Breaking: Live Action to release new undercover investigation exposing opponents of Mississippi Personhood Amendment
Developing, a press statement just released by Lila Rose and Live Action:
JACKSON – Live Action, the pro-life group responsible for recent undercover stings showing Planned Parenthood’s institutional tolerance for child sexual abuse, will release a new investigation on Monday showing how opponents of recognizing the right to life of unborn children in Mississippi, backed by Planned Parenthood, are using lies and scare tactics to manipulate the public. Mississippi will be the first state since Roe v. Wade to protect the right to life of unborn children at all ages of development if it passes a Personhood Amendment to its state constitution on November 8.
Live Action released undercover videos in February documenting Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion chain, aiding and abetting suspected child sex trafficking from management on down. The videos led to the first-ever successful vote in the House of Representatives to defund Planned Parenthood and the diversion of over $60 million in taxpayer subsidies from the abortion giant on the state level. As a further result of Live Action’s undercover work, Planned Parenthood is now also the subject of a congressional investigation by the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Even if Planned Parenthood was guilty of such things as purported by Live Action in this rather obvious, desperate and ages old “shooting the messenger” approach to the issue, it wouldn’t matter.
Everyone at the grassroots human level can see the horrific consequences of considering a zygote, a microscopic fertilized egg with no brain, heart or lungs, a “person” by legal mandate.
From religious folks like Rev. Duncan Gray, leader of MS Episcopal Church and the Methodist leaders, and the respective lay people of other denominations to non-religious secular folks and even conservative pro-life groups recognize that MS Initiative 26 is the wrong approach.
Being pro-life, reducing suffering, enhancing quality of life, promoting sexual awareness/education, preventing unplanned pregnancy, reducing the number of teen pregnancies and abortion, maintaining the freedom of families and women who know their own circumstances to make their own difficult decisions are not served at all by MSi26.
In fact, even the most ardently anti-abortion folks recognize that it is counter productive to these fine causes.
Everyone at the grassroots human level can see the horrific consequences of considering a zygote, a microscopic fertilized egg with no brain, heart or lungs, a “person” by legal mandate.
1.) no such thing as a fertilized egg. You happen to be talking about a human being in either their blastocyst or embryonic stage of development. 2.) This is naught to do with legal mandate, but scientific reality, which you seem to have a hard time grasping, so I understand your opposition on the grounds of apparent ignorance of the subject.
Women should be free to make their own difficult decisions. Opting to kill one’s own child (because let’s be honest here, this is really what the abortion debate is all about) is not a legal decision to make, regardless of how difficult said decision might be. The location of the child and how old they are should not change the legality of making such a choice.
As far as “shooting the messenger”, you’re confusing who is carrying the message here, and what that message is. Live Action has brought us the message that Planned Parenthood is willing to cover up (the prolonged) sexual abuse of minors as long as they or their abuser has enough money to give them to perform “the procedure” that kills their gestating child in utero. We have seen it all over the country. You really need to get this message, sir.
Oh I can’t wait for these videos! I live in Mississippi and the amount of my “Christian” friends that have been deceived is staggering! And the LIES that are circulating are just absurd. Oh I hope these have some real dirt and smack some people with the Truth!!
Yes, PLEASE hurry up with these videos! Here in MS, things are getting ugly, with pro-life signs being vandalized, etc.
Given that the microscopic fertilized egg has no brain, heart or lungs, it just isn’t logically or scientifically logical to define it as a “person”, when the only person is the female who has the cell in her fallopian tube or the lining of her uterus.
Certainly a zygote is just as “human” as sperm and ovum or any human cells, and each has the potential for developing into a person (many do not), but they are not a person without awareness or a functioning brain, heart or lungs.
We understand this in all areas of our aware lives as human persons.
On the other end of the spectrum, when there is no functioning brain, a body of living human cells can still be harvested for organs to help other real, living people and to alleviate suffering for the greater good.
Given this fact, it is apparent when a human is a person or not a person then, so why not at all cellular levels when there is no functioning brain (or any other organs for that matter).
The circumstances and dynamics of life and the real human condition are sure to conflict with the absolute legal mandate of MSi26.
So much suffering will come from this intrusive governmental mandate and everyone knows it, some are just hoping it won’t ever adversely affect them.
It is completely the wrong approach as many pro-life folks realize.
And just because Live Action takes potshots at one of the messengers (Planned Parenthood)…rational and contemplative citizens still have all of the medical organizations, church leaders and even anti-abortion leaders and groups recognizing the same fatal flaws that MS Initiative 26 promotes.
I had a cut that got infected. The doc said it was a bunch of bacteria living in my wound. The warmth and mousture under my bandage was a great living environment for these bacteria to reproduce.
Bacteria!! How can they be alive!! They are so small and tiny!! I cannot even see them!!
Surely they cannot be considerd “alive!”
Even more shocking – I looked up these bacteria, which I could NOT see at ALL, and found out they are single-cell organisms! So, I looked up “organism” and that is a facy term for something that is living!
Imagine that! a living thing that is so small you cannot see it, and is only one cell.
Why isn’t this on the news?! With all of the celebrity gossip, they don’t have time to tell us in the news that scientists have discovered tiny, single-celled living things?!
PS Four of our “Vote No on MSi26” have been stolen from Cedar Lake Rd and Popps Ferry Rd., in less than a week…so let’s try not to conflate the bad actions of some with the actual substance of the topic at hand.
Both messages are getting out into the open marketplace of ideas and folks will just have to decide for themselves and vote their true conscience in the privacy of the voting booth on November 8, 2011.
1.) no such thing as a fertilized egg. You happen to be talking about a human being in either their blastocyst or embryonic stage of development. 2.) This is naught to do with legal mandate, but scientific reality, which you seem to have a hard time grasping, so I understand your opposition on the grounds of apparent ignorance of the subject.
Women should be free to make their own difficult decisions. Opting to kill one’s own child (because let’s be honest here, this is really what the abortion debate is all about) is not a legal decision to make, regardless of how difficult said decision might be. The location of the child and how old they are should not change the legality of making such a choice.
It is a fertilized egg, not a child. A child is one born independent of it’s hostess aka mother. A stage of development under the best of circumstances, wants and desires does not always make it to fruition. That’s the reality.
While we’re being honest here let’s look at this logically, and realistically abortion is not killing one’s child. As mentioned above a child is fully formed, birthed, and independent of one’s mother. Most abortions take place in first trimester, this stage of development is not viable outside the uterus even artificially. You want honesty, for the most part people that see this as a child are seeing a dream, or a vision of what could be, not what is reality. There is no guarantee that dream will ever come true with or without intervention. Assigning personhood to a developing group of cells is not realistic, it’s just a very desperate attempt by a group of people trying to govern other people’s lives by their personal beliefs and views. In reality their efforts would be better used and appreciated in taking care of the already birthed children out there that could use assistance. The children that have grown to be adults and are down on their luck. The list goes on. Pro-life means far more than assigning a term to a group of cells that may or may not ever make it to birth. In this country we are governed by Civil Laws, not Canon it’s legal to terminate a pregnancy, and that’s a personal choice allotted by our laws.
Be careful what you wish for, because this could be the opening of Pandora’s Box. Designate personhood to cells, and see how many will be guilty of abuse or murder just by having a naturally occurring miscarriage. Not sure how many have had such an experience, I can attest to the heartache of it. I certainly would not want to be explaining or being hounded in my period of grief as to why the “personhood” within me spontaneously expelled itself.
God, I’m glad I don’t live in the United States anymore. This sort of wing nuttery and having to put up with it is well in my past. How about this, everyone has freedom of religion and not everyone believes in YOUR religion or definition of “Life” That is their right. It is not your right to impose your religious beliefs on others. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one, and don’t let your daughter have one when she gets pregnant either.
Several things to say here
1) Why the heck can’t you people get worked up about the kids who are abused, neglected, need homes? Kids who actually exist, who want parents and families and love? Is it easier and more morally comfortable to harass women in their private affairs?
2) If you REALLY think a glob of cells, no matter what the potential, is actually a person. that’s pretty presumptuous. Please consider 1 in 3 pregnancies are terminated before or shortly after the zygote implants, and children still die young. Good friends of mine had a stillborn son…. no reason for it, he just died in-vitro. She had to deliver a dead baby.
3) If you’re interested in hearing what Conservative Catholics have to say about this woman and the movement, here’s a good link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-27-abortion_pro_life_26_ST_N.htm
4) I value the life and choices of a woman (teen or adult, with all the resources that the community and her family have put into her life and growth) over the possibility of a child.
The POSSIBILITY of a child.
5) Pregnancy will change the woman’s body forever, whether she wants it or not. Chemically, physically, psychologically – there’s a huge intricate dance of chemicals that can change brain chemistry.
6) you familiar with Thomson’s “Moral Philosophy” paper from 1971? If not, give this a read:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
I, personally, might let the violinist continue at great inconvenience to myself. I might not. The point is, taking this choice away is NOT acceptable.
to summarize – I fundamentally disagree with your premise that life begins at conception. I also fundamentally disagree with your attempts to tell lies and spread disinformation. This is the pro-life version of that idiot Michael Moore – skewed truth (if there’s any at all) and distorted facts.
I’m astonished and saddened that some people think it’s their right to protect fetuses, but they do nothing to address the issues with children who need families.
You need to get your priorities in order.
Thank God Almighty I don’t live in your state.
Given that the microscopic fertilized egg has no brain, heart or lungs, it just isn’t logically or scientifically logical to define it as a “person”
So if someone has no heart, no lungs, or no brain, he or she is not a “person?”
Certainly a zygote is just as “human” as sperm and ovum or any human cells
Let’s be honest here – a zygote is a new human being, with its own DNA. At amphimixis, there is a new human life, derived from the fusing of the gametes from the sperm and egg cells. A zygote is a diploid cell. The sperm and egg are haploid cells. http://www.ehow.com/about_4587245_what-zygote.html
and each has the potential for developing into a person (many do not)
Sperm and egg, when separate, do not have the ability to develop into new human beings. When they are joined at conception, they form a new human life with distinct DNA.
We understand this in all areas of our aware lives as human persons.
What about humans who are perhaps developmentally disabled and are not “aware” of themselves or their surroundings? Are they persons, in your subjective opinion?
On the other end of the spectrum, when there is no functioning brain, a body of living human cells can still be harvested for organs to help other real, living people and to alleviate suffering for the greater good.
Oh, well, now I get it. You determine personhood not based on biology or science, but on philosophy and the subjective idea of “awareness.” I find your use of the term “human” in quotes to be quite revealing. It’s not enough to belong to the human species – you have a separate set of “qualifications” that must be met before you really consider a human “human.”
Dana and others, you are aware that it is biology and not religion which states that human life begins at conception, yes?
Bella –
As defined by Webster: ‘Child’ an unborn or recently born person.
So yes, it is a child.
“Personhood” isn’t the realm of biology or science.
There is a distinct difference between the study of human cells and being a person.
This is rather clear and obvious.
A zygote isn’t a person, it may even split into two as twins or even back again into what science calls chimera.
Hypothetically then, what happens to the zygote/person when it becomes two persons at a DNA cellular level even prior to brain, lung and heart development?
MSi26 doesn’t take any of these very important distinctions into consideration and so it is fatally flawed.
To summarize again:
I love babies.
Our family has tons of pictures of all three of our children during those wonder-filled days when they were born.
That said, a zygote at the moment of conception has no brain, heart or lungs and is not mentally, physically or even logically a “person.”
They are cells without human awareness, unlike you and me and the women who may find themselves carrying a zygote within their fallopian tubes or embedded in the lining of their uterus.
