What are you afraid of ? Learning the facts? Inability to define your opinion of when personhood begins? The fact that it doesn't matter to the issue of abortion when personhood is granted? The fact that no one is "co-responsible " for newborns?
Then why are you here presenting your opinions? Actually I understand, there does seem to be people who post thinking that they are giving a speech ...and are surprised to see disagreement....
Please note that I do not care if you listen to me. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. I present and explain my thinking in the hope that this will encourage others to present and explain their thinking. On the other hand, when someone has repeated an affirmation several times without ever explaining it... I figure that any further effort would be wasted. I want to learn, but that would require that you explain, which seems improbable.
You write: "a few months after birth. That gives time to verify the medical prospects of the newborn, while it is still not really a person. And terminate if the outlook is bad." Evaluating the "medical prospects" is extremely subjective, particularly when you are evaluating at the birth of the baby. Many people with birth defects lead productive lives. Some people redirect their lives based on a life altering experience (surviving a disaster, the death of parents, etc), changing from a "bad" person to a very respected productive person. How are you going to predict the future? What if a DNA examination reveals the baby has very high risk of a deadly disease (but may never get the disease, just has high risk)? What if the baby has a curable medical condition which is expensive to treat and the parents do not want to take on that burden? Are those "medical prospects" reason to kill it? And who makes these determinations? The parents? What if the health care system is government run and has limited resources, does the government get to step in and overrule the parents on the basis that the "medical prospects" of the baby are too expensive and it should be killed? If "medical prospects" are your criteria, how are you going to address other people with poor medical prospects, such as a person with Alzheimer's? If you can kill a baby based on poor medical prospects, why can't you apply the same logic to a person with Alzheimers (or any other incurable deadly condition, or even severe injury) who will never recover, will progressively slide into helplessness and require total care 24/7?
I did explain, you just didn't like the explanation ...or the questioning of your opinion.... When do you think personhood should be granted? You have never said.
But what several people have been trying to get through to you...the "dependency" is of a totally different type. After birth...anyone can furnish was is needed to keep the living baby alive. Before birth...ONLY ONE PERSON (the person in whose body the pregnancy is occurring) can keep that fetus alive. Why are you so intent on pretending that is not so? quote]...with no change psychologically. I have explained why I see a huge change for the adults around the infant: mother going from almost alone to potentially disconnected; everyone's protect-and-nurture instinct engaged. [/quote] Not really sure what you mean there. Prior to birth...only one person is involved; after birth...almost anyone on the planet can take over. What on Earth does that mean? Is that something that comes from on-high...or is it something you invented because you think it gives your opinion more gravitas? BOTTOM LINE: If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...SHE SHOULD BE THE SOLE DETERMINANT OF THAT DECISION.
(I hope you read all the way to the end, including my presumption that the idea of "post-birth abortion" would be revolting for everyone...) Your critique of diagnostics and decisions for newborns apply to all diagnostics and decisions at all ages. We rarely have perfect information. We usually must decide within a time constraint. Let's not kid ourselves. Medical personnel have euthanized malformed newborns since forever. Their window of opportunity was narrow. Personhood at, say, two months would provide a more useful window.
The designation of what is or is not a person would be wholly a legal decision, as personhood is a legal finding, nothing more or less, the findings of the scientific community would only be evidence towards a decision by the courts .. so let us assume that SCOTUS at some point decide that the unborn are "persons" under the constitution from the moment of conception .. that throws open a whole range of issues, including either changing or removing two amendments, the 2nd and the 14th. The 2nd amendment pretty much guarantees the right of the person to defend themselves against any and all non-consented attacks, whether those attacks are intentional or not .. either that right would have to be amended to not include the right to defend yourself against the unborn (which then raises the question of what to do when the fetus is causing a life threatening issue to the female) or removed from all persons, this leads into the 14th amendment, specifically the equal protection clause, if the 2nd is amended then it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th which basically means that the state cannot offer a protection to one group of persons without offering it to all persons, if the unborn are exempt from the 2nd then that elevates them above all other (born) people . .which again would be a violation of the equal protection clause. So the question that requires answering is not when the "person" becomes such but by what right does the state seek to impose a removal of rights from women in order to allow another person to inflict non-consented injuries onto them, and further more how they can then discriminate by asserting that this right only applies to the unborn and not all persons whether born or not. As a further point, the laws concerning consent would also have to be amended ie the female would be bound by a consent that was given to a separate person (the man) for a separate act (sexual intercourse), how could the state justify this and not allow all other persons the same leeway. There will never be a consensus as to when personhood starts scientifically, as personhood lives in the realms p[philosophy.
It changes dramatically upon birth for the things you have already highlighted, plus the reality that the female is no longer in a situation where she is being physically injured after birth has taken place. THAT is the major difference that some people cannot get to grips with .. the reality that throughout the pregnancy the female IS being injured, and no person, court or government has the right to tell her she MUST allow those injuries to continue when she has not consented to them, after birth has taken place that woman is free to remove herself or remove the newborn without the requirement for deadly force .. while pregnant she has no other recourse.
In truth in the US the courts have restricted late term abortions so they can tell a mother at that stage that she must continue with the pregnancy if she does not fall into very specific exceptions
Did you read the OP? I think that the conversation on abortion is largely beside the point. It is always fixated on the gestation of the ZEF. IMNAAHO, the ZEF/baby is not the essential character in the play. The limit to abortion is conditioned by us, the adults, not by the ZEF/baby. For the ZEF/baby, birth is just another bump in the very bumpy road from conception to the grave. For us adults, everything changes. The mother is no longer the only caretaker. Any or all of the rest of us may (must?) replace her. Our protect-and-nurture instinct kicks in, in high gear. The baby is considered a person because of our relationship with it, not because of anything strictly concerning the the baby.
wrong, there are fundamental changes experienced during and immediately after birth for the fetus/baby. 1. When born the babies lungs are deflated and filled with amniotic fluid, not air .. the changes in temperature and environment causes the central nervous system to react and "kick start" breathing. 2. During pregnancy the liver acts as a central storage for sugar (glycogen) and iron, upon birth the liver changes it's purpose. It produces substances that help the blood to clot. It begins breaking down waste products such as excess red blood cells. It produces a protein that helps break down bilirubin. If the baby's body does not properly break down bilirubin, it can lead to newborn jaundice. 3. The immune system begins to develop in the baby, and continues to mature through the child's first few years of life. The womb is a relatively sterile environment. But as soon as the baby is born, he or she is exposed to a variety of bacteria and other potential disease-causing substances. 4. The fetal heart shunts become closed. fundamentally changing the way the heart works. With the activation of breathing the lungs becomes distended, the capillary network dilated and their resistance is reduced drastically so that a rich flow of blood can take place. As a consequence, the pressure in the right atrium sinks in comparison with that of the left one. This pressure turnaround in the atria causes the septum primum to be pressed against the septum secundum and the foramen secundum becomes functionally closed.
In truth the Supreme Court have placed zero restrictions onto abortion, they allow the states to impose restrictions if they want to ... the supreme court could at any point remove that from the states without violating Roe vs Wade. The reason the states can place restrictions is because the unborn are not recognised as person under the Constitution, and as such do not fall under the restriction that all born people have to abide by, change that status and the states will no longer be able to place restrictions as it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ie the state cannot give a protection to one set of people it does not give to all others. The state cannot guarantee the protection of the fetus (as a person) while it inflicts non-consenting injuries onto another person without giving the same protection to all other (born) people. This is one of the biggest things that pro-life people fail (or ignore) to understand about their advocation for personhood from conception, the only look to the protections and do not consider the restrictions of that status.
Roe V Wade set the bar at viability. It is a long way of saying that states CAN restrict a women's right to choose AFTER viability
The ZEF has been undergoing physiological changes since conception. There will be more during childhood and and adolescence. Why do you consider these particular changes to be more significant than any others? I think you are reasoning after the fact; you want birth to have significance, so you find a list of physiological items to justify what you desire. Anyone who looks at the long list of physiological events between conception and adulthood will notice a small bump at birth, nothing more. Looking for a unique physiological moment of personhood is pointless. There are too many candidates. Besides... Personhood is a matter of psychological development. A brain-damaged human may go through all physiological development, but will never be considered fully a person. As I said in the title of the OP, "There is No Moment of Personhood". Personhood is an accretion of characteristics over two decades. The limit for abortion must be uncoupled from the personhood of the newborn. It is not the deciding criterion. The limit for abortion is dependent on the attitude of us adults. IMNAAHO, we cannot accept "post-birth abortion". Not because it would be unreasonable, but because it violates our protect-and-nurture instinct beyond what we can accept. The limit for abortion is not a function of the baby's development, but of our parental relationship with it.
Yes The majority opinion allowed states to protect "fetal life after viability" even though a fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
no they did not. In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician. In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother. After viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest, and the state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.[/I]
That's what I said. A state can choose to proscribe abortion after viability. So the limit is set at viability for the state to decide if it wants to outlaw abortion unless the health of the mother is at risk.
I don't .. they are just a list of things that are major changes between gestation and birth. not in the slightest, you asked why birth was a significant event, I gave you some reasons why it is one . .nothing more, nothing less Absolutely 100% agree Rubbish, name a single person who is brain damaged that is not considered "fully a person" Whether there is or not isn't relevant to the abortion debate. There should be no limit on abortion. "post-birth abortion", is in itself is a contradiction in words. - - - Updated - - - Correct .. however it does not force them to under Federal law. Any state could repeal all abortion restriction laws at any time and not be in violation of Federal law.
Yes it is left up to the states but in reality there is no state where a woman can get a abortion for no reason at all other than wanting one at 8 and a half months.
Yeah, I did. And I still did not know what you meant in that sentence. I am willing to listen to and consider what you have to say, Bob, but when all is said and done, I don't really care what you think about that. You are trying to pretend this conversation is not about abortion. I KNOW this conversation IS about abortion. And for you to try to dictate what is...and what is not...an essential character in this "play" is ludicrous and unwarranted. And I still do not know what you mean by "I contend that birth is the last limit for abortion... because of us adults... not because of the infant" or by "The limit to abortion is conditioned by us, the adults, not by the ZEF/baby." Very interesting. Perhaps if you would stop arbitrarily calling the fetus (or zygote/embryo) a baby, infant or person...you would see the situation more clearly. But the bottom line, in my opinion, is that any woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body should have the right to terminate it if she chooses without interference from people like you...without any considerations about this relationship/adults diversion. So! Where are we?
You called them "fundamental changes". Fundamental is not synonymous with major. Please don't wiggle. I'm not interested in word games. ... Severely brain-damaged people are not allowed to conduct their affairs. They must have a tutor. They are not fully persons. Once again... I am not interested in word games. Yes. That's why it's in quotes. Did you not understand my meaning? For the third and last time, I am not interested in word games.
