Very few women who want to terminate want to go any longer than they absolutely have to. However...........here in Texas, they have severely limited the amount of abortion clinics that are in the state, and generally the problem is availability, not wrenching around with the decision. I had a neighbor who had a teenage daughter who got pregnant. Since she was still in high school, and didn't have a job, as well as the fact that her mother was a single mother with a minimum wage job, they decided that abortion would be the best option due to the girls age and the finances of the family. Well, not only did the mother have to take 3 days off to drive to the clinic, stay overnight, get the abortion, and then drive back, but she also missed out on income for those days, as well as had to pay a whole bunch of money. Not only that, but it took her 3 or 4 months to work out how she was gonna be able to schedule it. If abortion was readily available, then there would be several problems solved, number one would be the reduction of late term abortions. If we make abortion illegal again, get ready to see a lot of deaths and people who need medical attention due to botched back alley abortions.
As has been proven to you time and time again there is NO child involved in abortion. If you prefer children be forced into a life of poverty and deprivation that's your right , just don't try to make it law.
Hi! I didn't expect this conversation to reactivate, but why not?? These are two very different questions. There is electrical activity in the brain long before birth, while self-awareness does not come until several months after birth. Someone else, either in this same conversation or somewhere else on this site, made a different, and IMHO very compelling argument. A "person" is not just a mass of tissue, whatever its gestational development may be. A person in not just genes, but also experience. A person must have "personality" (obviously) and that comes after birth. If we were strictly rational, setting a limit for abortion a couple months after birth would be the rational choice, giving us the possibility of much better diagnostics for the infant's future. But we are not strictly rational. Our innate instinct to protect our young is what operates here.
Congress is already organizing the destruction of Planned Parenthood. If you think the situation of poor women is bad now...
Electrical activity is not the same as "significant brain function". Every human cell has "electrical activity". Every chemical reaction happens on the basis of electrical activity = movement of electrons. This is an important distinction. You give no support or explanation for your "no self awareness until 2 months after birth" claim.... Self awareness can have multiple definitions. If one can be said to have cognition - thoughts - then one can be said to have personality. Significant brain function means that the organism's thoughts are interacting with, and a function of the interaction with the external environment. This is the basis of cognition from which personality is derived.
I'm not sure what the distinction is, in the case of brain cells... True. It's something I read several years ago. I don't remember where. And?? So all creatures with a brain have significant brain activity. Are they persons?
The distinction is that mere "electrical activity " does not = significant brain activity. If self awareness equates to personality and personality equates to cognition ( significant brain function) then a fetus at 7-8 months can be said to be self aware. Depends on one's definition of personhood. The current definition includes having human DNA so no. Personhood then requires at minimum both 1) significant brain function and 2) being Homo sapiens - a living human. This does not mean there are not good arguments for inclusion of other species into the definition, just that (Homo sapiens) is currently part of the definition. Obviously opening up the definition to include other than humans opens up a big can of worms.
Agree. Republicans do hate those wimmens!!! Also, if you think anyone's situation is bad now wait for a year or two of TrumpCircus.
Personally, I think Trump will prove to be a standard tax-cuts-for-the-rich-and-screw-the-powerless-poor servant of the ultra-rich. He doesn't give a flying F about social questions. It's the crazies in Congress...
I'm sorry, but I am not interested in semantics. All you are doing is re-defining words and then using your new definition to "prove" something. That's pointless.
Good post, Sailor. Things are rough in Texas on this issue. I hope at some point it gets less onerous.
Generally speaking people only apply either a religious criteria (books/documents adopted as religious texts and religious dogma created by religious leaders) or a legal criteria of "rights" based upon statutory laws (written laws like the US Constitution) and common law (Court decisions establishing precedent not specifically covered by statute such as Roe v Wade) to the issue of the Rights of a Person but the actual Rights of the Person are determined by either Religion or Statutory/Common Law. Rights are determined by natural law for the "survival of the species" both in as individuals and in common. Natural Rights, as established by Natural Law, have limitations and conditions related to them that can be specific or general. For example there's the general limitation because no species can have a right to destroy nature because without nature, in the extreme, nothing survives and all species become extinct because all life is a product of nature. When we become specific to the individuals and individual Natural Rights there are conditions that must be met for the Natural Right of the Person to exist (regardless of the legal definition of when personhood begins) that is very relevant to this issue. I've provided this criteria before and it does not change (although I've refined it slightly over time to avoid nit-picking of the wording). "A Natural (unalienable/Inalienable) Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not conflict with or violate the Rights of another Person (or People), and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person (or People)." This basic criteria is created by nature and applies to all living creatures although we, as human beings concerned with the interactions between human beings, address it specifically to the "person" that is a human being. The first thing that becomes obvious is that there's a obvious conflict because the fetus is within the woman's body so a potential conflict of Rights exists from the moment of conception but there cannot be a conflict of Natural Rights based upon Natural Law. The issues of conflict must be resolved to establish the Natural Rights. Before going there we need to address an erroneous statement from the original post (that I removed by edit) and that was the claim that the Rights are secured over time based upon the development of the child. That's incorrect, The Rights exist although they are subject to the guardianship of an adult where the adult has the "legal" authority to make decisions prior to the child reaching the age of majority where the child can legally make those decisions for themselves. This is purely statutory and not based upon nature where all of the rights exist from the moment the first right exists. What we, as a society, must do is to use natural law and the natural rights of the person as the foundation for statutory laws to protect the natural rights. Now "back to nature" because the issue is between the established "Rights of the Woman" and when the Rights are established by nature for the "Preborn/Child" that exist the moment the "conflict" arguably doesn't exist any longer. The first criteria to overcome is that the Fetus/Child must be able to exist "Independent" from the woman in nature and that moment exists when Natural Viability occurs by definition. It's not like this is rocket science because the criteria and the definition are the same. Natural Viability is when the Fetus can live outside the womb independent from the woman and at that moment the Rights of the Fetus/Child are established, all of them, instantaneously. We don't have any problem with this determination but we do have the problem that we can't measure the exact moment when this occurs during the development of the fetus. Because of the inaccuracy, where it can occur over a period of time of up to a few weeks, we must apply a logical criteria to "approximate" a reasonable age of the maturity for Natural Viability under the law. This is accommodated in the Roe v Wade decision. Next is the criteria that the fetus/child cannot violate the Rights of the Woman. Under normal conditions the continuation of the pregnancy past viability with the consent of the woman will not present a problem but in some cases the health of the woman can become endangered after the "age of viability" and accommodation under the statutory laws must be made. This doesn't violate the establishment the Natural Rights of the Fetus/Child at viability but instead overrides that criteria because those Rights were effectively nullified by the "future" that is unpredictable. In short the Natural Rights at Natural Viability is conditional upon the future where it is assumed, but not a reality, that there will be no complications and if complications occur then the Natural Rights never existed in the first place. This is accommodated in Roe v Wade by the provisions that Last but not least is the criteria that the Rights of the Fetus/Child cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon any person (people) which includes the woman prior to birth as well as anyone after birth. The woman provides consent by not terminating the pregnancy prior to the establishment of rights for the Fetus/Child. This is accommodated for in the Roe v Wade decision. Upon birth the statutory laws already provide for this because the woman can refuse any responsibility in which case a voluntary guardian is allowed to assume responsibility for raising the child. When it comes to Natural Rights as established by Natural Law how pregnancy and abortion is addressed by both statutory law and the common law created by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade we're probably the closest we can possibly be in the United States. It was only through the evolution of our laws and the understanding of Natural Rights by the US Supreme Court that we've managed to come closer to the original ideology upon which the United States was founded than on any other issue in the United States. Unfortunately this isn't what those that base their opinions upon religious beliefs want to accept but that's because the inherent nature of religion historically violates the natural rights and natural law in some cases and this is one of those cases.
In point of fact the "person/people" only matter because Natural Law is based upon what is required from Nature for survival of the species but that Natural Law applies to all species. As this applies to civilization then we're primarily concerned about elimination of conflict between human beings that, in the extreme, results in extinction under natural law so that's why we address this as the "person" but Natural Law is underlying criteria for the Natural Rights of the Person/People so we can cut right to the chase in addressing the Natural Rights of People/Person.
If there was proof that no child is involved in abortion, then there would be no issue at all, nobody would object to totally unregulated abortion-for-any-reason. But obviously the issue is alive and kicking, so just as obviously you are still wrong. <> You assume every child will be born into a life of poverty and deprivation. Almost every child born during the 1920's and the Great Depression was born into poverty and deprivation - they became what we now call the "Greatest Generation". Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell were all born into poverty, you should read their biographies. They overcame huge hurdles to become successful. Poverty is not the main issue. The quality of the people raising the children is the primary factor in determining the child's future. <<MOD EDIT - Rule 3 - Removed Flamebait>>
"Natural Rights" and "Natural Law" are both purely intellectual constructions. There is no "nature" in them. I do not agree with this approach. I have tried to stick to reality as much as possible. As long as a topic is "intellectual", it is open to debate, and will be debated. If we ask "when", then we concede that there is a "moment of personhood". I consider that the whole notion is fallacious. A person develops gradually from conception to death, constantly changing. The last moment acceptable for abortion has nothing to do with the infant, and everything to do with our perception of the infant. People who hear "fetus" and see in their mind's eye a rosy-cheeked three-month-old smiling and burbling... are perceiving that way. the reality of the fetus is completely irrelevant.
What is pointless is making an accusation "Semantics/redefining words" but not stating what word/phrase/idea you are referring to. What is is that you think I have "re-defined" ?
The above sentence is confusing. What does Natural Law being based on survival of the species have to do with people mattering and what does this have to do with defining personhood ? I agree that "Natural Law" deals with survival in large part but this need more explaining if we are going to link it to personhood. The enlightenment thinkers posited that in a state of nature "anarchy" humans naturally would form groups. Part of this was for social reasons but one of the main reasons was for protection (Strength in Numbers). Forming a group increases the survival chances if the members of that group. (better chances to find or make food, better protection from harm, more opportunity to produce offspring and so on). Members of groups would then have a higher probability of having their genetic lineage survive. Survival is then to some degree a function of one's ability to cooperate with a group. Codes of conduct would naturally form in groups. It does not do one much good being protected from harm from outsiders (those outside the group) if one can be subjected to harm from those within the group. "United we stand - Divided we fall". Groups that fostered their members with some kind of internal protection then have a higher survival probability than those that did not. Groups that had some form of protection internally for its members would naturally attract more to that group. Those groups would then become larger and more powerful. At some point it becomes necessary to appoint people within the group to punish those who would violate the internal codes of conduct. It does no good to have rules if there is no punishment for breaking those rules. Without an appointed authority blood feuds would erupt (See Draco - Ancient Greece- he enacted "Draconian" laws to stop the blood feuds). Such blood feuds would be destructive to the group. Groups with no good mechanisms to avoid such feuds would then have a decreased survival probability. People then give power to some authority to punish those who would endanger others directly. At the same time it was recognized that (on the basis of natural law) no man wants to be lorded over by another. The people then grant some authority power but, this power is to limited. What then are the legitimate powers of this authority ? Since the power of the authority was given only for protection from direct harm (killing, stealing, rape and so on), that is where the power begins and ends. 2 main ideas on which this nation was founded (as per the Declaration of Independence) are then: 1) the power/legitimacy of authority of Gov't/authority comes from "we the people" (as opposed to in previous times where the the authority came from "Divine Right"/God) 2) That authority was to be highly limited to the purpose of protection of others from harm. One of the other main ideas that follows is the "Social Contract". It is this construct through which the authority receives it's power. It is an agreement between members of a group to 1) give power to an authority to punish law breakers 2) abide by those laws. Locke, Rousseau and others put it this way. When one agrees to a contract (in this case to not harm others) this conveys a moral obligation. One makes an agreement not to kill some other persons wife or family if the other agree's not to kill his wife and family. One then has a moral obligation to hold up his end of the bargain. The "Golden Rule" then springs naturally out of the social contract. Do unto others as you would have them do to you/treat others as you would be treated. If one does not want others to murder then one has a moral obligation not to murder others. This rule is found in Hammurabi's law code (1800 BC) , Hittite Law code. Confucius cited this rule as did Buddha. Unbeknownst to most Christians - This rule is the rock on which Jesus based his ministry. This rule was even found on the lips of Muhammad. My favorite restatment of this rule as applied to modern times. If you do not want others forcing their personal an religious beliefs on you through physical violence (law) then, do not force yours on others. Alas if we would only follow this simple rule - the world would be a better place. Interesting union of secular and religious principle though. Why can not then everyone accept this rule ... both religious devotee, agnostic and atheist ? Full Circle - the idea of "personhood" as per the constitution (DOP) is someone who is a party to the social contract. The right to be protected from harm (right to life) only applies to parties to this contract = citizens/those with the ability to enter into the agreement. (Sorry slaves and animals and fetuses).
The idea of aborting at any stage is repulsive. Even a federal law recognizes the rights of a human being in utero at any stage of development in the UVVA! (The Unborn Victims of Violence Act). Look it up. "child in utero at any stage of development" is written all through the law. But that isn't the reason it is repulsive, basic human decency makes it repulsive. "Personhood" as a threshold is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
So don't have one....... - - - Updated - - - The UVVA does NOT recognize the rights of the unborn, it address the right of the woman to give consent to be pregnant , or not. It has a clause that specifically states that it does not apply to abortion.
Forced gestation is way more repulsive than abortion ever can be. I don't give a flying fig about your so-called UVVA. *I* live in a free country.
LOL, "forced gestation" how idiotic a term. Unless the woman was raped, that simply doesn't exist in the real world. I see you don't care about the law of the land, interesting. You do realize that even in a free country, you are not free to violate the law at will,....don't you? - - - Updated - - - Anyone who has actually read the law knows that isn't true. Only the part where there is an abortion exception is true. When two counts of homicide are brought in the case of the murder of a pregnant woman, the rights of the unborn are OBVIOUSLY recognized!
No, forced gestation, what you are hoping for, is not legal...whether a woman is raped or not. The UVVA protects the rights of pregnant women to have choice and consent....things you wish to destroy.
Nope, the UVVA recognizes the rights of the unborn child in utero, at any stage of development!!!!!! Interesting that you advocate killing children in utero, yet I am apparently the destroyer in your mind.