And, while babies are just the sweetest things, this is the only subject matter that Initiative 26 seeks to redefine in order to invent the notion that a zygote — a microscopic egg fertilized at the moment of conception — should have the status of being a “person.”
Initiative 26, by intrusive government mandate, will force women to carry a zygote through the various later stages to term no matter the situation resulting in conception.
If the zygote is a person it will need a date of conception, a tax ID number, be eligible for child tax deductions, welfare and other benefits.
As with the death of all persons, any death of a zygote must be investigated by agents of the state, medical records checked, medical staff interviewed and the female interrogated to ensure this “person” did not die due to a criminal or negligent act subject to Mississippi Annotated Code and punishment.
So, even if folks want to address the important issue of abortion, limit their number, educate people, prevent unplanned pregnancy and help those who suffer from unexpected medical problems, victims of rape and incest … Mississippi Initiative 26 is not the approach to take and works against all of those goals.
On November 8, 2011, in the privacy of the voting booth, vote no on Mississippi Initiative 26.
1) Why the heck can’t you people get worked up about the kids who are abused, neglected, need homes? Kids who actually exist, who want parents and families and love? Is it easier and more morally comfortable to harass women in their private affairs?
Ah, yes, the science of it all. Now preborn children don’t “actually exist.” So I guess abortion just removes a non-existent entity from a woman’s uterus. Gotcha.
Abortion is death. Not just abuse, but death for the preborn child. Killing children is not “a private affair.” You, Maggie, by assuming that those of us here don’t adopt or give to children who are outside the womb, are just making yourself look ridiculous.
If you REALLY think a glob of cells
Haha, you must work at Planned Parenthood!
Good friends of mine had a stillborn son…. no reason for it, he just died in-vitro. She had to deliver a dead baby.
Uhh… I think you mean “in utero,” not in-vitro. I am sorry that your friend miscarried her child – who was a human as well as her child. Not potential. A child. Her child.
The POSSIBILITY of a child.
The possiblity of a child exists when someone has sex during the woman’s fertile period. THAT is the “possibility” of a child. Once fertilization has occurred, there is new offspring – the child of both his mother and father, biologically and scientifically.
Pregnancy will change the woman’s body forever, whether she wants it or not.
And abortion takes the life of a unique human being who will never again exist. Pregnancy is temporary and it is a natural biological function. Abortion is not.
If you disagree with the premise that life begins at conception, then your problem is not with pro-lifers but with science. For example, there would be no embryonic stem cell research without – get this – LIVING HUMAN EMBRYOS. A human sperm and and egg, both living cells, join to form another LIVING cell, this one with its own distinct human DNA.
I’m astonished and saddened that some people think it’s their right to protect fetuses, but they do nothing to address the issues with children who need families. You need to get your priorities in order.
Again… a presumptuous and asinine comment.
Just because sperm and ovum are not unique at the DNA level, given some assertions in this thread, they are still human beings.
Why shouldn’t consistency of argument demand that each sperm and ovum be not only human life, but persons as well?
Wow, there’s so much scientific illiteracy, pseudo-science, strawmen arguing, and baseless acusation going on here in the span of two posts, it’s going to be difficult to address! But that’s never stopped me before, so here I go!
Given that the microscopic fertilized egg has no brain, heart or lungs, it just isn’t logically or scientifically logical to define it as a “person”, when the only person is the female who has the cell in her fallopian tube or the lining of her uterus.
You win the prize for being just about as wrong as you can be on every level of every statement made.
Congrats!
First of all, I thought I’d already told you that once fertilization occurs, an egg/sperm is no longer present? Can you not grasp that? It is a very simple concept that I learned LONG before starting college as a biology major. You really need to stick to your day job, because you obviously can’t fathom this science stuff. Secondly, that new human individual has all of the structures present in their body at that point in human development. Did you know that younger human beings actually have MORE bones in their skeletons than adult human beings!?!?!!! “OH YE GODS, NEWBORN SKELETAL STRUCTURE IS SO DIFFERENT THAN ADULT SKELETAL STRUCTURE! THEY MUST NOT BE HUMAN BEINGS/PERSONS!!!” Third, by the time a gestating human being has implanted, they are VERY far from being a single cell. Do you know how long we human beings exist as a single cell? Not very long. Within 30 hours every single human being who has ever existed or will exist is more than the single-cell fantasy you have cooked up for yourself. Do you know what percentage of bought-and-paid-for legal abortions happen at this stage? 0%. Any abortion that happens which is performed by a doctor and submitted to by that new human being’s parent(s) is going to happen when the new human being has arms, legs, a head (with a brain inside it, even!!!), and a tiny beating heart. Not that that should matter, of course. Your lack of scientific knowledge does not dictate another living human being’s worth, nor does any lack of growth or development on their part.
Certainly a zygote is just as “human” as sperm and ovum or any human cells, and each has the potential for developing into a person (many do not), but they are not a person without awareness or a functioning brain, heart or lungs.
WRONG! See above, please. ^_^
Also, by your definition, newborns are not persons and we should have the right to kill them legally. Or if they ARE persons, then so are gestating human beings at a point well before birth, as they are aware of their surroundings and can hear/dream/etc. Educate yourself, sir!
We understand this in all areas of our aware lives as human persons.
On the other end of the spectrum, when there is no functioning brain, a body of living human cells can still be harvested for organs to help other real, living people and to alleviate suffering for the greater good.
First brainwaves are detected at 6 weeks. Still before the majority of abortions occur. You’re supporting the legal killing of human beings with functioning brains. How does that make you feel?
Given this fact, it is apparent when a human is a person or not a person then, so why not at all cellular levels when there is no functioning brain (or any other organs for that matter).
Not a fact. You’re horribly ignorant of human growth and development. That is no fault of a gestating human being. Please don’t take your ignorance out on them, sir.
The circumstances and dynamics of life and the real human condition are sure to conflict with the absolute legal mandate of MSi26.
There is no circumstance/dynamic of life and “the real human condition” which warrant parent(s) killing their children being made legal.
So much suffering will come from this intrusive governmental mandate and everyone knows it, some are just hoping it won’t ever adversely affect them.
It is completely the wrong approach as many pro-life folks realize.
Oh…like the pro-abortion clergy you mentioned earlier, only that this has nothing to do with religion? “Experts agree”, you’re all over the board.
And just because Live Action takes potshots at one of the messengers (Planned Parenthood)…rational and contemplative citizens still have all of the medical organizations, church leaders and even anti-abortion leaders and groups recognizing the same fatal flaws that MS Initiative 26 promotes.
Did you miss our point? That your “messenger” is lying and does consistently? Have you ever heart “heart tones”?
As someone who was put up for adoption at birth in 1957, I have to say, I AM SO PRO-CHOICE!!! If my birth mother, whom I have never met, had been able to terminate her pregnancy safely and legally back then… I would not be typing this… but I could not have blamed her for wanting to avoid the trauma and stigma associated then with being an “unwed mother”.
If we are serious about reducing or eliminating abortion (which I will readily agree, is a sad and terrible thing) we need to get serious about providing safe, reasonably priced or FREE BIRTH CONTROL and CONTRACEPTION. Preventing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies prevents the need for abortions… and there is NOTHING SADDER than being an UNPLANNED, UNWANTED CHILD. Planned Parenthood DOES THIS. De-funding P.P. will INCREASE the number of unwanted pregnancies, increase the spread of STD’s by making treatment and testing that much more difficult to obtain… and will also make low cost pre-natal care that much more difficult for those women who WANT to have children to find!
Don’t want to have an abortion? Great! Don’t have one! Nobody said you have to! Why is the life of a cluster of cells en-route to becoming a person MORE IMPORTANT than the life of a fully formed adolescent or adult woman?
That is not my messenger.
I am a mom of 3, Christian, and Pro-choice. What I chose for myself is my business as what you chose for yourself is yours. As a Christian, it is my job to love my neighbor, not force them to do something because I personally believe it is right. Worry about myself and my family is a full time job.
It is no secret that science means nothing to religious fanatics who are pushing an agenda that frankly if it were another civil right perhaps the right to worship freely as we choose would be up in arms about an amendment preventing that right.
I will vote NO because the science of biology tells me a fertilized egg is not a person, because I value ALL of my freedoms and do not want them taken away from me (once one goes, it is a slippery slope), and because living in a free country means whether or not I like it, people should be free to make their own choices when it comes to their health, reproduction, etc.
You can be a conservative, pro-life, religious person and vote No to this amendment. It is pure science. Dr. Tommy Cobb, an obstetrics and gynecology doctor at the Starkville Clinic for Women, said he is in opposition to Initiative 26 based on the wording of the premise.
“My reading of the proposed amendment includes the phrase ‘every human being from the moment of fertilization,’” Cobb said. “This may seem odd, but that phrase is not clear to me.”
Cobb said the issue is one of logic.
“Many times when fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm occurs no one knows if that is going to become a human being,” Cobb said. “Many human conceptions are lost spontaneously often because of genetic reasons –– the genetic composition of the fertilization do not allow it to continue to develop. These fertilizations are not destined to become human beings.”
Cobb said this happens in a significant percentage of human fertilizations, anywhere from 10 to 20 percent.”
Personally I don’t want to think that every time I have my period it could be the death of a person that I might be responsible for because I took a cold medication. I certainly don’t want to be prosecuted for it.
The USA is not a theocracy, if you want to be ruled by a religious rite, you can move to one of the countries who are ruled as a theocracy…Oh wait most of those countries are the ones you claim are your enemies, and bomb. And just one more thing FYI, you can not claim to be pro-life if you are pro war, pro death penalty, and pro gun. Call it what it is anti-abortion, but it is not pro-life if the only life that matters is the one who is not yet born.
Justsnapd8
Oh well you got me there didn’t you? So, just out of curiosity how many unborn of another have you diapered? Fed? Bathed? Could you name me just one? Could you name me just one “child” at conception that has developed independently to a fully formed “child”, even artificially? Let’s try four weeks gestation. How bout eight weeks gestation? Twelve weeks gestation? None.
Regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels personally it’s none of our business of the choice of a woman but herself. This “child” is not a child, you may call it that if you choose. You may find a dictionary or article to reference a fetus as a child, but regardless of how you name it, it’s not independent of a hostess and that’s the reality.
I was talking to a Methodist friend of mine who is also against MSi26 for the many obvious reasons mostly articulated in this thread, and we broached the subject of the birth of Jesus Christ.
At the cellular level, he had to agree given the arguments made during the debate over MSi26 we both had heard, Jesus could not be considered an actual person because no human sperm ever fertilized the ovum of Mary.
We’re still mulling that over a bit, but it seems like some good food for thought for those interested in such matters.
Y’all have a great day, thank you for the venue in which to express ideas in the open marketplace and remember to get out and VOTE!
:0)
I was talking to a Methodist friend of mine who is also against MSi26 for the many obvious reasons mostly articulated in this thread, and we broached the subject of the birth of Jesus Christ.
At the cellular level, he had to agree given the arguments made during the debate over MSi26 we both had heard, Jesus could not be considered an actual person by recent definitions because no human sperm ever fertilized the ovum of Mary.
We’re still mulling that over a bit, but it seems like some good food for thought for those interested in such matters.
Y’all have a great day, thank you for the venue in which to express ideas in the open marketplace and remember to get out and VOTE!
:0)
As someone who was put up for adoption at birth in 1957, I have to say, I AM SO PRO-CHOICE!!! If my birth mother, whom I have never met, had been able to terminate her pregnancy safely and legally back then… I would not be typing this… but I could not have blamed her for wanting to avoid the trauma and stigma associated then with being an “unwed mother”.
If we are serious about reducing or eliminating abortion (which I will readily agree, is a sad and terrible thing) we need to get serious about providing safe, reasonably priced or FREE BIRTH CONTROL and CONTRACEPTION. Preventing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies prevents the need for abortions… and there is NOTHING SADDER than being an UNPLANNED, UNWANTED CHILD. Planned Parenthood DOES THIS. De-funding P.P. will INCREASE the number of unwanted pregnancies, increase the spread of STD’s by making treatment and testing that much more difficult to obtain… and will also make low cost pre-natal care that much more difficult for those women who WANT to have children to find!
Don’t want to have an abortion? Great! Don’t have one! Nobody said you have to! Why is the life of a cluster of cells en-route to becoming a person MORE IMPORTANT than the life of a fully formed adolescent or adult woman?
Every time I see such a statement from an adopted person, I can’t help but think of either what a liar they are or a hypocrite. If you REALLY feel this way, wouldn’t you have killed yourself by now? I mean, that’s what you’re advocating for everyone else in utero in your situation-death. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hi Steve,
“At the cellular level, he had to agree given the arguments made during the debate over MSi26 we both had heard, Jesus could not be considered an actual person by recent definitions because no human sperm ever fertilized the ovum of Mary.
We’re still mulling that over a bit, but it seems like some good food for thought for those interested in such matters.”
Here is the problem with this: a human person is (normally) the result of the fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm. However, that is not the ONLY way in which a human person can arise. For example, an embryo that comes about as a result of somatic cell nuclear transfer is not the result of a sperm meeting the oocyte. Neither is, as you mentioned above, a person who is teh result of monozygotic twinning (or possibly fusing). So coming into being as a result of sperm and oocyte is not a necessary condition for human personohood. Thus there is no problem in understanding the fact that Jesus, when he was in teh zygote stage, was a human person even though there was no sperm contributed to his biological development.
Steve Schlicht @12:06 said : Given that the microscopic fertilized egg has no brain, heart or lungs, it just isn’t logically or scientifically logical to define it as a “person”, when the only person is the female who has the cell in her fallopian tube or the lining of her uterus.
So you get to define what makes a human being – a person?
The problem is you were once at that stage of development – so you’re effectively stating it’s only when others recognize something in you, that you become a person.
How is this any different than what the Nazi’s did with the Jews, or the Turks did with the Armenians, or those involved in the slave trade do with their “possessions”?
Also, if you want to make a convincing cogent argument, you need to stop referring to “fertilized eggs”. Go look up the cortical reaction. In your conception, when that occurred is when you came to be, and since that time, the only requirements to bring you to where you are now in your development are security and nutrition.
Now if you want to argue “You” don’t rely upon your flesh and blood to exist, then throw yourself into a wood chipper and we can discuss how you proved me wrong on the other side.
We should be worried about the millions of starving, neglected, abused children. Take care of them first before we force women who may or may not want to take their pregnancy to term bring an unwanted child into the world. How many unwanted kids do you foster, how much money do you give to the children who don’t have loving parents. As privileged people we are blind to the horrific living conditions of many of the kids in our own state. After all we must all be to some extent privileged if we are positing here. I don’t think any of us are starving, cold, dirty, etc. we have access to the internet either at home, our job, or at least we have transportation to get somewhere to access the internet. Many people in out state and even in our own community do not have these things. In 2009 there were an estimated 423773 children in foster care. How many more will there be if i26 is passed? Are you willing to use your tax money and contributions to pay for these children? Are you willing to take 1 or more of them into your home to provide for them? If not you better think about the consequences of voting Yes, because these obligations will fall on the tax payers. It will affect your family, your income, your well being your family’s health, and your health.
< Xalisae, 61.8% of abortions are performed before week nine of pregnancy.
Additionally, at week six the brain is continuing to form, it’s not a functioning brain at this point. The embryo/fetus is still dependent on a host and is not viable even by artificial means at this point. It is not until about week 25-28 gestation that nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions.
Before calling people incredibly ignorant you might want to revisit some of your facts as they are askew to say the least. You are projecting a lot of opinion in with some facts, and then fallacies, and a great deal of speculation. It still boils down to this no matter what terminology one chooses to use the group of developing yet not viable cells is not an independent life. If the hostess aka mother at this point were to die, so would it. Without artificial means, even at points with artificial means there is no survival rate independent of it’s hostess therefore there is no ability to “kill” that which is not sustainable. Sustainable is not comparable to a birthed human being aka child, person.
Hi Julie,
Your post very clearly shows what is wrong with the pro-choice movement in America today; that is, the responses that we hear from pro0choicers to our pro-life position does not even address the main claim that pro-lifers make concerning abortion. Pro-lifers claim taht abortion is killing an innocent human being, to murder someone. How does discussing foster care, starving and abused children address that claim? It doesn’t. How does asking how many kids we have fostered and how much money we have spent on born children address teh claim that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life? It doesn’t. It is simply an ad hominem argument designed to distract away from teh actual issue at hand. Suppose I’ve given all my money to starving children and have adopted 30 abused children. Does it then follow that abortion is morally evil? Would you become pro-life if those things were true about me? Suppose I never give any money to anyone and spit on children every day. Does it then follow that abortion is a moral choice? Of course not. The question is: is abortion the unjust taking of an innocent human life? Because if teh answer is “no”, why do you need to talk about neglected and abused kids? What does that have to do with anything? Have as many abortions as one wants. But if abortion IS the unjust taking of an innocent human life, then the fact that there are many abused and neglected kids does not justify killing an innocent human being.
Yes, we should worry about the millions of starving, neglected and abused children. And I choose to worry about them not only from the time they are born, but from the time they are conceived.
Killing unwanted children before birth is not humane. Unwanted is not a condition of a child – it is the opinion and feeling of others in society that make that child “unwanted” by its birth parents.
No one here is going to get into a pissing contest about who supports more “unwanted” children whom you would rather have allowed to be killed before birth.
I would rather support 1000 living children than support the killing of those 1000 children.
So much for “Christianity,” Julie. If you believe it’s ok to kill unwanted children, you identify more with Herod than with Jesus Christ.
<
Xalisae, 61.8% of abortions are performed before week nine of pregnancy.
I’m sorry, is 6 not less than 9? I said the majority of abortions are performed at or before 9 weeks. At 6 weeks, brainwaves can be detected. Brainwaves indicate function of the brain. Therefore, the majority of abortions are performed at a point when they kill a living human being with a functioning brain. What exactly is incorrect about what I’ve said? If anything, you’re only backing me up.
Additionally, at week six the brain is continuing to form, it’s not a functioning brain at this point.
Not so. My toddler’s legs are continuing to form. They won’t be the small size they are now forever. However, he still uses them to run and they still function, although less adequately than an adult’s legs. Simply because something is still developing doesn’t mean it is not functional for the stage in which that structure is currently.
Everything I’ve stated is factual. It is not my fault you are not comfortable with the facts. No one is viable in outer space. I suppose astronauts in a space station should be free to kill one another by pushing each other out the air lock if they don’t feel like sharing their resources then?
An infant is not viable without constant care from an outside source as well. Some born adult human beings are not viable without a respirator. How able one is to take care of his/herself and sustain their own life has no bearing on WHAT or WHO that entity is. ALL living human beings-and by every scientific definition that exists, the gestating human being is alive AND a human being-should have their life protected by law.
Steve, et al –
If abortion is a religious issue, then how is it possible for the organization Secular Pro-LIfe (http://secularprolife.org) to exist?
Bobby, I’m Pro-Life, but also Pro-Choice. My decisions, and views should have no bearing on that of another. I’m not that person walking those miles in their shoes. I don’t want to tell any woman she must carry to term if she alone or with a partner came to the decision of termination for whatever reasoning. Nor do I think it’s my decision to tell them just have the baby and give it up like many Pro-Lifers think is a feasible answer. To me, that’s just legal abandonment, and undo emotional battering.
No matter how one views it the reality is this, that “child” in utero less than 12 weeks gestation is not viable outside of utero by even artificial means. It’s not an independent living being. It’s not my decision to make! I rather put my time, money, assets in fighting the obvious-children that have been born, and are in need. Children that grew up to be teens, adults, or elderly that are in need. First trimester abortion to me is a false war being waged on a person’s own belief. Simply put if it does not suit you, don’t have one, but leave the choice to others and their own views. You cannot kill that which has not lived, but you can help many that are living, breathing and in dire need.
Bobby, I’m Pro-Life, but also Pro-Choice.
How does that work, exactly? How can you be against the murder of innocent human beings, but also support it?
If you believe that only independent living beings are worthy of life, does that mean that you believe the severely physically disabled are also non-persons and can be killed with impunity?
once again with the pseudo-scientific, philosophical nonsense….
Gestating human beings are alive. They live, have their own bodies, and those bodies are alive. That is very basic science. Just because you are dependent on someone else for continuing to live doesn’t mean you aren’t currently living already.
I have been that person walking those miles in those shoes. I wish the daughter I had living inside me gestating in a crisis pregnancy would’ve had her life protected by law, even in utero. That’s why I’m Pro-Life.
Julie said, “As a Christian, it is my job to love my neighbor,”
And who is your neighbor? Jesus’ parable points out our neighbor is not only those with whom we identify, but everyone. Pregnant women and the unborn are both your neighbors, just as the Samaritan was to the man who was beaten and robbed. (see Luke 10:25-37)
Hi Bella.
First of all, please note that part of your argument which I will discuss below is just that- an actual argument. This is as opposed to an “argument” which says that abortion should be a moral choice because there are lots of dying children in teh world. Notice that you attept to address the claim that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life and that you do not change teh subject and try and distract from teh actual pro-life claim- rather, you atckle it head-on, which is of course admirable.
“No matter how one views it the reality is this, that “child” in utero less than 12 weeks gestation is not viable outside of utero by even artificial means.”
Yes, this is true. So you seem to hold to a view which says that if a thing cannot survive on its own, then we may morally kill it. So teh question is, does the environment of an agent determine whether or not it has dignity and moral worth? If we were to find ourselves in teh middle of the ocean where we are not viable or outside teh atmosphere, would we then not have dignity and moral worth and hence be able to be killed? I believe this will evolve into a “bodily autonomy” argument at this point, but I think this shows that the environment that an agent is located does not determine its moral worth.
But let us address the rest of what you say. Suppose for the sake of argument that the pro-life claim that abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human person is true. Is “Simply put if it [killing an innocent human person] does not suit you, don’t [kill an innocent human person] but leave the choice [to kill an innocent human person] to others and their own views.” really a compelling argument to someone who believes that abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human person? Again, you have given a partial reason as to why you believe that the unborn are not human persons, but the rest simply does nothing to address the main claim that pro-lifers make. Honestly, if we are correct about that claim, does “leave the choice to the individual” really seem like a compelling response?
Xalise, no you didn’t say at or before 9 weeks. You said before the majority, and I stated what the majority is.
Brainwaves do indicate brain function, and in this case it shows the forming of a brain, but not the independence of a brain as in a person that is fully developed. You seem to confuse the two. You cannot kill that which is not alive, you are having a very hard time comprehending this. A “child” of that age is not a person of it’s own no matter how you want to fashion this.
Again, you are trying to make comparisons that are just not feasible. Your toddler is born and independent of you, and not a dependent fetus within a womb that is not viable without a hostess’ bloodsource, brain, circulatory system etc. They are not comparable and you understand this.
An infant on it’s own would not live without constant care, but again as you seem not to be grasping this, can live by artificial means or a secondary means. A 12 week gestational fetus by any means other than it’s host (mother) cannot sustain life outside utero even with artificial means. Again, you are making inadequate comparisons.
No, the gestating human being is not alive, it’s living only by means of a source. You seem unable to differentiate this. You misunderstand science, or you are using it incorrectly.
How did outer space come into this? Exactly, some people are not viable without a respirator, and do you know there are people that have DNR orders? Because they choose not to live their lives by artificial means.
Yes life is protected by law, you are the one that seems to be uncomfortable with this.
Brainwaves do indicate brain function, and in this case it shows the forming of a brain, but not the independence of a brain as in a person that is fully developed
Umm….do you realize that human beings are not “fully developed” until adulthood, right? Those are some REALLY REALLY late-term abortions you’re talking about.
I like your use of the word “hostess” as if no genetic parent/child bond is shared between the gestating human being and his/her mother and father. If someone accused of child neglect or endangerment tried to make the case that they didn’t harm their children of whom they had default custody at the time but instead were just a poor “host/hostess”, the judge would probably laugh as they declared the prison sentence.
Who must provide the care an immature human organism requires to CONTINUE living-since he/she is ALREADY alive, a point you seem uncomfortable acknowledging which is, however, basic science-does not change the nature of who or what that human organism is. Genetically and biologically they are a child of their parents. Physiologically, they are alive-they are living members of the species homo sapiens, which means they are human beings.
No, life is not protected by law, or it wouldn’t have been legal for me to kill my children in abortions while they were gestating.
Bella – just substitute almost any atrocity or injustice in your sentence and see how it fits:
for example – I would not own a slave, but leave that choice to others and their own view…
or – I would never bully a school child, but I leave that choice for others and their own view…
or: I would never want my husband to beat me, but if any man wanted to beat his wife, I leave that choice to others and their own view.
or: I would never sexually abuse children, but if others wanted to sexually abuse children I leave that choice to others and their own view.
or: I would never kill my pet or starve it to death, but if others wanted to abuse animals, I would leave that to their own choice and their own view…
So when would you stand up? Anytime? Never? Or how about all times there is hurt/injury purposefully to a member of the human race?
Atrocities come in many forms and situations. When there is harm to another – especially purposefully – then all the bigger/stronger humans need to protect the smaller/weaker ones.
Abortion is a purposeful act. one that end the life of a living human. No matter how small, no matter the location, we have members of our human family existing, and then purposefully not-existing.
As a society – can’t we do better than that? Or are we going to say: I would never do that, but I leave that choice to others and their views.
OH, YAY! I GET TO POST MY PREPARED STATEMENT AGAIN!!!!
“I’ve only ever heard souls come up among anti-choice religious types”
Wow. I’ve never had a discussion about abortion with anyone who was opposed to choices. Choices are pretty wonderful, and I rather like them, myself. I’m anti-abortion, as are most other activists like myself. We have no problem with choices. However, the decision to prematurely end the life of one’s living child should never be a legal one to make.
“Never heard the “soul shows up later” thing, from pro or anti-choice.”
Well, there’s a first time for everything, and trust me, I’ve heard it from christian pro-legal-abortionists A LOT. That, or that abortion is ok, because god will just take that child’s soul to heaven and they won’t be forced to suffer on Earth. Your position has much more support from dogmatists than you like to imagine, I suppose. Sorry to burst your bubble.
“The only thing I’ve come across involving a temporal aspect is viability/ability to survive outside the womb, which seems fair to me.”
“Seems fair” only because you’re able to survive on your own, I surmise. I’m guessing that if someone else decided you were fit to be killed since you couldn’t fully sustain yourself (perhaps you lacked the ability to grow crops or hunt, and in their view that made you unworthy of “personhood”) you’d protest in your favor.
“Anyway, at least once the soul part is dropped, we’re working on honest terms. Thank you for that!”
You’re quite welcome for that. I and my cohorts have been doing so for quite some time. Sorry it would appear you’re rather late to the party. If you’re looking for more information about those like myself, I suggest you visit secularprolife.org
“Personally, I’m not one to say “life begins at birth”–the damn thing is a human life upon conception, as far as I’m concerned. The current civic deal of “life begins at birth” is absurd, only the right-wing knows it, and they shouldn’t be allowed that rhetorical advantage.”
But I do so enjoy my advantage when one flaunts biological ignorance! Please, please, PLEASE don’t take that away from me! ;)
You say that a living human being indeed exists from conception: why should all living human beings NOT have their rights protected under the law, at least the very most basic right to continue living? You admit that these are living human beings who are being killed, and yet you won’t allow them to at least be given this one chance to live that we all currently enjoy? For all intents and purposes, the bodies of DEAD human beings enjoy more protection under the law than those living human beings currently gestating. How is that a rational position to maintain?
“I posit that the question becomes what “personhood” is defined as, and if a zygote/embryo/fetus fits what we consider a “person” to be–thus deserving of rights. If they don’t have rights, so be it.”
Contrary to most other pro-lifers, I refuse to indulge our opposition in their notion that “some living human beings are persons, and others are not”. I will not join them in engaging in such discriminatory practices, and I therefore refuse to use the terms “personhood”, “person”, etc. when describing or discussing human beings. A dangerous precedent has been set throughout history when it comes to assigning the descriptor of “person” to some living human beings and “non-person” to others. If “personhood” to you means that an individual has qualified for legal protection of their right to live under the law, then so be it. But I submit to you that EVERY living human being deserves such a right, at minimum, and anything less is nothing but the most abhorrent discriminatory practice imaginable, because it results in countless deaths both now by the thousands annually and in the millions over the course of human history.
“But if they’re a “person” and they have any rights, do their rights still trump those of the parents?”
No rights of parents are “trumped” by protecting the right of a gestating human to live. No right exists that allows a parent to kill their child. No right exists which allows a parent to refuse to provide resources to their child at the cost of that child’s life. No law exists which allows a parent to dismember or cause deadly physical harm to their child. Even in the event of a young minor child initially causing harm to their parent is there no law stating that a parent may use deadly force on their child, and pregnancy (in almost 99.9% of cases) causes no such harm, anyway. Any such statement that I hear made by pro-legal-abortionists always neglects the parent-child relationship between a gestating human and their parent(s). A pregnant woman by default has custody of her child, and in no other circumstance but abortion is such egregious treatment of a child allowed by law of a child by a parent. I mean, if a random stranger on the street came up to me, tried to unbutton my shirt, pull down my bra, and manipulate my breasts, you’d better BELIEVE I’d advocate the use of EXTREME force to remove him from my person and preserve my bodily autonomy. However, if my exclusively breast-fed infant or toddler exhibited similar behavior, any such use of force would land me in prison, posthaste.
“If they have rights, what else should probably be owed rights?”
“What else”? Probably nothing (although, as was stated previously, even a dead human body-which would not be considered a “someone” but more of an object-has certain rights, and as of this writing, more rights than gestating living human beings). WHO else? I don’t know, but once again, even most common companion animals have more rights than gestating human beings, depending upon your state of residence, and I can’t help but feel that this is a sorry state of affairs, to say the least.
“Anti-choice types don’t irk me so much–especially as long as they’re coming from a rational, secular, scientific perspective–because a secular, humanistic argument can be made against abortion”
Thank you for at least acknowledging that. Can you please stop calling us “anti-choice” now? You know there is only ONE decision one chooses to make that I oppose. Seriously. Like, literally, anyone can choose to do anything they want as long as it doesn’t harm another human being. I really don’t care.
“I disagree with it because I feel “personhood” relies on a number of physical and cognitive processes that fetuses don’t have”
Oh really? What other neurological functions can someone be incapable of that make it ok to kill them? Is it alright to shoot someone with an extreme case of amnesia in the head since they’ve essentially never experienced anything in their lives that they aren’t immediately experiencing at that moment? What other (essentially) disabilities must a living human be afflicted with that somehow warrant our wanton killing of said human, and please enlighten me also as to why it should?
Hi Bobby,
I don’t think you understood what I wrote at all, and there was no argument-it was a statement of my views within the confines of the laws in our country and the reality of what a fetus actually is without putting the emotion and morality “argument” into it.
Don’t speak for me Bobby, I never said anything of the such about killing anyone. Speak to what I’ve actually written, and not your feelings or projection of what you assume I feel. Let’s focus on the actual subject here and not about you being in an ocean. This is about abortion, plain and simple. It’s about a choice, not mine, but another’s. It’s about facts. Facts are a 12 week fetus is not viable human being in the ocean, or as some would think outer space, or running, walking, etc. It’s just that, a yet to be formed being.
I think you are a bit lost Bobby in much of where you are, in your eagerness to project your opinions and views you are failing miserably at reaching any level of awareness within yourself and rational connection beyond your own essence here. There is no “simply put” to any of this. There is no “compelling argument”. I have no right to tell you what to choose, as you have no choice in my decision making, or that of another. You just aren’t grasping that. I never said in any fashion that an unborn is not a human person, reread what I did write. You are not capable of differentiating the differences here and that is obvious. The reality here is you are unable to be unbiased and look at the truth of the matter.
Let’s get right to the issues at hand though. In your views just what are you accomplishing by designating personhood? What is the outcome you are looking for? Is it to make abortion illegal? Is it to stop unintended pregnancies? Is it to have the biological mothers put these children up for adoption? Is it to force women (and men as well, because it’s not often a singular decision) to be a parent regardless of circumstance? What is your ultimate outcome? Are you the Pro-Life type that think women are so ignorant and uniformed that they’ll choose abortion like they would pick up a loaf of bread at the store? Without thought? What is the ultimate for you in this world? Peace? Harmony? Complete morality? How will this change the world for the better? That appears to be the goal of many Pro-Lifers thinking that if they can stop the “killing” of the innocent nonviable fetus all will be right with this world?
How does personhood work? How will it be established? At the first missed period? Or the first positive pregnancy test? What happens when one has a miscarriage? Is there a death certificate? Will there be an autopsy? Criminal charges of homicide? Neglect? Manslaughter because the “person” died? How will all of these issues be handled? Will women be questioned and interrogated for having a miscarriage? Could a doctor lose his/her practice because he/she deals with high risk pregnancies that for many times end in no live birth? Will people need to have separate insurance policies for the fetus? Social Security numbers and cards?
Back to the matter at hand. In the hypothetical world of abortions no longer exist in the US. Are you ready for the reality you will be forcing women back into illegal abortions where they could very well die? Who will claim that responsibility? Is her life not worthy? Time to get realistic abortion has existed from the beginning of time without one’s interference and will continue on with or without one’s help. Or is it only the one that has yet become a life worthy? Are you willing to have the blood of a woman on your hands because her legal rights were taken away? That is very much what can and will happen because we’ve already seen it happen. There is no “heroic” effort here. In the time it takes the average Pro-Lifer to obstruct the rights of another over a life that has yet to be, there is another born that could very well use that energy, compassion, and effort. But instead this is the chosen “fight”. Why? Why are you putting more value to the not yet viable fetus over those that have been birthed?
Why cant you anti choice dictators worry about your selves and leave other people alone to live their lives the way THEY want, not the way YOU want? Why do they think they have a right to decide other people’s lives? Stopping me from making my own choice wont get you into heaven. just sayin…
“Dana and others, you are aware that it is biology and not religion which states that human life begins at conception, yes? … Oh, well, now I get it. You determine personhood not based on biology or science, but on philosophy and the subjective idea of “awareness.”
Biology does not and cannot define what it means to be a “person”. You’re purposefully conflating “human life” and “personhood” so that you can pass off a moral or ethical position as one that is based on the cold, hard facts of science. It’s a dishonest or at least lazy way of trying to demonstrate a conclusion to a philosophical argument without doing the work necessary to explain and defend the premises from which it is drawn. (As an added “bonus”, it preemptively cuts off any potential objections, because you can’t argue with science, right?) Put simply, you’re making the assumption that “person” automatically leads from “human DNA” and incorrectly resting that assumption on “biology”.
Brainwaves do indicate brain function, and in this case it shows the forming of a brain, but not the independence of a brain as in a person that is fully developed
Umm….do you realize that human beings are not “fully developed” until adulthood, right? Those are some REALLY REALLY late-term abortions you’re talking about.(B)Yes I do realize about “full development”, you still cannot differentiate the two though. You still are not understanding that a birthed, independent being is different than a fetus of 12 week’s gestation. I don’t think this is a laughing matter, or something to joke or make fun on. Your reference to late-term abortion in this respect is ignorant, and shows the weakness of your stance. (B)
I like your use of the word “hostess” as if no genetic parent/child bond is shared between the gestating human being and his/her mother and father. If someone accused of child neglect or endangerment tried to make the case that they didn’t harm their children of whom they had default custody at the time but instead were just a poor “host/hostess”, the judge would probably laugh as they declared the prison sentence. (B)It’s not my term, it’s the scientific view of it, and that is the reality of it. Why is the truth uncomfortable for you? Again, you have a hard time sticking to the subject at hand without wandering.(B)
Who must provide the care an immature human organism requires to CONTINUE living-since he/she is ALREADY alive, a point you seem uncomfortable acknowledging which is, however, basic science-does not change the nature of who or what that human organism is. Genetically and biologically they are a child of their parents. Physiologically, they are alive-they are living members of the species homo sapiens, which means they are human beings. (B)This is where you are wrong yet again. You don’t have to continue the care of a human organism, and even at times when you do provide that care that human organism fails of it’s own devices.Genetically and biologically they are a sequence of multiplying cells, and a dream. Physiologically they are living matter, but they are not yet life-again you can not substantiate the differences here.(B)
No, life is not protected by law, or it wouldn’t have been legal for me to kill my children in abortions while they were gestating (B)Yes, life is protected by law.(B)
it doesn’t lead from “human DNA”, it leads from “living human being”, which a gestating human being undeniably IS.
Bobby, read both of my posts the one you refer to is written as an amendment to the first comment I made I am not pro-abortion. but I am pro choice. You need to stop and think about how you would feel if someone came along and took away your civil rights. I believe God will judge me and I should worry about myself and my family. It is not my place to push my own beliefs onto others who may not believe that way I do. Your vote is your choice, but I ask that you think about all of the issues. i26 is NOT about abortion it is about civil rights. If my right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion was taken away by some fanatic who did not have the same opinion as I have on worship and freedom of speech, you would be outraged. I have the ability to see beyond my own beliefs, something that I think many people in the church have a problem with. Be responsible for yourself and your family. Let others make those decisions for themselves. Slippery slopes are a real threat. Once personal choices are taken away, who is to say which ones are next. Just something to think about.
Lisa – when your “choice” involves denying basic human rights other people, I can and will get involved. By your logic, it was also wrong to oppose slavery and the Jim Crow laws.
When your “choice” involves the murder of an innocent human being, I will get involved, because I believe that the murder of innocent human beings is wrong. I’m so sorry you believe it is justified. Do you think a woman should be able to murder her husband if she does not want to go through the time, expense, and hassle of a divorce? Or are you “anti-choice” in that regard?
You need to stop and think about how you would feel if someone came along and took away your civil rights.
Precisely, Julie. How would you feel if your country passed a law saying that people could kill you at their whim just because they didn’t think you should legally be considered a human being?
Oh, joanie, people argue with science and biology here all. the. time. Why let facts like biological humanness get in the way of delusion?
HI Bella.
“I don’t think you understood what I wrote at all, and there was no argument-it was a statement of my views within the confines of the laws in our country and the reality of what a fetus actually is without putting the emotion and morality “argument” into it.”
Okay, my mistake.
” Let’s focus on the actual subject here and not about you being in an ocean. ”
This was a comparison. Earlier up, someone posted an excerpt from JJT’s “A Defense of Abortion” paper which used teh violinist analogy to try and shed moral clarity on teh issue of abortion. This is teh same thing I was doing when I compared viability to teh ability to survive underwater. So it is quite relevant, even if you think teh analogy is flawed.
“Facts are a 12 week fetus is not viable human being in the ocean, or as some would think outer space, or running, walking, etc. It’s just that, a yet to be formed being.”
Now you accused me of misrepresenting your views above, but you continue to produce statements like this which seem to be a defense of why you believe abortion to be morally permissible. It seems that you are saying that if you are not viable, then you may be killed. Is that correct? Is it such a wild assertion to assume that this is what you are implying? If this si not what you are saying, what are you saying that is supposed to be compelling evidence for me to change my mind that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life or that an unobrn should not be considered a person?
“I think you are a bit lost Bobby in much of where you are, in your eagerness to project your opinions and views you are failing miserably at reaching any level of awareness within yourself and rational connection beyond your own essence here.”
Okay.
“There is no “compelling argument”.”
Then what are we doing here?
“I have no right to tell you what to choose, as you have no choice in my decision making, or that of another.”
How am I forcing you to choose anything? I am simply attempting to give a rational justification of why abortion is morally reprehensible. The individual is free to either accept any argument I give or reject it. That is all.
“You just aren’t grasping that. I never said in any fashion that an unborn is not a human person, reread what I did write. You are not capable of differentiating the differences here and that is obvious. The reality here is you are unable to be unbiased and look at the truth of the matter.”
So again, all I am interested in discussing is whether or not abortion is a moral choice. If you aren’t trying to argue that abortion is morally permissible (as you seem to be saying), then I am sorry for wasting your time and you may continue trying to make whatever other point it is that you are trying to make, which again, I’m not sure what it is.
“In your views just what are you accomplishing by designating personhood?”
The right to life of all human beings.
“What is the outcome you are looking for? Is it to make abortion illegal?”
Yes, and for people to reject abortion the way that they now reject things like slavery and infanticide.
“Is it to stop unintended pregnancies?”
Yes.
“Is it to have the biological mothers put these children up for adoption?”
I am happy to support that option but that isn’t really my realm of argumentation.
“Is it to force women (and men as well, because it’s not often a singular decision) to be a parent regardless of circumstance?”
It is to say that you cannot kill a human being regardless of circumstance.
“Are you the Pro-Life type that think women are so ignorant and uniformed that they’ll choose abortion like they would pick up a loaf of bread at the store? Without thought? ”
I have no idea. I’m not really interested in this question.
“How will this change the world for the better?”
People will be aware of the natural law and the legal law will reflect this.
“if they can stop the “killing” of the innocent nonviable fetus all will be right with this world?”
No, of course not. But this seems to be the greatest evil of our time, we all have to pick and choose our battles, and mine is to fight for teh unborn.
“How does personhood work? How will it be established?”
Any biological human being is a person. So under normal circumstances, the product of fertilization is a person.
“At the first missed period? Or the first positive pregnancy test?”
If there is no good reason to believe that one is pregnant, then it should not be looked into. But please note that this is a prudential decision, and not really pertinent to the question of whether or not the unborn is a person. Again, in a miscarriage, the women’s body naturally losing her unborn child. Unless there is a really, really good reason to believe that she has attempted to kill her unborn child, legally, no action should be taken. That’s a prudential choice, and maybe some people will be able to get away with having an abortion without being “caught.” What follows?
“What happens when one has a miscarriage? Is there a death certificate?”
Sure, if one desires it. In fact, many desire one right now.
“Criminal charges of homicide? Neglect? Manslaughter because the “person” died?”
Unless there is good reason to believe that the mother willfully attempted to kill her unborn, then no.
“Could a doctor lose his/her practice because he/she deals with high risk pregnancies that for many times end in no live birth? ”
No.
“Will people need to have separate insurance policies for the fetus? Social Security numbers and cards?”
There does not seem to be a good reason for this. I don’t know much about social security cards, but I see no reason why one would need ot have one. Is the argument supposed to be that if you aren’t issued a social security card, then you aren’t a person?
Quite honesty, I don’t see what this barrage of questions is supposed to accomplish. Either the unborn are human persons or they aren’t. If they aren’t, then who cares? If they are, then any sorts of difficult questions that come with whether or not to give a social security card really are irrelevant to protecting the person.
“Are you ready for the reality you will be forcing women back into illegal abortions where they could very well die?”
I am very sorry that some women die when they have an abortion. However, they simply should not be having an abortion in the first place. So I don’t see how I should be held responsible when I tell someone that “a certain action is evil, don’t do it” and then they do that action and hurt or kill themselves doing it. I’m telling someone not to do something, they do, and then I am blamed when they do it and hurt themselves doing it? This simply makes no sense.
” Is her life not worthy?”
It is, which is why she should not have an abortion in the first place and kill her baby and risk injury to herself.
“Time to get realistic abortion has existed from the beginning of time without one’s interference and will continue on with or without one’s help.”
Yes, I’ve realized this for quite some time. Again, I don’t know how this justifies abortion, but apparently I never quite understated what your argument is.
“Are you willing to have the blood of a woman on your hands because her legal rights were taken away?”
This is question-begging. That is, it assumes that abortion is a right taht someone should have, which is the very thing I am trying to argue against.
“Why? Why are you putting more value to the not yet viable fetus over those that have been birthed?”
I am not. I say you cannot kill any one of them.
I’m surprised you didn’t ask the “what should her punishment be?” question.
You asked me these questions, so I answered them, but I normally would not do this because none of them really give any serious thought to any sort of intellectual foundations for the belief in a right to an abortion. So unless you are able to present an actual argument, I will not waste my time any further.
When your “choice” involves the murder of an innocent human being, I will get involved, because I believe that the murder of innocent human beings is wrong. I’m so sorry you believe it is justified. Do you think a woman should be able to murder her husband if she does not want to go through the time, expense, and hassle of a divorce? Or are you “anti-choice” in that regard?
Talk about a case of apples and oranges. But while we are on that subject, what is a miscarriage? Involuntary manslaughter? Assisted suicide? To what lengths are we willing to go to assure the complete gestational maturity and delivery of a fully birthed living human being?
Yes I do realize about “full development”, you still cannot differentiate the two though.
The “two” of what? If you track a human being’s growth and development from conception to death, there’s still only ever been ONE organism there, who should’ve had his/her life protected by law at EVERY stage they were in by virtue of them having been a living human being.
You still are not understanding that a birthed, independent being is different than a fetus of 12 week’s gestation.
No, I understand the difference, I just fail to see why you think the differences are sufficient enough to warrant that second human being’s legal killing, and you’ve failed to explain why it should be so. A toddler is different than a senior citizen who is different than a teenager who is different than an infant who is different than an adult who is different than a fetus. Why should one of those stages warrant legal killing of that human being?
I don’t think this is a laughing matter, or something to joke or make fun on. Your reference to late-term abortion in this respect is ignorant, and shows the weakness of your stance.
Trust me. You’re going to prefer me dealing with your ignorance as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and witty humor to the alternative. I’m doing you a favor and playing “nice”.
It’s not my term, it’s the scientific view of it, and that is the reality of it. Why is the truth uncomfortable for you? Again, you have a hard time sticking to the subject at hand without wandering.
No, it’s not. It’s abortion supporters being intentionally disingenuous in an attempt to frame gestating human beings as “parasites” and their mothers as “hosts”, even though I’ve shot down this argument MANY times before, as by textbook definition a gestating human being cannot be a parasite, or else ALL PLACENTAL MAMMALS WOULD BE PARASITES. Your comments are factually inaccurate. You live in a dream world.
This is where you are wrong yet again. You don’t have to continue the care of a human organism, and even at times when you do provide that care that human organism fails of it’s own devices.Genetically and biologically they are a sequence of multiplying cells, and a dream. Physiologically they are living matter, but they are not yet life-again you can not substantiate the differences here.
