(*wheeze*)
You want to claim that a blastula is a person? Fine. Provide the "proof" of substantiative merit for due consideration. What enforceable civic and human rights would you assign to a one-minute-old, undivided fertilized ovum? How would you measure/enforce such "personal" rights and protections of said ovum, especially when the prospective mother may not even be aware of her immediate "condition"?
Are miscarriages always "God's Will"? If a woman drinks, smokes, takes drugs, or otherwise engages in stressful/strenuous activities and subsequently (ignorantly and unintentionally) miscarries (perhaps evidenced as nothing more that normal menstrual flow), then how is a morally righteous society to justly prosecute such a wanton murderer (murderess?)? Does culpability of another's prospective personhood (and protected rights) begin at immediate cognizant awareness of pregnancy, or before? If so, just how is a responsible and righteous society to
enforce such laws? Shall we pregnancy test every fertile woman in the U.S. every 15 days? Every 10 days? Every day? Would there be
any other way to
insure that "unborn babies" (in their very first hours of cell division) can be
assured of their newfound constitutionally protected rights of personhood?
If an impregnated female aborts/miscarries in some apparent spontaneous/unexplained fashion (typically attributed [and/or apologized] to "God's Will"), then by what manner/measure of law or legal distinction should such instances be relegated/assigned to "God's Will"...versus some indefinite
potential causation of poor/irresponsible personal behavior? Since law
must deal in facts and evidence (and within parameters of established burdens of proof and reasonable doubt), how does either the prosecution/defense "prove" exculpatory divine "evidence" of any manifested/purposed supernaturally imposed "Will", compliments of a specific/unspecific deity?
Put another way:
If a visibly pregnant woman suffers an apparent "miscarriage", what is the state's role in determining cause? If it's determined that the prospective mother engaged in poor behaviors or habits, can the State "prove" that causality? By what means? If divinely "willed" miscarriage is offered as legal defense (after all, a "murder" may have taken place - a capital crime), how does the defense "prove" it's claim? Should the State engage in personal estimations of private choice and behavior, and to what extent? What is a satisfactory burden of proof regarding causation?
If a pregnant woman goes skydiving in her fifth gestational month, and her fetus spontaneously aborts upon hard landing, is she culpable for charges of murder, or poor behavior? Is a "God did it" defense in such a case legitimate, and if so, what scientific/forensic evidence can the defense produce to support such a claim (assuming that "divinely inspired/willed" miscarriages are in fact, a legal standard of acceptable exculpability)?
If a woman inexplicably and suddenly miscarries at 8 months, what legal investigations are incumbent upon the State to bring to bear upon the "murder suspect"? Is any and every aspect of her daily life from moment of conception to be fair game as potential evidence against the suspect mother?
"OK Missy.Explain where you were and what you were doing for every moment since you first learned you were pregnant. And don't leave out your activities
prior to that knowledge either. After all, from the
very moment of conception, whether you were aware of such or not, your "unborn child" had the very same rights and protections you have today...
confess your guilt, you murderer."
What of the woman who illegally tries to purposefully (yet unsuccessfully) instigate a miscarriage of her own volition? If caught in the act, is she to be charged with "attempted murder"? If subsequently convicted, whom takes custody of the (as yet) "unborn child"? What measures can or must the State exercize to protect and insure the rights of the yet unborn child within the womb of the very same convicted "attempted murderer"?
What if a fertile woman is a known drug addict, drunkard, smoker, and professional stuntwoman? Does the State retain the right to intervene and prevent any potential criminal miscarriage before it occurs? If not, why not? Are not prospective/potential recidivist pedophiles subjected to exceptional monitoring standards; registration; even chemical castration?
What if a woman knowingly has AIDS, and chooses to become (or perhaps unwittingly becomes) pregnant? Is she liable for causation of a terminal health condition upon her "unborn child"? Certainly the "unborn child" has every protected right to expect protection from the State in preventing such a terminal disease, does it not?
And so on....
.........................
"personhood" - n;
"The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality"
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
As I have already illustrated, even identical DNA signatures (twins, triplets, clones, etc.) do not necessarily "confer distinct individuality".
Stating the obvious, you said:
"No one is forcing you to post."
Nor do I feel any pressure to do so. I have plainly stated my opinion in the matter, and expressed my disinterest in "debating" the issue with any advocates of criminalizing abortion.
"Ok, ultimately, nothing is different in their potential."
Your candor is once again appreciated.
You posed of me:
"One last question, were you on the supreme court in the 70's(I believe it was) would you have decided with the established law against abortion, or for it?"
While I would claim no especial expertise of historical SCOTUS rulings/decisions/precedents...as a layperson with some interest and (minimal) erudition in such matters/proceedings (noting that even "experts" in constitutional law differ in their conclusions regarding the validity/merit of founding principles in support of Roe v. Wade) , I would offer that the rationale that supported the expressed majority opinion of the Court in it's rendered decision is one that would have concurred with then, and still do to this day. I would rather support the rights and liberties of those that are palpably extant, veritable, and imminently present "persons" - than those that are "potential" (at some point in time and realized due course) "persons" (whether manifested/undelivered by divine Will and intent, or not).
In conclusion, allow me to be plainly spoken and most clear. As a matter of law alone, I do not consider an ovum, blastula, or fetus in any stage of gestation an actual "person" entitled to equal or tantamount civil/human rights and protections. We have enough problems dealing with the walking/talking/thinking varieties of people, without having to lend further considerations for those that might or might not one day share such considerations and deferences afforded/guaranteed under secular law.
As you adequately expressed for yourself, I reiterate in kind my own position that morally, ethically, and (most important) legally...I do not consider any fetus (regardless of stage of gestation) a "person" due any legal distinctions or protections superior to, or in equal of, those of unquestioned and veritably cognizant "mothers".
Not then. Not now. Not ever.
Your claims are noted. Your appeals are heard. Your proffered evidence is nil, and your "proof" (of any "unborn child's" "personhood") is rooted in unsupported dogmatic religious conclusions alone.
You want me to embrace the prospect of criminalizing (once again) unwanted pregnancy terminations?
First, prove to me that your God is God.
Second, show me where your God says abortion is a sin against His Will.
Third, convince me that your God's Word is (or should be) applicable and enforceable, (to the exclusion/exception of all other faith-based beliefs) in a pluralistic and secular form of self-government.
Then...attempt to demonstrate why I should consider an undivided, 1 minute-old ova as deserving of the same rights and protections as the married and sexually consenting couple employing contraceptive barrier methods to explicitly and cognizantly prevent such unintended consequences - and why their "rights" should be minimized/ignored by some "person" they never intended to "create", nor can even see with the bedroom lights turned off.
If you can't fulfill my preceding requirements of abject acceptance and due consideration...then please allow your protestations and opinions to find other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation...
...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction.