PDA

View Full Version : Mississippi: Vote for an amendment to declare fertilized egg a person


Hugh
Nov 4, 2011, 05:21 PM
I think Mississippi f'ed up if this vote goes though, it's going too far. This opens all kinds of can of worms. This will mean the day after pill would be illegal as well as some other forms of birth control.

I see this going to the Supreme Court as another Roe v. Wade case. I don't even understand how the measure is even legal. :/ conception a person?? It's just bunch of cells. They make it illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs.

It says in the article that the people backing the vote (Personhood USA Colorado-based group ) tried it other states and it failed. This time they are going to a southern state that is the most religious.



Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Just so you know I think I'm pro-choice, I think it's up to the family to decide.
I know it's the women's body, but I think the father should have some say in it. :/

184550
Nov 4, 2011, 06:13 PM
I think Mississippi f'ed up if this vote goes though, it's going too far. This opens all kinds of can of worms. This will mean the day after pill would be illegal as well as some other forms of birth control.

I see this going to the Supreme Court as another Roe v. Wade case. I don't even understand how the measure is even legal. :/ conception a person?? It's just bunch of cells. They make it illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs.

It says in the article that the people backing the vote (Personhood USA Colorado-based group ) tried it other states and it failed. This time they are going to a southern state that is the most religious.




http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Just so you know I think I'm pro-choice, I think it's up to the family to decide.

Saw this in the NYT on Tuesday or Wednesday. Pretty stupid IMO.

I know it's the women's body, but I think the father should have some say in it. :/

I disagree.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 4, 2011, 06:18 PM
The law would never hold up to any legal challenge in court. It would be killed in the district court as unconstitutional.

Hugh
Nov 4, 2011, 06:37 PM
I disagree.

NOTE: Quote is a response of my post.

I don't know; why would the father not have a voice in the matter? Because it's all her? I guess I'm split on this decision. :/

Hugh

steve knight
Nov 4, 2011, 06:58 PM
most forms of birth control prevent fertilized eggs in the first place. but the pro lifer's claim that the pill or the morning after pill causes abortions. it's just more spreading false info to justify your belief.
the idiots want everything even of they counter each other. get rid of abortions but get rid of the best method to stop it. fools and their beliefs.

miloblithe
Nov 4, 2011, 07:16 PM
NOTE: Quote is a response of my post.

I don't know; why would the father not have a voice in the matter? Because it's all her? I guess I'm split on this decision. :/

Hugh

The question you have to ask yourself is if you think the father should have a moral right to a voice in the matter or a legal right to a voice in the matter.

Mac'nCheese
Nov 4, 2011, 07:18 PM
The question you have to ask yourself is if you think the father should have a moral right to a voice in the matter or a legal right to a voice in the matter.

I think he should but I know he will never get that right.

imahawki
Nov 4, 2011, 07:25 PM
I think Mississippi f'ed up if this vote goes though, it's going too far. This opens all kinds of can of worms. This will mean the day after pill would be illegal as well as some other forms of birth control.

I see this going to the Supreme Court as another Roe v. Wade case. I don't even understand how the measure is even legal. :/ conception a person?? It's just bunch of cells. They make it illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs.

It says in the article that the people backing the vote (Personhood USA Colorado-based group ) tried it other states and it failed. This time they are going to a southern state that is the most religious.




http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Just so you know I think I'm pro-choice, I think it's up to the family to decide.
I know it's the women's body, but I think the father should have some say in it. :/


You do understand that YOU'RE just a bunch of cells.

boss.king
Nov 4, 2011, 07:55 PM
You do understand that YOU'RE just a bunch of cells.

So is a potato. Does that mean it should be a person too?

Mac'nCheese
Nov 4, 2011, 07:56 PM
So is a potato. Does that mean it should be a person too?

Only if its the kind with all the glasses, noses and mouths stored in his butt.

steve knight
Nov 4, 2011, 07:58 PM
some potatoes are more person then some of the candidates running for president.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 4, 2011, 07:59 PM
so what about all the fertilized eggs that do not implant or when the body miscarriers? should the mother be punished for that fact as well?

steve knight
Nov 4, 2011, 08:01 PM
so what about all the fertilized eggs that do not implant or when the body miscarriers? should the mother be punished for that fact as well?

that is getting tried too. you have to prove your miscarriage was natural or you will be arrested.

Hugh
Nov 4, 2011, 08:10 PM
You do understand that YOU'RE just a bunch of cells.

Yes, so is a pig, but that's besides the point. The point is at conception the egg splits in to two cells, then four cells and so on. At this point it is just a glop of cells.

Hugh

Grey Beard
Nov 4, 2011, 08:11 PM
You do understand that YOU'RE just a bunch of cells.
Yes, but I'm a bunch of bent cells, so I am special.
KGB:rolleyes:

CalBoy
Nov 4, 2011, 08:30 PM
You do understand that YOU'RE just a bunch of cells.

This type of ignorant arrogance is precisely why matters of science shouldn't be up to political definition.

You are cells. You are also specialized cells, tissues, organs, and also a shocking amount of bacteria. You also have sentience and consciousness. Independent respiratory abilities, the ability to process food without the aid of another's digestive system and your own antibodies.

That embryo? It's just cells. 50% of the time they will never be anything more because sexual reproduction is far from perfect.

appleguy123
Nov 4, 2011, 08:54 PM
Would a miscarriage be negligant homicide?

184550
Nov 4, 2011, 09:04 PM
NOTE: Quote is a response of my post.

I don't know; why would the father not have a voice in the matter? Because it's all her? I guess I'm split on this decision. :/

Hugh

The question you have to ask yourself is if you think the father should have a moral right to a voice in the matter or a legal right to a voice in the matter.

I think he should but I know he will never get that right.

IMO, once the father chooses not to utilize any available birth control measure on his 'end' of the deed, he loses the ability/ right to have a choice in the matter.

NOTE: If the mother chooses to proceed with the pregnancy, then of course the father still has any/ all legal responsibilities, IMO.

boss.king
Nov 4, 2011, 09:40 PM
IMO, once the father chooses not to utilize any available birth control measure on his 'end' of the deed, he loses the ability/ right to have a choice in the matter.

NOTE: If the mother chooses to proceed with the pregnancy, then of course the father still has any/ all legal responsibilities, IMO.

What if he uses a condom and it fails? Is it his choice then?

184550
Nov 4, 2011, 10:01 PM
What if he uses a condom and it fails? Is it his choice then?

I don't do what if; apply common sense.

appleguy123
Nov 4, 2011, 10:03 PM
I think that the male Should be able to sever his legal ties to a child. If a female can abort the child, a male should be able to leave as well.

boss.king
Nov 4, 2011, 10:05 PM
IMO both the man and the woman have a say in the matter regardless of what contraceptive device is used (or not used).

Mac'nCheese
Nov 4, 2011, 10:11 PM
IMO, once the father chooses not to utilize any available birth control measure on his 'end' of the deed, he loses the ability/ right to have a choice in the matter.


We can say the same thing about the mother then, right? Didn't use birth control then u have to carry to term.

FreeState
Nov 4, 2011, 10:16 PM
Just so you know I think I'm pro-choice, I think it's up to the family to decide.
I know it's the women's body, but I think the father should have some say in it. :/

The man has a say in it - when he chooses to have sex with someone who could get pregnant. That's his choice, he then has to deals with the consequences no matter what they may be. But that is where his choices in the matter ends IMO.

Mac'nCheese
Nov 4, 2011, 10:22 PM
The man has a say in it - when he chooses to have sex with someone who could get pregnant. That's his choice, he then has to deals with the consequences no matter what they may be. But that is where his choices in the matter ends IMO.

Fair enough. But all I would add to that is this: if that's where his choices end, then that's where his responsibilities should end, too. You don't want a man to have a say in what Happens to his child then don't expect to get his money for that same child. U can't have it both ways.

Illumination
Nov 4, 2011, 10:36 PM
Thank god I'm gay - I'll never have to deal with this.

Anyway, I think this is really absurd. Why does everyone in the south want all women to be pregnant? Being pregnant is like a social status down here. You can't force someone to go through this.

And as far as whether the father should have a say in it or not... No. He's not the pregnant one.

stevensr123
Nov 4, 2011, 10:42 PM
Thank god I'm gay - I'll never have to deal with this.

Anyway, I think this is really absurd. Why does everyone in the south want all women to be pregnant? Being pregnant is like a social status down here. You can't force someone to go through this.

And as far as whether the father should have a say in it or not... No. He's not the pregnant one.

Exactly, it's her body and she is the one that ultimately should have the say.

boss.king
Nov 4, 2011, 11:03 PM
The man has a say in it - when he chooses to have sex with someone who could get pregnant. That's his choice, he then has to deals with the consequences no matter what they may be. But that is where his choices in the matter ends IMO.

She chose to have sex too, she knew the risks. If they both consent, they should be equal partners in what happens afterwards.

yg17
Nov 4, 2011, 11:31 PM
Thank god I'm gay - I'll never have to deal with this.


No, you have to deal with it too. Every time you have gay sex, you're wasting your seed - billions of possible babies, and are a murderer. Even worse, you're doing it while committing a homosexual act that the bible forbids :p

leekohler
Nov 4, 2011, 11:42 PM
She chose to have sex too, she knew the risks. If they both consent, they should be equal partners in what happens afterwards.

I would agree with this if the man had to carry the kid.

However, if a woman decides to have a child against the will of the father, the same rules should apply. That is absolutely a problem.

boss.king
Nov 4, 2011, 11:48 PM
I would agree with this if the man had to carry the kid.

However, if a woman decides to have a child against the will of the father, the same rules should apply. That is absolutely a problem.

Sorry I'm a bit confused what you meant here? That the parents are equal in taking care of the kid? Or that the father shouldn't be responsible because he didn't want the child in the first place?

stevensr123
Nov 4, 2011, 11:53 PM
She chose to have sex too, she knew the risks. If they both consent, they should be equal partners in what happens afterwards.

It's her body though that is going to be "housing" the child, and effecting her body.

The only thing a man has to worry about is trying to aim properly when going the toilet strait afterwards. It's a huge amount of responsibility, change to the womens health, mentality etc which is all effected by becoming pregnant. Therefore her say in it far out ways the mans. Who is left scratching his arse.

leekohler
Nov 4, 2011, 11:56 PM
Sorry I'm a bit confused what you meant here? That the parents are equal in taking care of the kid? Or that the father shouldn't be responsible because he didn't want the child in the first place?

What is confusing? If the man has no claim to the fetus in the woman and she decides to abort, why should he also have to claim responsibility if she decides to keep the child against his will?

This is a double standard that makes no sense to me.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 4, 2011, 11:56 PM
Sorry I'm a bit confused what you meant here? That the parents are equal in taking care of the kid? Or that the father shouldn't be responsible because he didn't want the child in the first place?