And here is where you’ve inevitably degraded into a bunch of pseudo-intellectual philosophical nonsense, which eventually happens to every pro-abortionist who has tried to debate me on scientific terms. Genetically and biologically, YOU are a “sequence of multiplying cells” as am I and every other LIVING ORGANISM ON EARTH. Uh-oh, there’s that word again…”living”…that you seem to get all spacey when we start discussing. Nothing is “genetically and biologically…a dream”, that’s you trying to avoid my argument and side-stepping with a little navel-gazing.
“But while we are on that subject, what is a miscarriage?”
Like any other natural death, it is a death from natural causes.
But while we are on that subject, what is a miscarriage? Involuntary manslaughter? Assisted suicide?
Natural causes, and/or accidental death.
The “two” of what? If you track a human being’s growth and development from conception to death, there’s still only ever been ONE organism there, who should’ve had his/her life protected by law at EVERY stage they were in by virtue of them having been a living human being.
Is there are reason you continue to capitalize certain words? Or are you shouting? Onto your reply. One organism there that should be protected? Which is that? The life that cannot sustain on it’s own? Or the life that is already sustainable?
No, I understand the difference, I just fail to see why you think the differences are sufficient enough to warrant that second human being’s legal killing, and you’ve failed to explain why it should be so. A toddler is different than a senior citizen who is different than a teenager who is different than an infant who is different than an adult who is different than a fetus. Why should one of those stages warrant legal killing of that human being?
Again you fail to comprehend, I’m not warranting the killing of anyone. I’m speaking of the facts. We aren’t talking toddlers, senior citizens, people in outer space this is about abortion and a fetus that cannot sustain life by any means but it’s hostess aka mother. There is no legal killing of a human being, you still aren’t wrapping your head around this-you cannot kill that which is not alive! Why is it you are unable to address the issue head on without bringing in variances that have no direct compatible comparison?
I don’t think this is a laughing matter, or something to joke or make fun on. Your reference to late-term abortion in this respect is ignorant, and shows the weakness of your stance.
Trust me. You’re going to prefer me dealing with your ignorance as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and witty humor to the alternative. I’m doing you a favor and playing “nice”.
I don’t trust you, and you can continue the tongue-in-cheek all you want, it’s weak, it lacks rationalism, and logic. But have at it.
It’s not my term, it’s the scientific view of it, and that is the reality of it. Why is the truth uncomfortable for you? Again, you have a hard time sticking to the subject at hand without wandering.
No, it’s not. It’s abortion supporters being intentionally disingenuous in an attempt to frame gestating human beings as “parasites” and their mothers as “hosts”, even though I’ve shot down this argument MANY times before, as by textbook definition a gestating human being cannot be a parasite, or else ALL PLACENTAL MAMMALS WOULD BE PARASITES. Your comments are factually inaccurate. You live in a dream world. Again, stay focused on the reality instead of the attack.The dreamworld is to think that claiming personhood would stop abortions. To think that stopping abortions will save the world, or whatever primary goal it is you ascertain to achieve. It won’t. I never did.
This is where you are wrong yet again. You don’t have to continue the care of a human organism, and even at times when you do provide that care that human organism fails of it’s own devices.Genetically and biologically they are a sequence of multiplying cells, and a dream. Physiologically they are living matter, but they are not yet life-again you can not substantiate the differences here.
And here is where you’ve inevitably degraded into a bunch of pseudo-intellectual philosophical nonsense, which eventually happens to every pro-abortionist who has tried to debate me on scientific terms. Genetically and biologically, YOU are a “sequence of multiplying cells” as am I and every other LIVING ORGANISM ON EARTH. Uh-oh, there’s that word again…”living”…that you seem to get all spacey when we start discussing. Nothing is “genetically and biologically…a dream”, that’s you trying to avoid my argument and side-stepping with a little navel-gazing.
Not degraded, it’s the reality and one you either are not fully grasping or just plainly cannot comprehend. I’m not side stepping I’m staying focused on the subject at hand. Side stepping would be me using a straw man argument like cancers are multiplying groups of cells carrying our DNA, people kill them off all the time. It’s living. It needs a living organism requiring a host to survive. That would be a side step, and I’ve seen people use it before. But like much of what you are putting forth, it has no weight or bearing on the direct subject here.
What you have managed here is attack me personally because I’m speaking the truth of the matter without projecting my personal feelings into it.
Now who’s comparing apples to oranges, Bella? Definition of murder in the U.S.: “A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person, or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person.”
So:
Miscarriage = not murder
Involuntary manslaughter = not murder
Assisted suicide = murder (or should be considered such, in my opinion)
Why do you believe it should be legal to kill human beings, Bella?
But while we are on that subject, what is a miscarriage? Involuntary manslaughter? Assisted suicide?
Natural causes, and/or accidental death.
How have you come to that determination? By what means? Autopsy? Not all miscarriages are natural causes, or accidental. Some could be prevented, but yet we never see much said to that because it’s not become an issue yet. That might very well change once personhood is established.
Bella, can you please provide any evidence that, prior to Roe v. Wade, any woman who miscarried in a state where abortion was banned was arrested and charged with murder?
Once up a time, many, many, many moons past, there was this debate. It was about slavery. On side side, some guy (not me) happened to put forth the argument that while he didn’t like slavery and was personally opposed to it, SCOTUS had already ruled on the issue and he had no right to prevent others from owning slaves as it was between them, their conscience and God. His opponent argued that it slavery was indeed wrong, that it simply could not be allowed to continue. As we all know, the second argument eventually won out, though at the time the first guy was deemed to have won the debate.
Fast forward 150’ish years. What do you see? You see pro-choicers making the EXACT same arguments made in reference to slavery in defense of abortion. Nothing has changed. Just look at the arguments put forth in this thread:
“I have no right to stop people from doing <X>!”
“People should be allowed to decide the morality of an action for themselves!”
“I can’t force my religious views on someone else!”
These are all flatly ridiculous arguments. Imagine, if you will, I’m an Aztec and that my religious beliefs demand a human sacrifice. Were I to try to engage in human sacrifice, I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that every single one of the pro-choicers obfuscating in this thread with the above responses would come down with a case of short-term memory, completely throwing their arguments to the wind. Not a single one will say, “Well, gee. Even though I don’t like human sacrifice, those are your beliefs, and you are entitled to act in accordance to them and your own morals!”. No. They’ll come out and use the exact (or close to the same) arguments that they were earlier arguing against. That’s what makes this thing so ridiculous. I am absolutely convinced that most pro-choicers are simply intellectually dishonest. They pick and choose when to apply some argument and when to defer to SCOTUS and when not to defer to SCOTUS. For example, pro-choicers constantly rely on the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that the unborn aren’t persons and construct a laundry list of reasons why the unborn aren’t persons, i.e. they don’t have a “fully functional brain”. Of course, as soon as it is pointed out to them that SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are persons even though they lack a “fully functional brain” then, suddenly, SCOTUS’ definition of a person is wrong. Well, if SCOTUS’ definition of a person is wrong, then exactly whose definition is ‘right’? Obviously, it’s the definition pro-choicers can come up with. But why is that? Why are the definitions they come up with more correct than the one I can come up with?
I’d love to know– absolutely love to know– why, say, Joe Blow pro-choicer’s definition of a ‘person’ in this thread is more correct than the one I or, say, Peter Singer can come up with.
Is there are reason you continue to capitalize certain words? Or are you shouting?
Says the person who has bold formatting on every single word… ah, irony.
You asked what a miscarriage was. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002458/
I answered.
I don’t have time to reply in depth, but oh man, where are all the trolls coming from? (My guess is this article was picked up or linked to from a pro-choice site.) It seems most of you pro-choicers have just come here to scream your views at us. Is that really productive, is that going to change any minds? No. So unless you’re interested in an intellectual discussion on the issue, don’t even bother commenting. To quote the bar tender of the Mos Eisley Cantina (Star Wars): “Your kind aren’t welcome here.”
So:
Miscarriage = not murder
Involuntary manslaughter = not murder
Assisted suicide = murder (or should be considered such, in my opinion)
Why do you believe it should be legal to kill human beings, Bella?
How do you know a miscarriage wasn’t intentional? Women through the ages that didn’t want a baby they were carrying had “miscarriages”. That’s not to say all miscarriages are a form of that. Some are from neglect,and some just happen spontaneously for whatever reason. The fact that you seem to have no knowledge of this is a bit surprising to me.
Oh, okay involuntary manslaughter is okay by you? Killing is killing. Or is it only in certain circumstances? By the way, with your definition of murder abortion still would not fall under that. As much as I know you want it to, it doesn’t. It might once you enact something like personhood, but then too that will enact many things you’ve yet to even think on. Like certain forms of birth control, IVF, the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. In the eagerness of Pro-Lifers to gain I don’t know what, there is a great shortsightedness going on. One thing still stands true though in this country, we are run by Civil Laws that are built for a society, not Canon laws built on personal religious beliefs and the hopes of making it to Heaven.
I never laid claim it should be legal to kill a human being that you take as an assumption. With that said I see I am dealing with some people here that cannot see the forest for the trees. You are so desperately focused on one facet of life that the rest of it spins beyond you.
I think it’s ironic that anytime people want to withhold the term “person” from anyone, it’s either to conquer, rape or kill them.
I will say this plainly, with no apology: you CANNOT be pro-choice and Christian. Abortion is against everything that Jesus stood for. And if you happen to be a member of those sorry Episcopalians, Mothodists or ECLA Lutherans who think it’s ok, run, don’t walk. They don’t have a clue about the dignity of belonging to the human family that Jesus brought us.
How do you know a miscarriage wasn’t intentional? Women through the ages that didn’t want a baby they were carrying had “miscarriages”. That’s not to say all miscarriages are a form of that. Some are from neglect,and some just happen spontaneously for whatever reason. The fact that you seem to have no knowledge of this is a bit surprising to me.
You don’t know, unless there is suspicion of a chemical abortion, which an autopsy/coroner’s report should show.
Look, this isn’t rocket science – I was on a coroner’s jury in which we had to decide whether or not, according to evidence shown, a person’s death was due to homicide, accidental death, suicide, or something else. If there was reason to suspect that the miscarriage was not natural, it would be investigated.
Do some people still get away with murder? Sure. That doesn’t mean we should make murder legal because some people think keeping it illegal is “inconvenient” for society.
“These are all flatly ridiculous arguments.”
They’re not ridiculous at all. I could turn your own argument around on you and point out that, unless you believe that the law must perfectly reflect your particular religious or moral beliefs, you have used (or would use, if the situation presented itself) the same reasoning to defend the fact that people do things, entirely within the law, that you find morally objectionable and yet are willing to tolerate (i.e. not actively oppose) out of a sense of obligation to allow others to freely make their own moral choices and choose their own destinies.
“Imagine, if you will, I’m an Aztec and that my religious beliefs demand a human sacrifice. Were I to try to engage in human sacrifice, I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that every single one of the pro-choicers obfuscating in this thread with the above responses would come down with a case of short-term memory, completely throwing their arguments to the wind. Not a single one will say, “Well, gee. Even though I don’t like human sacrifice, those are your beliefs, and you are entitled to act in accordance to them and your own morals!”
Human sacrifice does not exist within the confines of the social contract. It’s illegal. There is broad, even absolute or near absolute consensus that it should remain that way.
“They pick and choose when to apply some argument and when to defer to SCOTUS and when not to defer to SCOTUS. For example, pro-choicers constantly rely on the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that the unborn aren’t persons and construct a laundry list of reasons why the unborn aren’t persons, i.e. they don’t have a “fully functional brain”. Of course, as soon as it is pointed out to them that SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are persons even though they lack a “fully functional brain” then, suddenly, SCOTUS’ definition of a person is wrong.”
There’s a difference between deferring to the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret laws and agreeing with the particular reasoning it uses to do so in any given case. No one is obliged to believe the Supreme Court has “gotten it right” on any matter of judicial interpretation.
Again you fail to comprehend, I’m not warranting the killing of anyone. I’m speaking of the facts. We aren’t talking toddlers, senior citizens, people in outer space this is about abortion and a fetus that cannot sustain life by any means but it’s hostess aka mother. There is no legal killing of a human being, you still aren’t wrapping your head around this-you cannot kill that which is not alive! Why is it you are unable to address the issue head on without bringing in variances that have no direct compatible comparison?
You sure are warranting the killing of someone. You’re attempting to say that the killing of a gestating human being is warranted simply because they are more dependent upon their mothers than any other human being. That you are scientifically illiterate enough to deny that a gestating human is alive and related to his/her mother via a genetic relationship is of no consequence to the facts. You’ve not provided ONE. SINGLE. SHRED. of evidence to suggest that a gestating human is not alive. “You cannot kill that which is not alive”, yeah, and something that isn’t alive can’t die either, SO WTF IS A MISCARRIAGE, SMARTA$$??!!?!?! (PROTIP: when I write a word in all-caps, it is to emphasize that word. Imagine the voice in your head as you read it speaking the word more loudly, a little slower, and in a slightly higher tone.)
From the earliest moment in a human being’s life, right after conception, as a matter of fact, they derive nourishment from their own source, metabolize, and grow. They are alive, and your refusal to acknowledge such basic facts reveals your willful ignorance.
All law derive from someone’s morality, joan. You say social contract, I say God’s written his law on our hearts. Whatever.
You say it’s ok to kill the innocent. Don’t try to dress it up in any more facy language. I’m done with that.
You sure are warranting the killing of someone. No I’m not, as much as you say it, it will never be true. You’re attempting to say that the killing of a gestating human being is warranted simply because they are more dependent upon their mothers than any other human being. Not at all true, again you aren’t comprehending what I’m writing, you are assuming a lot. You are projecting your feelings into it, but you aren’t for lack of better words listening. That you are scientifically illiterate enough to deny that a gestating human is alive and related to his/her mother via a genetic relationship is of no consequence to the facts. Not illiterate by any means, I have full understanding and knowledge of physical anatomy and physiology, as well as biology and other sciences. It’s just I don’t share your opinion. You’ve not provided ONE. SINGLE. SHRED. of evidence to suggest that a gestating human is not alive. “You cannot kill that which is not alive”, yeah, and something that isn’t alive can’t die either, SO WTF IS A MISCARRIAGE, SMARTA$$??!!?!?! (PROTIP: when I write a word in all-caps, it is to emphasize that word. Imagine the voice in your head as you read it speaking the word more loudly, a little slower, and in a slightly higher tone.) A miscarriage is the spontaneous expulsion of the fetus prior to 20 weeks. The same fetus that is depended upon it’s hostess aka mother for sustaining life, not being already born as commonly termed “alive”. But we can use semantics all day long if you choose, no matter the choice of words it still comes down to the same point: one is independent and sustainable on it’s own, the other is not. I don’t hear voices in my head, maybe that’s something you should have looked into. Additionally, when you want to emphasize something common place to use italic (the slanted I up there) it’s a common literary practice.
From the earliest moment in a human being’s life, right after conception, as a matter of fact, they derive nourishment from their own source, metabolize, and grow. They don’t derive nourishment from their own source, they take it from a source. They are alive, and your refusal to acknowledge such basic facts reveals your willful ignorance. No, they are not they’re own independent life form at that point. You happen to believe life begins at conception-more power to you. I don’t. Alive is when they are independent, and sustainable life outside the uterus. Whether that be artificially incorporated, or through the means of a mother. It’s not ignorance, it’s reality. I asked earlier and have yet to see a response to this. How many fetuses of 12 weeks (or earlier) gestation have you cared for (outside of a personal pregnancy)? How many have you bathed, fed, changed? How many at 12 weeks gestation survive without intervention? With intervention? The answer to all the aforementioned is none.
I grew up in a strict Catholic household, attended church religiously, was taught all the same things about life beginning at conception and never once believed it. I still don’t.
How do you know a miscarriage wasn’t intentional? Women through the ages that didn’t want a baby they were carrying had “miscarriages”. That’s not to say all miscarriages are a form of that. Some are from neglect,and some just happen spontaneously for whatever reason. The fact that you seem to have no knowledge of this is a bit surprising to me.
You don’t know, unless there is suspicion of a chemical abortion, which an autopsy/coroner’s report should show.That’s where you are being super naive, and entirely gullible in believing that. There are many other ways than a chemical or surgical abortion, and they’ve been practiced since the beginning of time. I’m not going into them here, but they are still practiced.
Look, this isn’t rocket science – I was on a coroner’s jury in which we had to decide whether or not, according to evidence shown, a person’s death was due to homicide, accidental death, suicide, or something else. If there was reason to suspect that the miscarriage was not natural, it would be investigated. Look, as I said previously making comparisons that clearly have no regard to the subject matter doesn’t bolster the stance. You wouldn’t know if there was reason any more than you do now. You wouldn’t know if someone was having a chemical or surgical abortion any more than you do now because HIPAA laws (which we haven’t even touched on that facet of this).
Do some people still get away with murder? Sure. That doesn’t mean we should make murder legal because some people think keeping it illegal is “inconvenient” for society. Still just the same, abortion is not murder. Again, as much as you try to profess it is, it’s not. That’s the reality.
Alrighty, time for me to get going. Spent way too much time in here, when it’s better spent blocking this from ever becoming law. :O)
Bella, you are talking about determining the cause of death of a preborn child. I was relating that to determining the cause of death for a born child or adult.
If someone wishes to self-abort against the law (provided that a law were in place), no one can stop them, just like no one can stop a murder before it occurs. But if it is found that the abortion was purposeful then it should be prosecuted.
Pretty sure we were talking about miscarriage and how they would be classified or shown to be intentional (induced abortion) or accidental/natural causes.
You were asking (or so I thought) if in the context of a personhood law, how miscarriage would be determined to be accidental/natural instead of a purposeful, induced abortion. I explained this and referred to murder – because in the context of your question, I understood you to be speaking of a law that would ban the killing of the preborn. Telling me that abortion isn’t murder is kind of stupid if, for the sake of argument, you’re assuming a personhood law were in effect.
I guess I just can’t really grasp why it is so exactly CRUCIAL for some women to be allowed to kill thier own child. What is it about that very act that liberates you? Why and how did this happen to your hearts where your life became only just about yourself?
A miscarriage is the spontaneous expulsion of the fetus prior to 20 weeks. The same fetus that is depended upon it’s hostess aka mother for sustaining life, not being already born as commonly termed “alive”. But we can use semantics all day long if you choose, no matter the choice of words it still comes down to the same point: one is independent and sustainable on it’s own, the other is not.
A miscarriage is ALSO a term used to describe intrauterine fetal death. But I guess since they’re not actually alive, according to you, intrauterine fetal demise is just a term invented by the patriarchy of the medical field to oppress women using bits of non-living tissue. Those doctors are freaking diabolical!
And as I said before, a newborn isn’t going to sustain his/herself very long on their own, either. How well someone is able to sustain their own life has nothing to do with the type of living organism they are, which in this case is a human being.
Alive is when they are independent, and sustainable life outside the uterus. Whether that be artificially incorporated, or through the means of a mother. It’s not ignorance, it’s reality.
Oh dear. This is just getting ridiculous. This is akin to claiming a person on life support isn’t actually alive.
Two living cells reproduce to form another living diploid cell, called a zygote, which – from that point on – self-directs its own biological development. Your definition of “alive” is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. And since you’re so fond of the term “hostess” – even actual parasites are alive within their hosts. How much more is the human (or mammalian) offspring which resides within the uterus.
Why put your limit at 12 weeks, Bella? Does your support for abortion extend only through the first trimester or up through the ninth month?
You keep bringing up religion – as most pro-choicers do – and you seem to think that’s why the people here are against abortion. But you’ve been arguing with Xalisae, who is a secular pro-lifer, and there are many secular pro-lifers.
So far, I haven’t seen any religious arguments for the pro-life position, though admittedly, there are many. It’s funny how the pro-aborts are always the ones bringing up religious philosophy.
A miscarriage is ALSO a term used to describe intrauterine fetal death. But I guess since they’re not actually alive, according to you, intrauterine fetal demise is just a term invented by the patriarchy of the medical field to oppress women using bits of non-living tissue. Those doctors are freaking diabolical!
LOL! :D
Bella – the fact that involuntary manslaughter does not meet the definition for murder does not mean that I therefore approve of involuntary manslaughter. That’s bizarre logic.
Also, I’ve had two miscarriages. Have you ever miscarried? Do you ever tell women who miscarry that they shouldn’t grieve over worthless parasites who were better off dead anyway? That seems to be your general view of unborn children, so I’m curious.
So by your logic, if a chimera is born we should press charges for the murder and consumption of the enveloped twin? Do we charge the mother, or the surviving fetus?
What about twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome? Do we charge the “Vampire Fetus” with theft of nutrients and oxygen? Or again, is it the Mother’s fault somehow?
Ectopic pregnancies – not a viable pregnancy, and will kill the mother if the implanted zygote isn’t removed. Does the fall under “Murder / Suicide” on the part of the fetus?
Your proposed law does not allow ANY abortions, even to save the life of the mother.
That’s asinine.
Unequal Placental Sharing could be theft, trespassing, or assault.
A cord wrapped around the neck… want to charge the fetus for attempted suicide?
These questions might seem ridiculous to you (I certainly hope so) but they take the law that you’re proposing through logical conclusions, if someone needs to be “blamed” for a failed pregnancy.
This cannot be turned into law.
If an entity cannot sustain life outside of a Uterus, it’s not a person. Technically, it’s a parasite if you want to be strictly scientific about it.
And no – I don’t work for Planned Parenthood. I’m just appalled that some man in another state really thinks he has something to say about curtailing women’s rights. If a woman is pregnant with your child, I’d agree- you have say in that. That’s where it begins and ends, though.
Abortions will continue to happen, with or without legal support. The only thing this terrible law will do is kill women. You’ll have people ordering Hellebore or Birthwort off the internet and trying to make their own abortafactants, you’ll have women dying of a perforated uterus or infections after trying for coathanger abortions.
You will be making things worse.
The purpose, Mags, is to put the abortion doctors out of business and stop the butchering of women and their babies.
Abortion has not made us a safer, kinder, more humane nation. Let’s back it up. You find these questions that you posted ridiculous. For me, the most ridiculous thing is that we are debating whether killing a baby is an acceptable solution to a problem.
Technically, it’s a parasite if you want to be strictly scientific about it.
I remember another group of people called cockroaches. . . . .
“They’re not ridiculous at all.”
Yes, it is ridiculous. Imagine the not-so-hypothetical dialogue below.
Pro-lifer: “Abortion is wrong and should not be permitted.”
Pro-choicer: “Mind your own business! You have no right to force your own religious and moral views on another!”
Pro-lifer: “So if I follow a religion which demands child sacrifice, I should be allowed to do so based on my own religious and moral views?”
Pro-choicer: “No!”
Pro-lifer: “But I thought you said that I and by extension other people have no right to force their own religious and moral views on another?”
Pro-choicer: “I did, because they don’t!”
Pro-lifer: “So assuming that’s true, your own argument necessitates that the same way you claim that I have no right to force my own religious and moral views on someone else who might have a different set of religious and moral views, you have no right to force your own religious and moral views on someone else who might have a different set of religious and moral views.”
Pro-choicer: “<no response>”
This is essentially what has happened. You’ve used an argument by which to rationalize abortion but refuse to apply the logic behind the argument anywhere outside of abortion, meaning you’re simply cherrypicking the application of your argument as it suits you to do so. That’s called being intellectually dishonest.
“I could turn your own argument around on you and point out that, unless you believe that the law must perfectly reflect your particular religious or moral beliefs, you have used (or would use, if the situation presented itself) the same reasoning to defend the fact that people do things, entirely within the law, that you find morally objectionable and yet are willing to tolerate (i.e. not actively oppose) out of a sense of obligation to allow others to freely make their own moral choices and choose their own destinies.”
Nice try, but you really didn’t turn anything around. This is precisely why I mentioned the argument between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas effectively arguing that the issue had already been decided and declared legal. Essentially, what you’re arguing now is that people should be allowed to do something so long as the law has said they should be allowed to do it. In other words, you’re simply deferring to the law. By doing so, you’ve simply fallen into some deep abyss of moral relativism whereby you’re arguing that nothing is truly right or wrong in actuality, but only because the law says it’s right or wrong by the way of that something being either legal or illegal. In which case, your argument necessitates that:
-Providing tomorrow the law changes so that infanticide up to a year old is perfectly acceptable, you’d be defending infanticide, quite possibly with the line “I’d never kill a six month old, but I’d never prevent you from doing so!”.
-Providing tomorrow the law changes so that rape is perfectly acceptable, you’d be defending rape, quite possible with the line “I’d never rape someone, but I’d never prevent you from doing so!”.
-Providing tomorrow the law changes so that theft is perfectly acceptable, you’d be defending theft, quite possibly with the line “I’d never steal from someone, but I’d never prevent you from doing so!”.
And so on and so forth with any such action. You’ll cry foul, of course, but you have no basis upon which to do so since your argument now seems to be “It’s legal, so butt out!”. It’s nice to know you would have been an ardent defender of slavery.
“Human sacrifice does not exist within the confines of the social contract. It’s illegal. There is broad, even absolute or near absolute consensus that it should remain that way.”
Every time you make this argument, I respond to it, and EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. you ignore it. However, as I’m a sucker for punishment, I’ll try this again. Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with social contracts or any kind of concensus about the status of abortion in society. I know, you know and everyone reading this post knows that it would not matter one lick to you if there was broad concensus that abortion should be illegal outside of rape, incest, issues of maternal health and severe fetal deformities. You will NOT come out and argue, “Hmmm, well. The majority of society would like to see the majority of abortions illegal, so I guess we’ll make them illegal!” or something like that. You will not argue that since the majority of people believe that abortions should be illegal if a woman wants one because she says she can’t afford a baby, that abortion in those cases should be illegal. No, you will argue, as you have argued, that you do not care what percentage of the population thinks abortions should be illegal. So, please, spare me this. “Well, that’s different because there’s a broad consensus!” garbage.
(Yes, that’s a little abrasive but I’m tired of reading the same argument I keep responding to over and over and over again only to have you ignore EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.)
There’s a difference between deferring to the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret laws and agreeing with the particular reasoning it uses to do so in any given case. No one is obliged to believe the Supreme Court has “gotten it right” on any matter of judicial interpretation.
No. Pro-choicers rely on the fact that SCOTUS declared the unborn to not be persons and then come up with all sorts of reasons why the unborn aren’t persons, but when it’s pointed out to said pro-choicers that the reasons they deem the unborn to not be persons to not be the actual criteria for personhood (on account of many of their criteria not applying to corporations, who are persons), they then claim that SCOTUS is wrong. Well, if SCOTUS is wrong in their labeling on corporations as persons, then why are they right when they claim the unborn aren’t persons? And why, since pro-choicers will come up with all sorts of criteria as to why the unborn aren’t persons, must I accept their criteria as true? I’ll wait.
I think the problem is that you and I (and Bella) have a fundamentally different idea about what constitutes human life. I consider a pregnancy to be a child when it can survive outside the woman…. if a woman delivers early at a hospital, and there’s a reasonable chance at life.
I do not support late abortions, unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy or the child has no chance at life (hydrocephaly, as an example) … the idea of making a woman carry a dead fetus, or one that has no chance at life is cruel.
There will still be hydrocephaly fetuses, and other doomed pregnancies that are incompatible with life. Monstrously fatal birth defects happen every day, more and more as we pollute our drinking water and the soil. Incest, pregnant 12 year olds, and lethal pregnancies will still happen.
We’re not going to change each other’s minds on when life begins, but surely there are times when the health of the mother is paramount to you?
This law does nothing to acknowledge that there are times when you have to choose between the mother and the pregnancy. It makes no provisions for an incestuous pregnancy, or a pregnancy when a woman is still mostly girl. It happens, and we can’t wish or legislate it away because if we could we’d have done it by now.
So how do you tell a 12 year old that she’s going to have to carry a pregnancy of rape and inceest for 9 months, (and tear her young body in the process) well before it should have to form a new person?
What do you tell the children when their Mom dies from a treatable ectopic pregnancy?
Rick Santorum and his wife chose to try and save their child – and she nearly died in the process. That was their choice, and I respect that. I don’t understand it, but I respect it. That is their choice.
My choice is to fight so that women don’t have to die from back alley abortions.
Making something illegal doesn’t keep people from doing it. It only makes it harder for the desperate, the powerless, and the poor.
I like how now pro-legal-abortionists aren’t even trying to hide their anti-science position and just come out and admit that we’re not going to change their opinions with our opinions, which is really just science.
Hey Maggie…that’s my daughter’s name. And I fight against abortion because her father wanted me to kill her in an abortion. My choice is to fight so that no child in her position at the mercy of their parents has to die due to their parents’ cowardice or lack of compassion.
I think it says a lot about you that you can’t even fathom that a parent would do anything and everything in their power to try to save the life of their child, also.
“Technically, it’s a parasite if you want to be strictly scientific about it. ”
No, technically and strictly scientifically speaking it is not a parasite. A parasite is an organism that lives on or in an organism of ANOTHER species. So unless you doubt the law of biogenesis, strictly scientifically speaking, a fetus does not fit the definition of a parasite. Maybe one could argue that loosely speaking it is a parasite in the sense that one might have a roommate who is a mooch and hence a “parasite”, but otherwise, it is the same kind of species and thus not strictly speaking a parasite.
Maggie, ask any of the post-abortion moms here. The abortion was the wound. The 10 year old pregnant from incenst? HORRIBLE. Horrible. I can’t say it enough. But the child wants to live, and he doesn’t know how he was conceived.
and once the science has been discussed to the point it can no longer be denied, they leave in hopes of ignoring it, so that they can come back tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, spouting their erroneous claims once more, in complete denial of the reality of human biology yet insisting that science is on their side, just like nothing ever happened. How I tire of this game.
“Everyone at the grassroots human level can see the horrific consequences of considering a zygote, a microscopic fertilized egg with no brain, heart or lungs, a “person” by legal mandate.”
Not everyone Steve (and the 16 people who liked his post). Do you think exagerration helps you make your point? Hows about someof you educate me about these ‘horrific consequences’ you speak of.
Bobby Bambino: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in an organism of ANOTHER species.
Then how do you explain lawyers?
Interesting…. so your entire focus, regardless of any other facts, is that a zygote deserves to be born? Rape, incest, illness – they ALL take a back seat to doing whatever is necessary to bring that pregnancy to term and deliver a child…. eve if it’s doomed?
Fascinating.
All this time I had assumed that there was a communication breakdown or something. It would seem we’re not communicating at all – just metaphorically making noises at each other.
I have, and always will support a woman’s right to choose. You seem to think 8 cells with potential trumps the health and well-being of a mature adult.
There’s no point in arguing guys – we are never going to agree.
Best of luck in all this – I’ll see you on the other side of the picket lines.
Here is one fact you can’t seem to grasp. Life begins at conception. There is no “health and well being of a mature adult” unless their life began at conception.
You support a woman’s right to choose…….what exactly? A new pair of shoes? A tattoo? A hairstyle?
You support a woman’s right to choose to have her fully alive preborn human child sucked from her womb.
Finished it for you.
See you out there, Maggie.
Oh and Maggie? We win.
X: I like how now pro-legal-abortionists aren’t even trying to hide their anti-science position and just come out and admit that we’re not going to change their opinions with our opinions, which is really just science.
2 different things. Science isn’t the issue and science doesn’t pronounce upon morality.
Science IS the issue, Doug, when your side sits in blatant denial of the most basic facts of human growth and development.
So essentially what Doug and the six people who agreed with him are saying is that there are some humans who don’t deserve human rights. I could invoke Godwin’s Law right about now, but I’ll refrain from doing so.
X: Science IS the issue, Doug, when your side sits in blatant denial of the most basic facts of human growth and development.
Wrong, X. That is not where the abortion debate lies. “Living human organism,” yes – agreed. “Human DNA” – sure. If you see somebody saying “the zygote is not alive” that is one thing, and I will disagree with that hypothetical speaker as strongly as you would. But that is not the abortion argument.
It’s sheer straw on your part to maintain otherwise.
Some Guy: So essentially what Doug and the six people who agreed with him are saying is that there are some humans who don’t deserve human rights. I could invoke Godwin’s Law right about now, but I’ll refrain from doing so.
When you use such a broad definition of “humans,” then yeah. Heck, a dead body can be a “human being.” For that matter, a toenail clipping can be, too. It’s “human” and it has existence – “being.” You likely will not choose to go with such a broad usage as that, but that other people choose a more restrictive meaning – one that imputes more to the term than you’d choose to – should not be a surprise, any more than it’s a “surprise” that you have your own chosen zone of inclusion.
“Deserve” really is the question. Godwin has naught to do with it. It is not simply on the part of the unborn, it is the comparison of the unborn with the pregnant woman, for starters.
it is the comparison of the unborn with the pregnant woman
it is a comparison of the minorities with the Khmer Rouge regime
it is a comparison of the Blacks with the slave owners
it is a comparison of the Tutsis with the Hutus
it is a comparison of the Jews with the nazis
Please quit comparing humans to other humans, Doug, and just love them all.
If you see somebody saying “the zygote is not alive” that is one thing, and I will disagree with that hypothetical speaker as strongly as you would. But that is not the abortion argument.
ok. Then read a little further up the thread, and agree with me.
Also, by strict dictionary definition, “living human organism” and “human being” are synonymous. Reality is not subjective.
My comments keep getting flagged as spam.
Please quit comparing humans to other humans, Doug, and just love them all.
Praxedes, the problem is that you want your wishes to trump the wishes of the pregnant woman, when she has an unwanted pregnancy. You are personifying what is usually not sentient, not aware of anything, has no emotions, no personality, no wishes at all, and is inside the pregnant woman. This is not the same as comparing different types of born people.
“If you see somebody saying “the zygote is not alive” that is one thing, and I will disagree with that hypothetical speaker as strongly as you would. But that is not the abortion argument.”
X: ok. Then read a little further up the thread, and agree with me.
If somebody really said that, then I don’t agree with them, and I agree with you that the zygote “is alive.” But that’s not the abortion debate.
__
Also, by strict dictionary definition, “living human organism” and “human being” are synonymous. Reality is not subjective.
As stated, I agree with that. Yet the dictionary, while descriptive, is not prescriptive, i.e. it would not have to be the same the other way. “Human being” can be broad enough that while all living human organisms would be included, it’s not true that all “human beings” would necessarily be living, for example, nor be organisms.