Home - List All Discussions

Is Abortion Murder?

Determining if Abortion is Murder

by: fetalisa

Hello everyone! I just joined this forum. I am curious to know what people here think about abortion being murder. Is it?

reply from: RobertFerguson

In God's eyes, yes.
In this nation's eyes, not so much....
"if abortion is murder- then act like it."
Randall Terry
"I'd rather have people hate me with the knowledge that I tried to save them."
Keith Green

reply from: fetalisa

So should we rewrite our law to reflect this idea?

reply from: RobertFerguson

If you think the government is the answer. Yes. Wouldn't it be just to have eqaul laws and defense?
BTW re: your signature....
Where do you look to determine truth?

reply from: yoda

Our laws already make killing innocent born people illegal, why should they discriminate against the uborn?

reply from: fetalisa

So should we jail doctors for performing abortions and women who seek abortion and charge them both with murder?
I seek truth wherever it can be found.

reply from: faithman

So should we jail doctors for performing abortions and women who seek abortion and charge them both with murder?
I seek truth wherever it can be found.
That would be the just thing to do. What ever is the right punishment for the born, should be the punishment for killing the womb child.

reply from: yoda

If that is what is done in a particular state when a born child is killed, then that ought to be done when an unborn child is killed.

reply from: fetalisa

But we can freeze an embryo for a couple of years, thaw it out, implant it and it lives. If we freeze a child for two years, the child is dead.
Since we can't treat them the same in reality, why should we treat them the same legally?

reply from: fetalisa

Well, 40% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Given that God kills almost half of the unborn, He obviously values the unborn very little. If God doesn't care about them and kills them off, why can't we?

reply from: fetalisa

You can't be that brainless. The point is, we can not treat the unborn like we do the born. Have you ever seen a woman pull a zygote out of her uterus, sit it in a high chair and feed it some Gerber? No, you have not. Since we can't treat them the same in the real world, there is no reason to treat them the same legally.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not children. That's why you can't feed them Gerber in a high chair. If a 5 year old child is killed in an accident, do we say a rocket scientist is dead? No, we do not. Just because that child had the POTENTIAL to become a rocket scientist does not mean the child was already a rocket scientist. The same is true of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. They are POTENTIAL people, and 40% of those die anyway due to spontaneous abortion and miscarriage.
We can't treat them the same in reality, which is why we don't feed embryos in a high chair. We can freeze an embryo but not a born child. There is no reason to ban abortion at all. There is no need to force women to have children they do not want. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It's very simple.

reply from: fetalisa

But it is. Nature produces miscarriage. Humans are part of nature. Nature produces miscarriage and so can we. There is no reason why we shouldn't or can't. The pro-life loons have trotted out the same tired, illogical & emotionally inflammatory arguments against abortion for 33 years, yet abortion is still legal. Abortion is neither murder nor killing. In order to prove it so you must first prove a person has been killed, which you can't. Next you would have to prove the intention of every woman who ever had an abortion was to kill a person. You can't prove that either. The public knows this, which is why the public doesn't buy your BS rhetoric. All you have to do is look at the last election in South Dakota.

reply from: fetalisa

Do you really require the obvious to be belabored? The unborn are not now, nor have they ever been, people.

reply from: fetalisa

You think the public is going to allow mothers with 2-5 kids who don't want another to be jailed for life? You think our society is going to force that mother's other children to grow up motherless because we put her in jail for having an abortion? You are out of your mind.

reply from: fetalisa

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not people. If you claim they are, cite the law which proves it so.
If it's not your uterus, it's not your decision to make.
If you are claiming zygotes, embryos and fetuses are 'persons' under the law, then cite the law which proves your case. Otherwise, your claim they are persons due equal treatment under the law means nothing.
Your definition fails at point 2. If you have proof zygotes, embryos and fetuses possess personalities, provide it. Otherwise the definition fails.
I couldn't care less as it is wholly immaterial to the debate. Sperm and ova are both living and human too. Do you suggest we jail men for murder for killing sperm by masturbating? Sperm are both human and alive, after all.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not people. If you claim they are, cite the law which proves it so.
This is America. You do not have the right to make ANY decisions regarding a uterus you do not own.
If you are claiming zygotes, embryos and fetuses are 'persons' under the law, then cite the law which proves your case. Otherwise, your claim they are persons due equal treatment under the law means nothing.
If they are aborted they are not. They are certainly not 'persons between birth and puberty, ' as defined above.
You wish to change the law. The law will recognize the differences between the born and the unborn whether you do or not. You can pretend there are no differences between the born and the unborn all you wish. The rest of society, like South Dakota, knows damn well what the differences are.
You are on the internet. You are familiar with Google I assume. Search for IVF and learn how the embryos are stored. This is basic stuff you should already be familiar with given your overwhelming concern for the unborn.
Exactly. Banning abortion forces pregnant women to have a child whether they want them or can afford them or not.
Not if she decides she doesn't want a child or a birth. And guess what? That decision is hers, not yours. That's what burns you up the most about it. You can't make that decision for others. You don't have the right.

reply from: fetalisa

Dragging out medical definitions in a topic regarding the legality of abortion as murder is immaterial. Cite the law which states the unborn are legally defined as 'persons,' & entitled to the rights of 'persons.' Otherwise, you prove nothing.

reply from: fetalisa

Then you see my point. For 33 years the prolifers have been arguing 'abortion is murder.' 33 years later abortion is still legal. I not only hope you hold onto your views, I want to see attorneys argue in court AGAINST abortion using these very same views and arguments found in this thread from the prolifers. It absolutely guarantees abortion will ALWAYS remain legal. If the state of South Dakota didn't buy it, I KNOW a judge won't, particularly where it comes to pretending the unborn are 'persons.'
So please, by all means, keep using the same arguments that have been used for 33 years now. It serves my purposes perfectly.

reply from: ChristianSoldier

CP - Are you not aware of frozen embryos and those that are adopting them from fertility clinics so they don't end up destroyed or used in embryonic stem cell research?
Adoption's New Frontier, 'Snowflake' Babies Adopted ...
To overcome infertility, some couples are adopting a small portion of this nation's 400000 frozen embryos, adding a new component to the debate over ...
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/national/main712541.shtml

reply from: ThunderKitten

Welcome to the forum, fetalisa.
So, you consider the arguments typically espoused against abortion to be ineffective? Fair enough. Before forming my argument, I'd like to ask you some questions.
If a fertilized egg could grow into a full term baby without the mother or father's involvement, would you still object to its parents being prevented from killing it? If you think they should still be allowed to kill it, who should have the final say?
Do you think that a woman would ever be better off if she got pregnant, and then had an abortion, rather than not getting pregnant in the first place? If so, give an example and reasons why.
If a woman gets pregnant, and has an abortion for reasons other than not wanting the baby (like- can't afford one, in a bad relationship, etc.) and/or not wanting to be pregnant, was the abortion the best way to serve her needs?

reply from: coco

Welcome to the form, Yes I think abortion is murder, now I dont procalim to have the scientific ansewers to everything but my opinion is that the start of a life begins at conception. I think if you have an abortion you are destroying a potenital human life form!! I think that all "products of conception" should be allowed to live and that should be their right!!

reply from: Scottishhighlander

Everyone on this site was in the womb. What else could you call it? Scottishhighlander! Gods Peace!

reply from: Scottishhighlander

Abortion used to be illegal and they rewrote that law in 1973. Scottishhighlander! Gods Peace!

reply from: fetalisa

Thanks!
I can easily take a look at the world around me and determine the result of the typical arguments against abortion. The results clearly show the arguments are ineffective. South Dakota proves the majority of the population clearly does not view abortion as murder. Otherwise, the SD vote would not have gone as it did. So my views are not based on what I consider, but are instead, based on societal wholesale rejection of the arguments.
I refuse to deny the reality that 40% of all fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which means 40% do not result in a live birth. Nature produces miscarriages and so can we.
If the mother who carries the fertilized egg doesn't wish to have a child, her body and uterus belong to her, which mean, it is HER decision as to what will be done, not yours, not mine, not the government. All forms of slavery exist on the foundation that people do not own their bodies. It would be morally improper to place women in a position where they do not own their uterus nor the contents thereof. It doesn't benefit society to send women the message they are mere incubators.
The one who carries it. It's hers. It is a product of her body. She, alone, has that right legally, which is at it should be.
What a wonderful world it would be if people were nice to each other. Let's pretend this is so and disband the military.
How beautiful it would be if everyone drove safely. Let's pretend this is so and repeal all traffic laws.
What a wonderful world it would be, if people didn't use drugs. Let's pretend this is so and decriminalize all drugs.
What a wonderful world it would be if couples worked through their conflicts. Let's pretend this is so and ban all divorce.
What a wonderful world it would be, if people only had sex for procreation. Let's pretend this is so and ban all abortion and birth control.
I can create as many fantasies based on ideals as you can. However, I am not so stupid as to suggest we write law based on the idealized fantasies we might dream up.
That's for the woman to decide, not you, not me, not the government. One man's meat is another man's poison.

reply from: yoda

I disagree with your premise. We can treat them the same by making it illegal to produce "spares". If only one fertilized egg were produced at a time and immediately implanted, no child would be "left over".

reply from: yoda

We are not God(s), and we are not nature. While we can and should be held responsible for our deliberate actions, we cannot hold God(s) or nature responsible for their actions. Your question ignores that fact.

reply from: yoda

Your dishonest attempt to justify abortion by semantic slight of hand belittles your whole position.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

reply from: yoda

Laws do not establish vernacular definitions, only legal ones. This is not a court of law, this is a debate being held in the vernacular. Face reality.
I have never seen a more blatently dishonest statement. NO definition is ever determined by attempting to make it fit with all the other definitions of that word.... they all stand alone, independent.

reply from: yoda

Dragging out medical definitions in a topic regarding the legality of abortion as murder is immaterial. Cite the law which states the unborn are legally defined as 'persons,' & entitled to the rights of 'persons.' Otherwise, you prove nothing.
What a sad and hopelessly pathetic statement. Legal definitions apply only to legal questions, and we all know that abortion is legal... so there is no question to be decided. We are debating whether it ought to be made illegal, and that is a moral question, not a legal one.
No wonder you represent death.

reply from: fetalisa

Definitions mean nothing in an argument regarding legally defining murder to include abortion, unless you have offered a legal definition. So you've yet to prove the unborn are legally considered persons, who therefore have legal standing to be considered victims of murder.
If it isn't law, none in our society are required to pay any heed at all to whatever arbitrarily chosen notions of 'objective reality' you believe.
EXACTLY! If they are not persons under the law, they have no rights and can not be considered as victims of murder via abortion. As a matter of fact, there is no precedence for any rights at all for the unborn. Do we issue death certificates if an unborn miscarries, like we do for when persons die? No, we do not, because they are not persons.
The prolifers have not convinced our society of this 'fact,' which means this 'fact' is nothing but opinion, having no legal precedence nor legal standing. That means none in our society are legally required to live under this opinion.
If you wish to extend equal protection to the unborn you must first prove the unborn are legally 'persons.' You have not demonstrated nor proven this at all. 33 years after Roe, it still has not been demonstrated nor proven.
You can be opposed to the tooth fairy if you like. It doesn't mean your opposition has any legal standing at all.
You argue in circles. You are comparing crimes against persons, with such crimes having legal standing, with assumed crimes against non-persons which lack all legal standing.
Really? Then why don't you ask the people of South Dakota why they didn't buy your BS arguments?
And the public is not buying it, even after 33 years. Therefore the argument is wholly ineffective and not working. There is a saying about doing the same thing when it has been clearly proven not to work. In other words, society doesn't buy into the arbitrarily chosen objective reality you hold as opinion.
Here's why. Consider a 40 year old woman with a husband and three kids are murdered. The murder leaves a husband without a wife and 3 kids without a mother. Compare that to the spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or clinical abortion of an unborn. The abortion doesn't leave a husband without a wife. The abortion does not leave 3 kids without a mom. Therefore, 'murder' of the unborn has nowhere near the effect of murder of the born. If I pull a maple sapling out of the ground, have I killed a tree? No, I have not. Likewise, in the case of abortion, a person or people isn't killed either.
Consider the context of the word 'my' meaning 'definitions you supplied.'
Which does change two facts:
1. The definition fails at point 2.
2. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. Your opinion that the unborn are persons due rights has no legal standing whatsoever.
You still haven't successfully challenged the basis of my claim. What you did was run to a dictionary in an argument considering abortion as murder. Murder is a legal term. The legal definition of the crime, as well as who can be considered a victim of the crime, is what matters, not what Random House says.
But by all means, please continue arguing the pretense the unborn are persons. It's worked so well for your movement so far.
Definitely not. I need for you to keep up the pretense the unborn is equal to the born. It's worked so well for 33 years now. I mean, surely the public is gullible enough to buy it, right?
It most certainly wasn't. South Dakota voted in a ban on abortion in the next to last election there. Yet, abortion continued.
Ok, I can explain it to you as I would to a 5 year old if that's required. In the case of abortion, you have no offspring. Let's compare abortion of an unborn with death of a 5 year old. Perhaps it will make it easier for you to grasp.
If a 5 year old child dies, we have a death certificate. We issue death certificates to persons. The person of the 5 year old is therefore an offspring of the parent.
In an unborn is aborted, we have no death certificate. We issue death certificates to persons. The unborn, therefore, for all practical and legal purposes never existed and so isn't an offspring, since we don't have a death certificate to prove they ever existed.
Now, was that so hard?
Nope, you wish to pretend they are the same. They aren't. You can freeze the unborn, yet they live. Do that to the born and they die. The law will not paint them all with a broad brush of pretense of similarity that you do.
You've yet to prove they are a person due any legal rights. You can't even prove they have enough legal standing to be considered a victim of murder. I can actually prove abortion is most definitely not murder, by merely pointing to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which single-handedly negates your faulty argument that abortion is murder.
Preventing her from removing it ends up forcing her to have it.
If she had a dead child we would have a death certificate to mark the death. We don't in the case of abortion. No death certificate=no dead person.
The end result is the same. She doesn't have a child she didn't want, for whatever reasons.
And regardless of your BS argument purporting to equate the unborn with born persons via the dictionary, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act proves beyond all doubt abortion is not legally considered to be murder of a person, human being, people, child, etc. I can therefore back up my position legally, whereas you can not.

reply from: yoda

It is a testament to your decietfullness that you refute your own strawman constantly. We are not trying to define murder to include abortion, we are well aware of it's definition as the illegal killing of a human being. It is so typical of proaborts to hide behind legality and avoid moral discussions as if they were a death sentence to them.
Grow up.

reply from: fetalisa

If you claim abortion is murder then we have no choice but to look to the law for the definition of murder and the definition of who or what can be considered a victim of murder.
The minute you claim abortion is murder you step into the law and need to prove your case upon the law. The reason you don't wish to step there is obvious. The idea abortion is murder falls apart quickly once we step into law. It has for 33 years now.
Pot meet kettle.
Fine, I concede and retract the point since it's immaterial anyway. You've no proof at all the unborn are legally persons. You've no evidence at all abortion is legal murder. You've no evidence to contradict the Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly PROVE abortion isn't murder.

reply from: fetalisa

Call it dishonest if you wish. All I know is, the minute you claim abortion is murder you step into law. From that point forward all definitions must be legal if you wish to prove your case.
Without the concept of legal personhood granted to the unborn, you have no persons, you have no equal protection under the law and you have no victim of murder.
No matter what the dictionary says, in the case of a miscarriage or abortion, we have no death certificate which means we have no death. If we have no death, we have no murder. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says, unless it is a legal dictionary.

reply from: fetalisa

No, you misunderstand my premise. It wouldn't bother me if we mass produced embryos for all kinds of research purposes. I care not what technology leaves us with 'spares.' The more spares the better, as far as I am concerned.

reply from: yoda

You have beaten YOUR strawman to death and resurected him countless times now, and we all grow sick of it.
Get a grip, YOU are the only person who is equating abortion with "murder" in the noun form!
BTW, have you seen the definition of the verb form of murder?
Main Entry: 2murderFunction: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder

reply from: yoda

Yes, that does seem to be all you know. Have you nothing else to say?
What a stupid, foolish thing to say....... are you a dictionary burner also? Do you pile dictionaries up in large piles and burn them?
Unless one is discussing a technical subject, technical dictionaries are useless. Unless one is having a legal discussion, a legal dictionary is useless, as is your strawman.

reply from: yoda

Obviously, since you support death.

reply from: fetalisa

How is it deceitful? You claim a fetus is a human being and abortion is the murder of a human being and so, should therefore be illegal.
None, of which I am aware, would argue the unborn isn't human nor a being. Therefore, the debate can only lie in the idea abortion is murder. Yet our laws, which are the only morality which all must follow (or pay the consequences) do not recognize abortion as murder. Since we live in a free society where citizens can choose the morals under which all must live, via the vote, we can only conclude the majority of society does not view abortion as murder, no matter how the dictionary defines things. This isn't deceitful, but is instead an attempt to recognize the reality in which we all live.
Abortion is not defined as the illegal killing of a human being. That's why abortion is legal. It shouldn't be necessary to belabor the obvious here.
A discussion of legality IS a discussion of morality. Our laws are the ONLY morals which ALL citizens must obey, or do you think laws against speeding exist for no reason? Therefore, when we discuss law, we are discussing the morals which society has jointly decided all must obey.

reply from: yoda

You never tire of telling the same transparent lie, do you? Show me where I have claimed that abortion is murder (noun), or admit your are a lying proabort.
NO KIDDING?? Are you that stupid, are is this only your pretense? That is WHY abortion is not "murder" in the noun form............ OPEN YOUR EYES!!
No one "must' obey any law, they break them every day. But any person of conscience MUST obey their own moral standards....... is that a subject with which you are familiar?

reply from: fetalisa

That moral question has been decided over and over again with the same result for 33 years now. Our society clearly does not buy the idea abortion is murder, equivalent to the murder of the born. That's precisely the point. The prolife arguments have fallen on deaf ears, which means the arguments presented to support the prolife positions simply aren't working.
Well cry me a river! Thanks for providing yet another example of why the public isn't buying your arguments or your mindset.

reply from: yoda

Moral questions are open for discussion every day, at every hour, according to the first ammendment.
Ever hear of it?

reply from: fetalisa

Well of course we aren't, particularly considering we have no evidence at all of the existence of any gods, outside of ourselves.

Excellent! Please explain why our DNA differs from chimpanzees by only 2.5%

You mean like the act of abortion which has no consequence at all beyond recovery from surgery, no different than having an appendix removed?

Actually we could, assuming we had any evidence for the existence of any gods. For example, you are boating in the ocean and you see person in the water drowning. You sail on by and the person drowns. You are now responsible for that person's death, since you could have thrown them a life raft but didn't.
Assuming gods exist, that god would have known the deaths and destruction that would have resulted from the tsunami. He/She stood by and did nothing to halt the resulting death and destruction. Therefore, that God is responsible in not taking steps to prevent the death and destruction.
Of course, the argument can and was made the tsunami did the level of damage it did because we humans didn't have a proper warning system in place. Therefore, it is our fault as humans the death and destruction was as bad as it was. True though that may be, it leaves us with the knowledge if any gods exists, we certainly can't depend on them to help us out when we need it most. Any gods assumed to exist most obviously don't give a damn whether we live or die. They are just as happy to sit idly by and allow us to die and be destroyed.
In other words, assuming gods exist, what good do they do us? We know we can't depend on them for anything, so we have no choice but to protect ourselves in situations like the tsunami.

We copy nature all of the time. Birds fly and so do we. Beavers build dams. So do we. Nature produces miscarriage, so do we.
I believe I have addressed it.

reply from: yoda

It is sickeningly predictable that you would consider the death of an innocent baby to be nothing at all.
Nature has no morals, and apparently you are satisfied not to have any either.

reply from: fetalisa

Tell it to South Dakota. I am sure they will fall for what they find in Random House and ignore the legal definitions.

reply from: fetalisa

When you claim abortion is murder you are having a legal discussion. Murder is defined by law, not you.

reply from: fetalisa

When you claim abortion is murder you are having a legal discussion. Murder is defined by law, not you and not a dictionary, unless it is a legal dictionary

reply from: fetalisa

Small wonder. When abortion technologies had high risk of death to women, they were illegal. Once abortion technology improved such that abortion was safer for women than carrying the pregnancy to term, it became legal.
If abortion left 50% of the women who had them dead, it would still be illegal. Fortunately, that's no longer the case.

reply from: yoda

That question was not on the ballot. Most SD residents are not as unaware of reality as you seem to be.

reply from: yoda

Fine. When you see me doing that, let me know.
In the meantime, please stop lying through your teeth, it's a disgusting habbit of yours.

reply from: fetalisa

You have no proof God exists. Your claim is therefore, pointless.

reply from: fetalisa

So you attack the messenger rather than the message? You have nothing to offer my claim other than personal attack? EXCELLENT! The same tactics used in the past are guaranteed to bring you the same results in the future. By all means, carry on!
Apparently South Dakota doesn't have either. If not that, they see the glaring holes in the prolife argument. Carry on with your personal attacks. They've worked so well for 33 years.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet your arguments haven't changed the law.
I love it. By freely expressing your ideas, society can then consider their validity. Society has treated them accordingly.

reply from: faithman

You have no proof God exists. Your claim is therefore, pointless.
your right to free speach is proof, for our constitution says that rights come from the Creator , not the government. If you look at a house, do you have to have the carpenter there to prove he built it? Isn't the house itself proof that a carpenter was at work? Scientist can not explain how a tree turns sun light into more tree, and yet they are going to say that something that complicated just evolved and deny a Creator? The fact that your heart is beating is proof there is God. He is going to tell that heart to stop beating one day. Then What? The claim is pointless just because you say so? Now who has a god complex? There in is the problem you have. You are your own god.

reply from: fetalisa

You offered definitions for the words 'person,' 'child' and 'human being.' One can only conclude you offered such definitions in an attempt to prove abortion is murder for the unborn.
You open yours. Whether noun form or verb form, our laws do not recognize abortion is murder, in spite of 33 years of inflammatory rhetoric to the contrary. I am well aware your point is not to claim our law recognizes abortion as murder. I am well aware you are debating if abortion OUGHT to be considered murder. What I am telling you is, 33 years of that line of argument has failed and is still failing. Is that so hard to understand?
Absolutely! You obey your moral standards and I obey mine. However, the only moral standards ALL must follow is the law, or pay the consequences for refusing to do so. Any moral standard you might choose outside of the law, belongs to you, not others. None are obligated to follow any moral standards extraneous to the law that you have personally chosen for yourself
In the event a large enough percentage of the population chooses to also follow your extraneous moral standards outside of the law, then as a group, they can express those moral standards at the polls, in an attempt to have those extraneous moral standards imposed on all in the form of law. However, that hasn't happened in 33 years. Therefore, the arguments used to support your position on these extraneous standards, have failed.
So what we are left with is a case of conflicting moral standards above and beyond the law. As the situation presently stands, those against abortion don't have them. Those who have no moral qualms against abortion can have them. Therefore, all get to live and choose according to their own moral standards, much like all get to choose and live according to the religion of their choice. No argument has been presented to the public that has swayed them to upset this very balanced apple cart which allows all to make their choices for themselves.
Screaming 'abortion is murder,' while frothing at the mouth, has come to no avail, in the mind of the public, and therefore, has come to no avail in the law.
Is that clear enough for you?

reply from: faithman

You offered definitions for the words 'person,' 'child' and 'human being.' One can only conclude you offered such definitions in an attempt to prove abortion is murder for the unborn.
You open yours. Whether noun form or verb form, our laws do not recognize abortion is murder, in spite of 33 years of inflammatory rhetoric to the contrary. I am well aware your point is not to claim our law recognizes abortion as murder. I am well aware you are debating if abortion OUGHT to be considered murder. What I am telling you is, 33 years of that line of argument has failed and is still failing. Is that so hard to understand?
Absolutely! You obey your moral standards and I obey mine. However, the only moral standards ALL must follow is the law, or pay the consequences for refusing to do so. Any moral standard you might choose outside of the law, belongs to you, not others. None are obligated to follow any moral standards extraneous to the law that you have personally chosen for yourself
In the event a large enough percentage of the population chooses to also follow your extraneous moral standards outside of the law, then as a group, they can express those moral standards at the polls, in an attempt to have those extraneous moral standards imposed on all in the form of law. However, that hasn't happened in 33 years. Therefore, the arguments used to support your position on these extraneous standards, have failed.
So what we are left with is a case of conflicting moral standards above and beyond the law. As the situation presently stands, those against abortion don't have them. Those who have no moral qualms against abortion can have them. Therefore, all get to live and choose according to their own moral standards, much like all get to choose and live according to the religion of their choice. No argument has been presented to the public that has swayed them to upset this very balanced apple cart which allows all to make their choices for themselves.
Screaming 'abortion is murder,' while frothing at the mouth, has come to no avail, in the mind of the public, and therefore, has come to no avail in the law.
Is that clear enough for you?
Ya, you take everyone into consideration but the womb child. What choice did the Amish school girls have? If a majority of americans said it fine to shoot amish school girls, would you wax so eliquent for the protection of legal school girl killing? Hitler was voted into office, the majority said it was fine to kill jews. I guess we didn't have the moral high ground to stop him?

reply from: fetalisa

Oh thanks for convincing me! Gee, just because some men wrote something, it must be true! Just because I read it on the internet, it must be true. Oh look! The Wizard of Oz mentions a state named Kansas. Since we know Kansas is a state, the Wizard of Oz must be true.
So when men wish to justify something, like denying abortion rights, they seek a way to justify it, like claiming gods are on their side. Gee, that's original. I never heard of ANYONE using that argument before!
Why would I even care who built it? If I need a house, I simply move right in so I can go about living my life. Sitting around and worrying about who built it would prevent me from moving my things in and setting the house up so I can get on with my life.
Now you are being http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis We are even learning how to do it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis
So much for religion somehow making people more 'moral.'
Science doesn't deny a creator. Science says if you claim one exists show the evidence, which those who make the claim have yet to do.

Excellent! Provide the evidence for your claim. If you can't do that, I will promptly place your claim in the trash where it belongs.

