If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[r0beph]

Then that is your failinig, not the chicken's. The fact that you are unable to wrap your mind around the facts of developmental biology is completely irrelavent to the facts of developmental biology. I suppose you don't realize that there is an oak tree inside of an acorn either. If you willingly admit that you don't grasp the biology, then I would submit that you really aren't qualified to engage in this discussion as you are at a gross disadvantage.

It's a chicken... by terms regarding it's potentiality. but I do not believe it is a chicken. If I sell some fertile eggs to someone, I cannot sell them as chickens. The potentiality of an oak tree from an acorn exists, however it is not an oak tree, but only in its specification.

 

[top gun]

palerider;18712]Faith is defined as belief in a thing that is not based in fact or is not provable. You certainly haven't been able to prove that unborns are not human beings. And you have not been able to prove that all human beings are not persons. And the constitution clearly says that no person shall forfiet his life without due process of the law. And yet, you believe that the court made the correct decision. That, my friend, is faith.

You're well aware of the fact that because one can't prove a negative that doesn't mean anything... right or wrong. So that dog won't hunt.

As far as your forfeiting life statement. Show me anywhere in the Constitution or any other founding document where it states that human cells from conception on are to be considered the same as the born. The fact is if you go back and research the medical understanding at the time those documents were written, let alone the fact they often explicitly say things like... Any person born... you would see that their understanding of life was much more centered on after birth than it is even today.

Everyone analyzes their faith to one degree or another and finds a reason to believe. You are completely unable to prove any of the things the court based its decision on so by definition it is a matter of faith for you. When we first started talking I wasn't aware that you were a zealot, one of the faithful

.

There is nothing faithful about it. You believing 2 human cells is a full blown person is no more provable than me saying it isn't. Scientists can label the parts but anything more than that is up to ones own interpretation... it's subjective.

It is rather comical that as you quote chapter and verse directly out of Catholic doctrine you call me the faithful zealot.

Let's just face it. The court of last resort got it right!

 

[palerider]

Most of he maladies mentioned in my post only appear after birth. none of the risks are imagined. All women are at risk. If one waits for the symptoms to appear after birth, of course it is too late. I think women are smart enough to decide if they wish to assume that risk.

A board that has been purposely populated by Catholic and/or other anti-abortion doctors will surely make the correct decision...right?
Politics are infused into everything. Oh, I forgot hemorrhoids. If you had to pass a 10 lb. bowling ball you would know about hemorrhoids.

Oddly enough, those very same things happen to women who have not had children.

 

[palerider]

It's a chicken... by terms regarding it's potentiality. but I do not believe it is a chicken. If I sell some fertile eggs to someone, I cannot sell them as chickens.

Actually you can sell them as chickens. Of course, you would be expected to replace any that die before they hatch.

I thought we had the whole "potentiality" argument settled with these, which you neatly dodged altogether.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

That the “offspring of human parents cannot reasonably be considered to be [something] other than a human being” was also recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (Mass. 1984).

Are you going to continue to dodge, or provide some credible evidence that unborns are not human beings or conceede the point like an adult?

The potentiality of an oak tree from an acorn exists, however it is not an oak tree, but only in its specification.

It is painfully clear that you have never taken a developmental biology course or if you did, you failed it miserably. Have you ever asked a child where babies come from? Your understanding of developmental biology is on the same order as the fanciful stories that children tell about where babies come from. You have these things that you tell yourself and I suppose you believe them, but they are so far from the facts, that if you weren't an adult, they would be laughable.

There is no tree in the seed huh? Have you ever disected a seed? Here is a photomicrograp of what is actually inside of a seed. This one is a wheat seed, but they all have the same thing inside, just different shells. There is a tree there. Immature, but a tree none the less. Once again, your inability to grasp the realities of developmental biology is your failing but does not change the facts one whit.

 

[palerider]

You're well aware of the fact that because one can't prove a negative that doesn't mean anything... right or wrong. So that dog won't hunt.

So not only do you not have a grasp of biology, but you are weak with regard to the rules of logic as well. I am not asking for you to prove a negative. I said that they are human beings and because of that, they are persons as well and provided credible evidence to support that. If you think that they are not persons, then it falls to you to provide some credible evidence as to what they are.

Proving that a thing is not something else does not constitute proving a negative. I can prove that the sun is not hot. I can prove that a hamster is not a cat. I can prove that a brick is not a tree. In none of those cases do I need to prove a negative. I simply have to prove what they are. Can you prove that unborns are something other than human beings and therefore something other than persons?

As far as your forfeiting life statement. Show me anywhere in the Constitution or any other founding document where it states that human cells from conception on are to be considered the same as the born.

There is no requirement to be born in order to receive 14th amendment protection.

The fact is if you go back and research the medical understanding at the time those documents were written, let alone the fact they often explicitly say things like... Any person born... you would see that their understanding of life was much more centered on after birth than it is even today.

You don't have a grasp on the constitution either. Or history apparently.

Do a bit of research into the medical knowledge of reproduction at the time of the founding. We have filled a large number of details with progressing biology, but they had a firm grasp of the basics.

And ONCE AGAIN, the reference to being born also references being naturalized and speaks to the fact that such persons are CITIZENS and have the privledges and responsibilites that go along with citizenship. The equal protection clause in the same amendment protects those who are not citiziens. And I am not arguing for citizenship for unborns.

By the way, the 14th amendment was added in 1868, not 1776 so when you are researching medical knowledge of pregnancy, you only have to go as far back as then. Not that I would expect for you to actually research it at all.

There is nothing faithful about it. You believing 2 human cells is a full blown person is no more provable than me saying it isn't. Scientists can label the parts but anything more than that is up to ones own interpretation... it's subjective.

Of course it is. Your position is one of pure faith. To date, you have not provided any credible evidence to support your position. I only believe that we are human beings from the time we are concieved because I have seen credible, peer reviewed scientific evidence to suppor that fact. I didn't always beleive it. There was a time when I was pro choice or at the very least, could not have cared less one way or another.

Your denial of the ability of sience to say what is and what is not a human being is more evidence of your faith. Your claim that developmental biology is a subjective science sounds exactly like the claims of a red faced bible thumper claiming that other fields of science are subjective and "don't really prove anything".

Face it, you are one of the faithful and your position is no more credible than any other person who is arguing from a position of faith.

It is rather comical that as you quote chapter and verse directly out of Catholic doctrine you call me the faithful zealot.

I have never seen any catholic doctrine. Give me a few specific chapters and verses.

Let's just face it. The court of last resort got it right!

The got it right in the fact that they acknowledged that science was what it was at that time and if the argument for the personhood of the unborn were ever established that the framework of Roe would fail. That was the only thing they got right. In the time since then, science has made the case inarguable (except to people who argue from a position of faith) and a quite large body of legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn has been established.

And the "court of last resort" has reversed itself no less than 200 times and most of the reversals happened over a far longer time span than has passed since Roe v Wade.

 

[top gun]

So not only do you not have a grasp of biology, but you are weak with regard to the rules of logic as well. I am not asking for you to prove a negative. I said that they are human beings and because of that, they are persons as well and provided credible evidence to support that. If you think that they are not persons, then it falls to you to provide some credible evidence as to what they are.

Quote... prove that unborns are not human beings.
It cannot be absolutely proven either way. It is a matter of interpretation. You see a complete human being the split second of conception. Others see the potential building blocks of a complete human being. Without memory of the event all we have is outside interpretation and the labeling of parts. All that can be definitively said is that all the DNA is present and that if everything progressed without a problem (natural or intentional) eventually a baby would be delivered. That still allows for a time to be set for personhood.

Proving that a thing is not something else does not constitute proving a negative. I can prove that the sun is not hot. I can prove that a hamster is not a cat. I can prove that a brick is not a tree. In none of those cases do I need to prove a negative. I simply have to prove what they are. Can you prove that unborns are something other than human beings and therefore something other than persons?

Prove that two human cells are not just the potential for a human being.

There is no requirement to be born in order to receive 14th amendment protection.

And again... Show me were it specifically cites that the unborn are to be are to be given the same protection as the born living.

You don't have a grasp on the constitution either. Or history apparently.

Do a bit of research into the medical knowledge of reproduction at the time of the founding. We have filled a large number of details with progressing biology, but they had a firm grasp of the basics.

Show me.

And ONCE AGAIN, the reference to being born also references being naturalized and speaks to the fact that such persons are CITIZENS and have the privledges and responsibilites that go along with citizenship. The equal protection clause in the same amendment protects those who are not citiziens. And I am not arguing for citizenship for unborns.

Well why not? By your reasoning they would have full citizenship rights. The fact is the overall text refers only to being born and beyond. Show where it specifically cites any right before birth.

By the way, the 14th amendment was added in 1868, not 1776 so when you are researching medical knowledge of pregnancy, you only have to go as far back as then. Not that I would expect for you to actually research it at all.

I would go back to the Constitution to understand the base knowledge of that time. Then I would look into any specific changes in following documents. I see no specific acknowledgment of the unborn. I see no additional medical understanding cited in any supporting document..

Your position is one of pure faith.

It's not. It's rationally & subjectively reviewing a situation and making a judgment. I've read much on both sides. I see up to a point human cells dividing and growing but certainly not what I would consider a complete human being... a complete person. Furthermore the woman should not/cannot be forced to be an incubator for the church or state. What this always comes back to is conflicting interests. You believe that that the "rights" of a developing fetus (2 cells on) outweigh the rights of a full adult woman to the point where you want the state to force her to incubate a child against her will. I and The United States Supreme Court... do not.

And the "court of last resort" has reversed itself no less than 200 times and most of the reversals happened over a far longer time span than has passed since Roe v Wade.

Please do me a big favor then. Take a big deep breath........... and let it out when this decision is overturned.

 

[palerider]

It cannot be absolutely proven either way. It is a matter of interpretation. You see a complete human being the split second of conception. Others see the potential building blocks of a complete human being. Without memory of the event all we have is outside interpretation and the labeling of parts. All that can be definitively said is that all the DNA is present and that if everything progressed without a problem (natural or intentional) eventually a baby would be delivered. That still allows for a time to be set for personhood.

Of course it can. Are you arguing that medical science and developmental biology are subjective and not actual sciences?

Prove that two human cells are not just the potential for a human being.

Which two cells? Two skin cells? Two liver cells? Two sperm?

And again... Show me were it specifically cites that the unborn are to be are to be given the same protection as the born living.

Since no specific group is excluded, then all groups are included. That is what is ment by the term EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE when people talk about the 14th amendment. The only mention of being born is to clarify that people who are born here are US citizens and as citizens they enjoy certain rights and responsibilites that non citizens don't and I am not arguing for citizenship for unborns. Of course, the lives of non citizens are also protected by the 14th amendment.

Show me.

Do you know so little about anything because you don't know how to research a topic or because you are too lazy to research a topic.

In 1840 Albrecht von Roelliker proved that sperm and eggs are the reproductive cells of human beings. In 1856 Nathaniel Pringsheim first actually observed how a sperm cell penetrated an egg cell. By 1869 Friedrich Miescher had isolated DNA. Feel free to fact check me if you like. By the time the 14th amendment was written, we had a very good grasp of developmental biology.

Well why not? By your reasoning they would have full citizenship rights.

They would have no such thing by my reasoning. The constitution clearly states that in order to be a citizen, one must either be born here or naturalized.

The fact is the overall text refers only to being born and beyond. Show where it specifically cites any right before birth.[/quote[]

Are you able to comprehend words that you read? I have already explained in detail what the various clauses. The only mention of being born is in reference to the rights of citizenship. Later in the clause it states that no one has to forfiet his life without due process.

And again, the nature of our legal system is that in order for an individual or a group to be denied a right, law must be written that enumerates specifically what right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied. Since unborns are not excluded, and they are human beings, the nature of our legal system demands that they be included.

I would go back to the Constitution to understand the base knowledge of that time. Then I would look into any specific changes in following documents. I see no specific acknowledgment of the unborn. I see no additional medical understanding cited in any supporting document..

Once again, you lack any understanding of our legal system at all. Since unborns are human beings, if they are to be denied rights, they must be named explicitly to have rights withheld. Look through the constitution. You don't find specific groups named. When women's sufferage passed, the amendment didn't say that women have the right to vote, it said that no one will be denied the right to vote based on their sex. No group is explicitly given rights in the constitution nor is any group denied rights in the constitution. Everyone has the same rights and in order for rights to be denied, law must be written that explicitly denies them.

It's not. It's rationally & subjectively reviewing a situation and making a judgment. I've read much on both sides. I see up to a point human cells dividing and growing but certainly not what I would consider a complete human being... a complete person. Furthermore the woman should not/cannot be forced to be an incubator for the church or state. What this always comes back to is conflicting interests. You believe that that the "rights" of a developing fetus (2 cells on) outweigh the rights of a full adult woman to the point where you want the state to force her to incubate a child against her will. I and The United States Supreme Court... do not.[

Of course your positon is based on faith. It certainly isn't rational. A rational person can't deny that unborns are human beings and a rational person can look at any legal dictionary and know that in the eyes of the law all one need be in order to be a person is to be a human being. That being the case, a rational person can't deny that unborns are due 14th amendment protection. Even the supreme court acknowledged this when they stated in Roe that if an argument for personhood for the unborn is established, Roe fails.

A rational person doesn't argue that unborns aren't entitled to the protection of the law because they are incomplete because a rational person also knows that newborns are not complete and none of us is complete until we are nearly in our 30's. A rational person knows that "completeness" isn't the basis on which we are entitled to constitutional protection.

A rational person knows that due to the way our founding documents are written, the right to live takes precedence over all other rights. In a case of competing interests, the right to live takes precedence over all other rights.

Your argument always comes down to an irrational conclusion. That a woman has a right to kill a child that she finds less than convenient.

 

[r0beph]

I could continue this argument ad infinitum. And it is truly a stalemate for anyone who does. The problem with the abortion debate is that it in it's entirety and without fail ALWAYS boils down to the personal moral ideology. The pro-choice side, myself included, feels that the mothers rights are the morally questionable aspect and by denying this we're going against our personal moral ideology. The anti-abortion camp on the other hand, feels the morally obligated to the fetus. All further arguments, even attempted objectivity, is dependent on value judgment. Therefor, this becomes infinitely circular. It is a permanent impasse, and in truth, I no longer feel the urge to argue further as I now realize this. After over 100 pages in various threads I've seen the same several points made over and over. While often you have a few good points made from either side, it does nothing for the base requirement; is the fetus a person or does the mothers rights outweigh that of a potential, not yet person. These are really the only to aspects of the argument that seem to be played. I've nothing further to add, I do not concede defeat, I simply state it is impossible to win for any side of the argument. Objectivity simply cannot exist.

 

[top gun]

Of course it can. Are you arguing that medical science and developmental biology are subjective and not actual sciences?

You know exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying a full set of DNA is a full set of DNA. Medical Science can only say that. Personhood is not just a full set of DNA.

Which two cells? Two skin cells? Two liver cells? Two sperm?

The same 2 cells after fertilization I've been discussing all along. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Since no specific group is excluded, then all groups are included. That is what is ment by the term EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE when people talk about the 14th amendment. The only mention of being born is to clarify that people who are born here are US citizens and as citizens they enjoy certain rights and responsibilites that non citizens don't and I am not arguing for citizenship for unborns. Of course, the lives of non citizens are also protected by the 14th amendment.

I don't agree. And let us not forget women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. The case can be made that the word "born" is viable throughout the text. And once again there is no stated Personhood and you also have the woman's privacy issue under the Due Process Clause. Privacy has no definite boundaries and it has different meanings for different people. It is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves.

Do you know so little about anything because you don't know how to research a topic or because you are too lazy to research a topic.

In 1840 Albrecht von Roelliker proved that sperm and eggs are the reproductive cells of human beings. In 1856 Nathaniel Pringsheim first actually observed how a sperm cell penetrated an egg cell. By 1869 Friedrich Miescher had isolated DNA. Feel free to fact check me if you like. By the time the 14th amendment was written, we had a very good grasp of developmental biology.

That wasn't what I was referring to and you know it. Show me other laws of that era that specifically protects an embryo.

They would have no such thing by my reasoning. The constitution clearly states that in order to be a citizen, one must either be born here or naturalized.

Being a citizen would help the personhood angle... but they didn't say that.

The fact is the overall text refers only to being born and beyond. Show where it specifically cites any right before birth.[/quote[]

Are you able to comprehend words that you read? I have already explained in detail what the various clauses. The only mention of being born is in reference to the rights of citizenship. Later in the clause it states that no one has to forfiet his life without due process.

Right... but the case can be made they meant no one born.

And again, the nature of our legal system is that in order for an individual or a group to be denied a right, law must be written that enumerates specifically what right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied.

Obviously The United States Supreme Court and decades of precedent are against you on this one my friend. I continue to be also.

Your argument always comes down to an irrational conclusion. That a woman has a right to kill a child that she finds less than convenient.

My argument always comes down to the womens right of privacy under due process and the fact that the state cannot force a women to be an incubator. This really is quickly becoming a moot point you know. They already have the plan B pill out all over the world. And within the next 5 or 10 years anyone will be able to get on the Internet and concoct their own relatively safe chemical abortion. Without the need for a doctor the privacy of the woman will be complete.

You'll have to go chase homosexual lifestyle or something else because this one will have slipped your grasp forever... actually it already has... you just can't accept it.

 

[palerider]

I could continue this argument ad infinitum. And it is truly a stalemate for anyone who does. The problem with the abortion debate is that it in it's entirety and without fail ALWAYS boils down to the personal moral ideology. The pro-choice side, myself included, feels that the mothers rights are the morally questionable aspect and by denying this we're going against our personal moral ideology. The anti-abortion camp on the other hand, feels the morally obligated to the fetus. All further arguments, even attempted objectivity, is dependent on value judgment. Therefor, this becomes infinitely circular. It is a permanent impasse, and in truth, I no longer feel the urge to argue further as I now realize this. After over 100 pages in various threads I've seen the same several points made over and over. While often you have a few good points made from either side, it does nothing for the base requirement; is the fetus a person or does the mothers rights outweigh that of a potential, not yet person. These are really the only to aspects of the argument that seem to be played. I've nothing further to add, I do not concede defeat, I simply state it is impossible to win for any side of the argument. Objectivity simply cannot exist.

Well anytime one human being sets out to kill another human being for reasons other than self defense, it always comes down to personal moral ideology.

And you continue to argue your faith. You ignore science that states explicitly that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved and continue to state that they are only potential human beings. Clearly this is not a statement backed up by science and you can prove it in no other way, so it must be an article of faith for you.

And you are right with regard to objectivity in your last sentence. If you are arguing from a position of faith, you can have no objectivity. Even when you see credible, peer reviewed science, it can not overcome your faith. Objectivity is impossible for you so long as faith is the basis for your position.

 

[palerider]

You know exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying a full set of DNA is a full set of DNA. Medical Science can only say that. Personhood is not just a full set of DNA.

Medical science has stated explicitly, over and over that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. That is all that medical science has said. I have looked up the word person in every legal dictionary that I can find both online and in libraries and even one law school library. Without fail, the law defines a person as a human being or a certain type of corporation that may be treated as a person in the eyes of the law. The law places no restrictions, or caveats upon being a person other than being a human being. Since unborns are inarguably human beings, it stands to reason that they are also persons and in this country, no person is supposed to have to forfiet his or her life without due process of the law.

Either you can defeat that argument or you can not. So far, you haven't even put a scratch in it.

The same 2 cells after fertilization I've been discussing all along. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

No. I am afraid that I don't. You don't have a very good grasp of developmental biology so you aren't very clear. Which two cells? Name them and repeat the question.

I don't agree. And let us not forget women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. The case can be made that the word "born" is viable throughout the text. And once again there is no stated Personhood and you also have the woman's privacy issue under the Due Process Clause. Privacy has no definite boundaries and it has different meanings for different people.

Well of course you don't agree. To face the facts would call your faith into question. And the argument can't be made that the word born is viable throughout the text because of the punctuation used to separate that clause from the rest. Legal writing is what it is and I provided you with court cases that tested that clause against the other clauses and proved that it only applied to the rights of citizenship and not the other 14th amendment protections.

It is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves.

Are you saying that if the media got some juicy tidbit about George Bush's private life, or my private life, or your private life, that we would have the right to kill the media person in order to conrtol the flow of information about ourselves? If you are, then you really do have some problems, and if you aren't then your argument has failed.

There is no right to privacy in the constitution so a made up right to privacy takes a back seat to an actual right to live.

That wasn't what I was referring to and you know it. Show me other laws of that era that specifically protects an embryo.

That isn't the nature of our law top gun. The law applies to everyone except those who are explicitly excluded by law. You must show me law that excludes embryonic human beings. The law is what it is and it is against you in this case.

Being a citizen would help the personhood angle... but they didn't say that.

Are you saying that illegal mexicans aren't persons because they aren't citizens? Once again, your argument fails.

The fact is the overall text refers only to being born and beyond. Show where it specifically cites any right before birth.

