No, Bei, everyone knows (except possibly you) when a fetus becomes a person. It becomes a person when it is born.
So it is NOT a party, and HAS no interests to be considered at any point during gestation.
Aren't I good at predicting the future? I think I am. I have a serious question for you, have you ever read the text of RvW or PPvC? It's hard for me to believe you have, because if you had you'd notice that both of those cases plainly state that the issue of fetal personhood is unresolvable.
...And I'm not going to mention to you, yet again, how a ZEF is classified as a person in some states, as I've done that one before.
Roe specifically said that a fetus was not a person under the fourteenth amendment. Not sure which websites you're reading.
It also clearly said that there are two parties to the issue, and neither one is the fetus, because the fetus has no legal standing at any point in gestation. In Roe, the controlling party for the first two trimesters is the mother, and the state in the last trimester. In Casey, the controlling party is the mother until viability, and the state thereafter.
From Roe: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.
As explained to you, the fetus has no rights that do not devolve upon it from the woman's civil and legal rights. As far as the law is concerned, regardless of 'fetal homicide' statutes, the fetus is not a legal person in possession of any rights that contraindicate the mother's absolute rights. Each and every one of these statutes specifically exempts abortion from any discussion of fetal homicide.
Birth is the absolute bright line, Bei, the point at which a human fetus becomes a human life. At that point, it is vested with all rights. Before that, it is not.
I don't believe women have any right to have a say in a male's reproductive choices. His are limited by biology. Don't like it? Speak to the guy in charge. Snip it or bag it.
"Choice" is NOT granted by biology. Biology doesn't dictate a thing. "Choice" is granted by the law. Therefore, a man's "choice" is limited by what the law chooses (Hah!) to grant him in terms of "rights". A woman can make a man become a father against his will or prevent him from becoming a father against his wishes. Conversely, a man can't make a woman a mother if she doesn't want to be, nor can she stop her from becoming one. But, see, in your world, that's equitable.
You have a weird definition of equality.
Sex selection belongs to the female and she can decide (under ordinary circumstances) whether she is willing to accept sex with a male unwilling or incapable of impregnating her under those circumstances.
lolwut? This makes little to no sense. No sense, actually.
The male can also ask a woman about her feelings on the issue of abortion, and not put himself into a position where 'his' fetus is likely to be aborted.
Because, you know, a woman isn't allowed to, nor never does, change her mind at a whim. Did you ever hear of the case where a married woman got mad at her husband, stormed out in anger and had an abortion to teach him a lesson?
What he doesn't have the right to do is interfere with her right to decide whether or not she will bring a particular pregnancy to term. At all. Ever. It doesn't matter whether he is pressuring her TO abort or pressuring her NOT to abort. He is taking no physical risk in the pregnancy, and simply doesn't have a say in it.
And, yet again, the majority of abortions are simply not done because of some type of "risk" to the mother's health. Everyone knows this, and continuing to state as much doesn't do anything for your argument except make you look totally dishonest. If an abortion is going to kill a woman or negatively impact her health, then she should be allowed to get an abortion regardless of the protests of another. But since the majority of abortion performed as outside of that then, no, it shouldn't be "her decision".
I don't know how you feel about your mother or about your sister or about your girlfriend. Have you had the chat with her about her position on abortion? Since that IS your only option, you probably should.
I know for a fact that my mom, my sister and my sorta' kinda' girlfriend are all pro-life. Just so you know. I have no idea about my grandmother, though.
...And I love how you ignord the whole RvW and nine male justices thing.
Okay. I think anecdotal evidence is appropriate in such a discussion, because any laws written to address abortion have significant impact on personal privacy and individual rights. In such cases, it's especially important to tread very carefully and institute only the laws needed to achieve the desired result, and only if their impact on human rights is acceptable.
"Why wouldn't a woman report a rape?"
Here is a relevant cases. I am aware of the facts first hand.
A young woman with a promising Navy career is visited by her instructor at about seven in the evening. She's had a couple of drinks while cooking out with her neighbors and has just come home. He brings in some material for her to study and a six pack. To be polite, she accepts a beer. Unbeknownst to her, he laces the beer with GHB. She feels woozy, apologizes and tells him she needs to go to bed. He follows her and rapes her. She awakes the next morning with fragmentary memories of the night before, horrified that she drank so much as to be seduced by her superior. She doesn't report the incident immediately, for fear of being disciplined for fraternizing. The instructor begins to call her house and come by at odd hours. She sends him away. He threatens her with poor evaluations if she doesn't do as he asks. After three weeks, she is a nervous wreck and her commander notices. He confronts her and she confesses to him what she knows. He sends her to a counselor, who diagnoses her as an alcoholic and recommends she go to inpatient treatment. She protests that she is not an alchoholic. The counselor argues that she must be if she got drunk enough to make such a bad decision. She is now faced with a choice: go for treatment she doesn't need, losing her place in an elite training program and facing an uncertain career future, or exit the Navy. She chose the latter, and ended up with a general discharge for "failed alcohol rehabilitation". The instructor was busted in rank and sent to sea. All of this happened before medical tests came back showing that she'd been drugged. (That took several months, thanks, Navy!)
This is a case where I can see why a woman would have regretted reporting a rape, and which might discourage others from reporting assaults as well.
So, going back to the original discussion, if the law were that a woman must prove rape before she can have an abortion, it could easily have been too late for that to be a reasonable or viable option.
I've thought about this quite a bit, and I don't really see a way to enforce a "rape, health or hardship" requirement for abortion that doesn't impose some pretty heinous treatment on women who try to invoke it.
Fortunately, I DON'T feel that such a restriction is the appropriate way to address abortion, so I don't end up chasing my tail.
'Choice' is certainly limited by biology, Bei. That's why rape and forced pregnancy was a routine weapon of terror against women throughout history. Now the shoe is on the other foot and men are hopping mad. Oh well. Times change.
You don't have the equipment to release an ovum and carry a fetus, Bei. I don't have the equipment to make sperm. We alone are in charge of those functions of our lives. But I can make perhaps a thousand ova over the course of my reproductive life, while you can make millions if not billions of sperm. So your biological investment is a lot less than mine right out of the gate. You put no further effort into the growth and development of the fertilized ovum. I do. I have to nourish the zygote, embryo and fetus with calcium from my own body, iron from my own blood, and the developing zef gets first dibs on all nutrients that I eat. I dispose of the zef's wastes. I breathe for it. I keep it at a uniform temperature compatible with life for its whole gestation. I may suffer some serious and sometimes permanent illnesses because of its presence, and a whole lot of not so serious and permanent conditions because of it. All of which change my body forever, and not for the better.
When the time comes, I alone have to undergo labor and delivery, and perhaps undergo major abdominal surgery just to end the pregnancy. And then the young neonate is dependent upon me directly for nutrition for a year or more, and is a one of the most dependent young organisms in nature for another 18 years or more.
If I choose to do this, I do it because this intensive dependency is my best shot at getting my genetic code into the next generation. Mothering is built into the mammalian reproductive strategy. 'Fathering' beyond the sperm donation is an afterthought.
You see, you have no such need. Nor do you have much of a stake in this single pregnancy. Men can and do move on pretty quickly from one partner to the next. You could have ten or more kids in the amount of time it takes me to have one and you certainly have more than enough sperm to go around. Women don't have that reproductive option or strategy.
Biologically, that's where we stand.
However, legally, women are being considered independent beings with rights, darn them, in this brave new Constitutional world. And they get to say no to sex, and no to pregnancy, too.
What neither party gets to do is say 'no' to a child. Children, once born, are entitled to the support of both parents. And typically, it is the male who tries to back out once a baby is actually born.
Roe specifically said that a fetus was not a person under the fourteenth amendment. Not sure which websites you're reading.
I see your reading skills are as good as ever. Care to find me where I said that Roe said that the fetus was a person under the 14th Amendment. No? Didn't think so, because everyone knows that the courts decided that the usage of the word "person" in the Constitution couldn't be applied pre-natally (Which is the same rationale by which Dred Scott decision came down under, but we've over this before). What I said was that the courts decided that the issue of fetal personhood was unresolvable, and as a result the state could not impose restrictions on abortion throughout a pregnancy.
*points to Blacknum's whole "Legalized abortion rests on the issue of establishing fetal personhood" line*
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
The issue of personhood is left up to the invidual to determine. That's the basis (Well, that and the whole privacy thing) upon which legalized abortion rests. Seriously now.
It also clearly said that there are two parties to the issue, and neither one is the fetus, because the fetus has no legal standing at any point in gestation. In Roe, the controlling party for the first two trimesters is the mother, and the state in the last trimester. In Casey, the controlling party is the mother until viability, and the state thereafter.