For all you know, I could die in a car accident. And you know what? This god you speak of won't come to my aid to prevent my death or prevent the accident. Therefore, what need do I have of your god? He won't lift a finger to protect my life or keep me from dying. He didn't do it for the humans in the tsunami and won't do it for me. Therefore, your god is wholly worthless to me and my life (assuming you have proof he/she/it/they exist, which you don't.)
I'll be dead! Big Deal!
The claim is pointless because you have no evidence to back it up. Therefore, the claim has no meaning or value to me at all, since I've no reason to believe it.
You do. You expect me to believe in your invisible daddy in the sky simply because you say so. You are not a god, so I will not believe what you say just because you say it. We've no more evidence for gods than we do Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Even if you could prove a god existed, you would then have to prove why your god is better than others.
The only problem I have is lack of evidence of your claims. I'm waiting.
You are being delusional. I am a human being.

reply from: fetalisa

Actually, in February of 2006, the people of South Dakota voted to ban almost all abortion. The ban was not set to take effect until 7/1/2006. In spite of the ban, abortions continued, as there were questions regarding the constitutionality of the law.
We like to think we are a country of majority rules, but we are not. The public can vote on anything, including to ban abortion. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, such a law will be upheld.

reply from: fetalisa

Originally posted by: faithman
Ya, you take everyone into consideration but the womb child.
The Jews believe life begins at first breath. We've no reason to accept your views over theirs.
Look, we know you believe the unborn and born are 100% equivalent and should be considered as such legally. The problem is, you haven't convinced the public. So comparing abortion of the unborn to the Holocaust, or killing school girls, falls on deaf ears, because the rest of us have yet to see even one single argument as to why the unborn should be considered the legal 100% equivalent of the born.
We can't see them as equivalent given that opening any biology textbook clearly proves the differences between born and unborn. Yet, you trot out the same or similar examples comparing murder of the born to abortion of the unborn and it's clear our society isn't buying it, which means its clear the arguments aren't persuasive. Yet you trot the same ones out all the same, in spite if knowing it isn't working.
Compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges and you might be able to finally grasp it.

reply from: yoda

"One"? No "one" would conclude such a thing except someone bent on obsfucating the entire debate. You just hate dictionaries, don't you?
You could've fooled me! After constantly making false claims to the contrary, you are finally "aware" of what I've been saying all along?
NO KIDDING???? You mean even if we have a HIGHER moral standard than the law prescribes, we must still pay "the consequences"???

reply from: yoda

No, that was the state legislature.
South Dakota elects almost 100% prolife legislators..... good people.

reply from: yoda

Is that your purpose here, to tell us that abortion is legal? You're a few years late, but I suppose it gives you some sort of perverse thrill to repeat that, eh?
Hey....... EDUCATE US!!
Tell us about those "differences"........ okay?

reply from: fetalisa

Then you must have missed the discussion regarding Terri Schiavo. Her brain had liquified which meant she lacked consciousness, which is often listed as a trait of 'persons.'
I have no interest in your semantic games. The question, if abortion is to be considered murder, is do the unborn possess the legal rights of personhood. If they don't possess it, they have no rights and abortion therefore, isn't legally considered murder.
Would that be this section?
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In other words, the last sentence of this section of the Roe decision states there was no legal precedence of the unborn being considered a person.
Only if one can't read:
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States."
I would answer if one would quit cherry picking from the decision and continue reading, much confusion could have been avoided.
Then you would reveal your ignorance to the fact that there is no precedence for the unborn to be considered persons, not in American law, nor in English common law, from which our legal system derived. This should come as a surprise to none, given that a law could not be written that addressed circumstances not possible to exist back in those days.
This was debated heavily in the Schiavo case. Since she lacked consciousness and self-awareness, was she still a person? Many said no. With liquified brains she lacked the ability to ever have consciousness or self-awareness again. Therefore, she did go from person to non-person, under several definitions.
There was no double-talking when they looked at the 14th amendment and read that it clearly referred to citizens (those with rights) as being BORN.
Except for the one little section of the 14th amendment which clearly defined citizens as BORN, and thereby, entitled to rights under the law. The Roe decision also determined the original intent of the Constitution did not include the unborn. What else could they have decided regarding original intent? Or do you think they could remove a 20 week old fetus and keep it alive in 1776?
Well gee, I don't think a person with an IQ of 70 would deny that, much less the Supremes!
Fine. Then point to the law which says all 'human beings' are entitled to rights and clearly outline those rights, if that is your argument here. It's hard to tell what your point is here.
Or maybe they looked for precedent in the law where the unborn were considered 'persons' and found none at all. Maybe they then looked at the 14th amendment and saw where it clearly stated citizens are BORN.
It hits to the core of legal personhood, though.
See what happens when you pull definitions at random out of dictionaries while ignoring the legal definitions and law? Such definitions mean nothing when it comes to the law. Such definitions mean nothing when the 14th amendment clearly states those with rights are BORN.
No, it stands to reason in 1776 when the document was written, we didn't have the means to allow a 20 week old fetus to survive, therefore our law could not possibly have addressed such a situation, so it obviously could not have been the intent of the authors to apply those rights to the unborn. Fortunately, the 14th amendment did address it and was quite clear of the intent.
Much like the snowjob that claims the unborn are 'persons' due equal rights and protection when the 14th amendment clearly states such rights apply to the BORN. There can't be a bigger snowjob than that one.

reply from: faithman

Which is obviously not the same as declaring they are not "persons," and is not evidence that they aren't.
It was all smoke and mirrors from the beginning. The supposed abeguity of the contistution, and the phrase "persons born", is the legal mumbo jumbo the courts used to do what they knew they never could do thry the legislature, that is "legalize" womb child destruction.

reply from: yoda

Are you speaking with a forked tongue, or out of both sides of your mouth?
You spend almost 100% of your time playing "semantic games", and then claim you have no interest in them when confronted by the plain, simple dictionary truth. Does the word "hypocrite" ring a bell?
Careful, you're describing many of your fellow proaborts!
See what happens when YOU pull definitions our of a legal dictionary in a vernacular discussion? You look silly as hell, that's what happens.
p.s. your sig line is very misleading, it ought to state "ignoring truth to expedite the killing of babies"

reply from: fetalisa

My example compares murdering a born to abortion of an unborn, in order to show how they are not at all the same. You counter by attempting to compare murder of the born to murder of the born, which all agree is the same.
It deprives both parents of a child and two siblings of a sibling. Whereas abortion of the unborn leaves the family lacking nothing they had previously.
Not at all. Killing a born child would deprive two parents of a child and two children of a sibling. Aborting the unborn leaves the family lacking nothing they had previously. In other words, abortion doesn't cause the loss killing the born does. Therefore, we can't treat abortion as being equivalent to abortion, since abortion leaves things exactly as they were before the pregnancy.
It sure is. Kill a born child and harm is done. Abort the unborn and no harm is done.
I say not. I would have killed a potential tree, not a tree, which is why your definition contains the adjective 'young.'
Read the 14th amendment then, where it states citizens, the ones due rights, are either BORN or naturalized.
Was Terry Schiavo a person once her brain liquified and her consciousness, self-awareness & personality became extint? Many argued not.
The 14 amendment provides a different definition which does not consider the unborn to be persons and so, not in possession of any rights.
Legally they are not.
The 14th amendment states otherwise.
Abortion is legal precisely because the unborn lack personhood.
Keep relying on Random House definitions. Beg the prolife attorneys to do the same when they argue in the courts too.
Conclusively prove to everyone but the legal system, which means your proof is worthless.

No, I said if you wish to equate abortion with murder, then you will step into law and legal definitions. You would rather point to Random House.
So then, your argument is now, abortion should be legally equivalent to murder since the Random House definition of persons includes the unborn. How do you overcome the 14th amendment statement that citizens entitled to rights are either BORN or naturalized? How do you overcome the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which clearly exempts defining abortion as an violent act against the unborn?
The 14th amendment clearly states citizens due rights are either BORN or naturalized. I am sorry that your Random House definition doesn't overcome that.
Not at all. The lack of death certificates proves once again the extreme differences between born and unborn. It also proves our society notes and recognizes those differences, no matter how much you wish they didn't exist.
What part of "for all practical and legal purposes never existed," do you not understand?

We issue death certificates for persons. We don't issue them for non-persons.

The point has nothing to do with whether they existed or not. We issue death certificates to persons. We don't issue death certificates in abortions or miscarriages. Therefore, whatever dies in abortion or miscarriage, isn't treated as a person. But then again, according to the 14th amendment, it wasn't anyway.
No more real than your comprehension skills.
I sure did. Abortion is exempted from the act. In other words, a woman who gets an abortion can't be prosecuted under the act.
I am sorry you didn't know the scientific terms for the unborn include zygote,embryo or fetus. That's what is removed in an abortion. Do you feel better now?
Then the prolifers are dishonest. If one claims abortion is murder, when it clearly is not, that's dishonest. Why don't the prolifers instead say, I wish abortion was murder?
Well that argument falls flat on its face, since the 14th amendment defines citizens as either BORN or naturalized, notwithstanding Random House definitions.
And the definition found in the 14th amendment trumps the definitions found in Random House.
No, that's the position of the 14th amendment, part of that document known as the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it? Some of us actually respect it.
The 14th amendment proves beyond all doubt a person isn't killed in the act of abortion. Random House doesn't have the power to prove otherwise either.
It depends on the jurisdiction.
There's no question they are, since they are born.
So the Constitution & 14th amendment are logical fallacies which deny established facts? Interesting.

reply from: fetalisa

True, but the question to undo the ban on abortion was on the ballot, and it was approved. None would approve it if they thought it equalled murder.
Agreed. They were quite aware of the reality that abortion isn't murder.

reply from: fetalisa

Obviously, since you support death.
Demonizing the oppostion? How utterly original. Perhaps I support cures for paraplegics or the blind. Perhaps I believe in scientifically produced miracles. But none of that will stop your agenda based assumptions, will it?

reply from: faithman

True, but the question to undo the ban on abortion was on the ballot, and it was approved. None would approve it if they thought it equalled murder.
Agreed. They were quite aware of the reality that abortion isn't murder.
how many womb children have you left in a planned parenthood trash can?

reply from: fetalisa

The definition found in the 14th amendment trumps Random House legally. But continue in your fantasy that this is not the case. 33 years from today the same arguments will be occurring on this board and abortion will still be legal. So cling to Random House, please!
It must be describing many in our society who also weren't swayed by Random House definitions. There a whole state full of people in South Dakota who knew better.
I am sorry you can't grasp the fact that discussions regarding the personhood of the unborn or abortion as murder will be intimately related to law and legal definitions.
Oh my! Accusations of baby killing! Gee, I have never heard of http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel before. I wonder if such over the top accusations might make impartial observers in society question the motivations of the one who lays the charge? Naaaaaaaaaaaaa, it couldn't be.

reply from: fetalisa

True that. but in 1776 we couldn't remove a 20 week old from a uterus and have it survive. by 1973 we could.

reply from: fetalisa

My point here is to attempt to understand the whys.
I have been all throughout my posts!

reply from: fetalisa

I love them actually. I also understand which type of dictionary to reference depending on the situation.
1. Prove your moral standard is higher
2. Prove why others should be obligated to follow a moral standard you have personally chosen for yourself which has no bearing at all on my life, nor the lives of others.
If you can prove #1 & #2 above, which is doubtful, you will then be free to prove any possibly consequences which might result from adhering to the moral standard you have personally chosen for yourself, outside of the laws of the land.

reply from: fetalisa

The 14th amendment states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Look at the first 3 words in the amendment; All persons born. Every single word which flows after that is referring back to the 'persons born or naturalized.' Strip out the phrases and view only the nouns & verbs and it becomes obvious the first 3 words of the section apply throughout the paragraph. This is not my interpretation, but the interpretation of the Supremes. There is no other way they could have interpreted this section. The passage does not begin with 'all persons born,' then all of a sudden jump to a definition of 'persons' found in Random House.
The other proof of the correctness of the interpretation was to consider the intent of the authors when the passage was written. When the document was written, we did not possess the ability to remove a 20 week old fetus from a uterus and have it survive. Therefore, the passage could not in any way, shape or form be discussing the unborn, nor be referring to the unborn as 'persons,' no more than ancient Egypt could have laws regarding the allowable speed limits of automobiles.
If you claim the definition you found in Random House has any application at all to the 14th amendment, you are living in a fantasy.

reply from: fetalisa

Not a one. You are aware Planned Parenthood provides needed medical services to women who carry their pregnancies to term, aren't you?

reply from: fetalisa

The 14th amendment denies the unborn are persons, Random House notwithstanding.

reply from: Sigma

This is correct. The section that reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States modifies the basic premise that the persons mentioned are born. There is absolutely no reason to construe that further mention of "person" would not also be born. They simply would not be born in the United States.
fetalisa, your link on blood libel is broken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

reply from: fetalisa

It is evidence the unborn are not legally 'persons.'
Oh I get it. You think the 14th amendment was the only law they looked at in legally defining the word 'person,' to discover what it included and excluded? Or are you still upset the Random House definition has no application at all as to personhood for the unborn, abortion being murder, or the imagined 'right to life' for the unborn?
The decision looked well beyond just the 14th amendment;
The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
So you can call it mumbo-jimbo all you want. In no case the court found the word 'person' used, throughout the Constitution and elsewhere, could it have possibly have been applied to the unborn.
What does this mean? The unborn are not persons, legally. Abortion is not murder, legally. The only 'right to life' the unborn might have, is wholly imagined.
Now can someone please explain how Random House definitions trump every single use of the word person to be found in the Constitution and our law?

reply from: fetalisa

How do you know? Can you prove they have consciousness? Can you prove they have self-awareness? Can you prove they know anything is happening at all?
It sure can if the child is actually wanted.
In the same way I would say if I stepped on an acorn and said 'no harm done.' I wouldn't run around saying I had killed a tree afterwards either.
How? You have no proof at all the unborn have enough awareness to even know what is occurring.

reply from: fetalisa

How do you figure? You can't even produce a death certificate that proves a person was killed.

reply from: yoda

Not necessarily. The 54% who voted to repeal the law may not have cared what you call it.

reply from: yoda

Hardly. You already stated your desire for more dead embryos.

reply from: yoda

That's the silliest statement yet. Legal definitions "trump" nothing. The apply ONLY to legal situations, they are totally inappropriate and meaningless in a vernacular discussion.
Do you really think that judges tell people how they may use words in the vernacular? Are you that daft?

reply from: ThunderKitten

fetalisa, when I said "If a fertilized egg could grow into a full term baby without the mother or father's involvement,", I meant it as a hypothetical, like if it was not in anyone's womb whatsoever, like it just sort of grew and then popped into momma's arms from nowhere. No pregnancy, no labor, no birth, it just showed up after it finished growing.
Basically, it's an indirect way of asking if you consider the unborn to have any value in and of themselves.
I don't know the statistics, but yes a good number do end up dying on their own. And yes, humans are entirely capable of killing the ones that do not die naturally.
So many die naturally, what difference does one more make?
There are a lot of people I wouldn't know if they hadn't been born, and if they hadn't I wouldn't have known the difference. But they are here. They beat the odds and were concieved, they beat the odds and did not die in the womb or soon after leaving it, and they are here today. They live their lives, but someday they, like all of us, will die. Does the inevitability of death mean that one should not be allowed to live as much life as one can?
Does being unable to lengthen one being's life mean that we are obliged to shorten another's?
Of course, unless you place some value on what lives inside the womb, its death will be of no consequence to you. Do you place any value, any whatsoever, on a human's unborn offspring?
That wasn't the point I was driving at. I was simply asking if, from the *woman's* point of view, there is ever any benefit to experiencing abortion. Obviously from my point of view there is not, but I am still curious if someone else might feel differently.
If the woman were to decide the abortion wasn't the best way to serve her needs, what then?

reply from: fetalisa

It is exactly the same. In both cases a person has been murdered. In both cases you have a death certificate which proves a person is dead.
It's very simple:
Family Example Pre-Murder
A.Dad
B.Mom
C.Kid1
D.Kid2
E.Kid3
Family Example Post-Murder
A.Dad
B.Kid1
C. Kid2
D. Kid3
Result: Husband has no wife.
3 kids have no mom.
Pre-Abortion Family
A.Dad
B.Mom
C.Kid1
D.Kid2
E.Kid3
Post Abortion Family
A.Dad
B.Mom
C.Kid1
D.Kid2
E.Kid3
Nothings changed. The family is in the same boat as before. The only difference is they don't have another child to feed, which they couldn't afford anyway.
Without a death certificate you have no proof a person has died.

Except in the second case the family has everything they had previously. In the case of a murdered born, the family does not. Therefore, the comparison has no similarity at all.
Exactly. The law proves that.

reply from: yoda

So if the SCOTUS makes a ruling, that "proves" something?

reply from: fetalisa

They were eventually declared to not be legal persons. it wasn't based solely on the wording in the 14th amendment. They scanned the Constitution for the word 'person,' as well as numerous other laws. The only thing they could conclude after seeing numerous instances of the use of the word, was that it had no application at all to the unborn in every context they saw the word used. It makes perfect sense too. Why would they have been discussing rights for the unborn when we had no way for them to survive outside of the uterus pre-birth back then? It simply wasn't an issue at the time the Constitution, amendments or laws were penned.
It's all the evidence we need. The unborn have no rights because they are not persons. This is a legal truth. Abortion is legal because it does not result in the death of a person. This is legal truth. Abortion isn't murder because a person isn't killed. This is legal truth. The 'right to life' is a fantasy, because only persons have rights and the unborn are not persons. This is legal truth.
Now you can still run around saying the unborn are persons or abortion is murder or quoting whatever definition of person you wish. Without legal backing for your theories however, none need pay any attention at all to what you claim.

reply from: fetalisa

Why would a people, a society or an author of law
1. who lived in a time when a 20 week old fetus could not live outside of a uterus and survive
2. knew of no 20 week olds fetii living outside of a uterus and never had heard of such or dreamed it was a possibility
3. so by #1 & #2, lived in a time when the unborn were not a consideration at all, ever
pen anything that mentioned the unborn at all?
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of trying to interpret of law from Jamestown in the mid-1600s as to be read as a speed limit for an automobile. Such an interpretation would be inherently flawed, since the people living at the time knew nothing of automobiles, couldn't conceive or dream up such technology and therefore, would have had no reason at all to write a law regarding speed limits of automobiles.
You are grasping at a very ugly and impossible straw here.
There is no distinction between born and unborn. They would no more be writing law with the intent to address the unborn than they would be writing law with the intent to addressing airplanes. The technology didn't exist to even consider such things, so such ideas simply weren't in their frame of reference when they wrote the law.
The passage is discussing citizenship, describes how citizenship comes from birth or naturalization. Can we therefore conclude the passage is only about citizenship with no application beyond it? No, we can not. It used the word 'person' in the law. It was only one example of the word 'person' they found in the law. They also looked at the context the word person was used throughout the Constitution, in addition to other laws reviewed which also contained the word person.
Having seen the use of the word over and over again, it became clear to them in almost every case, the word applied to born people. No serious argument could be presented that these laws written 2 centuries ago would in anyway, address the unborn.

reply from: yoda

Such fabrication serves no useful purpose.
"The unborn" as you so euphemistically call them (is that the title of a forthcoming horror movie?) have no rights because no one has awarded them any. "Rights" are an arbitrary legal award by a power that has the authority to grant them....... but not necessarily one ounce of brains, or one gram of compassion.
BTW, what's the rest of that phrase? You know, the "unborn" WHAT????

reply from: ThunderKitten

I'd rather not argue semantics, but...
All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are CITIZENS. The section describes the rights of citizens. ADDITIONALLY it includes *persons* "within its jurisdiction" as being under the equal protection of the laws.
It does not specify that "persons" in the general sense must have been born, much less born in the U.S. Or are only those born in the US to be considered persons? I'll grant that this does not specifically count the unborn, but please acknowledge that it doesn't deny them, either.

reply from: fetalisa

Thanks for your directness. Now I know what you mean exactly. For a woman who doesn't want one, there must be little value placed upon that particular unborn. For instance, a pregnant teen who is in high school and wishes to go to college might see little value in the unborn were she pregnant. However, the same woman at 30 with a Master's degree, a husband, a stable income, a home and a stable environment, might value her pregnancy above all.
Beautiful! Did you catch your own bias in that statement? You assume abortion can only kill an unborn that doesn't die naturally. Given the high number that do spontaneously abort or miscarry, how do you know that some abortions don't end up killing one that would have spontaneously aborted or miscarried anyway?
Assuming the unborn were legally persons, would it be morally proper to prosecute women for murder via abortion, when we would have no way of knowing if she killed one that would have died anyway?
Again, you miss the point that one that would have died 'naturally,' as you say, could well be the same one that was aborted.
Last I checked, there were over 400,000 embryos stored in nitrogen across the country at in vitro clinics. Just because we have them does it automatically follow that all should be brought to term? If so, why? And how do you suggest we achieve that?
We can create life in petri dishes, using natural processes. We can mass produce embryos for stem cell research to create cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, spinal chord injuries and who knows what else. (Mark my words, it's going to happen. Our evolution is at stake here. We had the same fight over Plan B, but the data won over the propaganda.) If we can mass produce embryos as we need, and we have 400,000 already in storage for in vitro, how does it follow that every single pregnancy MUST be brought to term?
To me, the definition of person includes consciousness/self-awareness. To me, once Terry Schiavo's brain went liquid, she was no longer a person. The 'who she was' no longer existed, which means her person no longer existed and had no chance at all of returning. If I became like her, kill me outright and think nothing of it at all. What would be the point of living if I can't be me and express the person I am, outside of a non-conscious body which my family could look at to hold onto what once was? (I wouldn't suggest such in a coma, however. I know too many people who woke out of them years later.)If the unborn have no consciousness/self-awareness, exactly what kind of life are we shortening? Do you have any evidence at all they have any awareness of what is happening? I don't.
Everyone's values are different. That's what living in a free country is about.
If it's not my offspring, it isn't my place to put a value on it. It's not my business. I can tell you of the people I know who have had kids they are happy they did. Of those who had abortions they are happy they did. Each valued their situations differently.
Of course there is, otherwise women wouldn't have them.
Talk to women who have had them, not just those who regretted it, but those glad they had them too, unless you want a slanted viewpoint.
Well what would you do if one option wasn't right for you?

reply from: fetalisa

More blood libel? How original. 33 years of it not working, yet that's still all you have to offer?

reply from: fetalisa

Of course. So prove me wrong by producing a death certificate for a 'person' who was killed in an abortion.
Fine, prove me wrong by producing a death certificate for a 'person' who was killed in an abortion. Oh that's right you can't do that, because our society doesn't issue death certificates when a non-person dies.
You know your insults won't run me off. We issue death certificates for dead persons. We don't issue death certificates for spontaneous abortions, miscarriages nor abortion. Thereby our society recognizes the unborn are not persons, not just in law, but in deed. My point still stands you've yet to refute it.

reply from: fetalisa

From the Roe decision - You asked for it:
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the
1.Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the
2.Due Process Clause and in the
3. Equal Protection Clause "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the
4. listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the
5. Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the
6. Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the
7. Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the
8. Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the
9. provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the
10. Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded
11.Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the

12. Fifth,
13. Twelfth, and
14. Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in
15. §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Did you catch that last part?
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
It didn't say possibly. It didn't say maybe. It didn't say might. It didn't say perhaps. It didn't say some. It didn't say a few. It didn't say a portion.
It said NONE indicate ANY possible pre-natal assurance. And this includes ALL 15 sources they checked that contain numerous instances of the word 'person.'
So are you ready to give up your impossible straw now that the decision, the law, the Constitution, the 5th, 12th. & 22nd amendments, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection clause, and of all the other sources they checked, None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
You've all been had by Randall Terry. It's your own fault you never bothered to read the documents yourself.
So the unborn are not persons. The unborn have no rights. The 'right to life' of the unborn is imaginary. Abortion is not murder since what is killed in an abortion isn't a person.
And why is this?
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Excuse me, but were you saying something?

reply from: faithman

From the Roe decision - You asked for it:
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the
1.Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the
2.Due Process Clause and in the
3. Equal Protection Clause "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the
4. listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the
5. Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the
6. Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the
7. Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the
8. Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the
9. provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the
10. Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded
11.Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the

12. Fifth,
13. Twelfth, and
14. Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in
15. §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Did you catch that last part?
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
It didn't say possibly. It didn't say maybe. It didn't say might. It didn't say perhaps. It didn't say some. It didn't say a few. It didn't say a portion.
It said NONE indicate ANY possible pre-natal assurance. And this includes ALL 15 sources they checked that contain numerous instances of the word 'person.'
So are you ready to give up your impossible straw now that the decision, the law, the Constitution, the 5th, 12th. & 22nd amendments, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection clause, and of all the other sources they checked, None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
You've all been had by Randall Terry. It's your own fault you never bothered to read the documents yourself.
So the unborn are not persons. The unborn have no rights. The 'right to life' of the unborn is imaginary. Abortion is not murder since what is killed in an abortion isn't a person.
And why is this?
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Excuse me, but were you saying something?
This is the dishonesty of your aurgument, and that of the court. The Spirit and intent of the document, is found in the preamble. The 14th does not deal with the pre-born, because the preamble already did.
Preamble of Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The blessings of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were secured for POSTERITY. Poserity means future generations. The constitution does indeed protect the future of the womb child.

reply from: fetalisa

Don't you get it? Terry Schiavo's brain had LIQUIFIED. There was no personality, no consciousness, no self-awareness, no person left. There was no chance that the person she was, or the personality she once had, or the consciousness she once had, or the self-awareness she once had or the person she once was, would ever return. Her personhood was gone totally once her brains liquified.
Unconscious people can return to consciousness, in the same way people can wake from comas. This was not the case with Schiavo. Not even close.

reply from: fetalisa

That's sad that you don't understand the difference between consciousness vs brown eyes in determining personhood. How would you feel if your brains had liquified and your consciousness, personality, self-awareness, etc could never return? Oh wait you wouldn't know, since your personhood would be extinct, even if your eyes were brown.

reply from: faithman

From the Roe decision - You asked for it:
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the
1.Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the
2.Due Process Clause and in the
3. Equal Protection Clause "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the
4. listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the
5. Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the
6. Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the
7. Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the
8. Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the
9. provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the
10. Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded
11.Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the

12. Fifth,
13. Twelfth, and
14. Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in
15. §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Did you catch that last part?
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
It didn't say possibly. It didn't say maybe. It didn't say might. It didn't say perhaps. It didn't say some. It didn't say a few. It didn't say a portion.
It said NONE indicate ANY possible pre-natal assurance. And this includes ALL 15 sources they checked that contain numerous instances of the word 'person.'
So are you ready to give up your impossible straw now that the decision, the law, the Constitution, the 5th, 12th. & 22nd amendments, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection clause, and of all the other sources they checked, None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
You've all been had by Randall Terry. It's your own fault you never bothered to read the documents yourself.
So the unborn are not persons. The unborn have no rights. The 'right to life' of the unborn is imaginary. Abortion is not murder since what is killed in an abortion isn't a person.
And why is this?
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]
Excuse me, but were you saying something?
This is the dishonesty of your aurgument, and that of the court. The Spirit and intent of the document, is found in the preamble. The 14th does not deal with the pre-born, because the preamble already did.
Preamble of Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The blessings of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were secured for POSTERITY. Poserity means future generations. The constitution does indeed protect the future of the womb child.