You really need to read some about how our legal system works. Or change your position because the two are in direct conflict. In order for anyone to be denied a right, law must be written to deny them that right and there are examples of groups being denied rights based on age. Take for example, the right to bear arms. Law had to be written that explicitly denied people below a certain age that right in order to keep children from walking into a gun store and buying firearms and ammunition. Until the law was written that denied that right to children, they had the right to buy. The constitution itself denies the right to run for president from anyone below the age of 35 (?).

If rights are to be denied to unborns, law must be written that denies them that right. There are people in prison right now on manslaughter and murder charges for killing unborns. If law existed that explicitly denied them the right to live, then those who have been charged could not have been charged.

Right... but the case can be made they meant no one born.

No, the case can not be made. I provided you with supreme court cases that proved that the clause only applies to citizenship and the rights and responsibilities that accompany it. The other clauses apply to everyone unless law is written that explicitly excludes them.

Obviously The United States Supreme Court and decades of precedent are against you on this one my friend. I continue to be also.

There were decades of precedent accompanying each of the more than 200 times they have reversed themselves.

My argument always comes down to the womens right of privacy under due process and the fact that the state cannot force a women to be an incubator. This really is quickly becoming a moot point you know. They already have the plan B pill out all over the world. And within the next 5 or 10 years anyone will be able to get on the Internet and concoct their own relatively safe chemical abortion. Without the need for a doctor the privacy of the woman will be complete.

And that is where your argument fails. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

You'll have to go chase homosexual lifestyle or something else because this one will have slipped your grasp forever... actually it already has... you just can't accept it.

Maybe you haven't realized that the court does not have quite so liberal a face any more. It isn't prone to inventing rights in order to satisfy a certain ideology any more.

 

[top gun]

I have looked up the word person in every legal dictionary that I can find both online and in libraries...

Really!!!!!! No where? Everyone's in agreement? I hardly think so...

Lack of agreement about the start of "personhood" in U.S. law:
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous Roe v. Wade decision. This was the ruling that gave women the right to choose to have a legalized abortion, early in gestation, for any reason. Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."
He concluded: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

The abortion debate has heated up since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. However, few if any new scientific or medical findings have surfaced that might define when personhood starts.

Lack of agreement about the start of "personhood" among faith groups:
Justice Blackmun noted that there is a wide diversity of belief among different religions:

In ancient times, the Greek Stoics believed that human personhood did not begin until live birth. At the present time, most Jews believe that full human personhood is attained only during delivery when the fetus is half delivered from its mother's body. Justice Blackmun referred to the Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," which was the predominant belief among Christians throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote in one of his biological treatises 4 that the male embryo develops a human soul -- and thus becomes a human person -- about 40 days after conception, whereas a female fetus acquires its soul at about 90 days. For much of its history, the Christian religion believed in this delayed-ensoulment principle and allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy. He noted that those Protestant denominations which had made formal statements on abortion generally regarded abortion to be "a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family." Since Roe v. Wade, Protestant denominations have been divided along liberal/conservative lines with the latter strongly opposing abortion access.

*The Roman Catholic Church, since the 19th century, has consistently regarded personhood as beginning at conception.*

A few pro-choicers believe that the fetus becomes a human person only after it has been delivered and is breathing on its own as a separate individual. This belief may be based on Biblical passages. For example, Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body from the dust of the ground. But it was only after God "breathed into it the breath of life" that Adam "became a living person."

What is a zygote?
A near consensus can be reached that:

A zygote is definitely alive: There is a general consensus that a zygote is: "...biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:

metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction." 1
The fourth criteria may appear strange. But it can reproduce itself through twinning during the first 14 days after conception. That is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins develop.

A zygote has human DNA: In almost all cases, at the time of conception, the 23 chromosomes from the ovum and the 23 chromosomes from the spermatozoon combined to form a 46 chromosome DNA structure. The DNA is new, unique and definitely human.
A zygote is a form of human life: A zygote is alive and carries human DNA. Thus, it is a form of human life.

Many believe that a zygote is not a human personhood. It is definitely a form of human life. However, they view it as only a potential human person. They believe that personhood develops at a later stage of pregnancy.

Atheists, Humanists, many religious liberals, and others generally reject the possibility of God injecting a soul into the zygote at conception. The soul is a largely religious concept whose existence has never been proved scientifically. It cannot be located, weighed, seen, smelled, felt, measured, or otherwise detected by any known instrument or human sense.
Most reject the belief that the presence of a unique DNA code converts the egg into a human person. They note that a skin scraping of a child or adult contains a very large number of living, single cells; each has the same unique human DNA code as does the human from which it came. Scottish scientists removed a cell from the mammary tissue of a sheep, inject it into a sheep ovum whose DNA has been removed, and produce "Dolly," a cloned sheep who is genetically identical to her "parent." This same procedure has been replicated for many other mammals. A sample from a human skin scraping, or from a swab of the inside of the mouth, or a hair follicle contains the same type of human DNA information as does a zygote. They presumably should both be given the same status. Skeptics might argue that since we don't consider a hair follicle, etc. to be a human person, we should not look upon zygotes as persons either.
Some pro-choicers note that a zygote has no limbs; no head; no brain; no ability to see, hear, smell, taste or touch; no internal organs, no self-consciousness, no ability to think, reason, sense its environment, etc. Even at the age of one month, a human embryo cannot be distinguished from the embryo of a cat or dog. Three things make us human persons: the ability to think, a moral sense, and our physical appearance. The zygote exhibits none of these.

Some beliefs about when personhood begins are:
16 weeks: Fetal movement, often called quickening, is usually detectable by the 16th week of pregnancy. It is apparently an involuntary movement of arms and legs. The fetal brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious at this stage in gestation.
4 months when the fetus' face has developed to the point where one can tell one fetus from another.
About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current technology. When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo." 7
At 26 weeks or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." 8 Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month. Most Jewish traditions teach that a fetus becomes a full person usually when its head emerges from the birth canal. Some believe that a personhood happens when a soul enters the body at some stage of gestation or -- as in the case of some Aboriginals -- after birth has taken place.

References:
The color microphotograph of a just-fertilized ovum shown by permission from Dr. R. C. Wagner, Department of Biological Sciences, at the University of Delaware, Newark, DE. They have many other photographs at their Web page: http://www.udel.edu/ We thank Dr. Wagner for allowing us to reproduce these microphotographs.
"U.S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)," at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
Joel Feinberg, Ed., "The Problem of Abortion," 2nd edition, Wadsworth, (1984), Page 195.
Aristotle "History of Animals, Book VII, Chapter 3, 583b.
"U.S. Supreme Court, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)," at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
Newsweek published six ultrasound images of a fetus at seven, nine, 13, 16, 23 and 35 weeks gestation. See: http://www.msnbc.com/
Debra Rosenberg, "' When Can It Feel Pain?' For this philosopher, 'viability' makes the moral difference," Newsweek, 2003-JUN-9, at: http://www.msnbc.com/
"Do You Hear What I Hear?", Newsweek, Special Issue, Summer 1991.
Scott Gilbert, "When does human life begin?," (1996), at: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/
Site navigation: Home > "Hot" topics > Abortion > Basic facts > Human personhood > here
Copyright © 1995 to 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2004-OCT-11
Author: B.A. Robinson

I know it upsets you but The United States Supreme Court ruling will continue to stand my friend.

 

[palerider]

Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

Thank you topgun, for making my case for me. I was perfectly capable of doing it myself, but I do appreciate your efforts to undermine your own argument and congratulate you on doing it so effectively.

As you so correctly noted, there was no conesensus when life began. And he clearly noted that if it is a living human being, then it is a person. That is what the "(i.e. personhood)" means. At the time he said that, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not only not human beings, but might not be alive. Such an argument is no longer possible. Science has gone way past that stage.

Many believe that a zygote is not a human personhood.

Believe. Just like you. It is a matter of faith for them also. I have brought forward credible, peer reviewed science that states that unborns are human beings. To date, you have not provided a single piece of credible science to call that into question. If faith is all you have, then you have nothing in this argument.

When I say that unborns are human beings, I provide credible science that says that unborns ARE human beings. How about you provide some credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Some beliefs about when personhood begins are:

Most Jewish traditions teach that a fetus becomes a full person usually when its head emerges from the birth canal. Some believe that a personhood happens when a soul enters the body at some stage of gestation or -- as in the case of some Aboriginals -- after birth has taken place.

More beliefs? Like I said, you are arguing from a position of faith and now you bring religious and quasi religious writing in an attempt to bolster your position of faith? This is how you expect to support your argument?

 

[top gun]

palerider;18988]Thank you topgun, for making my case for me. I was perfectly capable of doing it myself, but I do appreciate your efforts to undermine your own argument and congratulate you on doing it so effectively.

