Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?

[s2a]

Hello Mister Emu,

You quoted me:
"...seem to recall some religious texts that suggested similar acceptability...absent any change in position. ;-)

Then asked:

"This has to do with the topic at hand how? Also, I recall a bit of scripture regarding slavery as well, but again this discussion is not "the Bible on slavery"."

*sigh*

I was simply illustrating an example of some past religious hypocrisies. Sheesh. What's the name of this particular forum again?

To the meaning of this statement (which you either missed, or ignored), settled law means little when the law can change.

Maybe I missed it (lacking specificity as to which statement you refer). I make it a point (as you may have noticed) not to abjectly ignore any (substantially relevant) question/point put directly to me.


You quoted me:
Is this supposed to be a trick question of some sort?
Basic civil rights are outlined in the final draft of the US Constitution itself, and within the additionally specified rights and protections as enumerated within the initial (and subsequent) ratified Amendments to the Constitution, with subsequent interpretational rulings of constitutional merit and founding intent, as provided by the US Supreme Court

You asked:

Again, where do you believe Constitutional law originates? Not what is it, but where it came/comes from.

Um, asked and answered. As I queried, is this supposed to be some sort of (on-topic ;-P) trick question of which "correct" answer is only known to yourself?

If you'd like a more in-depth overview and history of constitutional origins and law, I recommend this resource as a favorite of mine:
[ http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html ]

If you feel my reply is either missing or ignoring the intent or thrust of your question, then perhaps you could rephrase it or restructure it in such a way to procure what you think I should say. Or, you could illuminate me in answer to my question that you presumably either missed or ignored; " Just where do you think they come from?"

Or were you expecting some response along these lines instead?

"Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because they never were..."

"...Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...."

"...We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is..."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

..........................

"It is not only the sacred volumes they [the churches] have thus interpolated, gutted, and falsified, but the works of others relating to them, and even the laws of the land...Our judges, too, have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others; to extend the coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these [Ten Commandments] make a part of the law of the land."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

........................

""Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground [than the foundation of the Ten Commandments]. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

If I am still "missing" or "evading" the "true" (or correct) answer to the question you posed, "Where do you believe Constitutional law originates?" - then feel free to share...

Oh. One last Jefferson quote:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Why would good 'ole Thomas emphasize "trial by jury" and "imagined by man"? Perhaps because he found no such concept in the Ten Commandments or within the Bible. Hmmmm...but who can say for sure?

You asked:

Hmmm, what makes the difference between believing a fetus a person, and believing it to not be so, that makes one an emotional appeal and the other not so?

Because established and precedent law (primarily) states that a fetus is not a person. No emotional appeal requisite. Just a statement of fact. Statements of fact (in and of themselves) are not special pleading or (hopeful) appeals to emotion. Your position is a claim/assertion, unrecognized and unsupported by simple fact.


As I reiterated:
Gestating human ova/embryos do not retain that legal distinction [as persons].


To which, you said:

"They do if the mother wishes it so. Were I to intentionally slay an unborn child without the mother's consent it is (to my knowledge) murder."

Under certain circumstances, in certain states, this has recently been (occasionally - and quite contentiously) introduced as a prosecutable and separate charge (typically as either homicide or manslaughter); which has been (often enough) extremely difficult to prove in highest burden of guilt cases (and still questionable as to sustainable constitutional merit).

It is my earnest position that any potential mother should retain any and all rights to bring her gestating embryo to full term and delivery - if that is her intent and wish; but as a simple statement of fact...that without a legally obtained birth certificate...one can not obtain so much as a Social Security card for a gestating fetus (nor a Passport, nor life insurance, nor a bank account). A fetus may be a "person" (or a prospective person") in the minds and hearts of any prospective individual parents, but this is an emotional perspective, not (by and large) a legal one.

Quoting me (as reiteration):
Gestating human ova/embryos do not retain that legal distinction. Your moralistic/philosophic assertion that any and all embryos are indeed "persons" is noted as such...but it don't make it so...legally

You said:

"See that is what I at least(and as far as I know other pro-life persons) am trying to get, legal distinction of personhood for unborn children."

OK.

Yet I find that statement somewhat disingenuous, especially if it is already your position that any and all "unborn children" are in fact, "persons. But..hey, here's your opportunity to ally my skepticism, and pretend that you are a legislator that could introduce any law that would succinctly and unequivocally define when a "person" (or "unborn child") becomes a "person". Help restore my faith in candor. ;-)

You asked:

"Please enlighten my then, what did you mean by a clone's "potential" for life? Did you mean a clone in the embryionic stage?"

Noooo....

As I already "enlightened" you (I don't enjoy repeating myself incessantly, ya know), in post #57 to Neo-Logic (that you chose to rebut):

"...But soon enough (whether collective society approves or not), virtually any human tissue will retain the potential for creating independent "life"...from hair follicles to fluffed off skin cells (any eukaryotic cell that has a full set of chromosomes).
What then?
What shall we as a society "protect" or otherwise imbue with equal rights and protections for "potential" persons? Why would a blastula or fertilized ovum have any less of a potential "right to life" than a toenail clipping, or some residue snot in a Kleenex?"

..............

(cont)

 

[s2a]

[cont] Part 2 fer Mister Emu:

"Persons" can therefore, be distinct and separable, but certainly not by DNA alone. Where are these "differences" (of individualism and distinct personhood betwixt those of identical DNA signatures) manifested and eventually realized? Within the womb (or prospective petri-dish/growth environment), or after birth? What measurable aspects of "personality" or distinct individualism is readily observable amongst gestating identical twins (or triplets) after 5 weeks? 5 months? What human behavior is readily identifiable as unique and distinct from one to the next? You tell me...

"What about five weeks out of the womb? I honestly do not know, do they show personality 5 weeks out of the womb? Or five months?"

Sorry. It's your claim. Your burden of proof to provide the evidence that supports your own position.

"If not would you define them as persons?"

Like I said before:
"As things stand, I prefer to defer to the properly established rights of living breathing humans to exercise personal choice, absent undue governmental intrusion...versus granting ubiquitous equality to any and all potential persons."

I asked:
How does a sluffed-off human hair in a hairbrush differ from a 3 day fertilized ova in identifiable/quantifiable terms of human behavior, personality, or ultimate "potential" as a "separate and distinct" person (if human cloning is as simple and readily accessible as conventional conception methods)?

You said:

Because it is not, a 3 day fertilized ova, if one were to use the material therein to produce an ova, than the ova would be no different.

Reread the question, then try again (or not, for all the lacking interest I retain in the matter).

"Hair carries the respective DNA of its donor does it not?"

Yes. Is there a differing point you wish to offer?

s2a

 

[Mister Emu]

What's the name of this particular forum again?

General debates. We are however under the thread, "why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort". I was just wondering if there was a point relevant towards the topic at hand.

Maybe I missed it (lacking specificity as to which statement you refer). I make it a point (as you may have noticed) not to abjectly ignore any (substantially relevant) question/point put directly to me.

That it was once settled law that a white male could own a black person as a piece of property. The point was that appeals to settled law while to a degree are pertinent; settled law can and will change, especially when it goes against basic rights.

As I queried, is this supposed to be some sort of (on-topic ;-P) trick question of which "correct" answer is only known to yourself?QUOTE]
No.

If you'd like a more in-depth overview and history of constitutional origins and law, I recommend this resource as a favorite of mine:
[ http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/t...titutional.html ]

May I ask, was there supposed to be a link I click somewhere on the page that leads to the history of contitutional law origins?

Just where do you think they come from

Since you are disinclined to answer...

From your quote of Thomas Jefferson
" It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased... We appealed to those [laws] of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts"

It is originates the morals of society.

Perhaps because he found no such concept in the Ten Commandments or within the Bible. Hmmmm...but who can say for sure?

Did you think I was going to say the Bible and the Ten Commandments?

Because established and precedent law (primarily) states that a fetus is not a person.

But we are argueing the validity of said law.

Just a statement of fact. Statements of fact (in and of themselves) are not special pleading or (hopeful) appeals to emotion.

No it would be a statement of fact to say that "the law states that fetuses are not persons". There is a difference between that and stating that you believe that fetuses are not persons.

Your position is a claim/assertion, unrecognized and unsupported by simple fact.

Both our claims are in the same boat. Law does not create fact. If the law said that the moon was indeed made of chesse, it would not make it so.

Yet I find that statement somewhat disingenuous, especially if it is already your position that any and all "unborn children" are in fact, "persons.

Hmmm? It is my position that unborn children are persons, I would indeed by overjoyed if this was the position held by the law as well. How is that disingenuous?

But..hey, here's your opportunity to ally my skepticism, and pretend that you are a legislator that could introduce any law that would succinctly and unequivocally define when a "person" (or "unborn child") becomes a "person". Help restore my faith in candor. ;-)

How is this? Human life from the stage of fertilized ova retains the right to life.

On the side, you could have just said post #57, I went and got it before I realized you requoted yourself.

As I believe I have said before. A toenail clipping, or residue on a kleenex, as you put it might have the potential for life given enough advancement in the field of cloning. But it is not yet life, once the genetic information has been cloned it would be but until then it would not. A "clone's" potential for life more closely relates to that of a sperm and an egg.

(coontinued)

 

[Mister Emu]

Continuation:

Sorry. It's your claim. Your burden of proof to provide the evidence that supports your own position.

What measurable aspects of "personality" or distinct individualism is readily observable amongst gestating identical twins (or triplets) after 5 weeks? 5 months? What human behavior is readily identifiable as unique and distinct from one to the next?

Your double standard for personhood is noted. If a five week old exhibits none of your earmarks of personality, and a five weeks to go unborn child exhbits none of your earmarks of personality, the only difference is location, and not anything to do with psychology, or the signs of personality at all.

Reread the question, then try again (or not, for all the lacking interest I retain in the matter).

No one is forcing you to post. Ok, ultimately, nothing is different in their potential.

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?

 

[Ryan2065]

How is this? Human life from the stage of fertilized ova retains the right to life.

So you are against In vetro fertilization? Many eggs are fertilized and usually only one ever makes it to become a full grown human...

 

[michel]

So you are against In vetro fertilization? Many eggs are fertilized and usually only one ever makes it to become a full grown human...

I don't see that as being pertinent to the argument; Nature doesn't allow all eggs to become fertilized, as from this article:

From:-www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci...

It states that "Women are born with a finite number of eggs. At birth, a
woman has around 1 to 2 million eggs. However, throughout her life, a
woman loses eggs through a destructive process called atresia. At
puberty, only around 400,000 eggs remain. Throughout the reproductive
life span, from puberty until menopause, women lose about 1,000 eggs each
month. Of these thousand eggs, only one is released. Once released, it is
picked up by the fallopian tube. If a couple has sexual intercourse around
this time, fertilization (the joining of the egg and sperm) may take place."

Finally, according to the following article on "Menopause, Estrogen Loss,
and Their Treatments " from the UC Davis Health System (
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/health/a-z/40Menopause/doc40.html ), "As a
woman ages, her supply of eggs declines. Menopause occurs naturally after
the woman's supply of follicles has been depleted and menstruation ends
completely. (Menopause may also be induced if the ovaries are surgically
removed.)"

 

[huajiro]

Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many of the voters that voted "No, abortion should be made illegal because the fetus is a living being" are males.

Being a male myself, I can only imagine the pain and suffering of birth, let alone the troubles that comes with pregnancy. This makes me think, if a willing pregnancy can cause such complications and troubles, think of how much harder it will be for the mother, emotionally and physically, had they been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term because of a law which prohibits them from aborting.

Just as I cannot describe to anyone how a certain food item tastes if they themselves had not experienced it, I cannot feel the pain and complications of pregnancy, being that i'm a guy and all. I don't want to support any law that makes abortion completely illegal as I would only be imposing my personal opinion derived from my imagined empathy of what the mother must feel when I in reality, have no idea.

Why is it that everyone thinks about themselves? Why is it an issue after the woman is pregnant? As far as I am concerned, people should think before they have sex about the consequences. We are talking about a human life!!! The only reason people take it so lightly is that we have allowed it. Killing is killing!!! No matter in what form.

 

[Ryan2065]

I don't see that as being pertinent to the argument; Nature doesn't allow all eggs to become fertilized, as from this article:

This isn't how In Vitro Fertilization works. Mr. Emu said...

How is this? Human life from the stage of fertilized ova retains the right to life.

Mr Emu said that fertilized ova retain the right to life.
http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html

A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.

Most of these excess pre-embryos are disposed of when In Vitro Vertilization is done. Also, the norm for this is to put multiple fertilized eggs into the woman and see how many take hold. theres a 25% chance that you will have twins when you do this, so that means that 75% of the time there are some pre-embryos that don't form.

Because of this, I cannot see how people are against abortion and for In Vetro Fertilization. If life forms when the egg fertilizes the egg then In Vetro Fertilization kills way more than abortion does.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Why is it that everyone thinks about themselves? Why is it an issue after the woman is pregnant? As far as I am concerned, people should think before they have sex about the consequences. We are talking about a human life!!! The only reason people take it so lightly is that we have allowed it. Killing is killing!!! No matter in what form.

Yes. But consider the horrors of allowing these murderers to pro-create in the first place. It's the people that would kill their own children who aren't having children. This is a blessing on us all. The people who value life are the ones having the kids. This should work out to our over all benefit.

 

[jamaesi]

Yes. But consider the horrors of allowing these murderers to pro-create in the first place. It's the people that would kill their own children who aren't having children. This is a blessing on us all. The people who value life are the ones having the kids. This should work out to our over all benefit.

Guess what! My mom is pro-choice. : )

So are many other moms and many other people. People who have had abortions may go on later to have kids or already have kids.


This isn´t the first time that you´ve said that in this thread and it´s still not right no matter how many times you say it.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Guess what! My mom is pro-choice. : )

So are many other moms and many other people. People who have had abortions may go on later to have kids or already have kids.


This isn´t the first time that you´ve said that in this thread and it´s still not right no matter how many times you say it.

Your mom is pro choice? The means what to me? lol I'm pro-choice. You're pro-choice. You're mother is pro-choice. Hooray! Lets have a big party and kill some babies. I see your point, but you should know that abortion many times makes it impossible for a woman to get knocked up. That is what I was pointing out as a bonus. Anyway. My mother killed her first child before having me, so if there were any justice in the world, I wouldn't exist, but I do. I'm sure the world rejoices. lol The point is, and maybe you can show why this is wrong, why in the world would we want a person who would kill their child raising a child. They are obviously not up to the responsibility.

People change? Sure. Here and there, but not as often as you'd think. But since neither of us want to ban abortion, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

 

[michel]

Yes. But consider the horrors of allowing these murderers to pro-create in the first place. It's the people that would kill their own children who aren't having children. This is a blessing on us all. The people who value life are the ones having the kids. This should work out to our over all benefit.

Jocose, you do yourself no favours by using words like " Murderers", and in your later post,
"Lets have a big party and kill some babies" and then "......makes it impossible for a woman to get knocked up".

I'll grant that this is an emotive case - but don't you think it would be better if you could use less 'abusive' words ? - you would have more respect, and your posts would be accepted better by others.....

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Jocose, you do yourself no favours by using words like " Murderers", and in your later post,
"Lets have a big party and kill some babies" and then "......makes it impossible for a woman to get knocked up".

I'll grant that this is an emotive case - but don't you think it would be better if you could use less 'abusive' words ? - you would have more respect, and your posts would be accepted better by others.....

Thanks dad.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Lol Jocose, I just realized, after looking closely at your avatar, that you look exactly like my bro's friend. Wow, this is almost scary. It says ur in VA, so i'll assume ur not him, but still - wow. I gotta show my bro this.

 

[jamaesi]

Miscarriage is murder!


Er, back to the point.

The point is, and maybe you can show why this is wrong, why in the world would we want a person who would kill their child raising a child. They are obviously not up to the responsibility.

Because that person is responsible enough to know when they should be having a child.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Because that person is responsible enough to know when they should be having a child.

Obviously not, if they were getting pregnant before they were ready to have kids.

 

[huajiro]

I think I have a solution.....let's pay men to get castrated and women to get their "tubes tied" instead of having a welfare system. I guarantee that it would resolve a huge amount of our problems without creating more.

 

[matey]

Would it be illegal or wrong if a man were to get his hands on an abortion pill and secretly give it to a woman he got pregnant, causing an abortion, all because he didn't want a child and the woman would not have an abortion, and he did not like the odds of the woman having a miscarriage? It takes two to tango-bango.
It's a pretty horrible question, I know, but still, would that be illegal?

 

[Mister Emu]

So you are against In vetro fertilization?

When there is a tremendous waste of life, yes.

It's a pretty horrible question, I know, but still, would that be illegal?

I do believe so.

 

[matey]

Is it illegal for a woman who got pregnant by a man to have an abortion, even though he wanted a child?