reply from: fetalisa

Keep dreaming that a document written in 1776 addressed the unborn in anyway. It is well established legal FACT and legal PRINCIPLE it did not, since the authors had no way to remove a 20 week old fetus from a uterus and keep it alive at the time it was written. There is no way they would consider it since it wasn't something the nation would face for 2 more centuries. If they couldn't consider it in their everyday world, there's no way they would be writing law about it.
You'd do better with Random House. Seriously.
So step up to the plate and be a man and earn some of your lost credibility back. Admit you've been had by the PL movement and Randall Terry. Now you know, the unborn aren't persons, don't have rights, the 'right to life' for the unborn is wholly imaginary and abortion isn't murder. Too bad you bought it hook, line and sinker. Next time check your sources before you get hooked in.
And don't forget, the reason you know the word 'person' does not apply to the unborn:
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
NONE!

reply from: fetalisa

It's not a fabrication to state the unborn have no rights. That's legal truth. It's why abortion is legal. It's why abortion isn't murder, because what's killed isn't a person. How is it fabrication to restate legal principles?

reply from: fetalisa

You really need to quit. The unborn wouldn't become an issue or even possible to have legal recognition until 2 centuries after this was written. It's obvious whose being dishonest here.

reply from: faithman

Keep dreaming that a document written in 1776 addressed the unborn in anyway. It is well established legal FACT and legal PRINCIPLE it did not, since the authors had no way to remove a 20 week old fetus from a uterus and keep it alive at the time it was written. There is no way they would consider it since it wasn't something the nation would face for 2 more centuries. If they couldn't consider it in their everyday world, there's no way they would be writing law about it.
You'd do better with Random House. Seriously.
So step up to the plate and be a man and earn some of your lost credibility back. Admit you've been had by the PL movement and Randall Terry. Now you know, the unborn aren't persons, don't have rights, the 'right to life' for the unborn is wholly imaginary and abortion isn't murder. Too bad you bought it hook, line and sinker. Next time check your sources before you get hooked in.
And don't forget, the reason you know the word 'person' does not apply to the unborn:
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
NONE!
Oh, so it doesn't apply because why? You say so? Then why did we have laws that criminalized abortion BEFORE RvW? Any idiot knows that a woman is carrying a child when pregnant. For years everyone new that a womb child is posterity. Miscarages have given unfortunant evidence of womb child development [unless of course you are going to try and tell me women didn't mis carry pre- RvW]

reply from: fetalisa

It doesn't apply because of the Roe decision. The part that stated there was no precedence to be found for the unborn as persons. It has nothing to do with me.
The abortion technologies were deadly to the women. Use your brain man. If abortion killed 50% of the women today, do you seriously think it would be legal? Abortion couldn't become legal until it was no longer deadly to the woman.
First of all, I don't know what you are talking about womb child is posterity. It doesn't sound like a legal term at all.
No, what I am telling you is humans do not write laws regarding situations they are not facing. In 1776, they did not have safe techniques of abortion. Therefore, why would any law they wrote be considering the unborn?
It wasn't until the mid 20th century, when abortion became safe, that the concept of the 'unborn' could even be invented. Or do you seriously think there were prolifers running around in 1776 when abortion was nonexistent? Do you think they could do much protesting when there weren't even any clinics?
The issue didn't exist. Period. So how could any use of the word 'person' in the Constitution have any application at all to the unborn? It couldn't. It's historically impossible. The Supremes scoured every document they could, but ultimately, they came to the only conclusion they could. The word 'person' simply did not, and could not, apply to the unborn in 1776, because it was a historical impossibility. Therefore, everywhere that word was used in the Constitution, it refers to the born IN EVERY CASE. Do you follow the logic and the reasoning now?

reply from: ThunderKitten

Ah, so that's what you were implying. I misread the point you were trying to make. Still... if ALL of those abortions would have ended in miscarriage anyway, abortion would be quite a pointless exercise and a waste of money to boot. I believe women have abortions because they presume that their pregnancies will not naturally ended in miscarriage. Also, one might consider that some women might have had an abortion, but miscarried before they made the appointment.
So, what percentage would have died anyway? If your 40% figure is true... less than half, I presume.
Interesting question. How do the laws work in regards to the killing of the terminally ill? That may provide some clues. Also, by inspecting the remains it may be possible to determine if the unborn had any fatal problems or was healthy and would likely have continued to term.
This is a difficult question for me, as while I would like abortion banned, I am uncertain of the consequences that should be applied. When (what was it, 1/2 or 1/4?) of the female populataion aborts in her lifetime, the potential practicle consequences of imprisoning all of them make it difficult to assess whether it would be right strictly on moral grounds. Certainly fewer would abort if it were illegal, but if abortion's incidence were reduced to a tenth, even, it would still be tremendous numbers in prison long term.
1. If they can be brought to term, yes. 2. I'll answer that in a seperate post- it's long. 3. First, by ceasing to create more embryos in excess of what would be transefered during IVF. Extra eggs and sperm can be stored seperately if the parents want to try again. Second, after a couple ceases to pay for storage, any remaining embryos should be made available for adoption to any fit parent who wants them, while insuring that the child be made fully aware of his/her genetic background/lineage. It would take awhile, but as long as extra embryos cease to be created, I'm certain that the 400,000 could all eventaully be brought to term, at least the ones that successfully implant. How long do embryos keep in the freezer, anyway?
I believe every living being experiences some form of sentience. Except maybe while in suspended animation. I have no doubt that insects are sentient, no doubt that ameobas are setnient, and no doubt that human embryos are sentient. They might not know what the heck is going on or where or what they are, but I'm sure they experience *something*. Kind of like when I wake up in the morning.
If her brain was literally liquid, it would have been unable to maintain her heartbeat, breathing, and other bodily functions. Now, whether the part of Terry we know to be "Terry" was still there I cannot say, but something was still there.
I meant a benefit beyond ending the pregnancy. Like, they look back and say, "You know, I guess getting pregnant and having an abortion ended up being a good thing, because of this and this and this. If I hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place it wouldn't have been as good, because of this and that and this."
It's not a question that gets asked a lot. I was wondering if a woman EVER feels that way.
Let me put it this way: A person is in a burning building. They can either jump to their death or stay and die of asphixiation. Someone offers them a third choice: a gun. Is offering the gun the best way to serve that person's needs? Does the fact that someone has given them a gun, which they ended up using, prove that someone has benefitted that person in some way?
A woman is pregnant. She can either give birth in poverty, unable to feed herself or her child or give it away to strangers AND have medical bills to pay and still be in poverty. Someone then gives her the choice of abortion. If she chooses abortion, was the abortion the best way to serve her needs? Does her choosing abortion prove that being given that choice has benefitted her in some way?

reply from: yoda

Oh gee, you must be one of those "walking dictionaries", since you make up your own definitions, right? I mean, you do have higher authority to define words than all the dictionaries put together, right? Did you get that from some president, prime minister, or secretary-general? Or are you expressing a "religious" definiton? Oh wait, you're just a walking bag of hot air, aren't you?
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

reply from: yoda

It isn't, but that's not what you did at all. You told an outright lie about WHY unborn humans have no rights.

reply from: Sigma

The qualification is where the person was born, not that the person was born. Your interpretation is a reach.
There is no logic to suggest that it applies only post-natally in every case except one. It is illogical to assume either "person" reference refers to the fetus.

reply from: Sigma

Thunderkitten
Only those born in the US are citizens. The amendment qualifies where, not if

reply from: faithman

Only those born in the US are citizens. The amendment qualifies where, not if
Count forty words into the predamble, and you find the word posterity. The 14th did not include the womb child, because the preamble already did.

reply from: Sigma

Why does the Fourteenth include "liberty", then, when the preamble already includes that? Where does the preamble state that the fetus is included in "posterity"?

reply from: fetalisa

The amendment discusses citizens, those entitled to rights, and states those rights are acquired either through birth or natualisation. In other words, without birth or naturalization, the rights discussed in the passage do not exist and are not granted.
But go ahead and try to convince yourselves otherwise. Go ahead and get hung up on this one passage, while denying the other 15 sources the court checked for the word 'person,' including the Constitution, the 5th & 12th amendments, qualifications for president, etc. Do remember your denials of the findings of the decision change nothing. You can't talk nor argue your way out of it.

reply from: fetalisa

Fine. Then explain why abortion is legal and is not considered murder of a person. Cite the law which states the unborn are persons due any rights, including the right to life. Explain how abortion is legal if a person's right to life is being violated by abortion.
Oh, that's right. You can't because there is no such law nor is there any precedent at all for the unborn to be considered persons.
I have been laughing that after 33 years abortion is still legal exactly due to the decision we have been discussing. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. That's why abortion is legal.

reply from: Sigma

fetalisa
It does indeed discuss citizens, but part of the passage refers to non-citizens as well.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The bolded section does not specify citizens, so it can apply to those born outside of the United States but fall within its jurisdiction.

reply from: yoda

Siggy baby! We've got a special thread we saved just for YOU! Do you STILL "agree"?

reply from: fetalisa

And the word 'person' does not include the unborn, because it was historically impossible for it to do so when the unborn would not be an issue until 2 more centuries had passed.
Meanwhile, abortion is legal because it doesn't kill a person.

reply from: Sigma

I agree the word 'person' was not intended to include the fetus. I'm merely pointing out the Amendment refers to more than just citizens.

reply from: yoda

Oh Siggy, we have a special thread for you........ don't forget to post on it today........

reply from: yoda

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD

reply from: faithman

Yoda, I admire your stamina. It is so wearisome trying to make since to the willing ignorant, the twisters of words, and the perverters of truth. Thank you for standing. It gives the rest of us the courage to go on by your example.

reply from: fetalisa

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html
">http://encarta.msn.com/diction...217/person.html
per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
">http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16
">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...erson&x=16&y=16
Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact
">http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/...matchtype=exact
Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD
You are free to quote whatever definitions you wish. It doesn't alter the fact on iota, that the unborn are not persons and therefore don't have rights assured to persons. Your definitions have no legal weight at all, which means your definition is legally worthless, which is exactly why abortion is still legal. Abortion doesn't kill a person.This is LEGAL FACT.
The prolife arguments haven't changed in 33 years. They have also not worked for 33 years so abortion is still legal. Continue quoting Random House while our society continues to recognize the LEGAL FACT that the unborn are not persons, therefore, abortion isn't murder. 33 years of the same legally ineffective argument has gotten you nowhere, yet you still persist. Thanks goodness! Carry on!

reply from: fetalisa

Your words mean nothing. Instead why don't you prove me wrong? Cite the law which states the unborn are persons possessing any rights at all. If you can't do that, then the validity of your position becomes obvious to all.

reply from: yoda

Well I do my best, which isn't quite as good as it used to be. But I figure that if the babykillers are going to be so persistent in telling their transparent lies, I may as well try to put some fig leaves on them.
Isn't it odd how they seem to be totally blind and deaf?

reply from: yoda

Gosh, THANKS! I sure do appreciate having your permission!! 8-D
You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in the butt. You are the most obstinate, intentionally, purposely blind poster we've had here in quite a while.
Everyone else has already caught on, months ago, to the difference between a centuries old vernacular definition that we all use in everyday conversation, and a recent, highly specialized, very narrowly applicable legal definition of that same word. You CANNOT change, overrule, or "trump" vernacular definitions!! They are always perfectly valid for as long as they are in current usage. Legal definition apply ONLY to legal documents (and legal discussions)!! THAT 'S ALL THEY'RE GOOD FOR!!
But not YOU!! No, you continue to blindly blunder on, oblivious to everything but your own words.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. All-American Proabort....... you're making a spectacle of yourself.

reply from: fetalisa

Because they are not persons. It's very simple. Every reference the court checked, including the Constitution and the other 14 references, it was easily established each use of the word 'person' applied to those born. Viewing the documents from a historical standpoint, it's the only possible conclusion they could reach.
You already know whether you accuse me of being a baby killer or accuse me of lying, it will not run me off. Nice try though.
So my point still stands. Legally, the unborn are not persons, have never been considered persons, do not possess any rights granted to persons, including the imagined 'right to life,' and so, abortion therefore isn't murder of a person, which is why it is still legal.
Consider the magnitude of what this means. All Roe did on the issue of legal personhood, was reconfirm a very, very, long standing legal precedent. At the time Roe was decided, the legal non-personhood of the unborn was 200 years old already in America. Yet remember, that same legal precedent also existed in English common law, from which our law derived. This is a very long standing legal precedent spanning centuries.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly, in a discussion regarding how consciousness relates to personhood, you mention brown eyes, which has no relation to either personhood nor legal consciousness, leaving the impression on the readers you lack the mental agility to stay on the topic actually being discussed.
I am not the one who confused physical traits of persons with traits of personhood. You missed the point here, not I.

reply from: yoda

You know, if you would stick to that statement, and not try to embellish it with a pack of lies, you might have some credibility. That statement is true, as far as it goes, which isn't very far. "Legally" is the ONLY sense in which the word "person" does not apply to unborn humans, and "legally" ONLY MATTERS in the legal arena, NOT in everyday life, or in everyday conversations! Legal terminology has NO......... I repeat NO authority in "non-legal" areas!!
Why is such a simple concept so difficult for you?

reply from: fetalisa

Do you not know murder is illegal?
The fact you have to ask such questions at all casts doubt on your intelligence, not mine,

reply from: yoda

I'm not commenting on that, but your willingness to see the plain black and white truth right in front of your face is highly suspect, in my book.

reply from: fetalisa

Then why is abortion legal? Why isn't it murder? Could it be because your Random House definitions have no legal standing at all?
Your definition has no legal standing. How is that making a spectacle? I simply state a legal truth.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

You can't be that brainless. The point is, we can not treat the unborn like we do the born. Have you ever seen a woman pull a zygote out of her uterus, sit it in a high chair and feed it some Gerber? No, you have not. Since we can't treat them the same in the real world, there is no reason to treat them the same legally.
Have you ever seen a parent pull a two year old out of their crib and stick them in front of the wheel of a car? No, you have not. Since we can't treat two year olds and sixteen year olds the same in the real world, there is no reason to treat them the same legally.
[/sarcasm]

reply from: yoda

I can absolutely guarentee you that the subject of vernacular definitions did not come up in the deliberations on Roe..... no, all you need to do is to read Roe to see that abortion is legal because th 73 court ruled that "privacy" was more important than unborn babies. Blackmun wrote that he did not "believe" that the reference to "person" in the 14th applied to them, and that is the ONLY occurance of the word "legal" that he mentioned! He did not say that hereafter and forever more no one shall refer to them as people, he did not say that their ruling changed the vernacular definition of person, he did not say that their legal ruling changed anything except to whom the 14th amendment applied.
No, he did not say any of those things..... all of them are in your head ONLY.
Those of us who live our lives without opening a legal book most days do not care what the legal implications of the word "person" are, we know that it ONLY matters in the legal arena.
I'm wondering, do you go around all day long with your little legal dictionary, correcting people's everyday conversations?

reply from: faithman

I can absolutely guarentee you that the subject of vernacular definitions did not come up in the deliberations on Roe..... no, all you need to do is to read Roe to see that abortion is legal because th 73 court ruled that "privacy" was more important than unborn babies. Blackmun wrote that he did not "believe" that the reference to "person" in the 14th applied to them, and that is the ONLY occurance of the word "legal" that he mentioned! He did not say that hereafter and forever more no one shall refer to them as people, he did not say that their ruling changed the vernacular definition of person, he did not say that their legal ruling changed anything except to whom the 14th amendment applied.
No, he did not say any of those things..... all of them are in your head ONLY.
Those of us who live our lives without opening a legal book most days do not care what the legal implications of the word "person" are, we know that it ONLY matters in the legal arena.
I'm wondering, do you go around all day long with your little legal dictionary, correcting people's everyday conversations?
I am sure only when it gets in the way of their blood lust. Unlike the hamsters. their song is not so simple.

reply from: fetalisa

They simply don't want to play roulette.
It's reasonable to me that might have happened. I don't know of any such cases, though.
You are comparing apples and oranges again in comparing born with unborn. The terminally ill are legally persons. The unborn are not. Looking at laws regarding terminally ill persons would therefore have no applications. Additionally, I don't know that of the unborn who end in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, if any could be considered to be 'terminally ill.'
I was quite frankly shocked when I read the first responses on this thread. I could not believe the people here were wholly serious in suggesting women who seek abortions be jailed were abortion banned. The prolifers I have discussed this with on other boards, have all said legal penalties would only fall on doctors in such a situation, which opens up a legal minefield on its own. This is the first PL board I have ever visited where it was seriously suggested women who seek abortion should be jailed. The consensus is such a suggestion would be so extreme as to turn the public wholly against the cause in backlash.
Banning stops nothing. If religion is banned, it goes underground. If drugs are banned, they go underground. When alcohol was banned, it went underground. All we end up with abortion bans are women dead from coat hangers. Been there don't that. Don't see the point of going there again.
You, nor I, nor the government has any business telling others what to do with their sperm and ova. That's an individual choice. The other reason I don't think this will work is, couples who go IVF spend HUGE amounts of money. In spite of the thousands, (I know people who did this), there is never any guarantee of anything. There is no guarantee an egg will ever be fertilized. From what I understand, this is why the IVF clinics try to get as many fertilized as possible. Even if you end up with say 5, you can implant one, which won't implant correctly or won't make it to term. Rather than starting over, you have 4 left. I just don't see how we can 1. tell people what they can and can not do with their sperm and ova. Tell people they can only create one embryo at a time, to the tune of say 15 grand, when, for that same grand, they could get maybe 5-10 embryos as insurance if the first doesn't implant or doesn't make it to term.
I am going to make a very cheesy and low-rent argument here, but only in the hopes it will make my point readily understandable. Would you want someone else ordering you to adopt your children out to others? That's all I have to say.
Why must all be eventually brought to term? What's in it for you if they are all brought to term? Question 2 is, if abortion is banned and the unborn is determined to be a legal person, do we prosecute the IVF clinics for 400,000 murders if the embryos should all die? Embryos can't remain frozen forever. I don't know how long they last. We could look it up, I am sure.
Schaivo didn't once her brains went liquid.
We've no proof.
Except people remember what they did this morning. I know of no documented cases where people remembered being in the womb. I doubt such a thing could be documented anyway.
Read the court decision.
Read the decision. Seriously.
If they had an abortion I seriously doubt they would view the pregnancy that led to it as a benefit.
Why would she is the case of say, birth control failed and she didn't want a kid which is why she was using birth control in the first place. There's no reason to ask that question at all in such a situation.
You compare pregnancy to being in a burning building?
If she makes the choice one would hope she made the best choice for herself.

reply from: faithman

I hope you keep posting your garbage so the world can see just how really stupid Pro-abort scum bag maggot punks truely are.

reply from: fetalisa

They did define the word, by finding other documents where the word was used. By looking at the context in which the word was used, it became clear those who used the words were referring to born people every time it was used.
And part of interpreting law can never involve determining the intent a word carries in usage? UTTERLY BRILLIANT!
So when the word 'travel' appears on 18th century law, we can only conclude it includes automobiles, airplanes and spaceships? YOU ARE KILLING ME HERE!
The documents are meaningless only if we do not know or can not discover the intent conveyed in the words used.
HAHAHA! You've got the entire process backwards! What an ....oh nevermind. Dude! The court had no interest at all in applying a later definition to the word 'person.' By checking other documents where the word was used, the point was to discover what was the intention where it was originally used.
HAHAHA! There was no evidence the unborn were ever considered persons. What part of that do you not get? The decision stated if it could be determined the unborn were persons, they would be do the same rights as other persons. However, they coudn't find ANY past case AT ALL which HAD EVER addressed such an issue. How could they? Abortion didn't exist. There were no clinics. How could law address something that never happened in history before? You are pulling at the most nonexistent of straws possible here.
You really need to quit:
"None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."
NONE HAVE ANY ASSURANCE OF ANY POSSIBLE PRENATAL APPLICATION
NONE HAVE ANY POSSIBLE PRENATAL APPLICATION
Maybe if you see the sentence broken down you will finally get it. Either that or you already get it, but aren't man enough to admit you've been beaten.
The decision of the court was based solely on the assumption that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not intend for the word "person" to include the unborn! Absolutely no evidence was presented that they did not!
BINGO! BY JOVE I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT! In interpreting the law, if they see an 18th century reference to travel, they can't automatically assume a law covers cars or airplanes, since cars or airplanes did not exist at the time an 18th century law was written.
Instead, when a judge, any judge, interprets law, they must first learn the INTENT behind the law before it can be interpreted. What was the INTENT of the people when they used the word person?
Congratulations! You finally understand exactly how law is to be interpreted. One seeks to discover the original intent of the law.
You are so incredibly dishonest here. Why did you not include the rest of that argument, which proves exactly where this argument led?
"On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
I am not going any further in answering this. You have proven beyond a doubt you are wholly lacking any sense of honesty in that you are being as deceitful as you possibly can.
It clearly shows it if you quit cherry picking:
"no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
"no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Indeed!
Nice try. The Supremes cited 15 documents in determining the definition of the word 'person.' The Constitution was one of them, which was cited several times.
If you have proof 1776 society had the means to remove a 20 week old fetus from a womb and have it survive, by all means present it.
I am so glad I'm not like you.

reply from: fetalisa

HAHA! You seriously think accusations of bloodlust overcomes our laws! HAHAHA! Looks like abortion will remain legal for some time to come.

reply from: fetalisa

The prolife movment would know. The movement hasn't accomplished a thing in 33 years because they truly do not think the law matters.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Tell me, lisa, do you also think it's okay to kill two year olds? After all, they don't get treated like sixteen year old, therefore they shouldn't have the same right to life as them, correct?

reply from: Sigma

A qualification was made. "Citizen" refers to people born in the US and the most logical conclusion to reach when "in the US" was dropped is that others are born elsewhere. Your conclusion is a reach; it has no factual or logical basis.
It would be similar to saying: Those born in the US are citizens, otherwise they are not citizens but have equal protection. The most logical interpretation of "otherwise" would be those born outside the US, not those born outside the US or unborn outside or inside the US. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the authors included those in the womb in their considerations while it is obvious that those born were the subject of their considerations.
Or: the context makes it fairly obvious that it refers to those born. The Supreme Court agrees, and they have the authority to interpret the Constitution. The dictionary definition has no authority. None.

reply from: Sigma

No, the only fact is that some dictionaries say all humans are persons. That means little since dictionary definitions have no authority over how words are used. They record usage, they do not determine usage.
It is not an objective fact that the fetus is a person. It depends on the context. In the context of the Constitution, the fetus is not a "person".

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

That seems like such a silly question. Of course, abortion is murder. It is premeditated and involves carrying out steps to bring about the death of an unwanted individual.

reply from: fetalisa

Your assumption is obviously and wholly incorrect. If your assumption were correct, then the unborn would be persons entitled to 'life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.' IF that were the case, abortion would be illegal since it would be depriving a person of life. So obviously, your interpretation is not only squirrelly, but an even weaker attempt than the ones you've already made, which have been made solely to avoid admitting you are wrong.

reply from: fetalisa

Who cares? Who here on a prolife board would argue the unborn aren't an 'issue.'
The unborn are not persons legally, which is precisely why abortion is legal. And you know this. You are just too embarrassed to admit that you fell for Randall Terry's horsesh*t.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet you will never speak of legal truths as you walk around claiming abortion is murder. You will never admit a 'right to life' for the unborn is wholly imaginary, since they aren't legal persons. I know exactly why you wish to flee from legal facts and legal truths. Every single prolife argument falls apart the minute we step into the law. I don't blame you at all for avoiding it.
Oh I understand it now. When I began this topic and asked if doctors who perform abortions and women who seek abortions should be jailed for murder, how many people responded yes? How did they answer? 'Well the penalty for killing the unborn should be the same for killing a born.' And now you suggest we should just sweep all the legal talk under the rug? Now you say it doesn't matter what the legal definition of a 'person' is. Let's just ignore the legal fact the unborn are not persons, not entitled to the rights of persons, and throw women and doctors in jail, regardless.
I understand you completely now.

reply from: ChristianSoldier

Scott Peterson was charged with the premeditated murder of "Baby Conner Peterson, a fetus"
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/peterson/captrsn120103crinf2.html
Abortion is also murder.
Determine THAT truth.

reply from: fetalisa

No it is not. I stand corrected.
What are you referring to here?
There was no creative interpretation. They made the only possible decision that they could.
They did mean exactly what they wrote. The word person always meant born. The prolife movement has worked to change the meaning of the word 'person' to include the unborn, but this is a late 20th century invention. This is part of the reason the court interpreted the word to have no application to the unborn.
The court ruled correctly. There was no precedent in either American nor English common law of an unborn being a person. If they had ruled the unborn were persons, then they would have been ignoring the intent of the usage of the word in all 15 sources they cited. It would have left us with an activist decision by activist judges applying meaning to the word 'person' that was never intended in the documents they sourced.
Their determination of the intent of the word 'person' as used in the cited sources, was not the whole on which the decision rested. There was also very long standing legal precedent where the unborn had never been considered persons.
Can you be specific here?
What law are you referring to? Also, if the law to which you refer has no bearing nor relation at all to the concept of personhood of the unborn, forget I asked, since it would be immaterial to the discussion.
On what basis, in determing the meaning of the word 'person' in the 15 sources the court cited, would the court need to reference a document from 1973? How would that have helped them determine the original intent the word 'person' conveyed in the 15 sources they sourced, including the Constitution and 14th amendment?
That phrase is prefaced by this though:
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally.
Does that make it more clear for you? And legally, it does mean they aren't persons. This is precisely why abortion is legal. Abortion doesn't kill a person.
Source?
The evidence was extremely conclusive. The word 'person' "is such that it has application only post-natally." That is hardly inconclusive. The fact there is a centuries old precedent wherein the unborn have NEVER been recognized as persons is also quite conclusive.
I never stated the 14th amendment was written in 1776. The Supremes sourced 15 documents containing the word person. You assumed the 1776 date referenced the 14th amendment, rather than one of the 14 other documents sourced.

reply from: fetalisa

It is illegal to kill persons.
Abortion kills the unborn.
Therefore, the unborn aren't persons,
which is why abortion is legal.

reply from: fetalisa

Mirror mirror on the wall........

reply from: AshMarie88

It is illegal to kill persons.
Abortion kills the unborn.
Therefore, the unborn aren't persons,
which is why abortion is legal.
The death penalty is legal, so it MUST not kill people.
Also, it was legal to kill slaves in the past, but those same slaves were deemed much less than human or people, so it was "okay" to kill them.
Just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean the unborn aren't people.
However, why not apply that logic to people who are charged with two murders when they kill pregnant women? If the unborn are people or living then, how are they not when the mom chooses to kill them?

reply from: fetalisa

Drunk driving kills legal persons.
Abortion does not, leaving a family in the exact same position they were in before the pregnancy.
Therefore, we've no reason to ban it.
If we did ban abortion, many female legal persons would die from coat hangers.
That alone is reason to keep it legal.
Embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not persons. You have no say in what happens to them, nor should you, unless they are yours. For instance, there have been several divorce cases where it must be decided which of the two divorcing parties retains control of frozen embryos stored at IVF clinics. You have no say in such cases because it simply isn't your business, unless the frozen embryos belong to you. This is LEGAL FACT.
The topic you replied to discusses what is to be done with the 400,000 frozen embryos stored across the country in IVF clinics. Your answer, therefore is nonsensical, since it fails to address the topic under discussion.
The topic you replied to discusses what is to be done with the 400,000 frozen embryos stored across the country in IVF clinics. Your answer, therefore is nonsensical, since it fails to address the topic under discussion.
How can you prosecute the IVF clinics for killing 400,000 frozen embryos when you don't have 400,000 death certificates to prove 400,000 persons are dead?
They are not. That's why abortion is legal.
How can you prosecute someone for killing them when you dont' have a death certificate? You can't even prove a person died.
Abortion doesn't harm others. Abortion involves removing something from a uterus which you have no say over at all, unless its your uterus.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. We are discussing abortion, not what might occur or could occur after a birth. Got it?
If the woman chooses abortion there is no child.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. We are discussing abortion, not what might occur or could occur after a birth. Got it?

reply from: fetalisa

You have it backwards.
Since the unborn aren't legal persons, abortion is legal.

reply from: fetalisa

You keep right on pretending there is no difference between born and unborn. I have indisputably proven, not only does the law recognize the differences, but the law also applies vastly different rules and legal principles in dealing with the unborn and the born.
Keep up your pretense on the no difference thing though. Ignoring the very obvious differences between the two, particularly with respect to the law, has kept abortion legal for 33 years.

reply from: fetalisa

Killing persons is murder.
Abortion isn't murder because a person isn't killed.
For example, if either of the 2 yr old or 16 yr old persons were killed, you would have a death certificate as proof a person died. Additionally, a family would have lost a member of either 2 years or 16 years, depending on which one was killed.
In the case of abortion, you have no death certificate, which means you have no proof a person died. Additionally, after abortion, the family member is left in the exact same state as before the pregnancy, with no family member missing, suffering no loss at all.
Is that simple enough for you to grasp? I sure hope it helps!

reply from: fetalisa

That fetus was not a legal person.
Abortion isn't murder. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons, nor do they possess any rights, including the wholly imaginary 'right to life.'
You lifers have been rabidly screaming abortion is murder through foaming mouths for 33 years. Abortion is still legal. What do those truths tell you about your arguments? What good has it done you to accuse others of being baby killers? Did it work? NO! Abortion is still legal.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Pretty close to what I was asking, but not quite... I'm not asking if the pregnancy was good, or the abortion, but if the *combination* of the two could ever be considered benficial.
Ok, fake example: A woman, three years after the abortion tells her friends, "I'm so glad that I got pregnant and had an abortion, because if that hadn't had happened I wouldn't have found out what a scumbag my ex was and might have even ended up marrying him!"
Does that kind of thing ever happen? Note: I'm *not* trying to prove a point with this question, I'm just honestly curious.
You were asking in the context that the unborn were considered persons, I assume as much so as the born. In that sense it would be apples to apples. But even if that were not so, I thought that, considering that the terminally ill are essentially guarunteed to die, looking at laws allowing or dissallowing killing them and the reasoning behind it would give us some idea whether killing an unborn child who *might* have died anyway should result in legal prosecution. I wasn't suggesting copying the laws, only examining them as a starting point to answering that question.
There's a lot of conflicting opinion on this. How does one sort fact from fiction? How did you come to the conclusion that this is the most accurate summation of what happened?
Certainly abortion still occured under a ban, but that by itself does not discredit banning it. And even if the consequences to a woman for aborting back then were worse, the question would be, WHY were they worse? And as for women self-aborting, and using improvised implements, the question is, why? "It was illegal to abort" is not a sufficient explanation to either question.
No. I was trying to illustrate a point.
Instead of looking at it as pro-lifers trying to take away abortion, let's look at it as pro-choicers *giving* women the option to abort. Now, from that perspective... Let's say a woman is pregnant and in an apparantly hopeless situation. You look at her situation, and feeling sympathy try to help her. She says this is wrong or that is wrong, and that she can't see any way to bring up the child. So, you give her the option of aborting. You have done nothing to solve any of the problems that prevent her from feeling able to care for her offspring, but you DO give her the option of eliminating it. Was that the best way to serve her needs? Did you give her an option that appealed to her, or would she compare it to choosing between a rock and a hard place?
Put another way, if a woman had that support she needed, would she still abort?
Put another way, if my sympathy was strictly for the woman, I still would not see abortion as particularly benficial. It is a mark of failure, whether personal, societal, or failure of her birth control. Note that I'm not saying I'd lay blame, only that something has gone wrong. If we have any concern for others, we would seek to identify the cause of such failure and find ways to correct it so that she and other women would not be put in such undesireable posistions.
In 33 years, have we done anything to fix the problems that drive women to the abortion clinic?
Yet another practicle reason why I would be reluctent to entertain the idea of imprisioning those who have abortions.
I don't think it would have to be made a law to be accomplished. Perhaps dialoging with the clinics would be sufficient to get them to change their policy. Or at least give patients the OPTION of not creating extra embryos. Is that option currently available?
I didn't say one, I meant as many as would be transfered to the uterus in that cycle. Who knows, that could be as many as four at once. By the way, do you know of any good literature on what happens during IVF that includes specific details of what they do with the eggs and sperm? What part of the technique makes it so expensive anyway? My idea seemed logical enough, but I suppose things could be rather complicated...
How much does it cost to put the sperm and eggs in a petri dish the second time? I have no opposition to collecting too many eggs, and I'd think the intial collection of eggs would be the expensive part.
Ok, maybe not ceasing to pay for storage... how about if the couple authorizes destruction of the embyros? Wouldn't that essentially be relinquishing any parental rights they have toward their children? I don't see how they could object to children they've given up all rights to being adopted. Or, if the parents died, the embryos would essentially be orphans. I don't think parents could prevent someone else from raising their children in the event of parental death. They could state a preference of who raises the kids in their will or something, but not demand their children be abandoned or killed.
Nothing whatsoever. I don't feel it's necessary to see a personal gain to care about an outcome.
Do you have anything to gain from what happens to them?
I'd think not unless the IVF clinics actively caused their death, like by incinerating them, or by defrosting them when no womb was available.
Now, if the clinics were to create more excess embryos after the law were passed, knowing that most would die in their freezers... ooh, that's a tough one. Hmmm... they would have caused the person's death by creating the person in the first place. It's not their fault that noone will carry the embryos in their womb, but... the are responsible for the situation... Hmmm.... tricky!

Schaivo didn't once her brains went liquid.
When I say every being, I mean every. Like, bacteria and grass and stuff. Of course the form of sentience that people typically value tends to involve the being having a brain and a noticeable ability to respond to its enviroment.
Now, regarding Terry. I find it highly unlikely for a human being to be able to breathe or have a heartbeat without having *any* brain whatsoever. Her brain may have been mostly gone, the cavity may have been mostly filled with liquid, but surely there was some functioning brain tissue there.
The question becomes not, was there a living human being there, but is the part that we value still there? Was the part Terry considered to be "Terry" still there? And if not, what of the fact that there is something living and human still present? I suppose I shall find the court decision and read that, but even without that there is a lot to ponder. But, if you're wondering what I would want if I were in that situation, just see my signature.
As a general rule, I would rule to keep people alive on the basis that if there's nothing there, there's nothing to suffer, and if there is something there, there is a person who, in spite of their disabilities, should be granted the opportunity to live. Even if it's a sucky life, life is all anyone ever has. Of course, not having infintie resources makes things more complicated, eh?
We've no proof.
I believe my eyes and judgement are as useful a tool as any in science. I have observed human children, they look alive and sentient to me. I have watched one celled organisms under the microscope, and they also look alive and sentient to me. I have no reason to believe that multi-celled human embryos would be any less sentient than one-celled non-humans.
Except people remember what they did this morning.
Although true, I meant that line to be a funny comment to liven things up a smidgen.

reply from: faithman

Pretty close to what I was asking, but not quite... I'm not asking if the pregnancy was good, or the abortion, but if the *combination* of the two could ever be considered benficial.
Ok, fake example: A woman, three years after the abortion tells her friends, "I'm so glad that I got pregnant and had an abortion, because if that hadn't had happened I wouldn't have found out what a scumbag my ex was and might have even ended up marrying him!"
Does that kind of thing ever happen? Note: I'm *not* trying to prove a point with this question, I'm just honestly curious.
You were asking in the context that the unborn were considered persons, I assume as much so as the born. In that sense it would be apples to apples. But even if that were not so, I thought that, considering that the terminally ill are essentially guarunteed to die, looking at laws allowing or dissallowing killing them and the reasoning behind it would give us some idea whether killing an unborn child who *might* have died anyway should result in legal prosecution. I wasn't suggesting copying the laws, only examining them as a starting point to answering that question.
There's a lot of conflicting opinion on this. How does one sort fact from fiction? How did you come to the conclusion that this is the most accurate summation of what happened?
Certainly abortion still occured under a ban, but that by itself does not discredit banning it. And even if the consequences to a woman for aborting back then were worse, the question would be, WHY were they worse? And as for women self-aborting, and using improvised implements, the question is, why? "It was illegal to abort" is not a sufficient explanation to either question.
No. I was trying to illustrate a point.
Instead of looking at it as pro-lifers trying to take away abortion, let's look at it as pro-choicers *giving* women the option to abort. Now, from that perspective... Let's say a woman is pregnant and in an apparantly hopeless situation. You look at her situation, and feeling sympathy try to help her. She says this is wrong or that is wrong, and that she can't see any way to bring up the child. So, you give her the option of aborting. You have done nothing to solve any of the problems that prevent her from feeling able to care for her offspring, but you DO give her the option of eliminating it. Was that the best way to serve her needs? Did you give her an option that appealed to her, or would she compare it to choosing between a rock and a hard place?
Put another way, if a woman had that support she needed, would she still abort?
Put another way, if my sympathy was strictly for the woman, I still would not see abortion as particularly benficial. It is a mark of failure, whether personal, societal, or failure of her birth control. Note that I'm not saying I'd lay blame, only that something has gone wrong. If we have any concern for others, we would seek to identify the cause of such failure and find ways to correct it so that she and other women would not be put in such undesireable posistions.
In 33 years, have we done anything to fix the problems that drive women to the abortion clinic?
Yet another practicle reason why I would be reluctent to entertain the idea of imprisioning those who have abortions.
I don't think it would have to be made a law to be accomplished. Perhaps dialoging with the clinics would be sufficient to get them to change their policy. Or at least give patients the OPTION of not creating extra embryos. Is that option currently available?
I didn't say one, I meant as many as would be transfered to the uterus in that cycle. Who knows, that could be as many as four at once. By the way, do you know of any good literature on what happens during IVF that includes specific details of what they do with the eggs and sperm? What part of the technique makes it so expensive anyway? My idea seemed logical enough, but I suppose things could be rather complicated...
How much does it cost to put the sperm and eggs in a petri dish the second time? I have no opposition to collecting too many eggs, and I'd think the intial collection of eggs would be the expensive part.
Ok, maybe not ceasing to pay for storage... how about if the couple authorizes destruction of the embyros? Wouldn't that essentially be relinquishing any parental rights they have toward their children? I don't see how they could object to children they've given up all rights to being adopted. Or, if the parents died, the embryos would essentially be orphans. I don't think parents could prevent someone else from raising their children in the event of parental death. They could state a preference of who raises the kids in their will or something, but not demand their children be abandoned or killed.
Nothing whatsoever. I don't feel it's necessary to see a personal gain to care about an outcome.
Do you have anything to gain from what happens to them?
I'd think not unless the IVF clinics actively caused their death, like by incinerating them, or by defrosting them when no womb was available.
Now, if the clinics were to create more excess embryos after the law were passed, knowing that most would die in their freezers... ooh, that's a tough one. Hmmm... they would have caused the person's death by creating the person in the first place. It's not their fault that noone will carry the embryos in their womb, but... the are responsible for the situation... Hmmm.... tricky!

Schaivo didn't once her brains went liquid.
When I say every being, I mean every. Like, bacteria and grass and stuff. Of course the form of sentience that people typically value tends to involve the being having a brain and a noticeable ability to respond to its enviroment.
Now, regarding Terry. I find it highly unlikely for a human being to be able to breathe or have a heartbeat without having *any* brain whatsoever. Her brain may have been mostly gone, the cavity may have been mostly filled with liquid, but surely there was some functioning brain tissue there.
The question becomes not, was there a living human being there, but is the part that we value still there? Was the part Terry considered to be "Terry" still there? And if not, what of the fact that there is something living and human still present? I suppose I shall find the court decision and read that, but even without that there is a lot to ponder. But, if you're wondering what I would want if I were in that situation, just see my signature.
As a general rule, I would rule to keep people alive on the basis that if there's nothing there, there's nothing to suffer, and if there is something there, there is a person who, in spite of their disabilities, should be granted the opportunity to live. Even if it's a sucky life, life is all anyone ever has. Of course, not having infintie resources makes things more complicated, eh?
We've no proof.
I believe my eyes and judgement are as useful a tool as any in science. I have observed human children, they look alive and sentient to me. I have watched one celled organisms under the microscope, and they also look alive and sentient to me. I have no reason to believe that multi-celled human embryos would be any less sentient than one-celled non-humans.
Except people remember what they did this morning.
Although true, I meant that line to be a funny comment to liven things up a smidgen.
You be one of my favorite posters your catness. It is evidence of an exilent mind, capable of deep thought. What is your thinking on the origin of the universe?

reply from: fetalisa

Please allow me to introdue you to two of my friends. One is named http://www.google.com. The other is named http://www.wikipedia.com
Confused indeed. Yet you think your confusion means someone else has missed the point. My friends can clear up your confusion I am sure.
???????????????

reply from: fetalisa

I fail to see at all why it would matter if it did or did not happen. However, I am not the person to ask such a question any way. How could I possibly know what all women who had an abortion said or felt about it afterward?
To which I already replied. Why would we look at cases of terminally ill persons, when it would have no legal application at all to the unborn, given the centuries old legal precedent the unborn are not, in any way, shape or form, legal persons?
The answer to your question is obvious. Without access to legal abortion, women are left to either the black market or themselves. In the case of the black market, anyone can purport to provide abortion, whether they have the medical skill or medical credentials to do it safely or not. In the case of themselves, it's even worse, since it almost impossible for one person to perform abortion on oneself, much less do it safely.
In your opinion it isn't sufficient. The FACTS and the DATA prove legal abortion is safer for the woman than carrying a pregnancy to term. Given we have this ability, it's foolish to force women into back alley clinics or attempting it themselves, based on the very foolish and unrealistic notion that all pregnancies must be carried to term.
You asking a completely silly question here. Does abortion leave a woman between a rock and a hard place? Does adoption leave a woman between a rock and a hard place? Does deciding to keep a child she doesn't really want leave both her AND the child between a rock and a hard place?
You can't seriously suggest to me that abortion, as an option for pregnancy, is the ONLY option that leaves a woman between a rock and a hard place.
Your assumption is the only possible reason a woman would choose to abort is because she lacked the support she needed? How can you suggest such a thing in the case of a married couple with 3 kids, with birth control that failed, who yet mutually agreed they want no more kids? You can not possibly prove your assumption that abortion only springs from lack of needed support for all women who have ever had an abortion.
Your point is not even worth making. In the case of failed birth control, we already know the cause of the failure. No birth control is 100% effective. Identifying the cause, does not mean the cause will be eliminated.
It's a moot point really. Neither our society nor our law, can afford to equate abortion with murder. The law recognizes the differences between born and unborn. The law recognizes the differences between murder of a person and the killing of an embryo, zygote or fetus. The end result is nowhere near the same.
Whatever happened to conservative support for less government interest in the lives of citizens and business? There is no reason at all to interfere with medical decisions private couples make regarding IVF. Likewise, there is no reason for government to interfere in how many embryos are created in the cases of couples using in vitro for kids. It's such a shame people can't figure out the government is not a parent and it's not the business of another what decisions couple's make regarding fertility, unless you are one half of that couple.
If they authorize it then they should be destroyed. It's their choice.
No offense to you, but I don't believe that for a minute.
All of humanity stands to gain from stem cell research. Outside of that, I have no wish for gain. My interest is in preserving freedoms. Each individual or each couple, should have the right to make decisions over their own fertility, the size of their families, their embryos stored in IVF clinics, etc. Allowing others, or the government, to poke their noses into uteruses that don't belong to them, will come to no good at all.
I think it a fantasy to pretend that all pregnancies must come to term. It contradicts everything we see in nature. None have yet to provide sound logical reasoning as to why our law should be written to enforce what is essentially a religious idea that all pregnancies must be carried to term.
Without 400,000 death certificates which serve as proof 400,000 persons died, you can't prosecute a thing.
It's no different in the case of abortion, except the unborn are not legal persons. A pregnant woman took action (not alone mind you) that resulted in the pregnancy. It's not her fault if she doesn't want a child, no more than it's not her fault for using birth control because she didn't want a child. She is no more responsible for the situation than the clinic is, yet you say the situation for the clinic is tricky.
Automatic functioning continues in spite of the brain dissolving.
I never offered that question so have no need to address it.
Terry didn't want to live like that. She made the choice not to. Her choice was respected. I would make the same choice, provided the freedom to make that choice still exists somewhere in our government. As it stands now, you don't have the legal right to make that choice for me nor Terry, nor should you. It's not your business.
Some claim all manner of fantasy occurs in an afterlife. Your views differ greatly than theirs. For myself, I would not choose to live as Terry did. I deserve the freedom to make that choice without interference of your opinion into that choice.
There's no question children are human and sentient but we are not discussing children. We are discussing embryos, zygotes and fetuses. What have you observed of them that indicated to you they possessed any awareness at all of where they were and what was going on?
None would question they are alive. What did you observe in the microscope that led you to believe they had any awareness of all of where they were and what was happening.
So we should write our law on what you believe, or what you accept on faith. If someone believes the world was created in 6 days, would you then argue we should right our law based on that faith? You do know to have faith in something means to believe without evidence, or to believe for no reason at all, don't you?
Well you must be some really warped, perverted and twisted sicko, since others on this board have been quite clear that I support death and am a baby killer.
While flattering, I consider myself and intelligence level no better nor worse than others.
The idea is wholly immaterial to me. I honestly couldn't care less how the universe came to be, as it has no material bearing on my life whatsoever. Don't get me wrong. I am grateful for the scientists who study such, but only because I believe increasing human knowledge is a societal good.
But, in the course of going about one's life, in the course of dealing with people, in the course of choice of career, in the course of choosing a partner, etc, what possible benefit could the origin of the universe have to my life? Knowing the entirety of the answer to the origins of the universe wouldn't help me get through life any better than I do now. So to me, the answer question is wholly pointless.

reply from: fetalisa

BINGO! Those who imply this objective fact has no bearing nor relation on a discussion of abortion as murder, or the legal fact the unborn aren't persons, or the unborn possess the wholly imagined 'right to life,' are simply in denial of all reality. The Constitution is the very foundation of our government. To therefore claim the use of the word 'person' in the document has no bearing on these discussions, is a 100% falsehood.

reply from: fetalisa

It is your argument that relies on overturning a centuries old legal precedent which clearly proves the unborn are not now and have not ever been legal persons, in the history of our law.
That's the black and white truth staring you in the face that you can't walk away from, no matter how much you wish to deny it.

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion isn't murder because what is killed isn't a person. If a person is killed a death certificate is filed. When an abortion occurs, there is no death certificate issued, because what is killed in abortion isn't a person.
Legally, the unborn are not now, nor ever have been, persons entitled to any rights at all, including the imagined 'right to life.' This is a long standing precedent in the history of our law. They never have been considered 'persons' due rights. Nor should they be. The fact our society doesn't issue death certificates in abortion proves our society doesn't recognize them as persons in either in deed, no more than we do in law.

reply from: fetalisa

It is just as ridiculous as pretending the ONLY thing the court looked regarding the word 'person' was the 15 documents sourced to arrive at the intent behind the word.
It is just as ridiculous to pretend the court did not notice the legal FACT, no precedent exists which has EVER considered the unborn to be persons. This precedent was two centuries old at the time of Roe, but extends even further back than 2 centuries, into the English common law from which our law derives.
The legal personhood of the unborn does not exist, neither in American law, nor in English common law from which American law was derived.
This is a legal falsehood with respect to the Constitution. This is a legal falsehood with respect to both American and English common law.

reply from: fetalisa


The lack of logic lies in your argument that the determination of the word 'person', as used in the 15 source documents, having no application to the unborn, is the ONLY point the court had to base their decision.
It wasn't the only point. The court also noted the unborn had NEVER been recognized as 'persons,' in the history of American law, nor the English common law upon which our law was based. It is wholly ILLOGICAL to deny the centuries old legal precedent that the unborn had NEVER been considered persons, and equally illogical to deny the Supremes were not aware of this LEGAL FACT either.

reply from: fetalisa

I am very happy for you that you can see the logical fallacy in this argument you yourself constructed.

reply from: yoda

In view of the number of times I have told you that I recognize that technically abortion is NOT murder, and in view of the number of times you have dishonestly claimed that I do say it is murder, I can only conclude that you are a sick, sick person who will not tell the truth no matter what.
Yet another of your blatant lies, since I have never made any such statement. Favoring a change in the law is just the opposite of favoring that we "ignore the law".
You are in need of a lot of help, IMO.

reply from: yoda

The question had never been addressed before 1973, in this country. The absence of a declaration of "personhood" is not now, nor has it ever been the same as a declaration of "non-personhood", in spite of all you lies to the contrary.

reply from: fetalisa

No, the argument recognizes the LEGAL FACT the unborn are not persons entitled to any rights, including some fantasized 'right to life.' The argument recognizes the legal precedent, well over 2 centuries old, that the unborn do not now, nor have ever been considered, persons due any rights at all.
A death certificate serves as proof a child has died. In the case of abortion, there is no death certificate, which means you have no proof a child is dead.
There's no question persons are entitled to rights. We are not discussing the rights of persons here. We are discussing the fact the unborn are not legal persons, haven't been considered persons throughout the history of our law, and therefore have no rights.
Good luck proving murder when you don't have a death certificate as proof that a person is dead.
Gee, I have never seen the fantasy that illegal abortion doesn't result in maternal deaths. How utterly new! Fortunately for us, data provided by http://http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_97_16/MSM_97_16_chapter4.en.html, proves conclusively illegal abortion STILL results in maternal mortality across the entire world. Nice fantasy that illegal abortions are totally safe though.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Yeah, that's why so many women become depressed and suicidal after getting an abortion.

reply from: faithman

Yeah, that's why so many women become depressed and suicidal after getting an abortion.
They most assurerly are not in the same state. Hormones have been released, and because of the premature termination of the pregnacy, these hormones become free radicals that greatly increases the risk of breast cancer. Damage and scaring may make it impossible to have future children. It is an observable fact that post abortive woman have a higher instance of alcohol/durg abuse, and depression, as well as suicide. Your pro-abort fantacy world does not line up with reality.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! If no person is dead, you have no death certificate, which means you can't prove a murder has occured, as in the case of abortion
With no proof a death occurred you have no way to prosecute murder. Of course, you have no proof a person is dead either, since the unborn aren't legal persons anyway.
Exactly! After a person is dead, a death certificate is filed. A death certificate is not filed in the case of abortion, because a person isn't dead, since the unborn are not now, nor have ever been considered persons, in the history of our law.

