Against abortion and against person-hood?

[genuineoriginal]

Alaska, Arizona, North Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Penn., South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin consider the fetus an "unborn child".

This is simple and sensible.

 

[PureX]

autonomous
from Greek autonomos ‘having its own laws’

Maybe you are misusing that word?

This is not ancient Greece. And here are the definitions of the word from Webster's:

Full Definition of autonomous

1: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy

2a: having the right or power of self-government
b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>

3a: existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid>
b: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>

4: controlled by the autonomic nervous system

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is not ancient Greece. And here are the definitions of the word from Webster's:

Full Definition of autonomous

1: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy

2a: having the right or power of self-government
b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>

3a: existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid>
b: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>

4: controlled by the autonomic nervous system

With that definition, you would have no problem aborting an 8 year old human child, since that child is incapable of existing independently of the care provided by his/her family.

 

[ok doser]

With that definition, you would have no problem aborting an 8 year old human child, since that child is incapable of existing independently of the care provided by his/her family.

exactly

purex's dependence on "autonomy" falls flat on it's face


and it's nothing but a mask for selfishness

 

[Delmar]

Given that the legal system in this country is far more interested in what is legal rather than what is just, it is a VERY real concern.

There was a case here in Colorado recently where a bunch of high schoolers got caught trading nudes. As they were all under 18, it was initially addressed as a child porn cased. The DA was considering charging a bunch of kids as adults for acting like kids. Was it legal? Yes. Was it just? No. Justice is not served by labeling a 16 year old a sex offender for life because he/she did something stupid at an age where we expect them to do stupid things.

So, when we start passing laws guarantying person-hood. we had better be pretty darn clear because some over zealous prosecutor WILL use that law to prosecute somebody in ways that you may not have intended because that prosecutor defines murder more broadly than you.

I read this post again, and it occurs to me that society should be a lot more concerned with reigning in out of control prosecutors than with worrying about the potential pitfalls of affirming that unborn people are people. Do right and risk the consequences.

 

[Delmar]

I've addressed this issue in another thread that was bashing Ted Cruz because he is against Personhood Amendments.

Telling us you have addressed it in another thread doesn't do us much good unless you are going to link to the other thread, or at the very least tell us the title of that thread.

First, within the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, Personhood Amendments are not necessary.

The Due Process Clause is not being used to end abortion :idunno:

The only problem I have with what he says in this video is that it is not being put into practice.

2nd: I posted this article in the same thread (to which no one responded)

Is the Personhood movement really pro life?

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/06/22/is_the_personhood_movement_really_prolife

OK, I will respond to that article in this thread, as time allows.

I see that many in your thread belong to a culture of death (they vote for pro abortion candidates and advocate immoral laws that promote the culture of death), so I'll be ignoring WizardofOz and his fellow Libertarians if he should respond to my post.

 

[Crucible]

I am sure someone like you goes home and slaps your mother every day, just because she offends you by being a woman.

Most of us don't hate women like you do.

Yeah, that's all you got- an unoriginal ad hominem that I've gotten so used to on here with this subject that the only thing it does is affirm that you all know you're wrong

 

[Delmar]

My response to the article provided by aCultureWarrior
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/06/22/is_the_personhood_movement_really_prolife

One of the most controversial wings of the pro-life movement is the “personhood” effort. Championed by Personhood USA out of Colorado, its goal is to have personhood defined in law to include the unborn. Theoretically, it sounds good. Practically, it will never work and meanwhile is severely hurting the pro-life movement.

This says nothing about why it will never work or how it is hurting.

The pro-life movement does not support the personhood effort. Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum issued this statement about it, “Nearly every reputable pro-life leader has criticized the approach of the personhood amendment,

The argument is simply a form of name calling. If you don't agree with us you are not reputable. Notice there is no explanation of how personhood advocates are of lesser reputation.

which will simply give more power to pro-abortion judges.” Another statement from Eagle Forum said that the “poorly designed initiative would not prevent a single abortion even it if became law” and it hurts pro-life candidates.

No explanation of how personhood "gives more power to pro abortion judges" or what it does to "hurt pro life candidates"

National Right to Life, the leading pro-life organization in the country, does not support personhood

They are the largest "pro-life" organization that's true. Does that make them more correct?

Since the personhood amendment is so radical, it drives out more people to vote against it,

It is radical to assert that unborn people have the right to life? So be it.

 

[Delmar]

How about 'procurement of a miscarriage' to abort a pregnancy? I'm sure you want that to be criminal.

Hiring a hit man to kill your baby born or unborn should be a crime, yes.

If a pregnant woman jaywalks with a buggy, she would be criminally negligent

Would a woman be found criminally negligent if she was jaywalking while carrying an infant and harm came to the child?

if the child is killed - why wouldn't the woman who is hit and suffers a miscarriage by her own negligence be guilty of an offense?[

No more than if the child were in her arms.

 

[Town Heretic]

Still reading around on this and another reason not everyone is on board with personhood is that many who advocate it would begin assigning right with a zygote that's unplanted, before what constitutes pregnancy. In other words, it would eliminate use of the pill and a large portion of contraception. That's why many who are against abortion are concerned about the ramifications of the movement.

 

[Crucible]

Personhood- the state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality

Personhood is a development, not an instantaneous happening.

 

[Delmar]

Personhood- the state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality

Personhood is a development, not an instantaneous happening.

How do you know that?

 

[Crucible]

How do you know that?

In biblical times, personhood was marked by name, and names were not announced until birth. Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter.. as his personhood had changed.

Personhood does not exist in the womb; there is no differing nature, title, or otherwise individuality. Personhood is evidenced by third party perspective- other people acknowledging the characteristics of said personhood. Those in the womb do not have this- because they are fetuses. There are no characteristics to be seen.

 

[WizardofOz]

So all abortion should be legal?

 

[Town Heretic]

How do you know that?

He probably read it slapped across a photograph published anonymously on the internet...seriously, he does that.

Any response on the contraceptive angle relating to resistance by many regarding the personhood movement. I have to admit I'd never really thought of it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I read this post again, and it occurs to me that society should be a lot more concerned with reigning in out of control prosecutors than with worrying about the potential pitfalls of affirming that unborn people are people. Do right and risk the consequences.

Society should be a lot more concerned about making every baby a wanted baby. Legislating will not change the underlying issues that lead to abortion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yeah, that's all you got- an unoriginal ad hominem that I've gotten so used to on here with this subject that the only thing it does is affirm that you all know you're wrong

You aren't on this thread to discuss abortion, you are just here to complain about women.

Here is the proof:

disease of 'womanhood', which resulted in divorce, birth control, abortion, and these myriad of privileges which prove most often to just be parasitic toward men.

 

[PureX]

Still reading around on this and another reason not everyone is on board with personhood is that many who advocate it would begin assigning right with a zygote that's unplanted, before what constitutes pregnancy. In other words, it would eliminate use of the pill and a large portion of contraception. That's why many who are against abortion are concerned about the ramifications of the movement.

The problem is that they are only looking for ways to justify their own preconceived opinions, and are not looking for the more honest truth of the matter. Once we begin to understand that 'personhood' and the autonomy required to establish it is the real heart of the abortion issue, and not "baby murdering", then we can begin to understand the reasoning of the pro-choice side of the issue. But the anti-abortion folks don't want to understand the reasoning of the pro-choice side because they don't want to acknowledge that they even have a reasoned argument to make. Most of them just want to shout "baby killers!" and wallow in their outrage and self-righteousness.

 

[Town Heretic]

The problem is that they are only looking for ways to justify their own preconceived opinions, and are not looking for the more honest truth of the matter. Once we begin to understand that 'personhood' and the autonomy required to establish it is the real heart of the abortion issue, and not "baby murdering", then we can begin to understand the reasoning of the pro-choice side of the issue. But the anti-abortion folks don't want to understand the reasoning of the pro-choice side because they don't want to acknowledge that they even have a reasoned argument to make. Most of them just want to shout "baby killers!" and wallow in their outrage and self-righteousness.

I hear you...then I think, most of the women who have abortions aren't making philosophical points. They simply don't want to remain pregnant. Now I don't go around shouting murderer at anyone, but I do believe that we're sanctioning murder, that Roe did that very thing, blinded by another issue that was half created in dealing with something we never truly gave enough consideration as a matter of law.

I believe most law, good or bad, is reasoned and that most people (some only if pressed) can give you some reasoning for their part in a thing. The question becomes is the reason sufficient? Does it meet the demands of inquiry and challenges to foundation. I don't think the pro-choice position can manage that. I'm not saying there aren't pro-life positions that aren't equally flawed. Personhood, in at least some of its forms, is ample illustration of that...but a fundamental right to existence is already established absent considerations that don't apply to the unborn (mostly horrific violations of our social compact) while the right itself is impossible to objectively settle in a fashion that isn't demonstrably arbitrary.

A conversation worth having though.

 

[Rusha]

I hear you...then I think, most of the women who have abortions aren't making philosophical points. They simply don't want to remain pregnant

That pretty much covers it. Most abortions are done for the sole purpose of convenience ... not to mention that except for the exception of rape, no woman is forced into pregnancy. Consensual sex equals consenting the possibility of pregnancy.