NationStates Jolt Archive

You think that's bad? That seems downright reasonable compared to America. In Colorado this year we're voting on an amendment to the state constitution which would define a person as having personhood from the moment of conception. This would effectively criminalize the use of the Pill, all kinds of abortion, and any behaviors by a mother that could damage or kill her child. Smoking while pregnant? Child Abuse. Using the Pill? Homicide, first degree. Having an abortion? Conspiracy to commit homicide. How can this be where anyone wants to take us?

Probably gets slapped down by the Supreme Court unless McCain gets a couple of apointees in.

Right before the birth, the fetus, or child if you prefer, is completely dependent on the mother for its life. Right after the birth it is not. That is a simple biological difference. Since it is still entirely dependent on the mother, the mother still gets the entire say. Her body, her choice.

I do not know if this is the position of the Canadian Supreme Court, but that's how I see it.

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

Belly buttons are scars.

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.
Thanks for completely ignoring the point I made about how this piece of legislation attempts to avoid this debate while circumventing current legal definitions.

Frankly I could give two shits about your opinion on the matter. Our Supreme Court has stated that woman and fetus are one. Period. For some sneaky little MP to introduce a bill obstensibly to protect pregnant women, when in fact similar legislation has been used to attack them...is beyond reprehensible.

There are multiple abortion thread you can explore this idiotic argument in btw. Find them.

It is the standing legal defintion we use in this country. If we really want to overturn it, then let there be an actual debate on the matter. Let it be discussed publicly, let all of Canada join in.

What pisses me off MOST about this bill is that if you don't look into it, it sounds like a great idea. Punish someone more for killing a pregnant woman and killing her fetus. Great! Who wouldn't support that?

It's not that any of us opposing this bill are saying killing a pregnant woman for being pregnant is not horriying and heinous. Instead, we are saying that this bill is not actually dealing with this issue...it is opening the door to prosecuting women themselves.

If more people understood the implications of this bill I think they would be outraged that such an important issue is being dealt with in such a sneaky and underhanded manner.

I'd be quite happy to have that debate. The current legal cut-off is arbitrary, probably based on tradition rather than fact. Obviously, setting a cutoff based on fact would open up a very dificult debate, but if the justice system is to be just, it can't shy away from dificult dessissions by using arbitrary rules. That's the same laziness and moral cowardess that got us zero-tollerance policies, for example. It isn't smart, and it isn't safe.

As for the law in question, I'd have no problem with it if it was explicitely worded in a way that it would not ban abortion, and if it were to establish limits as to how early into the pregnency the law would apply.

Thanks for completely ignoring the point I made about how this piece of legislation attempts to avoid this debate while circumventing current legal definitions.

Frankly I could give two shits about your opinion on the matter. Our Supreme Court has stated that woman and fetus are one. Period. For some sneaky little MP to introduce a bill obstensibly to protect pregnant women, when in fact similar legislation has been used to attack them...is beyond reprehensible.

There are multiple abortion thread you can explore this idiotic argument in btw. Find them.

Actually I just did respond to it. Its you who's ducking the question of weather the definition is a sufficient one by pointing out, quite correctly I'm sure, that it is the legal one. I know that. But when your arguing weather a law should be changed, pointing out what the law currently is is not, in itsself, an argument. I'd prefer it if you would stop the condesending posturing and personal attacks and try having a mature discussion on the issue. But if you'd rather flame, I'm game.

I am not the one arguing whether a law should be changed, I am arguing there is no point to changing it, that the stated purpose of changing it is a false one, and that if this fuckwad wants to open up a debate on whether a fetus is a human being or not, he should do so openly, not try to slip it in through an amendment to the criminal code.

The argument here is not 'to what point should we allow abortion'. Go have that discussion elsewhere.

I agree that debate should be held openly. And I'd be happy to have that debate. Unfortunately, you seem to feel that it is off-topic.

Personally, I think this question has considerable relevancy to this topic, and I do think that this is in part a debate on when abortion should be allowed, given that your objection to this law is clearly based in the abortion debate, and the way in which both issues relate to the status of an unborn fetus. I would also point out that I raised this issue in response to a statement in the op. But, if you prefer, I will start another thread in which to debate this issue. However, if you choose to post in that thread, I expect you to defend your arguments with something more substantial than personal attacks and evasions.

That's absolutely true. Because we have oodles of abortion threads, and frankly, I refuse to get sidetracked and have this become another boring thread on a subject that has been done to death here.

And since the creator of the bill claims it is absolutely not intended to abrogate the right of women to access abortion, the only relevance the abortion topic has is in the sense of showing how his assertions are bald faced lies. Delving into the topic itself is a mastubatory exercise that can be better done elsewhere. No one is depriving you of that discussion...there is an abortion thread on page one, and many others you can find.
That's nice.

Take it outside.

Thanks for editing out the reasons why I pointed out the relevancy of the abortion issue. Can't actually adress my points can you?

And no. I'm not going to involve myself in yet another ridiculous abortion thread. I'll save my efforts for applauding people like Morgentaler who fought to decriminalise abortions here in Canada, and for opposing idiots like Mr. Epp who, perhaps out of sheer ignorance is trying to avoid public debate and just slip in fetal personhood through the back door.

I have tried to be reasonable, and while we can argue over weather my points were at all off topic, the fact remains that you have been consistently contemptful, abusive, and dismissive; indeed, everything but able or willing to present real arguments, it seems. Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously if you won't even try to back up your arguments? Why should I conclude your views have any validity if you are unable or unwilling to defend them?

...we can argue over weather my points were at all off topic,

And therein lies the problem.

You're complaining about how you are being unfairly treated in the responses to your hijack.

Thanks for editing out the reasons why I pointed out the relevancy of the abortion issue. Can't actually adress my points can you? Um, no? Because as I've pointed out, this is not an abortion debate.



I have tried to be reasonable, and while we can argue over weather my points were at all off topic, the fact remains that you have been consistently contemptful, abusive, and dismissive; indeed, everything but able or willing to present real arguments, it seems. Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously if you won't even try to back up your arguments? Why should I conclude your views have any validity if you are unable or unwilling to defend them?

Waaa.

I've backed up the points I've made. With sources. Lots and lots of sources. I've made substantive arguments about why this bill does not in fact do what it claims to do (protect pregnant women, create harsher punishments for those who attack pregnant women), and how this bill instead will most likely be a back door attempt to criminalise certain behaviour in pregnant women (drug and alcohol abuse, as well as 'improper' abortions, or refusing certain medical care). YOU have addressed none of these issues,choosing instead to wax eloquent on an issue that can be better discussed elsewhere.

So don't talk to me about how you've bent over backwards to discuss the issues. All you'd done is try to interject with your abortion debate, and derail this thread. Forgive me if I don't enable your feeble attempts.

Um, no? Because as I've pointed out, this is not an abortion debate.



Waaa.

I've backed up the points I've made. With sources. Lots and lots of sources. I've made substantive arguments about why this bill does not in fact do what it claims to do (protect pregnant women, create harsher punishments for those who attack pregnant women), and how this bill instead will most likely be a back door attempt to criminalise certain behaviour in pregnant women (drug and alcohol abuse, as well as 'improper' abortions, or refusing certain medical care). YOU have addressed none of these issues,choosing instead to wax eloquent on an issue that can be better discussed elsewhere.

So don't talk to me about how you've bent over backwards to discuss the issues. All you'd done is try to interject with your abortion debate, and derail this thread. Forgive me if I don't enable your feeble attempts.

You have refused to discuss an issue relevant to this debate because it doesn't fit the debate you want to have. You have accused me of trying to derail this thread into an abortion debate because I feel the status of a fetus is relevant both to the statements in the op and the question of weather killing a fetus should be a crime, despite your views on this topic being clearly the result of your views on abortion.

However, if you feel I am trying to derail the topic, put your money where your obscenity-laced mouth is and go to the mods. If they feel my points are off-topic, I will not raise them again in this thread. Otherwise, I will continue to argue that the question of a fetus's person-hood is relevant to this proposed law, and critique your failiure to show otherwise.

However, if you feel I am trying to derail the topic, put your money where your obscenity-laced mouth is and go to the mods.

Wait... Neesika has been swearing at you? Where? I read this thread and while I might not be that observant, but I think that Neesika has been excessively polite to you when you're trying to make an abortion thread out of this.

However, if you feel I am trying to derail the topic, put your money where your obscenity-laced mouth is and go to the mods. If they feel my points are off-topic, I will not raise them again in this thread. Otherwise, I will continue to argue that the question of a fetus's person-hood is relevant to this proposed law, and critique your failiure to show otherwise.

Done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14120798#post14120798).

However, if you feel I am trying to derail the topic, put your money where your obscenity-laced mouth is and go to the mods.

"Penis" is the correct name for the male reproductive/urine disposal organ. If you have problems with the name, please take it up with scientists around the world and work to get it changed. Calling a penis by its correct name is not obscenity.

And, besides. We can fucking cuss all god-damned day as long as we're not using that shit to accuse others of things that are inflammatory, such as saying they're a pussy or accusing them of being a motherfucker. And at least this thread doesn't have people calling each other dicks or saying that something is like piss.

So, have a Satan-blessed day and try to avoid getting into a topic about giving blowjobs to walruses ^^

Okay, back on topic:

too complicated for me to answer at this time. I typed out some feelings, but after re reading them even I didn't agree lol. I contradict myself alot tho.

This is complicated .. or very simple. simple route being .. no matter who the fuck they kill 'hang em'. But my thought is always on self defence, Just cause it's a woman, or just cause that woman is pregnant, doesn't mean you don't have to defend yourself again her. I usually (not always) take the mentality of the accused, not perp, tho.

You're right. This is a very complex topic. Which is part of the problem we have with this particular proposed law.

Wait... Neesika has been swearing at you? Where? I read this thread and while I might not be that observant, but I think that Neesika has been excessively polite to you when you're trying to make an abortion thread out of this.

If by "excessively polite" you mean "extremely condescending", then yes.:)

Here are some examples:

"I could give two shits about your opinion on the matter"

"fuckwad" (referring to the MP behind the bill)

"mastubatory exercise"(I think as a description of the abortion argument).


I actually regret bringing it up, believe it or not. I don't have a problem with people using obscenities in a debate. I do like it however if they have some decent arguments to go with it. But you asked for examples and here they are.

This is what I hate about abortion debates. Its all or nothing: a bitter morass of slippery slope fallacies, absolutist thinking, and personal attacks. If you don't insist that a fetus is part of the mother's body up until the moment of birth, you're sexist and trying to undermine the entire Women's Rights Movement. If you don't believe life begins at the moment of conception, you're a Godless baby killer. It is in this environment that dishonest personal attacks are apparently acceptable. For example, you are either unobservant, or you are willing to lie about Neesika's conduct to attack me. I'll reserve judgement; their have been times I have failed to read a thread fully.

"mastubatory exercise"(I think as a description of the abortion argument).
[/B]

I actually regret bringing it up, believe it or not. I don't have a problem with people using obscenities in a debate.

"Masturbatory" is an obscenity? If you say so....

If by "excessively polite" you mean "extremely condescending", then yes.:)

Here are some examples:

"I could give two shits about your opinion on the matter"

"fuckwad" (referring to the MP behind the bill)

"mastubatory exercise"(I think as a description of the abortion argument).


I actually regret bringing it up, believe it or not. I don't have a problem with people using obscenities in a debate. I do like it however if they have some decent arguments to go with it. But you asked for examples and here they are.

This is what I hate about abortion debates. Its all or nothing: a bitter morass of slippery slope fallacies, absolutist thinking, and personal attacks. If you don't insist that a fetus is part of the mother's body up until the moment of birth, you're sexist and trying to undermine the entire Women's Rights Movement. If you don't believe life begins at the moment of conception, you're a Godless baby killer. It is in this environment that dishonest personal attacks are apparently acceptable. For example, you are either unobservant, or you are willing to lie about Neesika's conduct to attack me. I'll reserve judgement; their have been times I have failed to read a thread fully.

Go start a thread about abortion is that is what you want to argue about.

You are making perfectly clear you don't give a flying fuck about the actual topic of this thread.

Under those circumstances, Neesika has been most polite. And her calling the MP behind the bill a "fuckwad" is hardly an insult to you, is it? Is he your dad?

If by "excessively polite" you mean "extremely condescending", then yes.:)

Here are some examples:

"I could give two shits about your opinion on the matter"

"fuckwad" (referring to the MP behind the bill)

"mastubatory exercise"(I think as a description of the abortion argument).

So the only one that's really an insulting sort of obscenity isn't directed at you... "masturbatory exercise" isn't obscene. I wouldn't even really say that it's insulting, it's more that you're trying to start a debate on a subject that is not being discussed in this thread for the purpose of trotting out the arguments you have lined up. Saying that one doesn't give two shits about someone else's opinion on a subject that is off topic is more casual swearing. Saying that one is filling one's post with obscenities implies a bit more than this.

This is what I hate about abortion debates.

This isn't an abortion debate. The thread starter is trying to keep you from turning it into one.

For example, you are either unobservant, or you are willing to lie about Neesika's conduct to attack me. I'll reserve judgement; their have been times I have failed to read a thread fully.

I didn't attack you. I just said that you're trying to derail the thread and that Neesika hasn't been swearing at you.

Go start a thread about abortion is that is what you want to argue about.

You are making perfectly clear you don't give a flying fuck about the actual topic of this thread.

Under those circumstances, Neesika has been most polite. And her calling the MP behind the bill a "fuckwad" is hardly an insult to you, is it? Is he your dad?

I will go start that thread thank you. And I do believe this topic is related to the topic of the thread. Or is the status of a fetus irrelevant when discussing weather killing it should be considered a crime? If I didn't think it was relevant, I wouldn't discuss it further. And if you look back, you'll see that I began this argument by addressing a specific point in the f***ing op.

As for the mentioned example, I included it as a general example of Neesika's dirty mouth. I never said Neesika was only directly insulting to me. But again, I don't believe in persecuting the free use of obscenities in a debate, and I regret bringing it up.

This isn't an abortion debate. The thread starter is trying to keep you from turning it into one.
This comment looks so out of place right now.

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

You are mixing together two separate issues.

First, until it is born the fetus (or zygote or embryo) IS wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body. If the woman does not want the unborn using her body, she has a right to have it taken out of her body. The "magic change" that occurs when the unborn becomes born is it LEAVES THE WOMAN'S BODY. (If it is a viable fetus, one can well argue that it should not be destroyed unless necessary, but should simply be removed from the woman.)

Second, the development of an unborn into a person is not a simple thing. There may or may not be a "magic moment" and, even if there is, we may not be able to detect it. The law in the U.S. errs on the side of considerable caution by generally outlawing abortion post-viability. So does the ACTUAL PRACTICE of abortion in Canada. Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare in both countries and limited to extreme circumstances. Regardless, it is pretty simple to say an early stage pregnancy does NOT involve a person. Beyond that it is a matter of where you draw the line. Legally, there is no reason to consider the unborn a "person" (again, in the legal sense of the term) prior to its birth.

Happy now?

So the only one that's really an insulting sort of obscenity isn't directed at you... "masturbatory exercise" isn't obscene. I wouldn't even really say that it's insulting, it's more that you're trying to start a debate on a subject that is not being discussed in this thread for the purpose of trotting out the arguments you have lined up. Saying that one doesn't give two shits about someone else's opinion on a subject that is off topic is more casual swearing. Saying that one is filling one's post with obscenities implies a bit more than this.

I apollogise if I exaggerated. I found Neesika's attitude towards the entire discussion insulting and condescending, and perhaps that caused me to overreact.

This isn't an abortion debate. The thread starter is trying to keep you from turning it into one.

Not entirely, no. However, the op's objections to this law (some of which I incidentally share) are directly linked to the abortion issue, and the question of the status of a fetus has some bearing surely on weather it should be a crime to kill one.

I didn't attack you. I just said that you're trying to derail the thread and that Neesika hasn't been swearing at you.

I was not trying to derail the thread. I just don't see how you can honestly discuss this topic while dismissing a host of relevant issues because that's not the discussion you had in mind. However, since an abortion debate was apparently not Neesika's intent, we have this thread. So can we please actually discuss the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, instead of weather we should discuss it?

And while we're at it, if you read my original post, you will see that my issue is not with abortion per say, but rather with the definition of person and how it is applied to an unborn fetus. Obviously the two are related, but I'm worried that some people seem to be under the impression that I am arguing in support of banning abortions or some such, when that is not the case.

To clarify: this is my possision on abortion: I don't approve of it except when nessissary for health reasons. However, I recognize that it would be counter-productive to ban it or overly restrict it. Also, in case any one jumps to assumptions, my views on this topic are not religious in origin. I am an agnostic, and I try to back up my possissions with real evidence.

UGH! I bet Kat is laughing her ass off! She split off the hijacking posts and put them into this thread, thus causing me to become a participant, however unwillingly...in an ABORTION THREAD!!!!

*runs screaming while the cackles of Katganistan echo down the hallways...*

Not entirely, no. However, the op's objections to this law (some of which I incidentally share) are directly linked to the abortion issue, and the question of the status of a fetus has some bearing surely on weather it should be a crime to kill one.
The point was more that the bill was trying to make it a crime to kill a fetus without making killing fetuses an issue.

So can we please actually discuss the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, instead of weather we should discuss it?
I see it as a continual process and it probably doesn't really become a person until some time after birth really if you start to include things like being self aware and all this. However, no matter when a fetus or embryo becomes a person, a woman is always a person throughout a pregnancy and any decision to end it should be hers. You're not forced to donate blood or organs if it would save someone's life, why should a woman be forced to lend her body?

The point was more that the bill was trying to make it a crime to kill a fetus without making killing fetuses an issue.


I see it as a continual process and it probably doesn't really become a person until some time after birth really if you start to include things like being self aware and all this. However, no matter when a fetus or embryo becomes a person, a woman is always a person throughout a pregnancy and any decision to end it should be hers. You're not forced to donate blood or organs if it would save someone's life, why should a woman be forced to lend her body?

Well obviously its difficult to say exactly when a fetus becomes a person. You could even argue it happens after birth, though I personally wouldn't, as it might open the door to neglect or abuse of infants being legal. However, it seems an important issue to discuss.

This topic did not originate, as some seem to think, as an attempt on my part to attack abortion. Rather, I simply feel that the definition of person being "once you're born" is arbitrary, since the baby's mind and body don't really change from the moment before birth to the moment after. I feel its a possission based on tradition more than science, an attitude more usually associated with the religious right and efforts to ban abortion.

As for the baby being dependent on the woman's body, its a fair point. However, if one could establish that the fetus was a "person" before birth, then it would be wrong to end its life with needlessly. Its quite the quandary: the mother has a right to decide how to use her body which is supporting the fetus, but the fetus, if considered a person, would have a right to life. So who's right do you put first? I would argue the right to life, since pregnancy won't kill the mother (except in certain cases, in which case I can accept the logic behind having an abortion, since I suppose its better for one to die than two. As cold as that logic may be). Of course, weather this would come into play would be determined by your criteria for what constitutes a person.

Similar to what I said in the other thread, anyone who thinks a nonsentient piece of organic tissue feeding off the female host has the right to personhood should never be allowed to be treated for parasitic infestation such as tapeworms since they're pretty much the same thing technically speaking.

Similar to what I said in the other thread, anyone who thinks a nonsentient piece of organic tissue feeding off the female host has the right to personhood should never be allowed to be treated for parasitic infestation such as tapeworms since they're pretty much the same thing technically speaking.

Please present any evidence you might have that a fetus a few days before birth has a brain equivalent to a tape worm?

You are mixing together two separate issues.

First, until it is born the fetus (or zygote or embryo) IS wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body. If the woman does not want the unborn using her body, she has a right to have it taken out of her body. The "magic change" that occurs when the unborn becomes born is it LEAVES THE WOMAN'S BODY. (If it is a viable fetus, one can well argue that it should not be destroyed unless necessary, but should simply be removed from the woman.)

Second, the development of an unborn into a person is not a simple thing. There may or may not be a "magic moment" and, even if there is, we may not be able to detect it. The law in the U.S. errs on the side of considerable caution by generally outlawing abortion post-viability. So does the ACTUAL PRACTICE of abortion in Canada. Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare in both countries and limited to extreme circumstances. Regardless, it is pretty simple to say an early stage pregnancy does NOT involve a person. Beyond that it is a matter of where you draw the line. Legally, there is no reason to consider the unborn a "person" (again, in the legal sense of the term) prior to its birth.

Happy now?

Waiting for a response from the person that was supposedly dying to discuss this issue. :rolleyes:

Waiting for a response from the person that was supposedly dying to discuss this issue. :rolleyes:

Obviously I've been busy. Please bear in mind that I am basically single-handedly debating about five people, and that I will not respond to every post, certainly not the minute after its posted.

I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.

Feel free to tell us when you think an unborn meets this criteria.

Dakini is quite right that a child is not necessarily a person until even sometime after it is born. That does not mean we don't provide legal protection to the child once it can be safely separated from it's mother.

Between the mother and the unborn, the mother's right to her body triumphs. Once an unborn can be separated from the mother, there are interests in protecting it's life whether or not it is a person.

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is inherently concerned with persons who have been born.

Please present any evidence you might have that a fetus a few days before birth has a brain equivalent to a tape worm?

Considering my comment was pertaining to the discussion of a proposed law that gives legal personhood to a fetus from the point of conception Goal Tending is a foul in basketball as well as debates, okay?

Waiting for a response from the person that was supposedly dying to discuss this issue. :rolleyes:

Stop being an elf.

Stop being an elf.

I can't help it. Perhaps someone will discipline me. Please.

Similar to what I said in the other thread, anyone who thinks a nonsentient piece of organic tissue feeding off the female host has the right to personhood should never be allowed to be treated for parasitic infestation such as tapeworms since they're pretty much the same thing technically speaking.

Since you raised this point in the context of a thread about when and weather a fetus qualifies for personhood, I don't see how its moving the goal posts to ask you to provide evidence that a fetus is comparable to a tape worm. But perhaps in such a debate, the ends justify the means?

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is inherently concerned with persons who have been born.

First of all, nuh-uh. I once amended a pleading to include as plaintiffs my newborn son's eventual children.

I argued that they were denied due process, not having recieved notice or the right to be heard regarding whether they will ever exist.

The judge at NO TIME claimed I was in violation of Rule Fifteen of the Federal Rules of Procedure or the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.

Instead, he spent our brief time together explaining something about how I was not admitted to the bar and never would be.

I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions are embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.

Feel free to tell us when you think an unborn meets this criteria.

Well 1 and probably 4 and 5 are true at birth, and immediately before as well. 2 and 3 I'm uncertain about. Perhaps any biologists around here could provide links?

Dakini is quite right that a child is not necessarily a person until even sometime after it is born. That does not mean we don't provide legal protection to the child once it can be safely separated from it's mother.

Between the mother and the unborn, the mother's right to her body triumphs. Once an unborn can be separated from the mother, there are interests in protecting it's life whether or not it is a person.

Continuing the pregnancy will not likely kill the mother. If ending it will kill the fetus, shouldn't some consideration be given to the relative severity of the right being violated?

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is inherently concerned with persons who have been born.

Pointing out what the law is does not amount to a justification. Just because something is so does not mean it should be so.

Continuing the pregnancy will not likely kill the mother. If ending it will kill the fetus, shouldn't some consideration be given to the relative severity of the right being violated?

First, I thought you weren't talking about banning abortion.

Second, at what point in the pregnancy are you talking and under what circumstances is the woman seeking an abortion?

Third, the whole point of determining when the fetus/child is a person is to determine when it has a cognizable right to life. Until it is a person, it has no more right to life than the pigs we slaughter because bacon is tasty. In fact, it arguably has a lesser claim.

Pointing out what the law is does not amount to a justification. Just because something is so does not mean it should be so.

When did I say or imply that it was? To the contrary, I distinquished the ethical question of personhood from the legal definition. :rolleyes:

Well 1 and probably 4 and 5 are true at birth, and immediately before as well. 2 and 3 I'm uncertain about. Perhaps any biologists around here could provide links?


So, you, uh....kind of made Cat's point.




His elfitude triumphs...

Well 1 and probably 4 and 5 are true at birth, and immediately before as well. 2 and 3 I'm uncertain about. Perhaps any biologists around here could provide links?

This doesn't fully answer the question, but you might find it informative:

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons. The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections. The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns. Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation), whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates. Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions. Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation. In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.

--K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/), THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987 (emphasis added, footnotes ommitted)


EDIT: And before you get all "gotcha," I am fully aware this quote and article support some argument for pre-birth personhood. I'm trying to have an intellectually stimulating conversation, not play a game. :)

First, I thought you weren't talking about banning abortion.

Yes, you're right. I switched from talking about legality vs morality. My personal view is that in most cases abortion is wrong. I just don't think its a good policy to ban it. I should have been more clear.

Second, at what point in the pregnancy are you talking and under what circumstances is the woman seeking an abortion.

Well, I have an issue with abortion(morally, not legally) past the point where the fetus is a person, unless the mother's life is at risk. However, that point is a matter of debate, hence this thread.

Third, the whole point of determining when the fetus/child is a person is to determine when it has a cognizable right to life. Until it is a person, it has no more right to life than the pigs we slaughter because bacon is tasty. In fact, it arguably has a lesser claim.

Exactly.

When did I say or imply that it was? To the contrary, I distinquished the ethical question of personhood from the legal definition. :rolleyes:

You pointed out the existing definition of person. What your point was I'm not sure, but I thought I would point out that that definition had no bearing on the question of weather the existing laws were right or just. If you too are making a distinction between legality and morality, then we have no argument on that point.

In any case, I'm aware that my ability to argue coherently is diminished. Its one AM, and I had 5 hours of sleep at best. This topic is too complex to debate effectively when my brain is feeling this sluggish, so don't expect further posts in this thread 'till tomorrow. Sorry.

EDIT: And before you get all "gotcha," I am fully aware this quote and article support some argument for pre-birth personhood. I'm trying to have an intellectually stimulating conversation, not play a game. :)

Exactly what I was hoping for. In fact, I have found some of your posts to be among the most intelligent on this topic.:)

In any case, I'm aware that my ability to argue coherently is diminished. Its one AM, and I had 5 hours of sleep at best. This topic is too complex to debate effectively when my brain is feeling this sluggish, so don't expect further posts in this thread 'till tomorrow. Sorry.

No worries. We'll discuss this further tomorrow. Good night. :wink:

So, you, uh....kind of made Cat's point.




His elfitude triumphs...

My point is that if these things are true at birth, then they are true immediately before birth as well. In which case, its a question of how early they apply. The point is that these elements of personhood are present before birth.

And this time I really am quitting for the night, damn it!:)

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

I never said the fetus was part of another person's body. The SCC may have, but I did not.

Nor am I discussing whether or not a fetus could survive prematurely. I am discussing whether or not it is surviving without the mother. The instant it is born, it does change but not in any magical way. It goes from being someone who is using another person's body to survive, to being someone who is using their own body to survive. This is a scientific fact.

You see, it doesn't matter if it is the exact same baby (it isn't, by the way, as the fetus undergoes many hormonal changes during the birth process) before and after, since it is the dependency on the mother's body that is the important factor.

My point is that if these things are true at birth, then they are true immediately before birth as well. In which case, its a question of how early they apply. The point is that these elements of personhood are present before birth.

And this time I really am quitting for the night, damn it!:)

Actually, your logic is flawed.

Because A, =/= therefore B.

Example: Babies breathe air 'at' birth. That is not true immediately before birth.

Or, perhaps more obviously: Babies are outside their mothers 'at' birth. That is not true immediately before birth.

The argument has been derailed. It has been taken to uneven territory before it even starts - because we're arguing about when during gestation a foetus should be considered a person.... when there is surely a reasonable argument that a foetus can not truly be determined to be a 'person' at all, while it dwells within another body and feeds off of it.

The old Hebrew tradition (admittedly, a religious argument) was that life begins at birth - because that's when the baby is first given the 'breath of life'.

Several cultures have dictated that life officially begins when the child is named... which might be a few days after birth, or could be years after the fact...

I can't help it. Perhaps someone will discipline me. Please.

http://ui31.gamespot.com/1694/dominatrix_2.jpg

Actually, your logic is flawed.

Because A, =/= therefore B.

True. Not sure how that applies to what I was saying though.

Example: Babies breathe air 'at' birth. That is not true immediately before birth.

Or, perhaps more obviously: Babies are outside their mothers 'at' birth. That is not true immediately before birth.

The argument has been derailed. It has been taken to uneven territory before it even starts - because we're arguing about when during gestation a foetus should be considered a person.... when there is surely a reasonable argument that a foetus can not truly be determined to be a 'person' at all, while it dwells within another body and feeds off of it.

How so? Everyone is dependent on another to some extent. Would you argue that a parasite is not a seperate life form because it depends on another body? If something can feel or think, then it is a person. Now, we can argue at what point one becomes capable of those things. But pointing out that the baby is dependent on the mother's body is irrelevant to that debate.

The old Hebrew tradition (admittedly, a religious argument) was that life begins at birth - because that's when the baby is first given the 'breath of life'.

Exactly. Setting the date of personhood at the moment of birth is an arbitrary tradition. A religious tradition means squat in a scientific argument.

Several cultures have dictated that life officially begins when the child is named... which might be a few days after birth, or could be years after the fact...[/QUOTE]

How the flaming hell does that have any relevancy to the topic of when someone becomes a person? Several cultures dictate that women are inferior to men. Quite a few more than several, actually. Doesn't make it true.

Your first argument was moderately good. The rest has no place in the scientific debate I'm trying to have, despite my admittedly poor knowledge of this subject.

So I take you'd be in complete favor of Colorado's Equal Rights Amendment and its "Life Begins At Fertilization" premise?

So I take you'd be in complete favor of Colorado's Equal Rights Amendment and its "Life Begins At Fertilization" premise?

Time to burn down a strawman.:)

Time to burn down a strawman.:)

Strawman? I think not. It's a valid question since it hinges on what the legal definition of personhood is pertaining to prenatal life, considering that defining prenatal life as a legal person is the most common means of subverting abortion laws.

And here I thought only Agents could bob, weave and dodge like that.

Strawman? I think not. It's a valid question since it hinges on what the legal definition of personhood is pertaining to prenatal life.

And here I thought only Agents could bob, weave and dodge like that.

Come on. I point out that defining the begging of life as the moment of birth is an arbitrary cut-off based on tradition, and you suggest that I must therefor support defining life or personhood as beginning at the moment of conception? How is that not a straw man?

So, either you are ignorant of the definition of a straw man, stupid, or lying through your teeth. Which is it?

Come on. I point out that defining the begging of life as the moment of birth is an arbitrary cut-off based on tradition, and you suggest that I must therefor support defining life or personhood as beginning at the moment of conception? How is that not a straw man?

So, either you are ignorant of the definition of a straw man, stupid, or lying through your teeth. Which is it?

Not a straw man at all. Since I didn't edit fast enough, I'll repeat it here. It is very much a pertinent question since legally defining prenatal growth as a "person" is the most popular approach to subverting abortion laws without actually repealing them. I believe some people call it a "backdoor ban".

Not a straw man at all. Since I didn't edit fast enough, I'll repeat it here. It is very much a pertinent question since legally defining prenatal growth as a "person" is the most popular approach to subverting abortion laws without actually repealing them. I believe some people call it a "backdoor ban".

It is not relevant. I am trying to determine at what point, scientifically, a fetus or child meets the defining characteristics of personhood. That some people define that point as the moment of conception for political and/or religious reasons is irrelevant. You cannot play guilt by association, and certainly not by preceived association. Get it through your head that defending "a woman's right to choose" is does not give you a free pass to use dishonest debating tactics.

Let me state for the record: my personal feelings about abortion are very negative. However, I do not support a ban, nor do I support the rediculous Colorado bill.

I feel that defining personhood as beginning at birth is abitrary, and I would apreciate it if you debated that, rather than attacking me, or basing your definition on political reasons. That is the intended topic of this thread.

Incidentally, I have a real issue with the title of this thread. It leads people to believe that my goal is to debate abortion laws specifically. Though I suppose that assumption was inevitable.

I won't pretend that the topics aren't related. They are. But the topic of this thread is not "should we ban abortion?"

I feel that defining personhood as beginning at birth is abitrary, and I would apreciate it if you debated that, rather than attacking me, or basing your definition on political reasons. That is the intended topic of this thread.

If you're looking for a legal definition of personhood, you're going to have some sort of arbitrary line. Why? Because development isn't a series of discreet steps. It's a continuous process - and the exact rate at which it occurs is different in every new case.

I suppose one good thing that might be said for the birth cutoff is that you can determine with certainty that it has happened.

But, in all honesty, I see this discussion as being distinct from the abortion discussion. If, at some point in development, the fetus is granted legal personhood, it would still be imbued only with the same rights that each of us has. And those rights do not include any right to use another's body against her will.

How so? Everyone is dependent on another to some extent.

No not really. Prove this EVERY ONE is dependent on other people.

Would you argue that a parasite is not a seperate life form because it depends on another body?

I don't see how a parasite is relevant. Parasites are creatures no human would hesitate to get rid off.



If something can feel or think, then it is a person.

A dog can feel and think. Does that make it a person too. I like my dog, but I wouldn't call it a person.

Exactly. Setting the date of personhood at the moment of birth is an arbitrary tradition. A religious tradition means squat in a scientific argument.

There is no scientific proof when a fetus becomes a person.


How the flaming hell does that have any relevancy to the topic of when someone becomes a person? Several cultures dictate that women are inferior to men. Quite a few more than several, actually. Doesn't make it true.

True, but this also applys to cultures that believe hummanity begins at conception.

Your first argument was moderately good. The rest has no place in the scientific debate I'm trying to have, despite my admittedly poor knowledge of this subject.

Sounds more like a philosophic debate to me. Show me scientific proof a Fetus has higher brain functions. Higher brain functions the ability to ration and reason is what makes us human. Show me proof a fetus can do this.

Frankly I don't get the argument that a fetus is part of the mother's body, unless their's more to it than simple dependency. Being dependent on something, even completely, does not make you a part of that thing. And since a fetus born prematurely can survive, up to a point, how does this refute my argument that we're drawing an arbitrary line?

Their's no magic change the instant it crosses the birth cannal. The baby still has the same brain and the same body it did a few hours earlier. I challenge you to present a single piece of scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

There is. Pro-abortion supporters see this line and that is why a)they believe that the fetus isn't a human and b) a baby is. It is like haing a tumor removed. That tumor is a living part of you, but nit is your choice to get it removed. Is that tumor conscious? No. And neither is it a human being. ( I know that this is not a solid argument but it is more the line between part of you and an outside organism than the fetus in general.)

Im stealing ur argument

the only reasonable legal definition of when a person becomes a legal person is "at birth"

now that doesnt mean that there cant be laws regulating what you can and cant do to the unborn but to claim personhood before birth is unmanageable.

No not really. Prove this EVERY ONE is dependent on other people.

Bad example, I guess. We are all dependent on other people, but not in as intimate a way as a fetus is on the mother.

I don't see how a parasite is relevant. Parasites are creatures no human would hesitate to get rid off.

I think I was trying to point out the flaw in the idea that being connected to and dependent on another person's body means you are not a sepperate person, by giving the example of parasites, which are dependent but still considered sepperate life forms. But perhaps a better example would be conjoined twins.

A dog can feel and think. Does that make it a person too. I like my dog, but I wouldn't call it a person

Some people (AKA PETA nuts) probably would, but anyway, I'd probably have been better off using a word like "sapience".

There is no scientific proof when a fetus becomes a person.

If you could actually give us a source to support that, I'd be very impressed. Even if it showed me wrong, I'd rather see real evidence based in scientific research than more arguments based in politics, religion, or tradition.

True, but this also applys to cultures that believe hummanity begins at conception.

Exactly my point. The fact that a bunch of traditions believe something doesn't mean its right. You still seem to think that I'm arguing that personhood begins at conception.:confused:

Sounds more like a philosophic debate to me. Show me scientific proof a Fetus has higher brain functions. Higher brain functions the ability to ration and reason is what makes us human. Show me proof a fetus can do this.

Well their are studies on the development of fetuses. Not very familiar with them though. But at birth just seems so arbitrary. I was hoping their would be someone in this forum who would know more about the development of fetuses than I do and be able to provide some evidence based in actual research rather than tradition for the date at which a fetus, or baby, becomes a person.

the only reasonable legal definition of when a person becomes a legal person is "at birth"

now that doesnt mean that there cant be laws regulating what you can and cant do to the unborn but to claim personhood before birth is unmanageable.

At least you admit that your definition is based on political conviniance rather than fact.

True. Not sure how that applies to what I was saying though.


Because you were saying that one thing was true after birth, and that it was therefore logical to assume it was true before birth.

I showed several examples to show why that 'logic' doesn't hold.


How so? Everyone is dependent on another to some extent. Would you argue that a parasite is not a seperate life form because it depends on another body?


No. And I'm willing to agree with you there - either the foetus is effectively part of the mother, or it can be treated as a parasite.


If something can feel or think, then it is a person.


By your arbitrary definition. Wasn't arbitrary argument what you were complaining against?


Now, we can argue at what point one becomes capable of those things. But pointing out that the baby is dependent on the mother's body is irrelevant to that debate.


Merely 'dependent', yes. Being ENTIRELY dependent AND ENTIRELY contained within another human body? That's relevent.


Exactly. Setting the date of personhood at the moment of birth is an arbitrary tradition.


No it isn't - it's based on observation, and there's nothing LESS arbitrary... or even more scientific, than that.


A religious tradition means squat in a scientific argument.

How the flaming hell does that have any relevancy to the topic of when someone becomes a person? Several cultures dictate that women are inferior to men. Quite a few more than several, actually. Doesn't make it true.

Your first argument was moderately good. The rest has no place in the scientific debate I'm trying to have, despite my admittedly poor knowledge of this subject.

The problem is - you are disallowing 'religious' arguments for personhood... but there IS no 'scientific' argument for personhood. You can show the flesh is human, and you can show it's alive... but how do you SCIENTIFICALLY determine it to be 'a human life'?

Coherent brain function occurs in utero at about 20-22 weeks. Is that enough to make it 'a person'? Or does it take more than simple reflex actions? If so - maybe the earliest onset of language skills is a better example of 'personhood' - in which case 'a person' occurs maybe 6-12 months AFTER birth.

If you could actually give us a source to support that, I'd be very impressed. Even if it showed me wrong, I'd rather see real evidence based in scientific research than more arguments based in politics, religion, or tradition.

You want a source to prove a negative?

Well their are studies on the development of fetuses. Not very familiar with them though. But at birth just seems so arbitrary. I was hoping their would be someone in this forum who would know more about the development of fetuses than I do and be able to provide some evidence based in actual research rather than tradition for the date at which a fetus, or baby, becomes a person.

There is no scientific evidence of when personhood begins, because the distinction of person vs. non-person is not scientific. "Personhood" is not a scientific term any more than "moral" is. It is a philosophical term.

There is a great deal of research into fetal development and we have a pretty good idea of the approximate point in development at which certain thresholds are met. So, if an agreed-upon definition of personhood were to be reached, science could likely be used to determine when the requirements for that distinction were reached. But that definition will come out of a purely philosophical discussion.

At least you admit that your definition is based on political conviniance rather than fact.
personhood is a legal definition.

Probably gets slapped down by the Supreme Court unless McCain gets a couple of apointees in.

I think the Federation should not interfere with Romulan Empire's domestic policies. :D

And while we're at it, if you read my original post, you will see that my issue is not with abortion per say, but rather with the definition of person and how it is applied to an unborn fetus. Obviously the two are related, but I'm worried that some people seem to be under the impression that I am arguing in support of banning abortions or some such, when that is not the case.

To clarify: this is my possision on abortion: I don't approve of it except when nessissary for health reasons. However, I recognize that it would be counter-productive to ban it or overly restrict it. Also, in case any one jumps to assumptions, my views on this topic are not religious in origin. I am an agnostic, and I try to back up my possissions with real evidence.
FIRST, SPELLING: I will address the topic, but this is really bothering me: The words are spelled as follows:

POSITION. NECESSARY.

You miss these two too consistently for them to be just typos. Please note the correct spellings. I beg of you. (There are others, too. You might want to use a spellchecker.)

NOW, TO THE TOPIC:

The issue of the personhood of the fetus is utterly irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to control her own body.

However, that said, there are practical reasons why the legal definition of "person" cannot include the unborn.

For instance, a legal person not only has legal rights but can exercise and defend those legal rights. Can a fetus do that?

If a legal person's rights are violated or it is hurt in any way, you know how we know about it? The legal person tells us. The legal person brings a complaint and seeks redress for the wrongs done it. The legal person can show evidence and testify to the fact that it actually has suffered as the result of someone else's action or negligence.

Can a fetus do those things? No, it cannot. There is absolutely no way for a fetus to express any suffering, nor any desire for any condition or status in the world, nor demonstrate that it has suffered any loss by another's actions, nor take any action to exercise the rights that it would have if granted legal personhood, nor even any way to express any desire to have such rights.

For all intents and purposes for the law, a fetus may as well be a loaf of bread. There is nothing the law can do for a fetus, and nothing that a fetus can ask the law to do for it.

How is the law supposed to know that a right has been violated, if no one complains of it? If no one steps up and says, "This is how I was harmed," how is the law supposed to know how to give appropriate redress?

IN RE THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT OF "an animal can't complain of having its rights violated, but we protect them from harm":

1) In fact, the harm to an animal can be observed. It is easy to tell if an animal is suffering by its treatment. How can suffering be observed in a fetus?

2) We do not protect unborn animals from harm.

IN RE THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT OF "murder is a crime even though the dead cannot stand up and say "This is how I was harmed":

Actually, murder is a crime against society and is punished as such, by the living, on behalf of the living. The victim is dead and is beyond the reach of the law to make whole what was taken from them. There is no justice for the dead. No closure for the dead. No redress for the dead. The dead have no rights. Only the living do. In a murder trial, the harm done to the victim is treated as a harm done to the society that survives him/her.

So murder is not a comparable example in discussing this issue.


But, in all honesty, I see this discussion as being distinct from the abortion discussion. If, at some point in development, the fetus is granted legal personhood, it would still be imbued only with the same rights that each of us has. And those rights do not include any right to use another's body against her will.
^^ This.

As for the baby being dependent on the woman's body, its a fair point. However, if one could establish that the fetus was a "person" before birth, then it would be wrong to end its life with needlessly. Its quite the quandary: the mother has a right to decide how to use her body which is supporting the fetus, but the fetus, if considered a person, would have a right to life. So who's right do you put first? I would argue the right to life, since pregnancy won't kill the mother (except in certain cases, in which case I can accept the logic behind having an abortion, since I suppose its better for one to die than two. As cold as that logic may be). Of course, weather this would come into play would be determined by your criteria for what constitutes a person.

Nobody has the right to life at the expense of another. If you are going to die without a kidney and I'm the perfect match, you have no right to my kidney. My right to my own body outweighs your "right" to live.

Nobody has the right to life at the expense of another. If you are going to die without a kidney and I'm the perfect match, you have no right to my kidney. My right to my own body outweighs your "right" to live.
I keep telling people this. Yet, somehow, abortion is a magical exception to this rule, where a clutter of cell with personhood potential' rights trumps a woman's own ownership of her body.

We don't fucking care whether a fetus or zygote is a person or not. Even if it was (which it isn't) it would change nothing to the fact that a woman can decide herself whether or not she's comfortable with it squatting her uterus.

Nobody can tell me what to do with my bone marrow, blood or pancreas. I don't see what's so special about women's uteruses that should make this any different. If a living, adult, conscious and feeling human being turned out absolutely dependant on another human being's organ, the former's needs does in no case bind the latter into providing for that need. Why should an unborn fetus get preferential treatment over a poor kid with leukemia who so dearly needs a transplant or transfusion?

Nobody has the right to life at the expense of another. If you are going to die without a kidney and I'm the perfect match, you have no right to my kidney. My right to my own body outweighs your "right" to live.

For f****s sake, I am not arguing that we should ban abortion. How many times must I be subjected to this attack? The point is not weather abortion should be legal. Get that through your God damn head.

Bah I hate abortion debates. Abortion is the number one reason for ridiculous partisian politics. I hope Obama gets some apointees in the supreme court and this becomes a non issue in the future. Sadly that will never happen.

For f****s sake, I am not arguing that we should ban abortion. How many times must I be subjected to this attack? The point is not weather abortion should be legal. Get that through your God damn head.
You are going to be subjected to this attack for as long as you insist in arguing a position in support of legal personhood for fetuses -- even if you are only doing it as an exercise in theory. The "no person has right to use another person's body against that person's will" is the answer to the "fetuses are people and deserve rights" argument.

You are going to be subjected to this attack for as long as you insist in arguing a position in support of legal personhood for fetuses -- even if you are only doing it as an exercise in theory. The "no person has right to use another person's body against that person's will" is the answer to the "fetuses are people and deserve rights" argument.

So you're saying that because no person has a right to another's body against their will, theirfor fetuses are not people?

Or that despite my not arguing against abortion rights, its fair game to paint me with that brush?

Defending "a woman's right to choose" does not justify dishonesty on your part.

Bah I hate abortion debates. Abortion is the number one reason for ridiculous partisian politics. I hope Obama gets some apointees in the supreme court and this becomes a non issue in the future. Sadly that will never happen.

It will. Obama will win, and he will get some nominees in.

So you're saying that because no person has a right to another's body against their will, theirfor fetuses are not people?
No, I'm saying that, even if a fetus was a person, it would still not have a right to use my body against my will. Because the fact that no person has a right to use another person that way, all arguments for the personhood of a fetus are rendered moot because it will not contribute in the slightest to arguments about whether I have a right to stop it using my body or not. Since that problem of rights renders fetal personhood moot, it will always be cited as a counter to arguments for fetal personhood.

Get used to it.

Or that despite my not arguing against abortion rights, its fair game to paint me with that brush?
Sorry, my friend, but you don't get to play devil's advocate without getting tarred with the brush reserved for the devil. If you are going to argue in favor of fetal personhood, then you are going to have to learn to cope with the arguments that counter fetal personhood.

I notice that you are taking opposition to your position as attacks against you, rather than attacks against your argument. Why is that?

Defending "a woman's right to choose" does not justify dishonesty on your part.
Let's talk about honesty and dishonesty in debate tactics, shall we? I explained this counter argument at length just a few posts previous to this. I notice that you ignored that, yet you seem to feel perfectly okay in claiming that I am painting you with some kind of a brush, as if that was my argument.