As you can see in the definition you provided, at no point does it say a person is dead. We can't prosecute murder if a person isn't dead. Thanks so much for providing a definition which wholly supports the entire point of this thread, from the original topic on down.
Yet your definition clearly proves a person isn't harmed. How can you prosecute a murder when you have no person dead?
Imagine that! A legal definition which suggests abortion can be illegal. Hmmmmmm, maybe like the death penalty, the legality or illegality of it can depend on jurisdiction? Whoda thunk it?
Your definition supports my point. It clearly states an embryo or fetus is killed. The word 'person' appears nowhere in the definition. It couldn't anyway, since the unborn have never been recognized as legal persons in the entire history of our law. That's why it would be foolish for a legal dictionary to state abortion kills a person. Do you get it now?
The unborn are not persons sometimes or not others. The definition clearly states abortion kills an embryo or fetus. No use of the word 'person' can be found within it. Therefore, the unborn are not legal persons, as they have not been such in the entire history of our law. This definition fully supports the point I have been making all along. Thanks so much for providing it. It is greatly appreciated.
Of course it is.
Of course it's not. Before birth it is an embryo, zygote or fetus.
I agree. This point you yourself created here is quite ridiculous. I will see if I can put it in terms simple enough for you to grasp it,. OK?
The unborn are not legal persons and have never been in the entire history of our law. The legal personhood of the child, therefore could not in any way, be dependent on the choice of a mother. It is dependent on the law.

reply from: fetalisa

The National Cancer Institute begs to http://http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_breast_cancer_5.asp:
Induced abortion: Several studies have provided very strong data that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) in most of the studies that have been published. Scientists invited to participate in a conference on abortion and breast cancer by the National Cancer Institute (February 2003) concluded that there was no relationship. A recent report of 83,000 women with breast cancer found no link to a previous abortion, either spontaneous (stillbirth) or induced.
You really need to check the sources of the disinformation you are spreading. Perhaps http://http://campusprogress.org/features/1051/uncle-sams-pregnancy-scam will help you discover the sources for such nonsense.

reply from: fetalisa

You are the one confused, believing the concepts 'personhood' and 'person' to be the same, not I.
You can't educate me in a subject you yourself don't understand. You cite a legal definition which defines abortion as killing embryos or fetuses, and somehow end up believing the definition is discussing 'persons.'

reply from: fetalisa

We already know you believe definitions found in dictionaries trump legal definitions. This discussion is not about the definition of 'person' you pulled out of Random House, but a legal definition of 'personhood.' The topic offers the question is abortion murder. To prove it is murder, we have no choice but to look to the law, not Random House.
Excuse me? Did you say NO distinction has EVER been made? You must be joking. Given that the Jews believed life began at first breath, how could it be possible that an unborn could be considered a person, since it lacked the ability to breathe until it was born? Your argument would have us believe the Jews thought a person, not alive in the womb, could come to life only once it breathed air. That's nonsense. Obviously to the Jews, it wasn't a person until it breathed air. Therefore, when it was in the womb, it couldn't be a person since it couldn't breathe air.
Distinctions WERE made in human development if the Jews believed life began at first breath. If you don't admit this, then you are saying the Jews believed the unborn were persons who lacked life, since life didn't begin until they breathed air, in their opinion.
Tell it to a Jew.
That doesn't mean a legal person begins at conception. What part of that do you not understand?
Which has no bearing at all on the unborn as legal persons. Random House definitions do not constitute law nor legal principles.
Pointing to a law pre-1973 that banned abortion does not mean the unborn were considered persons, legally or otherwise. You have to discover the intent behind the law when it was written. Did it ban abortion because the technology was deadly to women at the time? Laws which banned abortion do not establish the legal personhood of the unborn.
Did any of these laws that protected the unborn define them as 'persons' entitled to any rights at all? If they didn't, they are immaterial to the discussion.
That doesn't mean the unborn were legal 'persons' entitled to any rights at all. Abortion was illegal for years because the technology could result in the death of women. If abortion technology left us with a 50% death rate now, it would STILL be illegal, regardless of status of legal personhood of the unborn.
I most certainly did.
Not at all. Abortion was illegal pre-1973 for a period of years because abortion technology was deadly to the woman. Abortion was not illegal pre-1973 because the unborn were legal persons entitled to rights. Abortion would become illegal tomorrow if 50% of the women who received the procedure ended up dead. Just because it were made illegal tomorrow in that case, would not mean the unborn were legal persons. It would not overturn that centuries old precedent at all.
In other words, the legal personhood of the unborn does not hinge on the legality or illegality of abortion. However, the legality of abortion DOES hinge on whether the unborn are legal persons entitled to rights. The Supremes argued as much in Roe.
Because Random House definitions have no bearing at all on legal personhood. Nor does when life begin. If life begins at conception, but embryos and fetuses are not legal persons, they have no rights, including the imaged 'right to life.'
I referenced those 15 quotes regarding the determination of intent contained in the word 'person.'
This from someone who claims the Random House definition of the word 'person' has any legal application at all. Too funny!
It instead proves they aren't legal persons entitled to rights. Every use of the word 'person' in the Constitution does not apply to the unborn at all.
None provide any assurance of ANY POSSIBLE pre-natal application. The use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. It's very clear what it means.
Legal precedent shows it. The unborn have never, in the history of our law, been recognized as legal persons. They still aren't persons entitled to any rights at all, even to this very day.
I sure am with respect to determining the intent conveyed in the usage of the word 'person' as it appears in the Constitution, 14 amendment and the other 13 documents sourced.

reply from: ThunderKitten

It was not faithman's post. He quoted my post and left a comment at the end. As such the sentences:
Were addressed to me, not you.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Fetalisa, I hope you are not suggesting that legal definitions of personhood are necessarily moral -- otherwise you have some explaining to do about slavery and Nazi Germany.

reply from: ThunderKitten

From: http://www.azdhs.gov/vitalrcd/

Note the words "fetal death"?
Same website, different page: http://www.azdhs.gov/vitalrcd/fetal_death_index.htm

Your presumption that fetuses are never issued death certificates is incorrect.
Also, they have records for stillbirths: http://www.azdhs.gov/vitalrcd/stillbirth.htm

Although I can't find the specification of how old the child would have to be to be considered a stillbirth instead of a miscarriage in this case. I'm assuming the same conditions as with a fetal death certificate.

reply from: fetalisa

Because you have assume the context 'a living human' has any bearing on the issue at all.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Because you posed the hypothetical that they WERE considered persons. Do you not wish to discuss the hypothetical under the terms you presetned? You wrote:

reply from: fetalisa

Then explain why abortion is legal. It could not be legal if it ended in the death of a person.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Then explain why abortion is legal. It could not be legal if it ended in the death of a person.
Killing slaves was once legal although that ended the death of people. As was Jews, the Roma, gays, and intellectuals in Nazi Germany and indigenous peoples in colonial societies. Are convicted murderers not people since they can be legally killed?

reply from: fetalisa

The fact some jurisdictions do it does not imply the unborn possess legal personhood nor the legal rights that includes. You still wouldn't be able to prosecute a murder case since you would have no proof a person was killed, even though you might have one of these certificates.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet the unborn are still not legal persons and therefore possess no rights at all, including the wholly imagined 'right to life' and abortion still isn't murder.
Therefore, every argument against abortion from the prolife side fall like the house of cards it is.

reply from: fetalisa

I stand corrected. My mistake. Sorry. In that case, assuming legal personhood of the unborn, i still don't know if the laws regarding the terminally ill would apply. The only reason I say this is because I don't know if the 40% of fertilized eggs that do spontaneously abort or miscarry could be considered 'terminally ill.' I don't know if it would even be possible to discover such a thing. How would we know? Would we require all pregnant women to report to the state monthly to determine if they were pregnant so that we could then check the unborn to determine if it was terminally ill or not? It sounds like a logistical nightmare to me.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Ok, here's what's happening: Both sides are basically in the mindset of, "If I just argue long and hard enough the other person will see that I'm right and change their mind!"
This happens between me and my guy a lot, so I know how futile/frustrating it can be, even though the intellectual exercise can be invigorating.
fetalisa, I don't expect to change your mind about whether abortion should be legal. However, I would like to steer you a bit, using the values you already possess, a little more in a direction towards "pro-life". If every woman had an abortion strictly for convenience with no negative consequences to herself whatsoever, and feeling no worse than if she had not gotten pregnant in the first place, then the only reason to oppose abortion would be concern for the unborn. However, as such is not the case I think we can discuss, from the woman's point of view, what would be good ways to reduce abortion. Sound fair?
Also, I believe helping a woman should not be done strictly for the purposes of preventing abortion, but ALSO for the sake of the woman/baby. I.e., if someone had no intention whatsoever of aborting, I would advocate helping her, not out of fear of what she would do otherwise, but due to a basic concern for her/her baby's welfare.

reply from: fetalisa

Killing persons is murder.
Abortion isn't murder because a person isn't killed.
For example, if either of the 2 yr old or 16 yr old persons were killed, you would have a death certificate as proof a person died. Additionally, a family would have lost a member of either 2 years or 16 years, depending on which one was killed.
In the case of abortion, you have no death certificate, which means you have no proof a person died. Additionally, after abortion, the family is left in the exact same state as before the pregnancy, with no family member missing, suffering no loss at all.
Is that simple enough for you to grasp? I sure hope it helps!

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Killing persons is murder.
Abortion isn't murder because a person isn't killed.
Yes, a person is killed. Just because the Supreme Court doesn't see an unborn child as a person doesn't mean it isn't a person.
So just because you don't have a death certificate for an unborn child that dies means it isn't a person? That's messed up.

reply from: yoda

Nowhere in any academic discipline is there a principle of one dictionary "trumping" another, that's too stupid to believe that even you said that.
Technical dictionaries are more appropriate for technical discussions, and general dictionaries are more appropriate for general discussions.
And this discussion has never, and never will be about "legal personhood", which has been determined by Roe in 1973. This discucssion is about the morality of a healthy woman killing her healthy unborn baby.
We're all well aware of your tendency to tell whatever lies you think will support your other lies, you are disgusting.

reply from: fetalisa

What I am saying is, the ONLY moral any citizens MUST obey (or face the consequences) are the laws of the country in which they live. You can choose to obey some other moral system in addition to the laws of the land. However, if you choose to obey a moral system extraneous to and beyond the laws of the land, that is a personal decision specific to you that can not be forced on another.
I am not suggesting that legal definitions of personhood are necessarily moral. I am suggesting that the legal definition of personhood as used and applied in America is completely moral. One need only look at the result if the unborn were legally persons. We would end up in a situation where a grown woman is considered equal to a clump of cells no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. The idea is not only insulting to all women, but morally reprehensible.
Genocide, as practiced by the Nazis, as well as the enslavement of any people and practiced earlier in our nation's history, is directly contradictory to the Constitution, since it deprives persons of rights. Even if we lay that aside, the consequences of genocide and slavery lead to wholesale damage of persons, with or without the Constitution.

reply from: yoda

47 million dead babies in America, and fetalisa says it's "moral". His/her forum name is even a mockery directed at unborn babies.
Is that the kind of "morality" anyone here can endorse?

reply from: fetalisa

Impossible! Don't your remember? I am a baby killer who supports death! How could I possibly have any 'values' for your to steer in any direction?
Ok, I will play along.
How can you prove every woman who chooses abortion chooses it for convenience? Assuming you can prove the reason every woman chooses abortion is convenience, how can you prove it detrimental?
Why assume the only possible consequences for abortion are all negative or all positive? Do you assume the same for adoption or pregnancy?
Why do you assume abortion makes women feel bad? Do you assume the same for adoption and pregnancy?
I have a question that will no doubt appear very bizarre to you. Why assume that sex is tied to reproduction? With the advent of birth control in the last century, we now have the ability to insure sex and reproduction don't necessarily have to go hand in hand, at least, not in every case. Consider test tube babies. Given this information, for what reason should we still assume that sex and reproduction go hand in hand?
Why assume concern for the unborn?
How many assumptions have I revealed so far? Can we arrive at any conclusions at all that 'such is not the case,' given the numerous assumptions contained within your statements?
I know of none who wish for more abortions.

You must be joking! I need for these assumptions to be addressed before I continue.

reply from: fetalisa

Convicted murderers are legal persons. The unborn are not.

reply from: fetalisa

It's the kind of morality our entire society endorses which is why abortion is legal. There is not one compelling reason to equate the unborn with the born, legally, even after 33 years. In no case at all have you convinced voters nor the law, the unborn deserve legal recognition as persons.

reply from: Hessflg

I did not read all the responses to the original question,but
here is my response. Is abortion murder? YOU BET IT IS!!!!!!!!!!
God even detests hands that shed innocent blood.
God knows how many hair strands are on our head before we're born.
He knows everything about us before we're born. So, how can abortion NOT
be WRONG!???! Did you know that the word "fetus" is latin for "0ff spring",
"young one". They call an unborn baby a zygote at one of it's earliest
stages. Then it's an embyro, then a fetus.......and so on until it's born, then
it's an infant, toddler,......goes on to a preteen, a teenager, an adult , etc.
What's I'm trying to say, is that from conception on, the child is simply at some
stage of life and we have NO RIGHT to destroy that life!
So simply put............ABORTION IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE !!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: ThunderKitten

Then supporting death is your value. Come now, you must have SOME values. Do you value women? If not, why would you argue that they should be able to abort?
That is not my contention. I was saying, hypothetically, *IF* X, Y, an Z were true, *THEN* the only reason to dislike abortion would be concern for the unborn. Of course, that would be *IF* one had concern for the unborn.
Let me ask a couple questions- Do you think that abortion is ever a negative experience for the woman, overall? Do you think that a woman would ever prefer having better parenting options available, so that she would not feel the need to choose abortion?
-----
Now, what things get in the way of a woman birthing a child she has already concieved? What can we do to address them? I'll start:
I hear a lot of women abort for economic reasons. Would you approve of the federal minimum wage being raised? Do you think it would be an effective tool to help women who would prefer to keep their babies? Would raising the minimum wage be a good idea in its own right?

reply from: fetalisa

Why assume concern for the unborn? What if we are talking about a married couple who decided before they got married they didn't want kids and therefore wouldn't have any?
It's very difficult for me to take your question seriously. The reason is because of the severe slant you are placing on the issue. Generally, when making any choice, we would list the choices, determine the advantages and disadvantages of each choice, then arrive at a decision on which of our options has the best possible risk of outcome. The problem I have with your question is, you wish to look only at one option and then look only at the disadvantages of that one option.
A really good example would be the claims, made in this very thread, stating women who get abortions risk depression and suicide. Assuming for the moment this risk is true (and we've no definitive evidence that it is true), how is that risk different than the risk of post partum depression if birth is chosen? The way you have phrased your question, doesn't allow for any assumed post abortion syndrome to be compared to the same risk of post partum depression after giving birth. Likewise with adoption. That can be one of the most painful of choices a woman would face in her entire life. Adoption could very well lead to risk of depression and thoughts of suicide as well. Your question does not even allow for that possibility to be considered. Certain medications, such as Prosac, can also lead to depression and suicide, the very things such drugs are supposed to lift. Does that mean we should take Prosac off the market? Most especially, if that drug benefits many, but only leads to suicide and depression for a few, should we then take it off the market?
First of all. I congratulate you for realizing some women do have a need to make that choice. I am curious as to how you think parenting options will benefit a woman who doesn't want a child. A better question might be how can we insure a woman who is pregnant will always want a child? Of course, the answer is, you can't.
You are avoiding a question I already asked. With the advent of birth control in the last century, we have removed the ties between sex and reproduction. Sex no longer necessarily leads to birth. You are still assuming simply because a woman is pregnant she must carry that child to term. Why do you make this assumption?
What evidence do you have it would make any difference at all in womens' choice of abortion? Even if the wage is raised, it doesn't automatically follow that it will be enough of an increase to allow a woman/couple to afford a child. Assuming it were enough, what difference would it make if a woman doesn't want children at all? You do know some people live their whole lives never having kids and never wanting to have them, yet they are as happy as they can be, don't you?

reply from: fetalisa

No, the unborn are not persons because they never have been considered to be such in the entire history of our law. Persons are entitled to rights. The unborn are not persons and therefore not entitled to any rights.
If you kill a born child who is 5 years old, a family is left without a PERSON it previously had. In the case of abortion, the family is left with the same number of PERSONS it had before the pregnancy. No harm done since no PERSON in the family is missing that was previously there. This isn't rocket science.

reply from: fetalisa

No it isn't. Abortion is legal because it doesn't kill a legal person.
Which God - Zeus, Odin, Thor, Athena?
Once you have proven Gods exist, then you must convince me your God is better than the others. Once you have proven that, you must prove how your God knows the number of strands of hair on everyone's head. Until you can prove that, I've no more reason to believe your claims than to believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Simple, it doesn't kill a person.
So?
Exactly! They don't call a zygote a person either.
You don't have the right to make that choice for others.
If a 5 year old child is killed, a family is left missing a PERSON. In the case of abortion, the family is left with the same number of family members it had before the pregnancy. This is why abortion is legal and isn't murder. It leaves a family missing no members that existed previous to the pregnancy.

reply from: fetalisa

The law does trump the dictionary. It is a total falsehood for any to claim abortion is murder when it clearly is not, with very good reasons.
It's quite obvious why you don't care to look at what the law has to say about any of this.
Oh yeah! Accusations of baby killing & blood libel have served the movement so well for 33 years. Claiming the unborn are equivalent to the born has served the movement so well for so many years. Neither of the public nor the law has fallen for such con jobs which is why abortion is still legal. Whether you ever admit the unborn are in no way similar to the born or not, whether you admit killing a zygote, embryo or fetus is in no way similar to killing a born or not, the public, as well as the law, has no problem at all in perceiving the differences between the two. The public is not fooled by any of it. The public is neither fooled nor fears silly accusations of blood libel and baby killing, which is why abortion is legal.
So by all means, stick to the same illogical arguments which claim a woman and a clump of cells no larger than the period at the end of this sentence are the same. It will bring you the exact same results that it has for the past 33 years.
Your insults do not serve to convince anyone your position has any validity at all.

reply from: faithman

Convicted murderers are legal persons. The unborn are not.
At one time the court ruled that the african slave was an inferior being, and had no rights as a citizen. It was perfectly legal to work them without pay, beat them, kill them, and rape them. Just because it was legal to do all them things because they were thought to be private property [sound familiar, "my body, my choice."] was it right? No death certificates were filed when a slave died. I guess that makes them non-persons because the court said so uh? You are a sick demented scum bag maggot pro-abort punk. One day your kind will be seen for the criminals you are. Just like the slave holders, nazi, communist. How does it feel to be headed to the ash heep of infamy?

reply from: yoda

Only if you call the Supreme Court "our entire society".

reply from: yoda

Just another lie, right? See how easily they roll off your fingertips? No law anywhere "trumps" any dictionary.... anywhere, anytime... because they do not ever conflict with each other. The law is for legal matters, and (vernacular) dictionaries are vernacular word definitions. No one but a fool would claim otherwise.
The public in the antebellum southern states were not "fooled" by anti-slavery talk, were they? Nazis were not "fooled" by "pro-Jews are human being" talk, were they? We are not fooled by your cold, immoral, heartless attack on babies, either.
Are you also a proponent of killing babies after birth? How about eating them, do you advocate that too?

reply from: fetalisa

Slaves were entitled to rights under the Constitution given that they were legal persons. There is no question on this point at all. The assumption carried in your example is that my argument is based on the idea the law is always moral or right, which is not my point at all.
First of all, the slaves did not have legal ownership of their own bodies in that slaves, and therefore their bodies, were owned by other people. Your position demands that we now tell women they don't have legal ownership over their own wombs, which ask that we treat women like slaves who don't have full ownership of their own bodies and specifically lack any ownership of their own wombs.
So yes, it is extremely familiar. Such ideas have NEVER worked no matter which historical example we view.
The fact a death certificate is not issued does not determine legal personhood or not. That is determined by law. The fact a death certificate is not issued, does show our society treats the unborn differently, not just legally, but also in deed, thus further strengthening the case the differences between born and unborn are so vast, we have no choice but to treat them differently legally and in actuality.
How does it feel to know such insults over a period of 33 years have done nothing but serve to keep abortion legal? How does it feel to know your insults cause others who hear them to cast doubt on the source of the insult instead of the target, as you intend? If your case is so strong morally and legally, why must you resort to insults? Besides, you are the one suggesting we rob women of the right of ownership of their own wombs, resurrecting the idea on which all foundations of slavery are based.

reply from: fetalisa

The public has a right to vote on these issues. South Dakota just did. In what way did the South Dakota vote to overtun a ban on abortion not represent the will of the entire society of the state?

reply from: fetalisa

Here is a list of associated concepts. See if you can pick which one is being referenced;
Legal person - those granted rights by law
Person - human being
personhood - definition of what makes a person, which includes traits such as self-awareness, personality, consciousness, etc.

reply from: yoda

The public has a right to vote on these issues. South Dakota just did. In what way did the South Dakota vote to overtun a ban on abortion not represent the will of the entire society of the state?
It did not allow them to vote on a ban with life, rape and incest exceptions, which would've passed overwhelmingly.

reply from: fetalisa

And you dare accuse me of lying? The entirety of the prolife argument hinges on word games intended to deceive. You trot out definitions of the word 'person' to include the word human being, leaving the gullible to see the word used in the Constitution and think it refers to the unborn. And this is but one example. Fortunately, the public isn't stupid enough to fall for the scam, which is why abortion is STILL legal after 33 years.
Yet the public is not fooled by the prolife argument, founded wholly on semantic games and deceptions, and hasn't been for 33 years now.
The public is not fooled by prolife ideas that would deny women ownership over their bodies, just as slavery denied slaves of ownership of their bodies. We know exactly what people like you suggest we resurrect in our culture.
I am sure you are well familiar with their techniques, given that you consider women to be equal to a clump of cells no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. We know exactly where ideas such as these lead and the Nazis are the perfect example of where you would like to see it go.
As if you have any right to assert moral superiority over anyone.
South Dakota heard you and those of your ilk and responded appropriately.

reply from: fetalisa

And you dare accuse me of lying? The entirety of the prolife argument hinges on word games intended to deceive. You trot out definitions of the word 'person' to include the word human being, leaving the gullible to see the word used in the Constitution and think it refers to the unborn. And this is but one example. Fortunately, the public isn't stupid enough to fall for the scam, which is why abortion is STILL legal after 33 years.
Yet the public is not fooled by the prolife argument, founded wholly on semantic games and deceptions, and hasn't been for 33 years now.
The public is not fooled by prolife ideas that would deny women ownership over their bodies, just as slavery denied slaves of ownership of their bodies. We know exactly what people like you suggest we resurrect in our culture.
I am sure you are well familiar with their techniques, given that you consider women to be equal to a clump of cells no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. We know exactly where ideas such as these lead and the Nazis are the perfect example.
As if you have any right to assert moral superiority over anyone.
South Dakota heard you and those of your ilk and responded appropriately.

reply from: yoda

New poll shows lead for abortion ban opponents
Associated Press
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Opponents of a South Dakota law that would ban most abortions are leading in another independent statewide public opinion poll.
The latest survey, conducted earlier this week for Sioux Falls television station KELO, showed opponents of Referred Law 6 with 50 percent and supporters of the ban with 41 percent. Nine percent said they were undecided.
Research 2000 of Maryland conducted the random telephone polling of 600 likely voters. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
An Oct. 24-26 poll of 800 registered voters conducted for the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls found that 52 percent opposed the measure that overwhelmingly passed the 2006 Legislature, 42 percent favored the ban, and 6 percent were undecided.
In the KELO poll, 57 percent of Republican respondents said they will vote to uphold the ban and 36 percent oppose it. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats planned to vote against the ban and 21 percent for it, according to the results.
Another question asked whether respondents believed the abortion ban includes exceptions for rape and incest victims. Fifty-four percent said no, 36 percent said yes and 10 percent were not sure.
And of the people who said "no" or "not sure," 58 percent said they would vote yes if the abortion ban allowed for such exceptions, 30 percent would vote "no" and 12 percent were undecided.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/15914343.htm

" Nevertheless, polls Polls show the "No" side ahead. A statewide survey run by the Argus Leader newspaper and KELO-TV in late July found that 47 percent of South Dakotans were against the ban, 39 percent support it, and 14 percent were undecided. A majority of the opposed and undecided said they would support a ban that allowed exceptions for rape and incest. The ban is on hold pending the outcome of the referendum."
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200525,00.html

reply from: yoda

What's this, you're so in love with your posts you have to post them twice?
And not a single word about your previous lie (you know, the one about legal dictionaries "trumping" other dictionaries? Hey, I don't blame you, I'd be ashamed of that statement myself!
So, are you also a proponent of killing babies after birth? How about eating them, do you advocate that too?

reply from: fetalisa

Just as I expected. You've no proof at all, but a guess based on a poll.

reply from: fetalisa

Your dictionaries do not trump the law, no more than your moral standard is higher than any other.
Abortion will always be legal if this is any example of those who oppose it.

reply from: coco

fetalisa I am sorry I have not read the whole thread or anything but I was just wondering ( if you dont mind me asking) are you against abortion for yourself but you think it should be legal for those that wish to obtain the procedure??

reply from: yoda

Just as I expected, blatant dishonesty.
What kind of sarcasm are you trying to convey with your forum name, anyway?
Is "fetalisa" some kind of joke to you?

reply from: yoda

A half-truth from you is better than another outright lie, I suppose.
No, dictionaries do not "trump" laws, and laws do not "trump" dictionaries.
Go back to playing your card games, that's the only place your "trumping" noises make any sense.

reply from: fetalisa

What I am against is nosy busy bodies injecting themselves into issues that clearly are not their business AT ALL, and using wholly BS arguments to justify their nosiness. It's very simple. If you are against abortion, don't have them.
The entire prolife argument hinges on equating the unborn and the born. Therefore, if killing the born is murder, killing the unborn is murder too. Any fool can easily see that losing a 16 year old child to death is not at all the same as abortion. Losing a 16 year old child leaves a family missing a PERSON. Abortion leaves a family with the same number of PERSONS that the family had before the abortion. Once this is pointed out, we are then told by the lifers that killing causes harm even if the family has the same number of PERSONS after the abortion that it had before. When you ask for evidence of harm, or proof of harm, such as any awareness on the part of a zygote, embryo or fetus of what is occurring at all, you get nothing but silence. This means they have no evidence at all to back up their claims.
It is extremely insulting to suggest losing a 16 year old child is any where near equivalent to abortion. Yet, the entire argument hinges on the idea it is exactly the same. I know people who have lost a 16 year old child. There is no way possible abortion could EVER equal that level of harm or pain the parents of that 16 year old feel and will carry the rest of their lives.
Fortunately for us all, our law is not so stupid as to pretend they are the same. Our law recognizes that the murder of a born child is no where equivalent at all to abortion, in the same way our law recognizes the differences between 2 year olds and 17 year olds, and because of those differences, will allow one to drive a car, but not the other.
The point of the entire prolife position is to force women to be slaves of pregnancy and rob them of the right of control and ownership of their own wombs. ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY rest on the same idea, which is having no right of ownership of your body. To suggest a zygote, embryo or fetus has more rights to a woman's body than the woman herself does, is as evil as evil gets. Until a zygote, embryo or fetus can exist INDEPENDENTLY of the woman, we have no reason at all to assume them to be legally equivalent.
Finally, in answer to your question, I will leave you with a most excellent example of the exact sort of stupidity the naive position of the unborn=born equation leads us to. A prolifer was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane. She fought the ticket by arguing, since she was pregnant, the second 'person' required by law to use the HOV lane was actually in her womb. Of course, the judge wasn't stupid enough to fall for something so ridiculous. (They usually aren't) So, this very dumb and stupid woman had to pay the fine anyway. It left us with yet another perfect example of how the unborn are not, in any way, shape or form, 'persons.' It demonstrates most excellently the stupidity that results if we claim they are. http://www.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml

reply from: fetalisa

It has already been proven by a legal definition provided by one who posted here, that abortion doesn't kill a person.
I know how much you hate to admit your dictionaries mean nothing in a debate about law. I also know why you hate that fact and why it bothers you so. The prolife scam falls like the house of cards it is, once we admit definitions have no worth at all when it comes to matters of law, unless it is a legal dictionary.
Therefore, in being clear about our terms, you can't argue from the standpoint of the scam that unborn=born because Random House says so, given that Random House is not a legal dictionary. The unborn aren't persons regardless of what the dictionary says. They aren't persons in actuality either. Or can you point to a case where an unborn was issued a social security number or a passport, as would be possible with a person?

reply from: Sigma

It wouldn't matter what the dictionary contained, either then or now. The Court would not be bound by either. The dictionary simply has no force that you seem to believe it does.
A qualification was made. "Citizen" refers to people born in the US and the most logical conclusion to reach when "in the US" was dropped is that others are born elsewhere. Your conclusion is a reach; it has no factual or logical basis.
It would be similar to saying: Those born in the US are citizens, otherwise they are not citizens but have equal protection. The most logical interpretation of "otherwise" would be those born outside the US, not those born outside the US or unborn outside or inside the US. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the authors included those in the womb in their considerations while it is obvious that those born were the subject of their considerations.
Or: the context makes it fairly obvious that it refers to those born. The Supreme Court agrees, and they have the authority to interpret the Constitution. The dictionary definition has no authority. None.

reply from: cali1981

LOL
Dictionaries are merely anthologies of the common understandings of words; or to put it another way, what people mean when they say certain words. If we are not going to rely on the common understandings of words to tell us what they mean, then what, pray tell, are we going to rely on?
"Person" is commonly understood to mean "human being" (that's why dictionaries list its definition as such). "Human being" is a scientifically identifiable classification. No court has the authority to decide that a word means something other than what it is commonly understood to mean. If that were true, they could decide that monkeys, scissors and tablecloths were included in the term "person" just because they felt like it and start extending all of them rights.

reply from: Sigma

They record the general usage of words. This is why dictionary definitions change as people use words differently. It is a record, it has no authority whatsoever over how we use words. If a shading of meaning that has no entry in the dictionary is required, that is what is used. If it catches on then the dictionary reflects that. The dictionary does not bind us to use a word in a certain way, nor is it meant to bind us.
SCOTUS is not required in any way, shape or form to define "person" by any dictionary.

reply from: yoda

Excellent advice!
ALSO....... "If you are against illegal back alley abortion, don't have one!!"
Yes, that's right! You've got it now! Congratulations!

reply from: yoda

Look around you, you are the only person who is having a "debate about law".
The rest of us know that "the law" permits abortion, and has done so since 1973.
Keep reading, you'll figure that out eventually.

reply from: yoda

Unlike you, dictionaries are obligated to tell the truth.
And they do indeed have "authority" in all matters related to the definition of the words for which they specialize.... also unlike you and fetalisa.

reply from: yoda

What a mighty warrior you are when you attack your own strawmen!! You show such bravery in the face of all that straw!!
Dictionaries are proof of the lying, conniving ways of proaborts like yourself........ when you claim that certain words "don't mean" certain things..... and dictionaries clearly show that they are used that way.
If they served no other purpose, they'd be worth their weight in gold for showing you liars up.

reply from: Sigma

If the context and intention of the passage was such, it would not matter what the dictionary said.
Logically, yes it could. It has more support than your conclusion.
It certainly is known and accepted. The dictionary simply has a definition that is more broad.

reply from: cali1981

That's interesting. "Person" is defined as (that is, it is COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN) a synonym of "human being." The meaning of "human being" is indisputable, as it is scientifically verifiable. So, if someone wants to take some entity that is indisputably a human being and say that it is not a "person" so that they do not have to give it rights, what they are really trying to do is exclude some human beings from being treated as human beings. Do you think that a court should have the authority to exclude some human beings from being treated the same as other human beings?

reply from: Sigma

What, exactly, about a human being is scientifically verifiable? "Human being" commonly assumes that there is a mind present.
It would depend on what would be included in "human being". We treat those that cannot make decisions for themselves differently than those that can. If we, for example, removed the brain of someone but kept the brain alive and separate, I would understand treating the brainless body differently than others. I would not consider the brainless body to be a "human being" as it is commonly used.

reply from: yoda

No, because that would eliminate all you proaborts.
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

reply from: Sigma

It does :S
The dictionary definition is broad enough to include any with human DNA, while the usage in the Constitution is more specific to those born.

reply from: cali1981

No, the "being" part of that phrase refers to an individual rather than a portion of an individual (which we can verify) and the "human" part of that phrase refers to a species (which we can verify). No other "assumptions" are needed to establish scientifically that we are dealing with a human being.
I see your point here, but we must remember that how we treat human beings is a different issue than identifying who is and is not a human being. Verifying that an entity is a human being is just as much a scientific process as identifying an individual member of any other species, and does not change based on what parts we might remove from it. If we take a bird and chop out its brain, it is still a bird (not a potential bird, not a part of another bird). If we take a chicken and chop off its head, it is still a chicken (not a potential chicken, not a part of another chicken). If we take a human being and chop out its brain, it is still a human being. Whether we would treat that human being differently based on his/her lack of a brain is a different issue than whether or not he/she is a human being.
What I now want to know is whether you are actually denying the verifiable fact that unborn children are living human beings, or are simply saying that they are human beings who ought to be treated differently than other human beings based on certain qualities about them (which seems to be what you are implying above, and would certainly be the more reasonable position). Once you answer this, then we can proceed to discussing what specific qualities these children have that should make us treat them differently from other human beings.

reply from: yoda

Are you finding any moral justification for killing babies in the dictionary, sigma?
Or are you just trying to display your monumental "intellect"?

reply from: Sigma

I'm talking about how it is "commonly used", though that would vary depending on the crowd you associate with. Unless you are going specifically by a dictionary definition.
I'll ask again: What, exactly, about the meaning of a human being is scientifically verifiable?
Only by DNA, which is not the only measure of a person, or, for that matter, a human being.
If you take a bird and chop off it's head, it's still a bird then, too.
Is DNA your only verifiable characteristic?

reply from: yoda

What a perfectly stupid question. It was stupid the first time you asked it, and it's stupid every time you ask it.
"Human being" is the vernacular equivalent of the scientific "Homo sapiens".... the two terms are interchangeable.
Any fool with a high school education knows that:
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

reply from: cali1981

As in, we can verify objectively whether an entity is or is not a human being. It is not a matter of opinion. Either it is, or it isn't. Most of us could verify by sight whether or not an entity is a human being, because we know what one looks like. If there were really a question, a scientist could analyze the entity's DNA to be sure.
Correct! Thanks for adding to my list of examples showing that the absence of a particular body part does not change the fact that an entity is an individual member of a particular species.
You tell me, Sigma. If I doubted that you were a human being, how would I verify it? No, DNA is not the "only" measure of a person...most of us can tell by sight whether someone is a person. I know what a human being looks like, and I can differentiate one from an ape or a grasshopper. And, when I see that a female human being is pregnant, I know simply by virtue of logic that it is a human being she is carrying, since it is scientifically impossible for a human male and a human female to "reproduce" anything but another human. However, if there were ever someone who felt the need to question these fairly obvious identifications of human beings, that person could appeal to a scientist to analyze the DNA of the entity in question, and either it would be the DNA of a human being or it wouldn't.
Do you seriously deny that there are objective ways to verify (a) whether an entity is an individual or simply part of another individual and (b) what species an individual belongs to? Only ONE way is needed, right? And the only relevant question for our debate here is can we verify that an unborn child is a human being, right? Why would we even NEED to check the child's DNA when we know from our understanding of biology that his/her mother couldn't possibly have conceived anything but another human being?

reply from: cali1981

Yup...an incredibly simple fact that cannot be stated enough.

reply from: cali1981

"Human being" (a word defined simply as "a member of the species Homo sapiens"), assumes nothing. Words do not make assumptions, people do. If you, personally, assume qualifications that are not included in the definitions, that is your problem. Your personal misconceptions based on assumptions do not constitute valid arguments.
Great point.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Yes. I'm attempting to paint abortion as a disservice to women and the unnecessary taking of life. It seems as though you are painting abortion as the disposal of a non-being and no more significant to a woman than if she took an extra dump that day.
If you want to discuss the difficulties caused by pregnancy, birth, and parenting/adoption, and compare those to abortion, that would be fine with me. I am very much interested in any factual information at your disposal.
That information should certainly be made available to doctors, patients, and the general public. And it would be a good reason to consider other methods of treatment. Would you like to discuss depression/medications in any depth?
*IF* one had concern for the unborn. I do not assume everyone has any, but that *some* people do.
I was only reconginizing that they sometimes *feel* the need. *I* don't consider it a real need unless the woman's life or, possibly, grave bodily harm, is threatened by the pregnancy.
I have no opposition to people preventing pregnancy, but what good does contraception do after a woman is pregnant? And as for a woman carrying a child to term- I oppose killing the unborn, so yes, I think a pregnant woman should carry her child to term.
I realize that there are some women, who even under optimum condidtions for child rearing, would end up aborting anyway. However, I'm trying to discuss the portion who would not abort if conditions were better.

reply from: fetalisa

It is the lifers that are misusing the word. Legally, a corporation is a person. Therefore, a corporation must also be a 'human being,' since the prolifers like to point out the dictionary says all 'persons' are human beings. So although the dictionary may say a person is a human being, such definitions have no application to law AT ALL. Therefore, anyone who suggests the idea the Random House definition has any application at all is either extremely naive or extremely stupid. If you argue otherwise, then please explain why a corporation is 'a human being,' as defined by Random House.
It is very easy to create similar wholly false arguments. It is illegal to perpetrate cruelty against animals, such as dogs or cats, for instance. Therefore, if people set mouse traps to kill mice, we should prosecute them for cruelty to animals too. After all, a mouse is an animal just like dogs and cats. Therefore to trap and kill a mouse is cruelty to animals, just as in the case of dogs and cats. Yet we don't prosecute people for cruelty to animals if they trap mice. Why? Because pets are wanted and mice are not. It doesn't matter that mice are animals just as dogs and cats are. What matters is do we want them or not.
Or, cars and bikes are both 'means of transportation.' Since we require a test and license to drive a car, we should also require a test and license to drive a bike. Such arguments see similarity but deny all differences.
Let the lifers carry on with their silly and wholly false arguments. Let them go before a judge in an abortion case and point out the word 'person' is defined as 'human being.' Let them explain to a judge why a corporation is a person but not a 'human being,' and then explain how the Random House definition has any application at all. If they wish to change the law, they must work within the law. Denying legal definitions, denying corporations as 'persons,' & claiming immaterial Random House definitions have any application at all, will only result in a judge laughing them out of the courtroom.
This is why they get so ticked if you stick to the legal definition of person instead of Random House. The scam of 'person=human being' falls apart very quickly, as in the case of corporations. The argument is easily aborted before it ever makes it to the birth canal.

reply from: yoda

We "lifers" find it amusing that you "deathers" are so intent on redefining commonly used, very old words in such a way as to exclude unborn human beings, as if your deviously fabricated, illegitimate definitions had any meaning to anyone but your "deathers".
Only a fool such as yourself would fail to recognize how to apply different definitions of the same word.
Only a fool such as yourself would try to impose a legal definition into a moral discussion.

reply from: fetalisa

What proof do you have it is a disservice or unnecessary?
Your are jumping the conclusions in claiming I view it as insignificant. Neither of the 3 choices, birthing a child, giving up an infant for adoption or abortion, are trivial or insignificant decisions.
What is to be gained by the discussion? Given it's a woman's choice as to what decision is made, given the choice can only be determined by the woman based on what's the best option for her circumstances and given we can't know all possible circumstances all possible women will face, I don't see how we are in a position to come to any conclusion one way or another. I am assuming when you mention 'factual information' you are referring to risks of the options. I don't see much point in discussing that either. Everything has risks. Getting in your car to go to work is risky. You have no guarantee you won't die in an accident before you get to work. No matter what option is chosen, there will always be risks.
No I don't. I brought up depression and medications only to illustrate the point that none of our choices are perfect. What works very well for one, may not work at all for another.
You have no evidence to back up this claim, yet contradict yourself in questioning if raising the minimum wage would lead to women NOT choosing abortion. It is extremely egotistical of you to discount the needs of others with such a broad brush. You don't and can't know, what is best for everybody. In claiming that you do, you are serving the needs of your own ego, not the needs of others.
It should be obvious. It prevents the birth of a child. If you have no opposition to contraception, what do you suggest one do if contraception fails? The fact contraception fails does not alter the fact the woman didn't want a child which was why she was using contraception to begin with.
Why?
Why?
Why discuss it when you've already decided the reasons a woman might choose abortion are illegitimate in that her feelings about it aren't 'real,' with the exception of lacking money because the minimum wage is too low.

reply from: fetalisa

Only a fool would think it possible to discuss what the law OUGHT to be, while denying what the law presently IS. Such arguments serve no purpose since you can't get to point B (what the law OUGHT to be) if you don't recognize the starting point A (what the law states NOW and WHY it is the way it is.)
Regardless, corporations are persons, but not 'human beings,' so your definition falls flat on its face yet again.

reply from: yoda

Abortion is LEGAL in this country, fool.

reply from: fetalisa

You call yourself a fool, since by your own claim, only a fool would bring up legal terms in a moral discussion and abortion is a legal term defined as killing a zygote, embryo or fetus.
Not only that, but your point is immaterial to the discussion anyway. The entire debate hinges on whether the unborn are legal persons. They aren't, for good reason.
The whole point of your response is to avoid the issue brought up twice already. If a person is defined as a 'human being,' by Random House, explain why a corporation is a person, but not a human being, and then explain how Random House definitions could possibly have any bearing at all if such definitions would lead us to consider a corporation as a 'human being.'
Keep avoiding the point. We all know why you don't want to face it.

reply from: yoda

You really ought to change your avatar to a clown's face...... except you're not even funny.
The "debate" about the legal status of unborn babies was decided by the SCOTUS in 1973, before you were born, maybe? Did you miss that?
There's no "if" about it, "person" has historically been defined as the body of a human being. The fact that the word has other usages is immaterial.
Just like you and your silly-arsed arguments.

reply from: fetalisa

Those silly arguments are why the unborn aren't persons and abortion is legal. Keep arguing otherwise. It's worked so well for 33 years.

reply from: yoda

No, your silly-arsed arguments have nothing to do with anything. They are just hot air. You are just an annoyance here, just a buzzing fly. Go on back to the other maggot punks and help them hack this website some more.

reply from: faithman

New laws in this nation, say yes indeed if a criminal kills a pre-born child in the commission of a crime, then a murder took plac. SSSSOOOOO if the child is wanted they are a person[ because you can't murder a blob of tissue], and any act of violence against their person is a crime. But if it is unwanted because mommy has a head ache, then they are not a person and are not protected. Here we go round the mulberry bush,,,,hicup....###$%$@#$#^$!@#~

reply from: faithman

Good point, it is also "murder" if the child is killed in a way that does not follow current restrictions on abortion, despite the fact that those "rstrictions" are ridiculously lax.
Like making a daughter drink turpitine to kill a grandchild.... MAN!!!! I lked to have tossed lunch when I read that one!!! The mom was charged with illegal abortion.

reply from: Sigma

How can we objectively verify whether an entity is or is not a human being? Looks are irrelevent, especially during the time frame we are talking about. So, then, you are saying that by the dictionary definition if it has human DNA it is a human "being", a person?
There wasn't a question, as far as I was concerned. So, then, life is not a requirement.
Also, a question. Were we to remove the brain of a person, is a new person created?
That I can think and reason is a pretty good indicator that I am a being. Whether I am human cannot be verified.
How someone looks does not a person make.
How would you identify DNA as human DNA?
There isn't a question of whether it is human, the question is whether it is a human being or a person. If DNA is our objective criteria, as you seem to indicate it is, then it would raise questions about the dead and identical twins.

reply from: Sigma

I made a statement about common assumptions. Get over it.
Then the answer is "yes"
Where is the human being?
You have a core of nastiness that makes you an unpleasant person. Please refrain from insults in the future.
Regardless, the dictionary definition is broader than the one used by the Constitution.
It is a valid use.

reply from: Sigma

Pfft. Your petty little assumptions have no bearing on the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition makes no such qualifications.
No, it would prove that they contain human DNA.

reply from: faithman

How about brain waves, heart beat, and movement? All present at 8 weeks from conception. How about the ability to feel pain? 17 weeks. How about if the law says that if a criminal kills the child in an act of violence, they can be charged with murder? Soo if a car jacker aborts a child it is murder, but planned parenthood is sanctioned by the government to distroy the same child, in just as painful ways, and they get a walk?

reply from: yoda

Okay, siggy....... we give up....... we admit YOU are not "a human being"........ satisfied?

reply from: faithman

Can we abort em yoda? HUH HUH HUH, can we can we, can we abort him? Got any saline? My shop vac could pull the brains from his skull. Oh thats right there is lease space in the penthouse so that is not an option. Tearing limb from limb, now that has posiblities. Come on over to the siggy health clinic.

reply from: cali1981

I am saying that there are objective ways to ascertain whether an entity is or is not a human being. The most obvious way is to check the entity's DNA. You are not seriously suggesting it is a matter of opinion, are you? So if I hold the opinion that you are not a human being, I can deny you your rights? Don't be ridiculous. It is not a matter of opinion any more than it is a matter of opinion whether an entity is or is not a bird or a squirrel.
Once again, the only requirements are that you be a being (as in, an individual living thing; as opposed to a part of another living thing), and that you be human. If you die, that doesn't change the species you belong to or the fact that you are an individual (i.e., not a part of someone else). My grandmother is dead and buried in the ground, but she's no less a human and no less a being...she's just a DEAD human being. Something that was once alive is, obviously, different from something that was never alive. If a bird dies, we might say, "Oh look, there's a dead bird." We don't say that it ceases to be a bird.
However, that point has no relevance to the abortion issue. The unborn are not dead.
Ummm.....no. Why would you ask this?
WTF? Sure it can. You have human DNA. That is the chemical code that tells everything about you as a being. Thinking and reasoning are not requirements for identifying an entity as a "being." "Being" is defined as A LIVING THING; therefore the only requirement is LIFE.
Even if it were true that we couldn't verify that you are human (which it's laughably not), why would you say such a thing? You still have rights. How would this support not giving rights to the unborn? If no one's humanness can be verified, then everyone should still be treated the same way.
No kidding. It can give us a pretty good indication 99% of the time, but if we're uncertain, DNA testing can verify with complete accuracy.
I am not a scientist, so I don't know how the process works. But it can be done. When looking at DNA, scientists can tell what kind of being it comes from. This is a pretty well-known fact.
However, as I already said, if you accept that a pregnant woman is a human being, you would also have to accept that she is carrying a human being, since it is a physical impossibility for two human beings to reproduce anything but another human being. Do you accept that a pregnant woman is a human being, or do you contend that, like you, there is no way for her to know for sure what she is?
Huh? You just said that "whether something is human cannot be verified."
That can be verified as well. If an entity is human, then there are only two possibilities: it is a human being or it is part of a human being. We can verify which is the case.
What "questions" are raised? Dead human beings have DNA as well. So what? Identical twins are a case of two human beings with the same human DNA. Again, so what? That does not impact our ability to distinguish a mother and unborn child as two distinct human beings. Unique human DNA always certifies that one is a human being; if the DNA is not unique, then further examinations must be conducted to determine whether we are dealing with twins or with two parts of the same body. A mother cannot conceive her own twin; therefore, her child will always have different DNA from her, and we will always be able to distinguish the two as distinct human beings.
Of course, as I already said, we don't NEED to check the child's (or mother's) DNA, because we already know that it is biologically impossible for a woman to conceive her own twin. We KNOW that it has to be different.

reply from: yoda

Well, it seems to me that if he drinks milk, he is taking sustenance from the reproductive organ of a cow.... so....

reply from: faithman

Well, it seems to me that if he drinks milk, he is taking sustenance from the reproductive organ of a cow.... so....
needle to the heart it is then!!!!

reply from: faithman

Well, it seems to me that if he drinks milk, he is taking sustenance from the reproductive organ of a cow.... so....
needle to the heart it is then!!!!
RU486 ennema?

reply from: yoda

Say cali, have you ever heard the old expression about someone being "sandbagged"? I think that's what siggy is trying to do here. He's trying to lure us into long, dry, technical debates over some far-fetched, far-out ideas of his, hoping to put enough verbiage out to obfuscate the original idea of the thread. That's what he lives for........ distraction, diversion, and digression....... and that's the only thing he's actually any good at.

reply from: Sigma

And I was asking about your criteria. DNA seems to be the fundamental criteria.
It would depend on your reasoning. That I am human is virtually indisputable.
I am not disputing that the fetus is human.
So, then, it is unjustified to treat the dead differently than those alive?
Where is the person, then? In the jar with the brain or on the table with the body?
Your pardon, I missed the thrust of the question. I thought you were asking how you would verify I was a human being over the internet forum.
I dispute this. Evidence?
Negative. "Personhood" is not a scientific classification. "Human" is, and the fetus is human.
Questions about rights. Were DNA the fundamental and objective criteria (as it appears to be going by the dictionary definition), there is no justification to treat the dead differently than the living, and no contingencies for treating one twin differently from the other.

reply from: ThunderKitten

*I* don't consider abortion to be a need. It would be absurd to suggest that I "prove" that I feel this way. I do acknowledge that *other* women sometimes do feel that abortion is a need. However, for *some* of those women, if their situations were improved, they wouldn't feel the need to abort.
Let's start over: I'm pro-life, you're pro-choice.
I believe that people should not kill their offspring.
You believe it is the woman's choice and that she should make the decision that is best for her.
We have a conflicting set of values. Now, at this juncture I do not wish to discuss what "proof" I have that the unborn are deserving of life- I'm trying to find a new avenue of discussion. Others are already arguing that anyway, and besides that I find it to be as fruitless an endevour as attempting to convince a tiger that eating meat is wrong.
At this point, instead of trying to prove who's values are better, how about we simpy state what our values are as we go along? You've stated that the pro-life arguments are ineffective, so prehaps it's time to take a different tack?
What I would like to discuss is how to give women, who would carry to term if they had a better situation, that better situation. Now, I think you could agree with improving women's situations. Heck, we could even drop the question of abortion for a moment by considering how to improve the lot of women who've already decided to carry to term, if that makes this easier for you.

reply from: cali1981

It's not "my criteria" but it is a way to tell for certain what species an individual belongs to.
Right, it is. That's what I'm trying to say.
Oh really? So what part of "the fetus is a human being" are you disputing, then? If you are not disputing that it is human, are you disputing that it is an individual? That is the only other requirement for calling an entity a human being. It must be human and it must not be a part of another human being.
We are not talking about the differences in the ways we treat different human beings; we are talking about who may correctly be referred to as a human being. In this discussion, you and I still have not resolved the issue of whether or not an unborn child is a human being, so that is what I am still talking about. Once you concede that point, we can talk about the differences in how various human beings are treated.
What is the relevance of this question to the abortion debate? An unborn child's brain is not separate from his/her body. The abortion question is about TWO BODIES: the baby's and the mom's.
Ummm, ok.
There is plenty of evidence, but before I go through all the trouble of collecting it, I want you to tell me what relevance this has to the abortion debate. It seems to me that such evidence would only be relevant if DNA testing were the ONLY way to determine whether an unborn child is a different human being from his/her mother. However, it's not the only way - our understanding of biology can give us the answer too. (See below for further explanation; I said this already but you did not respond.) DNA testing might be the only UNIVERSAL way to identify a human being, but there are plenty of other ways that don't apply to every situation. For example, in this situation, the fact that you are corresponding with me using complex language could verify that you are a human being, since there is no other life-form that can do this. However, that does not mean that someone who does not use complex language is not a human being.
....................
Wait a minute. You just equated "human being" and "person," did you not? You said, "the question is whether it is a human being or a person." The "being" of the phrase human being merely specifies that we are dealing with an individual rather than a part of an individual, and THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. (See below for elaboration; I said it already but you did not respond.) Of course, "person" and "human being" are synonymous regardless of what you might say, but I just wanted to point out that you yourself just stated that they are.
....................
Again, we are not talking about differences in how human beings are treated, but rather, who can be correctly referred to as a human being. The presence of DNA merely identifies a person, but it does not specify how we must treat the person. We haven't gotten to that yet.
The bolded part above is the crux of my point, and you did not reply to it. We are talking about abortion, so the only relevant question is, can we be sure that an unborn child is a human being? A simple understanding of biology will tell us that it is. If it is human (you have conceded this much), then there are only two possibilities: it is either a human being or a part of a human being. We know that in reproduction, a new individual is created, with a mix of information taken from both parents (it is not a "part" of either one). That is WHAT REPRODUCTION IS. We've cited plenty of definitions of that word recently, so I will trust that you know it (perhaps against my better judgment).

reply from: cali1981

Say cali, have you ever heard the old expression about someone being "sandbagged"? I think that's what siggy is trying to do here. He's trying to lure us into long, dry, technical debates over some far-fetched, far-out ideas of his, hoping to put enough verbiage out to obfuscate the original idea of the thread. That's what he lives for........ distraction, diversion, and digression....... and that's the only thing he's actually any good at.
I had actually not heard the expression "sandbagged"...but it is indeed a good one for what is happening here.
He's definitely good at distracting, diverting, and digressing...I mean, WTF was that big long exchange about whether "birth" is usually used to refer to miscarriages and abortions? Nothing but a distraction from the point that in miscarriages, induced abortions, AND live births, A CHILD LEAVES THE MOTHER'S BODY...which is what proaborts in general try to pretend doesn't happen when they talk about abortion as a "birth alternative."

reply from: faithman

Abortion is the delivery of a dead child.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. It's the "3-D" tactic.........

reply from: Sigma

It is the criteria you are the proponent of.
I am disputing that it is a human being in the sense of being a person. With no mental existence, it is no more an "individual" than the brainless body on the table is.
Oh? So you are not claiming that the fetus has equal status under the Fourteenth because it is a human being?
No need to dodge the question, cali1981, the answer is obvious. The person, of course, would exist in the jar with the brain. The brainless body is not a person, is not a human being despite having human DNA. The mind is the seat of consciousness, of self. Without a mind, and the brain to support such, labeling it a "human being" is erroneous in any moral sense, and nonsensical in a Constitutional sense.
It was your point that DNA can objective criteria to determine what species the fetus belongs to. Is your point now irrelevent?
No, it cannot be verified. You would be assuming I'm human.
Yes, in the sense I use it they are.
It's irrelevent. You say yourself that if there's any doubt the DNA can be checked. DNA is, then, the fundamental criteria. The twin reference is that if the woman has conceived twins.

reply from: faithman

It is the criteria you are the proponent of.
I am disputing that it is a human being in the sense of being a person. With no mental existence, it is no more an "individual" than the brainless body on the table is.
Oh? So you are not claiming that the fetus has equal status under the Fourteenth because it is a human being?
No need to dodge the question, cali1981, the answer is obvious. The person, of course, would exist in the jar with the brain. The brainless body is not a person, is not a human being despite having human DNA. The mind is the seat of consciousness, of self. Without a mind, and the brain to support such, labeling it a "human being" is erroneous in any moral sense, and nonsensical in a Constitutional sense.
It was your point that DNA can objective criteria to determine what species the fetus belongs to. Is your point now irrelevent?
No, it cannot be verified. You would be assuming I'm human.
Yes, in the sense I use it they are.
It's irrelevent. You say yourself that if there's any doubt the DNA can be checked. DNA is, then, the fundamental criteria. The twin reference is that if the woman has conceived twins.
The fact remains, and has yet to be answered, That if a criminal hurts or kills a womb child, it is a crime. But if an abortionist kills a child, it is sanctioned by the government. If a criminal is killed while presenting themselves to be an eminant danger to a womb child, it is justifiable homicide. SSSSSOOOO in some instances it is totally justifiable to kill someone intent on murdering a womb child. That is the political reason Paul Hill was not allowed to put on a justifiable homicide deffence. The pro-abort judge knew he had a good chance to win. It is totally dishonest for anyone, particularly some one who claims to be pro-life, to say it is wrong to stop the abortionist includding deadly force.

