority also wanted to allow for a development of privacy rights/abortion jurisprudence to guide lower courts, establish settled and accepted case law on the issue, and to shield the Supreme Court from never-ending appeals with regard to every variation of the controversy.

This was a very wise action by the Court which has worked out well, an example of this is the Court’s refusal to review a ‘personhood’ ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Prohibitions of late term abortions are therefore Constitutional, but are predicated on the state’s legitimate concern for the health and wellbeing of the mother and unborn child once viability is realized, not the unborn child’s ‘rights’ per se, as one’s rights do not manifest until after he is born.

Fortunately decisions like Casey are merely judicial findings and can be reversed by another court.

 

[nitroz]

It doesn't matter. Abortion is going to remain a choice, and thats that.

Quit shoving your religious beliefs down our throats.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It doesn't matter. Abortion is going to remain a choice, and thats that.

Quit shoving your religious beliefs down our throats.

It does matter and quit shoving your progressive bullshit down our throats....if you want to suck a dick, go ahead....dont keep me from making fun of you.

 

[FA_Q2]

I actually disagree with a good portion of that.

I figured that you did and that’s why I posted it. You know, I am here for good debate and all

I do not believe a human is created at conception. After all, it is one step of many in the developmental process. This is in distinction to your point on adulthood being the moment of reproduction capabilities, which is a good marker. But humans take more than sperm and egg. You use the term "unique individual" when there's absolutely nothing individual about a one-celled embryo. It has the POTENTIAL for individuality, but itself possesses no such traits.

However, that is incorrect. It displays two very unique factors – it has its own DNA and survives on its own. I understand that it NEEDS a host in the same way that you need nourishment but that does not make it part of the host itself.

The DNA marks this as NOT part of the mother. That alone makes it another organism and it is in that light that it is unique. There really is no way around that basic fact that I can see. Remember, I am talking about this from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint. Science is VERY precise. Law is another matter and I think that we agree on the reality that law is not tied to scientific definitions because law is not precise in any way shape or form. To many variables.

The fact that it survives separate from the mother but dependent on her furthers this in the same way that Siamese twins are separate people but have identical DNA.

To understand this line of logic better, what would you consider a bacteria that lives within a human hosts’ stomach? That is clearly not ‘part’ of the host. It is a parasite (and I must point out that no matter how much emotion that word might bring into this debate - parasite is the most accurate way to describe a fetus). That parasite is unique in its existence. It is clearly a singular organism that is not a human. Its designation as a bacterium of a specific kind is found in its DNA, its individual status is found in the fact that it operates individually.

A fetus fits all the same criteria that a bacterium does. Why then are we so hesitant to ascribe it the same exact status as that bacterium.

As I said, this IS scientific in nature. I can understand the reluctance to view the fetus in this manner because the way that others would rabidly say SEE – IT’S A PERSON SO YOU NEED TO BE A PRO LIFER but that should not stop us from using, and understanding, what we are really talking about here.

Lastly, I acknowledge that it is one more step in the developmental process. What I reject is that concept that developmental process starts with something other than a unique individual human. I am somewhat confused as to how you can state that it starts any other way. We do not start as a rock, lizard or another mammal. We start as a human, progress through the various developmental stages as a human and then die as a human. At no point along that entire chain are you not human nor at any point in time are you not a unique individual.

And no, to the other people viewing this discussion who don't understand higher level of debate that FA-Q2 is exhibiting: I don't believe people who are the same are suddenly not human, so please don't even go there.

Anyway, FA-Q2, we appear to hold different views on conception, and I don't believe there's enough biology to support either of us either way. You have the adulthood thing though, I'll give you that. But as far as becoming a human being, our views differ, and as such, all the downstream logic you just eloquently explained similarly doesn't hold up in my mind. A one celled embryo is not a human being in my eyes. It is a human cell with the potential to become a human being, but not one yet. But it possesses no characteristics at that moment in time that are any different than any other mammalian embryo.

I believe that there is enough biology to support me

This is tangential to the OP though and I don’t actually believe that this has and tangible bearing on the legality of abortion itself. Most of these threads don’t amount to more than mudslinging though so I don’t mind injecting a little biology debate into it

Of course, if you do not want to debate this further I understand.

Here at the end, I think it would be prudent to address the concept of unique because I want to make sure that we are not disagreeing just because the use of that one word. When I state this, it is no different than acknowledging that one rock is unique to another or that one grain of sand is unique to another. As I have said a few times, I am taking this from a scientific angle where unique is simply the delineation that it is not of another. I understand that the properties we usually see that make one person different from another, personality, intelligence etc., are not developed BUT that does not mean that the fetus is not a unique individual of the human race.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I love how liberals always ignore why they think abortion is personally wrong....Clayton help a brotha out.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Abortion is the murder of a human being. It is as wrong as Adam Lanza was in choosing to administer post birth abortions to 20 children. Now, the second question is whether or not abortion is always wrong, or whether there might be some extenuating circumstances that would justify abortion. The way someone whose life is threatened has the right to off that intruder in their homes.

When the right to abortion was being debated in the 1970s the issue was providing desperate women a way to end their pregnancies as soon as they found out they were pregnant. DESPERATE women. The Roe decision reflected this. On demand in the first trimester, medically necessary in the second trimester and only to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. There was never supposed to be such a thing as late term abortion on demand. Post birth abortion was murder that could be prosecuted as a conspiracy between the doctor, the mother and any assisting personnel to commit murder.

Whatever abortion WAS, it isn't that way anymore. Today it is a grotesque celebration of bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting. The issue has nothing to do with desperate women but killing a living child, breathing on its own by cutting it's spinal cord immediately after birth. That we actually have people that find justification for this shows just how sick and evil we have become. Take the living child, give it medical care and tell the woman to go have a back alley abortion. At that stage, the use of a rusty coat hanger is appropriate. The child has been born.

In your personal subjective opinion, which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And the Constitution protects society from the likes of you, your extremism and ignorance.

The Constitution says nothing about a woman's right to murder her child, nor does it impose an obligation on someone else to help her. In Roe, the Justices did not find a right to abortion or even a right to privacy. They made it up. They made it up on the spot, and called it a penumbra right. Relying on the Constitution is misplaced and meaningless.

And yet it is illegal for a woman to murder her child in every state. Perhaps you should pick accurate wording.

Please expound. As I read that it only really refers to the state placing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion, not that a state cannot outlaw late term abortions. That is the point that I was speaking to as the rights of the mother are essentially overridden IF the state outlaws a late term abortion.

That is the context in which I was speaking because IF an abortion is outlawed because of the fetus’ age (late term) AND the woman retains a right to abort out of privacy rights THEN the fetus’ right to life has essentially overridden the woman’s right to an abortion.

In this or one of the many abortion threads is a citation from Casey referring to the women’s privacy rights prior to viability.

The Casey Court abandoned the first trimester provision in Roe replacing it with the undue burden doctrine – the goal was to allow states more flexibility with regard to regulating abortion. The Casey Majority also wanted to allow for a development of privacy rights/abortion jurisprudence to guide lower courts, establish settled and accepted case law on the issue, and to shield the Supreme Court from never-ending appeals with regard to every variation of the controversy.

This was a very wise action by the Court which has worked out well, an example of this is the Court’s refusal to review a ‘personhood’ ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Prohibitions of late term abortions are therefore Constitutional, but are predicated on the state’s legitimate concern for the health and wellbeing of the mother and unborn child once viability is realized, not the unborn child’s ‘rights’ per se, as one’s rights do not manifest until after he is born.

Fortunately decisions like Casey are merely judicial findings and can be reversed by another court.

I recommend you hold your breath until that happens. I'm sure it's any moment now.

 

[Darkwind]

So, anyone figure out yet that if you were not born with it, then it by definition is not an organ of your body?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That was a wonderful read. It's refreshing to run into an intelligent debate here. I agree we are both coming from a scientific perspective.

The fact that it survives separate from the mother but dependent on her furthers this in the same way that Siamese twins are separate people but have identical DNA.

Except Siamese twins are not separate people. They literally are not separable. They are conjoined people. Interesting term, don't you think? Not-separate plural people. Why is that? Because nearly every human culture values the mind above all else. If a person had one head but multiple pairs of legs, we'd say it was one person. Two heads means two people because the mind is what we value. As do zombies. It's why this society has no problems slaughtering animals for food.

Nevertheless, this gets into rather murky ethical territory that most people on this forum can't even begin to comprehend, but I'm reluctantly willing to discuss with you despite onlookers: why do we value babies or fetuses who do not yet possess such consciousness? Forget law, let's stick to ethics. I'll come back to science shortly.

I'll remove us from the topic slightly with a thought experiment. Say there are two dogs of the same age and breed facing certain doom, and only one could be saved. Now one of the dogs belongs to a family that loves it, and the other is a stray. Even though neither dog possesses consciousness, the decision of which to save is blatantly clear. That reasoning, combined with the potential for consciousness, is why we protect babies in this society. More notable is the fact that such potential for consciousness is held valuable to vastly different degrees for each person, which is ultimately the underlying issue being debated in every abortion discussion.

OK so let's return to the science:

To understand this line of logic better, what would you consider a bacteria that lives within a human hosts’ stomach? That is clearly not ‘part’ of the host. It is a parasite (and I must point out that no matter how much emotion that word might bring into this debate - parasite is the most accurate way to describe a fetus). That parasite is unique in its existence. It is clearly a singular organism that is not a human. Its designation as a bacterium of a specific kind is found in its DNA, its individual status is found in the fact that it operates individually.

A fetus fits all the same criteria that a bacterium does. Why then are we so hesitant to ascribe it the same exact status as that bacterium.

Excellent point, but I would disagree by bringing up symbiosis here. Bacteria serve purpose in our intestines. We can survive without them, but we do better with them. If we want to see the ultimate one-cell organism symbiosis, we need but look at our own cells. Mitochondria, the cellular organelle that provides energy found in every cell, has completely different, non-human DNA. It divides separately of the greater cell in which it resides, and is in every way a ghost of what was once a completely separate organism. But now it's not separate. It cannot be removed without both counterparts dying.

So let's return to gut bacteria. Are they separate or separable? Yes, they can be removed without dying. Do they serve a purpose to the host? The good kind, sure. Are Siamese twins separate or separable? Is a fetus? If the answer is no, it does not fit the same criteria as the bacteria. Does it more closely approximate mitochondria?

Lastly, I acknowledge that it is one more step in the developmental process. What I reject is that concept that developmental process starts with something other than a unique individual human. I am somewhat confused as to how you can state that it starts any other way. We do not start as a rock, lizard or another mammal. We start as a human, progress through the various developmental stages as a human and then die as a human. At no point along that entire chain are you not human nor at any point in time are you not a unique individual.

I disagree here, mostly because I don't see human cells and human beings as the same. Cancer creates unique human cells, but clearly cancer is not a human being. Nor does the uniqueness of the DNA actually matter, as we would both admit normal twins as two separate individual human beings. But one cell, while human, is neither a person, nor unique. It has the potential to become unique, but as I mentioned, potential is what the debate is all about. At the one-cell stage, it expresses the exact same proteins and markers as every other human embryo. There is literally nothing actively unique about it.

I see your stance on the matter, but I believe here is where we disagree. I see the human being part as something that is developed over time, without clear biologic borders.

So in summary: one cell not unique, uniqueness actually irrelevant, fetus not separate individual, embryos human genetically but not yet human beings.