Wow... No. Just no. Why do you argue stuff if you don't know what you're arguing. It's maddening.
From Roe: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.
Oh... My... Friggin'... God.
What am I typing stuff out for if you're not going to read it? I'm going to use one of my favorite phrases: "What the F?". See, this is why I twitch. In our system, persons are entitled to protection from being killed and from other forms of private violence. Prior to Roe v. Wade and dating back to the 14th Amendment, the word "person" had been used to denote a "human being". Therefore, the only way for the courts to deny ZEF's such protections afforded to all humans was to presupposes that they weren't persons, thus creating a distinction between "person" and "human being" where no distinction existed prior. So, of course the courts didn't have to answer the question of "When does life begin?" in so many words, as it merely sidestepped that issue and created two new classes of humans (Human persons and non-human persons) where previously all humans were persons.
Didn't I say this once before? Yes, I think I did and I'll probably have to say it ten or so more times.
...Oh, and I'm just going to point out that by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, more states and territories had bans or restrictions on abortions than did states which had outlawed slavery. To say they've never had recognition under the law as persons is poppycock. To say that they've never had recognition under the law as full persons is even more poppycock, as the courts make no effort to define what constitutes a full person.
...And, just to throw this out there, the "compelling interest" is whether or not a fetus will be able to live a meaningful life. Yeah... Guess what concept that is most commonly attached to.
As explained to you, the fetus has no rights that do not devolve upon it from the woman's civil and legal rights. As far as the law is concerned, regardless of 'fetal homicide' statutes, the fetus is not a legal person in possession of any rights that contraindicate the mother's absolute rights. Each and every one of these statutes specifically exempts abortion from any discussion of fetal homicide.
Dear God. No. I am so sick and tired of you saying this, because it's still not correct no matter how many times you state this. It's entirely impossible for someone to simply "not get it". Entirely. It defies all logic. So, let me state this again:
FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOTHER.
Understand? I don't know how many times I've said this, but I've said it enough times to the point where it's becoming ridiculous. All fetal homicide laws have an exception for abortion. This is a "No, duh!" thing. However, what you FAIL to address, even though I've pointed it on an ungodly number of times now, is that a woman can be prosecuted under fetal homicide laws for killing her own fetus as can anyone else. They do not exempt women. Jeezuz. This isn't hard to understand. Like... At all. It's incredibly super simple. The only way to not understand is to want to not understand.
Do you remember when you went and tried to link to that site entitled something like "Mother-fetal conflicts"? Obviously not, 'cuz you've forgotten what's written there.
Birth is the absolute bright line, Bei, the point at which a human fetus becomes a human life. At that point, it is vested with all rights. Before that, it is not.
I don't even know how you can type these things out in good faith. A "human fetus" is always a "human life". Yeah... Shocking, I know. But, hey, facts shouldn't get in the way of ideology, right?
'Choice' is certainly limited by biology, Bei. That's why rape and forced pregnancy was a routine weapon of terror against women throughout history. Now the shoe is on the other foot and men are hopping mad. Oh well. Times change.
What year is this? ...Yeah, that's what I thought. What year was I born? ...Yeah, that's what I thought. What does past history have to do with me? ...Yeah, that's what I thought.
Who says women can't be sexist? Obviously, you prove that they can be. And, since you want to mention changing times, fewer and fewer people believe unrestricted abortions to be a "right". Doesn't that make you feel good? It makes me feel good. I 'spose we'll just have to wait for the super-abortion supportive (Relatively speaking) generations of the 50, 60's and 70's to start dying off.
Oh, and biology doesn't dictate anything. That's the realm of the law. How many times am I going to have to state this?
You don't have the equipment to release an ovum and carry a fetus, Bei. I don't have the equipment to make sperm. We alone are in charge of those functions of our lives. But I can make perhaps a thousand ova over the course of my reproductive life, while you can make millions if not billions of sperm. So your biological investment is a lot less than mine right out of the gate.
???
You put no further effort into the growth and development of the fertilized ovum. I do. I have to nourish the zygote, embryo and fetus with calcium from my own body, iron from my own blood, and the developing zef gets first dibs on all nutrients that I eat. I dispose of the zef's wastes. I breathe for it. I keep it at a uniform temperature compatible with life for its whole gestation. I may suffer some serious and sometimes permanent illnesses because of its presence, and a whole lot of not so serious and permanent conditions because of it. All of which change my body forever, and not for the better.
Yeah... This is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. "You" don't do jack squat. "Your body" doesn't even do that much, aside from providing someplace for the ZEF to gestate. Hell, you don't even need to go out of your way to accomodate a ZEF, as a ZEF is responsible for mainting it's own internal equlibrium and development (Seriously. Learn what homeostasis is. It's pissing me off how you continue to misuse a term). The only way a ZEF will start negatively impacting your nutrional health is if you go out of your way to change your eating habits, at which point it'll start "stealing" calcium from your bone and teeth, for example (Actually, I think your body will divert these minerals to the ZEF. I'm not sure).
When the time comes, I alone have to undergo labor and delivery, and perhaps undergo major abdominal surgery just to end the pregnancy.
And...? That's due to an enlarged cranium.
And then the young neonate is dependent upon me directly for nutrition for a year or more...
100% false. And I'm surprised you can even type this out with any manner of seriousness.
...and is a one of the most dependent young organisms in nature for another 18 years or more.
It's not dependant on *you*. That's something you totally fail to address.
If I choose to do this, I do it because this intensive dependency is my best shot at getting my genetic code into the next generation. Mothering is built into the mammalian reproductive strategy.
'Fathering' beyond the sperm donation is an afterthought.
Really? Because, you know, humans are unique among primates in that the men are actually invested in raising their children. Just thought I'd throw that out there for you, since we're talking about biology.
You see, you have no such need. Nor do you have much of a stake in this single pregnancy. Men can and do move on pretty quickly from one partner to the next. You could have ten or more kids in the amount of time it takes me to have one and you certainly have more than enough sperm to go around. Women don't have that reproductive option or strategy.
This argument AGAIN?!?!?! Logic would then dictate that no women would ever have an abortion, then, because it could be their one-- How did you put it-- "Bite into the apple". Why would a woman have an abortion when she doesn't know whether or not she'll ever become pregnant again?
...Yeah. Think about that.
Biologically, that's where we stand.
Your continued misuse of biology and using biology to try to rationalize abortion is appalling, to put it mildly.
However, legally, women are being considered independent beings with rights, darn them, in this brave new Constitutional world. And they get to say no to sex, and no to pregnancy, too.
You want to say no to sex and pregnancy? Then don't engage in sex and you won't have to worry about getting pregnant. What you fail to point out, is that some women don't just want to say 'no' to pregnancy-- They want to say 'no' to potential motherhood and it be considered a right, while simultaneously arguing that any man who wants to say 'no' to potential fatherhood to a deadbeat and/or loser who should of kept his legs closed.
It makes sense when you think about it. Not really, but it does in your world.
What neither party gets to do is say 'no' to a child. Children, once born, are entitled to the support of both parents. And typically, it is the male who tries to back out once a baby is actually born.
Because, you know, what happens is that a woman will just say no to a child during pregnancy, thus meaning she'll never get to the "once a child is born" part. The man, on the other hand, has no such recourse. Would it surprise me that the male is the one who typically wants to back out when the baby is born? No. Why? Because he's given no "choice" before the baby is born, unlike the woman.
Okay. I think anecdotal evidence is appropriate in such a discussion, because any laws written to address abortion have significant impact on personal privacy and individual rights. In such cases, it's especially important to tread very carefully and institute only the laws needed to achieve the desired result, and only if their impact on human rights is acceptable.
But that's why they're considered anecdotal. Because they do not constitute the majority, or even a significant, portion of all cases. You can find a fringe occurrence for anything.
Here is a relevant cases. I am aware of the facts first hand.
A young woman with a promising Navy career is visited by her instructor at about seven in the evening. She's had a couple of drinks while cooking out with her neighbors and has just come home. He brings in some material for her to study and a six pack. To be polite, she accepts a beer. Unbeknownst to her, he laces the beer with GHB. She feels woozy, apologizes and tells him she needs to go to bed. He follows her and rapes her. She awakes the next morning with fragmentary memories of the night before, horrified that she drank so much as to be seduced by her superior. She doesn't report the incident immediately, for fear of being disciplined for fraternizing. The instructor begins to call her house and come by at odd hours. She sends him away. He threatens her with poor evaluations if she doesn't do as he asks. After three weeks, she is a nervous wreck and her commander notices. He confronts her and she confesses to him what she knows. He sends her to a counselor, who diagnoses her as an alcoholic and recommends she go to inpatient treatment. She protests that she is not an alchoholic. The counselor argues that she must be if she got drunk enough to make such a bad decision. She is now faced with a choice: go for treatment she doesn't need, losing her place in an elite training program and facing an uncertain career future, or exit the Navy. She chose the latter, and ended up with a general discharge for "failed alcohol rehabilitation". The instructor was busted in rank and sent to sea. All of this happened before medical tests came back showing that she'd been drugged. (That took several months, thanks, Navy!)
Unfortunately, this is her fault, then. If you don't report a rape when it happens or directly after it happens, then you place yourself in a rather precarious position. The longer you wait, not only the harder it is to prove you were raped or to bring charges against the rapist, but the easier it is for the rapist to deny the allegations.
...And ugh GHB stays in the system for a few hours and gets flushed pretty quickly. I'm fairly sure that after a 3+ weeks it'd be impossible to tell if someone was drugged or not.
This is a case where I can see why a woman would have regretted reporting a rape, and which might discourage others from reporting assaults as well.
I can't. As I said, if you don't report a rape, then you make things harder on yourself. Those women who don't want to report being raped inevitably makes things harder on themselves. If you're unwilling to speak up about being raped, then you're going to have to accept the (Unforunate) consequences of not coming foward.
So, going back to the original discussion, if the law were that a woman must prove rape before she can have an abortion, it could easily have been too late for that to be a reasonable or viable option.
Anyone who reports a rape is given emergency contraceptives, which significantly diminish the risk of becoming pregnant. This is why I said one should report being raped immediately after it happens-- It reduces the chance of her becoming pregnant or opting for an abortion.
I've thought about this quite a bit, and I don't really see a way to enforce a "rape, health or hardship" requirement for abortion that doesn't impose some pretty heinous treatment on women who try to invoke it.
Statistically speaking, rape accounts for a very small percentage of total pregnancies (A quick search neted me figures from less than 1% up to 4.7%) and a very small portion of total abortions done (Less than .05%), and health concerns another 4%. So it's not as if we're talking about a huge number of women here. But, anyway, as I said earlier, anyone who reports a rape is given emergency contraceptives. Furthermore, all anyone who wants an abortion in cases of health concerns would need would be the written diagnosis of two or more independent doctors (Which is what you need now for a late term abortion). I don't see what's so "heinous" about that.
Fortunately, I DON'T feel that such a restriction is the appropriate way to address abortion, so I don't end up chasing my tail.
La
Guaranteed the abortion rate would go way down (This is because 92%'ish of all abortions are purely elective).
Sorry, Bei, for some reason "quote" isn't working, so I have to do this manually.
"But that's why they're considered anecdotal. Because they do not constitute the majority, or even a significant, portion of all cases. You can find a fringe occurrence for anything."
Only a very small percentage of the population of this country is blind, or Sufi, has last names that consist of a single letter or is severely allergic to peanuts. But we still try hard not to pass laws that make life difficult for them. In fact, we sometimes go out of our way to pass laws to protect them.
"Unfortunately, this is her fault, then. If you don't report a rape when it happens or directly after it happens, then you place yourself in a rather precarious position. The longer you wait, not only the harder it is to prove you were raped or to bring charges against the rapist, but the easier it is for the rapist to deny the allegations."
Are you this judgemental about everything? Do you favor denying medical care to people who don't wear seatbelts? If someone doesn't discover a theft for a few weeks, does that mean they can't press charges?
"...And ugh GHB stays in the system for a few hours and gets flushed pretty quickly. I'm fairly sure that after a 3+ weeks it'd be impossible to tell if someone was drugged or not"
Sorry my writing was unclear. Th sample was taken fairly quickly - she felt horrible the next day and ended up in the infirmary, but the results took quite a while to come back.
So, I have an additional question for you: I'm assuming from your position that you would like to see the number of abortions drop. Why is that? Do you believe that life begins at conception? Or do you have some other reason for the position?
Larosser, you were perfectly clear. It's just that Bei has this ophthalmic condition called willful blindness.
And he cares deeply, passionately, about every life ... until it's born, anyway, then he doesn't give a damn. But that's not unique to Bei. I see that in all the so-called 'prolifers' here.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