reply from: fetalisa

It's very simple to understand for one whose brain is even marginally operative. The woman gets to decide whether she gives birth or aborts, not you or any other PL fruit loops.
Thanks so much for finally revealing the true nature of the pro-life movement and those of your ilk. Killing persons with whom you disagree is completely acceptable to you. So much for your moral superiority. Hill, along with your comments regarding him, clearly reveal the very extreme nature of the pro-life movement. No wonder the public at large isn't listening to the pro-life movement. Most in this country do not wish to see the Inquisition return.

reply from: yoda

And killing persons with whom you have no disagreement (and who are not trying to kill anyone else) is completely acceptable to you, obviously.
There are no adjectives low enough, and nasty enough, to describe what I think of your "philosophy", so I won't try to match your nasty little comments about F-Man.

reply from: Sigma

Would you agree that at some point it absolutely is so that there is no possibility of anything resembling consciousness? Such as three days after conception?
The question "where is the person" would have to be answered first. If "personhood" is attached to those with human DNA, then there are two people here: The brainless body and the body-less brain.
If you accept that the concept of "personhood" is intwined with the posession of a consciousness then the brain would be the person and the body would not be a person at all. Why would it be unethical to destroy the body in this case? The body belongs to the person, but the body is not the person.
Those who have been in a coma for a certain length of time will not come out of it without severe brain damage. Both of these situations allow the next-of-kin to decide whether life-support should be removed.
These are not really comparable, though, because those who have been in comas for a long time and those in vegetative states posessed a consciousness at least at one time. Decisions are based on "what they would have wanted" all the time. "What they would have wanted" is an empty concept to the fetus. The concept of want has never applied.
Simply being in a coma does not disqualify one.

reply from: AshMarie88

Fetalisa scares me greatly.

reply from: yoda

Nor does having a brain and not being in a coma "qualify one" as a person. This is simply another one of siggy-poo's nasty little lies that he loves to torture us with.
The state of one's brain has zip, nada, nothing at all to do with our status as a person, a human being, or a member of our species. Those three things are inseparable. Every member of our species is a human being, and therefore a person.
Be not confused by siggy-poo, the great confuser.

reply from: yoda

And because he/she's such a "scary" personality, that makes him/her a typical representative of the proabort mentality. Our side always benefits (even if it's painful) when that type exhibits their personality here.

reply from: fetalisa

You fear truth. The unborn are not persons, in any sense of the word, which is why abortion is legal. That's what scares you.

reply from: fetalisa

The common sense of the choice side of things is why abortion is legal. Every false analogy and false point of the prolife side, such as abortion=murder and unborn=person is exactly why abortion remains legal. I fail to see how your side benefits when the choicers speak the plain, common sense truth. It's the truth of the choicers that keep abortion legal. The BS arguments of the lifers have come to nothing in 33 years.

reply from: yoda

Let me guess...... you're smarter than all the dictionaries I've quoted on this forum, right? Or you claim that I'm "misusing them" by quoting them at all, right? Or you've never seen the quotes, maybe?
Take your pick.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, we know. Keep it up, please!
Oh, btw, I LIKE you sig line...... thanks!

reply from: AshMarie88

You fear truth. The unborn are not persons, in any sense of the word, which is why abortion is legal. That's what scares you.
Again, 100 years ago slavery was legal and slaves were considered subhuman and not human. Does that make it so?
And I KNOW the truth. I've taken biology, I still study biology, I study fetal development, I look at photos and videos of development, I've seen abortion photos and videos, I've read up on all the risks that come with sticking something sharp up there JUST to kill your own flesh and blood.
And yet people still call me stupid. I wonder why...

reply from: AshMarie88

Hey fetalisa, BORN babies (especially newborns) cannot survive without their mother's consents either, especially if that means the baby HAS to breastfeed.
I'm sure you're okay with killing them, right? Because the mom is stuck caring for it all the time, and letting it use HER body to keep it alive, right?

reply from: Sigma

You are asserting that three days after conception the fetus has a consciousness?
What "level" of consciousness have I asserted is needed? I don't recall mentioning any level, merely the existence of a unique consciousness.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong.
You've also dodged the main question. Where is the person in the scenario where the brain is separated from the body?

reply from: AshMarie88

You are asserting that three days after conception the fetus has a consciousness?
I'll have to agree with Sig on this one. The brain hasn't even begun developing at 3 days, so I honestly doubt there is possibility of consciousness at that point...

reply from: Sigma

While you insist that consciousness can only mean "awake" your points have no merit.
You are contending, then, that consciousness requires physical parts other than what is present in the brain?
And I contend that a living brain has what is required for consciousness to exist, and a living body with no brain does not have what is required for consciousness to exist. Do you agree or disagree?

reply from: Sigma

I am contending that an unconscious person posesses a consciousness, yes.

reply from: Sigma

I don't need to. I do not contend that their unique consciousness was lost.
After a certain amount of time, the next of kin may disconnect life support. After a certain amount of time people do not generally come out of comas, or if they do they usually have severe brain damage.

reply from: Sigma

That's a good question. I don't know if half of a brain is capable of supporting consciousness. It would depend on where it was cut, as certain structures are determined to be necessary for consciousness. If that section was cut, likely it would not continue to live, so there would be no consciousness at all.
So in your example the body is a person in it's own right? What about someone cut along the waist. Is the lower half a person in it's own right?

reply from: Sigma

Do you contend that at three days after conception the zygote posesses a consciousness, at this point or at any point in the past?

reply from: Sigma

A person in a coma has not lost their unique consciousness, which is why kin are encouraged to talk to those in comas. After that certain amount of time their brain has degenerated to the point that it is theorized they will likely never awaken.

reply from: Sigma

Now you're just dodging
The heart is not necesarry for blood to be pumped. If we could keep the brain oxygenated, then. Answer the question. I contend that a living brain has what is required for consciousness to exist, and a living body with no brain does not have what is required for consciousness to exist. Do you agree or disagree?
The autonomic functions? Yes, this is why the body can still live with no higher brain function (consciousness). Vegetable life is possible without consciousness, but the "person" is dead at this point.

reply from: Sigma

The locus of self and awareness. You are using it merely to mean "awake", which is not the only definition. You're still playing semantics.
One still posesses this feature when asleep or in a coma. It is rooted in the physical machinery of the brain, which still exist when asleep or in a coma (unless it has degenerated).

reply from: Sigma

No. The "ability to function" is irrelevent to my argument here, it is the posession of this unique feature that is the important point. They have never lost their unique consciousness, it merely is different than it was before.
I have to go for now. Try actually debating instead of playing semantic games. It makes you boring.

reply from: Sigma

My browser screwed up here.

reply from: Sigma

You're going in circles to avoid my question. If both the brain and body are living, which is then the person? Put another way, if someone came in and killed the body is he guilty, conceptually, of murder? Was the person killed?
If the heart is removed but continues to live, is it then "the person"? Your philosophy does not make sense.
lol. Then you argue the brain is not necessary for consciousness to emerge?
It depends on the damage. If you read my posts, you would see that vegetative life is possible with the death of the person (the loss of higher brain function, which would include the consciousness, the self).
I see. Since, then, the individuality the zygote does possess could be argued to constitute "a consciousness", the brain is really unnecessary for consciousness?
Indeed, my example is not within the realm of possibility so current laws are not designed to deal with it. I could not make any conclusions on what the law may or may not do. That is still completely true. You were trying to make a conclusion based on how the law would rule on an impossible situation. The law was not designed to deal with such a situation so you could draw no conclusions from it.
Conventional wisdom holds that ones consciousness cannot be conventionally defined. The common definition (which you laughably hold is the only definition) denotes being awake and responsive to one's environment, with your 'level of consciousness' denoting how responsive.
A more philosophical approach to consciousness, which is how I'm using it, is the locus of self and awareness. This is rooted in the physical structures that the brain develops around the third trimester.
No. A persistent vegetative state would rob a person of their higher cerebral powers while maintaining the ability to regulate sleep and waking cycles with partial or full autonomic function. The general brain activity in the cortex is lower or gone, which characterizes the loss of the unique consciousness.
Yet kin are encouraged to speak to those in comas, and there are reports of people remembering conversations. There is evidence that there is awareness. The physical structures of the brain that are thought necessary for consciousness still exist as well.
You're playing word games again, and it's tiresome. Possessing those mental structures indicates the possibility of consciousness. The possibility of developing those structures is not the actuality of those structures. My criteria is not satisfied from conception.
That the composition of their consciousness has changed does not imply that their consciousness is no longer unique. The composition of one's consciousness is continually changing.
This is true in a sense. One becomes a "new person" as one gains life experience. We could discuss, philosophically, whether the "old person" dies and whether we are in a continual state of rebirth from moment to moment, but that is an esoteric concept.
In the case of the zygote there is no consciousness possible so no concept regarding consciousness would apply. My argument regarding coma patients was in regards to coma patients that have been in comas long enough to have severe brain damage. While they would no longer be a person in the sense of having 'someone in there', it would still be correct to speak of "what they would have wanted" since they did posess this feature even if they no longer do.

reply from: Sigma

No.
You seem an impatient and angry person. I suggest therapy.

reply from: AshMarie88

There is no question as to whether http://abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/09w07.jpg is murder or not.
Murder is murder, even if it is considered a "choice" in most societies.

reply from: fetalisa

Oh yes there is. For all you know, that picture could be of a miscarriage. Or it could very well be the results of an abortion undertaken to save the life of the mother. The truth is, this is nothing more than a picture. You've no idea the circumstances that led to the picture either.
Your opinions of what constitutes murder is nothing but opinion. Without legal backing, none in our society are obligated to live under your opinions of what does and does not constitute murder.
But assuming this picture is what you say it is, you still would not be able to prosecute a case that it was murder. You can't even prove this 'person' ever existed. You don't have a birth certificate that proves birth, which means no proof this 'person' ever existed. You don't have a death certificate which notes the manner of death, which means you can't prove anyone is dead. You can't even provide a name of this 'person' who is dead. Even if you did have all those things, you can't point to any law in the history of our nation, that proves the 'victim' could possibly be a murder victim, since legal persons, entitled to a 'right to life' must first be BORN. So good luck prosecuting this nonexistent 'murder' case.
By the way, pictures such as these are one of the prime reasons abortion is legal in our country. Using pictures of someone's (assumed) dead children in order to further your own agenda, is the height of moral bankruptcy. How would you feel if people posted pictures of one of your dead children all over the internet in order to promote their cause? No wonder our society doesn't take the profile movement seriously.

reply from: yoda

Folks, don't let siggy-poo lead you down the primrose path to diversion. All of this talk about consciousness is pure hogwash as far as what a "person" is. The definition of person in the vernacular sense does not contain any reference to consciousness or any of his other BS.
EVERY human being is a person, regardless of their condition. Don't waste your time on siggy-poo's idiotic distractions, please!
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh yes there is. For all you know, that picture could be of a miscarriage. Or it could very well be the results of an abortion undertaken to save the life of the mother. The truth is, this is nothing more than a picture. You've no idea the circumstances that led to the picture either.
It wasn't aborted to "save the life of the mother" or any cheap lie like that. Women can't even find out they have something wrong until later in the preg., and that photo was around week 8.
And if it was, it'd be an ectopic pregnancy, and babies taken from them are not all torn apart in pieces!

reply from: AshMarie88

See, this is what I mean by pro-choicers denying that abortion photos are real, yet they accept that holocaust photos are real.
For all they know, the holocaust could've been something that was made up. Or they're photos from some other place.
Such hypocrisy.

reply from: fetalisa

The post to which you respond does not address this situation, nor any like it. The post to which you respond addresses abortion. I haven't been able to locate a copy of the court decision for the People of the State of California vs. Scott Peterson. (I was able to obtain a copy of the arrest warrant, which interestingly, refers to Laci as a 'human being' but calls the fetus a fetus.) Since I wasn't able to locate the court decision, my only answer to this is an assumption that a fetal death certificate was filed and presented as evidence. Were I to read the court decision itself, my assumption could be found to be entirely false, mind you.
And once you do show that picture, good luck prosecuting murder, claiming the 'victim' was robbed of their nonexistent legal 'right to life,' since the 'victim' of that picture is not a legal person entitled to rights outlined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nor anywhere else in our law. That will be one of the quickest cases in history, ended with a swift dismissal, with the case being stillborn before the ink is dry on the court docket. Of course, every word in this paragraph assumes the demented photo posted is what it claims to be, a picture of an abortion.
Oh that's not what you must prove. You must prove the 'victim' was a legal person, entitled to rights under the law, who was murdered according to the legal definition of murder. C'mon man, this isn't rocket science here.
Petersen was prosecuted under California code, which I also have not been able to locate. However, I would imagine it is very similar to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. What you don't realize is you can no more legally force a woman to give birth than you can legally force a woman into abortion. So, assuming the Laci had lived, but the fetus had died, I am sure Scott Peterson could still have been prosecuted under the California Penal code, for intentionally causing an abortion she didn't want. In other words, laws such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act actually reinforce a woman's right to choose. The decision to abort is Laci's not Scott's.
That's not my argument at all.
It's very simple. Birth certificates are documentation of a birth, nothing more.
Don't read things into it that aren't there and your confusion is easily resolved.
Citizens, or legal person due rights, are either born or naturalized. If you would read the Roe decision, your confusion is easily resolved;
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

reply from: fetalisa

Proof? Or do you believe everything you see/read on the internet?
You know this how?

reply from: fetalisa

The arrest warrant states, regarding Count 1, "willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Laci Denise Peterson, a human being."
Whereas Count 2, "willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Baby Conner Peterson, a fetus."
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/peterson/captrsn120103crinf.pdf
So the warrant itself refers to Laci as a murdered human being and makes no reference at all to the fetus being either a human being or a person, your fallacious claims to the contrary nothwithstanding.

reply from: fetalisa

And your definitions have exactly 0 to do with the legal definitions of murder, persons, etc, which is why abortion is legal and most certainly isn't murder.

reply from: fetalisa

Fetal homicide laws serve to protect the choice of a mother to carry a pregnancy to term, no different that Roe protects the right of a mother to abort a pregnancy. It is my opinion that fetal homicide laws do not conflict at all with the Roe decision, since like Roe, fetal homicide law reinforces whatever the decision the woman has made regarding her pregnancy.

reply from: Teresa18

Fetal Homicide Laws
I haven't read all of this discussion, but certain states recognize it has pure murdre to kill an unborn child. While some states vary based on the development of the child or means of death, others do are quite clear. Why would that be if the unborn child is not a person? It's simple. An unborn child is only a person when someone else wants him/her to be. That's pretty sad.
(Note: several other states have laws, but I don't have what they exactly are. Also, the states highlighted have fetal homicide laws that apply from any stage of pregnancy, beginning with conception.
Alabama HB 19 (2006). Relates to the definition of person for the purpose of criminal homicide or assualts; defines person to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability; provides that this act shall not be interpreted to affect legal abortions or to otherwise make abortion legal.
Alaska SB 20 (2005). Relates to offenses against unborn children; provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years; does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1103(A)(5) declares that a person commits manslaughter by knowingly or recklessly causing the death of an unborn child at any stage of its development by any physical injury to the mother.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-702(c)(10) requires that courts consider certain aggravating circumstances in determining a sentence, including the death of an unborn child at any stage of its development occurred.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5.1.102(13) (B)(i)(a) defines "person" to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development. "Unborn child" means a living fetus of 12 weeks or greater gestation.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5.10.101, 5.10.102, 5.10.103, 5.10.104, 5.10.105 defines capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Cal. Pen Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Fla. Chapter No. 2005-119 (2005) Relates to unlawful killing of an unborn quick child; includes death of said child under DUI manslaughter; makes killing of said child rather than killing of viable fetus vehicular homicide; provides that killing said child by injury to mother that would be murder in any degree if it resulted in death of mother is murder in same degree; provides that death of mother does not bar prosecution; relates to the Control Release Authority as regards parole and the Crimes Compensation Act.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 defines murder as the willful killing of an unborn quick child, by any injury to the mother. The law also defines manslaughter.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 defines vehicular homicide" as the killing of a human being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.
Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.
Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines feticide by vessel and provides for penalties.
Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB 1344) (2002) declares that murder includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides definitions.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 301/40-5 (9) pertains to reckless homicide or a reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 505/7 includes the following as criminal offenses: intentional homicide of an unborn child; voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child; involuntary manslaughter of an unborn child; reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 225 § 10/4.2 includes the following as criminal offenses: intentional homicide of an unborn child; voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child; involuntary manslaughter of an unborn child; reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, and 5/9-3.2 defines the crimes of intentional homicide, manslaughter voluntary manslaugher and includes the killing of an unborn child in the definitions.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1, 5/12-3.2(added in 2004) and 5/12-4.4 defines battery and aggravated battery of an unborn child.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-1 defines homicide.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-4 defines bodily injury.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-14 defines "human being" as an individual who has been born and is alive.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-25 defines "serious bodily injury" as bodily injury that results in the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-3 defines voluntary manslaughter as a person who knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability while acting under sudden heat. The law provides penalties.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-6 defines feticide as the intentional termination of a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1.5 defines aggravated battery as a person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that results in the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-9(b)(16) allows the state to seek either a death sentence or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for murder by alleging the victim of the murder was pregnant and the murder resulted in the intentional killing of a fetus that has attained viability.
Iowa Code Ann. § 707.7 defines feticide. Any person who intentionally terminates a human pregnancy after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy where death of the fetus results commits feticide.
Ky. Rev. Stat. §532 (HB108 (2004) allows the state to charge an individual with a separate crime for terminating a fetus during the commission of an act that injures or kills a pregnant woman.
Ky. Rev. Stat. §507A.010, §507A.020, §507A.030, §507A.040, §507A.050. §507A.060 defines "person" and "unborn child". Defines fetals homocide in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and fourth degrees.
Louisiana HB 15 (2006). Act No. 131. Amends the provisions of third degree feticide to include any controlled dangerous substance listed in schedules provided by law.
Louisiana HB 102 (2006). Act No. 144. Relates to the crime of first degree feticide; maintains the provisions of present law and adds second degree robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, or terrorism to the list of offenses if perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated constitute first degree feticide, even when there is no intent to kill.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. "Unborn child" means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 14:32.5, 14:32.6, 14:32.7, 14:32.8 defines feticide.
Me. Public Law No. 408 (2005) Creates the new crimes of murder, felony murder, assault, aggravated assault and elevated aggravated assault against an unborn child. Punishment for these crimes is consistent with penalties for the same offenses committed against persons as defined in the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A, chapter 9. These crimes against unborn children do not apply to an abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented, nor do they apply to acts committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice.
Me. L.D 262 (2005) An Act To Protect Unborn Children from Acts of Violence.
Md. Chapter No. 546 (2005) Establishes that a prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide under certain conditions for an act or failure to act that causes the death of a viable fetus.
Commonwealth vs. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1973) affirms the conviction for murder of a woman and involuntary manslaughter of her 27-week-old fetus.
Commonwealth vs. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984) rules that a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute. The case refers to Mass. Gen Law, ch. 90 § 24G (vehicular homicide).
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.322 defines manslaughter as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.323 declares that any person who administers medicines, drugs or substances to any woman pregnant with a quick child or uses an instrument or other means, to destroy the child, is guilty of manslaughter.
Minn. Stat. §§ 609.205, 609.266, 609.2661 to 609.2665, 609.267, 609.2671, 609.268, and 609.269 defines unborn child. The law provides penalties for an assault to a pregnant woman and subsequent harm to an unborn child. The law also defines an assault of an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines murder or an unborn child in the first, second and third degrees and provides penalities.
2004 MN Laws, Chap. 283 declares that a person is guilty of criminal vehicular operation if an unborn child is killed in the act. The law also states that as punishment, this person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. (SB 58)
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 defines manslaughter and includes the willful killing of an unborn quick child, by an injury to the mother of such child. (SB 2869)
Miss. Code Ann. § 11.7.13 includes death of a fetus in wrongful death statute as muder or manslaughter. This law excludes acts committed by the mother or a medical procedure performed by a medical professional or lawfully prescribed medication.
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 565.300 creates the infant's protection act and defines infanticide. The law provides for penalties and exceptions. A person is guilty of the crime of infanticide if such person causes the death of a living infant by an overt act performed when the infant is partially born or born.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-388 through 28-394 creates the Homicide of the Unborn Child Act. The law defines premeditation and unborn child. The law defines murder of an unborn child in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter. The law also provides for penalties for vehicular homicide.
2003 Bills LB 208 Changes provisions relating to driving under the influence and amends provisions regarding motor vehicel homicide. Provides a penalty for motor vehicle homicide of an unborn child.
2003 Bills LB 294 Recognizes an action for an unborn child in wrongful death cases.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 defines manslaughter as a person who willfully kills an unborn quick child, by any injury committed upon the mother of the child.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.2 relates to injury to pregnant woman. The law states that a person who in the commission of a felony causes injury to a woman, knowing the woman to be pregnant, which injury results in a miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman is guilty of a felony that is one class higher than the felony committed.
N.D. Cent. Code, §§ 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-05 defines abortion, person and unborn child. The law defines the murder and manslaughter of an unborn child. The law states that a person is guilty of murder of an unborn child and provides penalties.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01, et seq. defines aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault, negligent assault. The law applies to a person, defined as an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."
Okla. Chapter No. 200 (2005) Revises civil wrongful death statutes to include the death of an unborn child; revises the provisions governing the intentional shooting with intent to kill another and any assault and battery upon another to add an unborn child; provides the penalty reference for anyone who willfully kills an unborn child; provides an exemption for a legal abortion, or the usual and customary diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment; adds laws on the performance of an abortion; requires abortion alternative materials.
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 713 defines manslaughter as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury committed upon the person of the mother of such child. The law applies to a quick nonviable child, an unborn quick child and a viable fetus.
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 106, 1102, and 2604 define first degree, second degree and third degree murder of an unborn child and provides penalties.
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 18. § 2603 defines homicide of an unborn child. An individual commits criminal homicide of an unborn child if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child.
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 2605 defines voluntary manslaughter of unborn child and provides for penalties.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 defines "quick child." The willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of that child is deemed manslaughter.
South Carolina SB 1084 (2006). Enacts the unborn victims of violence act of 2006 to provide that a person who commits a violent crime that causes the death of, or injury to, a child in utero is guilty of a separate offence and that the person must be punished as if the death or injury occurred to the unborn child's mother; to provide that the person must be punished for murder or attempted murder if the person intentionally killed or attempted to kill the unborn child.
State vs. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984) reversed voluntary manslaughter conviction, holding that the killing of a viable human being in utero did not constitute a criminal homicide. The case refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10.
State vs. Ard, 505 S.E.2d328 (S.C. 1998) held, in relation to a murder conviction, that the terms "person" and "child" in S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (C)(a) included a viable fetus.
South Dakota HB 1163 (2006). Revises provisions concerning court suspensions and revocations of driver licenses; relates to driving while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and causing the death of another person, including an unborn child.
S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-16-41 defines vehicular homicide, which includes the death of an unborn child.
S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-16-1.1 defines fetal homicide which refers to a person who knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification. The law provides for penalties.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-214 and 39-13-215 defines "another" and "another person" as a viable fetus of a human being when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by the provisions of this part. The law defines reckless homicide as the reckless killing of another.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-201, et seq. declares that a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child.
Va. Code § 18.2-32.2 (2004) declares that any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus is guilty of a Class 2 felony. The law also provides penalties.
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060 declares that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when he intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.
Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (2), et seq. declares that any person who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

reply from: Sigma

You're still playing word games, and it's tiresome. I never changed how I am using "consciousness", nor have I argued that being responsive to ones environment is necessary.
The physical structures in a persistent vegetative state are either gone or have lost the ability to function. Coma patients (depending on how long they are in the state) still have functional brains capable of using those structures, and there is evidence of awareness even in comas.
You manage to get confused very well on your own without any involvment on my part. If you believe that the genetic code can be the locus of self and awareness and that a donated heart is no longer alive then I have no interest in continuing our discussion into the absurd.
Even though it's alive and you claim whichever part is alive is the person. Bleh. You are a very boring person to discuss things with.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, you never argue properly with CP. I don't believe you can answer his arguments. All you do is make some criticism of him, accuse him of being boring, and leave. I pick up on this, and I would think other people following your argument would as well. I think he gets you in a corner, and the only way you can get out is criticism.

reply from: fetalisa

First of all, that's wholly incorrect. A zygote, embryo or fetus doesn't possess rights associated with legal personhood, as citizens do, no matter how state laws or dictionaries may define them as 'persons.' Without legal personhood, they lack a legal 'right to life,' which is why such a right for the unborn is mere fantasy.
It's not sad at all though. It's actually another legal precedent that reinforces the mother's right to choose what occurs for her pregnancy. The Roe decision determined a woman may not be legally forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Fetal homicide laws strengthen the mother's right to choose, by insuring a mother may also not be legally forced to abort a child she wishes to carry to term. And well she shouldn't. If a pregnant woman wants to have a baby and wishes to see that child born, it should be illegal for anyone to do anything to interrupt that pregnancy.
This is why, in my opinion, there is no conflict between Roe and fetal homicide laws. They both serve the same purpose, which is to strengthen the mother's right to choose.
Of course, the majority of the fetal homicide laws do regard the victims differently, as societies always have. For instance, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly states one who causes the death of a fetus may not receive the death penalty as a punishment. This makes perfect sense given that fetuses are not now, nor have they ever been, considered the equivalent of legal persons. It's only natural that the death penalty might be applied where the victim is a legal person, yet be disallowed when the victim is not a legal person.

reply from: Teresa18

An African American slave at one time was not considered to possess the rights associated with legal personhood. That is why he/she was allowed to be enslaved and even killed at the discretion of the owner. Basically, though, your argument seems to ride on the law. So, if the law says that the embryo/fetus does possess those rights, as in the cases of murder in some states, you then say that it doesn't matter if the law gives the embryo/fetus those rights, as the embryo/fetus doesn't possess rights associated with legal personhood. That makes no sense.
So basically, the worth of an unborn child is based on decision of the mother. If the mother wants the child, and is carrying the child to term, and the child is killed, then it is considered illegal to kill the child. However, if the mother doesn't want the child, and drives to a clinic, and an abortionist suctions the child apart, then it is not illegal. In some cases the child is a person, in other cases the child is not. So, the worth of an unborn child is based on whether or not the mother decides she wants the child or not. That is sad.
Fetal homicide laws completely weaken the Roe position. Declaring that the unborn child is a person in some circumstances just goes to show how ridiculous it is that the child's worth is based solely on a person's decision.