I think it means that the man will have zero responsibly for the kid.

leekohler
Nov 4, 2011, 11:58 PM
I think it means that the man will have zero responsibly for the kid.

No- it means that both parties should have a choice. That's all.

boss.king
Nov 5, 2011, 12:00 AM
What is confusing? If the man has no claim to the fetus in the woman and she decides to abort, why should he also have to claim responsibility if she decides to keep the child against his will?

This is a double standard that makes no sense to me.

The way you worded it confused me, not the actual concept. I agree with what you're saying.

leekohler
Nov 5, 2011, 12:03 AM
The way you worded it confused me, not the actual concept. I agree with what you're saying.

If the woman is able to make that decision, so should the man. If a woman can abort a child, a man should similarly be able to distance himself if the woman decides to have the child against his will. Sorry, it works both ways. If we allow abortion, we should allow fathers the right to walk away if they see fit. Men should not be held hostage by the women who make these decisions.

It takes two to tango. If one thing applies to one, it should apply to all.

boss.king
Nov 5, 2011, 12:04 AM
It's her body though that is going to be "housing" the child, and effecting her body.

The only thing a man has to worry about is trying to aim properly when going the toilet strait afterwards. It's a huge amount of responsibility, change to the womens health, mentality etc which is all effected by becoming pregnant. Therefore her say in it far out ways the mans. Who is left scratching his arse.

Yes and that's why she should be a bit more careful when having sex. It's not a guys fault he doesn't face the same risks.


If the woman is able to make that decision, so should the man. If a woman can abort a child, a man should similarly be able to distance himself if the woman decides to have the child against his will. Sorry, it works both ways.

Yup, got it now. Completely agree.

leekohler
Nov 5, 2011, 12:14 AM
Yup, got it now. Completely agree.

Yep- you don't get to say, "I'm aborting the pregnancy, it's my body" and also get to say, ""I'm keeping it and you're responsible" at the same time. That does not work at all. That has always been a problem with me in this debate.

If we allow a woman to walk away from a pregnancy, a man should be able to as well. Period. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and a double standard.

CorvusCamenarum
Nov 5, 2011, 12:47 AM
IMO, once the father chooses not to utilize any available birth control measure on his 'end' of the deed, he loses the ability/ right to have a choice in the matter.
Once the mother chooses not to utilize any form of available birth control measures on her end of the deed, she loses the ability/right to have a choice in the matter.

Sounds absurd to you, doesn't it? I guess the better question is why you support such a double standard.

What of cases of deceit or fraud? Say a condom is used, and when he falls asleep, she goes and fishes it out of the trash? Clearly his intent is not to procreate, but that doesn't matter once the child is born.

Or what if she flat out lies and says she's on the pill?

What if she's married and becomes pregnant as a result of an affair? Legally, the husband is on the hook, whether or not he's the actual father.

Or what if she named one person as a father knowing full well the father was someone else?

If she's single and goes on welfare, she is required to name a father, because the state goes after him for reimbursement. any name will do.

I highly recommend you take a trip over to http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ and start reading. You will be appalled at what goes on in this particular fiefdom of law. Or, you should be.

NOTE: If the mother chooses to proceed with the pregnancy, then of course the father still has any/ all legal responsibilities, IMO.
Why you, as a man, are so willing to put 100% of what few reproductive rights you have into the hands and whims of another party, wholly escapes me.

Mac'nCheese
Nov 5, 2011, 08:14 AM
What is confusing? If the man has no claim to the fetus in the woman and she decides to abort, why should he also have to claim responsibility if she decides to keep the child against his will?

This is a double standard that makes no sense to me.

Thank you! I've been trying to make this point in another thread but no one seems to understand what I mean. One guy told me to go back to my church. As if!

184550
Nov 5, 2011, 08:45 AM
Once the mother chooses not to utilize any form of available birth control measures on her end of the deed, she loses the ability/right to have a choice in the matter.

Sounds absurd to you, doesn't it? I guess the better question is why you support such a double standard.

What of cases of deceit or fraud? Say a condom is used, and when he falls asleep, she goes and fishes it out of the trash? Clearly his intent is not to procreate, but that doesn't matter once the child is born.

Or what if she flat out lies and says she's on the pill?

What if she's married and becomes pregnant as a result of an affair? Legally, the husband is on the hook, whether or not he's the actual father.

Or what if she named one person as a father knowing full well the father was someone else?

If she's single and goes on welfare, she is required to name a father, because the state goes after him for reimbursement. any name will do.

I highly recommend you take a trip over to http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ and start reading. You will be appalled at what goes on in this particular fiefdom of law. Or, you should be.


Why you, as a man, are so willing to put 100% of what few reproductive rights you have into the hands and whims of another party, wholly escapes me.

Sorry, I just 'hear' white noise given your self reported location is Alabama.

MacNut
Nov 5, 2011, 10:28 AM
Sorry, I just 'hear' white noise given your self reported location is Alabama.

Seriously, your only argument is to troll an honest debate. Or do you just not have a valid response.

184550
Nov 5, 2011, 10:55 AM
Seriously, your only argument is to troll an honest debate. Or do you just not have a valid response.

*Sigh*

Is yours to just ignore the glaringly obvious?

Once the mother chooses not to utilize any form of available birth control measures on her end of the deed, she loses the ability/right to have a choice in the matter.

Seriously? Is that a serious question? So the mother doesn't want to use birth control but doesn't want a pregnancy?

Please tell me you the logical fallacy here.

Sounds absurd to you, doesn't it? I guess the better question is why you support such a double standard.

See above.

What of cases of deceit or fraud? Say a condom is used, and when he falls asleep, she goes and fishes it out of the trash? Clearly his intent is not to procreate, but that doesn't matter once the child is born.

Or what if she flat out lies and says she's on the pill?

What if she's married and becomes pregnant as a result of an affair? Legally, the husband is on the hook, whether or not he's the actual father.

Or what if she named one person as a father knowing full well the father was someone else?

If she's single and goes on welfare, she is required to name a father, because the state goes after him for reimbursement. any name will do.

As I stated earlier, I'm not playing the 'What If' game with fanciful scenarios dreamed up by MR's crack posters.

I highly recommend you take a trip over to http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ and start reading. You will be appalled at what goes on in this particular fiefdom of law. Or, you should be.


Why you, as a man, are so willing to put 100% of what few reproductive rights you have into the hands and whims of another party, wholly escapes me.

I find it rather scary and am amazed it's not in Alabama.

MacNut
Nov 5, 2011, 11:07 AM
*Sigh*

Is yours to just ignore the glaringly obvious?



Seriously? Is that a serious question? So the mother doesn't want to use birth control but doesn't want a pregnancy?

Please tell me you the logical fallacy here.



See above.



As I stated earlier, I'm not playing the 'What If' game with fanciful scenarios dreamed up by MR's crack posters.



I find it rather scary and am amazed it's not in Alabama.How can you call it what if, it does and has happened.

fireshot91
Nov 5, 2011, 11:19 AM
The law would never hold up to any legal challenge in court. It would be killed in the district court as unconstitutional.

I don't know, this one could be debatable. Especially in such a religiously conservative state as Mississippi.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything against this? (Curious, I haven't read the full constitution, only specific parts)

It might be completely stupid, and that's why it might killed, but not because it's unconstitutional.


On a more strict interpretation of the government, it's the Judiciary's job to voice/form opinions of laws (If it's morally right, if it's just plain stupid, if it is unconstitutional, etc). Since the law is up to a person's views on the matter (When during pregnancy does the 'blob of cells' become a person), it might be more complicated than just being thrown out. But then again, it is Mississippi, they'll just go ultra-conservative and throw it out.



IMO, on a more general level, a woman should have the right to abort - up to a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point (Second trimester, perhaps?:confused:), it should be considered illegal to abort. After that point, it's essentially murder. Again, this is my view. They're free to put up the baby for adoption, they're free to tell the kid how he/she was conceived (Once old enough), keeping tabs on their kid if they want. Or they can just leave the kid at an adoption place. It's up to the parents at that point.



This post reflects my view on the matter.

Mac'nCheese
Nov 5, 2011, 11:55 AM
I don't know, this one could be debatable. Especially in such a religiously conservative state as Mississippi.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything against this? (Curious, I haven't read the full constitution, only specific parts)

It might be completely stupid, and that's why it might killed, but not because it's unconstitutional.


On a more strict interpretation of the government, it's the Jud
iciary's job to voice/form opinions of laws (If it's morally right, if it's just plain stupid, if it is unconstitutional, etc). Since the law is up to a person's views on the matter (When during pregnancy does the 'blob of cells' become a person), it might be more complicated than just being thrown out. But then again, it is Mississippi, they'll just go ultra-conservative and throw it out.



IMO, on a more general level, a woman should have the right to abort - up to a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point (Second trimester, perhaps?:confused:), it should be considered illegal to abort. After that point, it's essentially murder. Again, this is my view. They're free to put up the baby for adoption, they're free to tell the kid how he/she was conceived (Once old enough), keeping tabs on their kid if they want. Or they can just leave the kid at an adoption place. It's up to the parents at that point.



This post reflects my view on the matter.

That's the million dollar question though. When does it change from abortion to murder and who has the right to decide that?

fireshot91
Nov 5, 2011, 11:59 AM
That's the million dollar question though. When does it change from abortion to murder and who has the right to decide that?


Knowing the US Government, they'll set up another committee just for that sole purpose. And pay them boatloads

The Abortion To Murder Committee - ATMC.
They decide the specific time when an abortion becomes a murder, and this committee also oversees that all the abortions are legal.

:cool::D:p

CorvusCamenarum
Nov 5, 2011, 12:09 PM
Seriously? Is that a serious question? So the mother doesn't want to use birth control but doesn't want a pregnancy?

Please tell me you the logical fallacy here.
...
See above.
Please write in coherent sentences so I can understand what you're trying to say, if anything. But to make things easier, I changed the "father" of your statement to "mother" to highlight the double standard you're advocating. I'm still waiting for a response as to why you feel this is acceptable.

As I stated earlier, I'm not playing the 'What If' game with fanciful scenarios dreamed up by MR's crack posters.
I provided a link to an organization that exists for the purpose of reforming family law across the country and documents specific cases of egregiousness in the family law system, and you dismiss it as what-ifs. It's clear you don't have an actual response or rebuttal, as further evidenced by:

I find it rather scary and am amazed it's not in Alabama.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 5, 2011, 12:56 PM
I don't know, this one could be debatable. Especially in such a religiously conservative state as Mississippi.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything against this? (Curious, I haven't read the full constitution, only specific parts)

It might be completely stupid, and that's why it might killed, but not because it's unconstitutional.


On a more strict interpretation of the government, it's the Judiciary's job to voice/form opinions of laws (If it's morally right, if it's just plain stupid, if it is unconstitutional, etc). Since the law is up to a person's views on the matter (When during pregnancy does the 'blob of cells' become a person), it might be more complicated than just being thrown out. But then again, it is Mississippi, they'll just go ultra-conservative and throw it out.



IMO, on a more general level, a woman should have the right to abort - up to a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point (Second trimester, perhaps?:confused:), it should be considered illegal to abort. After that point, it's essentially murder. Again, this is my view. They're free to put up the baby for adoption, they're free to tell the kid how he/she was conceived (Once old enough), keeping tabs on their kid if they want. Or they can just leave the kid at an adoption place. It's up to the parents at that point.



This post reflects my view on the matter.

I want to say there is already presidents for it in the courts for a case like it. The court ruled on abortion a while ago stating it was the woman right. This law would go against it effectively making abortion illegal in the state. Courts already said that it was protected under the 9th amendment

fox10078
Nov 5, 2011, 01:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why care so much about abortion, if it's murder she will receive her punishment when she faces god.

appleguy123
Nov 5, 2011, 01:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why care so much about abortion, if it's murder she will receive her punishment when she faces god.

Not all of us believe in a god, and what happens in the afterlife should have no bearing on the law in the actual world.

fox10078
Nov 5, 2011, 02:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why care so much about abortion, if it's murder she will receive her punishment when she faces god.

Not all of us believe in a god, and what happens in the afterlife should have no bearing on the law in the actual world.

I agree completely, but the religious right believes in the afterlife so they shouldn't be pushing these laws, as their god will take care of it. Just curious are you pro-choice?

appleguy123
Nov 5, 2011, 02:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



I agree completely, but the religious right believes in the afterlife so they shouldn't be pushing these laws, as their god will take care of it. Just curious are you pro-choice?

I'm really torn. I can't come up with a morally consistent view on it. If I'm pro-choice, there has to be a point where it isn't just a clump of cells, and it is a baby.
If I'm pro-life I have to ask myself how I can not believe in terminating some cells in a womb, but I'm okay with killing and eating entire animals that can feel, and dread.

Right now, I don't think that we should ban it, because it will lead to unsafe abortions, but I don't personally like it and will not take part in it if I get someone pregnant by mistake.

Hugh
Nov 5, 2011, 02:22 PM
The 'what if's is why I'm in the middle when it comes to the father choice. I mean it's her body, she is the one that's going to go though the changes, not him. But it did take both of them to make the child for the question even come up. :/

Hugh

Grey Beard
Nov 5, 2011, 05:55 PM
If a dog craps on her doorstep, it's up to her as to how she cleans in up.
KGB:rolleyes:

obeygiant
Nov 5, 2011, 07:14 PM
If a dog craps on her doorstep, it's up to her as to how she cleans in up.
KGB:rolleyes:

Is that really a metaphor for abortion? Come back when you enter high school.

guzhogi
Nov 5, 2011, 10:20 PM
I'm morally torn as well. It would be a lot easier if people took more responsibility, but it's not that easy.

I also find it ironic that the left wingers are pro-choice, yet are anti-death penalty. It's OK to kill an innocent fetus, but not to kill a murderer or rapist? Um, yeah.

MorphingDragon
Nov 5, 2011, 10:26 PM
The baby has philosophically a "soul" if and only if it has a brain, so it would be a fallacy to think that a fertilized egg is a person.

However, I would like to think Mississippians have some thinking skills, because my Sister's Fiancée is from Mississippi. Though hes one of the smarter ones that moved away from America when Bush got into power.

quagmire
Nov 6, 2011, 01:26 AM
My opinion has been that it's a separate life once the brain and heart start functioning.

But, abortion should be the last line of defense. Couples shouldn't be able to go, " If I get pregnant, I can just get an abortion. No need for me to be on the pill or you use a condom".

Grey Beard
Nov 6, 2011, 01:49 AM
If a dog craps on her doorstep, it's up to her as to how she cleans in up.
KGB:rolleyes:

Is that really a metaphor for abortion? Come back when you enter high school.
OB, so your first and only post in this tread is at your own juvenile level. My quote equates to it being the woman's choice and if you can't comprehend this then return to your playpen.
KGB:rolleyes:

Heilage
Nov 6, 2011, 04:14 AM
But, abortion should be the last line of defense. Couples shouldn't be able to go, " If I get pregnant, I can just get an abortion. No need for me to be on the pill or you use a condom".

Of course it should be the last line, but that also requires that the school is allowed to give proper sex education, that isn't flat out lying about things like condoms.


Also, the sentence "An amendment to declare a fertilized egg a person" should make the whole argument dissolve due to it's inherent stupidity.

iJohnHenry
Nov 6, 2011, 10:16 AM
Why care so much about abortion, if it's murder she will receive her punishment when she faces god.

True.

Not all of us believe in a god, and what happens in the afterlife should have no bearing on the law in the actual world.

Also true.

I agree completely, but the religious right believes in the afterlife so they shouldn't be pushing these laws, as their god will take care of it.

They believe that they are their God's voice on Earth, and in so doing turn life into a sort of Purgatory. I believe they just want a stronger church, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve this.

A zygote is just that, a non-sentient pre-Human, and is overwhelmingly the product of the Mother, not the Father.

Her "health" should be primary.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 10:40 AM
A zygote is just that, a non-sentient pre-Human, and is overwhelmingly the product of the Mother, not the Father.


Correct, a fertilized egg is a zygote, a human egg remains a zygote for about 4 days. Then what?

DakotaGuy
Nov 6, 2011, 10:47 AM
I'd be pretty surprised if this passed, however I am not sure what sort of conservatives make up the majority in Mississippi. We had an issue similar to this come up to vote 2 times in South Dakota and it was soundly defeated twice. Then again the majority of conservatives in my state are sort of the libertarian "Government stay out of my private life" types so I am not sure how this will turn out for Mississippi.

iJohnHenry
Nov 6, 2011, 11:24 AM
Correct, a fertilized egg is a zygote, a human egg remains a zygote for about 4 days. Then what?

It morphs into a robot???

It's always changing, if that's your point.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 11:32 AM
It morphs into a robot???

It's always changing, if that's your point.

My point is, you said it's zygote. Apparently not a human life.

When does it become a human life? Day 5 when it's no longer a fertilized egg? Day 22 when the heart starts beating? Maybe around 13 weeks, when the sex organs form and start to be come noticable?

At some point it's a human. Instead of aborting a pregnancy, how about avoiding a pregnancy?

iJohnHenry
Nov 6, 2011, 11:58 AM
My point is, you said it's zygote. Apparently not a human life.

When does it become a human life? Day 5 when it's no longer a fertilized egg? Day 22 when the heart starts beating? Maybe around 13 weeks, when the sex organs form and start to be come noticeable?

At some point it's a human. Instead of aborting a pregnancy, how about avoiding a pregnancy?

It's Human when it leaves the birth-canal, and can breath on it's own.

I do agree that last trimester abortions should be avoided at all costs, unless the Mother's health is at risk, and she does not choose to continue.

If the Woman wants to abort before then, it should be her call.

yg17
Nov 6, 2011, 12:18 PM
Instead of aborting a pregnancy, how about avoiding a pregnancy?

Try telling that to a woman who got raped :rolleyes:

Mac'nCheese
Nov 6, 2011, 12:19 PM
Try telling that to a woman who got raped :rolleyes:

The morning after pill should be in every cops rape kit. No questions asked.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 01:58 PM
Try telling that to a woman who got raped :rolleyes:

Yeah, because this isn't the 21st century and we can't give someone the Plan B (the morning after pill) to stop the prenancy before it even begins.:rolleyes:

----------

Fair enough I don't agree with you, and from what I have seen from you so far (in other threads besides this one) is you're far left leaning. At least you have a little bit of value on human life. That's more morals than most leftist have. Most leftist don't value human life until they are on death row.

I do agree that last trimester abortions should be avoided at all costs.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 02:10 PM
Yeah, because this isn't the 21st century and we can't give someone the Plan B (the morning after pill) to stop the prenancy before it even begins.:rolleyes:
It's so sweet to watch you anti-abortion people arguing amongst yourselves. Make a case for us why the anti-abortionists who believe that life begins at conception are wrong but why the anti-abotionists who believe life begins after implantation (such as yourself) are right.

Fair enough I don't agree with you, and from what I have seen from you so far (in other threads besides this one) is you're far left leaning. At least you have a little bit of value on human life. That's more morals than most leftist have. Most leftist don't value human life until they are on death row.
Do you consider this is a good post that contributes to the thread and PRSI? Or are you trying to get a rise out of people by purposefully being inflammatory?

mobilehaathi
Nov 6, 2011, 02:11 PM
That's more morals than most leftist have. Most leftist don't value human life until they are on death row.

That's a pretty hardcore prejudiced opinion there. That's like saying righties are only concerned with your wellbeing BEFORE you're born. After birth, you're on your own!

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 02:31 PM
Do you consider this is a good post that contributes to the thread and PRSI?
Yes, and I could even back that post up with data. Though I am sure people will find a way to deny it.

----------

That's a pretty hardcore prejudiced opinion there. That's like saying righties are only concerned with your wellbeing BEFORE you're born. After birth, you're on your own!
No right wing people are concerned with everyones lifes until the minute they die. Unless they commit a crime that has deprived someone of their life, we usually call it justice.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 02:32 PM
Yes, and I could even back that post up with data. Though I am sure people will find a way to deny it.
Great.

In your rush for culture wars you seem to have overlooked my question;
Make a case for us why the anti-abortionists who believe that life begins at conception are wrong but why the anti-abotionists who believe life begins after implantation (such as yourself) are right.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 02:44 PM
Great.

In your rush for culture wars you seem to have overlooked my question;

My bad, I owe you a cookie.

How can you say life doesn't exist before giving birth? That's a better question. The fact that two people's DNA came together and made new DNA. You can take an aborted fetus, and do a DNA test on it, and it's a completely different person. You didn't remove a tumor from a woman you removed a human being. With a beating heart, if it was aborted at least 3 weeks after conception.

If there is 3 things to prove it's human life they would be.

1. visual, even in an early term abortion you can see a human figure with 10 fingers and 10 toes.
2. Science, there is a human heart beating, every "LIVING" mammal has a beating heart. If there is a heart beating at 3 weeks and it's not human, what is it?
3. DNA. Every human can be identified with unique DNA (except identical multiples). If you take a fetus and do a DNA test, it would be proven to be human DNA. Not an almost pre-human or almost human DNA.

Again, what's wrong with preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than killing a human?

Hugh
Nov 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
Wait a second here. If a fertilized egg is a person. How can you give a Plan-B pill to a rape victim, and not call it an a abortion of that person (fertilized egg)?

Hugh

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
Wait a second here. If a fertilized egg is a person. How can you give a Plan-B pill to a rape victim, and not call it an a abortion of that person (fertilized egg)?

Hugh

Guess you didn't read through. A fertilized egg is a zygote. No cell duplications yet. Humans don't lay eggs. Techiqually speaking the human egg hatches after 4 days.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 02:55 PM
How can you say life doesn't exist before giving birth? That's a better question.
I didn't ask you to write your own question and answer it. My question is very clear and I'll take your attempt to skirt it as you not being able to answer it.



But I'll play along.
If there is 3 things to prove it's human life they would be.

1. visual, even in an early term abortion you can see a human figure with 10 fingers and 10 toes.
Which its unfortunately shared with many other animal species. And many humans have polydactyly (or less) and are still human. So this is certainly not a way to define human life - Strike 1.

2. Science, there is a human heart beating, every "LIVING" mammal has a beating heart. If there is a heart beating at 3 weeks and it's not human, what is it?
Teratomas for a start can have a "human heart beat". So this is certainly not a way to define human life - Strike 2.

3. DNA. Every human can be identified with unique DNA (except identical multiples). If you take a fetus and do a DNA test, it would be proven to be human DNA. Not an almost pre-human or almost human DNA.
Most cancers have "unique' DNA distinct from the parent. Again teratomas have distinct DNA from the parent. Choriocarcinoma's have their own DNA as do ectopic pregnancies. So this is certainly not a way to define human life -Strike 3.

mobilehaathi
Nov 6, 2011, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by mobilehaathi
That's a pretty hardcore prejudiced opinion there. That's like saying righties are only concerned with your wellbeing BEFORE you're born. After birth, you're on your own!


No right wing people are concerned with everyones lifes until the minute they die. Unless they commit a crime that has deprived someone of their life, we usually call it justice.

Although you totally missed the point of my post, I just want to point out that the omission of a comma between "no" and "right" totally changes the meaning of your sentence. LOL, freudian typo? Of course I understand your intended meaning, but man that was perfect.

My point was not to present a prejudiced fact about "righties," as you seemed to take it, but to make a point that your statement on "leftists" has no basis in fact except in so far as it fits in with your preconceived ideas of "leftists."

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
I didn't ask you to write your own question and answer it. My question is very clear and I'll take your attempt to skirt it as you not being able to answer it.


Yeah, but I asked the question first....maybe not to you, not sure who, but it was on this forum. No answer is even given.



Which its unfortunately shared with many other animal species. And many humans have polydactyly (or less) and are still human. So this is certainly not a way to define human life - Strike 1.

Right, other animals have the same thing, and when we kill them we kill the animal their unborn child. Un-strike 1.


Teratomas for a start can have a "human heart beat". So this is certainly not a way to define human life - Strike 2.


Yeah, but that heart beat isn't an actual heart beating. In a fetus, it IS a heart beating.


Most cancers have "unique' DNA distinct from the parent. Again teratomas have distinct DNA from the parent. Choriocarcinoma's have their own DNA as do ectopic pregnancies. So this is certainly not a way to define human life -Strike 3.

Cancer is not a human, but a human (fetus) with it's own DNA is still a human.

appleguy123
Nov 6, 2011, 03:02 PM
The googles have decided that abortion is wrong. Case closed. Consider adoption instead.
311011

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 03:08 PM
Although you totally missed the point of my post, I just want to point out that the omission of a comma between "no" and "right" totally changes the meaning of your sentence. LOL, freudian typo? Of course I understand your intended meaning, but man that was perfect.

My point was not to present a prejudiced fact about "righties," as you seemed to take it, but to make a point that your statement on "leftists" has no basis in fact except in so far as it fits in with your preconceived ideas of "leftists."

lol, freudian slip? Probably not, sometimes I type too fast on my iphone and for some reason (in this forum only) pieces are totally missing. I have to type slow for it all to come out as I typed it.

----------

The googles have decided that abortion is wrong. Case closed. Consider adoption instead.
311011

A fine choice indeed.

----------

Anyway, there is nothing that's going to make people believe it's a human life unless you're there and actually see an abortion. Even then people will try to convince themselves it's not a human life.

There is a reason people don't bring up these topics.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 03:10 PM
Right, other animals have the same thing, and when we kill them we kill the animal their unborn child. Un-strike 1.
I'm not sure this makes sense :confused:. Counting ten fingers and ten toes as you claimed is not a definition of human.

Yeah, but that heart beat isn't an actual heart beating. In a fetus, it IS a heart beating.
The beating myocytes in a foetus are akin to the beating myocytes in a teratoma. They express the same genes. The early foetal "heart beat" you are claiming doesn't actually come from a beating "heart". It comes from a loose collection of cells early on or a linear hear tube later on. So then from your definition it is only human once it achieves a four-chambered human heart following looping?

Cancer is not a human, but a human (fetus) with it's own DNA is still a human.
That wasn't what you claimed and your goalpost shifting won't help. You claimed that humans have unique DNA and that defines a human - that is demonstrably false.



Try as you might the definition of what constitutes "human" and what constitutes "life" are very difficult quantities to ascertain.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 03:14 PM
I'm not sure this makes sense :confused:. Counting ten fingers and ten toes as you claimed is not a definition of human.

It's human parts...besides the fingers and toes, there is a head,with a face, neck, ears, torso, legs knees, etc. That doesn't make sense?

But you win...it's not a human until it exits the birth canal....unless a doctor does a c-section a week early or so for whatever reason, then we snap our fingers and it's a human on the day the doctor decides to do the operation.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 03:19 PM
It's human parts...besides the fingers and toes, there is a head,with a face, neck, ears, torso, legs knees, etc. That doesn't make sense?
So it's a human when it looks like a human now :confused:? Your ten fingers and ten toes is out. Which would reject most early foetuses from your definition before the formation of limbs. So an implanted foetus isn't necessarily human?

But you win...it's not a human until it exits the birth canal....unless a doctor does a c-section a week early or so for whatever reason, then we snap our fingers and it's a human on the day the doctor decides to do the operation.
If you want to be taken at all seriously don't try and attribute arguments to other people that they didn't make. It is terribly tiresome and non-contributory.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 03:36 PM
If you want to be taken at all seriously don't try and attribute arguments to other people that they didn't make. It is terribly tiresome and non-contributory.

No that's a serious comment. People on here have stated that it's not a human life until it exits the birth canal. If nature has it's way and a baby would have exited the birth canal a week from today, then that fetus would not be a baby until today. Unless a doctor does an early c-section for any reason (medical, whatever), then by default it become a human earlier?

edit...don't even answer that...I already said you won. It's all a matter of opinion based on how we see the facts on both sides anyway.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 03:38 PM
No that's a serious comment.
It wasn't a serious comment. It was a flippant comment that you tried to attribute to me because you were failing at advancing your own "3 points that define a human life".

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 03:40 PM
It wasn't a serious comment. It was a flippant comment that you tried to attribute to me because you were failing at advancing your own "3 points that define a human life".

No I didn't fail to make my point, I made them very clear. You failed to understand them.

.Andy
Nov 6, 2011, 03:42 PM
No I didn't fail to make my point, I made them very clear. You failed to understand them.
Oh I see. It wasn't that each point you raised was easily rebutted requiring you to revise them to the point that they were completely inconsistent. It was actually that your arguments were too cerebral. My apologies.

ericrwalker
Nov 6, 2011, 04:08 PM
Oh I see. It wasn't that each point you raised was easily rebutted requiring you to revise them to the point that they were completely inconsistent. It was actually that your arguments were too cerebral. My apologies.

Pretty much...every point I made you made an absurd tangent with as if it was a good rebuttal. So yes.

iJohnHenry
Nov 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
Fair enough I don't agree with you, and from what I have seen from you so far (in other threads besides this one) is you're far left leaning. At least you have a little bit of value on human life. That's more morals than most leftist have. Most leftist don't value human life until they are on death row.

I would be showing great, seething umbrage right now, if I was not smiling so much. :D

The Mother is Life, the fœtus is open for debate.

And further, you know me not at all.

I just don't fit in your diminishing little bucket of 'acceptables'.

George Knighton
Nov 7, 2011, 07:34 AM
The answer might rest in going back to the very origins of our legal system, a Common Law that goes back to an England before Christianity even arrived.

The question isn't when life begins. The question is when person-hood begins.

At common law, the ancient test when translated would be, "...a heart beating at the Queen's Peace."

A logical judicial extrapolation of the ancient concept would lead us to believe that most of the States are on-tack when they stipulate that person-hood involves the viability of a foetus, in other words, whether or not the child could live outside the woman without the use of unreasonable medical procedures designed to preserve the physical continuance of a creature otherwise not viable.

Personally, I think that most of the States are on tack judicially with their legislation, in varying degrees, and I think that defining person-hood as a potentially viable life is a huge mistake.

Where do we stop with this, otherwise? Are we prepared to say that a life of celibacy is a sin because we are not actively attempting to produce viable life?

I believe that the proposed Mississippi statute will be judged to be theoretically unconstitutional because it is at odds with the concepts at common law which framed the American constitutional existence. Whether or not the American Founding Fathers articulated these ideas, we know that these are the ideas with which they were trained.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 07:56 AM
At least you have a little bit of value on human life. That's more morals than most leftist have.

You just lost all credibility you may have had. Your opinions are no longer of interest to me.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 08:01 AM
You just lost all credibility you may have had. Your opinions are no longer of interest to me.

Wow really? It saddens me. Is it not true that most leftist value human life on death row more than human life in the womb? That is not a lie, statistically that is backed up 100% over and over.

yg17
Nov 7, 2011, 08:03 AM
Yeah, because this isn't the 21st century and we can't give someone the Plan B (the morning after pill) to stop the prenancy before it even begins.:rolleyes:

----------

Fair enough I don't agree with you, and from what I have seen from you so far (in other threads besides this one) is you're far left leaning. At least you have a little bit of value on human life. That's more morals than most leftist have. Most leftist don't value human life until they are on death row.

And most righties value life until it's born.

Health care for the child? Hell no, that's socialism!
Environmental regulations to provide a clean living environment for the child? Hell no, the free market should regulate itself!
Once the child turns 18, sending it off to war to die for an unjust cause. Hell yes!

Wow really? It saddens me. Is it not true that most leftist value human life on death row more than human life in the womb? That is not a lie, statistically that is backed up 100% over and over.

If it's backed up by statistics, surely you could share those statistics with us :rolleyes:

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 08:05 AM
And most righties value life until it's born.

Health care for the child? Hell no, that's socialism!
Environmental regulations to provide a clean living environment for the child? Hell no, the free market should regulate itself!
Once the child turns 18, sending it off to war to die for an unjust cause. Hell yes!

Not sure, we know that the reason why health care is getting so expensive is because the government is getting so involved. The more Free health care that is given the more it's harder for the middle class to afford it.

Luckily for you, our military is currently 100% volunteer, if you don't like the "cause" steer clear.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 08:20 AM
Wow really? It saddens me. Is it not true that most leftist value human life on death row more than human life in the womb? That is not a lie, statistically that is backed up 100% over and over.

Your statement that leftists have no morals is beyond untrue and extremely offensive, not to mention the rest of that statement. I could also easily say the the right values heterosexual, white, male life more than any other. And you really don't want me getting statistics on that one.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 08:35 AM
Your statement that leftists have no morals is beyond untrue and extremely offensive, not to mention the rest of that statement. I could also easily say the the right values heterosexual, white, male life more than any other. And you really don't want me getting statistics on that one.

Never said "NO MORALS" I said since he values life to some degree it's more morals than what most liberals have. If you have morals, I believe you must not fall into that category.

*My morals are based on that I believe everyone has a equal chance at the life they were given, and not to take away the life or liberty of others.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 08:50 AM
Never said "NO MORALS" I said since he values life to some degree it's more morals than what most liberals have. If you have morals, I believe you must not fall into that category.

You're digging your hole deeper. Now you're saying that liberals don't value life.

*My morals are based on that I believe everyone has a equal chance at the life they were given, and not to take away the life or liberty of others.

Really? You must not be right wing then, because most on the right are more than happy to infringe on the liberty of others.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 09:01 AM
You're digging your hole deeper. Now you're saying that liberals don't value life.

No I am saying liberals value the life of a heinous criminal more than the life of a baby in the womb.



Really? You must not be right wing then, because most on the right are more than happy to infringe on the liberty of others.

I would consider myself a neoconservative, and a social libertarian.

I am going to go out and say that you believe that the right is infringing on your right to gay marriage, and you already know my stance on that. It's not up the to Washington DC to legalize marriage gay or straight. It's part of state law (currently DC recognizes it). The beauty of following the constitution is that every state can be completely different and still be part of the USA. People don't even realize the power of their states. They want the federal government to legalize everything, when they have limited power (supposed to at least). With that being said, each state can make their own laws on each situation, and if you don't like it, you have the power to still be a US citizen and move to a state that suits your needs.


EDIT: BTW, there is way more republican bashing on this site than the opposite. Usually republicans just ignore it.

yg17
Nov 7, 2011, 09:20 AM
I am going to go out and say that you believe that the right is infringing on your right to gay marriage, and you already know my stance on that. It's not up the to Washington DC to legalize marriage gay or straight. It's part of state law (currently DC recognizes it). The beauty of following the constitution is that every state can be completely different and still be part of the USA. People don't even realize the power of their states. They want the federal government to legalize everything, when they have limited power (supposed to at least). With that being said, each state can make their own laws on each situation, and if you don't like it, you have the power to still be a US citizen and move to a state that suits your needs.

Nobody should be denied a right because they live in the wrong state. A gay couple living in Alabama should have the same right to marriage as a gay couple living in DC has.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 09:39 AM
No I am saying liberals value the life of a heinous criminal more than the life of a baby in the womb.

Because a blob of tissue is not a baby.



I would consider myself a neoconservative, and a social libertarian.

I am going to go out and say that you believe that the right is infringing on your right to gay marriage, and you already know my stance on that. It's not up the to Washington DC to legalize marriage gay or straight. It's part of state law (currently DC recognizes it). The beauty of following the constitution is that every state can be completely different and still be part of the USA. People don't even realize the power of their states. They want the federal government to legalize everything, when they have limited power (supposed to at least). With that being said, each state can make their own laws on each situation, and if you don't like it, you have the power to still be a US citizen and move to a state that suits your needs.

No- this is the USA, and all deserve equal protection under the law, no matter what state we live in. Perhaps you's like to read the Constitution again, instead of believing what the right tells you it says.


EDIT: BTW, there is way more republican bashing on this site than the opposite. Usually republicans just ignore it.

There's a lot to bash. The right has a lot of very serious problems and are wrong about damn near everything they believe.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 09:47 AM
Because a blob of tissue is not a baby.

LOL, and some would agree with you. (about half the population of the USA)


[QUOTE=leekohler;13807739]
No- this is the USA, and all deserve equal protection under the law, no matter what state we live in. Perhaps you's like to read the Constitution again, instead of believing what the right tells you it says.

I am assuming you are referring to the 14th amendment, and if the federal government makes no laws for or against gay marriage (as well as straight) you are good. Now work on getting your state to legalize gay marriage.

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




There's a lot to bash. The right has a lot of very serious problems and are wrong about damn near everything they believe.

Same goes for the left.

----------

Nobody should be denied a right because they live in the wrong state. A gay couple living in Alabama should have the same right to marriage as a gay couple living in DC has.

So if I get a right to carry a consealed weapons permit in Texas, I should be able to carry in NY as well? (I believe so, but it's not the case).

Again, I believe if you are to get married in a state that allows it, I do also think the other state should at least recognize it (doesn't have to preform the marriage), but at least see them as a legal couple.

mcrain
Nov 7, 2011, 10:21 AM
I also find it ironic that the left wingers are pro-choice, yet are anti-death penalty. It's OK to kill an innocent fetus, but not to kill a murderer or rapist?

Is it not true that most leftist value human life on death row more than human life in the womb?

There is obviously a lot of passionate opinions from people who are opposed to the choice to have an abortion. The question is whether the morals, values and religion of those people should dictate to women what they can and cannot choose to do with their own bodies.

The abortion question is not about the procedure or the values and morals, it is about whether the state can take away a choice from a select class of people. If you are so opposed to abortion, adopt a child. Donate money. Help a pregnant teenager until the baby/mother are old enough to take care of themselves. There are lots of things you can do that don't involve taking away a woman's right to choose.

It is her choice, her body, her rights. You want to impose your will on her, and that is not how this country is supposed to work.

On the other hand, the death penalty is the State taking someone's life. There are no personal "choices" being made by an individual. This is a situation of our government taking someone's life, the most extreme form of punishment, in situations where humans are fallible and mistakes happen.

You can not reverse an execution if exculpatory evidence later arises. Plus, execution gives you zero additional protection from the defendant than does life without parole.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 10:23 AM
What about the choice not to kill a baby? or the choice to get pregnant in the first place?

I am not trying to tell a woman what to do with HER body, it's what you can't do to the BODY inside her.

There is obviously a lot of passionate opinions from people who are opposed to the choice to have an abortion. The question is whether the morals, values and religion of those people should dictate to women what they can and cannot choose to do with their own bodies.

The abortion question is not about the procedure or the values and morals, it is about whether the state can take away a choice from a select class of people. If you are so opposed to abortion, adopt a child. Donate money. Help a pregnant teenager until the baby/mother are old enough to take care of themselves. There are lots of things you can do that don't involve taking away a woman's right to choose.

It is her choice, her body, her rights. You want to impose your will on her, and that is not how this country is supposed to work.

On the other hand, the death penalty is the State taking someone's life. There are no personal "choices" being made by an individual. This is a situation of our government taking someone's life, the most extreme form of punishment, in situations where humans are fallible and mistakes happen.

You can not reverse an execution if exculpatory evidence later arises. Plus, execution gives you zero additional protection from the defendant than does life without parole.

CaptMurdock
Nov 7, 2011, 10:26 AM
[quote]There's a lot to bash. The right has a lot of very serious problems and are wrong about damn near everything they believe.
Same goes for the left.

Really? The Left is basing their opinions of life and politics on a discredited Bronze Age fairytale? Interesting.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 12:26 PM
You can not reverse an execution if exculpatory evidence later arises. Plus, execution gives you zero additional protection from the defendant than does life without parole.

You can't reverse an abortion either if a wake up call later arises.

mcrain
Nov 7, 2011, 01:40 PM
You can't reverse an abortion either if a wake up call later arises.

No, a woman who makes that choice cannot undo her decision, and would have to live with the consequences. But, that is her choice. A choice the "my opinion is more valuable than yours" crowd want to take away.

There is a HUGE difference between that, and the State using its Constitutionally granted powers to take someone's life.

The issues are not equivilant. Not even close.

I'm sorry you don't understand that.

rdowns
Nov 7, 2011, 01:53 PM
I think we'd all be better served if we outlawed conception in Mississippi.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 01:54 PM
No, a woman who makes that choice cannot undo her decision, and would have to live with the consequences. But, that is her choice. A choice the "my opinion is more valuable than yours" crowd want to take away.

There is a HUGE difference between that, and the State using its Constitutionally granted powers to take someone's life.

The issues are not equivilant. Not even close.

I'm sorry you don't understand that.

The issue is that you view her as terminating cells (I'm assuming). Some of us view her as killing a human being. So unless you plan on saying that everyone should have a choice to kill anyone they want then your argument is mute.

Sorry YOU don't understand that.

.Andy
Nov 7, 2011, 01:57 PM
I am not trying to tell a woman what to do with HER body, it's what you can't do to the BODY inside her.
Are you of the impression that pregnancy has no bearing on a woman's body :confused:?


The issue is that you view her as terminating cells (I'm assuming). Some of us view her as killing a human being.
You don't view her as killing a human being. You claim you do but it is all hot air and doesn't stand up to any test. You wouldn't want to perform autopsies on all miscarriages to see if the woman was culpable and punish the women involved with murder/manslaughter. You wouldn't sift through all sexually active women's menses to ensure that there was no "baby" in there for a proper burial. You wouldn't force women who are raped to carry the pregnancy for nine months (at least I hope you'd have the empathy and decency not to).

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 01:59 PM
Are you of the impression that pregnancy has no bearing on a woman's body :confused:?

Are you aware that getting pregnant can be avoided if the woman is THAT worried about her body that she tries to justify killing another human to "save it".

jsolares
Nov 7, 2011, 02:01 PM
Are you aware that getting pregnant can be avoided if the woman is THAT worried about her body that she tries to justify killing another human to "save it".

Right, rape victimes have that choice as well... do you even listen to yourself and actually think what you're saying?

.Andy
Nov 7, 2011, 02:04 PM
Are you aware that getting pregnant can be avoided if the woman is THAT worried about her body that she tries to justify killing another human to "save it".
And plan B or an abortion (either medically or pharmacologically) is a perfectly legitimate back up if contraception fails. I don't know where you got this impression that people are against contraception (with the exception of the catholic christian church of course).

Gelfin
Nov 7, 2011, 02:16 PM
The issue is that you view her as terminating cells (I'm assuming). Some of us view her as killing a human being. So unless you plan on saying that everyone should have a choice to kill anyone they want then your argument is mute.

Sorry YOU don't understand that.

That is an absolutely false comparison. The personhood of a fetus is a contingent theory: it is something you believe as a philosophical point. The personhood of a person is a tautology: it is an objective fact. Given that, you have to explain why your own belief about the moral rights of a fetus supersedes that of the woman carrying it, such that she should be forced to adhere to your belief at her own expense just to make you happy.

You don't have to like other people's decisions, but unless you can give a real reason beyond what feels right according to your subjective sensibilities, it doesn't grant you the right to dictate that they make them differently.

mcrain
Nov 7, 2011, 02:23 PM
That is an absolutely false comparison. The personhood of a fetus is a contingent theory: it is something you believe as a philosophical point. The personhood of a person is a tautology: it is an objective fact. Given that, you have to explain why your own belief about the moral rights of a fetus supersedes that of the woman carrying it, such that she should be forced to adhere to your belief at her own expense just to make you happy.

You don't have to like other people's decisions, but unless you can give a real reason beyond what feels right according to your subjective sensibilities, it doesn't grant you the right to dictate that they make them differently.

Thank you for explaining that better than I had.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 02:34 PM
I would argue that a fetus being human is an objective fact however, people have tried to create it into something subjective to benefit their own agendas.

We could argue all day and night, 10,000 posts, record thread etc but it doesn't mean that we will ever see eye-to-eye.

Many of your opinions is that a fetus isn't a human until a certain month, some even argue it isn't until it is born. My opinion is that it is a human being and to deprive it of life is murder.

Come back with "facts" all you want but just because some dude in a laboratory was paid millions of dollars to say that even though it has a heart beat and looks human doesn't mean it is until the mother wants to believe it is doesn't change anything.

Hopefully Mississippi will make it a law. "Luckily" for those who want to kill babies there are 49 other states in which they can do so.

.Andy
Nov 7, 2011, 02:42 PM
Come back with "facts" all you want but just because some dude in a laboratory was paid millions of dollars to say that even though it has a heart beat and looks human doesn't mean it is until the mother wants to believe it is doesn't change anything.
Science is a conspiracy carried out by millionaire scientists.

Hopefully Mississippi will make it a law.
So now you believe life begins at conception :confused:? Presumably you are against IVF and intra uterine contraceptive devices too then?

mcrain
Nov 7, 2011, 03:17 PM
Not to mention the negligent homocide charges that will be brought against convenience stores and bars for selling cigarettes and booze to women without first checking to see if they are pregnant.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 03:21 PM
Not to mention the negligent homocide charges that will be brought against convenience stores and bars for selling cigarettes and booze to women without first checking to see if they are pregnant.

Yes, because those who sell guns to people (in a legal manner) should be held responsible if the people use them to kill someone. :rolleyes:

mcrain
Nov 7, 2011, 03:23 PM
Yes, because those who sell guns to people (in a legal manner) should be held responsible if the people use them to kill someone. :rolleyes:

Except, if a fetus is a life at conception, there is no way to legally sell alcohol or cigarettes for consumption to a woman with baby.

Every miscarriage post-auto accident will result in life insurance claims and loss of life claims. Guess what that's going to do to your premiums.

Macaddicttt
Nov 7, 2011, 04:39 PM
That is an absolutely false comparison. The personhood of a fetus is a contingent theory: it is something you believe as a philosophical point. The personhood of a person is a tautology: it is an objective fact.

I've been trying to stay out of discussions like this recently, but I felt compelled to respond to this.

Yes, the personhood of a person is an objective fact, tautologically. But that statement is completely meaningless unless you also define what a "person" is.

Basically your argument here is, "Since the English language has two separate words for 'person' and 'fetus' they are separate things. I value personhood as it relates to the English language, and therefore it's incumbent on you to prove that fetushood has the same value as personhood."

Your argument would make no sense at all if there was no separate word for "fetus" in the English language.

Now I don't want to completely jump into this discussion, but my point is that you are as responsible to define what the word "person" means, as someone arguing that personhood begins at conception. Your belief that personhood doesn't begin at conception is just as contingent as the belief that personhood begins at conception.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 04:51 PM
Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide for killing his wife and her fetus (blob of cells). Now if that's not grounds for an appeal I don't know what is.

.Andy
Nov 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
I've been trying to stay out of discussions like this recently, but I felt compelled to respond to this.

Yes, the personhood of a person is an objective fact, tautologically. But that statement is completely meaningless unless you also define what a "person" is.

Basically your argument here is, "Since the English language has two separate words for 'person' and 'fetus' they are separate things. I value personhood as it relates to the English language, and therefore it's incumbent on you to prove that fetushood has the same value as personhood."

Your argument would make no sense at all if there was no separate word for "fetus" in the English language.

Now I don't want to completely jump into this discussion, but my point is that you are as responsible to define what the word "person" means, as someone arguing that personhood begins at conception. Your belief that personhood doesn't begin at conception is just as contingent as the belief that personhood begins at conception.
Definition aside it would be impossible for "personhood" to begin at conception. If this were the case identical twins derived from splitting of am embryo would be the same "person". Clearly they aren't.

Abyssgh0st
Nov 7, 2011, 05:21 PM
Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide for killing his wife and her fetus (blob of cells). Now if that's not grounds for an appeal I don't know what is.

She (Laci Peterson) was seven and a half months pregnant when she was reported missing.. pretty stupid to call it a blob of cells at that stage in prenatal development. Blob of cells != fetus. Think you're confusing yourself.

Killing a seven and a half month old fetus (while inside the mother's womb) is similar to a late term abortion, which is something I have yet to see promoted in this thread (outside of medical circumstances.)

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 05:31 PM
Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide for killing his wife and her fetus (blob of cells). Now if that's not grounds for an appeal I don't know what is.

Are the sentences being served concurrently??

If so, I see no grounds for filing an appeal based on just this thread.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 05:38 PM
I guess you don't realize that I am being sarcastic, and you haven't read my stance on this. I believe an unborn child is a human life. But through this thread and a few other right now, people are saying a fetus is not a human being. Sorry if my sarcasm didn't shine through.

She (Laci Peterson) was seven and a half months pregnant when she was reported missing.. pretty stupid to call it a blob of cells at that stage in prenatal development. Blob of cells != fetus. Think you're confusing yourself.

Killing a seven and a half month old fetus (while inside the mother's womb) is similar to a late term abortion, which is something I have yet to see promoted in this thread (outside of medical circumstances.)

----------

Are the sentences being served concurrently??

If so, I see no grounds for filing an appeal based on just this thread.

Well I guess if it were concurrent there isn't a reason for an appeal unless he wants it cleared up that he only killed one human not two.

Abyssgh0st
Nov 7, 2011, 05:39 PM
I guess you don't realize that I am being sarcastic, and you haven't read my stance on this. I believe an unborn child is a human life. But through this thread and a few other right now, people are saying a fetus is not a human being. Sorry if my sarcasm didn't shine through.



----------



Well I guess if it were concurrent there isn't a reason for an appeal unless he wants it cleared up that he only killed one human not two.


I've read this entire thread, and have fully comprehended your half-witted stance on pro-life. I was simply pointing out that calling a 7.5 month old fetus a bundle of cells was moronic, nor do I think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 05:40 PM
Well I guess if it were concurrent there isn't a reason for an appeal unless he wants it cleared up that he only killed one human not two.

That would be an insightful thing, from my point of view, but not, I fear, from yours.

steve knight
Nov 7, 2011, 05:52 PM
Are you aware that getting pregnant can be avoided if the woman is THAT worried about her body that she tries to justify killing another human to "save it".

Not if birth control is banned. a lot of these pro lifers what all medical forms of birth control banned.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 05:53 PM
Not if birth control is banned. a lot of these pro lifers what all medical forms of birth control banned.

And all birth control is not 100% guaranteed to work. So what then?

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 05:55 PM
I've read this entire thread, and have fully comprehended your half-witted stance on pro-life. I was simply pointing out that calling a 7.5 month old fetus a bundle of cells was moronic, nor do I think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Please refrain from words like "half-witted" and "moronic" in an already emotionally charged thread.

CalBoy
Nov 7, 2011, 05:56 PM
I would argue that a fetus being human is an objective fact however, people have tried to create it into something subjective to benefit their own agendas.

You can argue that, but you wouldn't have any facts to bring to the table. An argument without evidence is usually not a great one.

The objective facts are that a fetus does not begin to resemble a human baby until pretty late in the pregnancy. For a long time, it is more accurately a fish embryo (quelle surprise). The localized processes that govern cell differentiation don't start to produce the uniquely "human" characteristics until shockingly late in the pregnancy (well not all that shocking if you understand how process works).

This is why metrics like a detectable heartbeat aren't so fantastic to determine what is "human." A very long list of other animals with which we share a common ancestor also have a heartbeat at that early stage.

Instead of focusing on what you think is a conspiracy by scientists or doctors, why don't you explain which legitimate public interest is served by making this decision for women?

The science does not support your definition, but that doesn't mean that a state interest doesn't exist. But what is it? And is it one we would feel comfortable extending to other areas of law that don't have to do with female reproductive privacy?

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 05:59 PM
And all birth control is not 100% guaranteed to work. So what then?

Oh, here we go...

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 06:01 PM
This is why metrics like a detectable heartbeat aren't so fantastic to determine what is "human." A very long list of other animals with which we share a common ancestor also have a heartbeat at that early stage.

So what? Are we waiting for a later stage to make sure it is human and not a reptile inside a woman?

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg

Yeah I used a Facepalm. Had to. Some of these arguments are blowing my mind. And y'all supposedly have science on your sides. Well if science can't determine that the thing being developed inside a woman is human, and not whatever other things you want to describe it as then I'd give y'alls science a big F-.

Macaddicttt
Nov 7, 2011, 06:05 PM
I said I didn't want to get into this thread, but here goes my second post... :p

The objective facts are that a fetus does not begin to resemble a human baby until pretty late in the pregnancy.

Sorry, but you can't say something is fact if part of that fact is the word "resemble." Your statement is akin to saying, "The objective fact is that Picasso's 'Guernica' doesn't resemble a German bomb attack."

And second of all, I'm not sure that "resemblance" is really the basis for an argument.

The science does not support your definition...

The science does not refute it either. When a person achieves personhood (and therefore value worth protecting) has nothing to do with science. It is innately a philosophical question.

Note: My presence in this thread is merely to balance it out a bit. There are flaws in both sides' arguments, but you guys are already doing pretty well pointing out the flaws in the pro-life side.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:09 PM
I've read this entire thread, and have fully comprehended your half-witted stance on pro-life. I was simply pointing out that calling a 7.5 month old fetus a bundle of cells was moronic, nor do I think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Coment #103
Because a blob of tissue is not a baby.


----------

I was simply pointing out that calling a 7.5 month old fetus a bundle of cells was moronic, nor do I think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Not to mention, I am the only one that I know of on this forum that has posted ultrasounds of my daughter at just 2 months and claimed she looked like a human being then, and was and is a human being while Lee called it a blob over and over.

I agree calling a fetus a blob, or not a human is moronic.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 06:10 PM
Coment #103


----------



Not to mention, I am the only one that I know of on this forum that has posted ultrasounds of my daughter at just 2 months and claimed she looked like a human being then, and was and is a human being while Lee called it a blob over and over.

I agree calling a fetus a blob, or not a human is moronic.

Where did I say a fetus is a blob of cells? Do you even know that the term "fetus" does not even apply to early term pregnancy?

I'm sorry, but it I had seen those photos not knowing it was your daughter, there is no way to tell that I was looking inside a woman's uterus.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:13 PM
Where did I say a fetus is a blob of cells? Do you even know that the term "fetus" does not even apply to early term pregnancy?

I'm sorry, but it I had seen those photos not knowing it was your daughter, there is no way to tell that I was looking inside a woman's uterus.

The "fetus" starts around the 2nd trimester. I mentioned "baby in the womb" and you replied that a blob of tissue is not a baby.

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 06:14 PM
The "fetus" starts around the 2nd trimester. I mentioned "baby in the womb" and you replied that a blob of cells is not a baby.

Because a blob of cells ISN'T a baby!

CalBoy
Nov 7, 2011, 06:14 PM
So what? Are we waiting for a later stage to make sure it is human and not a reptile inside a woman?

No, the point is that a fetus is not a human. A human has certain characteristics that a fetus doesn't have.

What you are really trying to say is that a fetus in a human woman has the potential (less than half the time) to become a human.

Do you want the law to address potential human life and give it the same level of legal protection as an actual human?

And y'all supposedly have science on your sides. Well if science can't determine that the thing being developed inside a woman is human, and not whatever other things you want to describe it as then I'd give y'alls science a big F-.

Science can determine what a fetus is.
YOU don't like the answer.
YOU want to change the meaning of words until they suit your beliefs.
YOU want to ignore my question to you: what is the legitimate public interest in determining the course of a pregnancy for a woman?

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:15 PM
Because a blob of cells ISN'T a baby!

LOL so when I mentioned a baby in the womb you were vaguely talking about pre-fetus stage. So a fetus should be protected? I can't keep up with the double talk.

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 06:19 PM
The objective facts are that a fetus does not begin to resemble a human baby until pretty late in the pregnancy. For a long time, it is more accurately a fish embryo (quelle surprise). The localized processes that govern cell differentiation don't start to produce the uniquely "human" characteristics until shockingly late in the pregnancy (well not all that shocking if you understand how process works).

The question is not if the fetus is human, which it obviously is, or if the fetus is alive or is "life", which it obviously is, its when should laws start to protect it as a person with rights.

The human characteristics are obvious very early in pregnancy. The baby at the end of 8 weeks major organs have formed, eyelids and sex organs begin to form, fingers and toes begin to form, and the heartbeat become regular. I wouldn't call these developments "shockingly late".

leekohler
Nov 7, 2011, 06:20 PM
LOL so when I mentioned a baby in the womb you were vaguely talking about pre-fetus stage. So a fetus should be protected? I can't keep up with the double talk.

The only one using double talk is you. You claimed I called a fetus a "blob of cells' when I never said any such thing. I do not appreciate lying. Now you've somehow turned this into this statement? Amazing, and the you accuse ME of using double talk. :eek:

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 06:23 PM
No, the point is that a fetus is not a human. A human has certain characteristics that a fetus doesn't have.


Thats ridiculous. Its human from conception to birth.

----------

The only one using double talk is you. You claimed I called a fetus a "blob of cells' when I never said any such thing. I do not appreciate lying. Now you've somehow turned this into this statement? Amazing, and the you accuse ME of using double talk. :eek:

post 103 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13807739&postcount=103) you said "blob of tissue".

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:26 PM
My daughter was conceived around the middle to end of June 2010. If you look at her ultrasound pictures you can see she was obviously a human very early. The pictures are dated on each one. That's proof enough for me. Ultrasounds are just that sound waves. To see things that clear and even determine the sex without actually cutting open or doing x-rays on someone is amazing.

http://sakurawalker.com/albums/prebirth/photoview.php

The question is not if the fetus is human, which it obviously is, or if the fetus is alive or is "life", which it obviously is, its when should laws start to protect it as a person with rights.

The human characteristics are obvious very early in pregnancy. The baby at the end of 8 weeks major organs have formed, eyelids and sex organs begin to form, fingers and toes begin to form, and the heartbeat become regular. I wouldn't call these developments "shockingly late".

----------

The only one using double talk is you. You claimed I called a fetus a "blob of cells' when I never said any such thing. I do not appreciate lying. Now you've somehow turned this into this statement? Amazing, and the you accuse ME of using double talk. :eek:

LOL ok, :rolleyes:

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 06:26 PM
Thats ridiculous. Its human from conception to birth.

It's part of a human. If I cut my toe off, is that a human too? No.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:31 PM
It's part of a human. If I cut my toe off, is that a human too? No.

If you cut off your toe it will never become a human.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 06:33 PM
If you cut off your toe it will never become a human.

And if you have an abortion the foetus will never become a human either.

CalBoy
Nov 7, 2011, 06:33 PM
Sorry, but you can't say something is fact if part of that fact is the word "resemble." Your statement is akin to saying, "The objective fact is that Picasso's 'Guernica' doesn't resemble a German bomb attack."

I'm missing the part where you point out what isn't a fact.

I used resemble to be charitable; we don't use "baby" for a fetus that is still in the womb (we use fetus). However, with late term pregnancies the fetus is very similar to a baby, and so it can be said to resemble one.

Your Guernica analogy makes no sense. There are multiple perspectives to an event such as a bombing and one set of factors may only apply to one vantage point, such as a painting. However, there is no perspective to the definition of a bombing. We know when something is a bombing when it meets our objective criteria. Similarly we know when something is an embryo, a fetus, or a baby when it meets our objective criteria.


And second of all, I'm not sure that "resemblance" is really the basis for an argument.
The core issue was over whether something is a human or not. When it comes to a fetus, it frankly doesn't even resemble a human until late in the game. Even genetically the genes being expressed early on are those we share with about half the multicellular organisms on the planet. The genes that are more unique to humans don't see expression (for the most part) until near the end.


The science does not refute it either. When a person achieves personhood (and therefore value worth protecting) has nothing to do with science. It is innately a philosophical question.

Well now you've changed the game.

My whole point to renewed was that a thing need not be human to deserve legal protection. We protect animals and forests because our interest in their preservation is very great. The same could be said for a fetus which society has a vested interest in seeing grow into a productive citizen. The hard question is how much protection we give to the fetus when viewed in light of the fact that each additional protection is going to come at the cost of a pregnant woman's rights. That discussion point is the truly hard thing about abortion.

Whether or not an embryo or a fetus is human is easy; it's prima facie not. What that means for us is an entirely different matter.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:34 PM
And if you have an abortion the foetus will never become a human either.

Actually you can remove a fetus and still have a healthy baby. Depending on when he/she was removed, and what care was taken.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 06:38 PM
And if you have an abortion the foetus will never become a human either.

Yeah because you killed it. :rolleyes:

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 06:41 PM
I do believe that this thread, sooner or later, will become still-born.

And the sooner the better.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 06:43 PM
Yeah because you killed it. :rolleyes:

My point is still that it was not a person in the first place. It would have become one, but it didn't. If you use contraception those sperm could potentially have become a person, but they didn't. Is that also murder?

Until it's a person, it's not murder, and while it is a foetus, it's not a person.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:43 PM
LOL as soon as thing stop going your way it's time to end the thread. I love it.

I do believe that this thread, sooner or later, will become still-born.

And the sooner the better.

CalBoy
Nov 7, 2011, 06:43 PM
The question is not if the fetus is human, which it obviously is,

I'm sorry, it just isn't. It's a fetus. You might be able to say that it's human when it gains enough of the same traits that human babies have, but that's a long ways into gestation. Certainly far longer than most people would expect.

This is almost like saying that a pregnant woman (who has never given birth) is a mother. NO. A mother is a woman who has given birth.


The human characteristics are obvious very early in pregnancy. The baby at the end of 8 weeks major organs have formed, eyelids and sex organs begin to form, fingers and toes begin to form, and the heartbeat become regular. I wouldn't call these developments "shockingly late".

The problem is that none of these is uniquely human. If you followed a human pregnancy and a mammal pregnancy, they wouldn't start to diverge for a very long time. Our definition for humanity should not be based on where the fetus happens to be (because really that's the only way we'd be able to tell them apart).


Thats ridiculous. Its human from conception to birth.

Why? Because you think that makes sense?

If you think a single cell capable of replication (conception) is human, then so is a cancer. Should the Mississippi law also prevent surgical removal of tumors?

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 06:44 PM
I do believe that this thread, sooner or later, will become still-born.

And the sooner the better.

Lol, maybe we should abort it... or is that murder? ;)

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 06:44 PM
The core issue was over whether something is a human or not. When it comes to a fetus, it frankly doesn't even resemble a human until late in the game. Even genetically the genes being expressed early on are those we share with about half the multicellular organisms on the planet. The genes that are more unique to humans don't see expression (for the most part) until near the end.

Citation please.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:46 PM
I'm sorry, it just isn't. It's a fetus. You might be able to say that it's human when it gains enough of the same traits that human babies have, but that's a long ways into gestation.


Back to my sarcastic point of the double murder conviction of Scott Peterson. Let the street protest begin.

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 06:48 PM
LOL as soon as thing stop going your way it's time to end the thread. I love it.

Just how long have you been delusional, or is this a recent "accomplishment"?

Lol, maybe we should abort it... or is that murder? ;)

Hence my choice of still-born. It must have been God's will, after all!!!

Moyank24
Nov 7, 2011, 06:49 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that no women are involved in this discussion?

*I think..if one of you is a woman, I apologize*

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 06:50 PM
The problem is that none of these is uniquely human. If you followed a human pregnancy and a mammal pregnancy, they wouldn't start to diverge for a very long time. Our definition for humanity should not be based on where the fetus happens to be (because really that's the only way we'd be able to tell them apart).

This is the 21st century. Medical technology can pinpoint to the day the developments in a pregnancy. You should be able to replace "a very long time" with a specific time.

The DNA in a child is set from conception, otherwise how do you explain paternal tests?

Macaddicttt
Nov 7, 2011, 06:50 PM
Your Guernica analogy makes no sense. There are multiple perspectives to an event such as a bombing and one set of factors may only apply to one vantage point, such as a painting. However, there is no perspective to the definition of a bombing. We know when something is a bombing when it meets our objective criteria. Similarly we know when something is an embryo, a fetus, or a baby when it meets our objective criteria.

But here's there rub, what this law is trying to do is set criteria as to what is a human. You act as if there is no debate over these criteria, when it's quite obvious that there is tons of differing opinions. And the scientific community's criteria have little bearing here. It's useful in the medical community to distinguish between "fetus," "child," "adolescent," "adult," etc., but that does not mean that our laws or morality have to follow definitions that just so happen to be useful to the medical community.

To go back to my "Guernica" example (although I admit it's not the best), it is in fact not as cut and dried as you imagine it to be. Is dropping one bomb a "bombing"? How many bombs need to be dropped for it to be considered a "bombing"? If a scientific study investigates the destruction of bombings, and decides for the purpose of their study that a "bombing" includes at least five planes and ten bombs dropped, do we now need to use this definition when creating legal requirements for persecuting war crimes? Furthermore, what counts as a "bomb"? Does dropping stink bombs count as a "bombing"?

The core issue was over whether something is a human or not. When it comes to a fetus, it frankly doesn't even resemble a human until late in the game. Even genetically the genes being expressed early on are those we share with about half the multicellular organisms on the planet. The genes that are more unique to humans don't see expression (for the most part) until near the end.

Again, I'm not sure what resemblance has anything to do with it. A bombing raid might resemble a pleasure flight for a good while.

Also, you're again assuming the definition of something. Your assume that the definition of whether something is a certain species is when species-specific DNA is expressed. That again is far from objective. Why is the existence of that DNA not enough to classify something as a particular species?

To take another example, if someone has the genes for cystic fibrosis, do they not "count" as having the disease until you see symptoms? No. Of course not. The disease is merely in a different stage.


Whether or not an embryo or a fetus is human is easy; it's prima facie not.

To you, it's not a human prima facie. Obviously other people have different criteria and prima facie an embryo or a fetus is human to them.

To be clear, I'm not here to argue for any specific definitions of "human," "personhood," etc. My point is only to say that things are not as obvious or cut-and-dried as people try to make it. It's a complicated subject, and no one gets anywhere if people start acting like debatable things are completely objective.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 06:53 PM
I'm sorry, it just isn't. It's a fetus.

So we know that Lee classifies it as a blog of cells until it exits the birth canal, and you say it's a fetus until it exits the birth canal? When do you consider it a human?

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 06:59 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that no women are involved in this discussion?

*I think..if one of you is a woman, I apologize*

No, you are not alone. This has always been my position, prior to the 3rd trimester, it's the Woman's body, and it's her call, alone.

Men should just ****-off.

If only Women would vote on such a thing as this, do any of you think that this would have a hope in Hell of passing??

I sure don't.

So we know that Lee classifies it as a blog of cells until it exits the birth canal, and you say it's a fetus until it exits the birth canal? When do you consider it a human?

Are you still Fox-ifying what Lee actually said.

Repeating something incessantly might "stick" with your usual audience, who ever they are, but it will not fly in this company.

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 07:02 PM
Are you still Fox-ifying what Lee actually said.

Repeating something incessantly might "stick" with your usual audience, who ever they are, but it will not fly in this company.

LOL.

ericrwalker, would you please use the words "blob of tissue" when quoting Lee from now on. Because thats what he actually said. :)

CalBoy
Nov 7, 2011, 07:04 PM
Citation please.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-genes-embryos.html

You also need to have some background in biology and genetics to understand why this is so. Gene expression is not a constant thing. Not every gene is "used" in every cell (that's how we get differentiation) nor at every stage in life.

The very basic instructions for how to create and sustain a multi-tissue, multi-organ entity are going to be largely the same from vertebrate to vertebrate. These genes get expressed early because without them, there is no life to sustain.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 07:09 PM
I am sorry if twisted his words. I didn't mean "blog of cells", he did say "blog of tissue". I really hate misquoting someone, now I feel like I should have been on MSNBC.


Please forgive me.Are you still Fox-ifying what Lee actually said.

Repeating something incessantly might "stick" with your usual audience, who ever they are, but it will not fly in this company.

----------

Oh good, I took biology in 9th grade.

Science is always precise and never changes, that's why I love science so much. Just ask Al Gore, science, or lack of has made him so rich.



http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-genes-embryos.html

You also need to have some background in biology and genetics to understand why this is so. Gene expression is not a constant thing. Not every gene is "used" in every cell (that's how we get differentiation) nor at every stage in life.

The very basic instructions for how to create and sustain a multi-tissue, multi-organ entity are going to be largely the same from vertebrate to vertebrate. These genes get expressed early because without them, there is no life to sustain.

----------

...it's the Woman's body, and it's her call, alone.

Don't forget the human in her womb that usually doesn't get to vote on this.

iJohnHenry
Nov 7, 2011, 07:11 PM
Please forgive me.

Oh my, how vainglorious of you to say that.

Enjoy your evening, for I am out by virtue of attrition.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 07:12 PM
Don't forget the human in her womb that usually doesn't get to vote on this.

How would a human get in her womb? Surely you meant foetus, because they aren't the same thing.

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 07:14 PM
Enjoy your evening, for I am out by virtue of attrition.

LOL, good night.

----------

How would a human get in her womb? Surely you meant foetus, because they aren't the same thing.

Yes the fetus, which is human.

See:

http://sakurawalker.com/albums/prebirth/kura1/10132010_4.JPG

obeygiant
Nov 7, 2011, 07:17 PM
http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-genes-embryos.html

You also need to have some background in biology and genetics to understand why this is so. Gene expression is not a constant thing. Not every gene is "used" in every cell (that's how we get differentiation) nor at every stage in life.

The very basic instructions for how to create and sustain a multi-tissue, multi-organ entity are going to be largely the same from vertebrate to vertebrate. These genes get expressed early because without them, there is no life to sustain.

Almost everyone knows that in the early stages of pregnancy 0-8 weeks the baby resembles other animals, but that doesn't mean it isn't human. Every organism on the planet has DNA and shares genes because we are made from the same stuff. A fertilized egg inside a human womb is a human and has no other outcome.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 07:59 PM
Yes the fetus, which is human.

See:

Image (http://sakurawalker.com/albums/prebirth/kura1/10132010_4.JPG)

What is looking at what resembles mushy cardboard supposed to prove?

ericrwalker
Nov 7, 2011, 08:01 PM
What is looking at what resembles mushy cardboard supposed to prove?

LOL you can't see a baby in there? Come on, really...Just say you see my daughter. Say you can see her face. Tell me you can see a human figure. Yeah it's not clear....it's an image based on sound waves bouncing off her, but it's clearly a person.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 08:10 PM
LOL you can't see a baby in there? Come on, really...Just say you see my daughter. Say you can see her face. Tell me you can see a human figure. Yeah it's not clear....it's an image based on sound waves bouncing off her, but it's clearly a person.

I see a foetus, but just because I see it doesn't make it a person. I see lots of things, not all of which are people.

renewed
Nov 7, 2011, 08:13 PM
I see a foetus, but just because I see it doesn't make it a person. I see lots of things, not all of which are people.

I see your post but it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous. I see a lot of things, not all of which are as ridiculous as this post.

Abyssgh0st
Nov 7, 2011, 08:19 PM
Coment #103


----------



Not to mention, I am the only one that I know of on this forum that has posted ultrasounds of my daughter at just 2 months and claimed she looked like a human being then, and was and is a human being while Lee called it a blob over and over.

I agree calling a fetus a blob, or not a human is moronic.

Once again, you're not getting what I (or Lee) are saying. I'm saying that a fetus is not a blob of cells. And I'm saying that a blob of cells is not a human (ex. zygote). A 7.5 month old fetus (which was where this came from anyways) is most certainly more human than a zygote or a 8 week old fetus. However, even a 7.5 month old fetus is not nearly as human as I, or any birthed person is.


Please refrain from words like "half-witted" and "moronic" in an already emotionally charged thread.

I was referring to concepts and ideas, not individuals. Thanks, but no thanks- I'll pass on the mini-modding.

boss.king
Nov 7, 2011, 08:23 PM
I see your post but it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous. I see a lot of things, not all of which are as ridiculous as this post.

But the way you missed my point most certainly is.

Remember that Insane Clown Posse song where they said magnets and giraffes are miracles? That's kinda what your argument is. You call it something because you feel it is that way, but ignore the basic facts that discredit your argument (see CalBoys posts for these facts).

Think of it like this: a catepillar is not a butterfly. It will be one day, but at the moment it is something different, much like a foetus is not a person yet.

Grey Beard
Nov 7, 2011, 11:29 PM
I do believe that this thread, sooner or later, will become still-born.

And the sooner the better.

In my opinion it's an abortion as it is.
KGB:)

Hugh
Nov 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
Here is an updated article on the vote, they really think this is going to pass today. If so this is going to cause all kinds of problems. Just like the article talks about, if this goes though then miscarriages can be investigated. Are we going to blame the woman for the miscarriage?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_c2


Hugh

iJohnHenry
Nov 8, 2011, 04:58 PM
Are we going to blame the woman for the miscarriage?

Every sperm fertilized egg is sacred. - Monty Python

OutThere
Nov 8, 2011, 09:55 PM
Looks like it failed, close call though.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/11/08/us/AP-US-Mississippi-Abortion-Amendment.html

Sydde
Nov 8, 2011, 09:59 PM
Here is an updated article on the vote, they really think this is going to pass today.

Well, this story (http://news.yahoo.com/miss-defeats-life-conception-ballot-initiative-033539854.html) suggests that they will be disappointed.

leekohler
Nov 8, 2011, 10:25 PM
It's a damn good thing it failed too.

KingYaba
Nov 9, 2011, 02:46 AM
Looks like it failed, close call though.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/11/08/us/AP-US-Mississippi-Abortion-Amendment.html

Well, I'm surprised. I thought that would have passed.

hulugu
Nov 9, 2011, 03:29 AM
...

Science is always precise and never changes, that's why I love science so much. Just ask Al Gore, science, or lack of has made him so rich...

You do realize that "science" made possible the medical technology used to see images of your daughter in the womb, not to mention the genetics of human development.

We'll ignore the erratic jab at Gore and climatology, the scientific theory of human development is good enough to understand when genes are expressed. Thus, this fails to refute CalBoy's argument.

...
Yes the fetus, which is human.

Honestly, I can sympathize with the argument. After seeing my son's development from near conception to birth (and now a jabbering ball of energy who says 'Dah!"), it's hard not to think of him in arguments about abortion.

That said, nature makes for a long gray area between a blastocyst and a baby, and we should be cautious in simply drawing bright lines because we feel uncomfortable with the messy reality of human development.

rdowns
Nov 9, 2011, 07:07 AM
People of Mississippi-1
Bat*****- 0

DakotaGuy
Nov 9, 2011, 07:45 AM
Well, I'm surprised. I thought that would have passed.

I'm not. I said this would be defeated a long time ago. We had a vote on outlawing abortion 2 times and both times it failed (in our case by a pretty large margin) and I come from what is considered a pretty conservative state.

I hate abortion and wish that none (except in certain cases) were ever performed, however I don't believe that government should be regulating this issue. Leave it up to the women and their families to make the decision.

Don't panic
Nov 9, 2011, 08:55 AM
Add one Bravo! to the people of Mississipp (and Ohio too).

Sydde
Nov 12, 2011, 05:16 PM
Zygotes Granted Human Rights
Including Citizenship

"The presidential candidate was disqualified from the race when he failed to provide a Certificate of Conception to prove that his parents' copulation-in-question had taken place on American soil. They were known to have taken frequent trips to Acapulco around that time, so his status as a legitimate citizen remains in doubt."

iJohnHenry
Nov 12, 2011, 05:36 PM
Zygotes Granted Human Rights
Including Citizenship

Are you sure your name isn't misspelled, Snide? :)

Sydde
Nov 12, 2011, 05:46 PM
Are you sure your name isn't misspelled, Snide? :)

No, you would be thinking of Dudley Doright's arch-foe. (Did that mountie ever get his man?)