The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[OldLady]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

not sure it matters who's in which camp. whatever camp they were in before this "law", roe vs wade, kavanaugh fears and the like i'm pretty sure people are still in that camp.

we can't keep working to undo what we've done and ever pretend to think we're evolving as a country or society. undo what the last admin did will be the sole focus of activity upon a power shift. when D's get back in office, what then? tear down the wall and put obama care back?

both sides are i a deadly lock of "my way or death" on the extremes and it's bleeding over to the rest who usually want nothing to do with mass stupidity.

i'm against abortion when it relates to me. if someone i know whats one i'll talk and listen and provide the best advice i can based on their scenario. hopefully talk them out of it but in the end, it's not my decision, it's theirs.

but i do think this extreme action is very "liberal" like and not designed to fix anything but to force a revisit of something decided long ago.

It is the first opportunity to bring an abortion case to SCOTUS since Kavanaugh was seated. Opinions can be changed. I do not think they will answer any questions, though; not anymore than they answered the questions on whether PA laws unfairly force Christians to provide services to gays.

 

[AntonToo]

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for even low level tactile response or pain NOTHING.

I see no reason here to over-ride wants of an ACTUAL person who has this embryo inside her body and does not want a child.

 

[iceberg]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

not sure it matters who's in which camp. whatever camp they were in before this "law", roe vs wade, kavanaugh fears and the like i'm pretty sure people are still in that camp.

we can't keep working to undo what we've done and ever pretend to think we're evolving as a country or society. undo what the last admin did will be the sole focus of activity upon a power shift. when D's get back in office, what then? tear down the wall and put obama care back?

both sides are i a deadly lock of "my way or death" on the extremes and it's bleeding over to the rest who usually want nothing to do with mass stupidity.

i'm against abortion when it relates to me. if someone i know whats one i'll talk and listen and provide the best advice i can based on their scenario. hopefully talk them out of it but in the end, it's not my decision, it's theirs.

but i do think this extreme action is very "liberal" like and not designed to fix anything but to force a revisit of something decided long ago.

It is the first opportunity to bring an abortion case to SCOTUS since Kavanaugh was seated. Opinions can be changed. I do not think they will answer any questions, though; not anymore than they answered the questions on whether PA laws unfairly force Christians to provide services to gays.

well in talking to others on another board, this is likely a push to just make this a state, not federal decision.

i don't think there are any questions *left to be answered* - just changing laws to suit our views.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights for the natural born!

 

[sartre play]

The problem is that you can't separate the two. one is a fully formed human being able to think & speak for her self
the other has the Possibility of becoming a fully formed human. What possible negative things can happens when government can take away the rights of a American because she is female. we would Never be having this conversation if men could get pregnant .

 

[buttercup]

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

THANK YOU, that’s pretty much exactly what I was going to say, thank you for ‘getting it’ and for explaining it to these people!

 

[OldLady]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

 

[buttercup]

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs. Why, because a woman with an unplanned pregnancy doesn’t even know she’s pregnant until she has missed at least one period, sometimes two. And by the time she realizes it and schedules an abortion the baby is already eight or nine weeks along. It’s only two cells the very first few moments after conception which has nothing to do with surgical abortion.

Secondly, as Cecile explained, we are human beings in EVERY stage of our life/existence. YOU were once as a zygote, YOU were once an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, a child, etc. Just as a newborn baby isn’t supposed to look like an adult, an embryo or fetus is not supposed to look like a newborn. They look exactly like a human being is SUPPOSED to look at that stage of life.

It is ignorant, immature and silly to think that a preborn baby is a worthless “clump of cells” (garbage) while inside the womb, and suddenly becomes an incredibly precious valuable human being the moment his head comes out of the birth canal.

The baby was precious all along, just because you don’t recognize the value of that individual does not mean there is no value. You are just blind, that’s all, as all proaborts are. I know, because I was once on that side.

 

[buttercup]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

 

[skews13]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

They want to outlaw birth control to.

This isn’t about reproduction. It’s about being able to impose their religious dogma on others by force.

Do you know how many millions have died in civil wars behind others trying to impose their religious dogma on others?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for even low level tactile response or pain NOTHING.

I see no reason here to over-ride wants of an ACTUAL person who has this embryo inside her body and does not want a child.

Again, you are trying to define "person" by stage of development, and by appearance as judged by an uneducated lay person. At no point in time has life or humanity been defined by any of those factors. If I show you poison ivy and you say, "Doesn't look like poison ivy to me. Looks like a geranium", does your ignorance about what poison ivy and geraniums look like change what they actually are?

No one is interested in whether or not you "see a reason", particularly when your so-called "sight" is based first in your appalling ignorance of basic reproductive science, and second in your obessive partisan agenda. You and I both know that nothing would EVER make you "see a reason", for the simple fact that you don't WANT to see a reason, and will therefore refuse to do so no matter what.

 

[OldLady]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

Explain that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

THANK YOU, that’s pretty much exactly what I was going to say, thank you for ‘getting it’ and for explaining it to these people!

Always start every political debate/argument by absolutely rejecting the other side's premise and attempt to set the debate parameters. My best arguments come by explaining why their basic assertions are always dead-wrong.

 

[Crixus]

No birth control method is 100% and we are also human. Shit happens, even to the best of us, even with the best of intentions.
If you are pretending that everyone should be abstinent, LOL

Abortion was never presented in Roe as a method of birth control. That’s really what the debate is. When Row was argued no on was talking about birthing just the head, shoving a probe or forceps in its head, dismembering the corps and sucking it out with a vacuum pump. There also wasn’t a morning after pill you could buy at Walmart. There is zero need for abortion as it’s pushed now. None.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-O...-Emergency-Contraceptive-Tablet-1-Ea/29131740

Morning after pill isn't always effective. And most women don't use abortion as birth control. Accidents happen. Many women who have gotten pregnant by accident were taking precautions. Then you have rape victims.

If abortion is overturned we risk going back tot he days of coat hangers

You’re going to do what LefTards do...hide behind the one percentile to justify your filth?
Hmm..I wonder how many abortions you’ve had performed?

Birth control failing is more than 1%. And especially with put the obesity rates, birth control failure is higher. Birth control methods like the pill are less effective on overweight women, along with the morning after pill.

Then there are medical conditions that call for it.

I did have to have an abortion one time, because I had an ectopic pregnancy. So am I a murderer too?

What you are is willfully stupid, if you really can't tell the difference between ending an ectopic pregnancy and having an abortion because motherhood would interfere with your promotion at work.

For one who brags what a good Christian they are, you sure talk like a stupid white trash bitch. Fake Christian says what?

 

[Crixus]

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

THANK YOU, that’s pretty much exactly what I was going to say, thank you for ‘getting it’ and for explaining it to these people!

Always start every political debate/argument by absolutely rejecting the other side's premise and attempt to set the debate parameters. My best arguments come by explaining why their basic assertions are always dead-wrong.

Or just blather on like a lazy sit at home. You are the type of person that makes this the issue it is. Glad you are on the couch and not in any positions of authority.

 

[OldLady]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

They want to outlaw birth control to.

This isn’t about reproduction. It’s about being able to impose their religious dogma on others by force.

Do you know how many millions have died in civil wars behind others trying to impose their religious dogma on others?

I haven't seen any legislation outlawing birth control? The states trying to defund Planned Parenthood are doing that de facto, but it is not their primary objective.

I will not disrespect others who have different views on this. When it was my turn to make that choice, I could not do it, but I believe it is a woman's right to choose. I believe that children are precious and each one born has the potential for greatness. But everything is all about timing. Unplanned pregnancy can be disastrous and life changing in a BAD way for all involved. Since in almost ALL cases it is the woman who bears the responsibility for raising that child, it must be her decision if she can do that.

As Dumbledore said, There are worse things than death.

 

[AntonToo]

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

 

[sartre play]

The crazy continues its the anti abortion people who fight birth control, birth control being the leading reason women are having less abortions. try & figure that one out?

 

[AntonToo]

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for even low level tactile response or pain NOTHING.

I see no reason here to over-ride wants of an ACTUAL person who has this embryo inside her body and does not want a child.

Again, you are trying to define "person" by stage of development, and by appearance as judged by an uneducated lay person. At no point in time has life or humanity been defined by any of those factors.

I don't care how educated or not educated you are - thats just a bunch of cells with no capacity for human experience we can relate to.

You will never get people on board with interfering with people's choices to not have a child over this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

Why do you insist on thinking that WE are forcing them to do anything? They forced THEMSELVES into that position by engaging in an act designed to produce the result they just said they don't want. I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior, got the obvious result, and is now whining to me because it's "unfair" that nature didn't reverse its rules for her "specialness".

Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history: these people are inconvenient, so the "practical" thing to do is kill them. Pass.