reply from: fetalisa

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again! The Peterson case was prosecuted under "California Penal Code 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html
There's no need. One need merely read the appropriate section of the California Penal Code in the above cited link which states;
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Abortion is lawful killing. Fetal homicide, being against the will of the mother, is NOT lawful. Abortion isn't murder in any way, shape or form, because it is a lawful killing.
Additionally, as to your original question as to why Scott Peterson could be prosecuted for the death of the fetus when the mother was dead, this is related to a separate section of the California Penal Code, which is also addressed in the previously linked web site;
"the California Supreme Court upheld inclusion of fetal homicide under Penal Code 190.2(3), which makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder."
Do you get it now? Because of this quirk in California law, the fact Scott Peterson was responsible for two murders, made him eligible for capital punishment. There was much reason for the state to "bother with prosecuting the murderer of an unborn child when the mother is already dead," as you originally questioned.

reply from: fetalisa

Slaves didn't live in the body of another and thereby require the consent of the person whose body they inhabited in order to continue living. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Only if you don't understand my argument.
Just as I suspected. You don't understand it. I don't know which parts you are not understanding, so let's try an example;
Missouri
"In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids."
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html
This source lists constitutional challenges to assorted state laws regarding fetal homicide. As in the cited Missouri case, the constitutionality of such laws will be found legally valid "to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S."
Not at all. How can freedom exist if a woman can be forced to birth a zygote, embryo or fetus she doesn't want? (Not to mention the lack of wisdom of forcing a woman to birth a child she doesn't want.) How can freedom exist if the state can force a family or single woman to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to raise a child to adulthood, without the consent of the family or single mother? How can there be freedom in the case of a married couple who agreed they wanted no children long before marriage, had birth control fail and the state can now force them to annul the private agreement they made to never have kids, by forcing the couple to carry the pregnancy to term? Freedom can't exist in these instances.
Exactly! Abortion is a lawful killing. Murder is not a lawful killing. Refer back to the earlier cited California Penal Codes if you have any doubts about this.
You need to first get clear on your definitions. You must first understand that Random House definitions have no application in law. It's not about whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person as defined in Random House. The question is, do zygotes, embryos or fetuses possess legal personhood. They don't. They never have, not in the history of American law, nor in the history of English common law, from which our law derives. If it was universally agreed that the unborn possessed legal personhood, all societies throughout history would have banned abortion. They didn't. In many societies abortion wasn't criminalized at all. There is no argument I am aware of that such societies viewed the unborn as persons, otherwise abortion would not have been legal in those cultures. The entire idea that the unborn are legal persons due rights and are equivalent to born people is an invention of the late 20th century.
Additionally, any state law may claim the unborn are 'persons.' That would not imply they were legal persons or citizens possessing any rights.
Alternatively, the fact the unborn are not legal persons possessing rights, does not halt the state from enacting law which prevents the destruction of the fetus. Check the previously linked website and read the section titled 'Georgia,' for an example.
How do you figure? I have a friend who was pregnant years ago by a very abusive man. He pushed her down a flight of steps and caused her to miscarry. I am not sure at the time she had any legal recourse to take him to court for a criminal action, other than assault or battery. Under today's fetal homicide statutes, that same man could be tried for fetal homicide. No one should have the legal right to interfere in a woman carrying her pregnancy to term. Fetal homicide laws provide legal backing for this idea. I fail to see how you can prove they don't.
Fetal homicide laws like the one in California do not claim the fetus is a person, no more than the Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes that claim. For instance, the arrest warrant for Scott Peterson labelled Laci Peterson a human being in Count 1, but referred to the fetus as a fetus in Count 2. Neither murder counts referred to either of them as 'persons.' Additionally, it is quite obvious why the long standing legal precedent that the unborn are not legal persons possessing rights exists. Read the Bill of Rights. Ask yourself if a zygote, embryo or fetus can participate in freedoms of religion or speech, bear arms, be tried by juries, have a right to an impartial jury, etc and so on. If they don't have the capabilities to exercise those rights, how in the world could you possibly read the Bill of Rights as having any application to the unborn at all? It's common sense. How ridiculous would the Roe court have been to suggest that freedoms of religion or speech could have any possible application to those in the womb? It's wholly impossible!
It doesn't matter how many Random House definitions you can cite which claim those not yet born are 'persons.' Those definitions don't alter the very common sense fact that those unborn can't participate in any of the rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That reason alone is reason enough for the unborn to not have legal personhood and is also the reason the Roe court found the unborn weren't legal persons.

reply from: bradensmommy

methinks fetalisa and siggy are either partnering together or the same person. You both have very sick tendancies about the unborn.

reply from: fetalisa

What a pity you didn't tell it to the Roe court. No doubt you understand law better than they did.
Indeed it is.
(You know, this is such a perfect opportunity, but it isn't enough of a challenge so I will not divert in this case.)
Then please explain how a person who enters this country, who is not a citizen, neither born in this country nor naturalized, can walk into a church on Sunday. Would he not be freely practicing his religion, as a right outlined in the Constitution?
Exactly! Although you might be ticked illegal immigrants cross the border into our country and get free health care, it doesn't give you the right to kill them. Finally! Something you and I agree on 100%! (I think)
Of course not. Would you argue that if an illegal alien crossed the border on Saturday and goes and sits in church on Sunday, that they are NOT expressing the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion?
Who cares? It's wholly immaterial to the debate. Why do you keep bringing up a topic that is not germane to the debate and has no bearing on the issue at all?
You are so used to trapping choicers in this wholly semantic game. Too bad your ideology prevents you from seeing the very obvious truth that has been staring you in the face in post after post after post. I know the game man. It doesn't work once it's discovered and known.
Uh, my cat would strongly disagree. First of all, he would be quite ticked that you dare compare him to a mere human. No doubt he would argue he deserves rights far greater than mere mortals are due
But since you brought animals into it, let's have a little fun;
A. Animal Cruelty is illegal
B. Mousetraps kill animals known as mice.
C. Therefore, it is illegal to sell, buy or use mousetraps.
Is the above argument vaild? If not, why not? (Please stick to the questions posed here. Belaboring the obvious that mice are neither humans nor persons accomplishes nothing.)
Consider the Constitution and it's enshrined rights to 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.' Ignoring for a moment the right to life, please explain;
Since those not yet born can't pursue happiness, nor any other liberties such as free speech nor freedom of religion, how is it possible to claim the authors of the Constitution had ANY INTENT AT ALL to have addressed zygotes, embryos or fetuses? Add in the entire list of the Bill of Rights. Since fetuses can't be tried by juries, how can you make the leap that the Constitution, including the phrased 'right to life' could have any possible application to those not yet born, given that the document IN ITS ENTIRETY is solely concerned with addressing itself to the rights of born persons, since only born persons can participate in the rights outlined?
If the majority of the Constitution is determined to have been intended to address those born, by discussing rights of which 98% can only be enjoyed by the born, why in the world would we read an intention into it, that doesn't exist?
Now, add to that the fact that, throughout history, there has been no culture yet found (to my knowledge) that granted legal personhood to those not born. Why is that? Given that in all of recorded human history, many cultures and societies did not criminalize abortion, wouldn't they have criminalized it if they viewed the unborn as legal persons or viewed abortion as a murder of a person (as defined by Random House)? Of those societies that did criminalize it in centuries past, for many it was a misdemeanor crime, no worse than a speeding ticket. If such a culture held the unborn to be equal to legal persons, why would abortion be considered to be ONLY a misdemeanor to that society and not the murder of a person (as defined by Random House)?
Why did so many allow abortion up to quickening, which reminds us of our own abortion rights in the first trimester, rather than view it as the murder of a person (as defined by Random House)?
Add it up man!
Excuse me, but have you not heard of Jewish boys being circumcised at 8 days old? Is that not a religious practice? Have you not heard of parents having a baby christened in a church? Is that not a religious practice? Although babies may not speak words, they do make sounds. They cry. They coo. Is the baby not practicing free speech as defined in the Constitution? Or will you argue the sounds a baby makes is not protected speech?
Exactly! Your utopia is unconstitutional. We've no reason to trash the Constitution to enact your utopia, most especially considering abortion laws throughout history.
What evidence do you have illegalized abortion pre-Roe had anything at all to do with legal personhood? That's quite a leap you are making here. You made the same assumption in claiming the California fetal homicide law recognized some right for the fetus to live. It had nothing to do with that. The double charges allowed Scott to be eligible for the death penalty. Rather than assuming every pre-Roe abortion law or fetal homicide law was written to assure a 'right to life' for the unborn, why don't you instead make no assumptions until you have bothered to check your facts?
Those unborn do not possess legal personhood, no matter the mother's choice, much like every other society that has ever existed on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Laci had an abortion scheduled or not. Scott's actions violated California Penal Code. Just because Laci had scheduled an abortion, it doesn't necessarily follow that meant she wanted the abortion to be carried out by Scott, rather than in the medical safety of a clinic.
A zygote, embryo or fetus is not a legal person in the eyes of the law, which is precisely why it can be killed via abortion.
This 'nonperson' status you reference applies across the board to all fetuses, unless you have ever seen a fetus exercise the freedoms of religion or speech, or bear arms, etc.
It's not inconsistent at all unless you deny the legal reasoning behind Roe and every other culture that has practiced abortion throughout history. In other words, the inconsistency is a product of your own mind.
Legal truth there.
Since it is physically impossible for the unborn to exercise Constitutional rights, the only possibly conclusion we can make is the authors of the Constitution never intended the rights outlined to apply to those not born. In other words, our society and our law, at the time as it was written, was nothing different nor special than any other society that preceded us. Our society was no more willing to grant rights to those not yet born, than those that came before us. We still aren't to this day.
Citizens due rights outlined in the Constitution are persons born or naturalized, as clearly stated in the 14th Amendment.
Non citizens are legal persons who, although entitled to rights in our country, will not enjoy as many rights as citizens. They may well walk into church on Sunday. They may well not collect Social Security.
There is much I don't understand and I freely admit it.
What do you expect me to think when posters claim the Bill of Rights grants a legal 'right to life' to the unborn. It takes two minutes to read the document and discover it grants no such thing. Should I believe I lack understanding in such a case?
What about you who implies the only reason Scott was charged with a murder of a fetus is because the fetal homicide law is somehow written to protect a 'right to life.'
A quick internet search reveals the California penal code allows the death penalty for double murder, which is the obvious reason the California fetal homicide law was invoked, which meant it had nothing to do with protecting a supposed 'right to life' for the fetus. Am I supposed to see myself as lacking understanding in the face of such claims?
That right there is your mistake. I don't mean you individually, but the entire movement. Absolutely the analogies comparing born to the unborn do hold up in certain instances. In other instances they fall completely apart. Claiming constitutionally outlined rights apply to zygotes, embryos or fetuses who can't even practice religion or free speech is one obvious example where such analogies do indeed fall completely apart.
Claiming abortion is the equivalent of murder is another analogy where it falls completely apart. I know a woman who lost a 16 year old child in a car accident. She will carry that pain for the rest of her life. How in the world anyone can claim that woman losing a child with whom she had a 16 year history is anywhere near equivalent to a woman aborting a 2 month old fetus whom she has had no interaction with at all, other than two months in the womb, is to deny all reality. The results of such comparisons are so far apart as to be in two wholly separate universes.
Do you have a child? Will you seriously tell me that if your child was murdered, the sense of loss you would feel in the wake of such a murder would be ANYWHERE NEAR EQUAL to a woman who miscarried or aborted a two month old fetus? If you are honest you will answer this question. If you are not honest, you will ignore it. If you can honestly answer that the pain you would feel over the murder of your child would be anywhere near equal to a miscarriage at two months, then you have every right to claim abortion is equal to murder. If you don't feel the loss of your child would be equal to the loss a woman would feel over a two month miscarriage or abortion, you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to claim abortion is equal to murder, in my opinion.
To your credit, I don't blame you that the only arguments you have heard against abortion compare born to not born, while conveniently leaving out all mention of differences. It's the only arguments the movement has brought out.
One more thing on this point also. Don't be concerned at all with whether I consider your views or not. My opinions of your views mean nothing. If the movement hopes to succeed it is the courts who must be convinced, based on sound legal principles which rely on solid legal definitions, which recognize differences between born and unborn. I don't believe it will ever happen though.
It's not an argument I have ever made. My argument is, it was not the intent of the authors of the Constitution to address those not born. This is easily discovered by viewing the rights discussed. If the Constitution was meant to address those not born, it wouldn't discuss rights such as bearing arms, free speech, etc, and all those other rights those not born physically can not participate in. Additionally, nowhere in the Constitution does it address anything in the womb, nor discuss any rights that could be enjoyed by those in the womb.

reply from: bradensmommy

ugh, this crap who is named fetalisa is going on iggy. Her ignorance is making my IQ drop too low.

reply from: fetalisa

And the right to equal treament under the law, includes those rights covered in the Constitution, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
The claim they are not legal persons belongs to you. I never made that claim. The 'right to life' as outlined in the Constitution has no application to those not born. That's historical fact, historical precedent and legally binding law.
Oops! You just contradicted yourself. You earlier claimed noncitizens enjoy equal treatment under the law. Now you claim that doesn't include the right to free expression of religion.
You mistakenly believe I mention the 14th Amendment for purposes of discussing citizenship. Blackmun made it clear in Roe, no precedent exists ANYWHERE in our law, for the word 'person' as used in the 14th amendment to include those not born. Since that is the case, the 'right to life' discussed in the 14th Amendment does not include those not born. But keep up the pretense that point has anything to do with citizenship at all.
And my point is although animal cruelty may be illegal, mousetraps are not. Why is that?
No. The 'right to life' is the only possible right outlined in the Constitution that could possibly be construed to applying to persons who are not born. However, once we understand every single use of the word 'person' in the context of the Constitution, is intended to address born persons, then we understand we've no logical nor legal reason to assume the use of the word 'person' in the 14th amendment was ALSO intended to apply ONLY to born persons. It's the only reasonable conclusion we can come to.
Yet another red herring, which you never seem to tire of. Let me put see if I can put it in such a way so that your offer of a red herring will be impossible.
Throughout history, all societies have had laws against murder. Throughout history, abortion wasn't necessarily criminalized in those same societies. In some it was criminalized as misdemeanor only. Therefore, in numerous societies throughout history, including our own, abortion wasn't recognized as murder. Therefore, abortion never has been universally recognized as a crime, although murder was. Since historical precedent didn't recognize abortion as murder, or those not yet born as persons, we've no reason to either.
Those same societies universally recognized murder as crime, but not abortion, or at least didn't see it as a serious crime, though. In other words, there has been universal agreement on murder. Never has their been universal agreement on abortion.
This point is immaterial to the debate.
A newborn may participate in a religious ceremony which we call christening. It is physically impossible for a zygote, embryo or fetus to do the same. Therefore, we have every reason to believe, the rights outlined in the Constitution were specifically intended to address those who had the ability to participate in those rights, with freedom of religion being only one example of many. Therefore, we have every reason to believe, every instance of the word 'person' that appears in the Constitution, is intended to represent those already born and never intended to address those not born, as the usage of the word throughout the Constitution clearly proves. We have legal precedent that establishes this fact as well.
It has everything to do with it. Freedom can not exist where every pregnancy is required by law to result in birth.
The Constitution belies your claim. The usage of the word 'person' in the Constitution belies your claim. Legal decisions of long-standing precedent belies your claim.
Persons are due certain rights, according to the Constitution. The unborn are not persons in the context of the usage of the word found in the Constitution. The Constitution proves it. The law proves it. Precedent proves it.
You calling them persons when the Constitution clearly uses the word person to apply to those born, does not make them persons. It only means you are ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the usage of the word person in the context of the Constitution, ignoring our laws and ignoring legal precedent of centuries long standing.
They are not persons according to the context of the usage of the word in the Constitution. No matter how many times you call them that, they still won't be persons in that context.
Non-citizens have the right to a fair trial as outlined in the Constitution.
You have to be person, under the usage of the word in the context of the Constitution, which very clearly does not include those not born. Law and precedents prove this to be true.
Except that those not born aren't persons as the word is used in the context of the Constitution, which means they have no right to life.
Yet those unborn children aren't persons according to the context of the usage of the word in the Constitution. Additionally, fetal homicide laws serve to protect the rights of the mother's choice to carry the pregnancy to term. Any fetal homicide law that restricts abortion beyond what Roe allows, would also be held to be unconstitutional.
Why would I make such an idiotic and stupid argument? I am saying it is obvious from reading the Constitution that the rights outlined could only be practiced by born persons. Combine that with the fact that every usage of the word person as found in the Constitution is obviously referring to those already born, it becomes quite clear the intention of the authors of the Constitution was to address born persons. In no case could any rights outlined, nor any use of the word person in the Constitution, be possibly construed to be addressing those not born in any way, shape or form.
An infant after birth is capable of being a particpant in a religious ceremony known as a christening. It should be glaringly obvious to you now the reason the 'right to life' as outlined in the Constitution has no application to those not born. The usage of the word person throughout the Constitution clearly refers to born persons in every case. The rights outlined in the Constitution could only be enjoyed by those born. It is wholly logical to therefore conclude the intention of the authors of the Constitution was to address born persons. In no case could the intentions of the authors possibly be construed to be addressing those not born, neither in the usage of the word person, nor in the outline of the rights addressed.
Yet another red herring. It's very simple;
Family;
Father
Mother
16 year old Sibling
12 year old Sibling
If the 16 year old child is murdered, a father and mother have both lost a child and the 12 year old has lost a sibling. The family is down to 3 members.
In the same family, if the mother gets pregnant and aborts, the family is in the same boat as they were before the abortion. There are still 4 members in the family.
If the end result isn't the same for abortion as for murder, our society has no reason at all to equate abortion with murder. Which is why we don't and why our law does't.
I can and do know. I know a woman who lost her 16 year old child. I know women who have had abortions 2 months into the pregnancy. There is no way the loss of a child and the 16 year relationship, can ever compare to the loss of a two month old pregnancy, which involves a 'person' with which one has had NO relationship.
That's illegal, but keep pretending there's no difference between a born child and one unborn. Our society, like every other society that ever existed, knows full well they are not the same. So does our law, regardless of how much you deny the differences.
Exactly! And since every usage of the word person in the context of the Constitution blatantly refers to born persons, just as every right addressed refers to rights that could only be enjoyed by those born, we have every reason to understand the 'right to life' as discussed in the 14th Amendment could only be applied to those already born, which is the only understanding which would be consistent with the Constitution.

reply from: Teresa18

Yep, this poster is not worth arguing with. Frankly, this person's indifference towards life scares me. I rarely bother to read this poster's arguments because because they all have a condescending, cold tone to them. This poster acts as though he/she knows everything.
The bottom line is this. A child within the womb is a person just like a noncitizen. Just because the child within the womb is too young to partake in activities that other people, born and more developed can partake in, does not mean that the child does not deserve the right to life. I don't care what the currrent standing of the law is anymore than I would have cared during slavery. The current standing of the law is wrong, and it should be changed.

reply from: fetalisa

Because you can't refute my claims.
Attack the messenger instead of the message. That's never been done before.
How could you respond to my posts, which you have done, if you aren't reading them?
Refute my claims and prove me wrong.
In the context of the Constitution it is not a person. In the context of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it is not a person. In the context of the assorted state fetal homicide laws, it is not a person.
Correct you are! It is because the Constitution refers to born persons, in every instance the word 'person' is used, and due to the fact all rights discussed in the Constitution, can only be enjoyed by born persons, that we can reasonably conclude those not born are not 'persons' in the context of the Constitution and the intent of the Constitution can not possible be construed to apply to persons not born. Therefore, a 'right to life' for those not born, does not exist.
Given there is centuries of precedent which proves the unborn are not persons with respect to the Constitution and given there are other laws such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which reinforce and strengthen the unborn are not entitled to any 'right to life' it is highly unlikely and improbable the law will change, nor is there any reason.

reply from: yoda

Yep, this poster is not worth arguing with.
I shall join you in putting lisa on iggy, then.

reply from: Teresa18

Yoda, I've never particiapated in a forum with an ignore function. Can you tell me how to use it?

reply from: Sigma

Please read the posting history. I've engaged in several discussions with him, and he has become increasingly irrational with time. Semantics also are not something I care very much about, and concernedparent's argument seem to center around them.

reply from: Sigma

Actually, I daresay most people realize that "a consciousness" would imply something different than merely being "awake".
By my rules? You are only engaging in semantic games. The concept of consciousness simply does not apply to the fetus until around the third trimester. For you to argue that "DNA is a form of consciousness" is just an effort to confuse the issue. Consciousness is a function of the brain, which obviously does not exist just after conception. Your little game of saying "oh the potential to develop a brain is the exact same thing" or "locus could mean something else!" is really stupid, and it just wastes my time to clarify obvious statements. I'm sorry. You're boring.
Concernedparent, semantic discussions do not make you intelligent, nor do you give indication you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion. I have no desire to endlessly clarify your deliberate misunderstanding of my posts. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about concepts instead of semantics, let me know.

reply from: sander

shut up
LOL!
Yeah...what she said!!

reply from: galen

Sigmas dead
and he lost.
gave up the ghost.
sleeps in the moss.

reply from: Antibigot

Legally, it isn't. It doesn't mean, of course, that abortion does not kill a young human. Abortion is only conidered a "legal medical procedure" by law, a term that I hate.

reply from: Antibigot

Well, 40% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Given that God kills almost half of the unborn, He obviously values the unborn very little. If God doesn't care about them and kills them off, why can't we?
Many born people die NATURALLY, also!!!!! This argument does not work.

reply from: Antibigot

You can't be that brainless. The point is, we can not treat the unborn like we do the born. Have you ever seen a woman pull a zygote out of her uterus, sit it in a high chair and feed it some Gerber? No, you have not. Since we can't treat them the same in the real world, there is no reason to treat them the same legally.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not children. That's why you can't feed them Gerber in a high chair. If a 5 year old child is killed in an accident, do we say a rocket scientist is dead? No, we do not. Just because that child had the POTENTIAL to become a rocket scientist does not mean the child was already a rocket scientist. The same is true of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. They are POTENTIAL people, and 40% of those die anyway due to spontaneous abortion and miscarriage.
We can't treat them the same in reality, which is why we don't feed embryos in a high chair. We can freeze an embryo but not a born child. There is no reason to ban abortion at all. There is no need to force women to have children they do not want. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It's very simple.
Your arguments are so bad, I don't even know how to respond.

reply from: Antibigot

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not people. If you claim they are, cite the law which proves it so.
If it's not your uterus, it's not your decision to make.
If you are claiming zygotes, embryos and fetuses are 'persons' under the law, then cite the law which proves your case. Otherwise, your claim they are persons due equal treatment under the law means nothing.
Your definition fails at point 2. If you have proof zygotes, embryos and fetuses possess personalities, provide it. Otherwise the definition fails.
I couldn't care less as it is wholly immaterial to the debate. Sperm and ova are both living and human too. Do you suggest we jail men for murder for killing sperm by masturbating? Sperm are both human and alive, after all.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not people. If you claim they are, cite the law which proves it so.
This is America. You do not have the right to make ANY decisions regarding a uterus you do not own.
If you are claiming zygotes, embryos and fetuses are 'persons' under the law, then cite the law which proves your case. Otherwise, your claim they are persons due equal treatment under the law means nothing.
If they are aborted they are not. They are certainly not 'persons between birth and puberty, ' as defined above.
You wish to change the law. The law will recognize the differences between the born and the unborn whether you do or not. You can pretend there are no differences between the born and the unborn all you wish. The rest of society, like South Dakota, knows damn well what the differences are.
You are on the internet. You are familiar with Google I assume. Search for IVF and learn how the embryos are stored. This is basic stuff you should already be familiar with given your overwhelming concern for the unborn.
Exactly. Banning abortion forces pregnant women to have a child whether they want them or can afford them or not.
Not if she decides she doesn't want a child or a birth. And guess what? That decision is hers, not yours. That's what burns you up the most about it. You can't make that decision for others. You don't have the right.
per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.
Hmmm. You gave FOUR defintions of a person. Not just one. And for some reason, you think that an unborn fetus has to fit ALL of them for it to prove your point.

reply from: Antibigot

Thanks!
I can easily take a look at the world around me and determine the result of the typical arguments against abortion. The results clearly show the arguments are ineffective. South Dakota proves the majority of the population clearly does not view abortion as murder. Otherwise, the SD vote would not have gone as it did. So my views are not based on what I consider, but are instead, based on societal wholesale rejection of the arguments.
I refuse to deny the reality that 40% of all fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which means 40% do not result in a live birth. Nature produces miscarriages and so can we.
If the mother who carries the fertilized egg doesn't wish to have a child, her body and uterus belong to her, which mean, it is HER decision as to what will be done, not yours, not mine, not the government. All forms of slavery exist on the foundation that people do not own their bodies. It would be morally improper to place women in a position where they do not own their uterus nor the contents thereof. It doesn't benefit society to send women the message they are mere incubators.
The one who carries it. It's hers. It is a product of her body. She, alone, has that right legally, which is at it should be.
What a wonderful world it would be if people were nice to each other. Let's pretend this is so and disband the military.
How beautiful it would be if everyone drove safely. Let's pretend this is so and repeal all traffic laws.
What a wonderful world it would be, if people didn't use drugs. Let's pretend this is so and decriminalize all drugs.
What a wonderful world it would be if couples worked through their conflicts. Let's pretend this is so and ban all divorce.
What a wonderful world it would be, if people only had sex for procreation. Let's pretend this is so and ban all abortion and birth control.
I can create as many fantasies based on ideals as you can. However, I am not so stupid as to suggest we write law based on the idealized fantasies we might dream up.
That's for the woman to decide, not you, not me, not the government. One man's meat is another man's poison.
"I refuse to deny the reality that 40% of all fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which means 40% do not result in a live birth. Nature produces miscarriages and so can we. "
Does this mean we can kill born people since so many die anyway? What kind of argument is this? Natural death occurs in ALL stages of life. It doesn't mean we should kill because of it!

reply from: galen

i have to wonder about the 40% #... i mean i know this is a statistic.... but the image of how this came about is kinda gross.

reply from: sander

Welcome to the boards, Antibigot.

reply from: teddybearhamster

because you're a jerk.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics