I really don't understand what you are on about here, how does any of this bear any relevance to the debate issue? The question is, if there is a "person at conception" then a chimera twin should have no right to remove the individual submissive twin organ from themselves. Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion, if you disagree then why
Does the twin ask for permission? Does the other twin die a natural death, or does someone use battery to kill them?
No to both questions .. but I feel you are not quite understanding what a chimera twin is. This may help - http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/chimera.html So the question remains, could this woman have the ovary removed from her even though it carries unique DNA that would have been a separate "person" at conception.
Gee, I must have missed where someone said people in a coma are missing a working brain. No one. Fetuses don't necessarily get an engraved invitation to take up residence. You're not worried about the teeny, tiny, innocent life involved, but you're worried that the woman who choose to have sex will somehow escape without sufficient punishment.
Yeah I get it, what is your point? So they are extra human, and suffer from a birth defect. They still have unique DNA, just more so. They are obviously not the mother. That is the point. Are they mother, yes or no? If not, she cannot use deadly force against them unless it is a harm against her life, or the continuation of rape. Normal use of force developed by the common law for hundreds of years, makes sense.
Is the baby's brain not working? It develops faster during that time then any other, surely that must be some work. Assumption of the risk then. What are the billions in sex ed doing if abortions and single parent households are soaring? Maybe we should tell kids where babies come from. No, I am, that is why we disagree. No, that isn't it at all. Wear protection. Take precautions, but always take responsibility for your actions. I am not monk, but I made sure I didn't get any girls pregnant over the years. Men need to start taking responsibility for their actions too. You don't get there by divorcing any connection between them and the child until it is born.
Why can she not kill it if she is the mother? What if she is the mother and the embryo/fetus is still threatening her life, for example, an ectopic pregnancy?
Threat to life is a recognized reason to use force to defend yourself. Inconvenience and a low risk of health problems is not.
A baby has a working brain, that brain directs its bodily functions so that it can survive independently from other people. A fetus, however, does not have a fully functioning brain until 26 weeks or so. A good portion of the money spent on sex ed was spent on abstinence only sex ed which has been proved ineffective. Abortions are not soaring, BTW, and the numbers can continue to drop with comprehensive sex ed, and provision of free birth control. If you weren't a monk, then it was a matter of luck that you didn't get any girls pregnant over the years. Stop patting yourself on the back for being so clever, because all methods of birth control have a failure rate.
Most unwanted pregnancies result from irresponsible misuse, or more often lack of use, of proper contraceptives. Really, more than one should be combined together but are not. And it is not just inadequate use of contraceptives, it is also excessive sexual intercourse (particularly of the vaginal variety). It's common sense that the more sex a woman engages in, the higher risk she takes of getting pregnant.
Sorry, if a woman is just on the pill, and sleeping around without any other form of contraception, she can't be surprised when she ends up getting herself knocked up: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...y-on-birth-control-pill-than-iud-study-finds/
It isn't anybody's fault. It is biology. Only when people fail to take responsibility for their voluntary actions is someone at fault.
Risk to health should be a proportional response. I can't shoot you for slapping me. Voluntary actions are why the mother is in that spot in the first place. They were in every objective respect invited. Just not in the mind of wishes and fishes. The mother is not exceeding autonomy over self during an abortion. That is when she conceived. An abortion is about using deadly force against another human being who is the result of your voluntary actions. Men do not get to say "but I didn't want her to get pregnant so I not the father despite that DNA test. I may have knocked her up, but in my mind I didn't" everyone realizes his voluntary actions make him responsible. It makes sense. Are women less responsible for themselves?
Single parent households were, that is the one I had meant. Sorry about that. It will develop into a brain pretty quickly. At 8 weeks they have a working brain. Abstinence and any other sex Ed is dumb. Middle aged teachers don't need to talk about sex with kids. They are falling behind in reading and math compared to their foreign counterparts. Get to teaching. Kids find out about sex for themselves. But they didn't teach abstinence where I went to school, it was mostly HJs BJs and protection. Failure rate - Learn to calm yourself and not be the first one out the door usually works. As to the rest, drunk driving is a lot of fun too, but if someone gets hurt you should have to live up to your responsibility to them. Surely if you kill a pregnant mother they will make you pay extra. There is a reason.
There are certainly arguments for this position but the fact is that historically "personhood" has always been established at birth which was undisputed in the Roe v Wade arguments by either side of the abortion issue. The arguments for "personhood" of the preborn in the United States would be relevant to a Constitutional Amendment as that is the only legal means of establishing personhood of the preborn under the law. The US Constitution can create new legal precedent which would have to be the case in establishing personhood for the preborn. We can also note that the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade did address the "potential personhood" of the "preborn" in rendering it's decision.
Sorry, but at eight weeks there isn't much working. The brain is not wired up until around 26 weeks gestation. So middle-aged teachers don't need to talk to kids about sex because the kids already know more? LOL! Kids do find out about sex for themselves, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM! A life altering event called pregnancy occurs because somebody told the kids they can't get pregnant standing up or some ridiculous story. Parents aren't fulfilling their obligations on sex ed so the schools have to pick up the slack. Sometimes abortion is the more responsible choice.
None of which answers my question....you claimed there is a DIFFERENCE between a person and a human being. What is that difference?
The issue of "human being" is fundamentally irrelevant as Inalienable Rights under the US Constitution only apply to "persons" and "personhood" is established at birth.
I don't think you do quite get it. They are not "extra" human and it is not a birth defect IF you adhere to the person at conception idea. You cannot have "more so" unique DNA, if that was the case the Downs Syndrome children would be "more" human. There are two sets of unique DNA, not a single DNA with "extras" and neither can the dominant twin use force against the submissive twin IF you believe in person at conception.
Some people voluntarily drink and drive, sometimes their behavior leads to injuries to themselves and to others yet they are not legally obligated to give up any part of their body to save the life of the other person who is injured due to their voluntary actions and they are not denied medical assistance for their own injuries. Also I need to ask, does a fetus conceived from consensual sex have more of a right to life than a fetus conceived through rape? I believe that men should have just as much right as any woman to remove their parental rights from the child like in an adoption setting. Unfortunately the state does not see it this way because the state has a vested interest in assuring the welfare of the born child and they do not want to pay for the costs of raising it, so they place that on the shoulders of the father even if he wants to sign away his parental rights. The mother however may choose to give the child up for adoption and she does not even have to inform the father she had a child, she can easily lie and say he is not involved and then give the child up to the state.
Which I think may be the reason Anders doesn't want to further discuss his claim to a "difference" between "person" and "human being". Though I think with many "pro-lifers" they don't particularly care about the Constitution if it would conflict with their beliefs. .
Fugazi, it's an issue that the "pro-lifers" base on emotion...and get even more emotional when logic is brought into it. Naturally it will degenerate away from serious rather rapidly.
I know, I was just hoping, a fools hope really, that at least one would take up the challenge. Though it does show one thing to me that they are not secure in some of their proclamations and would rather avoid a serious debate than try to justify their position.