As you so correctly noted, there was no conesensus when life began. And he clearly noted that if it is a living human being, then it is a person. That is what the "(i.e. personhood)" means. At the time he said that, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not only not human beings, but might not be alive. Such an argument is no longer possible. Science has gone way past that stage.

You have obviously lost your mind!

You said there was all kinds of coverage for the unborn in the Constitution and following in the Bill of Rights 14th Amendment. But here's what the Supreme Court clearly stated.

Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

He concluded: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

So if the highest court in the land after great review saw none and you went so far as to purposely mislead about that very important fact it obviously affects your credibility somewhat.

I go on to post this information from 2004.

The abortion debate has heated up since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. However, few if any new scientific or medical findings have surfaced that might define when personhood starts. (NOTE: This isn't from long ago it's from 2004)

When I say that unborns are human beings, I provide credible science that says that unborns ARE human beings. How about you provide some credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

More beliefs? Like I said, you are arguing from a position of faith and now you bring religious and quasi religious writing in an attempt to bolster your position of faith? This is how you expect to support your argument?

I have proven all I ever expected to prove. Call 2 cells forward anything you like... personhood is still something different in the eyes of the majority, and the eyes of the law when it comes to abortion. And in addition the The United States Supreme Court has given it's ruling on the specific wording of the documents and the coverage or lack there of for the unborn. (see above)

Everyone is entitled to form there own opinion. I'm going with...

The findings from the highest court in the land.

The information and sites with follow up medical interpretation information all the way up to 2004. (not saying there aren't counter opinions, there definately are. Just saying there are conflicting opinions)

I can post if you want your ramblings about how the 14th was written it could not cover the born and not the unborn... yet there it is in the Supreme Court decision plain as day.

I can post further ramblings by you that stated the people of that period understood all about the early stages of pregnancy in a misleading attempt to bolster your position that they were out to protect the unborn also... yet the history I've provided clearly shows that the people of the time of these documents in most cases considered something other than conception... all the way up to birth as being the definition of a person.

Just let me know I'll be glad to pull up & post your exact quotes.

The bottom line will always come back to this... and this is exactly why Roe will never be overturned.

There are centuries of conflicting history and belief on when a person is a person compounded by over 30 years of standing precedent compounded by the fact that as I've said all along and the Supreme Court agrees with... it is subjective to ones own interpretation when a person is a person. Not when something is living but when it becomes a person of standing that overrides the woman's right to her protection under the law in regard to due process & privacy. And the way the documents were written in the first place (don't argue with me we've already been through that).

I understand you have no choice but to try an push forward the position you are pushing forward. It would be your only hope. I respect that going down with the ship mentality.

I'll check back with you from time to time and ask if Roe has been overturned yet. But I assure you... it will not.

 

[palerider]

You have obviously lost your mind!

You are obviously not familiar with either the constitution or how our legal system works.

You said there was all kinds of coverage for the unborn in the Constitution and following in the Bill of Rights 14th Amendment. But here's what the Supreme Court clearly stated.

Is that what I said? If I said that, then bring the words forward.

Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

He concluded: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

Clearly you have never read the Roe decision. You may google it for the parts that the pro choice crowd likes, but you clearly haven't read it. Justice Blackmun hinged the entire decision on the personhood of the unborn. He said:

"If the suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.’”

That "suggestion" has not only been established, but there is a growing body of precedent to support it and the number of individuals who sit in jail today for killing an unborn is growing all the time. You can only be charged for murder or manslaughter if you kill a person.

The abortion debate has heated up since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. However, few if any new scientific or medical findings have surfaced that might define when personhood starts.

Refer to any legal dictionary. The definition you will find for "person" is "a human being" Since it is no longer debatable (with any credibility anyway) that unborns are not human beings, it stands to reason that they are persons.

I have proven all I ever expected to prove. Call 2 cells forward anything you like... personhood is still something different in the eyes of the majority, and the eyes of the law when it comes to abortion. And in addition the The United States Supreme Court has given it's ruling on the specific wording of the documents and the coverage or lack there of for the unborn.

The majority are as uneducated as you. So what? In the eyes of the law, if you are a human being, you are a person. It is as simple as that. When Roe was decided an argument could be made that the unborn were not human beings. That argument is no longer possible.

And I repeat, that if parrotting that abortion is legal is the best defense you can muster, then you really shouldn't be arguing at all. If you are arguing pro choice, you should be able to defend thier decision, not just endlessly repeat it.